Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Visit these great anti-Madonna sites:

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Blog / Site (NEW!)

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Site (site closed as of May 2017)

madonnasuxx's Anti Madonna Site (Internet Archive)

Help us keep ads off our board!



Add us to your bookmarks!
(works in FireFox and Internet Explorer)
Please read the Discussion Board Rules before joining the board!
New Madonna haters: Come introduce yourself!
Board Help & Updates

Stop Forum Spam

  Full List of Emoticons
Avatars
Thread Indexes:

One Stop Index Thread | Persons | Subjects A - L | Subjects M - Z | Aisha's Lawsuit

Life Universe Everything Forum Index

Barf-inducing Madonna links or news -


Flea on Twitter: @fleadip / Link to Flea's Twitter Page | Follow admin Melissa on Twitter @melissatreglia


BREAKING & IMPORTANT MADONNA-RELATED NEWS:

See the "Shout Box" Section at the bottom of the discussion board's main page for the latest anti- Madonna news and links

Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Critical of George W Bush
Topic Started: Dec 19 2005, 09:34 AM (538 Views)
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
Bush makes me gag.... he's one of the biggest morons ever elected into office. It makes me angry when I hear people saying how WONDERFUL he is... this is the same jerk that took us from having a budget surplus to having a HUGE budget deficit. He lied to the whole world so he could send our troops to war in Iraq, without having a defined plan on how to rebuild the country. The thing that peeves me the most is that he blames so much terrorism on Iraq, yet the largest threat to the US (no it's not Hussein, it's still Bin Laden) is nowhere in sight. Isn't it funny how we put so much more manpower on destroying a country that never did anything to us, yet we never used those resources to find and destroy Bin Laden????


What an a**h***...




MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

I never did understand how Hussein is supposedly responsible for 9/11...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Quote:
 
He lied to the whole world so he could send our troops to war in Iraq, without having a defined plan on how to rebuild the country
He didn't lie - the intelligence was incorrect, which wasn't his fault.

Many Democrats supported the war in Iraq initially and also cited the SAME intelligence reports that Bush quoted from and utilized, but some of these same Dems later flip flopped on the issue and withdrew their support when the far left had a cow.

You may enjoy a page by a liberal (a "progressive") who does not like the Bush administration who none-the-less also holds the Democratic Party accountable for Iraq WMD intelligence, and who points out that Democratic President Clinton was not exactly forthcoming with the American people:
The Democrats and Iraqi WMDs: Bush is Right, Sort of… - by Stephen Zunes

Here's an excerpt from that page:
Quote:
 
During the fall of 2002, in an effort to counter the efforts of those of us questioning the Bush administration's WMD claims, congressional Democrats redoubled their efforts to depict Saddam Hussein as a threat to America's national security.

Democrats controlled the Senate at that point and could have blocked President Bush's request for the authority to invade Iraq.

However, in October, the majority of Democratic senators, led by Majority Leader Daschle and assistant Majority leader Harry Reid, voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing on the grounds that Iraq "poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States … by … among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, [and] actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability."
Bush made higher grades in college than Clinton or Gore (or at least Gore, I'd have to double check on Clinton).

George W. Bush graduated from some Ivy League school, yes? He's actually pretty intelligent. He also happens to be a down home country kind of boy, and some of his critics confuse that or mistake it for stupidity.

Give me Bush over Clinton (the immoral, womanizing, perjuring swine and ineffective commander- in- chief) any day!

(You have no idea how much the military hated Clinton. My dad was serving while Slick Willie was in office, and my dad and his colleagues HATED the man, had no respect for him.)

The plan - the Bush administration's plan - was to bring democracy to Iraq, get the Iraqis to form their own govt., and after things stabilized, bring the troops home. Bush has never kept that plan hidden, and it's self-evident, really.

About bringing the troops home from Iraq. Very odd complaint. We still have, after World War 2 is long over, U.S. military staged in Japan, Germany, and I think we still also have troops in Bosnia. It's actually quite normal for us to keep our troops stationed overseas for a long time.

There was another election in Iraq recently. Anyway...

BTW, Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman supports the Iraq war, and Hillary Clinton, who is another Democrat (Senator NY), is (pretending) to support the Bush administration's approach in Iraq.
  • Dec 16, 2005
    Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman recently returned from a visit to Iraq and made himself the toast of Republican Washington by endorsing President Bush's plan for victory. Noting the often-unreported progress -- satellite dishes on rooftops, more cell phones in Iraqi hands-- Lieberman called for America to stay the course. Loss of will at this point, he said, would seize defeat from the coming victory. [Source]

When asked what his plan for Iraq was during a televised debate, Democrat John Kerry said that his plan was on his web site (in other words, he didn't really have a plan, he didn't really have an answer) :laugh: - what an Idiot!
Quote:
 
I never did understand how Hussein is supposedly responsible for 9/11...
I posted links to pages that discussed it, back in the old consp. theory threads. You can hunt down those links, I'm not gonna do it. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
I just love this whole "us versus them" thing. First of all, just because I believe in mostly Democratic viewpoints doesn't mean I vote for all Democratic candidates. It's also laughable to criticize Clinton for being a " immoral, womanizing, perjuring swine and ineffective commander- in- chief" when these same actions happen EVERY day in all sectors of the government, Republican and Democratic alike.


So what if Clintons opposed a war, what the heck does that matter? The whole idea that I need to bow down to every military group's ideas is stupid. There are alot of places in the world our troops SHOULDN'T be. This whole Iraq thing just makes another country we are sending men and women into for no good reason. I don't see us going into Africa to help keep women and children from being killed on a daily basis. Why? You know darn well why, there's no oil there. Seems funny to me that unless we have a economic reason (in our own best interests) we leave other countries alone. Those people don't want us there, it's been shown time and time again. The reason Dems agreed to this in the first place is because they were being fed the same lies that we all were fed. To say that the Congress has the same intelligence as the President is absurd. Bush has more knowledge of what really goes on that anyone else, and he can skew that intelligence to his own advantage. Let's face it Flea... we are all lied to by our government. If you choose to believe the lies when the truth stares you in the face, that's your own fault. There's barely a mention of Bin Laden anymore. I'm guessing you never saw Fahrenheit 9/11 to see the information Michael Moore discussed. Why is the Saudi embassy the ONLY embassy to have Secret Service protection???? And why was the Saudi family allowed to leave the country when even Bush's own father couldn't fly?

School grades mean about as much to me regarding a president as what kind of gum he chews. Honor should mean something, but both sides have shown that's no longer a valued trait. None of these presidents seem to be able to speak without having cards in front of them to read off from, and can't answer a question without an advisor on hand. I don't give two craps about what the military thinks of any presidental candidate. I'm sick to death of spending cuts in education, social programs, and medicare. Every time our government wants to fund something stupid like a needless war or tax cuts for the rich, the poor get screwed first. That makes as much sense to me as these huge companies paying a CEO millions of dollars a year, yet laying off thousands of workers to "save the company money".


It's obvious that Hussein was all talk and no action. He made threats with nothing behind him to back it up. He was trying to be a bully on the world playground, while Hussein ran his mouth about how he'd beat up this person or that person, Bin Laden stood back, plucked kids from the crowd, and tortured them. That's my analogy of the situation. Do we punish the abuser or the loudmouth? Hmm, how did that work out?????


I haven't seen a good political candidate for years now on either side of the fence. It's no wonder voting has such a small turnout, and why the poor don't get involved. Noone cares about them anymore, why should they vote for people that don't care either? Voting the lesser of two evils is what it comes down to. I voted against Bush because he's a two-faced bigot that isn't smart enough to answer his own questions without an advisor. I don't like Kerry either. Noone in politics has impressed me except for the Senator Barack Obama that spoke at Kerry's Democratic nomination. That man I would vote for in a heartbeat. He seems honest, intelligent, and articulate. Most of all, you can tell he speaks from the heart, which is rare these days.




MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

I agree with so much of what you said, MH. BTW, I'm taking the "Pro Conspiracy Theory" sub-heading out because that mainly refers to me; I'm not sure you would want to be identified as such.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ironshadow
#1 mandona hater

Bush wants to turn several major seaports over to a UAE STATE -owned company, which means that they would be under direct control of a foreign nation for the first time in U.S. history, and has threatened to veto any efforts to dismantle the plan. He's lost his mind. There is no rhyme or reason to this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
anshirk
Member Avatar
madonna go away
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
france is not allowing this type of takeover?


http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=62371


France fighting Mittal because he's Indian?

Reuters
Posted online: Friday, February 03, 2006 at 1259 hours IST


Paris, February 3: France's opposition to Mittal Steel's bid for Arcelor is not due to the fact that its owner is Indian-born, Finance Minister Thierry Breton said on Thursday, brushing off alleged French arrogance towards an outsider.



France's conservative government and the Socialist opposition have stepped up rhetoric against steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal's $24 billion bid for Arcelor, sparking criticism by an Indian minister and some commentators.

"This has nothing to do with India or anyone else," Breton told Europe 1 radio. "This is a European company. The nationality of the shareholders has nothing at all to do with this. I appeal to everyone to be reasonable."

France, where more than 26,000 jobs could be affected by a takeover, has condemned the hostile offer for Arcelor -- the product of a three-way merger four years ago between Spain's Aceralia, France's Usinor and Luxembourg's Arbed steel firms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
I'm surprised that Flea hasn't commented on this, since Bush is his boy. We've known for years that Bush has been funded through his life with oil profits and Arab money, this just cinches it for me. There is no good reason why we should let anyone own or control our sea ports. I haven't heard a good arguement yet to sway me to think otherwise. Maybe he's looking for something to happen, so he can start another war and get his approval ratings back up again. Such a slimeball, I wish he and Cheney would just drop off the face of the Earth.





MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
Ironshadow
Feb 21 2006, 10:01 PM
Bush wants to turn several major seaports over to a UAE STATE  -owned company, which means that they would be under direct control of a foreign nation for the first time in U.S. history, and has threatened to veto any efforts to dismantle the plan. He's lost his mind. There is no rhyme or reason to this.

well, that's not entirely correct Ironshadow, from what I heard on the news, a British company controlled the ports prior to this. What I don't understand is why? Why wouldn't we be doing that ourselves, instead of handing it over to some foreign company in the first place? Oh yes... the almighty dollar, especially when it's lining a politicans pocket....

MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tonygirl
Member Avatar


Yes, these ports have already been under foreign control and up until now, no one has cared.
It's not like the ports are being sold to Iraq or Syria anyway. The UAE is VERY Western European/American type of place. Dubai for example is nothing but 5 star hotels and restaurants, and a place where the wealthiest people in the world hang out. They don't have terror attacks because they will not tolerate it, they are a very prosperous, commerce oriented area and don't want 10th century ragheads ruining it.
I am more worried about our lax borders with Mexico than ports being sold, as we didn't even own them to start with. The same people will work and run the ports. But with our borders, who knows who or what is being brought in hidden in cars and semis.
If the UAE really wanted to destroy us, they could have done it by now. They didn't have to spend like 7 or 8 BILLION dollars to buy a port to do so. Besides, no one yelled when Clinton sold them a bunch of F-15 fighter jets...
Regarding the Middle East, our main problem is Iran wanting to start a war with us.
The UAE owns ports all over the world, it is a company that, well, runs ports! If they decided to bomb us, wouldn't it kind of ruin their business in all those other countries all over Europe where they have ports? It doesn't seem like it is in the UAE's interests to spend billions to bomb us and ruin their entire business, countries, economy, etc.
I have met people from all over the Middle East. The Syrians for example, I wouldn't trust for nothing. The people from Qatar, Dubai, those UAE countries are a lot like the Japanes. Very forward thinking and business oriented.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ironshadow
#1 mandona hater

yeah, and the Japanese tried to buy baja from Mexico not that long ago. The British company that had the contract before was privately owned, the one that bought it out (how, was not discussed) is GOVERNMENT owned. Vast difference, and they must not let it go through, period.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tonygirl
Member Avatar


Baja California is owned by someone/a country? I didn't know that one. Wonder why the Japanese wanted it, maybe to put up some companies or hotels? I'm surprised they haven't made us an offer for Hawaii!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
my husband would be PEEVED if Hawaii was ever given up, he wants to go back there badly, but his paranoid wife won't fly or go on a ship, so once teleportation is perfected, that's his only possibility!





MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

maddyhater,
Quote:
 
I'm surprised that Flea hasn't commented on this, since Bush is his boy.
I have stopped worshipping at my Altar Of Dubya long enough to make this post and let you know I'm not a male.

Also to say...

I don't have a strong opinion on this story either way.

On the surface of it, yes, it sounds bad to allow an Arab- / Muslim- based company have any say-so in American ports.

This transaction was first reported several months ago (the port going from British control to UAE control), first in the Times of London (I think) and then in the WSJ, but nobody had a cow about it until now.

I also don't understand the Democratic hypocrisy on this.

They resent any and all implications that "Arab = Terrorist" (or "All Muslims = Potential Terrorists"), and they don't like tax money (or energies or attention) being spent on national security/homeland security issues, but here they are doing these very things, or insisting on these very things.

As Charles Krauthammer put it
  • Congress is up in arms. The Democrats, in particular, are in full cry, gleeful to at last get to the right of George Bush on an issue of national security.

    Gleeful, and shamelessly hypocritical.

    If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my 84-year-old mother.

    Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports.

    (Republicans are howling too, but they don't grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.)

    On this, the Democrats are rank hypocrites.

    .... The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports.

    That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations - and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations - to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaida types.

    That is the danger and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one. It's not quite the end of the world that Democratic and Republican critics have portrayed it to be.

    After all, the UAE, which is run by a friendly regime, manages ports in other countries without any such incidents. Employees in other countries could leak or betray us just as easily. The issue, however, is that they are statistically more likely to be found in the UAE than, for example, in Britain.
Now I will return to my Dubya shrine and burn some incense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
:o with your Republican leanings, you're not a guy??? Say it ain't so!!!!



*laugh*


sorry for any insult I may have caused there Flea....



off to read the rest of your post..




MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Dubai-owned company drops ports plan
  • CAPITOL HILL Congressional critics are pleased that the Dubai-owned company D-P World has abandoned plans to take over operations at six U-S ports.

    .... The surprise announcement yesterday came shortly after congressional Republican leaders told the president that Congress was all but certain to block the deal. President Bush had strongly backed the purchase but expresses satisfaction with the company's decision.
US: DUBAI COMPANY ENDS PORTS ROW WITH TRANSFER TO AMERICAN FIRM

Dubai pulls out of ports contract
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Many of the 9/11 hi-jackers were from Saudi Arabia, and one of their targets was the Pentagon.

Unless I hear a great reason behind this (other than the somewhat vague "it will help the Saudis fight terrorism"), I'm unconvinced this is a good idea:

Pentagon OKs $6 bln in arms sales to Saudi Arabia
  • July 20, 2006
    By Andrea Shalal-Esa

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Thursday it approved the sale to Saudi Arabia of 24 UH-60L Black Hawk helicopters, radios, armoured vehicles and other military equipment worth more than $6 billion (3.25 billion pounds).

    Congress has 30 days to block the sales, although such action is rare.
    ....The agency said in a mandatory notice to Congress that the arms sales would help strengthen Saudi Arabia's military and its ability to help the United States fight terrorism around the world.
But it is true (as I was reminded at a conservative blog) that Arabs are not good militarily, so even given the helicopters and such, they wouldn't be effective at using them.

Then there's this:
  • I've also heard (confirmation would be welcome) that in general, the avionics in military equipment sold to the Saudis are programmed to only function in certain areas, as determined by GPS, and if they get too close to Israel (or certain other places), they stop working. [Source]
-------
Responding to an old post by Maddy Hater (actually, I think I responded to this in another thread - or maybe I'm having deja vu):
maddy hater
 
Every time our government wants to fund something stupid like a needless war or tax cuts for the rich, the poor get screwed first.

1. It's your opinion that the war is "needless." I do not agree that it is "needless."
(I have to wonder if in your view any war is needed or justified.)

2. It is your opinion that the only reason the USA went to Iraq is for economic reasons (when one of the stated reasons among several had to do with fighting terrorism; I don't recall oil being brought up.)

(BTW, I'm not entirely against the USA going to war over oil - I don't regard that as immoral.
In Gulf War 1, Hussein went to war over oil, and our troops went in to stop him; we also went to help the Kurds / Kuwait. You do not want the oil - which all of us are so dependent upon, including you - to fall into the hands of one Middle East dictator who hates the West.)

3. To your party (Democrats) anyone who makes over $30,000 a year is "rich."

BTW - one reason many conservatives are unhappy with George W. Bush is because his administration has been spending funds like a drunken sailor, even out-spending Clinton. Links about it:

- [Regarding Fiscal Policy] Is Bush worse than Clinton?

- How George W. Bush Outspends LBJ

- 'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter
  • But, at the same time, [under the Bush administration] non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent.

    Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively [under George W. Bush].

    .... At the same time, the politicos running the Bush reelection machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the liberals and special interests by throwing money at their every whim and desire.

    In mathematical terms, the administration calculates that satiated conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.

    How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs?

    How else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.

    But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration.

    More importantly, after his [Clinton's] first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent.

    This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.


    Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency.

    From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. ...



More information related to economics/taxes etc.:
Quote:
 
The whole idea that I need to bow down to every military group's ideas is stupid.

What does that even mean? :confused:
maddy hater
 
So what if Clintons opposed a war, what the heck does that matter?

It should be obvious.

My writing is very clear, why do I have to re-word my previous posts?

You're ragging on a Republican administration for sending troops to Iraq, and yet -

1. Bill Clinton - a Democrat - sent our military to Iraq to bomb it during his administration (he also used our military for other campaigns), but I don't believe you've referred to those as "needless" or that you have charged Clinton with doing so for "oil;"

2. Hillary Clinton - a Democrat - supports the war in Iraq (so that she can appear to be a moderate).

John Kerry - Democrat - initially supported our troops being sent to Iraq (as did several other Democratic Congressmen).

I don't believe you've criticized Hillary Clinton or other Democrats who support the Iraq war, or who initially did (but then flip-flopped)

The point is
-(and I shouldn't have to explain it, I think my writing is clear enough)-
you seem critical of how the Republican party uses the military, but apparently you have no words of criticism for how the Democrats (mis)use our military.
maddyhater
 
Honor should mean something, but both sides have shown that's no longer a valued trait.

But in the same post you stated,
Quote:
 
It's also laughable to criticize Clinton for being a " immoral, womanizing, perjuring swine and ineffective commander- in- chief"

Yet in another post, you refer to George W. as being a 'moron' and as being stupid.

Anyhow...
Clinton didn't have any honor. Clinton (on a personal level) is by far the smarmiest, most disgusting puke that's ever been in office. George W. Bush doesn't get blow jobs from 20 year old girls in the oval office - if he does, at least he's smart about not getting caught.

Several women stepped forward to say they were either raped by Clinton or almost raped by him. Clinton is a total perv.

~That you would just brush this aside as "oh, well neither political party has perfect people in it" is. . .

Well, let me explain this to you as I do my sister's liberal boyfriend.

Yes, there are people in both parties who have done or said immoral things.

(Seems to me that most of them are in the Democratic Party or are liberals, however. Look, for example, at the males in the Kennedy family, for one. You have an entire family of career Democrat politicians, most of whom are womanizing, drunken slobs.)

At any rate, I look to the values that each side stands for.

Conservative Democrats aside - Democrats / Liberals stand for and defend values which I find either appalling or unwise, such as (these are just a few):
  • - abortion on demand;

    - legalization of homosexual marriage;

    - taxing the hell out of everyone to pay for entitlement programs;

    - injection of secular humanistic values into the public ~ while
    removing traditional values / Christianity from public spheres, sometimes using the law to do so;

    - being anti-US military / looking for global consensus on issues; at the sign of any trouble, wanting to use the (ineffective) UN first and at every turn;

    - using activist judges to get liberal agendas put into practice after those same agendas have been voted against by the public



It figures that a party which supports all the above (because it caters to the far left) - would approve of immorality and champion crap such as "moral relativity," and multi-culturalism.
Quote:
 
The thing that peeves me the most is that he blames so much terrorism on Iraq, yet the largest threat to the US (no it's not Hussein, it's still Bin Laden) is nowhere in sight. Isn't it funny how we put so much more manpower on destroying a country that never did anything to us, yet we never used those resources to find and destroy Bin Laden????

Uh, maddy hater - Bin Laden was not our only target.

Bush stated in several of his speeches that we are at war against Islamic terrorism, and any nation or group who supports or harbors terrorists, and that includes Iraq, Iran, and others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

For those of you who like to refer to Bush as stupid or moronic, take a look at this thread:
The IQs of Politicians

~~~ EDIT BELOW ~~~

Seeing as how there's some in-fighting among conservatives / Republicans over a few issues, including over George W. Bush's capabilities and so forth, I don't see how anyone can say that Republicans walk in lock-step, are incapable of thinking for themselves, etc.

Here we have an editorial by well-known conservative W. F. Buckley insisting that George W. Bush is not a conservative:

Bush No Conservative
- (it's critical of GWB)

But then, conservative David Limbaugh chimes in with

President Bush is No Neo-Con

~~~~ Sept 1, 2006 EDIT ~~~~

:knock: :bad:

No, no, no. Dubya, do not cave into CAIR!

CAIR, which btw, Bush backs off 'Islamic fascists' [Terminology in Speeches]
-Tones down war rhetoric to appease Muslim groups


Excerpts from article (there are many good links at the bottom of this page, too)
  • President Bush has toned down his war rhetoric after Muslim-rights groups complained his description of the enemy as "Islamic fascists" unfairly equates Islam with terrorism.

    In his speech to the American Legion Thursday, Bush backed away from the term, defining the enemy simply as "fascists" and "totalitarians."

    In a major rhetorical shift, Bush last month began describing the enemy as "Islamic fascists," sparking a firestorm of criticism from Muslim groups.

    The pressure groups, led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, lobbied the president to stop using the term. Washington-based CAIR fired off a letter to Bush arguing that continued use of the "hot-button" term would only harm the image of America "in the Islamic world."
Note to CAIR:
The "Islamic world" has hated the USA before Bush ever used the phrase "Islamo facism," so bite me.

Continuing:
  • Awad warned Bush to choose his words carefully so as not to "start a religious war against Islam and Muslims."
Hey, dilweed, Osama Bin Laden and other Muslims have already stated that they're in a war with the USA, and Muslim leaders try to pass the "war" off as a "religious war" to motivate their underlyings.

So don't hand me this crap that anything Bush says "will" or "might" start a religious war - it's already started, and it's been started by the Islamic side.

Bush needs to stick with the "Islamic facisism" turn of phrase, as that is exactly what we're up against.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

It's too long for me to post in full, so please click the link:
Outrage of the Day

It starts out
  • Absolutely appalling behavior from the Bush administration, as they hand the keys to America’s air transportation system to the agents of a well-known Saudi-funded radical Islamic front group: Singing CAIR’s Tune, On Your Dime.
Please click link above to read the whole thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

As this article touches on several different topics (and it is critical of George W Bush), I wanted to cross post it to different threads in this forum (including this one- obviously).

Pro-Homosexual Media Going Bankrupt - original article

Pro-Homosexual Media Going Bankrupt - article hosted on discussion board


-----
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Global Outlook · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Disclaimer: The contents of the posts contained herein are the sole property of their respective users and do not necessarily reflect the forum's views as a whole.
All content Copyright © 2005-2018 The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.