Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65116] |
Wed, 04 February 2004 21:40   |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Ahh, the second amendment? That's just an ancient amendment made way back when the country was very, very different, and America was still a fledgling country and was still under threat from invasion. Nowadays, the only reason anyone needs a gun in their home is for hunting, there is very little reason to have a gun in one's home for personal defence. You're about 30 times more likely to shoot a family member than a robber. Although, one of the big reasons I don't like the NRA [they definitly sponsor the second amendment] is because they are so crooked when they come to politics. They bribe people left and right to keep the second amendment alive.
|
Sorry to make this so blatantly obvious, but it's in the fucking BILL OF RIGHTS. If you can take that out, you can alter any of the first 10, something which has not been done for 200+ years, and should never be done. Anything that's in the Bill of Rights is one of the ideas that the USA was founded on; those ten amendments are separated from the rest for a good reason: they weren't meant to be changed. Some argue that the National Guard is the militia mentioned in the second amendment, but a militia is a civil force not under governmental control, and the National Guard can be federalized by the president. The entire purpose of that amendment was to allow the average citizen to keep a weapon in their home in case things got out of hand, so they could organize with other armed citizens.
And about the space program- at least Bush is giving attention to it. Clinton, as I said before, cancelled the Shuttle replacement. Bush's new programs, if their aim is the moon, will get us a new spacecraft at least, something which is sorely needed after two deadly failures of the current design. Even if it doesn't push all the way to the moon, we can at least work on getting in and out of orbit without killing our crews. All that aside, If you're looking for a hubble replacement, there's no better place than the moon- an orbit which will never decay, one side always facing away from the Earth, and the possibility of storing spare components on site(which means fewer trips to fix it). A moon base would provide a safer launch point for probes going to Mars and other parts of the Solar System, with no risk of bad weather to impede launches. Materials could be ferried up and probes could be assembled in sterile environments at the launch site. Neither of those would require a human to ever set foot in space. Sounds idealistic, but it's possible with today's technology.
Bush is the only one pushing for those two issues, and the only one who openly says he will not abandon the war on terror. Clark is probably the safest bet for a middle-fo-the-road candidate-he would probably see the war in Iraq through, and being a former general would know a few things more than Bush about what to do there- but he's made himself too ambiguous to be worth the risk. Dean would abandon Iraq and Afghanistan entirely, which would absolutely ruin the US' credibility(as if it weren't bad enough already). Kerry is rather aggressive in his campaigning, which probably means he would be somewhat of an extreme left president(that's all well and good for the democratic primaries, but no republican would ever vote for him).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65128] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 00:47 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Look, here's what it's really all about. Our Constitution gives the government 19 responsibilities. The cost for these is $700 billion per year. However, the government is taking $2.4 trillion per year in taxes. Giving themselves responsibilities not originally granted to them in the Constitution. They get away with this by pitting right against left, conservative vs liberal, white vs black, east vs west... you get the idea.
How does a pickpocket operate? He distracts you so he can take your wallet. He might bump into you, drop something, have some woman "accidentally" flash her tits... he distracts you while he takes your money. That's what the government does to us.
| The Constitution |
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
|
Establishes the IRS. All citizens taxed the same regardless of state.
| Quote: |
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
|
Part of the US Treasury, issuing bonds, etc.
| Quote: |
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
|
Self-explanatory
| Quote: |
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
|
I don't see how these two duties are lumped into one phrase, but ok...
| Quote: |
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
|
US Mint
| Quote: |
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
|
Self-explanatory
| Quote: |
To establish post offices and post roads;
|
Self-explanatory
| Quote: |
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
|
Copyrights and patents
| Quote: |
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
|
Lower courts, as in state courts and superior courts.
| Quote: |
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
|
I would interpret this within our obligation in foreign affairs, such as Iraq, but I could be wrong.
| Quote: |
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
|
All self-explanatory
| Quote: |
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
|
All those duties above are it. $700 billion. Nowhere in there was the government supposed to support the lazy non-working folks, and the people with one leg shorter than the other.
That's what makes a Constitutionalist over a Republican or a Democrat.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65168] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 14:26 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
ok firstly nuke, the bill of rights was an amendment to the constitution (not that its that big of a deal or anything) which makes part of the constitution. secondly whow could you say clark and kerry would be bad for you guys????? the republicans are pushing clark as much as they can why? because about two weeks before clark decided to run he made a little "decision" CLARK WAS REPUBLICAN HIS ENTIRE LIFE UP UNTIL TWO WEEKS BEFORE HE STARTED TO RUN!!! secondly kerry has voted on 5/6 of all of bush's stupid plans (patriot act, iraq) you are crazy if you think he would be deep left!
crimson- about your poster . . . firstly almost all of the "facts" said "alleged" or "allegedally" which doesnt really make them "facts" now does it? secondly a lot of them were either about random things that didnt make any sense, or werent even or just plain irrelevant. also i think i have a better definition of CONSTITUTIONALIST, even though yours was pretty god
CONSTITUTIONALIST- n (con-sti-tu-tion-a-list) greedy asshole who thinks he can impose on anyones business whenever and wherever he feels like, also known to care only about his/her self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65171] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 14:45 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| "Nodbugger" |
The governments job is to interfere with the people. Otherwise they wouldn't be a government.
|
the shit would really hit the fan if nodbugger ever became president
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65176] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 15:52 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Nodbugger, let me say this in the simplest way possible - YOU-DO-NOT-KNOW-ANYTHING-ABOUT-POLITICS-OR-THE-ECONOMY.
What in the hell are you talking about, the government is supposed to interfere with people? Just because you have some crappy book that says this doesn't mean it's true. If it's a school textbook, that doesn't make it true. The government is supposed to keep a country in order, not interfere with the people. If the U.S. didn't have a government, I suppose you would think that it would be a better place. [in fact, there wouldn't even be a U.S. for 5 days if it didn't have a government] But then you would be a dimwit.
And Crimson, about your poster, I was right in saying that you should flush it down the toilet earlier, in that it's just a big wad of crap. Most of those Whatever-gates start with "Allegedly,..." Anything with this in front of it is a lie someone threw into the news without having any standing behind it. Here's something: Allegedly, Westwood studios is cloning an army of super-human lawyers to kill EA and take back control of their company. B.S.? Yes. Just like your poster. That whole Whitewatergate whatever thing was just stupid. All you said was that it happened. I guess details aren't really very important when it comes to making up incredibly stupid lies. You know how I was saying to use real numbers instead of your opinions earlier in this thread? This is decidedly NOT what I was talking about. If you're going to type up more of this trash, please skip over anything that has "allegedly" in it. You know, I was actually hoping for something a bit better than this that would actually make me look at it and think. But this is just garbage.
Java, will you please stop saying random things about how good Canada is? Although, Canada's health care system owns up on America's. And you would be right in that Canadian Prime Minister > Bush [either one] Uh, but America has more ICBMs. A lot more. 
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65178] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 15:55 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Llama Man 451 |
crimson- about your poster . . . firstly almost all of the "facts" said "alleged" or "allegedally" which doesnt really make them "facts" now does it? secondly a lot of them were either about random things that didnt make any sense, or werent even or just plain irrelevant. also i think i have a better definition of CONSTITUTIONALIST, even though yours was pretty god
CONSTITUTIONALIST- n (con-sti-tu-tion-a-list) greedy asshole who thinks he can impose on anyones business whenever and wherever he feels like, also known to care only about his/her self.
|
LOL - he had to use "allegedly" wherever he didn't have complete proof that the event took place. It's a word you have to use to avoid being sued for libel or slander. I'm sure you don't have quite so many "allegedly"s tied to your past. And this is only a tiny part of all the information on there. Actually, I should have bet money that you'd jump on the "allegedly" and not think about what you've read.
Your insult of the Constitution is blatantly rude and ignorant. To insult the very document that this nation was founded on and has operated under for over 200 years is not only ignorant, but practically treasonous! But mostly ignorant.
I'm the bawss.
[Updated on: Thu, 05 February 2004 15:59] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65183] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 16:31 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
crimson i bet you think you are real clever with the whole bunch of you have to use alleged crap. notice you also said you had to say alleged when he had no proof . . . . MORON DUUUUUUUUHHHH!!!!!!!!
as for you nodbugger, if your idea of simply "interfearing" is making all background checks on anyone of a different race, looking at books youbought or got from a library, and throwing you in jail with no trial, then i guess interferring isn;t a very good thing. thank God the fuckin patriot act is gonna go away. crimson didnt you mention something about following the constitution??? jackass
[Updated on: Thu, 05 February 2004 16:33] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65185] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 16:38 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
LOL - he had to use "allegedly" wherever he didn't have complete proof that the event took place. It's a word you have to use to avoid being sued for libel or slander. I'm sure you don't have quite so many "allegedly"s tied to your past. And this is only a tiny part of all the information on there. Actually, I should have bet money that you'd jump on the "allegedly" and not think about what you've read.
Your insult of the Constitution is blatantly rude and ignorant. To insult the very document that this nation was founded on and has operated under for over 200 years is not only ignorant, but practically treasonous! But mostly ignorant.
|
He had to use "allegedly" because there is no truth behind any of it. If there was, he wouldn't need said word. Also, he probably would have given some sources instead of writing down his opinions. You know what Whitewater was? Complete baloney. The Clintons got involved in a small real estate deal that they never got profit from, and conservatives turned it into a big scandal. What followed was a 40 million dollar investigation of what Clinton did, and they NEVER FOUND A GOD DAMN THING. Instead of telling me to comprehend what I read before I say something, which I did, I'm going to tell you to open your eyes before you believe something. Because you obviously took the first hint you got about this "Whitewater" crap.
Ahh, Nodbugger, your incomprehension is so glaring this time. [just like all the others] I NEVER said that the president was elected by a popular vote. Maybe YOU should go back to 4th grade and re-learn reading comprehension. And no, across the board tax cuts are not unfair to people. Bush's tax cuts were NOT a flat percent. And since they weren't, why did he lie about the vast majority of the help going to those at the bottom? Because uninformed people like you are willing to believe him.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Thu, 05 February 2004 16:47] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65188] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 16:56 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
NODBUGGER HAVE YOU READ ANY OF THE THREAD SUPERFLYINGENGL HAS GIVEN SO MANY STATISTICS AND NUMBERS IT MAKE MY HEAD SPIN duh!!! as for giving crimson the idea of kicking him off your just upset because you know superfly can shove every lie you believe right back in your fac with the truth! does it just suck being you??
for another thing everyone got like 300$ moron so its impossible to say most went to the poor when the most are considered middle class forget 4th grade your hopeless but keep posting stuff you just crack me up
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65189] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 16:58 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
When did I ever say I would rather have Gore as president? What's that? Never? Oh yeah. Don't say something if you don't have anything to stand behind when it comes back to you. It's apparent that you don't because you didn't say why you think I would want Gore as president.
If you know so much about residential tax cuts and how they work, then what are they? Hmm?
Bush did lie, you are just....not.....listening. Bush promised America in a campaign speech that the "vast majority of the help will go to those at the bottom." This is a direct quote. And when Bush's tax cuts roll around, the bottom 60 percent got 14.7 percent of the help. He didn't lie? My ass he didn't. And now you're telling me to go back to 4th grade?
Here's a nice little site to look through so you can find some more lies Bush has thrown around. http://www.bushwatch.com
No, I never got ANY of my facts from bushsucks.com.
I find it amusing that you want me banned from these forums because of your opinions that are not supported by any real facts other than more of your opinions. You can't prove a point without having something substantiating behind it.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65200] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 18:02 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
1. How would leaving Saddam in power promote Peace in the middle east?
2. Do you agree Saddam needed to be dealt with?
3. If not for war, what other way could we remove Saddam from power?
these questions are really easy to answer nodbugger
1. ok saddam was not having an effect on all of the middle east theis whole israel pakistan thing is having adverse effects as well. secondly no, it wouldnt, which is what both superfly and i said earlier in the thread.
also you might not forget that the US supplied saddam with missles and weapons and we were his ally for quite awhil
2. yes i do agree saddam needed to be dealt with, but a full blown war which would send us into a 356 million dollar or something debt is definately not the way we should hae handeled it.
3. ok looking for someon with troops and looking for someone with troops while blowing everything up are completely different things the war did not help find saddam at all we did blow up things "and kill him" several times. in fact we were able to blow up a restarant "he was in" and OOPS WE KILLED 200 PEOPLE OUR BAD! also the CIA came out and admitted today that they had told th Bush Administration countless times that they had no real intelligence and they had no one on location with reliable infromation however bush continued to lie about WMD's which he is currently saying he never said. unfortunately, you probably didnt see that because im pretty sure they didnt show it on FOX nes. in conclusion we did not have to kill innocent Iraquis and Americans in order to get Saddam for false premises that ware now proven to be inaccurate and unreliable before we should determine anything we should have gotten secret trained professionals over there to figure out what was goin on
oh and by the way did you ever take into consideration that youve never heard anyone answer these questions maybe it was becasue you dont take anyone elses point of view into acount and would probably have had a tantrum and/or have run away screaming before they had a chance to answer
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65201] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 18:05 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
ok i do respond cohereantly crimson just because you are so megalomaniacal and easy to disprove doesnt mean you have to piss yourself, christ
in response to this:
Llama Man, seriously... until you start posting like a rational, thinking human being, I'm not going to even respond to your blathering.
YOU JUST MAD CAUSE . . . TONIGHT YOU SUCKAHS GOT SERVED!!!!
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65203] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 18:14 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/05/tenet.transcript.ap/index.html
In Tenet's speech, you are inferring that he meant "we kept telling Bush that Saddam wasn't anything to worry about". You are dead wrong. All he said was "we didn't say he was an imminent threat". That doesn't mean he wasn't one.
| Tenet |
Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it.
|
One can only wonder how much more we would have known, had Clinton not cut our military in half after Reagan built it up.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65204] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 18:21 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
U.S. Navy Capt. Ouimette is the XO of NAS, Pensacola. Here is a copy of the speech he gave earlier this month. A wonderful and accurate account of why we are in trouble today.
America WAKE UP!
That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next 23 years.
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Viet Nam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and downsized / right sized since the end of the Viet Nam war. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnaped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war…the Wake Up alarm is louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.
The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision, they kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979. The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.
America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."
Thank you very much.
Dan Ouimette
Pensacola Civitan
19 Feb 2003
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #65205] |
Thu, 05 February 2004 18:23 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| Llama Man 451 |
ok i do respond cohereantly crimson just because you are so megalomaniacal and easy to disprove doesnt mean you have to piss yourself, christ
in response to this:
Llama Man, seriously... until you start posting like a rational, thinking human being, I'm not going to even respond to your blathering.
YOU JUST MAD CAUSE . . . TONIGHT YOU SUCKAHS GOT SERVED!!!!
|
Hey, if I'm so easy to disprove, then disprove the numbers from the IRS, eh? Instead of resulting to insulting me, a pathetic ad hominem tactic.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jul 02 20:51:30 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01348 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
