403 Forum Posts by "TheEvilOne"
So we're talking worst Presidents now? Okay then...
1. LBJ (bet you can't guess why!)
2. William Henry Harrison (ran under no platform whatsoever, was going to be a puppet for the Whig party leadership, turned election into a circus, caught pneumonia while making an overly long inauguration speech, and proceeded to die in 30 days)
3. Grant (great general, but his cabinet was one of the most corrupt ever, and he did nothing about it)
4. Oh hell, I'll go ahead and throw Clinton in. His domestic policy admittedly wasn't TOO bad (though a Republican congress helped keep him in line there), but I can't say much about a guy who only fought terrorism whenever it would help distract from his personal scandals, and even then he put in minimal effort (one or two cruise missiles, and then go home).
And regarding what they've done to irritate us... we have accused them of harboring officials from Saddam's regime, and also possibly harboring his weapons. The Syrians deny these accusations, of course. I can't say if they're true or not, but the article would suggest that the Syrians don't have any desire for war with the US. But if war with Syria were to come, it would probably be sometime down the road, and not right away.
Okay, I was mistaken about the "inner circle" part. I had read the article earlier in the day, and forgotten its exact words.
At 4/17/03 09:11 PM, mr_trivia wrote: I'm not sure if the Iraqi people would know how to run a democracy. All Muslim nations have been dictatorships and Muslim is an Arabic word meaning "One who submits". If you were told to run a representative government after generations of being told to submit to a dictator, wouldn't you have trouble adjusting?
Maybe a little. But we're going to help them. The word "Muslim" does mean "one who submits", but the idea of Islam is that Muslims submit to Allah, not to a dictator. I think the Iraqis will be quite capable of running a democracy... or a republic, or whatever you want to call it. I don't want to argue with Slizor over the definition of a democracy again. :)
Ladies, gentlemen, and NemesisZ:
War with Syria is NOT imminent. Sure, they may be doing a lot to irritate us right now, but as I said before, we know when to quit. Besides, karasz, you admitted that it's not exactly the most unbiased news source.
Besides, it's starting to look like Syria doesn't want to irritate us too much. Here is a report that they may be about to expel some members of Saddam's inner circle.
At 4/17/03 12:04 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:"King" Andrew Jackson, for putting the power in the presidency, even though he was a pretty evil guy for killing all of the native americans
Well, he didn't kill ALL of them--only those who resisted his attempts to remove them to was was then thought of as a remote, far-away place, but is today known as Oklahoma.
Come to think of it, Oklahoma is STILL thought of as a remote, far-away place. :)
At 4/17/03 12:10 AM, jimsween wrote: He was alos bi-polar, invaded mexico under orderes not to, fired his entire cabinet, and was the first president to be impeached.
That was Johnson who got impeached, not Jackson.
At 4/16/03 11:58 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: How you can lump Richard Nixon in as one of the greatest presidents is beyond me. For crying out loud, he spied on the other party!
Yeah, he kinda got paranoid and did something wrong that ultimately brought him down. But other than that, he was actually a pretty good president, especially in matters of foreign policy (got us out of Vietnam).
Best presidents ever? In no particular order:
Reagan
FDR (here because his leadership got us through the depression and WWII, even though his policies did lead to modern liberalism)
Jefferson
At 4/16/03 11:28 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Still, George has failed to catch either of the two leaders he said he was going to capture, as well as finding no real WMD's in Iraq. Alright, some pesticide. We have that here, too. It's used to grow the onions in my back yard. I suppose if you drink a barrel it'll kill you, but then, isn't bleach a weapon of mass destruction?
Okay, so nothing really came out of the reports that I posted. But that doesn't mean the weapons don't exist. If the weapons are buried deep underground, then it will take a while to find them. People want to point out the fact that we have yet to find the weapons. Have patience.
And it's really not that hard for one man to elude capture if he maintains a low profile. Have patience on that one too. I think it's only a matter of time before we get Osama. Same with Saddam, unless he made it to Syria.
Religion tends to get lumped in with philosophy, current events, etc. into the Politics forum. If you have something worthwhile to say about religion, then you're welcome to say it there.
And if you don't have anything worthwhile to say about religion, then it's best to not say anything about it in the Politics forum at all. If you do, you'll probably get flamed to death. :)
And to clarify: I'm kinda leaning towards the "maybe not" as far as Kim working to improve the lives of his people.
Keep in mind that Saddam was not willing to respond to diplomacy. If Kim is, then we don't have a whole lot of "just cause".
But the North Korean people do need a better life. Maybe after seeing what we did to Saddam, Kim might be willing to try to improve the lives of his people.
Or maybe not.
We'll just have to wait and see.
The new Iraq will be much more democratic than the old one, no questions asked.
Some Iraqis are complaining about the idea of the US running an interim government, but the bottom line is that Saddam is gone, and a new government controlled by the Iraqi people will soon be in place.
People question whether the Iraqi people will accept Western democracy, but the Iraqis will choose the form of the new government. It may be similar to American democracy, but it will be built with Iraqi interests in mind.
That's just the funniest thing ever. I really liked how the Marines were just hanging out there, as if it was their shack now. Kinda like they did with that one palace of Saddam's.
Commander, I think people only have a problem with posting the entire text of an article. Links are okay. Especially if they are as good as this one.
Damn, why the hell am I still up?
Obviously, our relationship with Syria is on the rocks at the moment, but I doubt it will come to war. I think we'll just put lots of diplomatic pressure on them. At this point in time, I think it's more important to deal with North Korea.
People say a lot of things about Bush, but I'm sure he knows when to quit. I doubt you will see bombs start falling on Syria with 2004 just around the corner. Besides, I think the economy will make a rebound between now and the election.
At 4/14/03 01:14 AM, UNpossible wrote: Here's your next target!
www.landoverbaptist.org
There's something about that site that just doesn't seem real... as if it's a joke site. I find it hard to believe that any real Christian group would take it that far.
If it is real, then they are the worst hypocrites in history.
If the election were today, Bush would win pretty easily.
Whether or not he wins in 2004 is still up in the air. A lot can happen between now and then.
Personally, I think the economy will make a post-war turnaround, thus helping Bush to victory in 2004. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing Cheney step aside and let Powell be Bush's running mate, but I'm not sure it will happen.
If he's willing to run, then Powell is the logical choice for 2008. To placate the Religious Right, you could have some ultra-conservative as his running mate. But let's be honest--even if the Religious Right doesn't like Powell, it's not like they're going to flock en masse to vote for the Democrat. And I don't think that there is a third party viable enough for them to throw their support to. Get a good running mate for Powell, and you'll probably keep their support.
Well, since I was the one who suggested she post this here, I might as well throw my two cents in.
It really is kinda sad how the words of a religion that was intended to promote love can be twisted to promote hate. These people represent Christianity no more than Osama bin Laden represents Islam.
And I love the deerscent idea, though I'm not sure you should actually go through with it (cold water is just fine). At the end of my senior year of high school, some members of the senior class of my twin brother's school (we went to separate schools... long story) dumped some balloons filled with deerscent onto the school cafeteria. One of them was arrested. But my brother seemed to love the idea. :)
At 4/12/03 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: Another fine example of American lives being worth more than Iraqi lives.
It's sad when anyone dies, but isn't it sadder for you when the one who died was close to you?
What's so bad about paying tribute to our own dead?
Why protest a war that's just about over anyway?
Sometimes, it just seems like Martha Burk has some personal vendetta against Augusta, as if she takes it personally that no woman has ever been admitted as a member.
But look at it this way--it is a club for the rich. 99% of the country's population--male or female--will NEVER be a member of Augusta National. It's really not very much different from a fraternity at a college, except instead of a bunch of college students, it's a bunch of rich guys who play golf. They are a private organization, and they admit who they want to admit. And I never hear of anyone protesting the all-male membership of college fraternities.
Women are allowed at the club as guests, and are allowed to play the course. But the club has always been a guy thing, and if they want to keep it that way, so be it. Martha Burk needs to find something better to do than complain about women not being admitted to a club that most people of either sex will never be admitted to anyway.
At 4/10/03 10:30 PM, TheShrike wrote: Commander, you forgot something...
This:
Hehehe...
I know this isn't the "PC Pictures Post" topic, but in that picture, you should change the sign that says "Foot and Mouth Disease" to "Foot in Mouth Disease".
Oh, and Slizor--maybe the US media was reluctant to show the other side of the coin, but hundreds of overjoyed Iraqis dancing in the streets, toppling statues (with a little bit of US help), and looting government offices is hard to argue with. Perhaps that's why the Arab media showed it too.
The war isn't quite over yet, but when Saddam has been weakened to the point that the Iraqi people can do those things without fear of repurcussion, you know things are going pretty well. We still aren't sure what happened to Saddam, but if he made it out of Baghdad alive, he's probably in Tikrit. And that's the city that our troops are attacking now. The citizens of Baghdad, as well as many other people throughout Iraq, are very much enjoying freedom, but those who say it's not over are right. I personally will not be satisfied until I know that Saddam is dead.
At 4/11/03 12:01 AM, jimsween wrote:At 4/10/03 11:29 PM, ddshizn72987 wrote: that is true. The new building is a bad idea they should have just rebuilt the WTC...but like made a bridge...cause that would be cool to walk across from like one crash point to the next crash point on each towerOookaaayy, umm do you have any idea how hard and unsafe that would be?
I think some of the plans for new buildings did call for a bridge between two new towers, which would be where the 9/11 memorial would be located.
First of all, I wouldn't say that it's actually worse than 9/11. I'd rather see an ugly building than see people die.
Second, I don't think it looks that bad. I'm not sure how big they're going to be, but if your description of them as "wussy" means they won't be very big, then yes, they should be bigger. What better way to say "screw you" to Osama?
At 4/10/03 10:34 PM, Shangui wrote: The Canadian senate has also said that it should not be used for narco-tourism.
Does this mean that only Canadian citizens would be allowed to purchase weed? That would suck...
Other than that, though, I would like to see Canada go through with legalization. And then I would like to see the US follow their lead. Unfortunately, the day that marijuana is legalized in the US is probably the day that the Rapture occurs.
Jeez, it seems like everyone's asking to join now.
I asked if I could join a while back, and Ted said that he'd check over my posts, and that I would "probably" be accepted. He never really got back to me.
So I'm just going to add on to the pile of requests to join. :)
Am I in or not?
A board for the Crew seperate from NG... good idea.
At 4/9/03 08:36 PM, thenark wrote: If Israel has the right to defend itsself, then so does Iraq, but somehow, every american soldier who dies wasnt "killed in fighting" but "murdered." As well, back when Israel was brand new, they used terror tactics just as bad as that fo the arabs against both the arabs and the british.
1. Iraq did have the right to defend itself. Most of the Iraqi people chose not to exercise that right, because they hated Saddam. They stood by the roadside and cheered as US tanks rolled by.
2. I have never heard any news agency use the term "murdered" to refer to combat casualties.
3. Israel does have the right to defend itself, but I do concede that sometimes they go too far. But regardless of who started the cycle of violence, I believe that it can be brought to an end, and the Israelis and Palestinians can live together peacefully.
All before the war, and even during it, we spent many an hour here debating whether this war was justified, and what the Bush administration's motives were for calling for war. Some of us have argued the need to disarm Saddam of weapons of mass destruction. Others have expressed their opinion that Bush only sought to control Iraq's oil reserves. Some pointed out that Saddam had never done anything to us. Others pointed out the many atrocities that Saddam had committed in the past, even though they weren't directly against the US, and said that Saddam would have no qualms about doing that to us. Many reasons have been thrown around to demonstrate why war was or wasn't justified.
But seeing the Iraqi people overjoyed to be free just makes you think. Some may think Bush's motives were dubious, but the bottom line is that these people have been freed from a brutal, oppressive, and corrupt regime. No amount of money US oil companies make from Iraqi reserves will change that.
Maybe not completely related to the issue of governing post-war Iraq, but has anyone seen the footage of Iraqis looting government offices, celebrating in the streets, and toppling that big statue of Saddam? Looks like they're happy to be rid of him. Seeing this alone makes me feel like this was all worth it, regardless of whether we ever find the weapons.
But as for governing post-war Iraq:
1. It may take a while, but eventually, there will be functioning governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which will answer to the people.
2. The UN should have a role in rebuilding Iraq, but should not take the lead.
3. The Iraqi people seem to be very ready to rule themselves, and I believe the new Iraq will be a very prosperous nation.
