Bush wants authority to postpone election

[Corn]

3rd, I know Saddam needed to be removed but the way it was done was completely wrong. I see that now.

That's right, we should have simply asked him politely to remove himself. Maybe another 13 years of starving the average Iraqi would have taught him a lesson!

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: TaylorD

Wow...do you go off on tangents much?

1st, I was for the war last year (go back in the archived messages and see my posts.)

2nd, after realizing I was duped, I have become quite critical of this administration, the neocons in particular (Bush is just too dumb or too lazy to realize he's been played.)

3rd, I know Saddam needed to be removed but the way it was done was completely wrong. I see that now.

4th, while Bush wasn't the one hooking up wires to peoples' testicles or shoving broomsticks up peoples' asses, he certainly is responsible. The Buck Stops Here. He and his legal team worked to find ways around our anti-torture laws and subverting the Geneva Conventions. Their actions created the environment that caused the abuse. Go read that thread to educate yourself.

You opened up the tangent box, I just brought out more toys.

1 - I apologize, I typecast you as most democrats I argue with.
2 - I have never been a big fan of Bush but I find myself defending him here from sometimes absurd claims. I do feel there was some "duping" that took place, but I think it was intelligence faults from many sources and not some conspiracy.
3 - How should Saddam have been removed? Do you see this guy still claiming to be the Pres.? Hes a nutjob and a half, there was no other way to remove him.
4 - He isn't responsible in my mind. And this wasn't My Lai. I think it was horrible what was done but if you think Bush was behind the curtain pulling strings then you've allowed your vision to be clouted by your disdain for the administration.

4 - Well maybe saddam wasnt responsible for what happened under his regime - he was only the man - that hired the man -that told the man - who told the man to drop the bombs?

And this is potentially give bush the power to be come a uber dictator the same what the Patriot act "potentially" give the US to take a human - foreign or domestic - and hold them FOREVER - with no charges or access to a lawer - - OOH who ever thought that it would get that bad.!? We have been holding people since 2001 -* Thats almost a presidential term right there........... Like somebody already said in the thread the should do NOTHING - they MAY have to keepthe poles open for a bit longer OR they would have a major problem if "The Base (R)" - took down a power grid across the Us making the *cough- Rigged- Cough* voting machines no have power

 

[TaylorD]

4 - Well maybe saddam wasnt responsible for what happened under his regime - he was only the man - that hired the man -that told the man - who told the man to drop the bombs?

And this is potentially give bush the power to be come a uber dictator the same what the Patriot act "potentially" give the US to take a human - foreign or domestic - and hold them FOREVER - with no charges or access to a lawer - - OOH who ever thought that it would get that bad.!? We have been holding people since 2001 -* Thats almost a presidential term right there........... Like somebody already said in the thread the should do NOTHING - they MAY have to keepthe poles open for a bit longer OR they would have a major problem if "The Base (R)" - took down a power grid across the Us making the *cough- Rigged- Cough* voting machines no have power

Saddam gave the orders. The fact that you even make this comparison highlights your ignorance. In an informed mind the two are incomparable.

Though I agree the acts that happened in the prison were appalling. Torture is on a different scale than murder/genocide, at least in my eyes.

And your comment on rigged voting machines is reasurring as to your status as a non-crackpot. Thanks Oliver Stone. The voting machines are not rigged. Faulty, yes, but show me an election involving millions of people that was 100% accurate. Voter intent cannot be elicited if the voter is too stupid to express it, and there are many stupid voters. (on both sides of the spectrum, and they do not account for all of the error, just an example)


In an effort to keep this on topic, I am retiring from this thread. I think the election should go on barring a catastrophic event, as do most Americans, I think. Catastrophic would need to be defined here, and this is where we will undoubtedly encounter unresolvable disagreement.

 

[Siddhartha]

:Q

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Corn

3rd, I know Saddam needed to be removed but the way it was done was completely wrong. I see that now.

That's right, we should have simply asked him politely to remove himself. Maybe another 13 years of starving the average Iraqi would have taught him a lesson!

Just like in this voting issue. The Rule of Law prevails over all things. Let Congress determine a scenario to follow if there is some terrorist effort to preclude the full electorate from casting their vote. I'm sure there are enough legal minds in that place (DC) to develop a workable solution and codify it. Just as in Iraq. Different forum same process. Surely the UN members of the Security Counsel can figure out how to deal with Saddam's Crimes against Humanity. It is an International issue not a domestic US issue so it requires International participation and agreement. We are not the lone gun from the West determined to violate any and all International Law to effect our will. Least ways by having the UN Charter made part of our body of Law by treaty we said we weren't.

 

[Corn]

Surely the UN members of the Security Counsel can figure out how to deal with Saddam's Crimes against Humanity.

Yeah, they sure showed him. Starved a bunch of his people to death but gave him enough rope to build a few more lavish palaces.......it was as it should have been, for it was the will of the UN.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: TaylorD
You opened up the tangent box, I just brought out more toys.

1 - I apologize, I typecast you as most democrats I argue with.
2 - I have never been a big fan of Bush but I find myself defending him here from sometimes absurd claims. I do feel there was some "duping" that took place, but I think it was intelligence faults from many sources and not some conspiracy.
3 - How should Saddam have been removed? Do you see this guy still claiming to be the Pres.? Hes a nutjob and a half, there was no other way to remove him.
4 - He isn't responsible in my mind. And this wasn't My Lai. I think it was horrible what was done but if you think Bush was behind the curtain pulling strings then you've allowed your vision to be clouted by your disdain for the administration.

2. No duping, just overreaction. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. had a debt to settle after 911. Bush became paranoid that our enemy would cooperate with another enemy and provide the means for delivery of mass destruction so he invaded a soveriegn state without international support cost us 1000+ of our boys and 150billion plus of our budget.

3. Saddam wasn't a threat to us, our inability to find weapons of mass destruction is evidence that although playing shell games he was not a threat to the US and we had no reason to invade. We pre-emptively stuck a nation out of fear, something that we never did during the cold war (and set an incredibly dangerous precident).

4. He is responsible. Like the captian of that sub that hit that Japanesse research boat he is responsible because he is in charge, unlike that captain he can't admit he IS responsible. Rumsfield did, but not Bush and Bush is commander in chief.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
listen, the terrorists want bush OUT of office. they wouldn't do anything to keep him IN office, that would be illogical now wouldn't it? If they are going to attack it is going to be now or relatively soon, that will have the most dramatic effect on the election. should an attack happen right before the election then Bush would prob. win easily.

Are you kidding? Bush is a God-Send to the terrorists... They would do everything to keep him in, hence an attack.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: TaylorD
You opened up the tangent box, I just brought out more toys.

1 - I apologize, I typecast you as most democrats I argue with.
2 - I have never been a big fan of Bush but I find myself defending him here from sometimes absurd claims. I do feel there was some "duping" that took place, but I think it was intelligence faults from many sources and not some conspiracy.
3 - How should Saddam have been removed? Do you see this guy still claiming to be the Pres.? Hes a nutjob and a half, there was no other way to remove him.
4 - He isn't responsible in my mind. And this wasn't My Lai. I think it was horrible what was done but if you think Bush was behind the curtain pulling strings then you've allowed your vision to be clouted by your disdain for the administration.

2. No duping, just overreaction. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. had a debt to settle after 911. Bush became paranoid that our enemy would cooperate with another enemy and provide the means for delivery of mass destruction so he invaded a soveriegn state without international support cost us 1000+ of our boys and 150billion plus of our budget.

3. Saddam wasn't a threat to us, our inability to find weapons of mass destruction is evidence that although playing shell games he was not a threat to the US and we had no reason to invade. We pre-emptively stuck a nation out of fear, something that we never did during the cold war (and set an incredibly dangerous precident).

4. He is responsible. Like the captian of that sub that hit that Japanesse research boat he is responsible because he is in charge, unlike that captain he can't admit he IS responsible. Rumsfield did, but not Bush and Bush is commander in chief.

he still will not get # 4

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: TaylorD
It does digress from the topic, but if you are so concerned about the rights of those who are not American citizens, such as the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, then how could you be against the war in Iraq in the first place unless you are historically misinformed or ignorant? Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated peoples rights, as others do around the world today, and you seem to only be concerned about the violations reported in the New York Times. Which tells me either you really don't care about the rights of people around the world and/or you'd use anything to demean the Bush Admin. or Republicans. Bush wasn't over there torturing prisoners, and he may have a lot to be criticized about, but I believe the connection there is far too thin.

The patriot act was meant to empower the Federal Agencies to do things they hadn't before in terms of dealing with terrorists. (Similar leeway had been made in the past to deal with organized crime, because they had become so skilled at avoiding the existing abilities of the Feds.)

I don't care about the rights of people around the world. I couldn't care less because I'm not empowered to. You may find this surprising, but neither is the federal government. No one, as far as I know, has elected the USA as the harbinger of international peace, goodwill and human rights. Surprised again? Why do I care about what happened at Abu Ghraib? Because the prisoners (and I use the term loosely) there were under US control. As such, they should have been treated with the same deference we expect when our soldiers are taken captive. The NYT huh? I see you're at least pretending to be a knee-jerk conservative. Where you as offended by the mere existence of the Times when they were helping Bush lie our way into another war? No, I don't think so.

Yeah, The Patriot Act (I LOVE that name!) was MEANT to give the feds the tools they needed to fight the most lucrative enemy the US government has ever seen. In reality, it was just a Red, White and Blue repackage of statutes that had been proposed before and shot down. 9/11 could have been foiled using the data at hand, but the fed was/is just too fat, dumb, and overpaid to do one of its few legitimate tasks, protect the shores.

"Saddam Hussein is a BAAAD man!" He wasn't so bad when we thought we needed him. I don't recall any "moral clarity" from The Great Communicator when Hussein was happily gassing the pants off our new friends, The Kurds. In fact, the media at large was quiet as well. Interesting. One last question: If The Patriot Act was just what the doctor ordered, why is Tom Ridge now saying that there probably ARE active terrorist cells in the US?

 

[conjur]

Ok...which is it?

Is there NO plan to postpone the election?

Rice: No Plan to Delay National Election
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040713/D83PU9TO1.html


Or is there a plan?

Homeland Security Confirms Election Delay Talks
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=A41ADD95-19AA-405F-AE96EBE4E548F781



What a FVCKED-UP administration this is!!!!

Nobody knows what the hell is going on!

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok...which is it?

Is there NO plan to postpone the election?

Nobody knows what the hell is going on!

🙂 Seems like just the latest example of how lacking Bush is when it comes to running his own administration. Homeland Security is trying to morph into another FBI, Rice is the most intelligent woman in the world and Bush is tooling around in a bus without a clue, spouting the same tired, discredited crap at every stop.

Another great day in The Velvet Empire.

 

[Thump553]

This story is widely reported in mainstream media today.

I have absolutely no problem with government agencies brainstorming what to do in various hypothetical situations so we have all the bases covered in case the problem does come up. Its certainly better than making major policy decisions on the fly.

Far too much is being read into this contingency planning in my view.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Thump553
This story is widely reported in mainstream media today.

I have absolutely no problem with government agencies brainstorming what to do in various hypothetical situations so we have all the bases covered in case the problem does come up. Its certainly better than making major policy decisions on the fly.

Far too much is being read into this contingency planning in my view.

As a caller to C-SPAN said this morning, it shouldn't be made into big news. It's only more fear-mongering. It should be kept in discussions within the government and then, when a plan is formulated, present it to the public.

As it is now, this administration's right-hand has no idea what the left-hand is doing or saying. It's a big cluster-fvck in the White House right now.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: conjur
Ok...which is it?

Is there NO plan to postpone the election?

Rice: No Plan to Delay National Election
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040713/D83PU9TO1.html


Or is there a plan?

Homeland Security Confirms Election Delay Talks
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=A41ADD95-19AA-405F-AE96EBE4E548F781



What a FVCKED-UP administration this is!!!!

Nobody knows what the hell is going on!

Terror Alert - No Terror Alert - Terror Alert - No Terror Alert - Terror Alert - No Terror Alert - Terror Alert - No Terror Alert - Terror Alert - No Terror Alert - Terror Alert - No Terror Alert ......................









SHUX

 

[Genx87]

Oh, a scenario which potentially makes Bush a lifetime dictator shouldn't be questioned. Please indeed.

You are in la la land. Come back to reality please.

If Cheney, Ashcroft, and Ridge have their way with the manipulation of laws, there is a real possibility that we will see declaration of martial law. This would be a worst case scenario in the event of a terrorist attack and/or impeachment proceedings of Bush.

What laws have they enacted that will bring martial law to this country 24/7?

Retards? Gee, what a CHARMER you are? None of us have even SEEN the legislation associated with this OBVIOUS power grab.

Sometimes you people make it too easy. If you havent seen the legislation yet, then why are you up in arms?

Couple that with the fact that congress hardly ever pays much DIRECT attention to what they vote on AND the innate ignorance exhibited by the majority of the American electorate and you have a recipe for an American-flavored dictatorship.

Vote in new senators if you feel they arent doing the job. It happens every 2 years for the house and 6 years for the senate.

Now, if you want to sit on your brain and wax confident, that's peaches. But please don't call the people who are concerned about this "retards." We have every right to be weary of leaps in power like this in a supposedly FREE society.

I find it kind of ironic you form an opinion on something you havent read but then dont want to be called a retard.


Making preparations for a possible terrorist act is a smart move. I dont think any of you would disagree if we had a better plan for 9-11 would you?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Thump553
This story is widely reported in mainstream media today.

I have absolutely no problem with government agencies brainstorming what to do in various hypothetical situations so we have all the bases covered in case the problem does come up. Its certainly better than making major policy decisions on the fly.

Far too much is being read into this contingency planning in my view.

One of the most alarming things I've noticed about government is that "contingency" often becomes the norm when given the slightest opportunity. We've managed to make it through two devastating world wars and myriad police\imperial actions without the fed openly tampering with the franchise. Instead of trying to be "reasonable" about this, you should be asking yourself a simple question: Why now? In an environment like this; government officials brazenly lying their heads off, a shadowy and powerful faction in the Whitehouse giggling about perpetual war and the media in a near stupor about it all, why not ere on the side of less government power instead of more? Just-this-once...

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Genx87

What laws have they enacted that will bring martial law to this country 24/7?

Sometimes you people make it too easy. If you havent seen the legislation yet, then why are you up in arms?

Vote in new senators if you feel they arent doing the job. It happens every 2 years for the house and 6 years for the senate.

I find it kind of ironic you form an opinion on something you havent read but then dont want to be called a retard.

Making preparations for a possible terrorist act is a smart move. I dont think any of you would disagree if we had a better plan for 9-11 would you?

Executive order 11490

Not as easy as people like you. Do you need to be bashed in the head with a flag-colored brick to understand that your government thinks you're a flaming idiot?

Here we go now! "Just vote them out!!!" Are you daft or were you born yesterday? No matter who's in office things just keep getting worse.

NSA Rice views this situation the same way I do. What do you think of that, sir?

Now you're really going crazy-town on me. Sure, plan for how to clean up the mess, but leave the franchise alone. Did I suggest otherwise? Better plan for 9/11? 🙂 How about Bush reading and acting on that NSE memo titled: "Bin Laden determined to strike America", that he received 36 DAYS BEFORE 9/11? Now that would have been would have been some kick-my-ass planning!!! Here?s another plan that would easily gain my approval, stay the hell out of everyone else?s business, the US doesn?t own the world!!! See where I'm coming from?

Oh, just so you'll have a clear picture to work with; the only time name-calling becomes viable is in retaliation. Not as the first word in a post, directed at anyone who doesn't agree. Now, ease-up on your condescending, nose-in-the-air approach and we can have nice, cordial debate.

 

[Genx87]

One of the most alarming things I've noticed about government is that "contingency" often becomes the norm when given the slightest opportunity.

Like?

We've managed to make it through two devastating world wars and myriad police\imperial actions without the fed openly tampering with the franchise. Instead of trying to be "reasonable" about this, you should be asking yourself a simple question: Why now?

I think it is pretty simple really. Terrorism is a war in which there are no defined sides. It is a war where your enemy can relatively easily infiltrate the ranks of your civilian population and strike on their own time. In the World Wars we had a defined front that we could see move forward or back. But imagine if the Germans planted hundreds of their own in the US and started bombing factories, shops, or elections?

In an environment like this; government officials brazenly lying their heads off, a shadowy and powerful faction in the Whitehouse giggling about perpetual war and the media in a near stupor about it all, why not ere on the side of less government power instead of more? Just-this-once...

What lies are you referring to? The senate commission on 9-11 has cleared the Bush admin of any lying they supposedly done.

If you think Bush and crew are "giggling" in the Whitehouse over the possibility of a prolonged war. You need to step back from far left for just a second. What has this war personally gained Bush?

 

[Genx87]

Not as easy as people like you. Do you need to be bashed in the head with a flag-colored brick to understand that your government thinks you're a flaming idiot?

Have you even read that executive order?

Here we go now! "Just vote them out!!!" Are you daft or were you born yesterday? No matter who's in office things just keep getting worse.

How else do you suggest we change the politicians in this country?

How about Bush reading and acting on that NSE memo titled: "Bin Laden determined to strike America", that he received 36 DAYS BEFORE 9/11? Now that would have been would have been some kick-my-ass planning!!! Here?s another plan that would easily gain my approval, stay the hell out of everyone else?s business, the US doesn?t own the world!!! See where I'm coming from?

So given a vague title like "Bin Laden is determined to strike the US" what would you have done? Where would you have started, and where do you think it would have ended?

I see where you are coming from and I agree. Let the rest of the world pick up the humanitarian aid we spit out every year to the tune of 50% total. I also suggest we gut the budget of the UN since we supply 28% of it.

Oh, just so you'll have a clear picture to work with; the only time name-calling becomes viable is in retaliation. Not as the first word in a post, directed at anyone who doesn't agree. Now, ease-up on your condescending, nose-in-the-air approach and we can have nice, cordial debate.

I would suggest doing a little more research and a little less propganda. You havent provided much of anything in terms of evidence to this debate. Just more ranting and raving based on loose talk.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

How does it "potentially" give Bush the opportunity to become lifetime dictator?

Because he is talking about postponing the election. Remember? That thing...we're talking about? You should have a policy of not posting when you're drunk and stoned.
The rest of your "post" is not worth responding to, and you are dismissed.
Bu-Bye!

Postpone does not equal do away with. I don't see how you could possibly come to the conclusion or potential conclusion you drew. Moron. :roll: You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

How about Bush reading and acting on that NSE memo titled: "Bin Laden determined to strike America", that he received 36 DAYS BEFORE 9/11? Now that would have been would have been some kick-my-ass planning!!! Here?s another plan that would easily gain my approval, stay the hell out of everyone else?s business, the US doesn?t own the world!!! See where I'm coming from?

So given a vague title like "Bin Laden is determined to strike the US" what would you have done? Where would you have started, and where do you think it would have ended?

Let's start with the fact that Ashcroft started flying charter jets instead of commercially in the summer of 2001.

Why was that?



http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=220

"In response to inquiries from CBS News (July 26, 2001) over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a 'threat assessment' by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term. There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines,"?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Genx87

One of the most alarming things I've noticed about government is that "contingency" often becomes the norm when given the slightest opportunity.

Like?

We've managed to make it through two devastating world wars and myriad police\imperial actions without the fed openly tampering with the franchise. Instead of trying to be "reasonable" about this, you should be asking yourself a simple question: Why now?

I think it is pretty simple really. Terrorism is a war in which there are no defined sides. It is a war where your enemy can relatively easily infiltrate the ranks of your civilian population and strike on their own time. In the World Wars we had a defined front that we could see move forward or back. But imagine if the Germans planted hundreds of their own in the US and started bombing factories, shops, or elections?

In an environment like this; government officials brazenly lying their heads off, a shadowy and powerful faction in the Whitehouse giggling about perpetual war and the media in a near stupor about it all, why not ere on the side of less government power instead of more? Just-this-once...

What lies are you referring to? The senate commission on 9-11 has cleared the Bush admin of any lying they supposedly done.

If you think Bush and crew are "giggling" in the Whitehouse over the possibility of a prolonged war. You need to step back from far left for just a second. What has this war personally gained Bush?

Don't take this the wrong way dude, but I'm not about to engage you on emergency and executive clauses that were written into law only to have you pooh-pooh anything I say.

Terrorism is a tactic employed by those who don't have massive military assets to sling around, but do have a real or imagined grievance that isn't being addressed. In spite of what you've been told, it's no more complex than that. Dealing with terrorism, on the other hand, is in no way "simple." Especially for a nation that sees itself as never making mistakes at best, or simply doesn't care how its actions are perceived by others at worst. Defined front? You're dead wrong. There were massive internal security operations in the US during both world wars. What do you think justified the Japanese internment camps? To my knowledge not one contingency was aimed at tampering with the franchise during these periods.

The 9/11 commission has done no such thing. They've been leaking like a colander and none of its peaches for Bush, his merry band of chicken-hawk imperialists or the fed in general. Moreover, the 9/11 commission charter says nothing about investigating the actions of the Whitehouse.

The senate report is even worse, though republicans have been able to blunt the committee?s findings, dump most of blame on hapless the CIA and spin it like a top. Let's not forget that the executive's culpability in all of this has been left for the SECOND half of the report, after the election. And no, I'm not going to waste my time recounting 2-YEARS of OBVIOUS lying and fear-mongering. You can hunt that up for yourself.

Yes, giggling. Use that browser to glean the backgrounds of the power-elite who've been running things for Bush. Gained? Dude, you're out of touch. Bush has personally gained something that, to some, is worth more than money and fame; the ability to act-out his childish born-again fantasies of good vs. evil. As for the rest of his fat-headed crew, find that out for yourself. Start with the Christian Science Monitor site, they?re fair. And please, don't start in with the labels. You have no idea what my political leanings are.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Have you even read that executive order?

How else do you suggest we change the politicians in this country?

So given a vague title like "Bin Laden is determined to strike the US" what would you have done? Where would you have started, and where do you think it would have ended?

I see where you are coming from and I agree. Let the rest of the world pick up the humanitarian aid we spit out every year to the tune of 50% total. I also suggest we gut the budget of the UN since we supply 28% of it.

I would suggest doing a little more research and a little less propganda. You havent provided much of anything in terms of evidence to this debate. Just more ranting and raving based on loose talk.

Yes, have you? You said that there was no structure in place for 24/7 martial law. You were wrong.

Stop acting like selfish babies and do what's best in the cause of freedom. As long as we allow ourselves to be divided and therefore marginalized over silly sh1t, both parties will continue to take our collective asses to the cleaners. Politicians have behaved JUST like they do in Washington for thousands of years, but the masses don?t seem have to have learned a thing in all that time. I can go into this MUCH further, but I need to know that you're receptive enough to at least consider my words. I won?t waste my time.

Vague title? 🙂 We do have a need to judge things based on our limited perceptions, don't we? That memo wasn't passed to Joe Pentium, sitting in front of his computer, knowing nothing. It was given to POTUS, the same guy who SWEARS to protect, to the best of his ability, the people of the US. Couple that with almost 8-years of KNOWING that Bin Laden was an "issue", reports that KNOWN terrorist-types were taking flight training for passenger jets and you have one MASSIVE red-flag that should have been enough to wake even Bush up. We pay billions of $ a year for intelligence/security and you're OKAY with this sort of performance?

We agree on something? Good.

After a good start you fall RIGHT back into intellectual attacks? I don't do propaganda, left or right. For you to say: "You havent provided much of anything in terms of evidence to this debate. Just more ranting and raving based on loose talk.", indicates that you don't want to debate. You'd rather roll over on your back like a 2-bit whore and swat at things. That game I'm NOT going to play with you. And if you can't do better than lame insults and put down that nasty superiority complex I would suggest you leave me the fock alone before this goes ANY further.

 

[Corn]

And if you can't do better than lame insults and put down that nasty superiority complex I would suggest you leave me the fock alone before this goes ANY further.

You'd better behave or HardWarrior will kick your ass you two bit whore!

:roll:

I don't do propaganda.....

Yeah right!!!!! LOL, the first post of this thread is propaganda! "Republicans....dangerous....blah blah blah"......You're dishonest or a moron HW....don't really matter to me which. And if you would, please threaten me too, I really don't want to be left out.....