Discussion:
Free Saddam Hussein!
(too old to reply)
Parsons
2004-07-04 03:22:37 UTC
Permalink
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.

Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.

Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).

So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.

One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Higgins
2004-07-04 03:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Indeed if he is innocent man he should be set free,He is cruel person who
killed many innocent person.
He should pay for it Same way if i do i need to pay.He is not different to
me he should be brought under justice.
You are biased under a weak human perception.
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew
2004-07-04 04:18:32 UTC
Permalink
ROTFLMAO....OMG thanks man..I needed the laugh..woohooo...damn you got
anyomore?,,,Free Saddam..thats good....damn my guts hurting from laughin' so
much
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PBS
2004-07-04 09:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
ROTFLMAO....OMG thanks man..I needed the laugh..woohooo...damn you got
anyomore?,,,Free Saddam..thats good....damn my guts hurting from laughin' so
much
what is so outragous about that?
I can name leaders of countries that have done worse or have commited
similar crimes against humanity than what saddam has alledged to have done
who have never been brought to trial and have attended functions at the
whitehouse (bloody hippocrites)
george bush snr
and jnr being 2 of them
isreal's current leader that fat prick who ordered the massacre of
palastineans and lebanese
past french leaders who did similar in other arab countries

who can add to this list

and not a one has been illegally kidnapped and humiliated etc etc

if the us wants to give saddam a fair trial
stop the censorship
allow a fully open court
allow him to call any witness that is relevant
allow him basic rights any prisoner has including access to the press
including pedophiles , serial killers , rapists etc etc

this trial is a farce

let him go or do it right
i.e let an elected iraq govt decide
and keep him under house arrest till that happens
not in us custody
imagine if 1 single us soldier or citizen is treated that way
the fuss that would be made

1 us citizens life is equal to 1 iraqi or any other human
not 1000 -1 like they all think

fuck the US
they have blown it

they have stepped back to the dark ages
Post by Andrew
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
TonyInTsv
2004-10-20 13:36:40 UTC
Permalink
I'd just like to point out that it is not illegal to invade another country,
as long as a proper declaration is made and prisoners and civilians are
treated within the limits of the the rules of war as set down in the geneva
convention. Although tasteless and regretable, the things that happened in
the iraqi prison were within the rules for the treatment of prisoners of
war. Humiliation is a legitamit form of interogation, it leaves no permanent
injuries, and is quite survivable. If given the choice of being interogated
by the us soldiers responsable or being interogated using sadams methods I
know which one I'd chose. There are worse things than death, but humiliation
isn't one of them.
Post by PBS
Post by Andrew
ROTFLMAO....OMG thanks man..I needed the laugh..woohooo...damn you got
anyomore?,,,Free Saddam..thats good....damn my guts hurting from
laughin'
Post by PBS
Post by Andrew
so
much
what is so outragous about that?
I can name leaders of countries that have done worse or have commited
similar crimes against humanity than what saddam has alledged to have done
who have never been brought to trial and have attended functions at the
whitehouse (bloody hippocrites)
george bush snr
and jnr being 2 of them
isreal's current leader that fat prick who ordered the massacre of
palastineans and lebanese
past french leaders who did similar in other arab countries
who can add to this list
and not a one has been illegally kidnapped and humiliated etc etc
if the us wants to give saddam a fair trial
stop the censorship
allow a fully open court
allow him to call any witness that is relevant
allow him basic rights any prisoner has including access to the press
including pedophiles , serial killers , rapists etc etc
this trial is a farce
let him go or do it right
i.e let an elected iraq govt decide
and keep him under house arrest till that happens
not in us custody
imagine if 1 single us soldier or citizen is treated that way
the fuss that would be made
1 us citizens life is equal to 1 iraqi or any other human
not 1000 -1 like they all think
fuck the US
they have blown it
they have stepped back to the dark ages
Post by Andrew
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
I Report, You Decide
2004-10-21 05:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by TonyInTsv
I'd just like to point out that it is not illegal to invade another country,
as long as a proper declaration is made and prisoners and civilians are
treated within the limits of the the rules of war as set down in the geneva
convention. Although tasteless and regretable, the things that happened in
the iraqi prison were within the rules for the treatment of prisoners of
war. Humiliation is a legitamit form of interogation, it leaves no permanent
injuries, and is quite survivable. If given the choice of being interogated
by the us soldiers responsable or being interogated using sadams methods I
know which one I'd chose. There are worse things than death, but humiliation
isn't one of them.
Could you be even more wrong, or are you just dumb?
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by PBS
Post by Andrew
ROTFLMAO....OMG thanks man..I needed the laugh..woohooo...damn you got
anyomore?,,,Free Saddam..thats good....damn my guts hurting from
laughin'
Post by PBS
Post by Andrew
so
much
what is so outragous about that?
I can name leaders of countries that have done worse or have commited
similar crimes against humanity than what saddam has alledged to have
done
Post by PBS
who have never been brought to trial and have attended functions at the
whitehouse (bloody hippocrites)
george bush snr
and jnr being 2 of them
isreal's current leader that fat prick who ordered the massacre of
palastineans and lebanese
past french leaders who did similar in other arab countries
who can add to this list
and not a one has been illegally kidnapped and humiliated etc etc
if the us wants to give saddam a fair trial
stop the censorship
allow a fully open court
allow him to call any witness that is relevant
allow him basic rights any prisoner has including access to the press
including pedophiles , serial killers , rapists etc etc
this trial is a farce
let him go or do it right
i.e let an elected iraq govt decide
and keep him under house arrest till that happens
not in us custody
imagine if 1 single us soldier or citizen is treated that way
the fuss that would be made
1 us citizens life is equal to 1 iraqi or any other human
not 1000 -1 like they all think
fuck the US
they have blown it
they have stepped back to the dark ages
Post by Andrew
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
TonyInTsv
2004-10-23 08:34:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
I'd just like to point out that it is not illegal to invade another country,
as long as a proper declaration is made and prisoners and civilians are
treated within the limits of the the rules of war as set down in the geneva
convention. Although tasteless and regretable, the things that happened in
the iraqi prison were within the rules for the treatment of prisoners of
war. Humiliation is a legitamit form of interogation, it leaves no permanent
injuries, and is quite survivable. If given the choice of being interogated
by the us soldiers responsable or being interogated using sadams methods I
know which one I'd chose. There are worse things than death, but humiliation
isn't one of them.
Could you be even more wrong, or are you just dumb?
So correct me then dip stick
I Report, You Decide
2004-10-23 19:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Correct you? I think that was your parents job when you were a kid. You
apparent neglect has made you think in a most twisted way. "Humilation of
prisoners is okay", yeah okay buddy.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
I'd just like to point out that it is not illegal to invade another country,
as long as a proper declaration is made and prisoners and civilians are
treated within the limits of the the rules of war as set down in the geneva
convention. Although tasteless and regretable, the things that happened
in
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
the iraqi prison were within the rules for the treatment of prisoners of
war. Humiliation is a legitamit form of interogation, it leaves no permanent
injuries, and is quite survivable. If given the choice of being interogated
by the us soldiers responsable or being interogated using sadams
methods
I
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
know which one I'd chose. There are worse things than death, but humiliation
isn't one of them.
Could you be even more wrong, or are you just dumb?
So correct me then dip stick
TonyInTsv
2004-10-24 21:43:36 UTC
Permalink
I never said that the way the prisoners were treated was OK, but it's not
against the rules for civilized warfare (as though any war can be called
civilized) as set down in the geneva convention, however worse has been done
in the past and I would bet that worse will be done in the future
Post by I Report, You Decide
Correct you? I think that was your parents job when you were a kid. You
apparent neglect has made you think in a most twisted way. "Humilation of
prisoners is okay", yeah okay buddy.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
I'd just like to point out that it is not illegal to invade another country,
as long as a proper declaration is made and prisoners and civilians are
treated within the limits of the the rules of war as set down in the geneva
convention. Although tasteless and regretable, the things that happened
in
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
the iraqi prison were within the rules for the treatment of prisoners of
war. Humiliation is a legitamit form of interogation, it leaves no permanent
injuries, and is quite survivable. If given the choice of being interogated
by the us soldiers responsable or being interogated using sadams
methods
I
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
know which one I'd chose. There are worse things than death, but humiliation
isn't one of them.
Could you be even more wrong, or are you just dumb?
So correct me then dip stick
Clark Pope
2004-07-04 04:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Finally an honest liberal! If only the democratic party would admit that
they agree with you instead of hiding behind innuendo and "most interesting
theory" remarks.
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
You can't have it both ways. You can't blast the U.S. for not intervening on
the basis of human rights abuses and then blast the U.S. for intervening on
the basis of human rights abuses.

Gee, what might have been going on at the time that would cause us to
support somebody fighting the Soviet Union? Why does everybody seem to
forget that the U.S. hasn't had a foreign policy for the last 60 years, it's
had an anti-Soviet Union policy.
Post by Parsons
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
You're probably right. But, somehow I get the feeling if we did announce
such actions tomorrow you wouldn't support it.
Post by Parsons
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
I don't think our Iraqi aid was covert at all, it seemed to pretty much in
the open. Iran had taken our embassy people hostage and they were behind the
lebanon barricks bombing. The enemy of my enemy, and so forth.

By provided you mean Iraq was not prohibited to import from private
companies in the U.S. Was it prohibited in any other country?

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either it was wrong to have supported
hussein or it was wrong to have toppled hussein. They can't both be wrong.
Post by Parsons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parsons
2004-07-04 20:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark Pope
Finally an honest liberal! If only the democratic party would admit that
they agree with you instead of hiding behind innuendo and "most interesting
theory" remarks.
LOL! Me, a LIBERAL?!? I absolutely despise the left. I assume that you
are on the similarly-insane radical right, and share Bush's narrow-minded
black/white, either/or view of the universe. I am against Bush, THEREFORE
I must be FOR Kerry/Democrats/Liberals/etc. It never occurs to you and
your right-wing-religious-zealot cohorts that there are people in America
with IQs over 50 and who can think for themselves. While I've heard the
standard leftist-liberal rhetoric against Bush, I also am aware of how
eerily similar it sounds to the righist-conservative rhetoric I heard about
Clinton (sadly, in retrospect I now realize that I actually bought into
it during the 1990s). But while my opinions of Bush may at times mirror
those of the left, I have formed those opinions on my own. I am not a
nuclear rocket scientist, but I am fairly well-educated and intelligent
and FIERCELY independent politically. Although generally sympathetic to
the Libertarian Party's ideology, I am not a fanatic nor even a member of
the party. I've USUALLY voted Libertarian since my first election in
1988, though I've voted for other minor parties (such as Green in 2000),
and TWICE have I voted for a major party candidate for federal office -
a Republican for representative in 1994 (on his promise to repeal the
assault weapon ban signed by Clinton; liar and I regretted it immediately
after he wrapped himself up in a anti-flag-burning amendment), and the
other time a Democrat for senator in 1996 (he was running against the
Republican I just mentioned; I loathed the thought of that asshole going
to the Senate) [btw, they were John Ensign (R) and Harry Reid (D) of Nevada].

So I don't give a flying fuck if the Jebus stuck up your ass told you I
was a "liberal," I'm not. This election is really getting interesting -
with EVERYONE from Independents to Libertarians to Greens to Communists
to every other group on the ideological fringe ideology teaming up to
oppose Bush in November. The ONLY supporters Bush has at this point are
his fellow Republicans and anyone with Jebus stuck up their ass...
Malev
2004-07-04 22:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parsons
Post by Clark Pope
Finally an honest liberal! If only the democratic party would admit that
they agree with you instead of hiding behind innuendo and "most interesting
theory" remarks.
LOL! Me, a LIBERAL?!? I absolutely despise the left. I assume that you
are on the similarly-insane radical right, and share Bush's narrow-minded
black/white, either/or view of the universe. I am against Bush, THEREFORE
I must be FOR Kerry/Democrats/Liberals/etc. It never occurs to you and
your right-wing-religious-zealot cohorts that there are people in America
with IQs over 50 and who can think for themselves. While I've heard the
standard leftist-liberal rhetoric against Bush, I also am aware of how
eerily similar it sounds to the righist-conservat
You have reached Darwin status.

plonk
Clark Pope
2004-07-04 22:59:16 UTC
Permalink
First of all, do you really need to be so hateful?

Sorry if I mistook you for a liberal, but two things clearly indicated it to
me:
1. you have articulated the left's position on Hussein very well: they want
his regime restored so that he can regain his rightful place as dictator
2. everybody who doesn't agree with you is an idiot

It's great that you're an independent. I lean libertarian myself. (Voted
Perot twice) But being independent doesn't free you from needing a
consistent ideology. Your post had several contradictions.
Post by Parsons
Post by Clark Pope
Finally an honest liberal! If only the democratic party would admit that
they agree with you instead of hiding behind innuendo and "most interesting
theory" remarks.
LOL! Me, a LIBERAL?!? I absolutely despise the left. I assume that you
are on the similarly-insane radical right, and share Bush's narrow-minded
black/white, either/or view of the universe. I am against Bush, THEREFORE
I must be FOR Kerry/Democrats/Liberals/etc. It never occurs to you and
your right-wing-religious-zealot cohorts that there are people in America
with IQs over 50 and who can think for themselves. While I've heard the
standard leftist-liberal rhetoric against Bush, I also am aware of how
eerily similar it sounds to the righist-conservative rhetoric I heard about
Clinton (sadly, in retrospect I now realize that I actually bought into
it during the 1990s). But while my opinions of Bush may at times mirror
those of the left, I have formed those opinions on my own. I am not a
nuclear rocket scientist, but I am fairly well-educated and intelligent
and FIERCELY independent politically. Although generally sympathetic to
the Libertarian Party's ideology, I am not a fanatic nor even a member of
the party. I've USUALLY voted Libertarian since my first election in
1988, though I've voted for other minor parties (such as Green in 2000),
and TWICE have I voted for a major party candidate for federal office -
a Republican for representative in 1994 (on his promise to repeal the
assault weapon ban signed by Clinton; liar and I regretted it immediately
after he wrapped himself up in a anti-flag-burning amendment), and the
other time a Democrat for senator in 1996 (he was running against the
Republican I just mentioned; I loathed the thought of that asshole going
to the Senate) [btw, they were John Ensign (R) and Harry Reid (D) of Nevada].
So I don't give a flying fuck if the Jebus stuck up your ass told you I
was a "liberal," I'm not. This election is really getting interesting -
with EVERYONE from Independents to Libertarians to Greens to Communists
to every other group on the ideological fringe ideology teaming up to
oppose Bush in November. The ONLY supporters Bush has at this point are
his fellow Republicans and anyone with Jebus stuck up their ass...
s***@yahoo.com
2004-07-05 04:04:54 UTC
Permalink
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,

1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
Clark Pope
2004-07-05 14:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,
1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
Except for that pesky electoral college thing. You can't change the rules
after the election. No Florida recount ever said Gore won.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
Saddam never met anything. Not even the French or Germans would agree with
that remark.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
Sure, because a $420 billion dollar a year military with 1.4 million troops
couldn't possibly handle two theaters at the same time?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
Huh?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
Right because liberals only have "compassion" for people who can vote for
them. Who cares if women are being raped and children starved. I've got a
pot hole in front of my house!
Post by s***@yahoo.com
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
The reason corporations are leaving(even though it's a tiny percent overall)
is because of excessive taxation and regulation and inferior education and
work habits.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
Yes, because Democrats never jerrymander. I would gladly support a federal
law requiring all legislative districts to be drawn by computer. The problem
is neither party will support it because both of them exploit the process to
their advantage.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
Considering the Internet bubble, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks, war,
and recession the market has done pretty well. It's still delivering over
10% a year historically. (Of course, the government has little to do with
it.)
Post by s***@yahoo.com
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
Agreed, and he has been blasted by conservatives for it.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
He promised to withdraw troops when the Iraqi security forces are capable of
defending the government and he will. The one thing you can't say about this
president is that he doesn't keep his word. He promised a tax cut, we got
it. He promised that the 9/11 backers would hear from us, they did. He told
the UN he would enforce their resolutions, he did. He said he would kill or
capture Saddam and bring him to justice, and he has. He told the Iraqis we
would hand over power, we have.
s***@yahoo.com
2004-07-06 21:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark Pope
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,
1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
Except for that pesky electoral college thing. You can't change the rules
after the election. No Florida recount ever said Gore won.
Newspaper studies confirm Democrat Gore won Florida vote
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/feb2001/flor-f05.shtml
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181%20
http://www.fringefolk.com/gorevictory.html
http://irregulartimes.com/illegitimable.html
Post by Clark Pope
Post by s***@yahoo.com
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
Saddam never met anything. Not even the French or Germans would agree with
that remark.
"We know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we
know that we haven't found them," Blair told a committee of lawmakers
Tuesday.

"I have to accept we have not found them, that we may not find them."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/06/iraq.main/index.html
Post by Clark Pope
Post by s***@yahoo.com
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
Sure, because a $420 billion dollar a year military with 1.4 million troops
couldn't possibly handle two theaters at the same time?
He planned a post-Saddam Iraq prior to 911.

In his State of the Union address, he spent more time on issues in
Iraq than Al Queda and the Taliban.

When the Pakistani gov had some Al Queda leaders surrounded, only a US
spy plane helped. Seems as if Bush changed his focus to Saddam...
Osama's enemy.

Global protesting means that many will hate America b/c of Bush's
unilateral action. Blair supported him, and later many other nations
joined in. "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."
Of course many nations will support us a little.
Post by Clark Pope
Post by s***@yahoo.com
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
Huh?
Post by s***@yahoo.com
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
Right because liberals only have "compassion" for people who can vote for
them. Who cares if women are being raped and children starved. I've got a
pot hole in front of my house!
Both Dems and Reps have sent millions of US money to help
underprivilaged countries. I think the main difference is that over
my lifetime, the Reps have a greater focus on spending tax dollars and
social security on war.
Post by Clark Pope
Post by s***@yahoo.com
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
The reason corporations are leaving(even though it's a tiny percent overall)
is because of excessive taxation and regulation and inferior education and
work habits.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
Yes, because Democrats never jerrymander. I would gladly support a federal
law requiring all legislative districts to be drawn by computer. The problem
is neither party will support it because both of them exploit the process to
their advantage.
George W. Bush's previous charges of gerrymandering
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-805.ZC2.html

Was Kerry charged with gerrymandering?
Post by Clark Pope
Post by s***@yahoo.com
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
Considering the Internet bubble, corporate scandals, terrorist attacks, war,
and recession the market has done pretty well. It's still delivering over
10% a year historically. (Of course, the government has little to do with
it.)
Your the first republican I've talked to that hasn't blamed the
previous administration. Kudos! Most have told me as a general rule
- the economy reflects the previous administration.
Post by Clark Pope
Post by s***@yahoo.com
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
Agreed, and he has been blasted by conservatives for it.
Post by s***@yahoo.com
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
He promised to withdraw troops when the Iraqi security forces are capable of
defending the government and he will. The one thing you can't say about this
president is that he doesn't keep his word. He promised a tax cut, we got
it. He promised that the 9/11 backers would hear from us, they did. He told
the UN he would enforce their resolutions, he did. He said he would kill or
capture Saddam and bring him to justice, and he has. He told the Iraqis we
would hand over power, we have.
How have we "handed over the power" while disobeying the newly
appointed Iraqi president in his request for the US to withdrawl from
Iraq?

Someone higher in office (likely Bush, Rumsfield, or Powell) changed
their mind in bringing back thousands of troops who had to serve 6
more months after the date they were promised to return home.

While George W. Bush is more highly regarded for following through
with his word, sometimes I wish he wouldn't. When he realized there
were no WMD in Iraq, I wished he withdrew rather than wage war. When
he made the $500,000,000 proposal to send someone to Mars, I wished he
flip-flopped and realized that the money would probably better spent
elsewhere. When he ordered a banner "Mission Accomplished" to be put
on an aircraft carrier where he addressed the troops with many photos
taken, I wished he told the troops the truth...they didn't accomplish
their mission their in Iraq...no WMD were found. Nonetheless, I
greatly applaud the US troops who bravely served their duty.
TonyInTsv
2004-10-20 13:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,
1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
When did anyone stop looking for OBL just a few days ago two of his
leutanents were picked up
Post by s***@yahoo.com
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
Don't corporations have the right to have their factories where they want?
perhaps if the minimum wage were to be droped to the level of say Taiwan and
tax them less then perhaps they will come back. But we all know that will
never happen
Post by s***@yahoo.com
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
I Report, You Decide
2004-10-21 05:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,
1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
When did anyone stop looking for OBL just a few days ago two of his
leutanents were picked up
Well Bush and Rumsfeld, both said that he is no longer a priority and "We
don't know where he is, and we aren't concerned about him". Ha! Ha! Ha!

I can't believe Bush told everyone that he never said this, and the CNN
replayed his speech from six months ago when he said it.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
Don't corporations have the right to have their factories where they want?
perhaps if the minimum wage were to be droped to the level of say Taiwan and
tax them less then perhaps they will come back. But we all know that will
never happen
Post by s***@yahoo.com
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
TonyInTsv
2004-10-23 08:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Of course noone is worried about OBL he's on the run that's asuming he's
still alive what with his need for regular renal dialisis, which isn't the
easiest thing to do in a cave in the middle of the desert, also so many of
his leuitenants have been eithe arested or killed his C&C is shot to the
shit house, terrorist attacks recently have been on the orders of regional
cells acting on their own and show no hint of OBL's planning.
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,
1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
When did anyone stop looking for OBL just a few days ago two of his
leutanents were picked up
Well Bush and Rumsfeld, both said that he is no longer a priority and "We
don't know where he is, and we aren't concerned about him". Ha! Ha! Ha!
I can't believe Bush told everyone that he never said this, and the CNN
replayed his speech from six months ago when he said it.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
Don't corporations have the right to have their factories where they want?
perhaps if the minimum wage were to be droped to the level of say Taiwan and
tax them less then perhaps they will come back. But we all know that will
never happen
Post by s***@yahoo.com
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
I Report, You Decide
2004-10-23 19:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Yep, just like Clinton wasn't worried about him right? All of sudden the
WTC and Pentagon were attacked.

Yep, nice to know that Bush and Rummy are not concerned about Al Queda/Bin
Laden.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Of course noone is worried about OBL he's on the run that's asuming he's
still alive what with his need for regular renal dialisis, which isn't the
easiest thing to do in a cave in the middle of the desert, also so many of
his leuitenants have been eithe arested or killed his C&C is shot to the
shit house, terrorist attacks recently have been on the orders of regional
cells acting on their own and show no hint of OBL's planning.
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,
1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
When did anyone stop looking for OBL just a few days ago two of his
leutanents were picked up
Well Bush and Rumsfeld, both said that he is no longer a priority and "We
don't know where he is, and we aren't concerned about him". Ha! Ha! Ha!
I can't believe Bush told everyone that he never said this, and the CNN
replayed his speech from six months ago when he said it.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
Don't corporations have the right to have their factories where they
want?
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
perhaps if the minimum wage were to be droped to the level of say
Taiwan
and
tax them less then perhaps they will come back. But we all know that
will
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
never happen
Post by s***@yahoo.com
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
TonyInTsv
2004-10-24 21:53:16 UTC
Permalink
I never said any thing about Al Queda only OBL. Al Queda is around the
world, my own country has been the targets of their atrocities under the
guise of Jamah Islamia and are being hunted down like the rabid dogs they
are. Infact if things go as planed then the leader should be killed by
firing squad next year under Indonesia's new anti-terror laws. He was
responsible for the Sari club bombing as well as several car bombings over
the last few years.
Post by I Report, You Decide
Yep, just like Clinton wasn't worried about him right? All of sudden the
WTC and Pentagon were attacked.
Yep, nice to know that Bush and Rummy are not concerned about Al Queda/Bin
Laden.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Of course noone is worried about OBL he's on the run that's asuming he's
still alive what with his need for regular renal dialisis, which isn't the
easiest thing to do in a cave in the middle of the desert, also so many of
his leuitenants have been eithe arested or killed his C&C is shot to the
shit house, terrorist attacks recently have been on the orders of regional
cells acting on their own and show no hint of OBL's planning.
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
The word's "conservative" and "liberal" are too often used out of
context. For example, if George W. Bush were really a conservative,
1. he would have given the US it's true choice...Al Gore.
2. he would have conserved foreign relations by NOT INVADING Iraq
after Saddam met his ultimatum of WMD.
3. he would have focused on hunting down Osama Bin Laden rather than
moving the troops to Iraq despite global protesting and lack of
evidence of WMD.
When did anyone stop looking for OBL just a few days ago two of his
leutanents were picked up
Well Bush and Rumsfeld, both said that he is no longer a priority and "We
don't know where he is, and we aren't concerned about him". Ha! Ha! Ha!
I can't believe Bush told everyone that he never said this, and the CNN
replayed his speech from six months ago when he said it.
--
The Best in Message Board Discussions
http://www.comicboards.org/religion
Post by TonyInTsv
Post by s***@yahoo.com
4. he would have conserved the name of the war: WMD
5. he would have conserved the American well-being by spending more
money on social health-care and other programs that help Americans
than burning it in a land across the sea (Iraq).
6. he would haved conserved American jobs by not shifting major
coorperations over seas.
Don't corporations have the right to have their factories where they
want?
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
perhaps if the minimum wage were to be droped to the level of say
Taiwan
and
tax them less then perhaps they will come back. But we all know that
will
Post by I Report, You Decide
Post by TonyInTsv
never happen
Post by s***@yahoo.com
7. he would have conserved American rules rather than "winning" the
election as governer of Texas by jerrymandering.
8. the stock market would have conserved its value.
9. he wouldn't make a law that allows all illegal Mexican immigrants
able to find a job free green cards with a second term and application
for citizenship after the first term (will this really make it easier
to patrol the border as he claimed?).
10. he will withdraw US troops, as he promised to allow the Iraqi
president to rule Iraq now that he "handed over the power."
Malev
2004-07-04 09:15:14 UTC
Permalink
I
<troll shit>

idiot
Phaedrine
2004-07-04 22:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
You are one sick "Poop Dogg".
Lehi
2004-07-05 06:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parsons
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
All I can say is, you are a disgusting abomination.
Post by Parsons
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S.
Saddams atrocitys are of a much grander scale
Post by Parsons
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
during the 1940's, the U.S supplied weapons to the Soviet union. does
that mean we were hyporcytes? No,it means we chose the lesser of two
evils.
Post by Parsons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don W. McCollough
2004-07-05 11:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein,
<snip>

I hereby demand a strict regimen of Prolixin and Lithium for you.

BTW, who let you out of the asylum?

Thank You, Bye Bye
Malev
2004-07-05 12:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don W. McCollough
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein,
<snip>
I hereby demand a strict regimen of Prolixin and Lithium for you.
BTW, who let you out of the asylum?
He was expelled.
Logos
2004-07-05 15:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance
I agree with you: call some thousands of families who had relatives
killed by Saddam and gather them outside his prison, them open the
doors and free Saddam.

Let the citizens of Iraq be allowed to take care of him. Let the
citizens of Iraq tear him to pieces with their own hands.

The trial will be made lather: a retroactive trial.

Logos
***@libero.it
Remove A B C
andrew ross
2004-07-06 01:36:09 UTC
Permalink
It's Iraq's problem now let them do what they see fit, he will get a fair
trial, but hopefully iraq kills him and sends the video to cnn to be aired
via satelite!
Post by Logos
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance
I agree with you: call some thousands of families who had relatives
killed by Saddam and gather them outside his prison, them open the
doors and free Saddam.
Let the citizens of Iraq be allowed to take care of him. Let the
citizens of Iraq tear him to pieces with their own hands.
The trial will be made lather: a retroactive trial.
Logos
Remove A B C
andrew ross
2004-07-06 01:30:46 UTC
Permalink
lmfao that is fucking funny...where in the hell do you get off demanding his
release???rofl! what are going to do type us to death? before you start
typing mr.iraqi freedom fighter just remember one thing... Terrorism is not
tolerated at all and with me being a soldier myself i would make sure to
send a bullet your way or at least detain you so you can join your
idol....hows them apples!
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Strevel
2004-08-24 19:20:25 UTC
Permalink
I hereby declare you to be terribly missinformed. You want him so bad,let
him live in your house.

--
Don Strevel, Las Vegas, NV.
http://www.mysecretvegas.com
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
Shexmus
2004-09-01 06:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Strevel
I hereby declare you to be terribly missinformed. You want him so bad,let
him live in your house.
--
Don Strevel, Las Vegas, NV.
Now, that is unfair! I really think you should not be asking for
Saddam to go to his house, torture him, kill his father, rape his
mother and sister, starve him and his family and then plead innocence
and blame the whole lot of it on the Americans.

Shexmus
Post by Don Strevel
http://www.mysecretvegas.com
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
Don Strevel
2004-09-04 17:01:23 UTC
Permalink
I hereby declair that I demend the Queen of England shoud wear high heels,
and the President of the United States should wear Short pants on Thursdays.
I also demand that the law of gravity be overlooked in every instance. And
if these demands are not met I will, at once, give you further displays of
ignorance right out of my ass.

--
Don Strevel, Las Vegas, NV.
http://www.mysecretvegas.com
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.749 / Virus Database: 501 - Release Date: 9/1/2004
Don Strevel
2004-09-04 17:02:58 UTC
Permalink
I suspect that Sadam is secretly an angry Lesbian.

--
Don Strevel, Las Vegas, NV.
http://www.mysecretvegas.com
Post by Parsons
I hereby demand the immediate release of Saddam Hussein, currently in
U.S. custody and on trial in the U.S. puppet kangaroo court which had
already decided both his guilt and death sentence in advance.
Saddam has always been my idol. I think he is a very handsome man, and
I admire the way he kept those goddamn muslim clerics under control
during his administration.
Bush has been trying to justify his illegal war on Iraq by pointing to
Saddam's alleged "human rights abuses." Such abuses may have occurred
under his rule, but equally atrocious abuses, and worse, have occurred
in countries aligned with the U.S., and we have always looked the
other way. China invades Tibet and tortures Tibetans, we say nothing.
Iraq invades Kuwait and tortures Kuwaitis, suddenly it is a violation
of international law and a crime against humanity. Dissidents
"disappear" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, horrible. Dissidents "disappear"
in Augusto Pinochet's Chile, nothing. Iraq beheads dissidents, awful.
Saudi Arabia beheads dissidents, nada. Iraq oppresses Kurdish
minority, terrible. Turkey oppresses Kurdish minority, not a peep
of protest from the U.S. I could even mention Taliban Afghanistan,
where even the worst abuses were conveniently overlooked by the U.S.
UNTIL the Taliban turned on us (remember the Taliban was part of the
U.S.-supported Mujahedin rebel/terrorist group that fought the Soviet
occupation in the 1980s).
So I challenge the legality of Saddam's arrest and detention. In U.S.
law a legitimate challenge to a law is if it is being selectively
enforced. A fundamental principle in our system is that laws MUST
be equally applied to everyone; if not (e.g. drug possession is
illegal but only blacks are arrested for it while whites are not),
then the law is unconstitutional. So if torture, beheadings, ethnic
oppression, invading sovereign nations, etc. are all violations of
international law, then ALL states and their leaders who commit these
acts must be punished; ALL such states should be invaded and their
leaders deposed by force. I am still awaiting Bush's fantastic
explanation as to why Saudi Arabia should not be attacked and the
Saudi royal family arrested and tried for crimes against humanity.
The same goes for China.
One final thought: I hope y'all remember that Saddam Hussein was our
bestest buddy during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s.
Like he did to Kuwait, Saddam's Iraq attacked Iran without
provocation. Unlike the Kuwait attack, his unprovoked attack on
Iran was met with cheers from Washington. So far no evidence has
surfaced, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that
the Reagan administration covertly provided aid to Iraq, even that
the U.S. provided Iraq with all the precursor chemicals for the
nerve gas he used against Iran, if not the nerve gas itself!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will
be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter,
except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no
art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no
more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and
ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of
life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not
forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power,
constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every
moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling
on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future,
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - FOREVER!"
-- George Orwell, "1984"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.749 / Virus Database: 501 - Release Date: 9/1/2004
Loading...