Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/14/03 05:35 AM, BaKsHi wrote:
I think of Bush as one of the most accepting Conservatives of people of other ethnicities.

.........He's so "accepting" that he okayed a group of Black men to be put to death simply because they were Black?

If Bush is the one of the most accepting Conservatives, then I don't want any more Conservatives running my country.

At 7/14/03 04:04 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

GW BUSH: "I've never tried pepsi. Is that a new thing?"

*Laughs until he can't breathe*

At 7/14/03 07:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/14/03 05:35 AM, BaKsHi wrote:
I think of Bush as one of the most accepting Conservatives of people of other ethnicities.

.........He's so "accepting" that he okayed a group of Black men to be put to death simply because they were Black?

I think the thing you're missing here, but grasping for is this Ninja:

It's real easy for Bush to be excepting to people he may not like right now...election time is coming up, and pissing off minority voters would only guarantee he wouldn't get re-elected...I think I'll wait till he gets a second term, and see how his policies towards minorities work out...plus, the Republican agenda right now is to be "the party of inclusion" so go by THAT and Bushie boy is really only doing the will of the Republican party...who he ALSO needs the support of for a re-election bid.

At 7/14/03 09:34 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/14/03 04:04 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

GW BUSH: "I've never tried pepsi. Is that a new thing?"

*Laughs until he can't breathe*

lol. "....And where can I get some?" ^_-

As soon as I see an actual news report on this situation, however old it may be, I'll begin trashing on Bush more than usual. As of right now, as Commander said, this is still just an urban legend. Unless I missed some sort of source being brought up.

At 7/15/03 02:25 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: As soon as I see an actual news report on this situation, however old it may be, I'll begin trashing on Bush more than usual. As of right now, as Commander said, this is still just an urban legend. Unless I missed some sort of source being brought up.

Harpers printed an article on the issue recently. If I remember, they made sure to bring up all the previous sources from when the incident happened, as well. ^_-

At 7/15/03 02:41 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

At 7/15/03 02:25 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: As soon as I see an actual news report on this situation, however old it may be, I'll begin trashing on Bush more than usual. As of right now, as Commander said, this is still just an urban legend. Unless I missed some sort of source being brought up.

Harpers printed an article on the issue recently. If I remember, they made sure to bring up all the previous sources from when the incident happened, as well. ^_-

We have to love Harpers. I'll look that up in a moment, when I'm done painting the forum with the shades of JMHX.

At 7/14/03 01:58 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Oh, yeah. I forgot about the big conspiracy theory that's just come out from all the pro-Bushies. Sorry, I'll add that in here.

I don't know of any "conspiracy theory". Could you try not to invent fictions, no matter how much you want to believe in them.

Ah. That's a good point. Firstly, I'd like to say once again the Iraq first got ALL it's weapons building technology from the US (again, including WMD and biological and chemical warfare). After Iraq helped "beat up" Iran for us, we then forced Iraq to destroy the weapons or even went over there to destroy them ourselves or make sure they were destroyed.

In fact, Bush semi-admitted this by saying that the US had a hand in making sure that Suddam "dismantled his weapons" after the Iranian Conflict and such, but then he said that "they weren't sure if he had done so completely."

This doesn't answer the question. You're sidelining simply so you can attack Bush with questionable statements.

However, we didn't get all of the weapons or machinary, so we just forbid that Iraq should continue using the materials and weapons we gave them. When the UN investigators covered Iraq, they DID find these old weapons and machinery. This was one of the only interesting issues that Fox ever covered, also. lol. ^_-

However, they were all too old and delapidated from age to use. Know what this means? That Iraq actually listened to us, believe it or not, and didn't use the stuff we gave them after Iran was put into shambles.

Sources? You claim you always have them.

Yes, some of the WMDs had a somewhat short shelf-life, but he had WMD programs. He could very well have made more.

Some of the WMDs, however, did not have that short shelf-life and thus might very well still be around.

Saddam must have had WMDs, because he never publicly destroyed them to the satisfaction of the UN. That’s why they continued to pass so many resolutions on Iraq. Why didn’t he destroy them to rid himself of the sanctions, if he wasn’t keeping them?

Um. Firstly, a nuclear weapon is a WMD.

I never said they weren’t.

So, why didn't we try containment and political pressure on Iraq before we bombed them?

Because the politics of the Middle East is not the same as the political situation of the Far East. Iraq had sanctions and political pressure for over a decade and they did no good. Korea is much more likely to be persuaded by political pressure.

Perhaps could it be that he knew they didn't?.....and that he lied?

Or you just like to repeat the phrase "he lied", even when you don't know if he did.

So, your ideas about Bush's ever so famous morals is the only thing that is debatable on that subject (both for and against).

I never mentioned Bush's "morals". Stop reading your own bias and ideas into what I say.

So.......you do think he's perfect?

No, I don't. I don't think he's perfect, but I don't think he's the cause of every problem or the greedy, stupid, warmongering idiot that you seem to think of him. In your eyes, it seems, not being as extreme as you makes me a blindly dedicated supporter.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What an answer!

At 7/14/03 07:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
.........He's so "accepting" that he okayed a group of Black men to be put to death simply because they were Black?

What are you referring to, because nobody was executed simply because they were black. Furthermore, what does Bush have to do with executions? Yes, he was governor, but not judge, jury, prosecutor and appeals courts.

At 7/16/03 01:39 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/14/03 01:58 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Oh, yeah. I forgot about the big conspiracy theory that's just come out from all the pro-Bushies. Sorry, I'll add that in here.

I don't know of any "conspiracy theory". Could you try not to invent fictions, no matter how much you want to believe in them.

lol. Once again. Take some Ridilin man. I'm talking about the "Suddam got rid off all the WMD before UN investigators got their just to make the US 'look stupid" conspiracy theory, and the "the UN investigators/Bush's staff all lied to Bush about the WMD information, so it wasn't his fault that they're not there" consipiracy theory. BOTH which, might I add, have been thrown around by a couple of people on this forum.

And, believe me. I don't believe in them.

Ah. That's a good point. Firstly, I'd like to say once again the Iraq first got ALL it's weapons building technology from the US (again, including WMD and biological and chemical warfare). After Iraq helped "beat up" Iran for us, we then forced Iraq to destroy the weapons or even went over there to destroy them ourselves or make sure they were destroyed.

In fact, Bush semi-admitted this by saying that the US had a hand in making sure that Suddam "dismantled his weapons" after the Iranian Conflict and such, but then he said that "they weren't sure if he had done so completely."

This doesn't answer the question. You're sidelining simply so you can attack Bush with questionable statements.

Let's see. He asks where the WMD went if Suddam didn't destroy them, and I say that:

A) Suddam did destroy them. It was the US in fact that made sure of this. However, they destroyed them way before Bush came into office, once the Iranian Conflict was over. So, there wasn't a need to go back there again.

That's where they went.

B) The stuff that was left over was too old, delapidated, and damaged to even use anymore.

That's also where they went.

Yup. I think that answers it pretty clearly. And saying that Bush "admitted that the US helped destroy the weapons after the Iranian Conflict" is my way of bashing him? @_o' Calm down. I was just using that as a reference to the events.

However, we didn't get all of the weapons or machinary, so we just forbid that Iraq should continue using the materials and weapons we gave them. When the UN investigators covered Iraq, they DID find these old weapons and machinery. This was one of the only interesting issues that Fox ever covered, also. lol. ^_-

However, they were all too old and delapidated from age to use. Know what this means? That Iraq actually listened to us, believe it or not, and didn't use the stuff we gave them after Iran was put into shambles.

Sources? You claim you always have them.

Now you have to be kidding. That was one of the only good issues Fox, CNN, and the BBS ever covered. It was all over the news at one point, remember when the UN investigators came out saying that "they found weapons" and so Fox and all the other stations were broadcasting it like crazy. And then, a few days later the UN investigators came out again saying that the stuff they found was old "American aid" in the Iranian Conflict, that was too delapidated to use anymore, and so was neglected as a "threat" or "breaking of UN resolutions." The stations covered that as well.

However, if you really want more sources, check out Harpers, The Progressive magazine (you could try the site also----though they're more liberal, so you might not like them), pretty much any old newspapers (you can get them at either the library or check out the sites), the Fox site (they have old articles there, you might be able to find it ^_-), as well as the CNN or BBS site (they might have it there, too, though I don't know about those two), and you could try the Progressive site again.

Actually, if you really are interested, why don't you just go look on the internet yourself? It's not that hard. Just type up UN investigations, Iraq in a search engine until you can find a site that looks reliable (like articles from the NY times, or whatnot). That's what I do when I need to find easy-to-get-to sources for people.

Now, most of the articles I have, once again, are from newspapers/magazines, like Harpres (I love them, they have everything). However, sense you can't get to them from the internet, I guess I could give you the link the progressive site, again. They usually help.

(I really suggest you use them if you want on-line only sources-----they give out all their old magazine articles for free and they're easy to find. ^_^).

http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (Common Courage Press, 1995).

Also, I could look up the edition of Harpers if you're interested if finding it yourself. ^_-

Yes, some of the WMDs had a somewhat short shelf-life, but he had WMD programs. He could very well have made more.

Um. In order to activate those programs, you need the materials and technology to be able to do so (again, the stuff we gave them). This stuff, doesn't have a long "shelf-life" after being either destroyed purposefully (by the US or by Iraq, forced by the US after the IC) or by just sitting there after 20 years.

But even if that stuff was available, are we to assume that, sense he could make WMD, then he absolutely did?

Some of the WMDs, however, did not have that short shelf-life and thus might very well still be around.

Um. Did you or did you not read the part about them being destroyed way before the Bush administration?

Actually, now you are beginning to sound like Bush. "The WMD are there......somewhere.......we'll find them someday.......we don't know how or when, but we will." lol.

At 7/16/03 01:39 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:
Saddam must have had WMDs, because he never publicly destroyed them to the satisfaction of the UN. That’s why they continued to pass so many resolutions on Iraq. Why didn’t he destroy them to rid himself of the sanctions, if he wasn’t keeping them?

Um. Firstly, the sanctions said "no WMD." So, to get rid of the sanctions, he'd.....get rid of WMD, which he didn't have because of the sanctions to begin with?

Also, the UN was satisfied, remember? Bush was the only one that wasn't (for whatever reason). In fact, the UN never really agreed to this war. It was their investigators that found no signs of WMD in Iraq. Therefore, how could they be "unsatisfied" with the ammount of WMD being made?

Um. Firstly, a nuclear weapon is a WMD.

I never said they weren’t.

I wasn't talking to you. Someone said that the reason we didn't attack Korea was because "they had nukes." So, I pointed out that a nuke is a WMD, which is why we supposedly attacked Iraq.

Because the politics of the Middle East is not the same as the political situation of the Far East. Iraq had sanctions and political pressure for over a decade and they did no good. Korea is much more likely to be persuaded by political pressure.

lol. Yeah, the sanctions and political pressure didn't work to get rid of WMD in Iraq.....to the point where we can't find WMD there at all.

Um. Well, apparently all the "pressure" we're putting on Korea isn't working. Since they started making WMD by the truckload ever sense Bush came into office. Actually, the problem was that Bush stopped putting pressure on them and started allowing them to make this stuff, even though it was against US resolutions (which, ironically, was the same reason he got on Iraq so harshly).

All in all, I think we need to get our priorities straight.

Iraq=not dangerous, possibly making WMD against UN resolutions

Korea=very dangerous, definetely making WMD against US resolutions.

Why did Bush completely ignore one, and get so hard on the other? Especially considering that Korea was becoming more and more dangerous to the US as he did so.
--------
More information on the Korean Threat:
"U.S. shrugs off North Korean threat": http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e030207c.htm

"The United States says it is ready for any contingency after North Korea issued threats of pre-emptive attack and suggested it was poised to restart an atomic reactor central to its suspected drive for nuclear arms."

"Reckless and arrogant moves of the U.S. imperialists to stifle the DPRK (North Korea) prompt the KPA... to wage a life-and-death battle with the U.S.," said the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) about anti-U.S. rallies by the army."
-----
"US plays down N Korean threat," BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2776841.stm

"Tensions on the peninsula have risen dramatically since North Korea revived its nuclear program late last year and then last month announced it was pulling out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT)."

"The US will not respond to threats, broken commitments or blackmail by North Korea," he said." (Yet we'll go to war with Iraq over the exact same issues? I wonder why that is.)
----
Of course, Bush is partially behind this as well.

Arms Control Today

"Preserving the North Korean Threat": http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/focus.asp
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.

“In deciding not to continue the Clinton administration's efforts to curb the North Korean ballistic missile program, President George W. Bush has gratuitously rejected a promising opportunity to improve U.S. security. In fact, the decision is so irrationally contrary to U.S. security interests that it is widely perceived internationally as intended to preserve, and even enhance, the North Korean ballistic missile threat so that it can serve as the rationale for early deployment of a national missile defense (NMD). This devastating assessment of U.S. motivation will only be refuted if the Bush administration's promised review of its North Korea policy leads to a prompt resumption of the deferred negotiations to stop Pyongyang's development and export of ballistic missiles.”

Perhaps could it be that he knew they didn't?.....and that he lied?

Or you just like to repeat the phrase "he lied", even when you don't know if he did.

If it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it's broadcasted on TV and newspapers to be a duck, then it's probably a duck.

And I think it's equally ironic for you to defend him against lying when, by your logic, "you don't know if he did, either." That's why I said, "could it be" not "he definetly did." Though, no lie, I truly believe that he did.

So, your ideas about Bush's ever so famous morals is the only thing that is debatable on that subject (both for and against).

I never mentioned Bush's "morals". Stop reading your own bias and ideas into what I say.

No, you didn't. But, sense it goes with my point, do you have to say it for me to mention it? lol.

I'm saying that it is fact that Bush stood to gain something from this war over the one with Korea. Therefore, the only thing debatable is his morals over what he would do in a situation like that.

So.......you do think he's perfect?

No, I don't. I don't think he's perfect, but I don't think he's the cause of every problem or the greedy, stupid, warmongering idiot that you seem to think of him. In your eyes, it seems, not being as extreme as you makes me a blindly dedicated supporter.

Well, next time I say that he's the cause of every problem, then you can correct me on that. But until I do, then don't give me such knee-jerk protective responses about Bush. lol.

I never realized that reading about issues and then talking about them made me "extreme." lol.

Also, if you don't think he's perfect, then please please tell me why. I really want to know.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What an answer!

It wasn't an answer, it was a joke, brainiac. Sheesh. Once again, you really need to calm down. I'm not "out to get ya," you know. lol.

What with Bush being fined/arrested for cocaine possession and drunk driving, and with his racist tendencies...he shouldn't be Prez.

At 7/16/03 01:43 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 7/14/03 07:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
.........He's so "accepting" that he okayed a group of Black men to be put to death simply because they were Black?

What are you referring to, because nobody was executed simply because they were black. Furthermore, what does Bush have to do with executions? Yes, he was governor, but not judge, jury, prosecutor and appeals courts.

Did you even read the first post?

A) Governors have to "okay" capital punishment to be enforced on state criminals.

B) Although the men were already convicted and sentenced to death, the reason the governor has to "okay" these sorts of things, is to make sure that it is an appropriote punishment for the crime. If not, he can excuse the man/men.

C) However, although the men should have been put to death based on the particular crimes they commited, the only issue that concerned Bush before he signed the papers was what color their skin was and what gender they were.

D) He then signed the papers without reading them, once he he was told that the men were all Black and male, saying "Good..." as he did it. So, the crimes the men committed and the stories behind their convictions interested him not, only if they were "black or white" or "male or female."

F) What this means is that Bush only would have read the papers and treated the cases equally if he had found out that they were White or female persons convicted of the crimes.

G) This means that Bush was only going to allow White men or women to be excused for their crimes, but not if they were Black men.

H) So, in conclusion, Bush was racist towards an issue where citizens' lives were at stake. And he shouldn't have been.

I) You have to agree that any type of racism is wrong, even if it's done by your now beloved president.

J) And, finally, I think it's absolutely horrific that you are always so bent on mindlessly defending Bush against everything that you'd even try to excuse him from being racist.

I wouldn't be bothered as much if you tried to attack me or my "sources" like you usually do in a panic when I talk about Bush. But to actually go ahead and try to defend Bush's actions?

You need to calm down, and realize that Bush isn't perfect, and stop giving knee-jerk defensive reactions to all the information released on him.

If you disagreed with me with some thought behind your reasoning, I wouldn't mind, but this blirting out of "it wasn't Bush's fault" towards an issue such as this (once again), is just annoying and disturbing.

AMERICA HAS OVER 7 000 NUCLEAR WMDS! HOORAY! LET'S GO LIBERATE THE EVIL NORTH KOREANS THAT MAY HAVE AT LEAST ONE! YAY!

At 7/17/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: AMERICA HAS OVER 7 000 NUCLEAR WMDS! HOORAY! LET'S GO LIBERATE THE EVIL NORTH KOREANS THAT MAY HAVE AT LEAST ONE! YAY!

I dunno about one...I'm assuming they have a lot more...I don't think even Bush is stupid enough to go fight with North Korea...in the past, putting pressure on them politically stops them from threatning us really.

Cause when you think about it...the nuclear armed country's really don't want to fight each other, they just wanna rattle their sabers, wave their nukes around, to try and get some better aide packages, because hell, let's face it, somebody fires a nuke at us, we fire another one back, or one of our allies does, and the one firing the first shot gets blown away. So really, nobody gains anything from it, I'd hope Bush has at least SOMEONE around him smart enough to explain this simple concept to him.

Look, I havent read any thing but the opening post of this thread. I really dont get why people give Bush all this heat, its not his fault GOV.Bush rigged the votes if that really did happen. You people of America better hope Bush never becomes suicidal because he holds your lives in his hands, dumbasses!

Because, in my humble opinion, he's the idiot son of an asshole unable to run a country.

At 7/17/03 12:29 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: AMERICA HAS OVER 7 000 NUCLEAR WMDS! HOORAY! LET'S GO LIBERATE THE EVIL NORTH KOREANS THAT MAY HAVE AT LEAST ONE! YAY!

Russia has over 18,000, but you don't seem to want to satirize or complain about them.

At 7/18/03 12:52 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Russia has over 18,000, but you don't seem to want to satirize or complain about them.

Indeed, because Russia isn't going on a world-wide easter egg hunt for WMDs that may or may not exist.

At 7/18/03 01:08 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

At 7/18/03 12:52 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Russia has over 18,000, but you don't seem to want to satirize or complain about them.

Indeed, because Russia isn't going on a world-wide easter egg hunt for WMDs that may or may not exist.

And many of those 18000 may not work or be decades old...;)

And Russia is an ally, not a neutral state. We have no problems invading people who don't suspect it, but our friends? That's only after everyone else has been invaded.
And the US is helping Russia dismantle all sorts of weapons and nuclear things, or so I've been led to believe.

At 7/18/03 09:14 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: And Russia is an ally, not a neutral state. We have no problems invading people who don't suspect it, but our friends? That's only after everyone else has been invaded.
And the US is helping Russia dismantle all sorts of weapons and nuclear things, or so I've been led to believe.

Russia has that nasty problem of having nuclear bits and pieces vanish from storage facilities. I'll tell you, I wouldn't go near a Russian nuclear facility. Not for all the money in the world. But once we've taken down North Korea and the only few countries left that start with IRA, then the IRA itself, we'll move on to the Russkies.

Depending on the country, you may wish to replace "communism" with "terrorism"

Maybe I missed it but to my knowledge, no one has yet posted a link to an article substantiating this. As far as I'm concerned, it is just a myth right now.
I've also heard it mentioned that Bush would not have reviewed the cases if they were black. I want to point out that if it is true that he said it, it's not only blacks he wouldn't have reviewed the cases for but also other ethnicities such as asian.

Goddamn Ninja you should get a wage for the work you put into proving others wrong on this forum, its impossible to prove you wrong, and when you do the goalposts are suddenly moved...im glad that we agree on most things coz im just not here enough to compete with a forum whore like you

Anyway, I love the way that even though it has been admitted by Bush that the WMD evidence was "sexed up" to use the medias own terms, he is still spouting to this day "We are still confident that WMD's will ultimately be found in Iraq"

Reality check mother fucker, your the last person who hasnt noticed your full of shit...well, 2nd to last, theres always commander

ummm... that makes him a racist? how? He was talking about women, not black people. And so what if he did say "white people".I don't exactly WHY he would say that? Mabye he said "white women". I would understand the public giving him a hard time about that.

At 7/14/03 02:59 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Thanks for the info, Ninja. ^_^ I find it odd that Bush is waging a war on drugs when he spent most of his teens powdering his nose with coke and then spending his adulthood denying it.

Here's a thought!
Maybe he could liberate South America from its dictators and, which is America's main source of drug imports and fix what they screwed up in Afghanistan, leaving opium production levels at an all-time high. War on drugs indeed.

Crossbreed, you got it wrong, its a "War with Drugs" which you can get cheap opium,coke (Bush Jr's favorite; and no kids, not Coca-Cola). Just like the cheap oil us americans are about to get because we just love our SUV's. Why can't we all just get Mini Coopers, Bruce Lee was only 135 lbs!

Sidenote(not related to anything in particular);
One thing i learned the other day, you need a very fast car if you say "Down with christian, white men. Up with islamic, black men!" at a KKK meeting, very very very very bad idea.

At 7/22/03 06:56 PM, BootlegJones wrote: ummm... that makes him a racist? how? He was talking about women, not black people. And so what if he did say "white people".I don't exactly WHY he would say that? Mabye he said "white women". I would understand the public giving him a hard time about that.

BootlegJones, just leave, i'm not going to argue against your stupidity.

At 7/22/03 09:23 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 7/22/03 06:56 PM, BootlegJones wrote: ummm... that makes him a racist? how? He was talking about women, not black people. And so what if he did say "white people".I don't exactly WHY he would say that? Mabye he said "white women". I would understand the public giving him a hard time about that.

BootlegJones, just leave, i'm not going to argue against your stupidity.

I will. He said, "there are no women or WHITE PEOPLE on the list, right?" Is that clear enough for you?

You understand the public giving him a hard time about white women in particularly? What "public" are you from?

At 7/22/03 09:23 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 7/22/03 06:56 PM, BootlegJones wrote: ummm... that makes him a racist? how? He was talking about women, not black people. And so what if he did say "white people".I don't exactly WHY he would say that? Mabye he said "white women". I would understand the public giving him a hard time about that.

BootlegJones, just leave, i'm not going to argue against your stupidity.

Listen n00b, I don't think it's my "stupidity" it's your realization of my vastly intalectual observation of how it might have been misinturprated as a racist remark when it was more sexist. Hmmm?...