That said...who wants to spend 2 hours of their life watching a movie about some person you couldn't care less about?

The right will hate this movie and will take every chance they can to attack this movie like it's about their own family.

The left and most independents will not want to waste their time.

Only the far left fringe (i.e. people who love Lil' Bush) will pay to see this in the theater.

The public let him get away with the election scandal in Florida, RE-ELECTED the son of a bitch, and have stood by hoping the economy holds up while this asshole puts us right in the toilet. Why should he care? He'll be OK at the end of it all.

As an American, I think we've lived in excess far too long. We've bought too much, charged too much, consumed too much, and let other people do too much thinking for us.

We deserve anything that happens to us at this point.

Get a pair and start doing something about it. Your attitude sickens me.

Why should we believe this will be any better than his Nixon or anything else he's made in tha last ten years? Sure, Bush is a fucking disgrace and a goofball, but Stone is ripe for this same style of heckling satire. I think part of the reason Stone was drawn to this story is because it's not so very different from his own biography of a narcissistic Baby Boomer's rise to power and the decadent excesses and failures that followed.

The People that saw Dark Knight: 100%

Of that 100%, who would want to see "W"?

50%: Republicans who are outraged and wouldn't see it.

25%: Democrats who really don't give a damn since Dubya is only going to be in office for another couple months, thus don't want to dish out the money to see this.

25%: Far Left that take great joy in laughing at an easy to laugh at President.

So, only 25% (being generous here) of the folks that flocked to see Dark Knight would even entertain the idea of watching W.

Also, I really don't see why Republicans would get so uptight about this. Bush has already shown that he has the balls necessary to stomach all of this shit that has been thrown at him throughout the past eight years. Republicans can take a "joke."

Let's see a cartoon or a movie lampooning Obama. Five bucks says that Liberals would be foaming at the mouth and that the Lampooner would be called a racist.

Obama isn't even president yet and he plays the victim any time something comes out making fun of him. Hussein, The Ears, the "Uhs", his followers that believe he is the Messiah, his "anti-American" wife, his "anti-Troops" mentality. Anytime a joke was made, he acted horribly. Contrast that with Bush...

Kind of like how when someone takes a REALLY stinky shit in the bathroom at work, the smell seems to linger for hours. Kind of like that?

The worst part is that the America you've know since the 1980's is done. We will see the recession hit near-depression levels. People owe too much and cannot pay. There are tent cities emerging in nearly every major city in America. Banks are collapsing. There will be no "New Deal". Sit back and watch the corporations tumble, because there will be no one that can buy their shit anymore.

And the person that would rather see W over TDK would probably fall into that "25% Far Left" category. Just a guess.

I'd make a Jason Statham movie!

Oh, and there are jerk like me that enjoy getting the calls. I see how long I can waste their time before they hang up. The best is, "Hold on a sec while I turn down the TV". Then I just leave the phone until they hang up. One poor soul lasted five minutes while I looked at porn on the internet. He hung up after I started playing clips and holding the receiver to the computer speaker.

If it just so happens that it doesn't all turn to shit, that doesn't mean Bush was some grand visionary genius. The Iraq war was unprovoked and unjustified.

A. Cowboy hats are for ass holes.

Stone isn't stupid enough to make shit up so some of the more embarrassing but well documented things Bush has done will be ignored by the Loyal Bushies in favour of challenging the veracity of every utterance that can't be backed up with a transcript.

Those interested in the Moive are beginning to see what it will "feel" like and a Travelogue of Dubya from youth to War seems to be the name of the game.

None of the actors look terrible. There is a rematkable story to be told. And it doesn't look like thre was any skimping on the period and set detail.

It looks promising. But to say more than that at this stage would be unwarranted.

Blow jobs and fucking campaign workers don't get people killed. There's no parallel. Make fun of Haircut Edwards all you want, but the only people you can hold accountable for the shithole that we're all in now is the Bushies.

"Have I thought about a low-interest credit card from Chase Manhattan Bank? Ummmm, wellll, sort of... uhhh. Hmmm. Wellll, I guess....uhhhh... kind of- well, a little maybe, I mean, uhhhhh......if you mean uhhhhh..." (etc, etc.)

Now go feed Lord Rush some more of his happy pills or shove something up King O'Reilly's arse. I hear he likes that sort of thing. They have him on tape saying so.

I guess I just don't see the point of this movie. If you don't like Bush, you have all ready heard all of these facts and/or rumors. If you like him, you'll think it's at 50% fictional. What is the point, Ollie?

And Stone seems to have included an extra added bonus of being able to say, "GHW Bush was evil, too." But really folks, if there was an election between Daddy Bush and Lil' Bush, I'd still take Daddy in a minute.

In fact, I have the feeling you could make an interesting movie about ANY president. Any man's rise to the office of the presidency has to be somewhat interesting. I wanna see: "An Oliver Stone Film... POLK"

So "getting a pair" and "doing something about it" means shelling out money to see a film about a prez with a few months left in office? LOL. Doing something about it means voting...not watching movies.

You're getting played, son.

DAMN YOU CLINTON !!!! You got us into this mess!!!!

LOL indeed!

I decided then that this was not a man who was worth trusting a country like America to.

And I don't have a dog in this year's election, either, in case anyone's wondering.

Still up on YouTube. I guess they'll take any promotion they can get.

I'm actually disappointed in my view, also, but I can't help it. I don't really care for what's going on right now...and I'm not in line with McCain, but Obama does not inspire me like he seems to inspire so many others.

I try and try to really get into the issues and I'm not satisfied with what anyone is saying. Anything that sounds positive from either one of them is quickly debunked by someone else or feels like it's nothing but smoke blowing up our asses.

I guess I'll wait for the debates...that's all I can do...

Actually Cromwell would have made a passable Whittington lookswise.

Oh well, so much for that theory.

Maybe next time Dubya could aspire to be a Sesame Street character... Cookie Monster say... well, again, that might be too popular.

There must be a hugely unpopular character from somewhere he can pretend to be ? Some kind of Duck even ??? Anything...

I'm being completely open-minded and I want BOTH sides of the story. I am not criticizing either view. I want to know, but guess what? Real, true info on that is hard to find when most people would rather talk about how "boring" McCain is or whether Obama is "black enough." All I hear about Universal Healthcare is that it will be grossly inefficient and detrimental OR that it's something we need, because everyone deserves it. I want to know the actual EFFECT it is going to have on us!

I just want answers to the issues that affect us. Where are they?!?! No one seems to want to answer these. I can't get them, whether I'm watching Fox, MSNBC, CNN, or listening to NPR.

Beyond that he advocated a world without nuclear weapons. Yes, a world without nuclear weapons would have to include the US, because as much as some would like it not to be the case, the US is part of the world.

Bear in mind I gleaned all this from that same 52 second video. I don't even know why I'm responding to someone who talks about "pussy nations" but whatever.

What about higher taxes?...what about those that refuse to practice healthier lives?...what about declining quality of service?...and if we increase regulations on personal health like the Japanese, isn't this against the free ideals of the same people proposing Universal Healthcare?

For #4, I was speaking about the waist size regulations that have been implemented in Japan.

Thank you for your answers, though - I got more from ONE post here, then I have from the cursory discussions (if you even call them that) in the media or public. Listening to them, they give no actual reasons WHY our health care is declining and those on the other side never mention that health care is actually GOOD in these other countries.

Increasing taxes for the "rich" only affects the middle and lower classes. Increased taxes only inconvenience business owners, so they are forced to cutback in order to keep everything in the green. What does that mean? Increasing the prices of service and laying off employees. But, we will have plenty of government services to help those newly unemployed, eh?

So, yeah, higher taxes just increases the power of the government over our everyday lives. You think that's acceptable?

So how likely is it that when they, as well as some Pakistan operatives, were getting $5,000-$25,000 per prisoner some of these guys were used to get cash ?

That your idea of "intelligence" Jed ?

Or did you think all the "bad guys" in Gitmo were picked up twiddling evil moustaches and chanting death to America in booming scary voices ?

Without going into detail, I think if you're trying to get GWB out of the cellar as far as the presidents' depth chart, that's fine but it is reallllly transparent when you start pointing at Clinton saying "It was HIM! HE did it!" hahaha. Anyway time will tell I guess but right now most people who study presidencies give Clinton's administration in the B-C range. Wait, don't tell me: They're all liberal pussies.

You said you didn't want to see a movie about someone you couldn't care less about.

How could you not give a shit about a President whose administration and policies ruined this country? You should be INFURIATED by this man. But, you "couldn't care less".

So, who's go the blinders on?

And now he's going to do the only thing he knows to do: he's going to run away again.

Bush's hand reaches for an unopened bottle of Jack Daniels. We see the whiskey being poured.

Cut to black card, "Directed by Oliver Stone".

Plus, I agree with others here that IF you're going to try and approach the Bush presidency from any REASONABLE intellectual standpoint than not enough time has passed for history to judge how his 8 years will be truly looked at. I mean for fuck's sake, as an example, I love listening to Liberals rave on about how glorious Jimmy Carter was as a President (compared to Bush) when I'm old enough to actually remember trying to economically survive the piss poor economy of his presidency, not to mention having to sit in long gas lines or having my brain burst over the political and military incompetence of things like the Iranian hostage crisis (followed by the botched rescue mission that left egg on America's face even more). I mean the man was -- and continues to be to this day -- an utter fucking feeble retard, not to mention you had the antics of his beer swilling idiot brother as icing on the cake.

And yet Liberals will tell you that you're "missing the point" on Carter and how swell a President he was -- after all he goes out now and builds homes for the poor and... Zzzzzzzzz (snoring). Yet in the very same breath they'll tell you what an utter rat cocksocking bastard Ronald Reagan was, how truly evil he was...how he caused the fall of America or how he is responsible for AIDS and every other evil in the world they can possibly think of -- and yet a national poll from just last year showed that Carter is STILL actually thought of as being WORSE than Bush, and meanwhile Reagan is now ranked by the American public as the nation's THIRD BEST President of all time (after Lincoln and FDR).

So the whole issue of "judging" Presidents to me is a crock. It becomes too partisan over too much minutia, and too much bullshit gets tossed around. Let time tell and let's go from there. In the end, the Left will love this movie only to reinforce their hate for Bush and the Right -- and meanwhile the Right will hate this movie because it will reinforce everything they hate about the Left just as much, not to mention it also helps to reinforce their belief about Liberals controlling the media and that they're always willing to hit below the belt with things like this or NIXON. And oh gee! What a shock! Both came from the same shit for brains hack director. So in the end we ALL lose because REAL intellectual discourse is gone because once again talk shows and radio or magazines or whatever will try to ram this thing down our throats as some kind of media event -- and meanwhile here's my guess: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WON'T CARE. THEY WON'T GIVE A FUCK AND THIS WILL DIE AT THE BOX OFFICE. They'll say "Why the hell are you making a movie about Bush? Who the fuck thinks I want to pay 10 dollars to see a movie ABOUT Bush? The man's leaving office. Fine, maybe he was (or wasn't) such a great as President. But do you REALLY think THIS is my idea of a movie that I want to PAY to see to get out of the house? At the cost of seeing a movie these days?!?"

At which point this thing will BOMB LIKE CRAZY at the box office -- and I'll laugh my ass off at the first Liberal here who posts in a talkback: "What the hell is wrong with you people? What is wrong with America? Why aren't you all going to see this insightful examination of the administration? Why won't you all wake up!?" At which point the obvious answer will be: Earth to morons! It's because moviegoers would rather see something starring Angelina Jolie with her breasts hanging out or an animated CGI animal making jokes. Which will bring us right back to the truly honest Hollywood question: who the fuck was stupid enough to ever greenlight and fund this thing? Because I can pretty much bet you now that person is gonna be out of a job by Christmas.

Seriously, the one person who had it right in this talkback was someone way back at the beginning who noted why the fuck doesn't Stone simply make a good ORIGINAL movie? Oh, that's right -- IT'S BECAUSE HE'S TOO SHITTY A DIRECTOR TO KNOW HOW.

But why stop at locking people away for years without trial even though you concede some may be innocent ?

Sure, some of them have recieved torture used in the Spanish Inquisition (Waterboarding) and the World Authority on Torture (Amnesty International) informs us that Hundreds languish in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions, including detainees who have been cleared for release. But at least they don't publicly behead people because THAT is the ultimate act of Barbarity that can never be condoned under any circumstances... unless Dubya is trying to get to second base with their King that is.

Sadly, Saudi Arabia beheads people in public regularly and Dubya doesn't seem to mind so much when they do it does he ?

Ahhh.... double standards.. smell that hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy? Double standards? Gee, I'm sorry -- where EXACTLY are those who lean to the Left or those with Socialist leanings on this one? I'm sorry, I guess I missed all that public global outrage or I somehow slept through all those mammoth protest marches down the streets of major cities for more human rights in Saudia Arabia, where people got up and protested against internal Saudi policy or beheadings. And along those similar lines, where EXACTLY are those impassioned speeches at the UN by other world leaders -- who again lean Left or Socialist -- where they are calling for sanctions against Saudia Arabia all in the grand name of humanity? To decry such "barbarity" as you put it? Gee, I guess I missed the part where all the Left leaning or Socialist countries stood up and publicly declared: "If you do any more beheadings, then we won't do business with you at all! We won't buy your oil ever again!"

For crying out loud, GROW UP, G100. If you're going to be such a clueless tool and try to smack the label of "hypocrite" on Bush for looking the other way regarding Saudi policies and beheadings, then at least be HONEST about it and line up all the OTHER world leaders who look the other way as well. Because I can assure you that line will be long and deep since it will be composed of pretty much EVERY OTHER FUCKING NATION IN THE WORLD and THEIR leaders too who want their oil to keep THEIR economies afloat. So think twice next time before you're so willing to label Bush as the hypocrite here...as if he's the ONLY world leader looking the other way...all because you feel a need to jerk off again to your politics. If that's the case and you need to get off THAT bad, go look at some online porn and just be done with it already.

"If you have questions about how to say something just ask."

You try so hard it make ME happy!

Excellent! And don't worry you have indeed made a few people very happy with that one.

I know it's a bit cruel to laugh but the way you blundered into that was classic NeoCon diversion tactics falling flat and failing miserably.

Your sad little attempt to deflect the main points raised by hurling childish abuse backfired spectacularly but at least to great comic effect.

To answer your Question.(there was one buried in amongst the irrelevant, backfiring, trolling abuse and fantasy drivel)

We find out who are innocent and who are guilty by having something called a TRIAL.

You may have heard of them.

They commonly feature a Judge, a Jury a Defendant and Lawyers.

You could always look it up if you don't believe me.

I'm curious, just because you haven't noticed condemnation and Saudi is an Oil producer does that mean anytyhing goes ?

Would publicly beheading children be fine by you if you didn't see a demonstration or the Oil kept flowing ?

And no Bush isn't the only one to bend over for the Saudis but either point me to where I said he was or take the hysteria down a notch.

Besides the film and thread is about W.

And just because others ignore something reprehensible it doesn't magically absolve Bush for doind the same thing.

It's also a question of degree and few can have failed to notice Bushes "love affair" with King Abdullah.

It also wasn't me who brought up the barbarity of public beheadings via Nicholas Berg.

So try reading the posts next time and you could avoid exploding in amusingly ineffectual rage.

I've already answered the only meaningful question you posed.

Whereas you have conspicuously failed to answer or address any of my points or anyone elses for that matter.

All I'm saying, put simply, is this: when Obama gets in, it won't be a New Age of world peace. Like Clinton before him, he'll just be better at hiding the shit he does to fuck the world over by simply being a nice guy for the media. The Government will just carry on fucking things up. Meet the new Prez, same as the old Prez - just much more friendly and accessible.

*And before anyone accuses me of racism, I'm saying that the fact Obama will be the first black president will be picked up on, held up and used mercilessly by his own PR team to tell the world that America is so forward thinking after all this "Yee-Haw" Bush business that they can elect a minority President. Who'd a thunk? And then he'll carry on the hegemony while hiding behind a robe of righteousness.

You could say I'm cynical about American politics. But then I'm British/English, so I don't have a fucking leg to stand on when you look at MY Government, fucking shambles that it is :D

Or just get THE actual tool himself to star.

Sickening. Pigs' snouts in the trough, the fucking lot of 'em.

McCain is healthy. For how long, is anyone's guess. I dismiss so called senior moments because during long campaigns, mistakes happen. Look at Hillary's infamous gaffes.

If there is a hell, Geroge W. Bush will be burning there. The truth hurts, especially when told to all of the closeted homosexuals and undersexed housewives that make up the majority of the Republican party.

Nevermind. I'm sorry fellas, but that trailer looked like something you'd see on U.S.A. network. Cheap and cheesy. Regardless of the subject matter, it looks like crap. Oliver Stone is light years away from his "Born on the Fourth of July" prime. Sad.

Clinton would have wiped the floor with Bush if he could have run again instead of Gore in 2000. He left office with 68% approval ratings. So the revisionism isn't any more convincing than "it isn't Bush's fault he's only the President."

Who has done the most to tarnish Clintons reputation after office ? That would be CLINTON. With his less than stylish electioneering for Hillary.

But if the Loyal Bushies (the term was made famous at the Justice Department grueman) keep trying to shift the blame to Clinton for every single disaster of the past 8 years then Bill is gonna get REAL popular again in a hurry. People just love the Loyal Bushies and their excuses these days. Haven't you heard ?

Even McCain doesn't want the cameras around when he meets with Bush. And the GOPs entire election strategy in November can be summed up in four words. Pretend Bush doesn't exist.

Of course, as this talkback shows, that will prove impossible as FOX and Friends will ensure the News will be all Bush all the time in November as they work themselves into apoplexy and hysteria over this Movie.

As for the actual Movie, going by the trailer it's the family based "coming of age" many expected but the overall tone still isn't that clear.

The Batsignal ! it looks like... it looks like.... a W.!!! That explains everything! EVERYTHING!!!

But who can say ? That would be like hypothesizing over why so many of Dubyas supporters have melted away over the years to be replaced by the droves of...

"I always hated Bush but McCain seems fine." (the same as Bush)

What's happened to make the Vice Presidency and bottom of the ticket barely worth a mention in the Campaigns ?

Perhaps it's just all being saved for the Conventions.

It's not working Jeb. Try finding a different shtick.

DAMN! I just made another typo Dude! Oh well I'm glad I didn't predict you would return to such irrelevancies or you might jump all over that.

Thus proving... what exactly ? Typos make Bush a great President ? Yes, that makes perfect sense Dude.

There were always paragraph breaks in my posts. Dude, you should totally try them.

Sorry, you don't seem to be having much luck do you ?

Another irrelevance, another failure.

There are statues in Capital Cities around the World showing Nixons proud yet crazy countenance turned upward... his claw like hand reaching... reaching for those stars!

Or does he just seem like a loveable Rogue in comparison to the Bush Administration ?

Conservatives will hate this movie, even if they themselves hate Bush (as I do) because deep down, they'll know that this movie isn't about making fun of Bush, not really, anyway, it's really about making fun of anyone who's called themselves a conservative in the last 8 years. It's finger-pointing, it's schoolyard mockery. It's exactly the same kind of shit that Liberals hate when it's done to them.

All I seem to find these days in political discussions is hypocrisy, one side criticizing the other for petty crimes perpetrated by everyone. We should all fucking grow up, this movie is for the stupid among us.

As for being wrong, wrong about what? That Batman isn't real? Wow. That would be the dumbest debate ever, wouldn't it? I just think you don't like being called stupid. Good luck.

We're not just driving humvees but building the largest bases ever constructed on foreign soil. 100,000+ troops need food, water, shelter and other basic services every minute of every hour. And in order to keep Iraq in check, we'll need every single one of those troops on the ground. That's an indefinite expense. A billion dollars a week for years and years to come. At some point that line of credit will run out. A few humvees in the desert. Seriously, what an insult to the troops we have over there.

And if you weren't such a piece of ignorant, illiterate filth, you would know that in WW2, the country came together to fight the war. Corporations switched production lines from making consumer goods and made almost nothing but equipment and vehicles for the war effort. Pride was put ahead of profit, something Haliburton and Blackwater know nothing about.

And if you would take just a minute of your time and stop giving fellatio to barnyard animals and look at the current state of our retirement funds, you would see how a frightening amount of Americans are taking money out of their 401K. That's pre-tax money they will have to pay back WITH tax in an unreasonable time frame that will end up costing them enormously due to penalties. Also, the majority (something like 60%) of young people entering the work force today will have nothing put away for retirement.

I beg you, if you live near traffic, please go play in it. The world will be a better place with you as a speed bump.

Pelosi, Bush, Reid, Cheney, they all suck. Not a shred of integrity among any of them.

Besides, quit wasting your breath. Come November, this country will do the same thing it's always done. Put a rich white old man in the White House. Just like Haagen Daaz after a breakup, it's comfort food, even though we know it's bad for us.

Damn that depressed me. Despite it being hilarious, it's pretty much true.

And what makes you think America isn't already bankrupt? From someone who 'knows better', you don't seem to know much. Who owns America's debt? Oh, that's right, Saudi Arabia and China. They're our friends!

Those military bases and cheeseburgers (you are such a simpleton) are costing us $12B a month. That money is all borrowed. So we have to pay back the interest too (which will probably top $1T if we're there another 10 years). Those are some mighty expensive cheeseburgers, jerkoff.

You think in a-hole terms, dude. Someone who thinks that wreckage and explosions are the only mark of cost in a war isn't fit to lift up a toilet seat for fear of falling in a drowning.

On second thought, why don't you go take a bathroom break.

I understand the Neocon argument it goes something like this: If we stabilize Iraq, remove the dictator, plant the seeds of democracy, show the rest of the middle east that there is another way- the American way, and of course pave the way for American interests, the world will love us. Umm, nope. You see, even if Iraq stabilizes after we have gone - and there is no doubt it will take some fighting before that happens, what you will get is a stable Iraq surrounded by The Saudi Arabian monarchy. They aint going anwhere. A tiny Kuwait. An ultra religious Iran. A still hostile Syria. A bunch of smaller countries that already like us such as Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan etc. and what? Pakistan and Afghanistan. Well, we are fighting in Afghanstan now. And Pakistan is inching ever closer to harsher and harsher rule - moving away from American interests as Musharaff loses power. Yes, I am leaving out Egypt and all of the western middle east countries. But for now, lets concentrate on the bigs. The hope is that a stable democratic Iraq makes people in other middle eastern countries rebel and embrace demcocracy. The big targets being Syria and Iran -with Pakistan thrown in the mix now.

That aint gonna happen. The last time the people of Iran rose up, it was to dethrone the Shah - the American backed Shah. They chose Khomeini. Some - quite a few probably, regret it, but that was their choice. The only way we can overthrow the current regime - is to start another war. That aint happening. We are stretched too thin, and Bush is on the way out.

Same goes with Syria. Make that 'left turn' into Syria and fight another war, because there os no hope of destabilizing that country. Pakistan is making deals with Al Qaida on it's borders. Afghanistan is getting harder and harder to control. We can not go to war with every country we disagree with in the middle east. You are right about the cost of the war not being a severe crisis. We can absorb it. For now. But if we are embroiled in another war, for another seven years and this time against a country that can mount a credible defense - oh we would still crush them, but it would not a simple matter. And once again, we would be dealing with guerrila acttivity and terrorists. And that would just be Iran. What would we do about Pakistan?

No, Bush will not be hailed as the next Ronald Reagan. He might not even make it out of Jimmy Carter country.

Like someone said above, you are a jerkoff because you are not thinking in modern terms. Our economic situation is not the same as it was in the 40s. The world is a different place.

So tell me, what do you think of the current economic climate? Still think there's "not much recessing" going on? And did you enjoy Zohan? Did he fulfill all your fantasies as you envisioned them?

Side note: We are now witness to the results of Rupert Murdoch buying the Wall Street Journal: comparisons of Bush to Batman, and endless quoting from assorted wingnuts like Antonius. Money well spent, Murdoch!

That's what happened here. The entire economy, every single industry switched gears, did a 180 and became one gigantic war machine. The entire country altered itself to one sole purpose for existing, to produce war materiel. Much of what changed stayed altered. Every single citizen was asked to participate, and pay, through war bonds, for the effort. There was also conscription, don't forget. One more thing too, that war was a noble effort, with a real enemy, and a righteous purpose.

So, if you want to compare the two, you might want to give the topic a moment's thought. Not that you make a habit of that. It seems like you're too busy apologizing for one of the most significant wrong turns this country has ever taken.

hiya BSB.

It's going to have to be a Movie of two halves pre and post 2000. And though there may be political obsessives who know every detail of Bush's earlier life including his Texas Governorship it hasn't been presented chronologically with the "highlights" in a narrative.

I actually doubt Stone will be as obsessed post 2000 as everyone thinks he will because it's common knowledge. Sure he'll cover the obvious bits but He's more likely to cast the events in relation to the less know Bush years tying in Bush senior to it all.

Whether it will make a good Movie is still anyones guess but the early years are going to be new to many people so it'll be interesting for that alone.

Pleeeeeease let Romney reappear. This Campaign sorely needs his magic underpants.

You wanna know what's really scary? The Lib Dems are getting a foothold, but not enough for a serious attempt at the Premiership. This leaves Gordon "Boring Bastard" Brown, or David "Young, smug, grins a lot" Cameron. And the country is actually buying Cameron's bullshit, EXACTLY like they did with Blair, because he's (a) not Brown, (b) not Labour and (c) see (a) and (b) again. And when he gets in - and he WILL - it will be EXACTLY what happened with Blair all over again.

This is why I see Obama getting in, and then being completely fucking ineffectual: because Western politics are all about grabbing what you can before you leave office, not giving a fuck about the office you hold. Blair basically ran for PM so he could command payments worth 5 years of the PM role for one after-dinner speech. Yep: 5 years salary as PM = one payment for an after-dinner speech in certain situations. No wonder politics is so fucking corrupt in the West.

Sorry folks: Obama is the best of a bad bunch - but still bad. He won't be as bad as Bush - but do you REALLY think he can sort out the mess the Bushes will leave?

Time will tell...

Luckily, these are the same people that choose to live in underground bunkers and have very little to do with the outside world, waiting as they are for Elvis to return with his Alien Overlords to wipe out all the Jews and re-instate Jesus as King of America (which will be the new name for planet Earth). Say hello to the family for us.

1.) The worst approval rating in history for a sitting Congress

2.) Even worse than Bush’s approval rating

For the record I don't buy all the Hope Hype for Obama. He's a classy Orator but also a blank slate for those who want change to project whatever they want to see onto him.

I also don't buy the sunny, everything will turn out lovely, assesment of Iraq and not just because the same people who talked about flowers in the streets and being greeted as liberators & "Mission Accomplished" are the same ones feeding the Media that line.

Iraq is now a target for 3 countries. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey.

All of them are fighting or preparing to fight in wars & proxy wars involving the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

It's common knowledge that the whip hand is held by the shiites in the Government and they are being supported through the Militias and death squads by Iran.

The Sunnis equally are getting support from Saudi Arabia but not quite on the same scale as Iran though they have threatened to flood the Sunni enclaves with Arms and fighters whenever the U.S. leaves.

The Kurds meanwhile are trying to lay claim to the Northern Oil Fields and break away, into semi then full autonomy as quickly as they can, hoping the rest of Iraq won't notice. While Turkey and the PKK are constantly skirmishing over territory and independence.

Does that sound like a recipe for Democracy taking hold in the Middle east any decade soon ?

And lets also remember that on the ground in Iraq it is the Militias and Death squads of all the factions calling the shots and enforcing brutal Fundamentalist Sharia Law.

The Governing Authority in the Green Zone is sadly still little more than window dressing and a sideshow until security is re-established with a functioning Police and Army that ALL sides trust.

If you still can't wrap your head around the fact that WW2 happened over 60 years ago, and that in that intervening lifetime some of the rules have changed, you're not a very bright person, and not worthy of debate. Better, smarter posters than I have tried to teach you something, but you remain dull and dense.

What constitutes 'a few years'? 10? 50? 100? I wonder. Your sense of national pride and patriotism have mutated into some kind of fanciful sense of entitlement, you honestly believe that America is #1, in every way, and always will be, no matter what? You're in for a shock, little boy.

As for what you 'buy' check out some news source other than FOX, and if you can stand to listen to someone who doesn't hold the exact same mannerisms, accent, values, and appearance as you, you might actually learn something. You're the perfect example of the willfully ignorant- the stupid American. The sad thing is that you're as proud of your own stupidity as you are of the flag. You make the rest of us look bad.

Shut your mouth for 5 minutes and listen to someone else talk, you just might learn something, if you're still able.

There's a recipe for success.

And just for your own edification, everyone thought the Soviet Union was here to stay. The reason we spent so much on armament was because we thought we were locked in a dead-heat competition for our survival. No one saw it coming, or if they did, they knew more than Reagan or his administration did.

Again, fellas, if you're going to compare what's happening now with some example from history, as a desperate ploy to hide the flaws of the present in the blinding sheen of past glory, know a little something about what you're talking about. At least make it not quite so transparently pathetic.

I fought and served proudly. And would drag my older ass out there again if needed. But I am older now, and I hope somewhat wiser, and I realize that fighting a pointless war, for a goal that can not be accomplished by force alone - you can't make people choose your way of life under a gun, is a monumental waste of American lives and treasure. And BTW cantankerous, I am not a liberal. I am not even a democrat - I am an independant. And i am full of hope that wiser heads will prevail. Military action must always be an option of polotical strategy, I understabd that. But it must never be entered into on the basis of a geopolitical theory.

Shit, dude, even Rush Limbaugh doesn't use that line any more.

I just wish there was one thing they could figure out- that war is the FAILURE of government, not the point of it.

cantankerous, I want to say, that although I find your words to be disagreeable in the extreme, you have not descended into pointless name calling that goes on around here sometimes, and for that I thank you. Although I must admit, that it does liven up the TB's!

LibWar you know I do not mean you, because you are a funny dude when you decide to bring the heat. You crack me the hell up! Keep on, keep strong.

He'll be gone soon enough.

Eggsalad, you're a piece of shit. Why don't you go and toss your cellmate's salad and then hang yourself with a bed sheet.

Ignoring that any people who feel oppressed, who feel that their culture and way of life are threatened, will take action, and blaming that solely on their 'hating our freedosm' is short sighted, dangerous, and just plain stupid. Facing what the reality is: That some will hate us no matter what, but that others may be changed in time, is the only way to stem the tide of rising terror.

It is good to know that we are united in our dislike of eggsalad. That is a disgusting individual.

Chipps, you present a slightly romanticized view of the serviceman. Let me be blunt. Most people who join, do not expect to go to war, nor even want to. We are just people, just like you. Our jobs descriptions are just a little different. Yes, there are folks who join to fight. Some join because of patriotism, some join because it is a job. Some join because it is a way to get money for college. I joined for all of the above and because my whole family had always been military. No one wants to be used. No one wants to think what they are doing is just because some jackass politician has a pet theory to advance, or a dumbass politically motivated flag officer sees a career advancement in bending over. We fight, yes. We have discipline, yes. We take orders even when it leads to our deaths, yes. But believe this if you never believe another thing: When the live rounds are flying past yor face, when you see dead and wounded friends on the ground. You are not fighting for your country. You are fighting for the man standing beside, just as he is fighting for you. because at the end of the day, the people around you, not some nebulous idea, is what is going to get you home safely.

But at least that last post didn't contain any pointless rhetorical questions. Are you trying to impress me now?

20% corn syrup

20% MSG

20% McNuggets

20% artificial butter flavoring

figure: i can't

wife: why not?

figure: because someone on the internet is WRONG!!!!

That would be all of the above and any agency who wanted & still wants to find, capture and punish Bin-Laden.

If you're somehow having trouble understanding this then let me make it even simpler for you.

When the Police investigate a Murder the victims families and the Media don't start screaming hysterically about the Police and Detectives sympathising with the killer or accuse the Police of thinking the Killer was justified. They know the Police immediately investigate any motive past or present that will help catch the killer and prevent him from killing again.

There has been constant (if not entirely succesful) liason between Saudi Arabia and the investigating agencies since 9/11. And it's not because the agencies sympathise with Bin-Laden or think he was justified. It's because they know all about Bin-Ladens politics & reasoning, that have been touched on here involving Saudi Arabia, and know that his own twisted manifesto and the connections that spring from that are the best way of tracking him down along with those in Al-Qaeda most closely associated with him.

Lets also be in no doubt that anyone simple minded enough to think Saddam was Hitler hasn't a clue about either.

Being an asshole brutal murdering Dictator in the middle east doesn't make you Hitler. In fact it doesn't even make you the exception. Being a human rights abusing thug in that part of the world, as well as sadly far too many other parts, makes you yet another in a long, LONG list of scumbag Dictator assholes. Point me to where Saddam was planning to invade Poland and plunge Europe into a catastrophic World War involving tens of Millions or get a grip of yourself.

We know that Saddam at least sympathized with Bin Laden even if he didn’t outwardly help him."

Here we go again. NO he DIDN'T. Sadam was a secular Dictator who ruled through his secret Police not the edict of the Mullahs and religious authorities. Bin-Laden is a religious Zealot who uses religion to fan the flames of his every warped edict and action. They both despised each other as they both were under the delusion that only they were the the the true voice of the Arab street. This stuff isn't secret. It's been widely known for years.

"assuming that the WMD reason was a lie. I know a lot of people here believe that because of who they are, but I don’t."

The vast amount of people think WMD was a Lie because there aren't any WMD. Simple. Got it ?

"Saddam didn’t have the WMDs then why did he jerk around the weapons inspectors?"

Because he was a LIAR. BEcause he wanted to appear Strong when he was Weak. It's called Propaganda.

Remember the recent pictures appeared of the "extra" missiles Iran photshopped into a propaganda picture ? It's the same reason. Remember when the Soviets inflated the number of their ICBMS and other weaponry ? Same reason.

Not simply because you don't actually have any. (Piss poor ad-hominem attacks don't count I'm afraid) But because you seem utterly incapable of separating fact from "complaints".

And I certainly don't care if you like my posts or not as I'm not posting for the benefit of childish namecallers.

I have no idea what your own strange politics could possibly be since all you have done is attempted (and failed) to label posters without any meaningfull reasoning to back up your "judgments of Solomon."

But anyone who whines and cries about the Loyal Bushies terminology they themselves used and coined (it's a fact, try again) doesn't sound like a Liberal to me.

And Please dont worry about education. As any Loyal Bushie would tell you, "Rarely is the question asked, is our childen learning ?" That's the important thing, not any typos.

This is exactly what a lot of these discussions never seem to distinguish between: the whole morass of bullshit going on at the higher levels of government, eg sending people to war under the pretence that it is about eliminating a threat to your way of life, when in reality it's about fighting for oil and to keep control of the land the oil is on; and the soldier's eye view, which is just to get in and out with your ass in one piece and relying on yourself and your fellow soldiers to help you achieve that goal.

We can debate all day what happened at 9/11 and why, and why we're at war in Iraq, but it's important to clarify that what most of us (I think) are arguing about are the motives of the politicians who start and propagate these wars, NOT the soldiers. No-one would argue that troops should just be used as pawns and are expendable - apart from the most douchebag of douchebags on here (and there are a few). But all you armchair strategists out there (and I include myself in there): read toadkiller's post again at the top of mine. No matter why he and the other soldiers went out there, once there, they are doing what they do to get out of there alive. I'm amazed at the amount of people who think we ARE justified at being out there - it seems blindingly obvious to me that the American government knew all about what was going on just before 9/11, and had ample opportunity to do A LOT more investigating but didn't. No-one thought that terrorists flying planes into a building could happen? The writer of the pilot episode of THE LONE GUNMEN sure did, as did several novelists before 2001. NORAD facing the wrong way? Fighters not scrambled, even though the jets were deviated for 45 minutes from their course? Come ON! To those of you who don't think a government would sell out its innocent civilians for war racketeering profits - man, are YOU guys dumb. Google OPERATION NORTHWOODS and school yourselves. Look into whether we REALLY knew that Pearl Harbour was going to happen before it did. And for those offended by the accusation that the Government let 9/11 happen to justify a war they planned for years before, allowing 3000+ innocents to die for their twisted agenda - I'm as fucking offended as you are that a Government could do that. But believing that they would never do that - we should all be a lot smarter than that.

These terrorists are doing what they do because the West HAS oppressed them, it HAS kept them living in a semi-primitive state (probably because if they ever got technologically organised, the first place they'd go after militarily is the West) and it HAS ruthlessly stripmined their land for everything we need to maintain the way we live. The problem is not only the fact that they are now starting to fight back - something we were able to keep a lid on until the last ten years or so - but also that we are on the edge of a financial catastrophe which could well bring all this Western aggression in the Middle East to a sudden halt, just as the terrorists are gaining ground.

I'm not suggesting we apologise, grovel and hope they forgive us. I'm not even suggesting we get the hell out and leave the Middle East to its own devices - far from it. But we need to change the way we do business out there in the future, and we HAVE to stop believing the bullshit the Government is shovelling down our throats. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudis. WHY isn't the US going after SA? I think we all know the answer to that one, and it's undoubtedly fiscal in origin.

And if these terrorists are so great at what they do - if 9/11 was pulled off by a bunch of poorly organised lunatic with box-cutters and indestructible passports found amid the utter chaos of 9/11, then how come they haven't managed to pull it off again? In the UK, where I live, the IRA didn't just pull off one huge bombing and leave it at that - they went on and on. The entire conflict was ended with TALKS. Sometimes that works - other times it doesn't. But I don't buy that the US suddenly got so secure that no-one could ever pull off a huge attack ever again - not with that open border policy there seems to be near Mexico. 9/11 could have been stopped, and wasn't. THAT'S what we should be getting pissed about - so why aren't we? toadkiller - Well put earlier.

What kind of backwards logic is that?

Since I'm talking, I'll blather on... I am amazed that so many aspects of American policy get attributed to any President. As if he could snap his fingers and lower oil prices or reduce the deficit. If anything, the President represents the least powerful branch of the government. But since the Executive branch is consolidated into one person, he (or she) gets the credit/blame for everything that happens in this country.

Congress passes law. The President has veto power, nothing more. Yet anything right or wrong with the US gets attributed to the President because he is one person.

The Swiftboaters hadn't seen them either, so how were there discrepancies? Oh that's right, there weren't - it was just one group's word against another. Course it's just hearsay, but it's easy to be disruptive when money is being floated by rich, conservative oilmen to denegrate the record of someone you served in combat with.

None of the "allegations" were proven, they were specious and unprovable by design, and they were vociferously denied by others. It was a political smear and (almost, apparently) everyone knows it now.

All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described 'band of brothers'. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky).

No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry's boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated. The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood's crewmember Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry's tactics and stated that he earned his Silver Star; he stated that based on discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present.

Why did Saddam jerk the weapons inspectors around? Could it be that he was trying to have it both ways? Appear to have weapons without actually having weapons? The same way you and Jazz claim to have a brain and penis when both are doubtful.

And let's apply that logic to the same administration that invaded his country. If Bush and Rove and the administration have nothing to hide, why is the White House issuing executive orders excluding Rove and Myers from having to testify after being subpeonaed? Why were thousands of e-mails deleted from the planning period? Why was Libby pardoned so quickly? This is an administration that knows only lies, lies and more lies and they have the balls to point the finger at others they deem dishonest. And yet you and 27% of the country still cut Bush and Company plenty of slack.

And whoever said that MSNBC is no different than Fox News is an idiot. Fox News routinely has it's hosts "misspeak" by referring to Obama as Osama, or using his full name or wishing him to be assassinated. And there's only one host on cable news who yells at his guests to shut up and threatens them with physical violence. No, Fox News is alone in the way they mishandle and spin the news.

Any citizens who don't think their country is #1 should leave? Wow, talk about lunkheaded jingoistic nonsense. You should leave with that kind of empty headed thinking. People who feel passionately enough about their country even if they think it's lost it's way and want to stay to fight the good fight and wrestle control of it away from the corrupt and insane are the real patriots.

And with regards to bring democracy to the Middle East, is anyone really stupid enough to think that by liberating Iraq we're going start a trend? As long as we keep our mouths shut about Saudi Arabia and ignore the fact that they're the ones who really hate us, democracy will be unattainable. The guys who flew the planes in our buildings were Saudis and King Abdul is more than happy to take our money and laugh at Bush crawling to him on all fours while his people flock to the tutelage of guys like Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia will produce terrorists indefinately, as will Africa and Asia who will not be swayed by what happens in Iraq so long as the Western world continues to treat third world nations as their personal toilet.

I remember reading a story back in 2004 about a wedding in Iraq that we bombed accidentally. Killed everyone. Bride, groom, both families, guests. A few lucky folks survived. So tell me, you think we made a friend or enemy there? Imagine how angry we were over 9/11. We created a private 9/11 for those survivors. And we've done that countless times for decades. Would you have forgiven Bin Laden if in 1992 he provided aid to victims of Hurricane Andrew but still carried out the attacks on 9/11? Does his good deed give him a free pass from his evil one?

And let's get to the attacks themselves. Brainless fools who say the attacks were nothing more than a way of killing Americans are dolts. If all Bin Laden and al Qaeda wanted to do was kill Americans, don't you think that some of their cell members who are surely in the U.S. would have driven a truck full of fertilizer (a la McVeigh) up to a building and detonated it? Killing Americans was a bonus to Bin Laden. His goal was to disrupt our lives and bring our economy crashing down. And guess what? Mission Accomplished. We're inconvenienced when we travel now, we have the government shoving bogus colored alerts down our throats, we're paranoid, we're mired in two wars that will drain our resources for years to come and low income and middle class Americans are struggling to make ends meet. And Bin Laden accomplished all of that with four box cutters and a group of brainwashed Saudis.

As to why Bin Laden doesn't send suicide bombers into Starbucks in Times Square? I think it's safe to say that al Qaeda is able to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan without having to go to the effort of planning and carrying out an attack on our soil.

Some idiot way up above mentioned that he and his friends are making more money now than they were 8 years ago. Good for you, you're NOT the norm. Another idiot said all the numbers show we're not in a recession. If it acts like a recession, if it feels like a recession, then to the American who's giving their kids soda instead of milk because it costs half as much, to them, it's a recession. I work in human resources and the majority of our employees aren't earning enough to make ends meet. They are taking out hardship loans on their 401Ks in order to pay next month's rent. These workers represent the majority of Americans. They are hurting, they are desperate and their situation deteriorates every day. And they are the backbone of America. These are the people whose backs us white collar workers make our inflated paychecks off of and yet when they complain neocons label them as whiners.

And I don't blame Bush for 9/11. A memo that warns of an attack using our own aircraft is cryptic at best. There would have had to have been a buttload of "connecting the dots" to prevent those 19 men from boarding those four planes that fateful morning.

And I'm not a fan of Clinton as I think he's a scumbag, but those jackals that blame him from dropping the ball need to look at the big picture. Bush had Bin Laden cornered as well and let him go. We've heard stories that under Clinton a sniper had Bin Laden's melon in his crosshairs. He was allowed to escape both times. So maybe larger forces are at work. Bin Laden might be the red headed stepchild of the Saudi royal family but he's still family. And if we're seeking their permission before we can put a slug in his bread basket and they aren't giving it........well, you figure it out. And anyone who says Bush doesn't need anyone's permission and he stands his ground no matter what is a dolt. Bush won't answer to his own people but he sure answers to the almighty dollar. To refer to Iran and North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil but leave Saudi Arabi out of the mix goes to show that Bush is a disingenuous scumbag. The House of Saud does human rights abuses and suppressing democracy better than anyone yet Bush does his little sword dance, hand holding, crawling like a dog to the King. Even good old Stands With a Fist has a moral pricetag and he dares not bite the hand that feeds him.

Lastly, neocon jerkwads who go on about "liberals would have stayed out of WW2" need to shut up. Conservatives have a really good track record of stopping human rights abuses? Ummmm, no. Neither side does. Both the left and right have done a bang up job of ignoring genocides, and worse, installing their fair share of puppet dictators who engaged in genocides.

Opening your eyes doesn't require putting on a tinfoil hat, but only getting your information from Fox and Friends keeps you fat and ignorant.

I'm not going to spend my day doing research and cutting and pasting shit from here there and everywhere, and even going to the one-stop shopping of Wikipedia again and again is tiresome. Suffice to say, Kerry did release his records and the bottom line about the Swiftboaters has already been said a million times: It was a smear. What they "got" Kerry to do isn't the point anyway, you initially brought them up as just a bunch of guys who raised some legitimate questions which is far from the truth, which is they were organized by conservative string-pullers, and what they claimed re: Kerry's war record was spurious and without merit.

Unless you mean their assertion that his anti-war stance was a betrayal of the military and made him unfit to be commander-in-chief, which s another matter altogether.

I'l reiterate that I'm not lover of John Kerry, but to give credence to one of the more yellow-bellied political maneuvers in recent years is ridiculous.

Anyway again - the point about his military records is beside the point except to show that the fashionable wikipedia-bashing has its limits.

The reason I even responded has already been repeated multiple times: MorbidObesity giving credence to a group that is severely lacking in that department with pretty much everyone else.

As for economic targets. Innocent is a relative term I guess. Civilian status doesn't necessarily make one innocent of a crime.

Just that a hell of a lot of Americans and Iraqis are now dead because of "perceptions", "ostensible" actions and "posturing". Bush and the NeoCons are certifiable psychopaths.

anchorite. To understand why targets are being chosen for an attack, is not being a psychopath or sociopath. It is being a pragmatist. A realist. Attacking military installations, while it has been done in the past, does not engender the 'terror' that terrorists want to generate. Innocent civillian targets do. Add to that, financial targets that could disrupt our economy, and you have a created a target that serves multiple purposes. The people guarding our country need to be able to think outside of the box. Need to be able to think about targets that will hurt us. I truly hope they do not think like you, and have learned from 9/11. Learned that it will not be a military target attacked. I hope they do not think it psychopathic to plan and prepare for attacks on soft targets - or we will be in for even greater devastation in the future.

And to quote you, "When it's convenient for the terrorists, America is A-OKAY, but as soon as we piss them off, oh well.... we're 'OPPRESSING THEM."

Ummmmm, you do know about Noriega and Saddam right? When it's convenient for American interests, dictators are A-OKAY, but as soon as they piss us off, oh well.... they're murderous dictators. It's OK when they butcher their own people by the boatload, but when they take out Americans, they've crossed the line? Wow, what a messed up line.

Your thinking is repulsive.

You are an idiot. Your own words show your contradiction and lying.

As for WMD's. North Korea had them. North Korea was ACTIVELY exporting nuclear technology to the midle east - Syria ring a bell? Iraq did not. Iraq was shown time and time again not to have WMD's. Iraq was not invaded because of WMD's though. The war planning against Iraq took place long before 9/11. Former Bush admin cabinet members have written about it. The former Treasury Sec'y wrote about it. No, not some conspiracy, Iraq was targeted by the neocons as part of a strategy to change the political landscape of the middle east. 9/11 was camped on to to provide cover. If we had really wanted to attack a country that was dangerous to our interests, North Korea would have been it. But we talked to them. Diplomacy worked. Like I said, you are a lying idiot whose own words contradict what you have to say.

Because he wants to remain willfully ignorant.

We got attacked. There was a dictator in the Middle East who shared terrorist sympathies about attacking us.

And that justifies an illegal invasion and occupation?

He lied about WMDs and got attacked back.

How exactly did he lie about WMDs. We never found any if I recall.

As a military man can you please explain to dumb old, immature me how you are supposed to win any war not just a war on terror, but any war at all when you will only attack after your enemy has attacked you. It cannot be done.

Fighting a war on terror is not the same as fighting a war on a country. For one thing it's impossible to beat something as broad-based as terrorism.

We took preemptive action and I am solidly behind it.

What if I told you I'm going to shoot you now because you might someday try to kill me after I provoked you into doing so?

I am tired of worrying about when the next terror attack will be or who will be behind it.

Don't. That's what the Republicans want you to keep fearing so you'll keep voting for them. You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning.

I'm not saying that MSNBC is good journalism. It's not. But stacking a deck on a panel and insulting the president every night is different than slipping in "misspeak" after "misspeak" until your viewership believes it. An incredible amount of Americans actually think Obama's a Muslim and it's not the left or MSNBC who put that idea in their heads. The mainstream media is garbage and I have no use for CNN or MSNBC, but Fox News is the lowest of the low.

And if you weren't such a closed minded idiot, you would see the bigger picture of my wedding reference. The wedding is indicative of the tens of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed and the millions who became refugees. Even though the bulk of those casualties have been at the hands of warring factions and not American soldiers, the end result is the same: the victims families and refugees will look at who was ultimately responsible. That's the sort of thing that breeds terrorists.

And you really are a rhetoric machine. "We took preemptive action and I am solidly behind it. I am tired of worrying about when the next terror attack will be or who will be behind it."

Jesus Christ, you're a bumper sticker. There was "A" dictator in the Middle East? There's more than one. And around the world, there's plenty. And Saddam wasn't even the worst.

Anyway, I'm out of this TB and I'm not coming back. There's too many frightening wankers in this country who have a twisted B.S. sense of patriotism and a skewed world outlook.

YOU pose a bigger threat to me than a terrorist with that "we're the only ones that matter" thinking.

I like you Node - for the most oart. But even giving you the benefit of the doubt, a pretty dispassionate reading of what you posted would clearly indicate that you think only the police - and only 50% of them - the left leaning ones, are innocent.

Rand-- Fuck you for taking HOD away from the TB that matters!! FUCK YOU!

<

p

>

All on the same line.

That should help the rest of us read your laser-sharp liberal-killing posts. Wow. You really area force to be reckoned with.

By the way, as I seem to have to keep repeating to self-proclaimed conservatives, I'm a fucking conservative. Or at least I used to be, I guess I'm more of a moderate now. Your attack on me was somewhat baffling and nonsensical, since you obviously didn't understand that what you read was a response to someone else. I'm not really sure why you took such personal offense at what I wrote, since it was a conversation you weren't even a part of.

Honestly, this is interesting to me. When I write my posts, they make sense to me. My intention, usually, if it's a post like the one you read, is to criticize an attitude that I consider wrong-headed, especially if that attitude is considered to be a conservative one. Why? Because that's my team. I let the liberals figure out their stuff on their own, clean their own house. When someone like Cantankerous shows up and starts spewing half-baked hateful bullshit around in the name of conservatism, I give him a slap. That's the responsibility of the elder. Kids these days, man. Kids these days.

Conservatism is supposed to be about conserving something, an idea of America that is equal parts idealistic and responsible, not this isolationist, xenophobic, paranoid, genocidal sociopathy I see in kids like Cantankerous, Morbid, you and others. And don't even get me started on the idea of patriotism. You crazy kids couldn't define patriotism if Thomas Jefferson himself pulled you out of your seat by your ear. You're a bunch of thugs who've grown up believing that Might IS right, and anyone who disagrees is a pussy. Well, from me, and the rest of the legitimate, thinking conservatives hanging around these boards, I proudly deliver a resounding fuck you.

Stick to what you know, re-writing history, parroting the party-line, clearing a path for your lords and masters with sticks and stones, silencing dissent, and picking on the weak. Your mothers should be so proud.

Just a quick question before I go- If you think I'm the kind of American that should 'leave', because I'm not exactly like you, maybe you should leave too. Don't just go anywhere, though. Why not sign up for a free trip over to the middle east? I hear they're just desperate for young men over there. You'd be serving your country, and maybe you'd have your eyes opened, for once.

If you're so tired of worrying, then go over there and fight, you chickenhawk douche. You whitebread pansies are a disease.

Needless to say, I've locked up the remotes and have implied serious punitive measures for watching cable when we're not home. All I need is my dog to want to join the IRA or something. Or start talking about whether or not Shane is dead. Although he did shit all over my neighbors straw, handmade flip-flops. Bought him his own bag of gourmet coffee beans for that charming delight. He promised to get it on film next time. I told him to get the neighbor's reaction on film...not him shitting on the sandals.

Maybe that tells us something about the voting habits of the people who use the site - but one thing we can say about the election with certainty is that there is no way the Republicans are winning all 50 states.

The people who died on 9/11, whether they were in Washington, NYC or Pennsylvania, were all innocent people. They were all simply going to work, to earn their pay, or on a flight going somewhere, anywhere. Not one person was a legitimate nor reasonable target, just like the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis or Afghanis are not.

Sorry, but I don't want to think like a terrorist or some global hegemonic NeoCon in thinking any person is a reasonable target other than actual perpetrators themselves.

The people responsible for killing all those thousands of people, be they the hijackers or those who helped plan and facilitate the attacks, are all criminals. Same goes for the NeoCon cabal who instigated this hideous mess in Iraq. I don't know how someone can plot the deaths of innocent people, "reasonable targets" or otherwise, as easily as Lex Luthor but there you go. We got some fucked up people in this fucked up world.

Very well said, good sir.

HOD, I say good riddance to you. Again, it takes a lot to piss me off and you succeeded. I asked you to name one other person on Fox who uses Obama’s middle name. You chose to insult me rather than answer. I said I watch all of the news and I have never heard anything at Fox except them trying to say that Obama is not Muslin. That goes for O’Reilly, Hannity and the others. It is Coulter that is the problem. Also there is no way that MSNBC is any better. Matthews spent nearly a week propping up MCClellands’s book that was filled with unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense. Matthews treated it as if it were inarguable fact. The two networks are the same. You don’t see that because you are partisan, or at least appear to be.

You chose a horrible reference with the wedding argument and then accuse me of being close-minded. Jesus, step up to the plate and defend your comments. It doesn’t matter if it was a wedding or what. There is no comparison between any accidental killing and a deliberate one.

Yes, there is more than one dictator in the Middle East. You want us to go after every one at once? Sooner or later the people over there are going to have to deal with their own dictators and I think that was the point of Iraq. We had a reason to go in there and were hoping that the people would rise up. They didn’t and that’s that.

BTW, thanks for the F U comment. It does my heart good to see that kind of intelligent repose to a serious critique.

I made a serious miscalculation with you three. I assumed we could have a serious debate and I should have known better. You are, all three, adamantly convinced that you three alone are right and anyone who disagrees is not only wring, but delusional, war-mongering and xenophobic. Oh yeah and because I chose to think differently I am worse than a terrorist. I got it loud and clear.

How do you like the new html coding Samsquanch? Does it make my argument more valid now that I have paragraph breaks? I have to say I thought that was a very juvenile response to someone who disagrees.

Our views on what conservatism is and what patriotism should be are too different. I am not going to waste anymore time on it with you. Do think though that you won. I simply realize that arguing my argument here is like fighting a fight where the odds are 20-1. If you could have remained civil, I would have enjoyed it even if we had disagreed. You couldn't though and so I will not waste anymore time on you.

I will go back to reading the news here and ignoring the talkbacks. It is, after all, the only sensible thing to do. It is just too frightening in here.

Node: Thanks for listening with an open mind, but I just want to add that the institution of the Pentagon does not equate to the persons working therein. There are lots of good people at the Pentagon, lots of people on the inside who have spoken out against this Administration in the last 8 years (which says a lot about how drastic things must be for them to be so vocal about their opinions).

So, when did you invite "serious debate" then? Was it when you accused me of being an ultra-liberal nutcase who hates America? Or maybe it was when you accused me of being "anti-white" (!?)...

Riiight. You shouldn't get down here in the muck with me. It's beneath someone who exhibits such caliber of character.

as for the paragraph breaks favor: You're welcome.

If you believe in this war, if fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here is a mantra you are in 100% agreement over, then go join the reserves. If you're physically capable then you should be in Iraq upholding your beliefs. As you know, our military is stretched thin. The call has gone out. They need all the help they can get. It seems to me a real honest to Jebus patriot that supports Bush and this war is obligated to serve so that they can make this country safer.

The way you leave the heavy lifting to other people is reprehensible. That's why I insult you. Because you insult every man and woman who wears a uniform.

We don't have to go after every dictator, but go after public enemy number one first. Going after Saddam first is like an emergency room admitting the guy with the broken leg before the guy with the gaping head wound.

Which ones? The same ones who said the housing market was in great shape in 2006? Give me some names here... The US economy is drunk on debt, because nobody had the balls to bite the fiscal bullet and accept a period of having to work hard rather than whooping it up and treating the expanding credit bubble as a never-ending source of free money. (Nasdaq = free money! Oops, oh dear, but hang on...housing market = free money! Oops, oh dear, but hang on...) Greenspan has to take a major chunk of the flak for that as well. Bernanke...well, it's hard to tell. He thinks that opening the M3 spigots and turning the country into an economically socialist state (hey, let's just redistribute money from savers and workers to idiots and speculators, and from future generations to the current bunch of feckless goofs) is the way to go, but I guess he can't be blamed for the situation he inherited.

I am glad I could make you all feel better. I especially liked the absolutes remark. I also liked the fact the you consider strong disagreements as insults. If you felt insulted that I called your thinking nut-ball,ultra liberal then you may have a slight beef there. However I didn't call you an idiot. I didn't tell you to fuck off. I certainly didn't call you stupid. To me there is a difference. Notice I didn't get offended at being called right-wing or whatever. I only objected to name-calling and juvenile insults to what I thought was an argument as well thoughtout as yours. I disageed with you though and we both responded to that disagreement in different ways.

BTW, Toad, can you please enlighten me to the proper etiquette when entering a debate? See I don't spend all my time here so I sometimes miss the start of these things. So, just let me know how to properly get involved. I am allowed to I would assume, or is this kind of a private conversation on a public board? BTW, I wasn't uncivil to you either. Actually with you, I started out much more kindly than I did to Samsquanch because I thought you might be better at debating the points. You educated me on that though and I fully admit to being wrong on that point.

If being passionate about my beliefs is somehow insulting to you two because they differ from what is usually said around here then I can do nothing but humbly beg your pardon. I have never understood why some people take passionate disagreements as personal insults.

eg: "You say Bush is a scumbag, well Clinton was a scumbag too!

-or-

"You say Fox is bad, well, what about MSNBC??"

As if we even brought up Clinton or MSNBC in the first place, and they aren't words being placed in our mouths. Even if we do bring those examples up, the idea that one cancels out the other is ludicrous.

I grew up in an Irish Catholic home, deeply conservative, community minded, pretty poor, and pretty racist/homophobic/misogynist, but over the course of my lifetime I've seen my family and my community transform, from being a backwards, isolated, fearful group to becoming pretty cosmopolitan, worldly, and educated. I wasn't the first person to start challenging some of the rote beliefs and behaviors of my clan, but I was instrumental, if I do say so myself. My family has always been politically aware, but it wasn't until the early 90's that things really started shifting around. My family and my neighborhood still consider themselves to be pretty hardcore conservative, but we can openly discuss Obama's merits and flaws without even bringing up his race, we can discuss issues like gay marriage, abortion, and the war in Iraq with as much fairness and insight as any ivory tower Liberal. This is huge, and I'm very proud of my people.

It's distressing, and frustrating, to see a counter-trend happening elsewhere in the country. It seems like at the same time my community was becoming more open-minded, more realistic, and more practical about what it means to be American, the rest of the country was retreating, withering its scope of understanding, drawing the blinds and becoming willfully ignorant, fearful, and isolated. I have to admit, it's been quite a disappointment, to come out from the rock we'd been hiding under, ready to join the world, and discover the world had found its own rock to crawl under.

That's why I get frustrated with people who call themselves conservative, but what they really are is something else. These people aren't trying to 'conserve' liberty, freedom, the American way, or anything that makes this country great, and gives us all a reason to be proud. No, they're trying to Preserve some older, primitive 'us vs them' mentality, some version of America that has nothing to do with the founding principles, but has everything to do with power and might for its own sake. Bush and his administration represent the pinnacle of that attitude, an oligarchy of political opportunists who couldn't give two shits about the flag, except of course for when its convenient to wrap themselves in it. My family has always voted Republican. We are Republicans, and proud of it. What I see occupying the White House, changing laws, waging wars, spending our wealth, carrying out hideous policies in our name, are aliens. They are fucking alien to me. This is not my Party. These are not Republicans.

This new crop of so-called "conservatives", these idiot kids who think they're patriotic when they tell someone to leave their own country, these followers, these conformists, these weak-minded sheep who think that patriotism means being proud of being the biggest, toughest, most brutal bully on the block, these are the people who are the inheritors and benificiaries of the Bush Republicans. They aren't taught to think, they aren't taught to question, they aren't expected to do anything but toe the party line, keep their mouths shut, an obey. Does that sound American to you?

The really sad thing is, that my poor, uneducated, fearful community of a generation ago was actually more progressive than the young people who have every advantage of wealth, privilege and technology today.

I fear for the future.

In my experience the strongest psychological factors that push people away from considering the merits of position X and keeps them firmly within the bounds of position Y are: 1. X, if true, makes me feel slightly bad about myself, or my country, or my party. I don't like that feeling, so I'll prefer position Y, which makes me feel good about myself. 2. Evaluating position X, its consequences and its suggested actions, involves more mental work than does position Y. It's more nuanced and complicated, there are more factors to consider, and I may have to do some non-trivial reading/research to assess it properly. I really can't be bothered with all that complexity and hard work, so it's Y for me all the way. And of course there's also 3. I'm in tribe A. Position X is held mainly by people in tribe B, and tribe A people don't like tribe B people. Therefore I wouldn't dream of holding position X. Y is the position of my tribe. (This is really a subvariant of reason 1, as my self-identification with tribe A inclines me to always cheer for tribe A positions and boo tribe B positions, to feel good about myself.)

1. X, if true, makes me feel slightly bad about myself, or my country, or my party. I don't like that feeling, so I'll prefer position Y, which makes me feel good about myself.

2. Evaluating position X, its consequences and its suggested actions, involves more mental work than does position Y. It's more nuanced and complicated, there are more factors to consider, and I may have to do some non-trivial reading/research to assess it properly. I really can't be bothered with all that complexity and hard work, so it's Y for me all the way.

And of course there's also

3. I'm in tribe A. Position X is held mainly by people in tribe B, and tribe A people don't like tribe B people. Therefore I wouldn't dream of holding position X. Y is the position of my tribe. (This is really a subvariant of reason 1, as my self-identification with tribe A inclines me to always cheer for tribe A positions and boo tribe B positions, to feel good about myself.)

both with tons of free samples...

believe it.

I wanted to ignore your last post to me, but couldn't since you accused me of something I do not think I did (I am not debating the war with you anymore though since I don't think it will be civil). Yes, I accused you of aligning yourself to people who think we deserve 9/11. I will give you the chance to prove I missunderstood you since I do not, despite the claims, deal in absolutes. I feel strongly, yes, but I can admit when I am wrong.

I went back to the original post that I read that made me want to respond to you. You said this, "We by our policies, created the environments in which extremist points of view could be turned against us. Note: Those extremists would have existed whether or not the U.S. existed or not. But because of some of our policies, we helped point them in our direction." Now tell me why I am wrong for taking that statement as indictating that we are responsible for 9/11 and thus, tho some extent, deserve what we got. I am willing to hear you out if you can refrain from insulting me.

Do you really think actions have no consequence? That actions and reactions spring from a vacuum of thought? Acknowledging that actions have a starting point - or at least an origin, does not justify the consequence. But it does better enable us to understand them and possibly prevent them from occuring again. Too often people refuse to accept that every action has a consequence. Some people are so jingoistic and narrow minded that they can not see that we live in a vast interlocking world where not everyone agrees with one another, and that sometimes we may actually be in the wrong about things. None of my words, those you picked and those you chose to ignore in any way justified or aligned myself with those who justify the attacks. But if we do not learn from the attacks, we are vulnerable to more. I wrote in depth about this in an earlier post to anchorite. Just scroll up and read it . And yes, read first and comprehend, before you launch yourself into a discussion.

That's 4 glasses of wine and two beers talking. But how I do love the discussions on this site.

Okay, I am going to concede your point on the 9/11 attacks. You were making a point about cause and effect without jusitfying the attacks and I read more into it than you intended. In my own defense similar statements are used by people who do feel we deserved to get attacked. Also, there are many situations in which we feel we are very clear in our statements when in fact maybe we're not. That goes for everyone, me included. I do not, however, feel that this is justification for insulting someone. In this case, the mistake was mine and I am owning up to it. I do not however, feel like I am dumb because I misinterpreted your statements. I understand more than most. Believe it or not, I make my living in the English language and it is a legitimate interpretation in literature to read meaning into a passage that the author did not intend. I personally do not subscribe to that, but it is a valid form of interpretation and I do not appreciate being talked down to for not immediately getting your point. Fine, with that said, you have my apology for the misinterpretation.

I'd also like to know what I said in my very first post that you found insulting. I thought it was very civil considering that I was voicing a disagreement.

"We by our policies, created the environments in which extremist points of view could be turned against us. Note: Those extremists would have existed whether or not the U.S. existed or not. But because of some of our policies, we helped point them in our direction."

can be taken to mean the US is "responsible for 9/11" and beyond that "we to some extent, deserve what we got"? That was one of the more level-headed, qualified statements I've read on here all day!

If you're joking, not funny, because what you said is too true.

The first being, why do you feel that the U.S. policy in the middle east has been fair? Are you familiar with our history in the region, and I mean for the past fifty years? Take Israel out of the equation - although most Muslims will not. I am a staunch supporter of Israel. But there are other policies that have little to do with Israel. For example, we propped up both Saddam in Iraq - when it suited our purpose, and the Shah in Iran. We dumped them when they no longer were necessary, but the damage had been done. U.S. geopolitical interest - which at the time meant countering Soviet influence, made for very strange bedfellows. But it was the people in the country's that suffered the most. Generations of disaffected young men grew up hating the U.S. because our policies supported oppressive regimes. The Saudi's oil money, and repressive regime, came from American development of the oil fields. Egypt, which has been dominated by a U.S supported dictator - and lets face it anyone in power for over 25 years is a dictator, has cracked down brutally on dissent. Pakistan, which was all but ignored until we needed them for the war in Afghanistan, realizes that U.S. support is a double edged sword, and many are balking at the terms. These are very real, and ceratinly no where near all of the reasons that we are not beloved in that region.

And since when was Edwards "disgraced" ? Or are you telling us that The National Enquirer is where you get your authorative Political Stories ? They have all denied it and there is absolutely no evidence so Gossip from the Enquirer is just that. Gossip. Unless of course the child in question was the BATBABY! or a Chupacabra!!!

Was Edwards indicted for Lying and accepting bribes or "incentives" or whatever they were supposed to be of up to $250,000 fromn Big Oil companies lately ?

Nope.

That would be Ted Stevens, king of Pork and nearly as friendly to the Oil Giants as McCain.

(because they really ARE down on their luck lately. What with having to hire extra staff to count the mind-boggling profits they are gouging from the people at the pump with their the incredible Gas prices. The very least the Republicans can do for Exxon and their pals at a time like this is bend over. Granting the Oil Gaints their eery whim, like drilling wherever they want to save themselve a few Million Dollars instead of driling all the fields they already have permission for is mere courtesy and can have nothing at all to do with all those Lobbyist pals of McCains)

I imagine the citizens of WWII Germany felt a similar helplessness while watching their country being taken over by war mongers. In similar fashion, anyone questioning the Nazi's rush to war was smeared as being unpatriotic and sympathetic to the enemy. The Nazi's even used the terms "liberal" and "left-wing" as insults to intimidate citizens critical of their war policies! Imagine how far they may have gone if they had Fox News back then?

The more you hear that lie on the main News channels (like Saddam being responsible for 9/11 & Iraq having WMD) the more likely it is that Cheney has ignored the Military and decided to go for a hail mary last gasp attack hoping that the carnage unleashed will somehow benefit him and his GOP buddies.

Even if Iran actually had a fully operational Nuclear Weapon programme (which the Security Services say they don't) 5 years is the very soonest that could be turned into any kind of viable device. And several more years to make it small enough to be deliverable.

The North Korean approach worked. Which is why there are American Diplomats talking to Iran BUT with a weak Bush Cheney might make an end run around those who are trying to manage two wars and force the issue over the precipice.

It's amazing what slipping a few Franklins to a college prof will get you, eh?

Why the continued bashing of Kerry? He was a turkey. With the face of a horse. Zero charisma. Just like all those other wankers the Democrats have paraded out over the years. Mondale and Dukakis? Really?

All Kerry will be remembered for is his inability to defeat the world's first talking chimp. If there's anything beneath a footnote, Kerry will be it.

Funny how this discussion went from the central issue of how credible the SBVFT were - an issue Morbid brought up - to this. Funnier still that the SBVFT question is at least SOMEWHAT open to interpretation, while the military record one is so cut and dry.

You know who's the most smokin' of all though? Kucinich's wife. Good gawd that red hair.

I did not mean in my post to seem like I approve of how policy has been implemented in the Middle East. I just believe in the overall idea of what we want to achieve there. It is a very violent and unstable region for any number of reasons and sometimes the extremists take their fight to other countries. I believe that makes the region a danger to everyone. That is why I support the idea of trying to intervene there and bringing some kind of stability. Have we been successful? Not by a longshot, but I support the ideals that have led us to try and intervene. I don't like how we've gone about it. We always back the wrong guy it seems.

I also think those past mistakes are coming back to bite us now and now we have to take more drastic measures if we are going to stay the course and try to make that region safe and tolerant. I know a lot of people want us to just get out of a place where we are not wanted and I flirted with the idea as well. However, I think we may have got ourselves into a situation that we won't be able to just walk away from. That's why I support our Middle East ideas and why I, to some extent, I support the Iraq War.