Rant time.

[gtownspur]

I can't believe some of you half-fucks in here.


Liberals, can we all agree that; if Los angeles was nuked by alqueda, and if we had a Republican president who after 911 chose to take the high road and not enforce legislation like the patriot act, you'd all would don knee pads and congradulate the Repug president for protecting our civil liberties?

Hell no! THe thruth is that you have two standards for republicans, and none for you liberal politicians. Had a republican president done what we just had in our hypothetical scenario, it would be Katrina 2 x1 billion. You guys would have had a cow, and there would have been no admiration for the incumbent for standing up for civil liberties because your idea of gathering info to help national security is akin to something made for entertainment like CSI. Not only that you'd be incensed with the fact that the president was not there conducting photo opps with black kids in the radiation heavy zone of Central Los angeles.

You morons seem to also think that the world revolves around you. THat becuase the govt has a secret "not so secret" spy program that prys into phone records, that you think you'll be the next victim of big brother.

"*SO long as Big Brother forces gay marriage, a progressive tax code, or liberates Muslim oppressors in serbia, and gets a blowjob, liberals can feel good about Big Brother."


Seriously how would you prevent a nuclear attack? Do you think we conduct info gathering like Dragnet.

Murdoch:"Hey Oliver, we need more DNA evidence for a warrant on terrorist Abu Abdallah"

Oliver:"No problem Murdoch! i'll cotton swab Nbadan's mouth."

[Oh, Gee!!]

o rly?

[Nbadan]

Liberals, can we all agree that; if Los angeles was nuked by alqueda, and if we had a Republican president who after 911 chose to take the high road and not enforce legislation like the patriot act, you'd all would don knee pads and congradulate the Repug president for protecting our civil liberties?

If LA got nuked under a Demo president, I'd be asking why our President chose to spend $300 billion dollars in Iraq while leaving our ports vulnerable? I'd be asking why we are giving up liberties at home for a war that the President himself said would not be decided until his term is over, although he still had three years to go? I'd be asking why the U.S. is stirring a hornets nest in Iran while the Taliban are reorganizing for a summer offensive in Afganistan? I'd ask him, if we known all along Al-Queda is in Pakistan, then why did we attack Iraq?

All these and many more are questions that we all should be asking the WH, no matter our political affiliation.

[Yonivore]

If LA got nuked under a Demo president, I'd be asking why our President chose to spend $300 billion dollars in Iraq while leaving our ports vulnerable?
So, you think the assets in Iraq should be re-deployed to California and other port states?


I'd be asking why we are giving up liberties at home for a war that the President himself said would not be decided until his term is over, although he still had three years to go?
Which liberties have you given up? And, should wars only be waged if they can be completed within the term limits of the sitting President?


I'd be asking why the U.S. is stirring a hornets nest in Iran while the Taliban are reorganizing for a summer offensive in Afganistan?
Those hornets are stirring themselves and I'm not worred about Afghanistan -- let them reorganize, it'll be easier to spot 'em.


I'd ask him, if we known all along Al-Queda is in Pakistan, then why did we attack Iraq?
Which would cause me to ask you if you believe al Qaeda confines itself to one country at a time. I'd also ask you about all the emerging evidence that there was a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda as far back as 1998 -- maybe further.


All these and many more are questions that we all should be asking the WH, no matter our political affiliation.
Go ahead and ask them. Call your Congressman, call the White House, hell, call Dan Rather!

[Nbadan]

The first question is so perposterous I won't even address it.


Which liberties have you given up? And, should wars only be waged if they can be completed within the term limits of the sitting President?

The liberty to go to the library and not have my choices scrutinized. The liberty to fly domestically without being sexually assaulted. The liberty to use the internet and know that my ISP isn't spying on my surfing habits. The liberty to go to a protest march, If I so chose, and know that the administration Gestapo, homeland security, is not photographing me, or writing a file on me as a subversive. The liberty to have any charges against me publicly known, an attorney to represent me, a U.S. court that protects the constitution more than partisan politics decide whether I should be held. The liberty to see State's evidence against me. The liberty to notify my loved ones that I am being held by the state. The liberty to not be flown to a foreign country and tortured. The liberty to due process. The liberty to a speedy trial...

I can go on forever if you'd like..

[Yonivore]

The first question is so perposterous I won't even address it.
It's what your statement suggests.


The liberty to go to the library and not have my choices scrutinized.
So, you're choices have been scrutinized? By whom? Besides, where in the constitution do you find the right to not have your choices scrutinized?


The liberty to fly domestically without being sexually assaulted.
You can blame political correctness and Islamofascist terrorists for this. Let the TSA profile and the assaults will drop. Better yet, let the Airlines refuse service to anyone they like and the rate would drop to zero.


The liberty to use the internet and know that my ISP isn't spying on my surfing habits.
Your ISP's been spying on you since there've been ISPs. They do that for marketing reasons and then they sell your address to spammers and advertisement agencies. What's worse? Do you really think the government cares if you buy women's underwear?

Tell me when you've had a right or liberty taken away based on something you did on the internet.


The liberty to go to a protest march, If I so chose, and know that the administration Gestapo, homeland security, is not photographing me, or writing a file on me as a subversive.
You have no right to privacy but, the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. If there's a correlation between the types of protests you attend and the types of acts they're trying to prevent, I'm all for them taking your photograph and keeping a file.

And now onto the absurd where Nbadan projects his citizenship onto enemy combatants and non-citizen terrorist infiltrators.


The liberty to have any charges against me publicly known, an attorney to represent me,...
Do you have charges pending against you that we don't know about?


...a U.S. court that protects the constitution more than partisan politics decide whether I should be held.
You're being held (and still able to post!) by a U.S. court based on your politics?


The liberty to see State's evidence against me.
Such as?


The liberty to notify my loved ones that I am being held by the state.
Damn, do it yourself, you've obviously got access to the internet. May I suggest Skype.


The liberty to not be flown to a foreign country and tortured.
Was it fun?


The liberty to due process.
When did you lose that?


The liberty to a speedy trial...
Really, I wish they'd try your ass already.


I can go on forever if you'd like..
Be my guest...but, for the record, you've yet to list a liberty YOU'VE lost. Calling something a liberty doesn't make it one. And, it's doubtful that enemy combatants or non-citizen terrorists are entitled to any of these things.

[101A]

Highly entertaining, Yonivore.

[Vashner]

Here is my favorite rank... still today this rant burns the commie bastardz..

Sen. Zell Miller's keynote speech as prepared for delivery at the Republican National Convention:

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

[Nbadan]

Zell Miller is a wacko, and quoting him only makes you look like a wacko.

[Yonivore]

Zell Miller is a wacko, and quoting him only makes you look like a wacko.
How about Joe Lieberman? Is he a wacko too?

[Duff McCartney]

How about Joe Lieberman? Is he a wacko too?

All politicians are.

[xrayzebra]

If LA got nuked under a Demo president, I'd be asking why our President chose to spend $300 billion dollars in Iraq while leaving our ports vulnerable? I'd be asking why we are giving up liberties at home for a war that the President himself said would not be decided until his term is over, although he still had three years to go? I'd be asking why the U.S. is stirring a hornets nest in Iran while the Taliban are reorganizing for a summer offensive in Afganistan? I'd ask him, if we known all along Al-Queda is in Pakistan, then why did we attack Iraq?

All these and many more are questions that we all should be asking the WH, no matter our political affiliation.

Hell dan, you think he is listening to all your conversations, why are you
worried about the ports. Ask Schumer why he wants to let the same company that was going to run the ports to inspect everything coming
into the ports. You dumbass.

[Vashner]

Senator Miller was a Marine.. and since we all know how much you Al Queda hate Marines this is understandable that you think he's a whacko.

[DarkReign]

No offense, but this guy cited WW2, Korean War, etc.

Those wars have nothing in common with Iraq. Just a note.

Unless you equate terrorism with communism. In that case, we are poising ourselves to lose. Terrorism isnt an economy we can outperform, or a flag-waving nation we can attack...its an ideal.

You cant kill ideas. You can only enlighten them (or at least hope to).

Personally, who gives a fuck. Lets light this candle. Video games are getting boring anyway.

[Vashner]

WW2 has a LOT in common with Iraq.

Hitler wanted to kill jews.. Saddam wanted to kill kurds..

Hitler took over neighboring countries.. Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran

Hitler tried to use politics to stall american intervention.. Saddam used politics to stall
american intervention..

Hitler had grand plans.. Saddam had gran plans..

America First lead by Charles Lindberg spewed out the same anti war bullshit that liberal pussies spew today. It proved wrong to wait to get into WWII and it was wrong for 41 to wait to take Saddams ass out.

[DarkReign]

WW2 has a LOT in common with Iraq.

Hitler wanted to kill jews.. Saddam wanted to kill kurds..

Hitler took over neighboring countries.. Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iran

Hitler tried to use politics to stall american intervention.. Saddam used politics to stall
american intervention..

Hitler had grand plans.. Saddam had gran plans..

America First lead by Charles Lindberg spewed out the same anti war bullshit that liberal pussies spew today. It proved wrong to wait to get into WWII and it was wrong for 41 to wait to take Saddams ass out.

I agree, GB1 should have done him in when he had the chance.

But Sadaam's capability to execute any plan nearing the level Hitler did is prepostorous.

I am sure Chavez thinks about world domination every day, does that make him Hitler? Nope, because he lacks the means, the military and the support to do it.

I think Sadaam was more near Chavez than Hitler.

[Nbadan]

If you look at the parallels, Dubya is more like Hitler than either Chavez or Saddam.

Who's invaded two countries and is looking to invade a third?

Who's a suit behind the real power?

Who's killed over 100,000 of another country's citizens?

Who is taking away our liberties on a self-proclaimed endless war?

Who is torturing, rendition? backing terrorists?

All Dubya.

[gtownspur]

Are you an idiot?

[Guru of Nothing]

Are you an idiot?

You will never know.

[danyel]

Why is Chavez being mentioned in the same sentences that Saddam and Hitler?

I don't even like the guy, but you are taking it too far...who did he kill or invade?

[Yonivore]

You will never know.
I think the question was rhetorical. But, of course, an idiot wouldn't know that.

[RandomGuy]

No offense, but this guy cited WW2, Korean War, etc.

Those wars have nothing in common with Iraq. Just a note.

Unless you equate terrorism with communism. In that case, we are poising ourselves to lose. Terrorism isnt an economy we can outperform, or a flag-waving nation we can attack...its an ideal.

You cant kill ideas. You can only enlighten them (or at least hope to).

Personally, who gives a fuck. Lets light this candle. Video games are getting boring anyway.

Exactly. This fundamental idea in the war on terrorism is something that Bush and Co. seem to not understand. They have done everything BUT fight the idea, and we are losing a whole generation of muslims to the extremists.

[Nbadan]

As we learned in Vietnam, it's difficult to fight ideology. In order to win we must have moral superiority, something that we lost in Iraq with the lack of WMD's, the lack of support for Bin Laden or Al-Queda, the bombings of Tel Afar and Fallujah.

[Yonivore]

As we learned in Vietnam, it's difficult to fight ideology. In order to win we must have moral superiority, something that we lost in Iraq with the lack of WMD's, the lack of support for Bin Laden or Al-Queda, the bombings of Tel Afar and Fallujah.
No, as we learned in Vietnam, you can win a war militarily and still lose because of dumbshits back home.

[Guru of Nothing]

I think the question was rhetorical. But, of course, an idiot wouldn't know that.

Hence, "I think."

[xrayzebra]

The first question is so perposterous I won't even address it.



The liberty to fly domestically without being sexually assaulted.

dan are you that cute, sexually assaulted, WOW!

The liberty to use the internet and know that my ISP isn't spying on my surfing habits.

I can guarantee your ISP is spying on you. That's how you get all
the pretty banners

The liberty to go to a protest march, If I so chose, and know that the administration Gestapo, homeland security, is not photographing me, or writing a file on me as a subversive.

Is it alright for Channel 4-5-13 to photograph you and write a story,
I mean you are in public place

The liberty to have any charges against me publicly known, an attorney to represent me, a U.S. court that protects the constitution more than partisan politics decide whether I should be held. The liberty to see State's evidence against me. The liberty to notify my loved ones that I am being held by the state. The liberty to not be flown to a foreign country and tortured. The liberty to due process. The liberty to a speedy trial...

Well, just don't get caught on a battlefield overseas and I think you
will be alright, but if you are fighting for the otherside, tough stuff, you
been caught, so now pay the dues.

I can go on forever if you'd like..

[gtownspur]

Hence, "I think."

hence, again someone else is being "rhetorical" and your stupid ass still doesnt get it.