PDA

View Full Version : Think Tank Suggests Bush should be President For Life


jAZ
08-20-2007, 06:41 PM
This is Google's cache of http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=1208571 (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cnnnSRimWmcJ:www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php%3Fid%3D1208571+%22president+for+life+bush%22+site:familysecuritymatters.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
Philip Atkinson

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

# #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson is the British born founder of ourcivilisation.com and author of A Study of Our Decline. He is a philosopher specializing in issues concerning the preservation of Western civilization. Mr. Atkinson receives mail at rpa@ourcivilisation.com.

Adept Havelock
08-20-2007, 06:51 PM
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.


:rolleyes:

Considering this idiots belief that the pre-emptive use of Nuclear Weapons was "the wisest course possible", I think the Republic is quite safe from a coup.



Brilliant thinking, Mr. Atkinson. Use Nukes in Iraq, and allow the Radiation to contaminate SA, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, and the -stan nations of the former USSR.

Mr. Atkinson, with insights such as this, are you quite certain your first name isn't Rowan?

orange
08-20-2007, 06:57 PM
"Family Security Foundation." Who are these people, you ask?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Family_Security_Matters

Not just some random nut-cases, but a who's who of some of the right's favorite "pundits."

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 07:01 PM
OMG!!!

Yep! He's a Nazi. An American version of the "Final Solution." Genocide and ethnic cleansing.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 07:05 PM
"Family Security Foundation." Who are these people, you ask?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Family_Security_Matters

Not just some random nut-cases, but a who's who of some of the right's favorite "pundits."
They're NeoConservatives obviously because they're the Empire Builders. Even the Weekly Standards boasts how we are an empire now and America must fight its wars.

But I was disappointed to see Laura Ingraham on that list. Very sad.

Hydrae
08-20-2007, 07:06 PM
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise.

That is as far as I got. I am sorry but any "think tank" that does not recognize the differences between our Republic and a true Democracy is unfit for consideration. I was even willing to ignore the first comment about the majority of Americans voting GW in for a second term but when he continues to repeat the mistake, I have better things to fill my mind with.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 07:11 PM
That is as far as I got. I am sorry but any "think tank" that does not recognize the differences between our Republic and a true Democracy is unfit for consideration.
Excellent point. I started to post that myself but shortened it.
The point is rule of law including over our leaders.

I also wanted to mention what will happen to Iran's 25,000 Jews who refuse to emigrate to Israel despite pleas by Israel over many years, as they don't support Zionism. Oh I forgot, they're self-loathing Jews...so they can be nuked too.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 07:11 PM
The article reads like a philosophical arguement IMO. It does raise the interesting point of why Democracies have a history of taking a military hit before they react and the consequences of absorbing a strike in an age of WMD's. All reasonable people when asked about war or peace will always choose peace. That's fine, but if you have an uneducated electorate that can lead to the politicians being in a position where they will lose popularity and eventually power if they are hawkish and use force to strike pre-empitively.

Our Democratic Republic has some inherent weakness built into it but it is still the best form of Government ever created.

I don't think any reasonable thinking freedom loving American would ever advocate the suspension of Democracy as it would in effect end the American experiment. That being said if our electorate stays ignorant of World issues eventually we will be struck by a large scale weapon delivered by a non-nation state if our pols and spy agencies become lax.

Personally, I think we will be struck again in the next 5 to 20 years and the result will be much more deadly than 9/11. Then the population will demand protection and retaliation and the process will start all over again only with a possible threat of martial law if the strike is too severe, disruptive and uncontrolable. It's an interesting subject to discuss and just shows that Democracy is not invulnerable and to defend it properly without losing it in the name of defense is a very complicated subject.

|Zach|
08-20-2007, 07:17 PM
http://www.bioteams.com/images/more_biological.jpg

patteeu
08-20-2007, 07:23 PM
"Family Security Foundation." Who are these people, you ask?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Family_Security_Matters

Not just some random nut-cases, but a who's who of some of the right's favorite "pundits."

I'm not sure who to condemn for this guilt-by-association smear. You for making it or jAZ for leading you to this conclusion by pretending the commentary of one person is the official position of a whole group of people. I guess I'll condemn both of you.

The fact that jAZ had to pull this from a google cache indicates that the website it originally appeared on, in all likelihood, exercised their editorial control to take that article down. That seems to argue against the notion that the entire organization endorses this view.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 07:27 PM
I'm sure that there are more than a few that agree with it though.Who would admit it if they did? Even Cheney and leading GOP candidates have discussed nukes.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 07:27 PM
The article reads like a philosophical arguement IMO. It does raise the interesting point of why Democracies have a history of taking a military hit before they react and the consequences of absorbing a strike in an age of WMD's. All reasonable people when asked about war or peace will always choose peace. That's fine, but if you have an uneducated electorate that can lead to the politicians being in a position where they will lose popularity and eventually power if they are hawkish and use force to strike pre-empitively.

Our Democratic Republic has some inherent weakness built into it but it is still the best form of Government ever created.

I don't think any reasonable thinking freedom loving American would ever advocate the suspension of Democracy as it would in effect end the American experiment. That being said if our electorate stays ignorant of World issues eventually we will be struck by a large scale weapon delivered by a non-nation state if our pols and spy agencies become lax.

Personally, I think we will be struck again in the next 5 to 20 years and the result will be much more deadly than 9/11. Then the population will demand protection and retaliation and the process will start all over again only with a possible threat of martial law if the strike is too severe, disruptive and uncontrolable. It's an interesting subject to discuss and just shows that Democracy is not invulnerable and to defend it properly without losing it in the name of defense is a very complicated subject.

Yep. It will be a lot better for all of us and for our continued freedom if we nip this threat in the bud instead of waiting until the threat of nuclear terrorism actually does become imminent because by then the margin for error is too slim to bat 1000 and in that game, you don't get 3 strikes before you're out.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 07:27 PM
I'm not sure who to condemn for this guilt-by-association smear. You for making it or jAZ for leading you to this conclusion by pretending the commentary of one person is the official position of a whole group of people. I guess I'll condemn both of you.

The fact that jAZ had to pull this from a google cache indicates that the website it originally appeared on, in all likelihood, exercised their editorial control to take that article down. That seems to argue against the notion that the entire organization endorses this view.

Agreed.

Cochise
08-20-2007, 07:32 PM
I looked at that roster, and I don't recognize any of those names except one guy who is a Newsmax editor if I'm not mistaken.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 07:37 PM
I'm sure that there are more than a few that agree with it though.Who would admit it if they did? Even Cheney and leading GOP candidates have discussed nukes.

Look Pea. If a Nuclear/WMD threat was imminent against the USA and we knew how to stop it by using a nuke I would certainly support their pre-emptive use as opposed to waiting for the US to be attacked first. It's a lose/lose situation overall as we all share the same planet and biosphere but if it comes down to us or them then I vote for us.

banyon
08-20-2007, 07:42 PM
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

Does he not realize how easy this statement is to invert?

The inadequacy of monarchy, rule by the one, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas as though they were wise, even if they are unpopular. This means that any population governed by a monarchy is placed in an invidious position: If they follow the leader because they trust him even with unwise decisions, then they will feel the effects of the inevitable results. If they refuse to follow the unwide decision, then they could be tried for treason or otherwise persecuted by the monarch.

Mr. Laz
08-20-2007, 07:42 PM
President George W. Bush .......... after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president


oops

banyon
08-20-2007, 07:46 PM
I'm not sure who to condemn for this guilt-by-association smear. You for making it or jAZ for leading you to this conclusion by pretending the commentary of one person is the official position of a whole group of people. I guess I'll condemn both of you.

The fact that jAZ had to pull this from a google cache indicates that the website it originally appeared on, in all likelihood, exercised their editorial control to take that article down. That seems to argue against the notion that the entire organization endorses this view.

Doesn't appear that they removed him as editor though.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 07:57 PM
Does he not realize how easy this statement is to invert?

The inadequacy of monarchy, rule by the one, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas as though they were wise, even if they are unpopular. This means that any population governed by a monarchy is placed in an invidious position: If they follow the leader because they trust him even with unwise decisions, then they will feel the effects of the inevitable results. If they refuse to follow the unwide decision, then they could be tried for treason or otherwise persecuted by the monarch.

Good point as a dictator or monarchy puts the fate into the hands of only one person who may be corrupt, crazy or a meglamaniac. I think this thread really sheds light on a lot of key issues we face and helps us to understand the thinking of the founders. I think we can all now see a bit more clearly why the founders created a Representative Republic as opposed to a pure Democracy. It's a bit more deliberate than a pure democracy and gives the elected leaders the opportunity to make governing choices that are unpopular decisions at the moment.

The way I see it the weakness of any Democratic form of Govt. is always the people themselves. If the people do not take the time to inform, educate and understand the Pols who want to lead us and the world around us then we run a greater risk of putting someone in power as Pres., Senator, Congressman who may or may not put the nation ahead of their own careers or simply may not be qualified. I think the founders thought this all through and that's why we have the checks and balance system we currently enjoy. That being said the whole system can fail if the people (over many years) continue to make the wrong choices.

Cochise
08-20-2007, 08:00 PM
oops

Hey what about the second time? :Poke:

the Talking Can
08-20-2007, 08:00 PM
A simple google search shows that FSM published this article on Aug. 3, 2007...on a page titled "FSM's Must Reads"....one would have to posit the Editors at FSM as Nick "The Erroneous One" Athan level retards to claim that they bear no responsibility for the article they highlighted and published.

It is quite right to wonder why they did so...why they sought him out and requested his article, read his article, and then agreed to publish it.

A simple google search also shows he wrote this:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/villain.htm

"Nelson Mandela: A Villain Portrayed As A Hero

Nelson Mandela is a South African citizen who chose to place his private resentment of the existing apartheid regime above the welfare of his country. He actively campaigned to replace a regime that gave order and wealth, with a regime that could only ever supply anarchy and poverty. But for helping to convert a prosperous, safe and stable community into an impoverished, unstable and dangerous community (see Letter from South Africa), he has won international plaudits, including the Nobel peace prize awarded in Oslo in 1993.

The undeniable and predictable result of overturning the Apartheid regime are ignored, as he is enthusiastically praised (circa late 1990s) in the Australian, English and American media. Even a letter to The Times in London, by the widow of the author of the anti-apartheid book "Cry, My Beloved Country", did not alter this blind adulation. Her sincere confession that social conditions had deteriorated so much that the sins of the previous Apartheid regime now seemed trivial, failed to shake the prejudice that Nelson Mandela was a hero whose sacrifice had won a better life for South Africans.

Shakespeare's play "King Lear" is a reminder that power cannot be safely abdicated, so the loss of power by the white people in Africa must endanger all white lives on that continent: a lesson graphically demonstrated by the fate of the white Rhodesian farmers being robbed and murdered with impunity by black savages(circa 2000). Which makes the abolition of Apartheid the first step in the inevitable destruction of the white population of South Africa."

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 09:34 PM
A simple google search shows that FSM published this article on Aug. 3, 2007...on a page titled "FSM's Must Reads"....one would have to posit the Editors at FSM as Nick "The Erroneous One" Athan level retards to claim that they bear no responsibility for the article they highlighted and published.

It is quite right to wonder why they did so...why they sought him out and requested his article, read his article, and then agreed to publish it.

A simple google search also shows he wrote this:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/villain.htm

"Nelson Mandela: A Villain Portrayed As A Hero

Nelson Mandela is a South African citizen who chose to place his private resentment of the existing apartheid regime above the welfare of his country. He actively campaigned to replace a regime that gave order and wealth, with a regime that could only ever supply anarchy and poverty. But for helping to convert a prosperous, safe and stable community into an impoverished, unstable and dangerous community (see Letter from South Africa), he has won international plaudits, including the Nobel peace prize awarded in Oslo in 1993.

The undeniable and predictable result of overturning the Apartheid regime are ignored, as he is enthusiastically praised (circa late 1990s) in the Australian, English and American media. Even a letter to The Times in London, by the widow of the author of the anti-apartheid book "Cry, My Beloved Country", did not alter this blind adulation. Her sincere confession that social conditions had deteriorated so much that the sins of the previous Apartheid regime now seemed trivial, failed to shake the prejudice that Nelson Mandela was a hero whose sacrifice had won a better life for South Africans.

Shakespeare's play "King Lear" is a reminder that power cannot be safely abdicated, so the loss of power by the white people in Africa must endanger all white lives on that continent: a lesson graphically demonstrated by the fate of the white Rhodesian farmers being robbed and murdered with impunity by black savages(circa 2000). Which makes the abolition of Apartheid the first step in the inevitable destruction of the white population of South Africa."

Mandela was and is an icon for the end of Apartheid but he is a deeply flawed man and his former wife is a convicted criminal.

banyon
08-20-2007, 09:48 PM
Mandela was and is an icon for the end of Apartheid but he is a deeply flawed man and his former wife is a convicted criminal.

Um, the guy was defending apartheid, not conducting a carefully considered evaluation of Mandela's entire biography.

kcfanintitanhell
08-20-2007, 09:49 PM
Mandela was and is an icon for the end of Apartheid but he is a deeply flawed man

Take from it what you will, but the icon for the end of Apartheid will always be Mandela's legacy. On the other hand, Bush's legacy will be simply be that he was a deeply flawed man.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 09:58 PM
Take from it what you will, but the icon for the end of Apartheid will always be Mandela's legacy. On the other hand, Bush's legacy will be simply be that he was a deeply flawed man.

Bush will be vindicated in the fullness of time.

Mr. Laz
08-20-2007, 09:58 PM
Hey what about the second time? :Poke:
debatable


thanks, bro.






:p

HolmeZz
08-20-2007, 09:59 PM
Bush will be vindicated in the fullness of time.

Give it a rest.

Brock
08-20-2007, 10:00 PM
Think tank seems a hopelessly optimistic term.

Logical
08-20-2007, 10:00 PM
Think tank seems a hopelessly optimistic term.Amen

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 10:02 PM
Give it a rest.


Just hide under your bed kid and let the real Americans lead and keep you safe. Oh and try not to piss yourself.

Logical
08-20-2007, 10:02 PM
Bush will be vindicated in the fullness of time.I doubt if the earth will survive long enough for that to occur.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 10:03 PM
I doubt if the earth will survive long enough for that to occur.

The Earth will Logical. You might not though you old dog. ;)

HolmeZz
08-20-2007, 10:06 PM
Just hide under your bed kid and let the real Americans lead and keep you safe. Oh and try not to piss yourself.

Let me know what you're doing to defend this great nation.

a1na2
08-20-2007, 10:06 PM
Aren't they supposed to think while they are tanked? That raises the question of how many here are tanked while they try to think?

Getting tanked and posting on the internet will soon be outlawed and you will be fined for PUI (posting under the influence).

patteeu
08-20-2007, 10:10 PM
Let me know what you're doing to defend this great nation.

Anyone who isn't calling for our troops to retreat from Iraq (or worse, disengaging from the entire middle east) instead of confronting the islamists who have taken a stand there is doing at least a small part to defend our great nation.

the Talking Can
08-20-2007, 10:13 PM
Mandela was and is an icon for the end of Apartheid but he is a deeply flawed man and his former wife is a convicted criminal.

just perfect for this thread

banyon
08-20-2007, 10:15 PM
Just hide under your bed kid and let the real Americans lead and keep you safe. Oh and try not to piss yourself.


Yup, if you disagree with the President, you are not a real American. Clearly you understand the principles our country was founded upon with an insight as finely honed as a clump of seaweed.

HolmeZz
08-20-2007, 10:15 PM
Anyone who isn't calling for our troops to retreat from Iraq (or worse, disengaging from the entire middle east) instead of confronting the islamists who have taken a stand there is doing at least a small part to defend our great nation.

Ok, Mr. Romney.

banyon
08-20-2007, 10:16 PM
Aren't they supposed to think while they are tanked? That raises the question of how many here are tanked while they try to think?

Getting tanked and posting on the internet will soon be outlawed and you will be fined for PUI (posting under the influence).

Was this funny in your head?

banyon
08-20-2007, 10:18 PM
Anyone who isn't calling for our troops to retreat from Iraq (or worse, disengaging from the entire middle east) instead of confronting the islamists who have taken a stand there is doing at least a small part to defend our great nation.

It's a good thing when we have fought real wars in the past that people in general didn't have this attitude.

a1na2
08-20-2007, 10:19 PM
Was this funny in your head?

:rolleyes:

Logical
08-20-2007, 10:19 PM
Anyone who isn't calling for our troops to retreat from Iraq (or worse, disengaging from the entire middle east) instead of confronting the islamists who have taken a stand there is doing at least a small part to defend our great nation.:rolleyes: You truly deserve a DEnise smiley for that lame ass post.

HolmeZz
08-20-2007, 10:19 PM
It's a good thing when we have fought real wars in the past that people in general didn't have this attitude.

We don't need soldiers. We just need people who agree with the President.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 10:21 PM
Yup, if you disagree with the President, you are not a real American. Clearly you understand the principles our country was founded upon with an insight as finely honed as a clump of seaweed.

That's not what I'm saying. You have all the right in the world to be wrong. Being a dumbass is the right of every free person. Just remember if there are too many DA's it can damage the country.

BucEyedPea
08-20-2007, 10:23 PM
Look Pea. If a Nuclear/WMD threat was imminent against the USA and we knew how to stop it by using a nuke I would certainly support their pre-emptive use as opposed to waiting for the US to be attacked first. It's a lose/lose situation overall as we all share the same planet and biosphere but if it comes down to us or them then I vote for us.
The problem I have with your position is that it's the same BS we got from the same folks who claimed mushroom clouds from Iraq. It's lies by a group who's philosophy includes lying to the people because we're too stupid. I've been through this whole debate in this forum before. How can you believe the stuff these guys claim. Iran is not our enemy and has never attacked us. And they do not have a nuke.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 10:23 PM
:rolleyes: You truly deserve a DEnise smiley for that lame ass post.

He's right. Patteau and I defend traditional America everyday.

banyon
08-20-2007, 10:23 PM
That's not what I'm saying. You have all the right in the world to be wrong. Being a dumbass is the right of every free person. Just remember if there are too many DA's it can damage the country.

My bad, I thought you used the phrase "Real Americans". Oh wait, you did.

HolmeZz
08-20-2007, 10:24 PM
Just remember if there are too many DA's it can damage the country.

All you've had to do is be alive the past 7 years to witness that.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 10:25 PM
The problem I have with your position is that it's the same BS we got from the same folks who claimed mushroom clouds from Iraq. It's lies by a group who's philosophy includes lying to the people because we're too stupid. I've been through this whole debate in this forum before. How can you believe the stuff these guys claim. Iran is not our enemy and has never attacked us. And they do not have a nuke.

I wasn't talking specifically about Iran.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 10:29 PM
It's a good thing when we have fought real wars in the past that people in general didn't have this attitude.

It's an even better thing that when we fought other real wars, people in general didn't take the attitude of today's surrender advocates. Except in Vietnam, of course.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 10:29 PM
My bad, I thought you used the phrase "Real Americans". Oh wait, you did.

Let me revise and extend my remarks. I believe you're still an American if you don't believe in a lot of the things that I and others have spoken at length about on this board but it makes you a non-traditionalist and in my book that makes you a unreliable American. In other words a dumbass.

patteeu
08-20-2007, 10:31 PM
The problem I have with your position is that it's the same BS we got from the same folks who claimed mushroom clouds from Iraq. It's lies by a group who's philosophy includes lying to the people because we're too stupid. I've been through this whole debate in this forum before. How can you believe the stuff these guys claim. Iran is not our enemy and has never attacked us. And they do not have a nuke.

Please don't lie about mushroom clouds like that. It's a pet peeve of mine. There was no BS about "mushroom clouds from Iraq." Even if the intelligence community overestimated the Iraq nuclear threat this time around (after underestimating it badly at the time of our first Gulf War), the mushroom cloud reference was still correct, as is Chiefaroo. If you wait until you see a mushroom cloud in one of your cities before you react to the threat, you've waited too long. Just War theory needs to catch up with the technology of the modern world.

banyon
08-20-2007, 10:32 PM
Let me revise and extend my remarks. I believe you're still an American if you don't believe in a lot of the things that I and others have spoken at length about on this board but it makes you a non-traditionalist and in my book that makes you a unreliable American. In other words a dumbass.

I guess you'll never get it. You shouldn't attack anyone's credentials as an American for engaging in dissent. The "dumbass" comment is fine, it's denigrating someone's patriotism or mettle as a citizen that is myopic.

banyon
08-20-2007, 10:32 PM
Please don't lie about mushroom clouds like that. It's a pet peeve of mine. No one "claimed mushroom clouds from Iraq."

Ahh, very subtle. They were only openly implied; you have successfully parsed.

ChiefaRoo
08-20-2007, 10:38 PM
I guess you'll never get it. You shouldn't attack anyone's credentials as an American for engaging in dissent. The "dumbass" comment is fine, it's denigrating someone's patriotism or mettle as a citizen that is myopic.

Listen some people are Americans in name only. They don't even know what it means to be an American as they have no idea why the country was founded as it was and they have no idea about what makes it great today. Some of these people are on this board and others like you like to defend these peoples credentials.

Lookit Banyon. There is nothing inherently noble about dissent. In fact dissent that is not backed up by knowledge, reason and logic is nothing but foolishness at best and is Anti-American at worst..

Direckshun
08-20-2007, 10:44 PM
Nuking Iraq?

That'd solve the problem. No more angry Muslims then, that's for sure.

Mr Luzcious
08-20-2007, 11:41 PM
Nuking Iraq?

That'd solve the problem. No more angry Muslims then, that's for sure.

Because clearly all muslims live in Iraq. Its just common knowledge.

Logical
08-20-2007, 11:54 PM
Let me revise and extend my remarks. I believe you're still an American if you don't believe in a lot of the things that I and others have spoken at length about on this board but it makes you a non-traditionalist and in my book that makes you a unreliable American. In other words a dumbass.

Just what makes you a reliable American, sort of sounds like McCarthyism to me, no thanks we tried that. Bad, bad idea.

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 12:17 AM
Just what makes you a reliable American, sort of sounds like McCarthyism to me, no thanks we tried that. Bad, bad idea.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Dipshits galore yet they have the right to vote and they probably don't even know who the VP is.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DKr_DPr_zXo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DKr_DPr_zXo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Logical
08-21-2007, 12:29 AM
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Dipshits galore yet they have the right to vote and they probably don't even know who the VP is.
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DKr_DPr_zXo" Dude stupid people are not necessarily unreliable Americans. I mean have you met some of our soldiers and marines. They make these people seem bright at times.

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 12:33 AM
Dude stupid people are not necessarily unreliable Americans. I mean have you met some of our soldiers and marines. They make these people seem bright at times.

I'm to tired to argue with you tonight Logical. You pain in the ass you. :)

|Zach|
08-21-2007, 12:35 AM
This country would be so much better if it were not for the stupid Americans. [/Chiefaroo]

You and Chagrin....racing side by side to blame America at every turn.

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 12:37 AM
This country would be so much better if it were not for the stupid Americans. [/Chiefaroo]

America would be better if we could eliminate the Ignorant,herd following, government cheese eatin', Britney Spears listenin' Americans. /Chiefaroo/

Quote me on that camera boy.

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 12:39 AM
This country would be so much better if it were not for the stupid Americans. [/Chiefaroo]

You and Chagrin....racing side by side to blame America at every turn.

I love the whole concept of America. It's just some of the people I can't stand. Now make me a sammich camera boy biatch! :)

|Zach|
08-21-2007, 12:40 AM
America would be better if we could eliminate the Ignorant,herd following, government cheese eatin', Britney Spears listenin' Americans. /Chiefaroo/

Quote me on that camera boy.
Better without the people I don't agree with.

Truly the American way.

Right Roo?

http://ec.europa.eu/education/img/flags/usa.gif

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 12:58 AM
Better without the people I don't agree with.

Truly the American way.

Right Roo?

http://ec.europa.eu/education/img/flags/usa.gif

Close. I don't mind people who disagree with me. I just don't want them to have any political power. That would make for a better America IMO.

Ugly Duck
08-21-2007, 01:47 AM
George Bush was elected by a majority of the American people.

Yet he is generally despised.

Well, yah...

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c368/calougee/handjob.gif

Fishpicker
08-21-2007, 02:15 AM
Close. I don't mind people who disagree with me. I just don't want them to have any political power. That would make for a better America IMO.

they don't have any political power to begin with.

Are ignorant, herd following, government cheese eatin', Britney Spears listenin' Americans forming voting blocks?

I would imagine that the ignorant, herd following, government cheese eatin', Britney Spears listenin' Americans are fairly apathetic to politics.

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 02:33 AM
they don't have any political power to begin with.

Are ignorant, herd following, government cheese eatin', Britney Spears listenin' Americans forming voting blocks?

I would imagine that the ignorant, herd following, government cheese eatin', Britney Spears listenin' Americans are fairly apathetic to politics.

Yes they get herded up on buses by activists and are told to vote Democratic so they can get more cheese, and they do.

Fishpicker
08-21-2007, 02:43 AM
Yes they get herded up on buses by activists and are told to vote Democratic so they can get more cheese, and they do.

sometimes I wonder if you are an intellectual (as you claim) or a paranoiac.

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 02:55 AM
sometimes I wonder if you are an intellectual (as you claim) or a paranoiac.

C'mon the busing is well documented as were the false voting registration issues in Florida in 2004. I forget the name of the liberal activist group who got caught doing it. I'm sure Pateau remembers.

To answer your question. I am a genius. A mental giant that lords over all things political on this little corner of cyber space and I rule with an iron fist. To my right hand sits my Five Star General Patteau and his able Lt. Gen. Kotter. We verbally split domes and carpet bomb stupidity. I'm all these things and humble as well. :)

Fishpicker
08-21-2007, 03:11 AM
C'mon the busing is well documented as were the false voting registration issues in Florida in 2004. I forget the name of the liberal activist group who got caught doing it. I'm sure Pateau remembers.

To answer your question. I am a genius. A mental giant that lords over all things political on this little corner of cyber space and I rule with an iron fist. To my right hand sits my Five Star General Patteau and his able Lt. Gen. Kotter. We verbally split domes and carpet bomb stupidity. I'm all these things and humble as well. :)


you misspelled the name of your favored general... Patteau has a working vocabulary, Kotter too. both are smart guys, I agree. you're just name dropping.

I made a statement, there was no question.

a skull is spherical, a dome would allow for a brain to fall out of a persons head.

I agree that you do quite a bit of carpet bombing. carpet bombing is completely indiscriminate by nature. you would be better off precision bombing.

back to the point... the Liberal activist group you mentioned is nation-wide? if it's so well documented, why cant you remember the name or at least point me to a reference?

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 06:39 AM
you misspelled the name of your favored general... Patteau has a working vocabulary, Kotter too. both are smart guys, I agree. you're just name dropping.

I made a statement, there was no question.

a skull is spherical, a dome would allow for a brain to fall out of a persons head.

I agree that you do quite a bit of carpet bombing. carpet bombing is completely indiscriminate by nature. you would be better off precision bombing.

back to the point... the Liberal activist group you mentioned is nation-wide? if it's so well documented, why cant you remember the name or at least point me to a reference?

Ron Paul is a loser.

patteeu
08-21-2007, 07:21 AM
Are ignorant, herd following, government cheese eatin', Britney Spears listenin' Americans forming voting blocks?

Yes, and jAZ aspires to be their shepherd.

patteeu
08-21-2007, 07:24 AM
C'mon the busing is well documented as were the false voting registration issues in Florida in 2004. I forget the name of the liberal activist group who got caught doing it. I'm sure Pateau remembers.

To answer your question. I am a genius. A mental giant that lords over all things political on this little corner of cyber space and I rule with an iron fist. To my right hand sits my Five Star General Patteau and his able Lt. Gen. Kotter. We verbally split domes and carpet bomb stupidity. I'm all these things and humble as well. :)

LOL @ "and humble as well" :)

BucEyedPea
08-21-2007, 08:38 AM
To my right hand sits my Five Star General Patteau and his able Lt. Gen. Kotter.

What a Frenchman?
That's not pat's name it's patteeu...also pretty French!

Kotter's a Dem...I'm sure you and him would have a few disagreements on other issues.

French lover!!! :p

ChiefaRoo
08-21-2007, 05:17 PM
What a Frenchman?
That's not pat's name it's patteeu...also pretty French!

Kotter's a Dem...I'm sure you and him would have a few disagreements on other issues.

French lover!!! :p

I must admit I did enjoy my time in Paris. I ate Foie Gras and drank the best White wine I've ever tasted. The old city is really nice. Oh, and French kissing is fun too.