R.I.P. To our greatest President
- Thread starter THA RIPPA
- Start date
....
Yes, alot of people did die during the revolution/civil war...there were many civilian casualties but the sandinistas forced alot of young kids into military service which end up being killed do to inexperience. Whenever they needed reinforcements they sent out people around the city to look for kids who were old enough or at least looked old enough and dragged them out to the battlefield with little to no training. But also during Somoza's time anyone that said anything that went against his gov't was either tortured or killed and made out to look like they were revolutionaries/sandinistas. So, yeah alot of people died but under different circumstances which were not directly linked to the contras themselves...these people were caught up in everything that happened during those 11 years of sandinista gov't and during the revolution against somoza.
Yes, alot of people did die during the revolution/civil war...there were many civilian casualties but the sandinistas forced alot of young kids into military service which end up being killed do to inexperience. Whenever they needed reinforcements they sent out people around the city to look for kids who were old enough or at least looked old enough and dragged them out to the battlefield with little to no training. But also during Somoza's time anyone that said anything that went against his gov't was either tortured or killed and made out to look like they were revolutionaries/sandinistas. So, yeah alot of people died but under different circumstances which were not directly linked to the contras themselves...these people were caught up in everything that happened during those 11 years of sandinista gov't and during the revolution against somoza.
Apparently the people of the United States thought differently, since they did give him 8 years in office. But, who knows, maybe that many people could all be wrong and the few that believe he was a murdering asshole are right. Maybe people like you know something 90% of the country doesn't?
Where do you all get your sources from? Straight from the old Reagan Administration? Maybe the CIA, FBI, ATF, CPT, NYC, SJC, MIA, CP3, or the PAAWCFS (People Against Americans With Common Fucking Sense...AKA Nutty ass Left Wingers) :dead:
Where do you all get your sources from? Straight from the old Reagan Administration? Maybe the CIA, FBI, ATF, CPT, NYC, SJC, MIA, CP3, or the PAAWCFS (People Against Americans With Common Fucking Sense...AKA Nutty ass Left Wingers) :dead:
WOW, that MUST make him a good president! Forget about the spics and wetbacks he killed, which america doesn't care about anyway, if the majority of the U.S voted for him he must have been good! I mean after all, Americans are super-dooper smart!
^^^^
In order to win those votes over, ESPECIALLY California, there must have been a good amount of minority voters voting for Reagan, plain and simple...
C'mon, didn't you say you wanted to be a terrorist when you were a kid? That, to me, makes everything you say about the American Government Invalid. I don't agree with the government all the time, but with that many votes he must have been a good president for the American Public...
In order to win those votes over, ESPECIALLY California, there must have been a good amount of minority voters voting for Reagan, plain and simple...
C'mon, didn't you say you wanted to be a terrorist when you were a kid? That, to me, makes everything you say about the American Government Invalid. I don't agree with the government all the time, but with that many votes he must have been a good president for the American Public...
The American Government didn't decieve the country and make them believe Sadaam Hussein was behind 9-11, the Government made it perfectly clear it was Al Qaeda...the US Government went after Hussein for being a threat to not only his people, but a possible threat to the rest of the world. Iraq harbors terrorists, just like Afghanistan, which is another reason we went there. So that is the publics bad for being retarded. I never believed Hussein was behind 9-11, that wasn't put out there...they were after Osama because they knew he was behind it.
Oh, remember the Terror Plot that was uncovered a few weeks back?? There's some of your WMD's.
P.S. African Americans were not the only "minority" in California in 1980, or the rest of the country for that matter...I said "MINORITY", not "African American"
If Reagan was so bad, tell me why people were pulling over and standing up and down the freeway to watch his motorcade pass and pay tribute!!
Oh, remember the Terror Plot that was uncovered a few weeks back?? There's some of your WMD's.
P.S. African Americans were not the only "minority" in California in 1980, or the rest of the country for that matter...I said "MINORITY", not "African American"
If Reagan was so bad, tell me why people were pulling over and standing up and down the freeway to watch his motorcade pass and pay tribute!!
Your right, blacks aren't the only minority. The total minority vote for Reagan was around 11%. I only know of one president who did worse...Dubya who had around 9%.
Those people obviously weren't effected by Reagan, didn't care about his atrocities or were just plain stupid.
“I don’t think he is really being mourned in black America,” said Ron Walters, a professor at the University of Maryland who was deputy campaign manager for Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential bid.
“It’s rather unkind not to mourn the president, but he didn’t have a strong record on African-American issues,” said Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).
“During the "boom" years of the Reagan regime, none of the nation’s minorities benefited from the economic prosperity. In 1986, three years after Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada, over "30 percent of the black population had an income below the official poverty level," one report observed. In this respect, the current state of affairs under Bush are gradually beginning to mirror the Reagan years.”
Reagan biographers write that he opposed sanctions against South African apartheid, preferring a go-slow approach. He purged the civil rights commission, and initially approved tax exemptions for private, segregated colleges. During Reagan's term, job training and anti-poverty programs were reduced.
They definitely didn't mourn Reagan in East Timor.
"The world must not forget that under his leadership, America helped the Indonesian military commit genocide in East Timor," said Jose Luis Oliveira, who heads Yayasan HAK, the country's leading rights organization.
They Definitely didn't celebrate his death in Argentina, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, Grenada, Southeast Asia, or the middle east
Where did the american public get the idea from in the first place? Take away our T.V and Newspapers and where does average Joe get his info? Hmmm....
I don't know about you but doesn’t this mean he lied and is this not an impeachable offense?
Or how about the Media, constantly making a link or in some cases even saying there is proof?
"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD." - This was published in the Weekly Standard, which is of course owned by Rupert Murdoch. Later this "breaking news" was debunked and soon forgotten. Fox news also picked up this "story" and so did Newsmax.
What terror plot?
Those people obviously weren't effected by Reagan, didn't care about his atrocities or were just plain stupid.
“I don’t think he is really being mourned in black America,” said Ron Walters, a professor at the University of Maryland who was deputy campaign manager for Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential bid.
“It’s rather unkind not to mourn the president, but he didn’t have a strong record on African-American issues,” said Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.).
“During the "boom" years of the Reagan regime, none of the nation’s minorities benefited from the economic prosperity. In 1986, three years after Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada, over "30 percent of the black population had an income below the official poverty level," one report observed. In this respect, the current state of affairs under Bush are gradually beginning to mirror the Reagan years.”
Reagan biographers write that he opposed sanctions against South African apartheid, preferring a go-slow approach. He purged the civil rights commission, and initially approved tax exemptions for private, segregated colleges. During Reagan's term, job training and anti-poverty programs were reduced.
They definitely didn't mourn Reagan in East Timor.
"The world must not forget that under his leadership, America helped the Indonesian military commit genocide in East Timor," said Jose Luis Oliveira, who heads Yayasan HAK, the country's leading rights organization.
They Definitely didn't celebrate his death in Argentina, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, El Salvador, Grenada, Southeast Asia, or the middle east
Where did the american public get the idea from in the first place? Take away our T.V and Newspapers and where does average Joe get his info? Hmmm....
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
I don't know about you but doesn’t this mean he lied and is this not an impeachable offense?
Or how about the Media, constantly making a link or in some cases even saying there is proof?
"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD." - This was published in the Weekly Standard, which is of course owned by Rupert Murdoch. Later this "breaking news" was debunked and soon forgotten. Fox news also picked up this "story" and so did Newsmax.
What terror plot?
For the record, John Kerry is a piece of shit too.
Knick picking Tadau...I've read two different reports; one said 10%, (shitty site) another said 14% (more credible). If you want to be fair, fine. More likely it’s around 12%, than 11%. Any difference? 9%, 11%, 14%, 16%, 18% 0 all fucking ineradicably low.
Knick picking Tadau...I've read two different reports; one said 10%, (shitty site) another said 14% (more credible). If you want to be fair, fine. More likely it’s around 12%, than 11%. Any difference? 9%, 11%, 14%, 16%, 18% 0 all fucking ineradicably low.
2-0-Sixx said:
Where did the american public get the idea from in the first place? Take away our T.V and Newspapers and where does average Joe get his info? Hmmm....
I don't know about you but doesn’t this mean he lied and is this not an impeachable offense?
Or how about the Media, constantly making a link or in some cases even saying there is proof?
"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD." - This was published in the Weekly Standard, which is of course owned by Rupert Murdoch. Later this "breaking news" was debunked and soon forgotten. Fox news also picked up this "story" and so did Newsmax.
What terror plot?
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
I don't know about you but doesn’t this mean he lied and is this not an impeachable offense?
Or how about the Media, constantly making a link or in some cases even saying there is proof?
"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD." - This was published in the Weekly Standard, which is of course owned by Rupert Murdoch. Later this "breaking news" was debunked and soon forgotten. Fox news also picked up this "story" and so did Newsmax.
What terror plot?
Take away the TV and shit, and people get their information from RESEARCH, which is where I get my info from.
If you didn't know about the terror plot involving nerve agents that was going to kill THOUSANDS of people...you must not be paying attention and getting your information from an unreliable party. YES, the weapons were hidden in a desert outside of Iraq, and YES, the terrorists knew where they were and planned on using them...against the US Embassy and various other government buildings in the middle east.
Nowhere in that little letter does it say HUSSEIN is responsible for the attacks on 9-11. It does in fact, mention people who AID terrorists, and that includes HARBORING!! Letting them live and train in your country is HARBORING...but not once did Bush say, "Hussein Sent It". I support Bush on some issues, I don't on others. Attacking the middle eastern countries where Terrorists stay, I'm all for it!! DON'T FORGET 9-11. Staying in a country after it has been taken care of and watching troops die is bullshit. So, in no way is my opinion ONE SIDED, or BIAS!!
Who would you rather see get elected this year, Bush Or Kerry? Bush has an agenda and he's following through, and he hasn't stuttered ONCE!! John Kerry can't decide what side of each issue he wants to be on. Do we want that as a president? He can turn on us quickly if he's that fucking indecisive.
And about Reagan, those people don't know what they're talking about, they need to STUDY GOVERNMENT. Reagan didn't order our military to kill people. Presidents don't make BIG decisions, their cabinet and their advisors do. If it doesn't get through EVERYBODY, it isn't happening. CHECKS & BALANCES!! Know about it...
Iraq probably harbored less terrorists than the United States does. State militias, militant white and black organizations and domestic terrorist groups, etc., probably number higher than known terrorist groups in Iraq pre-war.
Never was Iraq mentioned as a harbor for terrorists before this war. And before this war Iraq was not a hotbed for terror. At least now it is, thus, we are justified in being there.
Never was Iraq mentioned as a harbor for terrorists before this war. And before this war Iraq was not a hotbed for terror. At least now it is, thus, we are justified in being there.
SYDAL,
DON'T FORGET 9-11!
Seriously, WTF -- A tragic event, but all in all AN EXTREMELY MINIMAL ATTACK in comparison to all the atrocities the US government has committed throughout the world during, hell, most of the 20th century and CONTINUES to do to this day in ruthless defense of its self-interest. (History shows a recurrent pattern). 9-11 was a drop in the ocean. And please refrain from replying to this with an emotional outburst.
By the way, love your double-standard rhetoric. "Attacking the middle eastern countries where TERRORISTS stay, I'm all for it!! DON'T FORGET 9-11" Have you ever taken the time to THINK why "9-11" occurred in the first place? Could it by any chance be seen as a RETALIATION or REPERCUSSION for the crimes and exploitation done by the US government in countless countries all over the globe? Hmm.. Lemme think. Probably not. They hate USA 'cause you're free and great and stuff. Yeah, that's it.
Here's the definition of terrorism by FBI
This is, of course, supposed to describe terrorism that is directed towards USA and its allies. However, by this definition, USA is, without contest, the single greatest terrorist state in the world. Period.
This again shows that double-standard so typical to many americans showing its ugly head again. Would you, Sydal, be "ALL FOR IT" that countries that have been fucked over and attacked by the USA, now attacked USA?
Does it work both ways?
Funny, it's labeled terrorism when others do it, but when the USA does it its called "humanitarian intervention" or "war on terrorism" or "pre-emptive strike" (LOL). Yeehaw!
Here's why they hate ya, Sydal.
http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm
What do you mean by Bush's agenda? "War on Terror", fighting for the self-interest of major corporations and protecting the rich from god-awful tax-cuts, wrecking what little is left of the social security system, plummeting the US economy into a downward spiral etc etc. "AT LEAST HE HASN'T STUTTERED!"
Edit: Not that I think highly of Kerry at all.
.. Thus making Reagan the "Greatest President of the US"? Sounds more like a B-class actor and a puppet to me.
More about Reagan later.
DON'T FORGET 9-11!
Seriously, WTF -- A tragic event, but all in all AN EXTREMELY MINIMAL ATTACK in comparison to all the atrocities the US government has committed throughout the world during, hell, most of the 20th century and CONTINUES to do to this day in ruthless defense of its self-interest. (History shows a recurrent pattern). 9-11 was a drop in the ocean. And please refrain from replying to this with an emotional outburst.
By the way, love your double-standard rhetoric. "Attacking the middle eastern countries where TERRORISTS stay, I'm all for it!! DON'T FORGET 9-11" Have you ever taken the time to THINK why "9-11" occurred in the first place? Could it by any chance be seen as a RETALIATION or REPERCUSSION for the crimes and exploitation done by the US government in countless countries all over the globe? Hmm.. Lemme think. Probably not. They hate USA 'cause you're free and great and stuff. Yeah, that's it.
Here's the definition of terrorism by FBI
This is, of course, supposed to describe terrorism that is directed towards USA and its allies. However, by this definition, USA is, without contest, the single greatest terrorist state in the world. Period.
This again shows that double-standard so typical to many americans showing its ugly head again. Would you, Sydal, be "ALL FOR IT" that countries that have been fucked over and attacked by the USA, now attacked USA?
Does it work both ways?
Funny, it's labeled terrorism when others do it, but when the USA does it its called "humanitarian intervention" or "war on terrorism" or "pre-emptive strike" (LOL). Yeehaw!
Here's why they hate ya, Sydal.
http://www.doublestandards.org/enemies.htm
What do you mean by Bush's agenda? "War on Terror", fighting for the self-interest of major corporations and protecting the rich from god-awful tax-cuts, wrecking what little is left of the social security system, plummeting the US economy into a downward spiral etc etc. "AT LEAST HE HASN'T STUTTERED!"
Edit: Not that I think highly of Kerry at all.
.. Thus making Reagan the "Greatest President of the US"? Sounds more like a B-class actor and a puppet to me.
More about Reagan later.
Yea, I know why 9-11 happened. Bin Laden stated that it was due to American Troops sitting over seas in middle eastern countries where he doesn't think they belong. We have HAD troops stationed over there for years now, and he doesn't like that...THATS one of the main reasons he wants to keep attacking us. Well, dude needs to deal with it. We're stationed in Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Cuba, and various other places on this planet as well.
And just an FYI, EVERY President is a "puppet" if thats what you think about Reagan. YEA, go back to Government Class, or at least teach yourself something other than what you've already heard. The President has VERY LITTLE authority, whether it be Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or anybody else. It's ALMOST like the Queen of England, that broad has no power, Parliament has the power, Tony Blair has power. Well, where does our power truly lie? Congress, Senate, the cabinets, the advisors.
(By the way, love your double-standard rhetoric. "Attacking the middle eastern countries where TERRORISTS stay, I'm all for it!! DON'T FORGET 9-11" )
How is that a double standard??? You remember how many people they killed? Fuck that. If somebody killed my family in that manner, I would kill EVERYBODY that I believed was involved. That's no double standard, that's called gettin' even. If people brutally murder somebody you love, why should you give a shit about them or their family? It's an eye for an eye, that's not a double standard, that's bad karma for whoever fucked with you and yours in the first place. If you wouldn't do the same, I feel bad for your family...
Those Americans were our family, Bush doesn't care and that's GOOD...they fuck with you, you fuck with them worse. Remember Pearl Harbor? They fucked with us, we nuked them!! Same difference, only we didn't use stupid nutty weapons like nukes or anything like that. Do you not agree with what they did to Japan??
And just an FYI, EVERY President is a "puppet" if thats what you think about Reagan. YEA, go back to Government Class, or at least teach yourself something other than what you've already heard. The President has VERY LITTLE authority, whether it be Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or anybody else. It's ALMOST like the Queen of England, that broad has no power, Parliament has the power, Tony Blair has power. Well, where does our power truly lie? Congress, Senate, the cabinets, the advisors.
(By the way, love your double-standard rhetoric. "Attacking the middle eastern countries where TERRORISTS stay, I'm all for it!! DON'T FORGET 9-11" )
How is that a double standard??? You remember how many people they killed? Fuck that. If somebody killed my family in that manner, I would kill EVERYBODY that I believed was involved. That's no double standard, that's called gettin' even. If people brutally murder somebody you love, why should you give a shit about them or their family? It's an eye for an eye, that's not a double standard, that's bad karma for whoever fucked with you and yours in the first place. If you wouldn't do the same, I feel bad for your family...
Those Americans were our family, Bush doesn't care and that's GOOD...they fuck with you, you fuck with them worse. Remember Pearl Harbor? They fucked with us, we nuked them!! Same difference, only we didn't use stupid nutty weapons like nukes or anything like that. Do you not agree with what they did to Japan??
I'm sorry comrade, but that's the way the text document is.
Hopefully that clears it up for you.
Yes, you and I research our information, but the average Joe does not...which was my point. Come on man, you know the Media such as Fox news etc. plays a HUGE role in what average Joe thinks.
I didn't know what you were talking about specifically since you were very vague, "Oh, remember the Terror Plot that was uncovered a few weeks back??" Don't assume I didn't hear about it comrade. If you’d like to discuss this in detail by all means do so.
Harboring! WOW! Lets invade every single country in the world, including our own!
Did I ever say Bush said, "Hussein Sent it"? My point was that the 60+% of americans must have got their views somewhere. The media and the Bush Admin. Bunch of lies, just like Iraq being an imminent threat and WMD's.
What the fuck are talking about? I haven't forgotten 9/11, but what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Honestly, I want Bush to win. Not for the same reasons as you, I'm sure, but I don't trust Kerry either. I'm not just black and white, Democrat vs. Republican comrade. I've broken down why I want Bush to win on other threads...
All of the people I quoted have studied the Government and some are IN the government. Anyone who knows anything about minority rights, civil rights, environment, etc. knows that Reagan was not there ally.
Your right, Reagan was a Puppet. He was an idiot, like Bush, who never had the brains to make any decisions. When we speak about certain Administrations we associate them with the president at the time, Reagan, Bush, Clinton whatever, to simplify things. If you want to get technical, sure comrade, Reagan didn't decide shit. Ok, I'm happy we can finally agree on something. But at the same time they still are president, granted some are more involved than others, but they still are involved with come decision making, certain policies etc. and they have every opportunity to voice their opinions and use their power to pursue.
Good Post attay. Remember, you’re not a terrorist if you’re a terrorist for the U.S.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 18, 2003
Office of the Press Secretary
March 19, 2003
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 18, 2003
Hopefully that clears it up for you.
Yes, you and I research our information, but the average Joe does not...which was my point. Come on man, you know the Media such as Fox news etc. plays a HUGE role in what average Joe thinks.
I didn't know what you were talking about specifically since you were very vague, "Oh, remember the Terror Plot that was uncovered a few weeks back??" Don't assume I didn't hear about it comrade. If you’d like to discuss this in detail by all means do so.
Harboring! WOW! Lets invade every single country in the world, including our own!
Did I ever say Bush said, "Hussein Sent it"? My point was that the 60+% of americans must have got their views somewhere. The media and the Bush Admin. Bunch of lies, just like Iraq being an imminent threat and WMD's.
What the fuck are talking about? I haven't forgotten 9/11, but what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
Honestly, I want Bush to win. Not for the same reasons as you, I'm sure, but I don't trust Kerry either. I'm not just black and white, Democrat vs. Republican comrade. I've broken down why I want Bush to win on other threads...
All of the people I quoted have studied the Government and some are IN the government. Anyone who knows anything about minority rights, civil rights, environment, etc. knows that Reagan was not there ally.
Your right, Reagan was a Puppet. He was an idiot, like Bush, who never had the brains to make any decisions. When we speak about certain Administrations we associate them with the president at the time, Reagan, Bush, Clinton whatever, to simplify things. If you want to get technical, sure comrade, Reagan didn't decide shit. Ok, I'm happy we can finally agree on something. But at the same time they still are president, granted some are more involved than others, but they still are involved with come decision making, certain policies etc. and they have every opportunity to voice their opinions and use their power to pursue.
Good Post attay. Remember, you’re not a terrorist if you’re a terrorist for the U.S.