Back your country up

Im wondering if anyone else is tired of anti-war potesters. It really upsets me that so many people are protesting this war now that it is already going on. I was against the war before it happend to, I was hoping that there was another way, but there wasnt. We have been trying to go about this without going to war. I feel that some people have never done there homework on Sadaam.People feel he is the victom he is not his people are the victom of his own actions. He murders and lies, he rules his country off fear, and propaganda. No man/women shouldd be able to rule or run a country on this, he needs to be removed and the only way to do this is to go to war with him. People who dont believe me do alittle research on Sadaam before you get mad at me. The USA I feel is the greatest country to live in, it may not be perfect but it is free. Please dont rape the country of all its benefits and then turn your back on the US when its time to go to war. The troops have a hard enough time over there without knowing that were protesting. So lets give our troops and country all the support we can.

LIVE FREE, OR DIE!!!
Hug a soldier, not a tree

I believe in democracy, the ppl must be able to express themselves, to say no is to deny the very basis of democracy. I was also anti war before the war happened, I am still anti war. I believe that Saddam needs to be disarmed, and I agree that he may have weapons and that he is a ruthless dictator. But I do not believe that we should have went against the will of the world community. I would have been for war if we would of had the backing of the world community (UN security council). In a time where foreign policy is key to eliminating weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, Bush had to crumble our foreign policy. However, as an American I support my country and my troops. But I will never support Bush.

Long Live Freedom

All americans should support our troops oversea's wether we agree with why they are there or not. They are just ordinary guys and gals doing a job they are told to do. They are no diffrent from you or me. At least the men and women of our armed forces have the guts to face the kind of situation they are curently in. I am against any uneseccesary loss of life on either side of this conflict but sometimes in life there are things we have to see that we dont want to see. If sadam would have just done as he was asked this would have nver escalated this far. It was his choice to make and he made it.

I believe that no matter what our support lies with our country and our troops. Its what we call loyalty. I do agree with brandon on the one point that he made about how these antiwar protesters do have a right, but look at it this way. To get noticed now they are having to do "vomit ins" and a couple other things. People are starting to Ignore them. These people are having to jump off bridges and commit suicide now. If they are so against the war and don't like the U.S Theres nothing holding them back form leaving.

As for me I support, and love my President. I support and am grateful to our troops.
I think it was about time for this to happen. We needed to get saddam out. Afterall we are finding about everything that he said he didn't have.\

And yes we did not have U.N. backing, but that was due largely to our "wonderful ally" France. They said that if there was any U.N. resolution supporting a war against Iraq that they would Veto it. I believe that if it wasn't for France we would of had the support of the U.N. Now we have over 40 countries supporting us in this war.

epxroot > That's the problem: you state that 'there was no other way', the anti-war protestors don't agree with you.
And it's got nothing to do with 'not having done homework on Saddam': we all know Saddam is a dictator and a murderer.
I just don't follow your 'Saddam is a dictator, SO war is the only way to get rid of him'-logic. That ain't logical to me at all...

ZomBieMann77 > The anti-war protestors have got nothing personnaly against the 'ordinary' soldiers that are just doing their job. That's an interesting discussion, btw. 'Wir haben es nicht gewüsst', remember?

Cheyenne1212 > tsk tsk... "Afterall we are finding about everything that he said he didn't have."... Excuse me??? Even the Pentagon publicly admits they haven't found ANYTHING yet (not talking about convential weapons here). I'm not saying they won't, but right now they haven't found a thing. I'd like to see your source thouhg...

And yes we did not have U.N. backing, but that was due largely to our "wonderful ally" France. They said that if there was any U.N. resolution supporting a war against Iraq that they would Veto it. I believe that if it wasn't for France we would of had the support of the U.N. Now we have over 40 countries supporting us in this war.

France, Russia, China... they'd all have used their veto. 40 countries supporting you? I only counted about 10 last time. No way you'd have gotten a majority in the U.N., even without the veto's.

Sorry about me not using proper quotes...

I believe that the proper alternative would have been to allow France to have their time with the inspectors for at least another month. France requested only more time for the inspectors to do their job, if we would have allowed France to have their time, It would have allowed us to have a more diplomatic advantage over the world community. By simply allowing more time without any results from the inspectors, we would prob. had the backing of the world community. The US could have simply stated that we have allowed you to have your time, under your criteria, and it has not produced any results.

Yes, we could have allowed more time so those Russian firms could sell Saddam some more stuff.

The irony of it is that when it's all over and the coalition assist the Iragi's in rebuilding will France and Russia then demand that the Iraqi's still pay off the loans Saddam took from them.

If there was no war, they had a shot at getting their money back. Now they won't. See the US isn't the only country that can be accused of capitalism. "No war for OIL" Right How about "No war until we can collect on our bad debts."

I hope our troops finish the job, get the rebuilding done and get home. I hope they can do it without great loss of life.

The only reason one could be pissed off at anti-war protestors is because a large number of them have zero idea of: why peace should be maintained, why war is not the only answer and the fact that it's not just about oil (or any other single element). This is the only thing that angers me about protestors, when they protest because protesting is cool, without believing in it or knowing anything about it.

Quote:

---

I was against the war before it happend to, I was hoping that there was another way, but there wasnt. We have been trying to go about this without going to war...The troops have a hard enough time over there without knowing that were protesting. So lets give our troops and country all the support we can.

---

Your whole post summarises what is wrong with the current situation very well. The Bush administration is playing the 'support the troops' line so well it's unbelievable. There is a difference between supporting the troops and supporting a conflict. Namely, it should go without saying that you support your troops, but just because they're at war, doesn't mean you can't still be opposed to that war. Memories of Vietnam vets getting **** on their return must still be incredibly strong, but those memories alone will ensure that none of the vets of this conflict will suffer from protestors on their return. You know, if the war was being waged for the right reasons, you probably wouldn't have such a large number of people protesting.

Also, how can you go from being opposed to the war, to being supportive of the war, simply because the war is now underway? All this indicates to the US government is that they can go to war as regularly as they like, because everyone's feeling patriotic, and a large number of the protestors can be turned into supporters by playing the 'support the troops' line.

Quote:

---

I feel that some people have never done there homework on Sadaam.People feel he is the victom he is not his people are the victom of his own actions. He murders and lies, he rules his country off fear, and propaganda. No man/women shouldd be able to rule or run a country on this, he needs to be removed and the only way to do this is to go to war with him. People who dont believe me do alittle research on Sadaam before you get mad at me.

---

I feel that some people have never done their homework on the United States. Which continued to support Saddam's regime even after the Kurdish uprising was put down using chemical weapons in the 1980s. The focus of this war has also well and truly shifted from weapons of mass destruction to the liberation of the Iraqi people. So, destroy the country, 'liberate' the people so they can live in democratic freedom (such an arrogant notion that our way of government is perfect and works for everybody), and contracts all round for the US corporations to rebuild Iraq. Of course, repercussions like other countries being pissed off, increased Islamic militance, the delicate balance in the Middle East being grossly upset by this superpower governing Iraq, and the inevitable uprising of the Iraqi people against the US conquerors have obviously not been considered.

When no WOMD's are found, I get the feeling that no-one will care because the US will be trumpeting about democracy and freedom. I think linuxelite said in another thread, if they cared about democracy and freedom, why haven't they invaded Zimbabwe and deposed Robert Mugabe.

Quote:

---

The USA I feel is the greatest country to live in, it may not be perfect but it is free. Please dont rape the country of all its benefits and then turn your back on the US when its time to go to war.

---

Again, there is a difference between supporting your country and supporting your administration. Again, the administration is playing this line very well. You are not turning your back on the US by refusing to support the war.

Quote:

---

The irony of it is that when it's all over and the coalition assist the Iragi's in rebuilding will France and Russia then demand that the Iraqi's still pay off the loans Saddam took from them.

---

No country in this mess is blameless. Yes, France and Russia had significant investments in Iraq, which explains why they were opposed to the war. But the US isn't doing this for purely moral reasons either. The contracts will go to US corporations, and it will be an expensive and lengthy task. Hopefully no doubt this will stimulate the US economy, at the expense of the French and Russian economies. The situation reminds me of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the three forces were constantly at war with each other, which ate up all the goods which were manufactured, which ensured that the cycle continued and kept the people in slavery. The US is getting rid of a shitload of bombs and running a massive military campaign (which is costing heaps), and then paying even more money to rebuild the things that get destroyed in the process. I guess their hope is to eventually bolster their economy from the downturn it is currently in.

Quote:

---

The Bush administration is playing the 'support the troops' line so well it's unbelievable.

---

Isnt that a little unfair? I dont believe that for a moment, maybe some rougue right winger that is in some low position pushing papers or something.

I think the majority of protestors are ignorant to the facts, and many democrats and sincere anti-war protestors are ashamed of alot of them. Like the ones blocking traffic and littering all over the place. The far left protestors are in many ways undermining the sincere concerns of those in opposition to the war, after all who is going to back the guy beating on a drum laying down in the road and calling bush the war criminal? I think the majority of people in this country and in the coalition are rallying behind the troops now, but there will always be those who are staunch till the end.

Quote:

---

Isnt that a little unfair? I dont believe that for a moment, maybe some rougue right winger that is in some low position pushing papers or something.

---

Maybe not part of the Bush administration, but this viewpoint is being pushed by higher-ups:

Quote:

---

The renewed military activity in Iraq came hours after Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said those who question the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq are "absolutely wrong" and their comments are "not good for our troops."

"It is not helpful to have those kind of comments come out when we've got troops in combat, because, first of all, they're false, they're absolutely wrong, they bear no resemblance to the truth, and it's just harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously," Myers said at a Pentagon briefing.

Myers' comments came after days of news reports that some retired military experts -- and some commanders in the field -- have raised questions about the war plan.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Support your troops, bring them home not in body bags.

I am anti-war (if it isn't obvious). I don't support our actions. But, I do understand the necessity of military hierarchy. Hierarchy is what makes generals culpable for war crimes and not grunts, so long as the grunts are acting under orders. It isn't the troops fault that they are overseas, it is Bush's. I want them home, safe and sound, playing with their kids, going to school, etc. I don't want them exposed to our own depleted uranium shells.

Bush won't bring the troops home unless he gets his way. If things get ugly, war will wage on until he is out of office. He can't pull out, if he does he will comprimise our position. Think of being on trial, if you admit to sometime while testifying you are able to be tried for it. If we back down he says that he was wrong and that our actions are illegal. It will take either Iraqi surrender, US victory, or a new administration to end the bloodshed.

This isn't football, it isn't a matter of supporting your team. If this is truly about Freedom, then it is about voicing your opinions and demanding answers to the questions that are asked. If you listen to what the european newspapers are reporting you get a different picture of this war than we do, I am not saying that they are necessarily more objective that what we are getting, I am just saying that basing your beliefs and judgments without both sides of the argument is just taking it on faith, and no matter how you look at it Bush is not a divine authority.

Dhej

Personal I think part of what’s great about America is that no mater what the conservatives say; we don’t have to be mindless sheep. I view it as my patriotic duty to *not* back the president when I think he’s doing something stupid, too *always* question my government, and too voice my discontent.

On a side note, any one who thinks this war will be over with the capture of Baghdad or Saddam doesn’t fallow history much. This war will last until the last US troop leaves the area, it will be a long term low grad conflict until we are out, very much like Granada or Libya, or Afghanistan was for the Russians.

Protester have the right to protest, even with the war going on. One must remember, this is not just an issue of war for those against the war, but an issue of many things.

But let me make a comment on the few extreme anti-war protesters with their crazy protesting style:
Those tiny few do not represent that majority of anti-war protesters and believers. To believe other wise is simply ridiculous. There have been pro-war people who have beaten up on anyone who is from the middle east, are we suppose to believe those people represent the whole pro-war group? Certainly not, those extreme pro-war people and their hateful ways are but a tiny few and do not in any way represent the whole.

I'm also against the war, but that (by no means) implies that I am against America or our troops.

I love this country and the people who get trained to defend it (though some of them only put in one weekend a month or two weeks a year). I also understand that not everyone in the military want to fight this war either, as my friend in the Marines so perfectly put it "We don't get to choose our battles". Also few care whether we support the war or not. Like my friend Sabbith in the Army said in a letter, "When you're in a shoot out with the other side, you don't give a rats ass what anybody thinks."

But this war isn't about our freedom, which is being with held from us partially by the current president with the Patriotic Act (which is uncomfortably simlilar to Hilter's Enabling Act). We had a war on terrorism going, but that quickly shifted to a more visible target (i.e. Saddam).

I acknowledge that Saddam is an evil man and should be put down, but should it really take the might of the US military to get him and a few others in Iraq? Blindly bombing civilians just doesn't appeal to me. One life lost during war, or a million, that's just too many in my opinion.

Some people actually think that by getting rid of Saddam we will end terrorism. That's just ridiculous. Terrorism is a world wide thing (just as Alkida is a world wide terrorist organization). There will always be someone else to take the place of a fallen terrorist. We need the help of nearly all the countries in this world to bust down on Alkida (since they are found it almost every country), but we have severed ties and opted for an unfounded war on one man.

Bush said we had to fight the war because they have "weapons of mass distruction" which we have yet to prove. I know about the scud missles (they do have a right to defend them selves), but they are not the "weapons of mass destruction" Bush has been crying about. Not the "nuc'ler" or biological, or gas weapons that Bush claims they have. Those (nuclear, biological, gases) are real "weapons of mass destruction" because (as you know) these weapons Bush has spoken about cause damage on an enormously massive scale (i.e. mass destruction), not isolated damage in the case of scud missles, in case you were wondering.

As my friend Meggers said, "Sure, the Iraq army is not suppose to have those missles you mentioned (because of UN rules) , but we have sneered and ignored the UN rules more than once when it comes to weapons and other issues. "

America is the world's hypocrite, but I love you anyways USA.

Yesterday they found barrels of gases, but not the "deadly" type they had hoped for. Our military is scrambbling to find anything, if not, we're gonna look like fools.

Also, are we to deal with all the wrong doers in this world? I'm sorry, but we are not the world's police. True, this man is not in any way peaceful, but there are many more who are like/or worse than he. Are we going to deal with them too? Why Saddam, out of so many who are a bigger threat? And why do we get to decide who dies?

I just have too many unanswered questions that inturn cause me to question those running this country.

But hey, I hope the troops come back home safe and soon; and I hope they stop getting killed by friendly fire and accidents.

Also, there is a reason why the news no longer covers the anti-war movement, there are about 6 conglomerants that own a majority of the channels on TV, bill boards, and the Radio Stations in the country. They found being patriotic beings ratings. So they lessened the showings of anti-war protests and spondered, them selves, gatherings for pro war rallies. Which they in terned covered on their net works.

There has been some upset over this monopoly over mass media, and there are currently FCC hearings going on about it, but you won't hear about it. Why? These Conglomerants are not going to have the stations they own report on them.

The only form of mass media these big businesses don't have a grip on yet are the news papers, periodicals, books, and magazines. You can find articles about the FCC hearings in the New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Time, and any other top notch news papers and zines.

Forgive us anti-war people for thinking beyond the war, and for questioning Bush, but we wouldn't if we didn't have reason to do so.

That's just my opinion, what ever yours is, I respect it.

Take care all

Let's say
Freedom of Iraqi People and Bush cannot stand it so he decided to go to war to free Iraqi people from dictator
Ha, How much of double standard bush can have. In 1949-50 China Invaded the Tibet and no one ever said a word about it specially USA. Why? Because we do a lot of business with China.
If Bush ever cared about freedom of people he would release all of secret documents about JFK assasination, Rosewell, Area 51 and which he is keeping it away from his own people and which part of Liberty of Information he doesn't understand? In short this war is not for Iraqi people or their freedom, this is all about OIL and just OIL. Who ever control the middle east and their oil control the world economy and dominate the world , not by invading countries, but by invading economy. Oil is the blood of any economic body which runs the nations, who ever controls the oils controls the world economy and can easily become the only superpower in the entire world. So my fellow AO members don't even get me started on Bush and his policies and his double standard. Research about US policies towards the world and then think that what are we doing today is it right or wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by \/IP3R
Let's say
Freedom of Iraqi People and Bush cannot stand it so he decided to go to war to free Iraqi people from dictator
Ha, How much of double standard bush can have. In 1949-50 China Invaded the Tibet and no one ever said a word about it specially USA. Why? Because we do a lot of business with China.
If Bush ever cared about freedom of people he would release all of secret documents about JFK assasination, Rosewell, Area 51 and which he is keeping it away from his own people and which part of Liberty of Information he doesn't understand? In short this war is not for Iraqi people or their freedom, this is all about OIL and just OIL.....

---

Its not the Oil...now that southern Asia is open there is a lot more non OPEC oil available. and I have seen what is next for power generation, neat stuff. This is about power, bush is banking on the you don’t change horses in the middle of a race theory we will go from one war to the next until election time this is just one long bloody reelection campaign.

And when the election time will come he will get re-elected by the Supreme Court of US *AGAIN* and not by the People of the US :) or did some one say he will loose the election? I did hear that he is not going to win this time. Even a baboon can win a election against him this time. Hehehe what an idiot. Invaded the Iraq, circled the Baghdad and I am still looking for any evidence of weapons of mass destruction or any chemical weapon and not the pestisite killers or a toilet cleaner.

So he didn't find any weapons in Iraq. This is why he’s going to invade Syria before we have a chance to really ask questions, and if Syria end quickly next will be Iran or N. Korea ect. ect. If you don't think he can get reelected during a war you are underestimating the masses of stupid Americans and our ability to overlook anything in the name of patriotism and nationalism. I won’t be voting for him but my vote doesn’t count for much. My state went to Gore last time.

On a side note the Supreme Court didn't win him the election, good old fashion southern corruption and Nader won bush the election.

actually he won by eletorial college, just like EVERY president before him. the supreme court mearly said gore did not have any grounds to challenge it. please learn abot the govt before you start spouting.

as for viper, i have 2 rules i follow when debating, try not to argue with ppl from cali, and never talk to ppl from berkly/ucla. they dont live in the real world. they dont think inside the box. and they dont care about the truth, only their version of it. the left has always been more zealous than the right, untill the backlash hits.

sadly enough, 8 years online, and out of the dozens of ppl from berkly i have argued with, only 2 have ever proven me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Worm Wood
actually he won by eletorial college, just like EVERY president before him. the supreme court mearly said gore did not have any grounds to challenge it. please learn abot the govt before you start spouting.

---

Learn your history. Andrew Jackson was put into place by congress after the electoral college was deadlocked (I believe this happened with a few others but the only one I'm sure about is Jackson). I hate it when ignorant people make blanket statements, its just too easy to disprove it takes all the fun out of debating.

Also learn how the electoral college works, the court case boiled down to who got their delegates into the college...who ever's delegates gets in is who wins, so yes the supreme court did decide the election by default. (Again good old boy southern corruption helped)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Worm Wood

as for viper, i have 2 rules i follow when debating, try not to argue with ppl from cali, and never talk to ppl from berkly/ucla. they dont live in the real world. they dont think inside the box. and they dont care about the truth, only their version of it. the left has always been more zealous than the right, untill the backlash hits.

sadly enough, 8 years online, and out of the dozens of ppl from berkly i have argued with, only 2 have ever proven me wrong.

---

On another note contrary to popular belief Cali is one of the most right wing places you could ever go (the only reason Grey Davis is Gov is because he’s a right leaning dem and the last rep canadite was a noticeably evil man) Remember this is the state that gave us Ragen and will soon have Schwartzinager as governor two of the most wacky right people around. Either you are a right wing zealot or have never been to the south, with groups like the KKK, and the religious right proving the right can be just as insane as the left. Although with comments about "The backlash" I'm guessing you have read the "Turner Diaries" putting you squarely in the category of insane right wing zealot.

ummm ok ill bite, can u provide a link the the exception?
ummm the delegates get there by election dont they? and once again where does southern corruption comes in? can u at least provide an example? i wont bother asking for a crediable link.


as for my california statement, i never said what cali was, left or right, just that i dont argue with them due to the fact that they dont live in the same world as everyone else.
the leftist was meant to be aimed at berkly area. they do seem to be the loudest. and i actully rank as a moderate conservative, and i live in texas. so i am as far south as u can get.
and backlash is a fact, it happens on both side, not just the right or left. one side gains a distinctive advantage, and something happens that causes resntment and the other sides gains power from the back lash that follows. and a movement is born that swings the balance of power slowly at first, but by the time we have equalibrium, there is to much momentum to stop, and it continues to swing untill the populace gets dissatisied with it and beagins to rebel, and the pattern repeats. normaly the backlash in america is minumal due to the fact the ppl have a say in govt. in other countries it can be bloody. currently i think we are starting to move past the equlibrium into the left.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Worm Wood
ummm ok ill bite, can u provide a link the the exception?
ummm the delegates get there by election dont they? and once again where does southern corruption comes in? can u at least provide an example? i wont bother asking for a crediable link.

---

You could learn US history. I understand that living in Texas means you got a very substandard education but as a right winger I figured you would be all about private education.
here are the Jackson links I was mistaken in one thing...it was Adams that had the presidency given to him by the house not Jackson. Also note that all of this is completely constitutional, if no one gets 50% of the electoral college votes the House picks the winner (find your own link to the constitution) I am assuming that you have at least heard of the constitution, I don't expect you to know it considering you are a right winger and all.
http://www.multied.com/elections/1824.html
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/andrewjackson/


As for Southern corruption well putting police blockades outside of poling places in black communities reeks of corruption...Also note that Chicago isn't the only place that the dead vote
(I would give you links to news reports of both of these occurrences, but seeing as they didn't come from Rush you probably wouldn't believe them.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Worm Wood

as for my california statement, i never said what cali was, left or right, just that i dont argue with them due to the fact that they dont live in the same world as everyone else.
the leftist was meant to be aimed at berkly area. they do seem to be the loudest. and i actully rank as a moderate conservative, and i live in texas. so i am as far south as u can get.
and backlash is a fact, it happens on both side, not just the right or left. one side gains a distinctive advantage, and something happens that causes resntment and the other sides gains power from the back lash that follows. and a movement is born that swings the balance of power slowly at first, but by the time we have equalibrium, there is to much momentum to stop, and it continues to swing untill the populace gets dissatisied with it and beagins to rebel, and the pattern repeats. normaly the backlash in america is minumal due to the fact the ppl have a say in govt. in other countries it can be bloody. currently i think we are starting to move past the equlibrium into the left. [/B]

---

This I would agree with it seems unfortunately with each swing of the great political pendulum those of us in the middle get more and more marginalized.

tsk tsk tsk, all those personal attacks, and still with out a good point.

actully i know a great deal of us history, but i apologize for not learning about EVERY exception that has ever happened.
still dosent prove your point. or vipers, he wasnt elected by the supreme court, and he steal the election, and ive heard some ppl meantion police barricades, but i have never seen one, and yes there are quite a few blacks where i live, even more hispanics. and im still trying to figure out what u mean by "southern corruption". yes a lot of dead ppl do vote, for both sides, but once again, since the pop vote dosent matter, dead ppl voting, nader, and police barricades would have not changed it at all. seems the founding fathers didnt trust the public all that much.

so all you done was clear up a blanket statement made by me by quoting a little known historical abnormailty that has happened once in 200 years. it didnt help your case in th eleast, so u descend down to biased and personal attacks based on nothing more than the fact im from texas. how sad.

Yeah i think the protestors mean well, but it's the nuts that give them a bad name.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Worm Wood
tsk tsk tsk, all those personal attacks, and still with out a good point.

actully i know a great deal of us history, but i apologize for not learning about EVERY exception that has ever happened.
still dosent prove your point. or vipers, he wasnt elected by the supreme court, and he steal the election, and ive heard some ppl meantion police barricades, but i have never seen one, and yes there are quite a few blacks where i live, even more hispanics. and im still trying to figure out what u mean by "southern corruption". yes a lot of dead ppl do vote, for both sides, but once again, since the pop vote dosent matter, dead ppl voting, nader, and police barricades would have not changed it at all. seems the founding fathers didnt trust the public all that much.

so all you done was clear up a blanket statement made by me by quoting a little known historical abnormailty that has happened once in 200 years. it didnt help your case in th eleast, so u descend down to biased and personal attacks based on nothing more than the fact im from texas. how sad.

---

You are calling the presidential election of 1824..hell any presidential election a littel know historical abnormailty...ike its meaningless...wow I realy worry about the people of this country some times...on another note there was a number of presidents that where never elceted president...most of them where VP of presidents who died, and there was one president that was never elected to any public office. So no the electoral college note decideing the president isn't a new thing.

as for southern corpution I wont go into the recent past at all for this one, Ken Lay not being prosecuted, Arkansaw state police acting as Pimps for the govener, Road blocks outside of polling places in black negberhoods in Florida...The daed voteing in Florida....This is realy too easy.

I think the fact that you are from texas is a good reason to question your knowlage...one of the worst school systems in the country with scores at or below the national average, most students bearly acheving rather easy standards, and not many exceeding them.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

Note that its not the worst...but thats a southern state also.

I would suggest you also study how the electoral college gets put into place. Each states pop vote decides who's delegates are sent to the electoral college...so I guess the pop vote dose matter. (Unfortunately the electoral college slants things away from urban areas a little )

Some reflections on the last presidential election

When half of the people eligible to register, register. When half of the people who are registered vote, allowing for perfect weather on election day. The people get the government that they deserve.

How can a senior citizen in Florida can handle 10 bingo cards at once but then have trouble lining up a punch ballot?

[QUOTE] Originally posted here by bballad


You are calling the presidential election of 1824..hell any presidential election a littel know historical abnormailty...ike its meaningless...wow I realy worry about the people of this country some times...on another note there was a number of presidents that where never elceted president...most of them where VP of presidents who died, and there was one president that was never elected to any public office. So no the electoral college note decideing the president isn't a new thing.

as for southern corpution I wont go into the recent past at all for this one, Ken Lay not being prosecuted, Arkansaw state police acting as Pimps for the govener, Road blocks outside of polling places in black negberhoods in Florida...The daed voteing in Florida....This is realy too easy.

I think the fact that you are from texas is a good reason to question your knowlage...one of the worst school systems in the country with scores at or below the national average, most students bearly acheving rather easy standards, and not many exceeding them.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

Note that its not the worst...but thats a southern state also.

I would suggest you also study how the electoral college gets put into place. Each states pop vote decides who's delegates are sent to the electoral college...so I guess the pop vote dose matter. (Unfortunately the electoral college slants things away from urban areas a little ) [/QUOTE

all that and still not a valid point.

let see. first thing first.

You are calling the presidential election of 1824..hell any presidential election a littel know historical abnormailty...ike its meaningless...wow I realy worry about the people of this country some times...on another note there was a number of presidents that where never elceted president...most of them where VP of presidents who died, and there was one president that was never elected to any public office. So no the electoral college note decideing the president isn't a new thing.


umm no, im calling the manner the president was elected, being appointed by the house, a historical abnormality. kinda like the last one going to the supreme court is historacly, an abnormality. if i stated that elections were an abnormality, pleae point out where, because i cant seem to recall.


ken lays decision not to be prosocuted is not exactly southern corruption, its money and politics, same as is everywhere else, im sure if i cared to waste my time i could find some from northern states. and all u can provide is one, not very convincing. as for the other things u mentioned, could u perhaps provide a link explaing the pimping of cops. and dade county.



I think the fact that you are from texas is a good reason to question your knowlage...one of the worst school systems in the country with scores at or below the national average, most students bearly acheving rather easy standards, and not many exceeding them.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

Note that its not the worst...but thats a southern state also.


back to the personal attacks. hmmmm oddly enough, despite my southern education, according to the national testing stuff i took i never scored below the 95% mark in my test. the school i went to wasnt great, but we were used as a testing ground for new test and projects.
and according to the us military, i rank in the top 99%. also, having talked to ppl as part of my job every day from all over the country, i can say that by far the stupiedst ppl i talk to are from the chicago area. i get calls from there from ppl who cant even read. and not just once either. and while goign on national averages....statisticly, blacks score lower on just about everything except for drug test. does this mean if u are black, no one should listen to you? or should be able to criticize you for being black? and another thing ure average dosent show, alot of students here cant speak english very well. we have a such a large pop. of imigrants here its sad. the local elem. shcool here(in the houston area) has 1000 students, 800 are hispanic, 500 still cant speak english. of course we cant do anything about that but send them to ESL, but they still have to take the test. and chicagos schools arent that impressive either. u dont rate that much higher than texas, plus texas is graded in 4 areas, ill. only has 2. and also, the problem is texases education system is the way its implemented. not going into details, but anyone who has been in it knows what im talking about.

UN inspections did a great job of disarming North Korea...oh no...wait...they've got nukes now.

So if 1824 was a little known one time abnormality what do you call the Ford presidancey?

a mistake?, and if im not misatken, and i might be, those links you gave point to the democratic parties nomination of a presidential contender, not who won the office.

*cough* taken from the link u gave me.

Jackson ran for the presidency in 1824, losing to John Quincy Adams in an election so close it was thrown to the House of Representatives. Jackson had actually won the popular vote and thus saw himself as the people's choice. But Speaker of the House Henry Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams, sealing the election for Adams. Soon afterward, Clay was named secretary of state. Convinced that a "corrupt bargain" lay at the heart of Adams's victory, Jackson determined to topple the old Eastern establishment. His struggle, he said, was over the very nature of the presidency. Did it belong to the privileged few, as it had almost de facto from the beginning, or did it belong, as he believed, to a much wider America? In 1828, four times as many voters as ever before came out to cast their ballot. This time, Jackson won by a landslide, gaining more than two-thirds of all the electoral votes in a stunning defeat for Adams, the aloof Easterner. As the seventh President of the United States, Jackson promised to turn over government to the common man.

hmmm jackson won the pop, but lost the electorial. hmmm sound familir. gee guess it has happened before. as for ford, it was another abnormality, he was appointed as a VP to nixon after VP agnew resigned, then 8 months later nixon resigned making him the pres, withough having to be elcted.

The Ford presidency wasn't an abnormality. The process in which Ford became president is right out of high school civics. Spiro Agnew, the standing Vice President, had to leave office after pleading Nolo Contendere for tax evasion. He was replaced by Gerry Ford. Ford was nominated by Richard Nixon and ratified by the Congress.

Later on when Nixon resigned, the Vice President, Ford, became the president.

What would have been really interesting was that before Ford could get Nelson Rockefeller installed as Vice President, there were two assasination attempts on his life. Without a vice president, the presidency would have gone to the Democratic speaker of the house, Carl Albert, had either of those attempts been successful.

The constitutional succession process is fascinating.

If you think the Bush/Gore election was a mess with the Supreme Court involved, what do you think would have happenned if neither scored the required electoral college majority. It would have gone back to the states with each state getting to cast 1 vote, which would not have to reflect the popular vote of that state. do you think that would have been better or politically cleaner?

Quote:

---

On a side note the Supreme Court didn't win him the election, good old fashion southern corruption and Nader won bush the election.

---

Southern Corruption? Come on Bballad, give me a break. You should well know that corruption comes from all over the states, not just the South. There are just as many corrupt leaders in the North as there are in the South so don't go saying stuff about Southern corruption. Also isn't that kind of steriotyping everybody from the South when you say that their corrupt and stupid? I thought a person like you at least wouldn't steriotype. I haven't done any reasearch, but I bet that the kids in New York tested just as badly as the kids have done in Texas.

Quote:

---

tsk tsk tsk, all those personal attacks, and still with out a good point.

---

Ok, first of all Worm Wood you say this.

Quote:

---

i can say that by far the stupiedst ppl i talk to are from the chicago area.

---

:rofl: And it clearly shows here that you are doing the same thing that he is doing! Your such a hypocrite, and another thing is that if you never scored below 95% like you claim then you can at least show it by using the correct grammar when you type in a post. I have seen at least a dozen spelling and grammatical errors from you in this thread alone (and don't forget all of the abbreviations). If you are going to write a reply then you should at least take the time to show that you know how to write correctly. There is a spell check button right across from the submit reply button if you need to use that. :wow:

he started it, i was responding. he started the personal attacks. i cant use spell check on this machine, it wont load. and i could never spell. good thing spelling was never on any of those test. very little grammer to, mostly comprehension.

Quote:

---

he started it, i was responding. he started the personal attacks.

---

Ok, Worm Wood, your not getting my point. I don't care about who started it first, you still did it! Your still a hypocrite and your actions weren't justified because "he started it." By the way how old are you?

Quote:

---

and i could never spell. good thing spelling was never on any of those test. very little grammer to,

---

:rofl: again

P.S. If you don't know grammar and spelling then Bballad has perfect reason to make fun of how bad the teaching is in Texas. You have proven that Bballad is completely right and you are completely wrong. Also if your going to post on AntiOnline here's a heads up, people are going to neg you a lot if you don't learn how to type correctly.

My sugestion worm wood, open a copy of word, type your messages in that, and then cut/past. My spelling kills the spell checker so I use that.

i cant, am at work and do not have word on this machine, dont have anything better than notepad. and spelling has nothing to do with teaching, i just cant do it. its not from lack of teacher trying.


and i suggest u look up the meaning of the word hypocrite.

hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh BTW, http://www.spellcheck.net/ . It's amazing what google can do.

Am I the only person who is sick and tired of this pro-US propaganda? People have the right to protest, even if they happen to be in the minority or not support the government. In fact, generally people who protest are against the government, otherwise they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.

Bush seems intent on labelling anyone who doesn't agree with him "an enemy of the US" or "Coalition of unwillings" or whatever stupid names he picks out of a hat.

The US isn't my country anyway (thank goodness for that), so I wouldn't be supporting my country by believing everything the Republican party says anyway.

To be honest, I was fairly pro-war over here in the UK, but only because I thought it was the only way to get rid of Sadaam (we should have finished him in the last Gulf War, but we didn't, so this time we should make sure).

Quote:

---

LIVE FREE, OR DIE!!!

---

Agreeing with what the United States government says is not what I would consider to be a life of freedom. Criticising those who protest against war is also not about freedom. In fact, if you are so pro-freedom you should be allowing (if not encouraging) people to protest because they have a right to do so if they wish. Suppress them and you are simply a Communist government in disguise.

Quote:

---

Hug a soldier, not a tree

---

I prefer Winston Churchill's quote:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

And of course, from Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it."

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by pwaring
Am I the only person who is sick and tired of this pro-US propaganda? People have the right to protest, even if they happen to be in the minority or not support the government. In fact, generally people who protest are against the government, otherwise they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.

Bush seems intent on labelling anyone who doesn't agree with him "an enemy of the US" or "Coalition of unwillings" or whatever stupid names he picks out of a hat.

The US isn't my country anyway (thank goodness for that), so I wouldn't be supporting my country by believing everything the Republican party says anyway.

To be honest, I was fairly pro-war over here in the UK, but only because I thought it was the only way to get rid of Sadaam (we should have finished him in the last Gulf War, but we didn't, so this time we should make sure).



Agreeing with what the United States government says is not what I would consider to be a life of freedom. Criticising those who protest against war is also not about freedom. In fact, if you are so pro-freedom you should be allowing (if not encouraging) people to protest because they have a right to do so if they wish. Suppress them and you are simply a Communist government in disguise.



I prefer Winston Churchill's quote:

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

And of course, from Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it."

---

Well just so that there is no hard feelings, we, here in the U.S., are happy not to have you.

Disagree with whomever you like, and fight the good fight however it seems to you. We do allow protests and I welcome them, especially when it further points to how on track we truly are. Stifle free expression? You don't live here so how exactly would you know or even think you know?

P.S. I love W.C. and Britain. Great beer, lousy weather.

peace

I don't think I'll add to this arguement. disagree all you want.

Quote:

---

Stifle free expression? You don't live here so how exactly would you know or even think you know?

---

The point I was making was in relation to the initial post in this thread - about someone being sick of anti-war protesters and how they should back up their country instead of hugging trees. Regardless of whether people agree/disagree with anti-war protesters (I happen to strongly disagree with them), that isn't grounds for saying that they should stop fighting for what they believe in.

Quote:

---

Great beer, lousy weather.

---

After the recent Eurovision fiasco, I'm beginning to think that great beer and winning wars are all we're good at. ;)