Best Real Life quotes...

[LeHah]

Originally posted by Quarto
WTF is that supposed to mean? Why shouldn't I be able to make comments on American politics? Because really, if I can't make comments about American politics, then how can Americans make comments about non-American politics?

With our very ideaology and culture being a blend of so many others, we have the right and logically relevant background TO make assumptions with foriegn policies. We have and know everyone.

Ah, but how can you prove that your claims about Liberals are not just another form of telling mistruths or proof that you're just misinformed?

I agree to this statement.

Right, like that scumbag who didn't get the job done in 1991! What was his name, uh... Clinton, right?

Bush... was in office... in 1991.

Clinton didn't do much of anything with our military. He bombed a few buildings using the Air Force but that's about all I can think of.

On to my own thoughts...

Though I do not care for the Bush Administration, I intensely dislike the apathetic and sickenly PC anti-war/ anti-agression protests by various groups of American people. People say they want answers for 9/11 and we're finding them by aserting ourselves with the possiblity of naked force against those who threaten a repeat performance.

Violence has resolved more issues than any form of diplomacy, simply because it naturally (if violently) picks a winner, be it eventual or sudden.

The fact is, it is our duty not as a country but as a *civilization* to protect ourselves, our future and our economy by any means possible. If this means we must be agressors, so be it. The history books will judge who is right and wrong, as they are written by those left standing.


There is the fine question about why America must police the rest of the world. This is not an easy issue to answer but it is easily solved morally. The fact is, morals are not an absolute. They do not adhere to every civilization or ethnicity; americans have a lovely intolerance for how the middle-eastern world treats it's women. By that single moral implication alone, we are in the right; not that we are right, but that we believe we are right. Is this a contradiction? Yes, but America is about assimilation of culture, not destroying it. To rebuild the moral potholes of another society, one must allow radical reconstruction.

Sometimes the right choice isn't always the most popular choice, keep that in mind.

People believe in "appealing to better natures" or "reaching out to understand". This is incorrect. They were taught that what they, those that support Saddam and Saddam himself, is a way to survive and that if it they do it with success, it must be 'moral'.

In the end, when the guns are to be loaded, why must we deny the Darwinism principal of pain, which has evolved us for the last fourty thousand years? Pain inspires as much fear and obedeance as death or the threat of death. It is that unquantifiable abstract, along with resolution and reactionary thoughts, which brings an end to tyranny.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Reading through the comments here, I thought I'd say this. First, what I said before.

Will a war on Iraq be brutal? Yes, it will, and as much as EVERYONE wishes otherwise, innocent people will probably die. (And I think whichever country at fault should pay a million dollars to the family's victims, for those wondering about those who might get caught in the crossfire). Is war unprincipled? The ball is in Iraq's court now. It's their decision whether they want war or not, or whether to try and negotiate or not. Plus, Saddam Hussain is in league with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden (so we are led to believe), and with apologies to Plague for saying so, that would be enough for Bush to go war wacky and want to use nuclear weapons, the same as he said he would on the afternoon or evening of September 11th against the country who organised the terrorist acts.

Now, as for Shrub. (A joking name for Bush Jr. a friend thought up). Time did a comparison to Bush and Clinton. I'll quite ventrabem a little about their work habits.

Clinton: Late nights workint the phones. Bush: In bed and asleep by 10:00 P.M. Clinton: Endless policy-laden meetings. Bush:
"Let's wrap this up in 20 minutes." Clinton: Perennially tardy, kept people waiting. Bush: "The On-Time Administration." Clinton: Briefing books and real books too. (Just a quick comment here, I'd bet Angel would love those) Bush: Executive summeries, please. Clinton: His own best speechwriter. Bush: Has people whodo that for him. Clinton: Often as informed as his advisers. Bush: Happy to be tutored by the experts.

...after WTC people started to support Bush [/B]

Just something I ask, if I may. How many of YOU who criticise him were behind him on September 11th?

Origially posted by DoomsdayPlague
As for your last comment Bush senior was on the way out and didn't get a chance to finish the job. Clinton (the scumbag I was refering to) not only didn't follow up (except for the few times he bombed Iraq to get the attention of the impeachment off him.) he tried to demilitarize alot as he cut alot of funding and alot of good officers just short of retirement got discharged.

That's right. I understand that even when military action was taken, Clinton would go "But isn't there a less, ah, brutal way to deal with the situation?" He was the target of many jokes (IMPOTUS, for Improbable, or Impotent, President Of The United States, for example) in the military and government. But maybe some of the blame could be placed on the media, because of how they say things like "America are going to launch a quick air offensive from the North, South and West of Iraq."

Originally posted by DoomsdayPlague
thats why I hate Clinton so much cause he has a big part in the problem with my dads transfer the major who handled his transfer is going to be first lady and senatorof new york Hillary Clintons aide)

You will be pleased to know, then, that Hillary reportably had a book entitled How to Impeech the President.

Originally posted by Quarto
If you stop ignoring facts for a moment, you'll realise that Bush had his chance to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and

Actually, there was a plan to reduce Saddam to a cinder, but it obviously didn't fall through possibly because of new guidelines that were brought in disallowing black bag jobs, such as assasinations on Castro and Hussain.

Originally posted by Aries
don't forget that Clinton had the opportunity to kill bin laden and didn't because it wouldn't look good politically

Where'd you get this? Was this before the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole?

Originally posted by LeHah
Clinton didn't do much of anything with our military. He bombed a few buildings using the Air Force but that's about all I can think of.

That's right, he didn't do much.

Originally posted by LeHah
Though I do not care for the Bush Administration, I intensely dislike the apathetic and sickenly PC anti-war/ anti-agression protests by various groups of American people. People say they want answers for 9/11 and we're finding them by aserting ourselves with the possiblity of naked force against those who threaten a repeat performance.

Right on. My comments from one I attended can be found in the Real Life Mandarins thread. (And it was a poor topic to bring up, I agree). It sickens me when I hear about the "porr defenseless terrorists", or worse, when they're declared as heroes and freedom fighters against the corrupt evil Empire. Do-ma-nhieu, I say to them.

Originally posted by LeHah
The fact is, it is our duty not as a country but as a *civilization* to protect ourselves, our future and our economy by any means possible. If this means we must be agressors, so be it. The history books will judge who is right and wrong, as they are written by those left standing.

While that is close to what c*** Colson said, I give you that. What's right and wrong is judged by those who are left standing and are able to judge their actions.

Originally posted by LeHah
There is the fine question about why America must police the rest of the world. This is not an easy issue to answer but it is easily solved morally. The fact is, morals are not an absolute. They do not adhere to every civilization or ethnicity; americans have a lovely intolerance for how the middle-eastern world treats it's women. By that single moral implication alone, we are in the right; not that we are right, but that we believe we are right. Is this a contradiction? Yes, but America is about assimilation of culture, not destroying it. To rebuild the moral potholes of another society, one must allow radical reconstruction.

I'm not sure about forcing others to change their ways because they're not ours, but certainly if something gets out of hand then something has to be done.

Originally posted by LeHah
Sometimes the right choice isn't always the most popular choice, keep that in mind.

Yeah, that's true.

I'll leave with a letter that had been written in that you may find rather interesting.

"There are a lot of people who are opposed to this war, and we are willing to fight for it," says one social activist. What a hypocritical comment, the latest in a long line of comments and actions that defile our great country. Social activists do not want war. Social activists protest anti terrorism actions that our country takes. Social activists play people off against each other for their gain. Social activists believe that our government are terrorists. Social activists do not care if terrorists are among the illegal immigrants they want to allow in our country. Social activists are happy to break the law. Social activists are willing to use violence. Social activists feel free to break out illegal immigrants from detention centres. Social activists look down on Australia and burn our flag in violent protests. Social activists want peace. At what price? What is the price of freedom, of peace, for these social activists?

 

[Ghost]

Stop c**** Colson-ing

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

That's what he is, but if you want me to I'll stop.

 

[Ghost]

Yes, stop it., write the full word or don´t, but stop c*** Colson
If he is a fucking bitch or stupid write it, he is a fiction carachter he doesn´t care because he doesn´t exist.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Ghost
Yes, stop it., write the full word or don´t, but stop c*** Colson
If he is a fucking bitch or stupid write it, he is a fiction carachter he doesn´t care because he doesn´t exist.

Jus being polite for those who wouldn't like the full word is all. I could really fo off on him, but because of the language involved I won't. But I will stop the ceosoring of my language and only refer to cunts and what not when I know it's safe to do so.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by LeHah
With our very ideaology and culture being a blend of so many others, we have the right and logically relevant background TO make assumptions with foriegn policies. We have and know everyone.

Oh, I know that - my point was, you're as justified talking about anybody else as anybody else is talking about you.

Bush... was in office... in 1991.

I know . That was my point - Doomsday, apparently a fervent Republican was saying that this time, they will do the job right because the scumbags aren't in charge. I was merely pointing out that the person who screwed up last time was also a Republican. I'm simply tired of people, Republican or Democrat, who try to blame the other side for mistakes clearly committed by their own.

Don't get me wrong. While I certainly disagree with you on some of the reasons and explanations about why action in Iraq is necessary, I do not disagree about the action itself. I am concerned about the casualties there will be, I am concerned about what will happen in Iraq afterwards, but one thing is certain - getting rid of Saddam Hussein will help the Iraqis, if only by removing the reason for the economic sanctions.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
Where'd you get this? Was this before the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole?

I can't remember the dates (i think 1 was in '95), but Clinton had at least 3 chances to kill bin laden, and (if i am remembering correctly) only on one of those chances did he do anything about it. they were gonna launch a missile and blow the bastard away, but Clinton called it off
and i got this from my political science class

 

[WildWeasel]

Originally posted by DoomsdayPlague
I am a very much a patriot so this is why I get so angry with people dissing my President

Anyone who messes up a basic and common saying like "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" deserves to be made fun of.

 

[RiotAct218]

Thank you Weasel.

 

[Ender]

I had no idea one guy making an ass out of himself on TV would create so much back and forth.

It's not like he fell down the steps of Air Force One or anything.

 

[RiotAct218]

Originally posted by Ender

It's not like he fell down the steps of Air Force One or anything.

I'd pay good money to see that.

 

[RiotAct218]

Originally posted by DoomsdayPlague
I will have to consult my dad (who is an expert on the subject) tomarrow when he gets home from his job as a Lt. Colonel in the US Army.

What is this, "My dad can beat up your dad?"
Oh yeah, well MY dad is a superhero from another planet. And he's a robot and a dinosaur. And he saves the world all the time. From you. And your army dad.

 

[KrisV]

Is your dad Grimlock?

 

[Concordia_FP]

Originally posted by RiotAct218
I'd pay good money to see that.

It already happened to a previous president: Jimmy Carter

 

[Concordia_FP]

Well, my dad saves people from the IRS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DoomsdayPlague]

Originally posted by Aries
Bush wanted to go all the way to Baghdad. It was the Arab countries that said that if you do, we will cut off the oil and not participate in the attack so America will come off looking like a bunch of Arab-bashers. Bush didn't want that, so he stopped the war.
As for the economy, yeah Clinton did inherit an economy that wasn't the best, but why did Clinton have to screw with the numbers to make Gore look good? Clinton had the opportunity to kill bin laden and didn't because it wouldn't look good politically

Well thank you for supporting my very arguement, making it stronger proof of what I said.

 

[DoomsdayPlague]

Originally posted by LeHah
With our very ideaology and culture being a blend of so many others, we have the right and logically relevant background TO make assumptions with foriegn policies. We have and know everyone.



.



Bush... was in office... in 1991.

Clinton didn't do much of anything with our military. He bombed a few buildings using the Air Force but that's about all I can think of.

On to my own thoughts...

Though I do not care for the Bush Administration, I intensely dislike the apathetic and sickenly PC anti-war/ anti-agression protests by various groups of American people. People say they want answers for 9/11 and we're finding them by aserting ourselves with the possiblity of naked force against those who threaten a repeat performance.

Violence has resolved more issues than any form of diplomacy, simply because it naturally (if violently) picks a winner, be it eventual or sudden.

The fact is, it is our duty not as a country but as a *civilization* to protect ourselves, our future and our economy by any means possible. If this means we must be agressors, so be it. The history books will judge who is right and wrong, as they are written by those left standing.


There is the fine question about why America must police the rest of the world. This is not an easy issue to answer but it is easily solved morally. The fact is, morals are not an absolute. They do not adhere to every civilization or ethnicity; americans have a lovely intolerance for how the middle-eastern world treats it's women. By that single moral implication alone, we are in the right; not that we are right, but that we believe we are right. Is this a contradiction? Yes, but America is about assimilation of culture, not destroying it. To rebuild the moral potholes of another society, one must allow radical reconstruction.

Sometimes the right choice isn't always the most popular choice, keep that in mind.

People believe in "appealing to better natures" or "reaching out to understand". This is incorrect. They were taught that what they, those that support Saddam and Saddam himself, is a way to survive and that if it they do it with success, it must be 'moral'.

In the end, when the guns are to be loaded, why must we deny the Darwinism principal of pain, which has evolved us for the last fourty thousand years? Pain inspires as much fear and obedeance as death or the threat of death. It is that unquantifiable abstract, along with resolution and reactionary thoughts, which brings an end to tyranny.

I know Lehah that you didn't argue everything I'm gonna respond with in this post but it makes better since to do it in one or two posts instead of one for everybody who responded. so if you didn't say it and i make reference I'm not responding to you on that part.


You have just also supported some of my arguements. I never said bush was perfect and stated that he just got people to help him in areas he did not fully understand. But Being a son of many soldiers (my mom, my dad, my grandfather.) (as well as my brother and his wife) I get tired of anti war sentiments. nobody likes war (matter of fact my sister-in-law will have to go to bosnia six months after her child, my brother's son, my nephew is born. so I fear every time I hear my country is going to war that I will lose someone does that mean I won't support the cause hell no. I will support it cause its the right thing to do. I rather wish we could stay out of other contries bisness but that was what led to ww1 and ww2. Clinton put alot of the armies resorces in jeopardy by cutting the spending. and yes economy takes about 8 years to be in full effect (it had been about four to eight years since regan who set up that economy had been in office how many years did clinton spend in office 8 years and he destroyed it on the way out. and am I the only one who remembers that the clinton adminstration vandilized the white house before G.W. Bush took office in 2000?)

 

[DoomsdayPlague]

Originally posted by WildWeasel
Anyone who messes up a basic and common saying like "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" deserves to be made fun of.

tell me you haven't said something stupid. You shouldn't judge a man by his speaking patterns but how a man handles a Crisis. Clinton has responded with a well were gonna send one or two missles and call it a day while cutting back military defense budget. Bush handles the terrorest attacks by imposing a no fly zone reopening with new standards and security. preventing all further attempts made since then and an actual plan of attack and you still make fun of this man who has done every smart action he could take. (I laugh at you for judging a man for making a quote mistake.)

 

[DoomsdayPlague]

Originally posted by RiotAct218
What is this, "My dad can beat up your dad?"
Oh yeah, well MY dad is a superhero from another planet. And he's a robot and a dinosaur. And he saves the world all the time. From you. And your army dad.

whatever. He knows more than I do on the subject and a military man knowing abit more than a civilian would on military tactics(and seeing that you judge a man on what he says and not the action he takes I figured that it would be a good idea to make sure I am absolutely correct on the subject.) (I come up with some good flames but it ain't worth the time.)