It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


World Wants Bush Out!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 10:41 AM

Whatever Blair/Labour's faults (and I will agree he/they have more than a few) he and his party/Government are so superior to any potential Conservative one......and Jayzuss God save us all, not to mention a Conservative one run by that ghastly 'Mr Poll tax himself' Michael 'Vlad' Howard & Co.!

Haha, yes I have to agree with you there. I stand corrected

I suppose what I really meant to say is that we're choosing between the lesser of two evils, as in the USA (and as in the case of most elections, unfortunately)

posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 12:57 PM
It seems like Disney world doesn't stop at the gates.

American a beacon of hope for the rest of the world?? Too much hollywood.

There will never be peace someone said?? Not this side of the end times. Afterwards, when the age of Aquarius dawns, I'll see what you have to say then......

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:57 AM

Originally posted by jsobecky
I haven't read all the replies here, but this is in response to the original post:

Aussies Back Bush
Aussies Back Bush
Radio 3AW, Melbourne Australia | 16 October 2004 | Aussie Dasher

Posted on 10/16/2004 8:01:15 AM EDT by Aussie Dasher

On the highest rating, most listened-to breakfast program on Melbourne radio, the hosts asked their audience a question yesterday.

That question? "Do you want to see George W. Bush re-elected as President of the United States of America?".

After one of the largest audience reactions to any poll question, a full 60% of listeners said "Yes".

Despite what you're told by the liberal left media, it's good to know the truth: the people, wherever they may be, are with President Bush.

Thanks, Aussies!

HAHA! Quote a conservative radio station in one state eh Jsobecky? Oh well, that settles it then, all Aussies are in favour of Bush arn't they...

Why do people quote polls as truth only when it seems to benefit their arguement, but dismiss them as unreliable when they don't?

Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by cargo]

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:41 AM

I think an Australian Newspaper would have a better idea what the Aussie people like than some conservative radio show half way around the world.

All you have to do is sit here and talk to the people... no-one likes him... well thats a lie, some people do but its pretty damned rare.

Its not that we dont like the USA, we dont like him and what the USA is becoming (and ultimately the world is becoming) under his leadership. Not that kerry will be too different, but its a start

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by specialasianX

I think an Australian Newspaper would have a better idea what the Aussie people like than some conservative radio show half way around the world.

WTF? Radio 3AW is is Melbourne, Australia, not Melbourne, Fla.

Anyway, John Howard is for Bush. That carries a lot more weight that two unknown US-haters posting on the internet.

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 09:13 AM
I don't care if I get a warn for this. You, Jsobecky, are a complete d1ckhead.

A dislike for Bush means being a US hater? I say again, you are a complete d1ckhead mate.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by cargo]

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Twitchy....the whole fricken world was saying Saddam had wmd, the only difference is that Russia, China, France, Germany and some others didn't want anyone to attack Iraq, because then they would lose any of their business with Saddam.

This is a patently false statement...
"Russia Dismisses Statement on Iraqi Possession of Mass Destruction Weapons
Moscow has received no clear and irrefutable evidence that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday."

"French President Jacques Chirac has said the US-led war in Iraq was illegal and expressed his fear for the country's future in the face of a "civil war"....
Chirac said France and China were "very close" in their appraisal of the Iraq crisis, and that the two countries were in regular contact with Germany, Russia and Spain on the issue."

"It is complete rubbish to claim that France, Germany and Russia agreed that Iraq currently had WMD's in March 2003. Whatever there intelligence agencies believed (and we really don't know, do we), these countries POLITICAL leaders were not convinced of the present existence of WMD's and wanted the inspectors to do their mission...Saddam fully complied with 1441 as the report given to the UN in February, 2003 clearly showed. His prior compliance (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the decision to go to war in 2003"

"China, France and Russia, which all hold veto power on the council, said inspections were working and should remain in place."

And are saying if we weren't involved in the war in Iraq we wouldn't be victims of international that why the wtc was attacked first in 1993? is that why the USS Cole was attacked also during Clinton's administration? Is that why the US was attacked several times during Clinton's administration? not only the ones I mention above?.......*shakes head*

No, your are misquoting me here, both US military strikes in Iraq come YEARS after our earlier interventions. Our invlovement and subsequent responsibility for Iraqi hostility goes all the way back to the administration of Theodore Rosevelt. Particularly relevant here is our involvement in the Iran Iraq war, as I stated before. We supplied both Iran and Iraq simoltaneously, played them against each other, and even supplied crop spraying helicopters for the dispersal of CHemical Agents. We put Sadaam in power, aided supplied, trained funded both him and his enemy. WTC has NOTHING to do with Iraq, at all. The USS Cole has nothing to do with Iraq. Irrelevant generalizations at best that fade to a partisan slant by your mention of the Clinton administration. There is a HUGE difference between a PRETEXT and REASON for invasion...*shakes head*

Yeah, you want to do what Clinton did huh? just ignore terrorism, think it will go away or that it will become a "nuisance" like Kerry is saying now.....

This kind of partisan rhetoric does not warrant a response, except to repeat my assertion that terrorism is a noun, not a nationality. Invasion, occupation, and the subsequent corruption thereof are not solutions to terrorism, nor is terrorism by individuals justification for the attack of a soverignty. You state that Clinton ignored terrorism, but support Bush? Here let me let you in on a little secret...
-"In August 2001, President Bush received a memorandum entitled “Bin laden determined to attack inside the United States” (Rice testimony before 9/11 commission and released PDB)
During that same month, Bush was on an extended vacation (raw video footage and numerous news reports)."
-""Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this [terrorism] anymore," Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. "Is that correct?"
"That is correct," Pickard replied (interim FBI director Pickard)."
-"Funds for counterterrorism ops denied: “During the summer of 2001, the FBI submitted what I believe was our 2003 budget proposal. That proposal came back and the additional funds that we were looking for on counterterrorism were denied. I spoke to the attorney general briefly and asked him if I could appeal it and he told me, yes, I could; put it in writing. I had our finance and counterterrorism people put together an appeal of that decision. And then on September 12th, I read the denial of that appeal from the attorney general” (Pickard testimony before 9/11 commission)"
-"In 1999, when the Clinton administration learned of a potential Al Qaeda threat, there were daily meetings between the heads of the FBI, CIA, and AG to discuss findings. There were no such meetings even after the August PDB entitled “Bin laden determined to attack inside the United States” (Richard Clark on 60 minutes). Under the Bush Administration, There was not a single cabinet level meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001."
-"“I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden. We have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz the Deputy Sec'y of Defense said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the Untied States in eight years,' and I turned to the Deputy Director of [the] CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' and he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'” (Richard Clarke on 60 minutes)."

Lets see if Bush was the only one to say Saddam had wmd and something must be done about it.... i have posted this info time and time again...have you not read any of these reports? Not only posted by me but other members as well?

Why We Went to War
From the October 20, 2003 issue: The case for the war in Iraq, with testimony from Bill Clinton.
by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
10/20/2003, Volume 009, Issue 06
"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

Excerpted from.
The above link was given originally by Seekerof in the following link.
In the 1999 UNSCOM report, it is stated that there were several tons of unnacounted for wmd in Iraq, and UNSCOM was an agency of the UN, as is UNMOVIC.... So if anyone duped the world and coalition it was the UN as most nations in the world used intelligence from this agency....

May 2, 2002
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of unaccounted for stocks of Iraqi precursor chemicals, chemical agent and special munitions, based on the findings of the UN Special Commission.
Mr. Straw: In answer to questions on 12 March 2002, Official Report, columns 743–45, I said that weapons inspectors were unable to account for 4,000 tonnes of so-called precursor chemicals used in the production of weapons; 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals used in the production of nerve gas; and 31,000 chemical weapons munitions.
This information was the best available at the time, and was based on Iraqi declarations to UNSCOM inspectors between 1991–98 and data contained in an UNSCOM report published in 1999.

Excerpted from.
The following is Australia intelligence on WMD in Iraq.

The real scandal contained in the long-awaited report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) that was published last week concerns the fecklessness of the United Nations, not to mention the treacherous conduct of some of its security council members, in its dealings with Saddam's regime between the end of the 1991 Gulf war and last year's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In the diplomatic build-up to last year's war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, the two most vociferous opponents of military action were Russia and France. Even though Presidents Putin and Chirac reluctantly signed up to UN Security Council resolution 1441 in November 2002 - which threatened Saddam with "serious consequences" if he did not fully comply - they were at the forefront of the international campaign to block military action.

The arms deals you refer to were conventional weaponry, not horrifying world threatening WMD's. Are you trying to suggest that every nation in opposition to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan raised their objections because they were in bed with Iraqi military industry? Do you have any idea how ridiculous an assertion that is? Russian Gyroscopes are not aresoled anthrax facilities, my friend. Not to mention all of this speculative mumbo jumbo amounts to a hill of beans because NO WMD's have been found in Iraq. No realistic capability of producing WMD's have been identified, neither by the UN inspectors, nor by our own inspections or by the US or British Military. They had WMD's prior to the first Gulf War, and we bombed them and imposed the harshest economic sanctions in the history of international accord. Do you have reliable or credible evidence that Iraq posessed WMD's, cause if you do you have surpassed the capability of countless UN inspectors and Intelligence Agencies. Faked documents from Nigeria maybe? Maybe your refering to these?
"On January 9, 2004, Icelandic munitions experts and Danish military engineers discovered 36 120mm mortar rounds containing liquid buried in Southern Iraq. While initial tests suggested that the rounds contained the banned chemical weapon blister gas, [1] subsequent analysis by American and Danish experts showed that no chemical agent was present. [1] It appears that the rounds have been buried, and most probably forgotten, since the Iran-Iraq war. Some of the munitions were in an advanced state of decay and most of the weaponry would likely have been unusable."
You are sitting there saying they had WMD's while YOUR PRESIDENT is now publicly admitting that they did not, and changing his rationale again now claiming that Iraq was manipulating the Oil for Food Program in order to begin their weapons programs anew once the sanctions were lifted. This is complete 180 degree horse crap from the Bush Administration. First they say the war was because of an Iraq/Alqeada link, then they claim it was because Iraq was a military threat to the free world, then they claim it was because they were in violation of UN resolutions, now, when all that turned out to be hogwash, they are claiming they were justified because Sadaam intended to START weapons programs in the near future. Which is it? What is the real reason we invaded and occupied Iraq? This may shed some light... n+of+Iraq&hl=en&ie=UTF-8't%20Mess_Unocal.html
This is only scratching the surface, let me know if you would like some more references to the War against terror bologna. The fact of the matter is, Iraq posed no threat to any western civilization. The only crime they are guilty of is sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world and not being cooperative with PNAC's plan for economic domination of the energy market. If terrorism were the real issue, we would go after terrorsists, not territories. If we really wanted BinLaden, we wouldn't have turned down numerous prior offers of his extradition. Even the Taliban offered to extradite Osama if we could provide credible evidence of his involvement in the 9-11 attack. Rather than providing evidence, we provided bombs and occupation. Keep in mind we had already threatened Afghanistan with military action prior to 9-11, military action which had NOTHING to do with terrorism at all and came only after UNOCAL testified before congress that Afghanistan would be a stumbling block to the proposed caspian sea pipelines. Keep in mind that plans to invade Iraq were already in the making long before 9-11. How can you claim that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were in the interests of protecting America when neither of those countries have ever attacked, nor were likely to ever pose any military threat to us at all. They had terrorist connections, well dude, I have news for you, WE have terrorist connections. WE funded the 'evil' pipeline blocking taliban, WE funded Osama, and to be perfectly honest with you, I am not too terribly sure that Alqeada isn't a total fabrication, a modern "Goldstien" straight from 1984. There is credible evidence to support this especially in light of recent reports that Israel was busted setting upa fake Alqeada network in the West Bank reigon. Why did Bush say that Osama was no longer a priority of his administration? Why did we turn down offers of his extradition? If terrorism was even of remote concern to the Bush Administration, then why are we still sucking up Saudi money? Get real man, this isn't a righteous war against the evil terrorists, it's a
CRUDE-SADE (crusade). A power grab for the billions of barrels of dollars instead of euros. Its about feeding the rapidly growing asian energy market, it's about US corporate interests and the military industrial complex we were warned about. All this military intervention in the middle east was planned long before 9-11 ever happened.

Let me quote separetely this part.....

At the time it was felt that their main motivation was to protect their lucrative trade ties with Baghdad. In late 2002, Saddam still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.

Excerpted from.
I have posted in the past also the interviews that were done to "other" Russian high ranking military defectors who told that these illegal trades were true, among other things, and the deals went until 2002 (i stated wrongly 2003 in my previous post)
Now as i was looking for more information about this topic I found out the following...directly from the UN website...

The Commission (UNMOVIC) is financed from a small portion of the monies raised from the export of oil from Iraq (the “oil-for-food” programme). Unlike its predecessor, UNSCOM, the staff of UNMOVIC are employees of the United Nations.

Excerpted from.
So the UNMOVIC commission was financed from a "small portion of the monies raised from the oil-for-food programme.....which we know that many nations were corrupt and were making illegal deals with Iraq...
Humm...i did not see this before but it is very the UNMOVIC commission which althou it did state that they found banned rockets and other banned materials that were in possesion of Iraq before the stated that they had not found any wmd stockpiles.... humm...i am smelling more corruption here....
The UNSCOM commission was not financed by the "oil-for-food" programmed...and it did state there were unnaccaunted wmd in Iraq...
This is getting interesting.....let's continue.
Here is a link to other links on the Butler report.

The world believed the UN reports which stated in 1999 that Iraq did have unnacounted for wmd....and every intelligence agency wastalking about Iraq's wmd...I have posted that the Canadians were saying this, so was France and Germany

"...Unaccounted for..." that's a far cry from documented affirmed 'massive stock piles of chemical biological and nuclear weapons which pose an imminent threat to the free world' isn't it? No the world didn't believe Iraq had WMD's, with the exception of UK and US mandated intelligence
(intelligence that prooved to be completely incorrect and in some cases, FABRICATED) the rest of the world wanted to continue with the insepctions process and handle the situation in Iraq legally.
The US and UK invasion of Iraq was illegal, or as your righteous Bush administration claims, it was 'preemptive'. Iraq wanted the economic sanctions against them cleared so that an esitmated 500,000 Iraqi children wouldn't die any more, hence hence his compliance with UN inspections despite what you think about their refusal. There are four documented cases of Iraq 'refusing' to cooperate with the inspections, two of them were on Ramadan (sp?) one was a refusal to allow inspectors to interrogate college students, the other was bologna as well. No the rest of the world didn't support our invasion and occupation of Iraq, no the rest of the world didn't think Iraq was a threat. It would be nice if they did, then we wouldn't be footing the bill in US dollars and US blood.

*shakes head*.....There are more than just two meetings between Al Qaeda agents and Iraqi governemnt are only reading the excerpts and not looking into the links I am giving....and the information they give...
Saddam was supporting terrorism, not only Al Qaeda but others as well...

Let's pretend for a moment that all the experts who have said there was no credible link were full of crap, now tell me what the hell were the CIA meeting with Osama for then November 1, 2001 in Dubai? Saddam was supporting terrorism, well there's a new angle. And Israel? Columbia? Algeria? The only difference between Iraq and other terrorist supporting regimes is that they aren't sitting on en estimated three trillion bucks worth of oil. Algeria has documented connections to Alqeada, but not a single bomb falling on it. Saudi Arabia has definate connections to alqeada, but hey no bombs there either. It isn't about terrorism at all. It isn't about UN charters, hell we have violated many UN resolutions, our good buddy Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country in the world. If you are naive enough to believe that the US is simply acting on behalf of the protection of the free world by invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, then you have been fooled.

Saddam bankrolled Palestinian terrorists
Key points
• Documents show Saddam funded Palestinian terrorist group
• Syrian business front funded terrorists through UN oil-for-food programme
• 1991 tape reveals Saddam wanted to use biological weapons against Israel
Story in full SADDAM Hussein’s links to terrorism have been proven by documents showing he helped to fund the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Excerpted from.

Well there's your story dude, Israel felt threatened. God help if Israel feels threatened. MOSAAD is a charitible organization that would never fabricate or exaggerate intelligence would they? Al Qaeda didn't do it? you don't think other Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations would have tried to attack us once more? (Which I am sure they are going to keep trying...)
According to you, you would ahve just killed the small group withint Al Qaeda that coordinated the 9/11 attacks...and would have left the rest of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations which have pretty much the same goal as AQ?.... sure...and you think we wouldn't have been attacked again of course.....

The leader of 'alqeada' denied responsibility for the attack of the WTC but the man that wired atta 100,000 dollars was meeting with senate intelligence comittee members the morning of. And here again i repeat myself, terrorists aren't soverignties. Terrorists organizations don't just reside and glean support from Iraq and Afghanistan. We wouldn't have been attacked by international terrorism at all if we had stayed the hell out of their business to begin with. How far back in history would you like to go to demonstrate this point? We have been manipulating middle eastern politics and wars for a LONG time. Think about it, would you be pissed off if somebody gave you money, taught you to fight, then you find out the same folks were giving your enemy money and teaching them to fight? If you couldn't buy flour and were watching your kids starve to death or die of curable diseases becuase somebody wouldn't let you buy medical supplies, would you be a little ill? They can't respond to these actions militarily, so presto, you get terrorism. They don't want our interferrence in their affairs, who would? WE have created this problem, period. For the last thousand years of so the western world has been pissing these people off, more so in modern times, but think about it. Why are they so angry with us? Do you actually believe that it is because they hate democracy? That they are out to destroy our lifestyle? Ridiculous man, they don't give a crap about democracy, and they don't give a crap about baseball or apple pie. They want to be left to determine their own affairs, they want to left alone. They want control of their own resources. Let me simplify this concept for you, we are over there, they aren't over here. They own their resources, we want their resources. Now sit down for the big shocker, WE STARTED IT. WE CREATED terrorism by not staying the hell out of their business. I can't believe you actually think that Islamic countries are out to get us for no reason other than their hatred for democracy. That is a sickening nationalist view of the situation. You are actually trying to argue that the reason for terrorists act against the US is because they hate us. This fails to answer or address the obvious as to WHY they hate us and what we did to provoke such inherent hatred. The answer is simple, but you have to cut your tv off to find out.

I do not live under any paranoid illusions...thank you very much..i never said all Arabs or all Muslims are not put words in my mouth I have never said.... but yes there are radicals that want to destroy our way of life or they want the world to be dominated by Islam and Sharia.... Perhaps you are too blind yourself watching baseball and eating apple-pies....things i haven't done in a very long time..... I am not that much of a fan of apple pies or baseball....anyways.....

LOL dude, listen to yourself. They want to destroy our way of life, they want the world to be dominated by islam... that is a paranoid illusion. We are destroying their way of life, we want the world to be dominated by 'democracy'. We are there, they aren't here. Yes you do live under the paranoid illusion that Islam is out to destroy our way of life, when the simple truth of the matter is, they don't give a rats *ss about our way of life. They desire to allocate their own resources as they see fit without outside interferrence. We don't have any business there other than trying to suck their oil fields dry. Terrorism is an atrocious act of violence, but so is an illegal invasion and occupation of a soverign nation under false pretenses. We piss these people off, arguably for a thousand years or more, then expect them to not get upset when we are over there telling them who and how and when. Other than buying petroleum from them, we have no business there. Our involvement in that reigon should have been limited to a fianancial interest, yet time after time we find our intelligence and foriegn policies arming and supplying various factions against each other, mandating the policies and resources of nations thousands of miles away from us. They hate our way of life? LOL No, they hate outside interference. We would too. Reverse the situation, think of it from their point of view. It's their oil, it's their land, it's their culture, WE ARE THE ONES INTERFERING WITH THEM.

Wow, so one weapon which he uses to fight the whole world? Was he an asset of ours before he decided to turn against us? yes....he did turn against us as i proved several times already posting an interview that was done with him in the 1990s....he said that while we were using him to attack the Russians...he and his people were also thinking on how to attack us in the future....

He still is an asset. This is evident not only by our turning down numerous offers of his extradition, but Bush himself has stated that Osama is no longer priority of his administration. Do you smell that? The leader of alqeada, the monster that supposedly masterminded the largest terror attack in the world, is no longer a priority. Why is that? Could it be because it was never about getting Osama in the first place? If it was, don't you think we have provided the taliban with soem credible evidence connection him to 9-11 to have him extradited? If Osama was such a terrorist threat, why6 aren't we still trying to find him? Why did we turn down offers to extradite him from various countries prior to our military actions in the middle east. Why were we threatening Afghanistan with bombings before 9-11? Why was there maps of Iraqi oil field laid out at the 'closed door' energy policy meetings with Dick prior to 9-11? Why aren't we bombing and invading Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9-11 terrorists came from (the ones that didn't turn out to be alive and well that is)? Why is it that its ok for us to sponsor terrorist groups in south america but its not ok for them? Why, if terrorism is the real problem are we continuing with militant foriegn policies and occupation of hostile reigons? Get real man, it isn't about terrorism. It's about oil, its about feeding a monster we created.

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 08:29 PM

Sorry i didnt see that it was an Aussie radio station...

But i agree that just because we hate bush doesnt mean we're anti-US (well i am kinda, but only because your pres does a bad job representing you , but we'll see how things go on Nov 2).

But if you live here, or have been here recently you'll find that most people dont want him around. I was using the herald as a written source for something i already knew. I can post peoples real life reactions online so i needed something in writing to confirm my suspicions. The people polled on this radio show arel ikely to be the elite upper class who want bush in because his policies are affecting Aussie policies and the rich are the ones benefitting from them. These upper class are hoping that maybe one day Australia will be so shamefully bias to those with money (just like the US).

And yeah our PM backs bush... big #ing deal! If he had used foreign policy and his love affair with Bush in the election campaign he would have lost. but he focused on domestic issue. Our PM (unlike your president) is smart and he knows the people dont like the current US administration and would have voted him out if he'd used it as a campaign issue.

Bottom line is... We the people of Earth, want bush out! We may not have a say in this, but if the people of the USA want whats good for them (no just in the short term, and on a national level, but in the long term and internationally), they will hear our call and get rid of Dubya!

posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:29 PM

I think we went over this in another post. You can't seem to carry on a debate without personal attacks.

You walk the walk and talk the talk of those who hate the US, then you are oh so insulted when you are called to task. You can't have it both ways. You can run, but you cannot hide.

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 01:52 AM

Main Entry: de·fa·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "de-f&-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person —see also LIBEL, SLANDER

There's your tactic right there. Nothing to back it up, just outright lies. No wonder you support the current administration. There is not an ounce of truth in you. You do your country a huge disservice, you are hurting it.

cli·ché also cliche
pronunciation of "cliche" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl-sh)n.

1. A trite or overused expression or idea: “Even while the phrase was degenerating to cliché in ordinary public use... scholars were giving it increasing attention” (Anthony Brandt).
2. A person or character whose behavior is predictable or superficial: “There is a young explorer... who turns out not to be quite the cliche expected” (John Crowley)

And that's your level of originality. I especially liked those phrases in your last post, very creative.

You want me to be a US hater don't you? Nothing would pleasure you more than to be able to attack me for hating the US, right? Why else would you fabricate such a thing? One thing you have proven is that your extremist right-wing kind love to create your enemies out of nothing. That's pretty pathetic in my opinion. It seems others may agree, for I am yet to get a warn, but we shall see.

Edit: As for my language. I try to curb it at ATS, but down here it is used in every day conversation, we swear. A lot. Given that you blatantly defamed me on a public forum probably permits a certain level of outrage, don't you think? So I don't really care what you think of my use of it. If we were elsewhere would you still be so shocked to hear it's use? Are you one of those who blocks their ears at the mention of "fart" on TV? Or one who covers your eyes and says a prayer at the sight of Janet Jackson's boob?

Get a grip son.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by cargo]

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by cargo
HAHA! Quote a conservative radio station in one state eh Jsobecky? Oh well, that settles it then, all Aussies are in favour of Bush arn't they...

Why do people quote polls as truth only when it seems to benefit their arguement, but dismiss them as unreliable when they don't?

Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by cargo]

The same can be said of you and of the report given by the original poster of this thread...... If anything the link that Jsobecky gave us proves in fact that the world is not against Bush. There are some people who agree with him and there are some people who are against him. BTW to respond to the question that the orginal poster asked of me, to prove that his thread did not show that the world hates Bush.... First there is what Jsobecky gave us.....second the country that matters the most about the election and who should be voting for president of the is the American people's is not the world's choice.....

Or perhaps we in the US and the world over should also decide what president should be in Mexico, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, etc, etc.........

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
Or perhaps we in the US and the world over should also decide what president should be in Mexico, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, etc, etc.........

Are you kidding? Expect to get a swift lesson in US foreign policy from an international perspective now that you have posed that one. I mean really, you seriously think the US government doesn't try to influence the outcome of other countries elections???

I'll leave others to school you on respective countries and just show you how our friend and ally, the US government, has deemed it necessary to meddle in our political affairs.

With friends like these

Butt out of Australian politics, Crean tells US ambassador

US 'meddling in Australian vote'

Australian opposition chief accuses US of election meddling over Iraq pledge

And you are so shocked and offended that we now take an interest in your politics? Wake up mate.

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 02:38 AM
Have you ppl noticed that during worlds history every american president has had his own war?..It looks like presidents can´t be re-elected without attacking some country..Usa hasn´t been defender anytime..pearl harbor was the only time somebody attacked usa but that was a result of many years pushing the japs to the edge.
And you question why rest of the world wants bush out?..that´s just stupiod question..let´s say it this way...if bush gets re-elected the last hope of even a slighest bit of intellectualism inside usa is forgotten and would be a final proof of idiotism..but it´s your country and your elections...kerry shouldn´t have problem beating bush because his idiotic speeches but who knows
...kerry isn´t fine leader either but if you must choose between 2 evils..choose the lesser evil...

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 02:56 AM
If the world wants Bush out so bad then the world should become amercan citizens and vote for kerry. Otherwise quit whining.

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 03:05 AM
typical...if the bush wants mid east oil..americans should become iraqi´s your loss use of arguing about point if otherside doesn´t know how to make an point...

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:02 AM
Whats typical, that i see reality as it is?
Only US citizens can vote for president of the US.
Thereofre if Non-US citzens want a voice n choosing the leader of the US they have to become US citizens.
Just as if I wanted a voice in who the leader of finland was I would have to become a finnish citizen.
People keep saying that because the US has so much influence they should have a say in US elections.
The fact that we have a powerful and influential country means we have to give up our sovereignity?
How does that make any sense?
When electing the leader of finland do you ask yourself if he is going to do what is best for the US?
No, why not?
Why should we approach this election with any question other than "Who is going to be best for the US"?
Because our country is bigger, richer, and stronger, we have to ask "who will be best for the world"?
Neither Kerry nor Bush is running for president of the world.
They are running for President of the United States of America.
Dont like the fact that the US has so much influence and you dont get a say?
Then either become a citizen, or get the leaders of your country to make your country more powerful.
Either way quit whining.

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:44 AM
Im happy to discuss anytime about suitable Finnish president. It´s matter of discussion, not about who can vote and who can´t. And foreign want to know about usa´s elections because your country messes up everybodys businesses. Would you like to know who´s going to be next russian president if putin would have invaded canada and after that started to bomb south america? I bet you would. And i bet you would be pretty pissed to russia after that..same thing is going in middle east right now. Every arabic country is starting to forget their arguments because now they have on common enemy who has invaded afganistan and iraq..who´s next?iran?saudi arabia?kuwait?...if bush is elected my guess is every single one of them. But there is difference hating ppl and hating government. I have nothing agains us matter of a fact i have relatives living florida. But i have strong critisism agains todays american government..they have ripped of your rights and you don´t even notice?..what kind of freedom of speech is that when you say osama or al qaida and have immedieatly fbi behind you back? What kind of freedom is that when you can be arrested without any evidence of something criminal activity?..and i´m not even going to start about geneve treaty and how usa has crossed it with holding captives at locations outside their national borders where "laws just doesn´t exist"...well..let´s all hope this crazyness is over someday...

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:21 AM

Originally posted by mwm1331
People keep saying that because the US has so much influence they should have a say in US elections.

Who is saying this, exactly?

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:25 AM
I've seen this comment/viewpoint expressed by a number of europeans on the varous news channels such as CNN, Euronews, BBC etc.
Also the recent article by the Guardian in the UK shows that people worldwide want to influence the US elections.

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 05:30 AM

Originally posted by mwm1331
I've seen this comment/viewpoint expressed by a number of europeans on the varous news channels such as CNN, Euronews, BBC etc.
Also the recent article by the Guardian in the UK shows that people worldwide want to influence the US elections.

I'd be interested to see a link to this. Personally, I think this is a common misinterpretation.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in