Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Sticks and stones may break our bones...but they're no match for our MOABS!

Why is it that those who disagree with the current president's actions are labeled 'Anti-American', while disagreeing with the previous president's actions now and while he was in office was perfectly acceptable?

It's only UnAmerican to disagree with -your- side?

Hypocrites.
-----
-audri
Webpage/Pics

It would have been perfectly acceptable for the previous president to declare war on terrorism, like Bush did. I'm neither Democrat or Republican, so I don't play the partisan crap like you do. 80% of Americans supported Bush in eliminating Saddam, because of obvious reasons. Your pathetic liberalism has crippled your brain. Obviously you were a big fan of 9/11.

scalawag

It's pretty bad when your only debate tactic is to spew ad hominems.

I am not a fan of 9/11. I don't like terrorism. I don't think that Saddam or Bin Laden were anything other than 'bad guys'. Why should I be glad that thousands of people were killed? I want everything to be resolved, but not by killing more innocents than is neccessary.

I see people here who disagree on the -way- that we went about it, not disagreeing that it was -bad-. Yet there it goes, calling these people Saddam-lovers, anti-american, 'glad' that the attacks happened, etc.

It is incredibly rude and unnecessary, and doesn't do a whole lot of good for your 'side'.

The issue was never should we do something about it or not, the whole debate was over -what type- of action do we take. The 'for the war or for the terrorists' split is a false dichotomy - there is more than those two alternatives.

I'm not calling -anyone- here names, and if you read my posts, they are all civil. I read a lot of debates, on other forums, where people discuss politics, religion, and all kinds of 'hot button' topics, without resorting to attacks.

Why can't we have that here?

As far as my previous post, if you ever turn to one of the right-wing talk show hosts, you will hear them denounce someone as Anti-American, Saddam lover, etc., for disagreeing with Bush's policies, and in the next paragraph they will say something disparaging about Clinton's policies. Why is it acceptable to say bad things about one president's position, while some go as far as to call it -treason- to disagree with this one's?

If you feel the same about someone criticising the current president as you felt with previous presidents, good. Can you explain why others don't feel the same?

As far as the US 'deserving' what we got on 9/11, the only person off the top of my head who I can recall saying something to that effect is about as far away from liberal as you can get: The Rev. Jerry Falwell, with Pat Robertson agreeing, on the 700 Club.
-----
-audri
Webpage/Pics

You have been nothing but critical of the guy (Bush) who is actively attempting to eliminate terrorism in order to protect the innocent. He understands that, in the process, unfortunately, there may be no way to avoid the loss of innocent lives. This is the cold hard reality, but that lives saved are far greater than the lives lost.

You on the other hand have yet to talk about a solution, THAT WILL WORK, that doesn't entail violence. Let's have it Audri! No one here is stopping YOU from telling us what that solution is. Or is your only aim to just sit back and CRITICIZE because you are mad that your boy Clinton was criticized?

The president's primary function, by the way (you don't seem to get this, is to protect US citizens. Bush is very strong in this area, Clinton was very weak. What could possibly prevent you from getting this obvious fact? I recognize how effective Bush is, and I appreciate the feeling of higher security. I'm disgusted by people like you who attempting to sabotage the guy that's protecting me. Get it?

scalawag

Who cares what Falwell and Robertson think? T.V. evangelists are the biggest propagandists, hypocrites and crooks on the planet!!! Their opinions mean SQUAT!

Maybe it'e cause this president isn't tapping some fat sleezy bimbo in the oval office behind his wife's back!

Maybe it's just me, but I think sending the country to war on false/incomplete/otherwise lousy 'intelligence' is a hell of a lot more important than somebody's sex life.

LinkFake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S

I cannot believe that this administration would submit forged documents to the UN as evidence! We have such advanced intelligence agencies, but this still got through? I don't know if they're passing off fake documents knowingly, or it was through a gross oversight, but I think the very fact that it was presented at all is a cause for worry.

And in any case, an extramarital BJ shouldn't need to be on the news headlines for months. I don't agree with it, but it is really a personal issue. There's always more important things going on in the world.
-----
-audri
Webpage/Pics

"There's always more important things going on in the world" - apparently Clinton didn't get that, because he dropped the ball when it came to our national security.

You have a problem with "forged documents"? Bush's accomplishment in Iraq prevented Saddam from ever again mass murdering his own people. The UN is a collaboration of guys like Stoeckl, who are only out to sabotage the US. Bush was only playing by their seedy rules. Which do you prefer Audri, mass murders or forged documents?

scalawag

So the fact that Clinton abused his power wrecklessly while in office by taking advantage of his position and fornicating with a girl who has the mind of a child should be swept under the rug? Give me a break. Maybe you should discuss this with someone more open minded. I know, how about Hilary?

Exactly. I disagree with what's happening, and what has happened. Yet I am not anti-American. I would also be anti-British by default, something which no-one here has mentioned. We are mixed in with this mess as much as the US. I love England. I love being British. But I CURRENTLY disagree with the policy makers. That is called freedom. An open mind. An intelligent mind. One that can make its own decision.

Get it? Not anti-anyone!!!!!!!! Just anti-war!

"Intelligent mind"? Don't get carried away Herpes. If Bush did nothing in response to 9/11 (because he figured we deserved it for our snobbishness), as you would have liked to see, we'd have have many other terroristic attacks on our country since then. Audri probably would't be cavalierly blathering about "saving innocent lives" the way she is now, because she'd probably be in the fetal position waiting for the next attack. Bush responded to 9/11 with violence, and it does take "an intelligent mind" to realize that he figured out the solution correctly.

scalawag

I take it you're as highly educated as Bush?

i wish I were, but thanks for asking BRAIN CELL!

scalawag

You don't need an education to know right from wrong or to have common sense. Saddam and Usama had to go and that's that.

>>You don't need an education to know right from wrong or to have common sense. Saddam and Usama had to go and that's that.
-----
-audri
Webpage/Pics

You must be incredibly proud of yourself. Your keen insight and detective work is overwhelmingly intriguing. What an accomplishment! Now that that's out of the way, was there a point you wanted to make? I believe that perhaps my post about that parasite Monica Lewinski struck a nerve, yet somehow your comment about A "BJ" slipped by. How provocative. In any case, there really isn't much to say that hasn't already been said. Naive people like you who not only think they know it all, but also think they're a cut above the rest will never understand the "real" world and how it works. Someday when you throw away the arrogance and are introduced to the real world, yuo'll understand. All of your Bush bashing and anti-American stabs will never change the events that have unfolded and that will go down in history. Since you have zero control over that, your only recourse is to use opportunities such as this as an outlet for your frustrations. Your drivel, as much as you would like to make a difference, will most likely always be confined to internet forums and slumber parties. Grow up, little girl. Toodles. NEXT!

Okay Mr. Antiwar. If USB or Saddam tried to invade your country or destroy thousands of lives over there, how would you react? Turn the other cheek perhaps? I doubt it. Your anger would be limitless. You would want USB and Saddam to pay...bigtime.You can't reason with a psycho who doesn't want to be reasoned with!The only language they understand is violence. They've been living that language for ever. We gave him a choice and he exhausted every chance we gave him to comply. By the way, if there were no WMDs, then why would they(Iraq) be so resistant with regard to cooperating with inspectors? How about I just answer that for you. They needed to keep buying time to move the weapons around and hide them like they've always done. That's not a difficult task given the size of Iraq and all the secret tunnels and bunkers.
Ah. what's the use? It doesn't matter what you guys think anyway. What matters is that the creeps who attacked us are paying for it. When it happens to you guys, we'll see if your tune changes. I doubt you'll be as "antiwar" as you profess to be now.

Provocatore!

scalawag