G Strings : now banned in Virginia USA

[zapper]

You fail to mention the "yellow-cake" incident supplied by you fellows. Was Britain complicit or did Bush Inc. embellish a weak lead I'm still waiting for someone in Bush's cabinet to be jailed w/ extreme prejudice for crimes against the state [treason]- (outing a cia officer)

Hey Peabody...are you going to be "shouting" this **** from the rooftops until you're 64? Get over it man...It's over, you guys have been crying foul since 2000...Frankly, we all are growing tired of the whining and that's why your party is doing so poorly. Actions speak louder than whining my friend...

 

[limerickman]

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THIS WELL KNOWN FACT: 49% OF ALL AMERICAN VOTERS DID NOT VOTE FOR BUSH. How hard is that to understand Everyone knows the Bush admin fabricated/doctored weak info inre: Iraq. Why do you think that his margin of victory in 2004 was so thin? The only people who voted for him were conservatives (who base their ideology on one of your historical figures-Burke[?]) Thanks alot fellows They had a little help from the holy-rollers & hillbillies

Dave - 49% may well not have voted for Bush, but 51% did, and this despite all of the lies and all of the incompetence.
What is the rest of the international community to do ?
Endorse Bush ?
Compound the mistake of re-electing Bush by being co-operative with your country ?
There's no way that will happen.
Look at the body language when the token was over here last week, when she was waffling.
She waffled and then was sent back home with the message to "********" back to Bush.

Unfortunately, the majority in the USA got their way on 2nd Nov 2004.
The rest of the world is reacting in economic terms - the effect of which is already apparent in your country's economic performance.

 

[limerickman]

Hey Peabody...are you going to be "shouting" this **** from the rooftops until you're 64? Get over it man...It's over, you guys have been crying foul since 2000...Frankly, we all are growing tired of the whining and that's why your party is doing so poorly. Actions speak louder than whining my friend...

I see the G-String factory is closing in Virginny.

This new law - does that mean you have to wear your G-string in private, now ?

Land of the free, don't ya just luv it !

 

[davidmc]

Hey Peabody...are you going to be "shouting" this **** from the rooftops until you're 64? Get over it man...It's over, you guys have been crying foul since 2000...Frankly, we all are growing tired of the whining and that's why your party is doing so poorly. Actions speak louder than whining my friend...

Who's "we", you & Tom DeLay This is still under investigation & a very serious matter Zapper. Do you condone exposing U.S. Govt agents The admin. treated this matter as if it were a school yard prank. Oh no, this was a crime of the highest magnitude . All Because Wilson didn't come back from Africa touting the admins line about links to nuclear material inre: Iraq. It would be comical if it weren't concerned w/ such a grave offense (treason/sedition) committed by SOMEONE INSIDE THE WHITEHOUSE. Pray tell why this doesn't meet the standard of investigation

 

[FredC]

Good one On another note, I heard on the weekly "Prime Ministers Questions" that Blair said that our alliance is inviolable eternal. What do you have to say about that Smarty pants

As a matter of interest is that all you heard? A choice picking for Merkin media consumption. PMQ as we call it is a 30 minute knockabout at point scoring. It's great fun for everybody. I think Bush should start one up, he'd get battered because A. He's not a Lawyer and B. He can't think for himself.
We don't take it too seriously, and neither do the opposition. Plenty of laughs from the protaginists, then it's off to lunch.

 

[davidmc]

As a matter of interest is that all you heard? A choice picking for Merkin media consumption. PMQ as we call it is a 30 minute knockabout at point scoring. It's great fun for everybody. I think Bush should start one up, he'd get battered because A. He's not a Lawyer and B. He can't think for himself.
We don't take it too seriously, and neither do the opposition. Plenty of laughs from the protaginists, then it's off to lunch.

No, I listen to the Prime Ministers Questions "verbatim", uttered bt Tony himself. It is easily accessed on the public radio waves over here FredC. He categorically endorsed the furtherance & invoilability of it. You don't follow the weekly, Prime Ministers Questions

 

[FredC]

You fail to mention the "yellow-cake" incident supplied by you fellows. Was Britain complicit or did Bush Inc. embellish a weak lead I'm still waiting for someone in Bush's cabinet to be jailed w/ extreme prejudice for crimes against the state [treason]- (outing a cia officer)

Surely Bush wrecking America is a treasonable offence?

 

[FredC]

No, I listen to the Prime Ministers Questions "verbatim", uttered bt Tony himself. It is easily accessed on the public radio waves over here FredC. He categorically endorsed the furtherance & invoilability of it. You don't follow the weekly, Prime Ministers Questions

I watch it live on TV, but I don't obviously know in what format you receive it.

 

[davidmc]

Surely Bush wrecking America is a treasonable offence?

Unboubtedly, Their lot is a law-breaking one. It will catch up to them, it always does.

 

[davidmc]

I watch it live on TV, but I don't obviously know in what format you receive it.

You are correct, they do seem rather casual at times but tony Blair's pronouncement of the transatlantic alliance was unequivocal. I hear it uncensored on the radio, in its entirety, on Sunday &/or Wednesday evenings. One of them is a replay. I also enjoy watching the streaming video of the proceedings at http://www.cspan.org/ check it out, it's listed 10th from the top-PMQ. C-span is the most unbiased source of info in our country. It is financed by donations & the chairman/CEO is a Mr. Brian Lamb. Heard of him?

 

[Carrera]

I think Limerickman already commented on some of your points here:
"I believe that the Merkins approved Bush's actions, including his invasion of Iraq : which of course is their progative, despite the 49% who didn't vote for him."
The way I see it is there are a range of Americans who voted Bush into office and these can be classified as follows:
(1)Those Americans who were influenced by the media and genuinely believed Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11 and/or Saddam was already considering a chemical attack on the U.S. (a friend of mind in L.A. informed me she had been informed she should stock up on drinking water and pasta prior to the invasion of Baghdad.
(2)Those Americans who opposed the war but maybe feared a military call-up under John Kerry and calculated that Bush would more than likely be less bellicose than Kerry in a second term.
(3)Those Americans who are typically bible-belt, right-wing material who see nothing wrong in the essential idea that God has chosen the U.S. to protect Israel and reshape the entire Middle East.
However the case may be, the U.S. electorate finally went on to re-elect George W Bush and this has had clear implications since, to my mind, the re-election of Bush Junior constitutes a serious set-back for human rights and the 20th century philosophical deduction that war is essentially a destructive, double-edged sword. It should only ever be resorted to as a means of defence against aggression.
As for the U.K. I see no excuse for re-electing New Labour and simply don't swallow all of the current propaganda that Blair had apparently been forced into the policy by Bush. Myself I witnessed footage of U.K. troops throwing sandbags over the heads of terrified Iraqi looters and can you imagine the outcry there would have been had the Iraqis treated U.S. prisoners in such a manner (that is contrary to the Geneva Convention)?
Blair actively encouraged the Bush Administration to go to war, produced false evidence to back up an illegal invasion just as Campbell lambasted and intimidated anyone who questioned this policy (actions which led to the apparent suicide of David Kelly).
If the U.K electorate re-elect New Labour then the unfortunate case is they will be endorsing an imperialistic approach to policy in the Middle East and ignoring clear human rights abuses.

Unfortunately I don't think it's quite that simple...firstly remember that, as davidmc points out, the election was very close - there are very many Americans who didn't want Bush back, so blanket anti-Americanism, while perhaps understandable, isn't really fair to those who voted for Kerry. Secondly, the American media is hugely jingoistic and biased, so Americans in general don't have as easy a time as we do making informed decisions. As regards the situation with Labour in the UK, there isn't really a viable opposition, with the Tories falling and Lib Dem on the rise (no, I don't consider Kilroy viable opposition either!) And while I agree that Blair was wrong over Iraq, I think it's clear that overall he isn't as irresponsible and stupid a man as Bush. The pound is holding its own, for example, unlike the dollar. Besides, although he got away with Iraq, I think it cost Blair a lot more stress and uncertainty than it did Bush - I would like to think this means Blair isn't likely to repeat such a mistake. If only the same were true of his Texan buddy.

 

[Carrera]

Good question: If the Bush Administration is a theocracy, why should he object to theocracies in Iran or elsewhere?
Why do you think that should be the case or could it be the difference concerns the particular religion that the theocracy is based on?
As I already stated, I don't personally swallow the line that Bush simply led Blair into the invasion of Iraq. Piers Morgan believes it was Blair who really believed the whole argument over WMD/human rights abuses by Saddam line whereas Piers suspects Bush didn't fully believe such rhetoric but just found it convenient.
As for the Bush Administration as a theocracy, this is a kind of Pinochet phenomenon. Chile adhered to these same right wing values of Catholicism, anti-communism, chastity (as in the ring thing), patriotism and the overall idea that human rights is an outmoded concept and constitutes an obstacle to order.

Have you read the title of this thread?
Surely you should have opened with the word 'crutch' and not 'crux'.
Well at least Blair can blame Bush and not vice versa, I think it was a con-trick.
If the US can elect a theocratic government, why does he oppose other countries from doing the same? Sorry i've lost it............................
Big day in the Pub was it?

 

[Carrera]

Yes, a female Italian journalist was talking today about Miss Rice's reception in Italy where they had already read up on her writings. The Italians weren't fooled by any of the charm that had been laid on.
This Italian journalist pointed out the big difference between Miss Rice's philosophy of preemption and the European conviction that war cannot or must not be used as a means of policy (or economic policy).
Miss Rice was viewed in Italy as something of a war-monger.
As for the U.S. economy I don't think it's quite so bad as you painted and I don't think it's inevitable the U.S. will fall as a direct result of having elected Bush. It's quite possible that Bush many actually learn from his mistakes in Iraq (although I don't hold my breath) But I think there is also a chance the democrats may once again gain strength and take the U.S. in a different direction.
After all the Roman Empire was on its knees under Commodus but far better rulers came in his wake and brought about a return to normality.

The premise for the invasion of Iraq was a lie - and it was shown to be a lie in the run up to the 2nd November 2004 US Presidential elections.
Bush's incompetence of running his economy was known prior to the 2nd November 2004.
Given all this information - the Merkians still re-elected him.

Those of us outside the US have therefore got a quandry - is the 2/11/2004 result an affirmation of Bush's policies ?
I believe that the Merkins approved Bush's actions, including his invasion of Iraq : which of course is their progative, despite the 49% who didn't vote for him.

The RoW realise that the decision to re-elect Bush, was taken in the full knowledge that the US electorates decision was made AFTER he (Bush) was shown to have lied (about Iraq) and to have mismanaged his economy.
In other words, the US population knew he was a liar, who got it wrong - but still elected him and thus endorsed his lies.

What you are seeing in the financial and economic markets, now - and which will continue until 2008 - is the RoW's disapproval of the re-election of Bush and his corrupt policies.
The US economy and US dollar thread details the travails of an economy that is going down the swanny.

You saw the lukewarm reception when the token, Rice, came to Europe last week.
Schroder told her that Germany and the EU will go their own way and Chirac
did not even bother to meet her publicly.
The previous week, Chriac was happy to meet with Bliar publicly.

The Yanks are on bended knees pleading with China to revalue their currency and to buy more dollars to us as their (China's) Central Bank Reserve.
The Chinese told the Yanks to ******** - that they weren't prepared to bail out their diminishing currency.

Let them perish on their own decision to support imperialism.

 

[Ike90]

As a "Yank," i find most of the criticisms in this thread to be quite valid, save one:

I would bet large money that if the US stops wrecking the environment,

Certainly the U.S. is responsible for extensive environmental damage around the globe, but this statement was written as though the U.S. is the primary violator, or worse the only polluter, on the planet. That's just plain B.S.

In truth, totalitarian governments traditionally have no concern whatsoever regarding environmental issues. That's why the former East Germany is a cesspool, as are many parts of the former U.S.S.R., and you can bet your britches the Chinese aren't bothering to consider the long-term effects of their breakneck industrialization.

The U.S. consumes far more than its share of the world's resources, many of its citizens gauge their success by the size and inefficiency of their vehicles, and U.S. companies have abused the populations of many other countries with their lax attitudes about pollution in their third world operations.

That said, most of the truly destroyed ecosystems in the world resulted from unchecked totalitarian governments answerable to no one.

 

[zapper]

I see the G-String factory is closing in Virginny.

This new law - does that mean you have to wear your G-string in private, now ?

Land of the free, don't ya just luv it !

Yes, free from having to have some big fat hairy ass ruining ones appetite....Of course, they would probably excite you...

 

[Carrera]

Valid point. Check this site out:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter2.html

As a "Yank," i find most of the criticisms in this thread to be quite valid, save one:


Certainly the U.S. is responsible for extensive environmental damage around the globe, but this statement was written as though the U.S. is the primary violator, or worse the only polluter, on the planet. That's just plain B.S.

In truth, totalitarian governments traditionally have no concern whatsoever regarding environmental issues. That's why the former East Germany is a cesspool, as are many parts of the former U.S.S.R., and you can bet your britches the Chinese aren't bothering to consider the long-term effects of their breakneck industrialization.

The U.S. consumes far more than its share of the world's resources, many of its citizens gauge their success by the size and inefficiency of their vehicles, and U.S. companies have abused the populations of many other countries with their lax attitudes about pollution in their third world operations.

That said, most of the truly destroyed ecosystems in the world resulted from unchecked totalitarian governments answerable to no one.

 

[limerickman]

Yes, free from having to have some big fat hairy ass ruining ones appetite....Of course, they would probably excite you...

I never knew Lynndie had a big hairy ass !

 

[zapper]

I never knew Lynndie had a big hairy ass !

I am not aware of any lynndie's from virginia...

 

[mjw_byrne]

...this statement was written as though the U.S. is the primary violator, or worse the only polluter, on the planet. That's just plain B.S.

Yeah, I wasn't being 100% clear. I was referring to how little the current US administration seems to care about the environment and how shortsighted it is with respect to the future of the environment. Obviously, as you say, it would be foolish to claim the US is the only polluter on the planet. There may be other nations which pollute more in total, but e.g. China doesn't have nearly the resources the US does. The US ought to be setting an example and spending more on cleaner, renewable fuels. It'd be a real money saver - going to war for oil is expensive, after all.

 

[davidmc]

I think Limerickman already commented on some of your points here:
"I believe that the Merkins approved Bush's actions, including his invasion of Iraq : which of course is their progative, despite the 49% who didn't vote for him."
The way I see it is there are a range of Americans who voted Bush into office and these can be classified as follows:
(1)Those Americans who were influenced by the media and genuinely believed Iraq was partly responsible for 9/11 and/or Saddam was already considering a chemical attack on the U.S. (a friend of mind in L.A. informed me she had been informed she should stock up on drinking water and pasta prior to the invasion of Baghdad.
(2)Those Americans who opposed the war but maybe feared a military call-up under John Kerry and calculated that Bush would more than likely be less bellicose than Kerry in a second term.
(3)Those Americans who are typically bible-belt, right-wing material who see nothing wrong in the essential idea that God has chosen the U.S. to protect Israel and reshape the entire Middle East.
However the case may be, the U.S. electorate finally went on to re-elect George W Bush and this has had clear implications since, to my mind, the re-election of Bush Junior constitutes a serious set-back for human rights and the 20th century philosophical deduction that war is essentially a destructive, double-edged sword. It should only ever be resorted to as a means of defence against aggression.
As for the U.K. I see no excuse for re-electing New Labour and simply don't swallow all of the current propaganda that Blair had apparently been forced into the policy by Bush. Myself I witnessed footage of U.K. troops throwing sandbags over the heads of terrified Iraqi looters and can you imagine the outcry there would have been had the Iraqis treated U.S. prisoners in such a manner (that is contrary to the Geneva Convention)?
Blair actively encouraged the Bush Administration to go to war, produced false evidence to back up an illegal invasion just as Campbell lambasted and intimidated anyone who questioned this policy (actions which led to the apparent suicide of David Kelly).
If the U.K electorate re-elect New Labour then the unfortunate case is they will be endorsing an imperialistic approach to policy in the Middle East and ignoring clear human rights abuses.

True, Blair could have stood aside as an impartial party much like switzerland of days gone by but his intelligence aparatus gave him the info. on yellow cake from nigeria(?) & he or his gov't relayed it to Bush (Complicity). Bush then ran w/ it, weak info as it may have been, because it served his purposes of going to war w/ iraq from the 1st day that he stepped into the oval office. That makes the British gov't culpable, no? All of that aside, Hussein was a destabilizing factor in the region that has had escalating tensions between the arabs & israeli's not to mention his siphoning of the oil for food program to the detriment of his own people. It's pay now or pay later. Granted, the U.S. was not in the best condition to undertake the operation in lives or money but does anyone think that the pricetag would go down as time goes by waiting for hussein to either die or implode