Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 5th August 2005, 19:29   #1
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Bush: 6 in 10 think 'country is headed down the wrong path'

Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also suggests fewer than half now think he is honest.

A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the poll indicates the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number.

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. Midwesterners and young women and men with a high school education or less were most likely to disapprove of Bush on his handling of Iraq in the past six months.

American troops have suffered heavy casualties in Iraq this month. On Wednesday, 14 Marines were killed in the Euphrates River valley in the worst roadside bombing targeting Americans since the war began in March 2003.

On Monday, seven Marines were killed, six of whom died in a gun battle near Haditha in western Iraq.

William Anderson, a retired Republican from Fort Worth, Texas, said Bush "has the right intentions, but he's going about them the wrong way."

"Iraq is one of the issues that everybody has a problem with," Anderson said. "There are some big discussions about it around town. Everybody's got their agreements and disagreements. It seems like there's no end. Is it going to end up another Vietnam?"

If worries about Iraq continue, they could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That is about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year.

The portion of respondents who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, when 53 percent described him that way while 45 percent did not. Now, people are just about evenly split on that issue -- with 48 percent saying he is honest and 50 percent saying he is not.

The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was largest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election. A further erosion of trust could make it tougher for Bush to win support for his policies in Congress and internationally.

"The reason that trust is so important has to do with the long-standing belief that you could trust him, even if you don't always agree with him and don't understand what he's doing," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "The honesty dip is partly caused by a loss of faith in his credibility on Iraq."

The president said Thursday from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, that threats from al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, "make it clear that Iraq is a part of this war on terror, and we're at war."

Bush pledged to "complete this job in Iraq."

Almost two-thirds in the poll described Bush as strong and likable.

"He's a man of character," said Cheryl Cheyney, a school bus driver from Cumming, Georgia, and a Republican. "He's very honest in the things he says. I agree with his belief system, the way he believes in God and is not afraid to show it. That's very important to me."

But the portion of respondents who view his confidence as arrogance has increased from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now.

"This country is a monarchy," said Charles Nuutinen, a 62-year-old independent from Greenville, Wisconsin. "He's turning this country into Saudi Arabia. He does what he wants. He doesn't care what the people want."

Six in 10 surveyed said they think the country is headed down the wrong track, despite some encouraging economic news in recent weeks.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/....ap/index.html

A big thanks to everyone who voted for Bush on 2004!

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 20:03   #2
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
still better then kerry.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 20:05   #3
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
Quote:
Originally posted by KXRM
still better then kerry.
i agree
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 20:19   #4
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Personally I don't see how he could have screwed up things any worse that Bush has at this point - and Bush ain't done yet.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 20:29   #5
deeder7001
Jesus Freak
(Forum King)
 
deeder7001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 5,520
Send a message via AIM to deeder7001 Send a message via Yahoo to deeder7001
Kerry was always changing his mind on things. how bad do you think Kerry could have messed things up doing that?

Bush at least sticks to one thing.

There is no sig.
deeder7001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 22:03   #6
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
That one thing is working.
Giving the entire world reasons to hate Americans.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 22:18   #7
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
that's a little melodramatic don't you think? Every president will have some critics, some more then others, but to say that somehow kerry would have been the great savior is a little naive. If the dems would have provided a better candidate I would have gladly voted that way, in fact I sort of look forward to it. That didn't happen. That was their failure not Bush's.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 22:50   #8
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
The economy has turned around. The tax cuts worked.
Trickle down has worked once again.
But, once again the American public has too much ADD to notice.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 23:45   #9
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
i agree.

but the democrats are still complaining about every thing but there blind to the changes that are happining.
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th August 2005, 23:56   #10
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
Republicans were complaining about everything during the 8 Clinton years. What's your point?

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 00:02   #11
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
clinton was a piss poor president! (as much as i remember\read)
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 00:08   #12
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
mystuff you are 14.
in 1992 you would have been 1ish
in 2000 you would have been 9ish.

please shut up.
An enemy of an enemy is a friend can still be an uninformed tool.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 00:16   #13
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
i remember shit in 2000 and i've also read many things on what hes done (and didnt).

he coulda caughten osama by now also
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 01:37   #14
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Osama didn't do anything back then. Why go after him?
But wait! We could have invaded Iraq
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 01:48   #15
HeatherS78
Registered User
 
HeatherS78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City,Missouri
Posts: 234
Send a message via Yahoo to HeatherS78
Quote:
Originally posted by my stuff radio
clinton was a piss poor president! (as much as i remember\read)

And what did Bush do, that was sooo fucking great hmm?

Dude, you don't realize Bush pissed off people. If you don't see it, Bush hasn't FOUND Osma YET! and you're point is?

Quote:
Originally posted by my stuff radio
i agree.

but the democrats are still complaining about every thing but there blind to the changes that are happining.
Why us democrats are bitching is cuz of what Bush is doing, lets see, oh yeah, SENDING JOBS OVER SEAS that we need them here to make ends meat or try to!.

To my knowledge, Bush and his family is the only family that pisses Iraq, Saudi Arabia, many more other countries over seas. Clinton knew when to talk in a manner that the countries (THAT WE HAVE OUR LOVED ONES IN RIGHT NOW FIGHTING FOR BUSH'S STUPIDITY) didn't attack us!

HELLO, THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DIDN'T GET ATTACKED WHILE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE, DUH!

The only president that Iraq,Saudi Arabia & others sees as being terrorists is The Bush Family cuz Bush Sr pissed off them now they see Bush Jr fucking with them now, all George Bush Jr is doing is finishing what his father couldn't. Hmm Like Father, Like Son both are evil and that is why I voted for Kerry,at least kerry went to war and he has proof that he was in it, and what does Bush have? hmm NOTHING, he was AWOL ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE! and he was kicked off the flight. Bush also claims he's a born church going christian, he's not, if he is, he wouldn't be pissing off to many fucking poeple.

Man if Hillary runs for president , I am sure as hell voting for her cuz she can do the job right then Bush could ever do.

Bush-Flip Flop pussy boy
Kerry-Hard Working REAL man
HeatherS78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 02:04   #16
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
what has bush flipped on!!

and if clinton woulda gotten osama those towers would be standing now!!

they had the intellegance but clinton was too stupid to go after the threat!

also hillary flips too..shes already campagining!
and she said stop illeagals at one convention now shes sayiing let them in for jobs at another!
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 02:21   #17
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Nothing like watching little girls pull each others e-hair.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 02:23   #18
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
My Stuff: If intelligence was availble to Clinton, surely Bush would have recognized the threat and caputred Osama.

Bush hasn't flip-flopped? I can think of three times he's done so off the top of my head. Every politican will flip-flop at some point, so there's probably more.

1. September 11th commission: First he opposed it, then he supports it
2. The creation of a Homeland Security department
3. Same-Sex marraige. Initially (2000 campaign) he was against federal invention. Recently, he was pushing for an amendment to the Constitution forbidding it.

Regardless, there is nothing specifaclly wrong with changing your mind. You can say, "OK. I made a mistake/I see things in a different light...".

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 03:56   #19
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
Quote:
Originally posted by deeder7001
Kerry was always changing his mind on things. how bad do you think Kerry could have messed things up doing that?
changing his mind, or re-evaluating things? Half the things he "changes his mind" on were senate votes (for something here, agaisnt it there) but what he was really against were amendments such as an amendment to teach exclusivly creationism in schools on a assult weapon ban bill (not a true example, but it's similar, he voted agasint amendments).

I would rather see a presidenet say "hey, I found new info, I want to change what we are doing" rather than "I don't want to hear any memos on how the world hates us. Europe liked us after we nuked people in WWII, let's do it again! That's my decision and I am stickign to it"

In all honestly I think Kerry would have made a better persident simply because of his character and personality (even though as a democrat I do like his politics). All I'm saying is I don't think we would have seen a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him until all our troops were home.

I'd like to see a poll asking "who did you vote for in 2004?" and "if election were held with the same canidates on the ballot, who would you vote for?"
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 04:24   #20
HeatherS78
Registered User
 
HeatherS78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kansas City,Missouri
Posts: 234
Send a message via Yahoo to HeatherS78
Quote:
Originally posted by my stuff radio
what has bush flipped on!!

and if clinton woulda gotten osama those towers would be standing now!!

they had the intellegance but clinton was too stupid to go after the threat!

also hillary flips too..shes already campagining!
and she said stop illeagals at one convention now shes sayiing let them in for jobs at another!
So Clinton should have been Clairvoyant?
He should have known back then that Osama was going to attack the towers after he was out of office!

Quote:
they had the intellegance but clinton was too stupid to go after the threat!
The intellegance they had then indicated that Osama was low risk *hence* NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.

Now then what is George Bush's excuse?

He should have Osama apprehended by now.

As far as flip flopping EVERY politition has to pander to their constituancecy which means they will appear to flip flop to the opposing party.

As far as Bush flip flopping, does abortion ring a bell?
HeatherS78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 04:54   #21
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally posted by HeatherS78
HELLO, THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DIDN'T GET ATTACKED WHILE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE, DUH!
No, they got attacked because Clinton was in office before Bush!
Osama started attacking American interests and killing Americans
before Clinton was in office, but much more so while Clinton was in office,
or have you forgotten about the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center,
that killed six Americans and injured over 1000,
or the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia
that killed 19 U.S. servicemen,
or the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
which killed 258 people including 12 Americans,
or the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors?
All by Osama and/or al Qaeda.
And what did Clinton do?
He shot a couple of missles into an aspirin factory.
Wow...that really did the job didn't it?
That showed ole Osama who was boss!
Sure blows your argument that Clinton considered Bin Laden low risk too, doesn't it?
And Clinton had 2 different chances to take Osama Bin Laden out,
but he ignored both of them.
But please, don't let the facts about Clinton's inadequacies
and failures as President to get Bin Laden get in your way, OK?

Last edited by papadoc; 6th August 2005 at 05:33.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 09:02   #22
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
I just hate people talking shit like this, it just really gets to me, sorry...

listen to the british, or the spanish, or any other country that has suffered from terrorism for a long time. You don't just wipe out terrorism, no matter how many billions of dollars you spend on your military, it's allways going to be there as long as the cause that makes people desperate enough to kill themselves or innocent people remains.

thinking otherwise makes you nothing but arrogant...

and no matter if it was Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Kerry in office, the problem would still be there, because of the west continues our rather dubious mid-east policies.

can't you see it's strange for people in the middle east?

you invade Iraq and say you want to "impose" democracy, and at the same time financially support corrupt totalitarian leaders because you need their support in the region.

you continue a soft stance on Israel and hardline policy towards palistinians, even though both sides a fucking up equaly bad.

Try listening to the reactions of common people in the middle east, they live there, they ought to have a damn good idea of why they get angry with us/you!

it's just so fucking arrogant it makes me want to scream! "we should have cought bin laden by now, because we spend xxxxxxxxxxxx USD on our military" fuck off, even if you catch Bin Laden, do you seriously think there would be noone to take his place - offcourse there will be!

The only thing you will achive is maybe a year or two of relative peace while they re-group, the root of people signing up for Al-Qaeda is not going to dissapear because you kill Bin-laden, rather much the opposite I suspect.

Look at Britain, they're not going on a rampage because of the London Bombings, they have instead but adequate preasure on Musharaf to make him crack down on the fundamental muslim schools in Pakistan, that teaches hatred - you see - the smart approach

understanding the cause, and dealing with the cause, not invading some random country that they don't like.

Britain being smart! US being retards! and that's my honest no bullshit opinion, and im not just saying that because it's trendy to bash the US.

Last edited by ertmann|CPH; 6th August 2005 at 11:53.
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 11:37   #23
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Two things I don't like to talk about in these forums, just like at the bar:

Politics
-and-
Religion

You can't win either debate and it usually costs you friends.
Speaking of friends, how the hell have you been Papadoc?
I thought you went permalurk on us
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 11:41   #24
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
I actually had a friend write his senior paper to a hardcore Dem. professor entitled:
"Clinton's response the rise of world Terrorism"

the professors note at the end of the paper:
"Kind of hard to streach 'nothing' into 20 pages, huh? But, it's not like the topic gives you much to write about. Well done."

He was shocked when he got it back.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 12:15   #25
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
Originally posted by ElChevelle
Two things I don't like to talk about in these forums, just like at the bar:

Politics
-and-
Religion

You can't win either debate and it usually costs you friends.
Speaking of friends, how the hell have you been Papadoc?
I thought you went permalurk on us
For once, something that isn't a joke and I can agree on.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 13:13   #26
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
Quote:
Originally posted by HeatherS78
So Clinton should have been Clairvoyant?
He should have known back then that Osama was going to attack the towers after he was out of office!



The intellegance they had then indicated that Osama was low risk *hence* NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.

Now then what is George Bush's excuse?
the towers were bombed in 1993 WHEN clinton was in office.

i think thats pretty damn good intellagence.

Quote:
He should have Osama apprehended by now.
thats a needle in a haystack my friend.
you go crawling thorough a desert and moutains to find someone.

and clintion LIES to the amercian puplic.

monica luenski is one of them.
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 13:25   #27
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
Nothing like watching little girls pull each others e-hair.
he said e-hair.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 13:27   #28
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
Quote:
Originally posted by KXRM
he said e-hair.
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 14:30   #29
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,235
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
Quote:
Originally posted by ertmann|CPH
Look at Britain, they're not going on a rampage because of the London Bombings, they have instead but adequate preasure on Musharaf to make him crack down on the fundamental muslim schools in Pakistan, that teaches hatred - you see - the smart approach
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGQ6E3TM51.DTL

Blair ready to isolate radical Muslims
Militant clerics could be deported, some mosques shut

London -- With his nation shaken by last month's bombings, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced tough new anti-terrorism measures Friday that include shutting down radical mosques and deporting Muslim clerics who preach violence and hate.

Blair's plan is designed to isolate religious extremists while giving wider powers to British counterterrorism forces in a country increasingly unnerved by militants. The proposals are an indication that the recent attacks on London's transit system, which killed 52 people in addition to four suicide bombers on July 7, have forced the government to re-examine the line between civil rights and national security.

"Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing," Blair said during a 90-minute news conference.

12-point proposal

The prime minister's 12-point objective is to rid the country of foreign Islamic militants and crush extremist voices among British citizens. Blair said his government was working on agreements with other nations to guarantee that people whom Britain would return to the Middle East and Africa would not be tortured or abused.

But emphasizing his determination for tougher anti-terror regulations, Blair said he would seek to amend human rights legislation if the courts don't support his proposals for deportation and banning certain political parties.

"Coming to Britain is not a right," Blair said. "And even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here."

The measures, in many ways, run counter to Britons' long-held view of their nation as one of the most open, multicultural societies in the world. Fear of global terrorism and rhetoric about jihad and radicalism by fringe Islamic organizations in Britain appear to have provided a mandate for changes that only a few years ago would have been nearly impossible.

Human rights groups and liberal members of Blair's Labor Party immediately criticized the measures, which also call for making it a crime to "glorify" terrorism and cracking down on Web sites and bookshops peddling militant writings. Opponents said the plan would violate free speech and other civil rights.

"We don't win by mimicking the profound authoritarianism of those who are plotting against this country," said Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group, Liberty. "I think it is very worrying that the prime minister has jeopardized our national unity today both in terms of community relations and in terms of consensus politics."

Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said Blair's broad plan, much of which needs parliamentary approval, risked "inflaming tensions and alienating people."

London Mayor Ken Livingstone said he supported tougher laws, but he added that Blair's plan "is so vague that 20 years ago, it would have meant banning Nelson Mandela or anyone supporting him."

Challenge to Parliament

It is expected to be debated rigorously in Parliament by liberal politicians who unsuccessfully battled anti-terrorist legislation in 2002. But Conservatives largely embraced the proposals as a crucial shift in what they have viewed as a government too lenient on immigrants and foreign agitators.

The plan is forcing Britain, much like the United States did after the Sept. 11 attacks, to reflect on how far to push police powers. The measures do not appear as extensive as some imposed by the Bush administration, but they certainly move Britain in an authoritarian direction regarding civil liberties. This nation has long prided itself on multiculturalism, but following the July 7 and July 21 attacks, Blair's approach seemed have found resonance.

Britain and continental Europe have long been frustrated by religious clerics coming from the Middle East to preach hatred of the West from neighborhood mosques. Imams such as Egyptian-born Abu Hamza al-Masri, who lives in Britain but faces possible extradition to the United States on suspicion of terrorism, have been blamed for inciting young, frustrated Muslim men.

The suspects in the July 21 attempted bombing are believed to be British citizens of Muslim African descent who might have been radicalized by foreign elements.

Blair called for banning of the British offices of Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation, which has called for Europe to be ruled by Islamic law. The organization has already been banned in Germany.

"There will be serious repercussions in terms of community relations if this ban goes ahead," said Imran Waheed, a spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain. "Our members are all for political expression, not for violence."

The anti-terrorism plan was announced as Blair was battling critics over foreign policy, especially the war in Iraq, which most Britons opposed. Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri in a video aired Thursday, have said terrorist attacks on Britain would continue because of Blair's support for U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Blair also said the government would establish within the Muslim community a commission to advise on how to better integrate into society "those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated."

----------------------------------------
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 16:16   #30
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
"Coming to Britain is not a right," Blair said. "And even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here."
Might as well have said:
Quote:
You're allowed to have freedom over here as long as you agree with us


The joke is over. Socialism and any hint of freedom can't coexist.
Europe, Quit kidding yourselves!


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 17:03   #31
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Just remember that our government made Osama who he was and trained him in hopes he would take care of our little Iran problem. That was during the very well known Iran/Contra affair.

Who was in office? First Ronald Reagan and then George Bush Sr. If you want to blame all the attacks Osama did when Clinton was in office, the two World Trade Center attacks and Al Quaeda on someone blame it on the two who created the man - Ronald Reagan and George Bush. It's very public knowledge of this - they trained him, they gave him weapons and they let him loose - and then he turned on them.

I love how Republicans always try to blame everything on Clinton but the problem was created by Reagan and Bush and it's a problem that has only grown in severety since then.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/common.htm <-- this says it all.
Quote:
Question: What do George Bush, Sr., Osama bin Laden, and George W. Bush, Jr. hold in common with each other?

Try to think hard for the answer before you read on. You might discover several answers. If you can't figure it out, I have provided a few answers:



Answers:

1. They all claim to rely on faith and religion.

2. They all started wars.

3. Their actions killed thousands of people (civilians, soldiers, women and children, etc.).

4. All of them justify war and the killing of innocent human beings for their personal beliefs.

5. They have all have created fear in the world.

6. They have all created economic deficits in their respective countries.

7. By the very meaning of the word "terrorist" the actions all of these men puts them into that category.

Perhaps you might discover more answers.

Note that all of the above answers rely on facts, not guesses or opinions.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!

Last edited by MegaRock; 6th August 2005 at 17:21.
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 17:17   #32
tuckerm
Forum Emo
 
tuckerm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 8,365
*but*

clinton WAS in office in 1993 when the bombings happned at the world trade centers.

thats a wake up call and he shoulda stepped into action..thus the ball rolls back to clinton's court
tuckerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 17:26   #33
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
The September 11 attacks were the result of many years of planning by various individuals and groups with an ages-old agenda to fulfill. Terrorism has been around for centuries and has survived decades upon decades of being "hunted down and punished." The mindsets of those who committed these crimes is deep-seeded in history. It's unlikely that they were significantly encouraged by one man's failure to retaliate.

As a nation searches for justice for the most heinous act of cowardice ever committed on citizens, we are eager to pin the blame on anyone. But blaming the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks on Clinton is an insult to those innocent people who died - the conclusion is drawn that, had Clinton been tougher on terrorists, the attacks of September 11, 2001, never would have happened. Post 9/11 investigations into intelligence breakdowns have indicated that both the Clinton and Bush administrations are guilty of ignoring warning signs of this tragedy and opportunities to stop it.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 19:34   #34
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
Bottom line:
We, as an American people, have little or no respect for other countries in this world populated by our very own species. We, or our government, give financial aid to virtually every nation on this planet while we put corrupt leaders into office, then a decade later depict them as villains and fail to recognize that it was our very own arrogance and devious planning that made them that way. Does anyone remember Reagan's war on drugs?
Was he successful?
Hell no!
HE was a true republican president and still failed.
How in hell does a less than true republican plan on winning a war against a much mightier foe whose capital goal isn't greed and wealth but religion?

In any case, I say to you all, Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. We are fighting an unwinnable war.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 20:46   #35
General Geoff
Major Dude
 
General Geoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Send a message via ICQ to General Geoff Send a message via AIM to General Geoff
I agree with ElChevelle here.

Oh and for the record, there have been no "heavy casualties" in this War On Terror. When several thousand troops die in a two day battle, I'll consider that heavy casualties. But a few here, a dozen there, every few weeks, is an exceedingly small number of casualties considering there's a freaking WAR going on.

General Geoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 22:57   #36
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
True:
Numbers in the single digits were not given out on a daily basis during ANY previous war. Dozens died daily but 12 in a day was not newsworthy.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 22:59   #37
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
at least we are talking broader and further reaching issues then "A big thanks to everyone who voted for Bush on 2004!"
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th August 2005, 23:32   #38
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,854
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Well ok, then I can raise the broader and further reaching issue:

What has Bush done in five years. Let's discuss a list of the good things that has happened in our country since Bush has been elected. Tell me about all the jobs he has helped create. Please help me see all the good he has done for the economy. I've been looking for all these new laws he has passed that has made our country a better place too but all I've come across are more and more pieces of the Constitution seemingly being trampled like a throwrug. Sure, I'm no genious and maybe I missed something in the news or the papers that can discount what I see every day. Show me how he's done whatever he could to keep us out of wars in two countries at once because I sure missed that part.

I'd like to see what 'good' this man has done in his current term and the four years before that. Please enlighten me. This is a chance for all the Bush supporters to make him look good. If ye can.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2005, 00:09   #39
ElChevelle
Moderator Alumni
 
ElChevelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the MANCANNON!
Posts: 22,436
I give.
ElChevelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2005, 00:13   #40
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
What has Bush done in five years. Let's discuss a list of the good things that has happened in our country since Bush has been elected. Tell me about all the jobs he has helped create. Please help me see all the good he has done for the economy.
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
The economy has turned around. The tax cuts worked.
Trickle down has worked once again.
But, once again the American public has too much ADD to notice.
If your head is too far up your ass to read a thread before posting in it, why should anyone think your political opinions are any more informed or aware?

edit:
here's some hard evidence for you from the BLS:
code:
______________________________________________________________________________
| Quarterly | |
| averages | Monthly data |
|_________________|__________________________| June-
Category | 2005 | 2005 | July
|_________________|__________________________|change
| I | II | May | June | July |
________________________|________|________|________|________|________|_______
| Unemployment rates
|____________________________________________________
All workers..............| 5.3| 5.1| 5.1| 5.0| 5.0| 0.0
Adult men..............| 4.7| 4.4| 4.4| 4.3| 4.3| .0
Adult women............| 4.6| 4.6| 4.6| 4.6| 4.7| .1
Teenagers..............| 16.9| 17.4| 17.9| 16.4| 16.1| -.3
White..................| 4.5| 4.4| 4.4| 4.3| 4.3| .0
Black or African | | | | | |
American.............| 10.6| 10.3| 10.1| 10.3| 9.5| -.8
Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |
ethnicity............| 6.1| 6.1| 6.0| 5.8| 5.5| -.3
|________|________|________|________|________|_______



elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump