LowerCaseRepublican

Yes, just like the CIA said the Gulf of Tonkin event actually happened.

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/washington...rea&&news&korea What the hell does Kim Jong Il have to do to get the attention of the U.S.? This guy is test firing missiles and has nuclear capabilities that could theoretically hit the United States. Yet, we are going to war with a nation that hasn't attacked us and has no capability to attack us. That makes so much sense.

He may say some great stuff. Can you find what his voting record is? I'd like to see that too.

When Bush used 'Bush Affirmative Action' to get his C average ass into Yale and Harvard, he didn't have a hard time thinking about how he screwed the more qualified students from their rightful positions at those educational institutions. When Bush went AWOL during Vietnam, he wasn't worried about the other members of the military. Bush is pretty much a self serving son of a CIA director. Even the Republicans in the regime said that they didn't bring the Iraq war theme in August of last year because "from a marketing perspective, you don't bring out new products in August." All of these things make me believe that President Select George W. Chickenhawk is out to help himself get re-elected because war presidents nearly always get elected. Too bad for him he overestimated the American people's ability to swallow BS because we aren't taking to his lying s***.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page....mp;siteid=50143 BUSH: CLAP ME OR NO EU SPEECH Mar 8 2003 By Paul Gilfeather GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation. Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome. A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address. "His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling. "I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen." Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters. It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe. The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help." ------- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I guess if George can't have a bunch of dittoheads kissing his ass, he won't do a speech! I guess he doesn't want to see that a lot of the countries around the world don't want war. What a f***tard!

Whoops, I didn't finish moving all the non-pertinent text out of the quote box to make it easier to read. I didn't mean to quote you as saying it.

It's nice to see that everybody isn't blinded by Bush's empty war rhetoric. Estrada wanted to be a dick, so he didn't get the position. It's sad and pathetic that people try to place the race card...especially when we are all one race, human. Just remember everybody, George W. Bush has a record "that's conservative and compassionated."

Toppling of Saddam will bring peace to region. What about the Saudi government who oppresses women and non-Muslims (a childhood friend of mine and his fiance are in Saudi Arabia w/ Navy Intelligence) They came back on leave and said that like they have to stay on base nearly 24-7 because the US is so disliked over there. The Saudis oppress people that don't agree with their royal family. Kuwait does the same. Does that mean that we need to topple all these governments because they oppress people also? Sharon won't negotiate with Arafat and if you believe that, that's a pipe dream. The same for Arafat negotiating with Sharon. They've been fighting for 3000 years. Why would they stop if Saddam is toppled?

If Bush goes to war, it'll be the stupidest mistake he has ever made (well besides being a chickenhawk, a coke addict, a boozehound, and saying his favorite childhood book which didn't come out until after he graduated from college) Even you've seen the polls that said only 20% of the US believes that we should go to war without a UN Resolution. He'll be going against the nation. And I am glad that you can jest about the death and destruction of innocent Iraqis. That brings such a warm fuzzy feeling to me heart. have you listen to any iraqis in this country???....you wont find one that doesnt want the US to go in and take out saddam...the guy is a butcher..he is pure evil...youre the one condoning the killing of innocent iraqi men , women and children with your opposition to this war...someday maybe youll realize that.. Killing killers only makes more killers. There are diplomatic ways to topple Saddam that don't involve body bags for our troops. I advocate those methods.

If Bush goes to war, it'll be the stupidest mistake he has ever made (well besides being a chickenhawk, a coke addict, a boozehound, and saying his favorite childhood book which didn't come out until after he graduated from college) Even you've seen the polls that said only 20% of the US believes that we should go to war without a UN Resolution. He'll be going against the nation. And I am glad that you can jest about the death and destruction of innocent Iraqis. That brings such a warm fuzzy feeling to me heart.

If a nation completely disarms all their weapons, what is to stop other nations (i.e. Iran...we do remember the Iran-Iraq war, correct?) from invading and taking over? Complete disarmament is a pipe dream for any nation. Any country is going to keep weapons on hand for defense. If Iraq wasn't so close to our terrorist pal, Israel (don't get me wrong, I condemn Palestinian terrorism as well...I think Sharon and Arafat are both hardline non-negotiating f***s that need to get out of power for any sort of progress to be made) then Iraq wouldn't be so much of a problem (cuz let's face it...Iraqi missiles can't hit us, but they can hit Israel which is the main reason we want them to disarm) We are worried about a man who possibly has capabilities to attack us. Yet, we are not worrying about a man who has nuclear capabilities who can theoretically hit the United States with a missile. We are not worrying about the man who has orchestrated the horrific 9/11 attacks. We are not worrying about trying to alleviate an incredibly s***ty economy. We're worried about a 3rd world moderately secular country with a leader who we provided with a vast array of weapons in the 1980s. I'd rather worry about groups that have attacked us then worrying about using military force against countries who have never attacked us. I mean, Ashcroft is raping our civil liberties, we can at least make the cost worthwhile, right US government? getting rid of saddam could very well lead to peace in the middle east....president bush recognizes that both israel and palastine are legit...other arab countries now recognize israel...that hasnt been the case before....the only real hardliner left that refuses to recognize israel is saddam..get him out and then diplomacy has a chance to work in that region...for the first time in thousands of years... What about the groups like HAMAS, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, et al. in the region that have plagued that region? They don't recognize Israel. They are the ones terrorizing the Jews there.

He wouldn't give his personal stances on the issues. When a man won't say where he stands, he should not become a judge. It is the Senate's duty to scrutinize possible judges according to the Constitution. It's over with now. Score one for the left! Where's that GOP majority now, eh? Couldn't even stop a filibuster.

If a nation completely disarms all their weapons, what is to stop other nations (i.e. Iran...we do remember the Iran-Iraq war, correct?) from invading and taking over? Complete disarmament is a pipe dream for any nation. Any country is going to keep weapons on hand for defense. If Iraq wasn't so close to our terrorist pal, Israel (don't get me wrong, I condemn Palestinian terrorism as well...I think Sharon and Arafat are both hardline non-negotiating f***s that need to get out of power for any sort of progress to be made) then Iraq wouldn't be so much of a problem (cuz let's face it...Iraqi missiles can't hit us, but they can hit Israel which is the main reason we want them to disarm) We are worried about a man who possibly has capabilities to attack us. Yet, we are not worrying about a man who has nuclear capabilities who can theoretically hit the United States with a missile. We are not worrying about the man who has orchestrated the horrific 9/11 attacks. We are not worrying about trying to alleviate an incredibly s***ty economy. We're worried about a 3rd world moderately secular country with a leader who we provided with a vast array of weapons in the 1980s. I'd rather worry about groups that have attacked us then worrying about using military force against countries who have never attacked us. I mean, Ashcroft is raping our civil liberties, we can at least make the cost worthwhile, right US government?

I just dislike anybody like the KKK, homophobes, Rev. Fred Phelps who protests homosexuals funerals because they died of AIDS, The World Church of the Creator (a Nazi Church), Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson declaring racist and sexist and anti-feminist things on their TV shows. I mean after 9/11 having Falwell and Robertson claim that gays, lesbians, People for the American Way, the ACLU, atheists, agnostics, et al. (insert all other non-Christians) were to blame for 9/11. That is something I have a problem with. Since when were atheists and agnostics part of a group of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists? You want me to blast some liberals as well because I can do that just about as fantastically. How about Joe "I like to censor everything I don't like" Lieberman. I mean, come on....school shootings being committed because the two kids from Columbine listened to Marilyn Manson? If Manson was such a big influence then why didn't they wait 5 days and go see his live show in Denver? Joe Lieberman is quite possibly the scariest politician in the United States. With his vast censorship policies, guising his own political agenda behind "family values" along with Al and Tipper Gore. I never said that Patty Pat couldn't worship, but he has no right to claim that people exercising their Constitutional rights are committing "treason" and that gays, lesbians, et al. are responsible for terrorism hitting our nation. He's no better than the KKK except he doesn't have white supremacy, he's using religious supremacy. He's a sexist racist ass.

Then again, Baggs, I am not advocating the murder of people like Patty Pat is.

Estrada is notorious as an extreme member of the right wing. He wouldn't answer basic questions on where he stood on topics like abortion, etc. so he shouldn't have gotten the position.

Well said Matt! Corporate music blows ass!

The Republicans were 5 votes short of ending the filibuster thus ending the dreams of the appointment of Estrada. Woohoo for the Democrats!

I don't hate Pat because he is religious. I hate him because he perverts his religion. "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians." -- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992 "I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it."--Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," 10/29/82 (You do let your kids go trick-or-treating, right Baggio? Then you are also anti-Patty Pat) Petersburg Times, June 26, 1994; Bailey Smith, a founding father of Robertson's Christian Coalition, once told 15,000 people at a Religious Roundtable briefing in Dallas, "With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew." The Los Angeles Times, reprinted in The Religious Right: The Assault of Tolerance & Pluralism in America, produced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); "It's like guerrilla warfare....It's better to move quietly, with stealth, under cover of night. You've got two choices: You can wear cammies and shimmy along on your belly or you can put on a red coat and stand up for everyone to see. It comes down to whether you want to be the British army in the Revolutionary War or the Viet Cong. History tells us which tactic is more effective". (I guess Patty Pat even likes the VC, eh Baggs?) His sexist and ethnocentric views are why I hate him....and even moreso that he does it under the guise of Christianity.

I can protest US atrocities that have caused violence and death with good conscience because I love this country enough to not want it to pull shady bulls*** like selling weapons to Saddam, et al. How can people in the military currently or that are vets like Bush when this man who advocates the usage of the military didn't even serve when his country needed him? (He went AWOL)

sorry apu but what they are talking about describes you to a T....you can tell us all how you love america but everything you write pretty much is hate filled towards every value most of us hold dear....why did you even bother posting that link???..maybe it hit too close to home??? No, the fact that Christians can advocate hatred and the killing of Iraqis was pretty damn funny. I guess Patty Pat never got his nose out of the Bible to read the Constitution and the First Amendment.

http://www.700club.com/CBNNews/News/030306a.asp Good to know that you and Pat Robertson have something in common.

Wait wait wait.....if Saddam gets a nuke? WHAT THE f*** ABOUT KIM JONG IL? This guy HAS nuclear capabilities!!!!!!! The Nuremburg Tribunal verdict is all I need to equivicate Bush to the Nazi Reich if he fights a pre-emptive war. No twisting needed. It states that 'crimes against peace' are the worst crimes to be committed and that it condemns pre-emptive warfare. There are peaceful measures. I advocate the usage of these peaceful and diplomatic measures before going in guns blazing & asking questions after the dust clears. Too bad the UN Atomic Energy Commission did an incredibly thorough search of Iraq and found jack s*** of nuclear capabilities. Then again, I guess if they do have them Halliburton (yes, Dick Cheney's Halliburton) sold them pulse generators in 2001. These can detonate nuclear weapons. Let's hear it for US corporations giving them the ability to detonate nukes if Iraq gets them! Woo! But, Baggio, please tell me how you as a veteran can be behind a f***ing chickenhawk who is unapologetically sending other troops to their deaths?

I guess it takes nothing short of violating UN resolutions to show other countries that they can't violate UN resolutions.

I would condemn an illegal war no matter which president brought it. I also resent you calling me an asshole (I guess in lieu of legitimate arguments, you need to resort to name calling). George W is a war monger. It was worldwide protests that even got him to go to the UN. Dubya never wanted to go to the UN and make even the slightest attempt at making this illegal war somewhat more legitimate. And the worst part is that George W is a chickenhawk. I really question how people on these boards who served in the military can support a president who walked out on his military service in the Texas Air National Guard (his daddy got him a nice cushy position while other people were in-country) Bush has tried to blitz to war since September of last year using the sacred dead of 9/11 as a means to do whatever he wants. He's been itching at the trigger for months now. You may want to read the BBC, the Guardian, etc. and see these facts even in the news of our supposed allies. But I guess that the unbiased news sources you use include Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. I oppose war when there are diplomatic means to solve problems. The United Nations can use diplomatic means to solve this problem without military interference. Saddam is brutal, that is a given. But then the US really shouldn't have sold him all these weapons in the 1980s. And Clujer, I have spoken at great length with former UN weapons inspectors (i.e. Doug Rockne) who stated that the UN Atomic Energy Commission went through Iraq without problems in late 2001 and found absolutely nothing saying that they had nukes. So, please check out international news and you'll see that our censored media is pretty damn craptastic.