If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2658
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7586 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2658 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last
 
  2007-04-16 03:50:54 PM
Feel free to discuss anything related to politics or political issues in this thread.

Things you shouldn't feel free to discuss include the following from our commenting guidelines;

Ban talk: Temporary and permanent actions taken by Fark on individual Fark accounts are between the user and Fark, and should never be discussed in threads. ...Ban talk inevitably leans to ban bragging and misinformation, so this is a bright line rule. If you have a question regarding actions taken on your account, please use Farkback... Again: don't discuss bans, banned Farkers, moderation, moderators, admins or anything else related to moderation in the threads.
 
  2007-04-16 03:51:02 PM
Dead Farker Walken: those, and I tried to post, to TotalFark, an article about a woman finding a tag on her couch that said "n*gger-brown" as the colour, and it wasn't allowed. (The headline I put was something like "The color that annoys you - N_gger-brown")
 
  2007-04-16 03:51:08 PM
Let's get this ball rolling... this shooter may not have had the opportunity to kill so many people if just one of the people in the classroom had been armed and had been able to take him out. VT rules prohibit the lawful carrying of a firearm such that the only one who WAS armed was the one hellbent on killing as many people as he could.
 
  2007-04-16 03:51:26 PM
Dead Farker Walken

In any thread about statutory rape or paedophiles or whatever involving teenaged girls, some Farkers will inevitably post a laundry list of amusingly-captioned pics of sluttily-dressed teenaged girls out on the town. Captions include such things as "Jailbait: because the best things in life are illegal" and "Sometimes, it's worth it" and so on. Never any nudity, but a lot of sweaty, high-thonged skimpy dressed trashy teenaged girls.

And they always get censored out.
 
  2007-04-16 03:51:47 PM
Can't talk about bans? lol. I feel like I'm in a commie state.
 
  2007-04-16 03:51:56 PM
I (deleted for content) that (deleted for content)! If we (deleted for content), then only (deleted for content). 22 to 32, maybe more dead?!? (deleted for content)(deleted for content)(deleted for content). It's (deleted for content) situation in (deleted for content). (deleted for content)2nd amend..(deleted for content). And as for the first amend...(deleted for content) (deleted for content) (deleted for content) (deleted for content) (deleted for content) shiat (deleted for content) farking police-sta... (deleted for content).

anyway... in the end only radishes were used and so no one was really hurt, because avoiding talking about it makes it all not real! :)
 
  2007-04-16 03:52:48 PM
MrGumboPants: it's retarded that Fark is moving the gun control debate off the front page.

Well considering that in both threads people who were local to the news event and had access to a farkload more information than national news and can rapidly tell you what was going on in the town or in the media outlets in the towns next door were doing a bang-up job delivering good, early information (and self-correcting when there was an error) to people who were interested... and then you jackasses turned it into a debate about gun control...

Both threads were doing very, very well without gun control and random asinine, uneducated political opinion being interjected into the conversation. And its worth noting that as the threads were hijacked into the gun control debate, the people who were helping most with the information stopped posting.

It's a valid topic of discussion, and you chose the wrong place for it. End of story.
 
  2007-04-16 03:53:06 PM
haha. Moderator. Good one! Funny.
 
  2007-04-16 03:54:47 PM
Maybe we need Class Marshals... like airlines. People trained to use firearms, non-lethal tactics, and when to apply them. No, Arming EVERY person on the campus is not the answer, arming the people on campus with prior training might be. Think how many Iraq vets are getting out and going to college. All have training in escalation of force, some might actually use it.

What about all the infantry men getting out that will probably never hold regular 9-5 jobs. If I had a choice of who to protect any kids I might have, I'd rather have a former soldier patrol campus who's only job is to protect said campus, than a rent a pig or the cop no-one likes so they sent him to the school, handing out parking tickets and busting kids smoking joints....

The Gov. made schools "Gun free zones" Why not call them "death free zones" and do everything in our power to uphold it.
 
  2007-04-16 03:55:04 PM
"this shooter may not have had the opportunity to kill so many people if "

He couldn't have gotten a gun to do it with.

/serve returned!
 
  2007-04-16 03:56:49 PM
Pxtl

In any thread about statutory rape or paedophiles or whatever involving teenaged girls, some Farkers will inevitably post a laundry list of amusingly-captioned pics of sluttily-dressed teenaged girls out on the town. Captions include such things as "Jailbait: because the best things in life are illegal" and "Sometimes, it's worth it" and so on. Never any nudity, but a lot of sweaty, high-thonged skimpy dressed trashy teenaged girls.

And they always get censored out.


Damn. I usually got a good LOL out of some of those.
 
  2007-04-16 03:57:14 PM
"this shooter may not have had the opportunity to kill so many people if "

the Aristocrats!
 
  2007-04-16 03:57:31 PM
Today is a day I would NOT RECOMMEND Fark to anyone I know.

(I usually praise FARK as the greatest site in the world)

If I did that today they would assume I'm an idiot.

So.......gun control.

Why?

WhyTF would we need any gun control?
 
  2007-04-16 03:58:39 PM
If I wanted filtered news I'd go to Fox...
/ Agree with Dubya's_Coke_Dealer
 
  2007-04-16 03:58:43 PM
antisocialite: It's a valid topic of discussion, and you chose the wrong place for it. End of story.

I think if you look at the old thread, you'll see that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Fark moderation should be for NSFW stuff and griefers. Anything beyond that pretty much kills the allure of these threads. End of story!
 
  2007-04-16 03:59:08 PM
MrToast: Fark != respect

The threads had a focus and direction, and gun control assholes hijacked it. In either case, who's the ones being disrespectful?

sailorman_glh: Well, I won't be re-upping for TotalFark when my subscription expires. I won't pay good money to be censored by an overly sensitive moderator.

My reasons are as stated above. Therefore, bye.

mmm... pancake: Let's get this ball rolling...

My post above. If the shooter illegally obtained his guns, then everyone who's arguing pro-gun has a damnably good point. Otherwise, you have to believe a gun control law here or there would have made a difference in the other direction.
 
  2007-04-16 04:03:50 PM
antisocialite

See ya, asshat!!
 
  2007-04-16 04:04:13 PM
funny... you'd think with every farker and their farker's farker yammering on about gun control, we'd see more people posting here...

strange...
 
  2007-04-16 04:05:10 PM
MrGumboPants: I think if you look at the old thread, you'll see that I'm not the only one who feels this way.

To be fair, ordinarily I'm on your side of the matter. I dislike intensely some things done in the spirit of moderation, but these threads I've watched and been actively involved with all day, there was good stuff being discussed about the situation from people IN Blacksburg about what was going down. And I don't think its a coincidence that they stopped posting when the gun control issue was shoehorned into the thread.

I don't think the discussion was added to by talking about gun control. I think its a hell of an appropriate topic right now, but those threads had purpose and meaning and I'm sure was doing some people a lot of good. And now they're not. And the people here biatching are largely at fault for that, I believe.

Are you all right to talk about it? Absolutely. Were those threads the place to do it? Absolutely not.
 
  2007-04-16 04:05:48 PM
we dropped this thread on the main page for it, too.
 
  2007-04-16 04:10:47 PM
I'm not about to say that more guns would have prevented this. However, I think that with 200 million guns in private hands that the genie is out of the bottle. Turning the entire US into a giant unarmed victim zone is not going to be the answer.

I'm actually ok with a more strenuous background check to have the my guns. I'm pretty sure I got put through the wringer pretty good to get my C&R FFL. However, the number of straw purchases that go on right now is WAY too high. I would like to see us enforce the crap out of the laws we already have. They're already supposed to screen out all the criminals.
 
  2007-04-16 04:13:08 PM
WWJBD?
 
  2007-04-16 05:35:16 PM
antisocialite: So kids, gun control. Here's what the deal is

Guns should be kept out of the hands of the mentally ill.
 
  2007-04-16 08:44:50 PM
Just because you have a right to own a gun doesn't mean it cannot be regulated. States have a legitimate interest in regulating gun ownership however the people of those states see fit.

What I have always found interesting is what I see to be a disproportionate demographic of anti-gun control people (and veritable gun nuts) on Fark. I always thought gun control was a 50/50 issue like abortion, i.e. there's a mainly equal split amongst the country on either side of the debate. On Fark however, there seems to be a hugely disproportionate amount of people who are either avidly pro-gun ownership or just downright crazy about their guns. In other areas, Fark always seemed to have a more liberal tilt or at least more accurately represent the usual demographic split.

I wasn't reading the VTech threads today though, so I could be wrong. Just a general comment.
 
  2007-04-17 08:21:52 PM
GUNS:

First: even with stronger gun laws there would be no way to know if this terrible loss of life wouldn't have happened.

Second: if someone could have legally carried a gun there is a chance that there wouldn't have been over 30 people dead.

Finally: this nut is who killed all these people. The gun he used didn't.
 
  2007-04-18 12:37:50 AM
dottedmint: if someone could have legally carried a gun there is a chance that there wouldn't have been over 30 people dead.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm leaning towards "that only happens in the movies" on that one.

I'm really not a big fan of vigilante justice. If law enforcement were willing to deputize people who get concealed weapons permits, I'd be more supportive of your idea. But seeing as how this is an isolated incident involving someone who shouldn't have had a gun in the first place, I don't feel comfortable changing the system.

And I certainly don't feel comfortable with guns being prevalent in a public place like a university. Totally on the honor system: no metal detectors, but...

Leave your guns at home. Hit the books, get a degree.
 
  2007-04-18 06:59:17 AM
Whidbey: Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm leaning towards "that only happens in the movies" on that one.

Actually a couple of years ago a shooting was ended by someone else having a gun. I am rather certain it was at some university but I don't recall the specifics. In any case the fact that someone else had a gun made things better.

But seeing as how this is an isolated incident involving someone who shouldn't have had a gun in the first place, I don't feel comfortable changing the system.

He shouldn't have had a gun THERE but why should he not have had a gun? What changes in the laws could have prevented this?

And I certainly don't feel comfortable with guns being prevalent in a public place like a university. Totally on the honor system: no metal detectors, but...

I would feel more comfortable knowing that people who are trained and have a permit could legally carry a gun instead of knowing that the only people who could have a gun are those who carry one illegally.
 
  2007-04-18 01:49:07 PM
dottedmint: Actually a couple of years ago a shooting was ended by someone else having a gun. I am rather certain it was at some university but I don't recall the specifics. In any case the fact that someone else had a gun made things better.

It was at Appalachian Law School in West Virginia. The student's weren't packing though, they had guns in their cars which they retrieved to subdue the shooter. One was also an off-duty cop.

If people are going to have concealed weapons, they better be well trained and mentally stable. I'd prefer a society where people are ethical because they are well grounded individuals, as opposed to paranoid that the next guy will shoot them.
 
  2007-04-18 09:40:25 PM
C-S: It was at Appalachian Law School in West Virginia. The student's weren't packing though, they had guns in their cars which they retrieved to subdue the shooter. One was also an off-duty cop.

Thanks. I couldn't remember the exact details of that case. Even if they had to go get their guns one can't help but wonder what would have happened if they didn't have guns.

"If people are going to have concealed weapons, they better be well trained and mentally stable."

I agree. I also don't know of anyone who has a permit for a concealed weapon who has ever misused their weapon.


"I'd prefer a society where people are ethical because they are well grounded individuals, as opposed to paranoid that the next guy will shoot them."

I would too but that is not the world we live in as what happened in VT shows.
 
  2007-04-23 07:43:08 AM
img138.imageshack.us
 
  2007-04-25 04:48:58 PM
Am I missing a thread on Rice's subpoena?


I didn't see one with more than 2 comments.
 
  2007-04-26 12:09:43 AM
Bush should tell the Democrats that they can stick their subpoena up their @ss.

The Democrats are abusing their powers and putting this country at risk.
 
  2007-04-26 03:19:44 AM
Much like the Republicans abused their power over whether or not someone wanted to admit to a blowjob.
If you said that's not the same, you're right! Because getting a blowjob is good for everyone, and continuing to devastate a country under false pretenses is quite the opposite.
Why don't you educate yourself about Al Qaeda? That'll be a good place to start.
Also, if you've not been keeping up with the news, Cheney's still spouting his war mongering propaganda, falsities about terrorist connections and sectarian violence. That'd be the second thing for you to educate yourself about - the lack of sectarian violence (Robert Fisk has covered this extensively).
Also, I think you might want to consider that the president works for his country, and when the president farks up, the president gets fired - just like you would if you mis-prepared a Big Mac.
Check this out: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm

ignorant ignor-
ant ignorant ignore jack
ass Americans
 
  2007-04-26 07:50:23 AM
Cloudy: Much like the Republicans abused their power over whether or not someone wanted to admit to a blowjob.

Clinton got introuble for lying under OATH. Not getting a BJ.

and continuing to devastate a country under false pretenses is quite the opposite.

Bush did not lie about Iraq. We made choices based on what we thought was true. Some of it may or may not have been true.

Why don't you educate yourself about Al Qaeda? That'll be a good place to start.

Like the fact that Al Qaeda has taken credit for killing US soliders in Iraq.

Al Qaeda IS in Iraq.

Also, if you've not been keeping up with the news, Cheney's still spouting his war mongering propaganda, falsities about terrorist connections and sectarian violence.

What has Cheney said that isn't true?

Also, I think you might want to consider that the president works for his country, and when the president farks up, the president gets fired

Bush has not done anything that is impeachable. I know the conspiracy nuts think he has but NO.
 
  2007-04-26 08:37:27 AM
Someone is delusional.
 
  2007-04-26 03:53:41 PM
dottedmint: Bush did not lie about Iraq.

* Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.
* Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.
* Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet (pops)]
* Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [CNN (pops)]
* Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ABC (pops)] [ZNet] [CNN (pops)] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]
* Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents (pops), plagiarized student papers (pops), and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (pops).
* Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost (pops)] [ABC]


From ImpeachBush.tv. I took the time to link all the sources for your reading pleasure. Bush die lie, the evidence is all there. The democrats are simply too spineless to do anything about it.

The level of criminality, deceit, and lies coming out of this administration is despicable and is reminiscent of the Nixon era. At least Nixon's problem was only arrogance, not lack of intelligence as well. We as a country have taken a giant step backward in the past seven years.

BTW: Owing to the new layout, when I preview my comment the ads cover up half the text and the "add comment" button so I am unable to preview this before posting. So, hopefully all the links work but if they don't I will happy to repost them for you or anyone else.
 
  2007-04-26 03:59:38 PM
The first Lie was not sourced properly.

Here (pops)is a link. Google "forged Uranium Niger" and there will be articles a plenty as well.
 
  2007-04-26 10:04:15 PM
C-S: * Lie #1 - Uranium from Niger - Bush said "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." in his State of the Union Address. The documents supporting that statement were forged.

That is not a "lie". Bush stated what another government claimed.

* Lie #2 - Iraq and 9/11 - Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.

Bush never said that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

* Lie #3 - Congress Knew - Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress. [ZNet (pops)]

There are several quotes from Bill Clinton and Al Gore that say the same thing that Bush said. The claims made about Saddam were not new.

* Lie #4 - Aluminum Tubes - Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [CNN (pops)]

Your link does not support your claim.

* Lie #5 - Iraq and Al Qaeda - Bush still insists that there was a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But the 9/11 Commission released a report saying, among other things, that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The nature of the relationship seems to be that Al Qaeda asked for help and Iraq refused. Al Qaeda was opposed to Saddam Hussein because Saddam led a secular government instead of an Islamic government. [ABC (pops)] [ZNet] [CNN (pops)] On 9/8/06 a Senate panel reported there was no relationship. [ABC]

The 9/11 commission was looking at 9/11. Bush never said Saddam was linked to 9/11. Also alot of the evidence is inconclusive at best.


* Lie #6 - Weapons of Mass Destruction - Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents (pops), plagiarized student papers (pops), and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (pops).

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002



* Lie #7 - Mobile Weapons Labs - Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost (pops)] [ABC]

These were found after we were already in Iraq. This was not a lie that led us to Iraq. Your link said that the report was sent to DC just a couple of days before Bush made his speech. Did Bush see/know about this finding? If Bush did not know about this finding it is not a lie.

BTW: Owing to the new layout, when I preview my comment the ads cover up half the text and the "add comment" button so I am unable to preview this before posting. So, hopefully all the links work but if they don't I will happy to repost them for you or anyone else.

For the record I'm not exactly thrilled with the new layout....
 
  2007-04-27 03:02:57 PM
dottedmint

I will respond to your comment when I can, I am in the midst of law school finals and want to give your comment the time it's due. So, excuse the delay.
 
  2007-04-27 07:42:45 PM
To C-S:

Good luck with your finals......
 
  2007-04-27 11:19:33 PM
Bush never said that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

Dottedmint, I don't know how many times I've told you this, but I'm going to tell you again right now: Having sex with sheep is not a good thing to do. It's my wish that you NOT have sex with any sheep. I don't like you. I don't like people who have sex with sheep. Having sex a sheep is a dirty and disgusting thing, just like you.

-Nick
 
  2007-04-27 11:20:08 PM
p.s. I never said that you have sex with sheep.
 
  2007-04-28 07:43:58 AM
NICK

ROLMAO......

I know that you did NOT say I have sex with sheep. This is good because I NEVER have and ...well... NEVER will have sex with sheep.

I am smart enough to actually read what you post and correctly interpret your words.

Unfortunately there are people in this country who are NOT smart enough to interpret what Bush has said.

They are so F@CKING stupid that they think Bush has blamed Saddam for 9/11.

Bush NEVER said Saddam was involved in 9/11. You will never find a quote from Bush that blames Saddam for 9/11. Unless of course you make it up.....

It is not Bush's fault that there are people who are too STUPID to actually listen to what he said.

It is a LIE for people to say Bush blamed Saddam for 9/11...
 
  2007-04-28 11:43:41 AM
Am I missing the Randall Tobias thread?
 
  2007-04-28 12:29:32 PM
dottedmint: It is not Bush's fault that there are people who are too STUPID to actually listen to what he said.

It is a LIE for people to say Bush blamed Saddam for 9/11...


Rather than STUPID, I would describe the 70 percenters as IGNORANT, since many supposedly intelligent people believed the wholesale marketing job performed by this Administration and their lackeys.
 
  2007-04-28 01:45:55 PM
Stupid or Ignorant ........

In either case Bush did NOT blame Saddam for 9/11.
 
  2007-04-28 01:56:59 PM
I have not read or heard anyone saying that Saddam masterminded or directly had something to do with 9/11. I think you're stating it like that on purpose. You can't honestly say that this administration didn't do everything in their power to link Saddam to Al Qaeda thus involving him with 9/11.
 
  2007-04-28 11:04:10 PM
"You can't honestly say that this administration didn't do everything in their power to link Saddam to Al Qaeda thus involving him with 9/11."

There is a HUGE difference between saying Saddam had links with Al Qaeda and saying Saddam was involved with 9/11.

It is completely possible to say Saddam had links with Al Qaeda but was not involved with 9/11.

It is only the STUPID or IGNORANT that thinks Bush said Saddam was involved with 9/11.
 
  2007-04-30 04:55:12 PM
dottedmint: Bush NEVER said Saddam was involved in 9/11. You will never find a quote from Bush that blames Saddam for 9/11. Unless of course you make it up.....

The issue isn't whether he said Saddam caused 9/11. The issue is whether Bush used 9/11 as part of his justification for invading Iraq.

Bush said in his address to a joint session of Congress following 9/11:

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

from here. (pops)

Then, in the War Resolution of 2002: (p)

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

I challenge you to find any real evidence to support this. And don't go crying "bad intelligence," this doesn't get our leaders off the hook.

It is not Bush's fault that there are people who are too STUPID to actually listen to what he said.

The inference is clear that Bush believed that the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq justified invasion.

It is a LIE for people to say Bush blamed Saddam for 9/11...

Bush lied to the American people about the reasons for invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to the United States, and the subsequent actions led to the deaths of over 600,000 people.

For nothing.

Cheney should be impeached, then Bush, as an example to future Presidents who take it upon themselves to abuse their powers. I really don't understand why you continue to support this government's policy.
 
  2007-04-30 07:47:33 PM
whidbey: I really don't understand why you continue to support this government's policy.

Agreed. People who try to argue that Bush and/or Cheney et.al. didn't mislead us into Iraq, against overwhelming proof, must be ignorant because they can't be that farking stupid.
 
Displayed 50 of 2658 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report