yeah but he could draw upon the wealth of knowledge of his father, the ex director of the CIA

don't even try to compare President Bush to Jimmy the Pink

4/11/2008 1:12:22 PM

Quote :

"yeah but he could draw upon the wealth of knowledge of his father, the ex director of the CIA don't even try to compare President Bush to Jimmy the Pink"

And how much did he actually, I don't know, draw upon the wealth of knowledge of his father in his first six years?

The Democrats are f***ing idiots, but don't say for a second that Bush is worth a s***. Him and his administration have singlehandedly empowered Iran and singlehandedly empowered Hamas through their geopolitical manueverings since 2002. Our two biggest allies in the region, the Saudis and the Israelis, agree.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM. Reason : /]

4/11/2008 1:27:58 PM

Do you mean to say you advocate Jimmy Carter's actions, and by proxy, the vile terrorist organization Hamas?

4/11/2008 1:31:59 PM

more than I advocate being in a fruitless was in Iraq.

4/11/2008 1:39:28 PM

FRUITLESS?!?! Do you mean to say that the soldier's lives lost in Iraq had no meaning?

4/11/2008 1:42:40 PM

Oh they did, and we all owe them our appreciation. Who we do not owe appreciation, however is the irresponsible leaders who put them in harms way, based on lies, and for no good reason. it's a shame that their lives were lost in an ill conceived conflict which has created a worse situation than before.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 1:48:22 PM

For you to call their sacrifices FRUITLESS shows the abandon and stupidity with which you vocalize your radical and unpatriotic viewpoints.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

4/11/2008 1:50:54 PM

Quote :

"Um. . .you do realize that Hamas doesn't even recognize Israel's right to exist, yes? It's kind of hard to negotiate with that mentality hanging over the proceedings. "

neither do a majority of middle eastern states. that doesn't stop us from meeing with the Saudi Royal family.

I think the Judge is actually Treetwista.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 1:55:44 PM

^^I shouldn't even respond to the trolling, but show me where I said their sacrafices as US servants were fruitless (unfortunately they didn't have a choice in this matter.). the war is fruitless, yes, that is evident by the fact that we created an aqi presence where there was previously none. If you were as big an advocate of the troops lives as you try so hard to appear to be, you too would A) see that our leaders put them in harms way for no good reason, and B) be open to them coming home.

same as vietnam, the war was fruitless, but that by no means diminishes the valor of the individuals that gave their lives in it. If you can't see that, your abandon and stupidity is more than apparent.

^it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 2:00:09 PM

Quote :

"more than I advocate being in a fruitless was in Iraq."

wlb420

Will you respond to the Carter situation without equivocation?

4/11/2008 2:16:48 PM

Quote :

"Do you mean to say you advocate Jimmy Carter's actions, and by proxy, the vile terrorist organization Hamas?"

I don't care about Jimmy Carter. The man is irrelevant in geopolitics. His actions in the Middle East are irrelevant.

It's George W. Bush and his State Department headed by Condoleeza Rice though that gave Hamas control of Palestine. So what's worse to you, giving power to a terrorist group or shooting the bull with them? My money's on the former.

4/11/2008 2:18:20 PM

The man is irrelevant? He's a former leader of the FREE WORLD. To sit down with murderous filth like Hamas is an outrage.

4/11/2008 2:20:02 PM

^ Nothing the man will say or do will change the status quo. When that's the case, by definition the event is irrelevant.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 2:21:09 PM

^^^ More equivocation. Even if everything you say is true, it doesn't mean that Carter has to meet with anyone.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 2:21:59 PM

While you attempt to distance yourself from jimmy carter, it still seems you are a Hamas sympathizer.

4/11/2008 2:22:29 PM

^ Me?

You're the one sympathizing with the group that gave Hamas power.

I repeat:

Quote :

"The Democrats are f***ing idiots, but don't say for a second that Bush is worth a s***. Him and his administration have singlehandedly empowered Iran and singlehandedly empowered Hamas through their geopolitical manueverings since 2002. Our two biggest allies in the region, the Saudis and the Israelis, agree."

I completely agree with the Israelis' take on the issue, on Hamas, Palestine, and the Bush administration. And they think Bush has been a complete moron through it all.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 2:23:11 PM

seems like u are a jew supporter

4/11/2008 2:23:19 PM

Quote :

"^^^ More equivocation. Even if everything you say is true, it doesn't mean that Carter has to meet with anyone."

It just goes to highlight your selective outrage.

4/11/2008 2:26:43 PM

Quote :

"Will you respond to the Carter situation without equivocation?"

Fair enough. While I don't think its the best idea for him to be doing it (former presidents shouldn't attempt to, or create the guise of representing the country unless it is specifically requested or they're in a bona fide political position), I don't agree with the current admin pholosophy of refusing to have talks with governments that you don't like. So, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I guess the short answer would be no, I don't advocate it.

4/11/2008 2:28:56 PM

Quote :

"In a speech in the White House Rose Garden on June 24, 2002, President Bush announced that American policy in the Middle East was turning in a fundamentally new direction. Arafat was still in power at the time, and many in the U.S. and Israel blamed him for wrecking Clinton’s micro-managed peace efforts by launching the second intifada—a renewed revolt, begun in 2000, in which more than 1,000 Israelis and 4,500 Palestinians had died. Bush said he wanted to give Palestinians the chance to choose new leaders, ones who were not “compromised by terror.” In place of Arafat’s all-powerful presidency, Bush said, “the Palestinian parliament should have the full authority of a legislative body.” Arafat died in November 2004, and Abbas, his replacement as Fatah leader, was elected president in January 2005. Elections for the Palestinian parliament, known officially as the Legislative Council, were originally set for July 2005, but later postponed by Abbas until January 2006. Dahlan says he warned his friends in the Bush administration that Fatah still wasn’t ready for elections in January. Decades of self-preservationist rule by Arafat had turned the party into a symbol of corruption and inefficiency—a perception Hamas found it easy to exploit. Splits within Fatah weakened its position further: in many places, a single Hamas candidate ran against several from Fatah. “Everyone was against the elections,” Dahlan says. Everyone except Bush. “Bush decided, ‘I need an election. I want elections in the Palestinian Authority.’ Everyone is following him in the American administration, and everyone is nagging Abbas, telling him, ‘The president wants elections.’ Fine. For what purpose?” The elections went forward as scheduled. On January 25, Hamas won 56 percent of the seats in the Legislative Council. Few inside the U.S. administration had predicted the result, and there was no contingency plan to deal with it. “I’ve asked why nobody saw it coming,” Condoleezza Rice told reporters. “I don’t know anyone who wasn’t caught off guard by Hamas’s strong showing.” “Everyone blamed everyone else,” says an official with the Department of Defense. “We sat there in the Pentagon and said, ‘Who the fuck recommended this?’ ” "

4/11/2008 2:32:11 PM

Answer the question directly. Do you condemn the actions and very existence of Hamas and Jimmy Carter's reaching out to them unequivocally?

4/11/2008 2:33:47 PM

^ I did, now answer my question. Do you agree with bush being a complete hypocrite and refusing to deal with government that was democratically elected per his wishes?

4/11/2008 2:38:53 PM

Jimmy Carter, huh?

I've heard he hates the Jews.

4/11/2008 2:40:25 PM

Why does Bush have to recognize a despot, elected or otherwise? When their interests directly conflict with ours, why does he have to satisfy a stupid point that some sniveling anonymous internet user wants to make?

4/11/2008 2:45:10 PM

^

4/11/2008 2:45:53 PM

Quote :

"Will you respond to the Carter situation without equivocation?"

hooksaw

Quote :

"Fair enough. While I don't think its the best idea for him to be doing it (former presidents shouldn't attempt to, or create the guise of representing the country unless it is specifically requested or they're in a bona fide political position), I don't agree with the current admin pholosophy of refusing to have talks with governments that you don't like. So, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I guess the short answer would be no, I don't advocate it."

wlb420

So the answer to my question is no. Either you don't know what "equivocation" means or you're completely incapable of avoiding it.

HINT: Try posting some responses addressing the Carter situation ONLY without mentioning Bush blah, blah, blah or what some other person or organization did or didn't do.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 2:45:59 PM

Fucking pinko coward

4/11/2008 2:52:05 PM

Quote :

"So the answer to my question is no. Either you don't know what "equivocation" means or you're completely incapable of avoiding it. HINT: Try posting some responses addressing the Carter situation ONLY without mentioning Bush blah, blah, blah or what some other person or organization did or didn't do."

Quote :

"no, I don't advocate it."

so exactly what part of "no" goes over your head? that's about as unequivocal as it gets.

Not unlike some US leaders I know, you're so busy trying to twist shit to fit your agenda, you can't see the forest for the trees.

4/11/2008 3:13:11 PM

Giving peace a try is not suited for our times as invading other countries and 'fighting fire with fire' is the more economical solution in terms of lives and monetary resources in the long term.

I don't really know why Carter thinks he's still relevant.

4/11/2008 3:16:38 PM

it's a full blown alias party in here.

4/11/2008 3:17:45 PM

Groups like Hamas don't want to "negotiate" and use "diplomacy" to solve these problems. These people don't care what we have to say. They are raised from childhood to HATE America and Isreal, which you liberal pricks fail to understand.

4/11/2008 3:19:59 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention Israel is a major ally of the United States and fights a whole lot of the terrorists over there so we don't have to here Its so fun to try and talk about how the United States is evil or something. Go live in a country that doesnt give you as many rights to back hamas is sick and treasonous, are you some kind of anti semite?"

I Loled! This has to be a piss poor troll attempt. No one is this dumb.

4/11/2008 3:21:32 PM

Hamas Islamofascists:

Executing Fatah members:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sbb6FO3gk8Q

Kids' show character - I will eat the Jews:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eeii225G-HM

Kids' show character – stabs President Bush and makes the White House a mosque:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4suoNOSrleI&feature=related

You get the idea. Can't some of you idiots see what we're dealing with here? Are you really that blinded by your ideology?

4/11/2008 3:38:35 PM

What is the fixation with labelling them as fascists? They aren't fascists. Fascism is an extremely distinct system of government. I know that fascist is a code word for enemy these days, but Hamas, al Qaeda, Iran, etc. are not fascist entities.

4/11/2008 3:42:26 PM

^^there aren't any internet videos of stupid ameicans spewing hate speech.



[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 3:43:13 PM

Let's make no bones about it, Hamas is a terrible entity

4/11/2008 3:43:48 PM

^ I agree....my point is Bush made his bed, now he can't just ignore it b/c it didn't turn out the way he wanted.

4/11/2008 3:45:31 PM

And as the world power, it is up to us to protect israel and fill the streets of the holy lands with the blood of the islamist radicals who would hope to kill our Israeli allies, and destroy our society in america

4/11/2008 3:46:21 PM

^

Quote :

"there aren't any internet videos message boards of stupid ameicans spewing hate speech."

4/11/2008 3:48:05 PM

It's our manifest destiny after all.

4/11/2008 3:48:20 PM

^x7 Whether you like it or not, Hamas is an Islamofascist organization.

^x6 Moral equivalence--yet again from you! WOW! What a surprise.

As you so eagerly pointed out earlier in this thread, "[H]amas [is] the democratically elected government in palestine [sic]." Comparing government-sponsored and government-initiated actions with some American idiots on the Internet is disingenuous at best and stupid at worst.

You can't have it both ways.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 3:49:01 PM

Quote :

"I agree....my point is Bush made his bed, now he can't just ignore it b/c it didn't turn out the way he wanted."

Hamas was capable of getting the popular support because of Fatah's failures. There is the belief, and we are starting to see it now, that Hamas by being the majority power in Gaza would realize the realities on the ground and would begine to moderate itself. As a rule, you cannot complain about the ruling powers, when you are the ruling powers.

Quote :

"^x7 Whether you like it or not, Hamas is an Islamofascist organization"

They are not fascists. They are islamist, but they are not fascist. Fascism is a completely different thing.

[Edited on April 11, 2008 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2008 3:50:16 PM

^ Stop being fucking stupid--oh, that's right, you can't! Then shut. . .the fuck. . .up.

Quote :

"The term is included in the New Oxford American Dictionary, defining it as 'a controversial term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century'. Islamofascism does not refer to Islam in general, but to certain islamist or radical Islamist movements."

Quote :

"American author and Nixon speechwriter William Safire writes, 'Islamofascism may have legs: the compound defines those terrorists who profess a religious mission while embracing totalitarian methods and helps separate them from devout Muslims who want no part of terrorist means.' Christopher Hitchens has also publicly defended the term in Slate, noting along with the fact that he finds the comparison apt, that the names for other forms of religious fascism, like clerical fascism have a less contested existence."

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Islamo-fascism

I don't give a flying fuck whether you or anyone else likes the word at issue or not--I will continue to use it because it accurately describes a specific group that I despise. Take your dislike and shove it, nutsuckr.

4/11/2008 3:59:38 PM

^take a deep breath and calmly unwad your panties.

4/11/2008 4:02:34 PM

nutsmackr your sentiments seem to be unpatriotic at best, and treasonous at worst

Do you condemn Hamas, Jimmy Carter, Al Qaeda, and any other Islamofascist organizations and their sympathizers or not?

4/11/2008 4:03:07 PM

^^ Piss off.

4/11/2008 4:04:16 PM

^that's not a very christian way to act.

4/11/2008 4:05:58 PM

wlb420 you strike me as a drug using athiest, who prefers to deal softly with terrorist organizations like hamas

4/11/2008 4:07:19 PM

"here is no sense in which jihadists embrace fascist ideology as it was developed by Mussolini or anyone else who was associated with the term." - Daniel Benjamin of the Center for Strategic and International Studies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4785065.stm

"No, I think this is a really important point, because what we see at the moment is an attempt to interpret our present predicament in a rather caricatured World War II idiom. I mean, 'Islamofascism' illustrates the point well, because it's a completely misleading concept. In fact, there's virtually no overlap between the ideology of al Qaeda and fascism." - Niall Ferguson, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people6/Ferguson/ferguson06-con5.html

4/11/2008 4:08:09 PM

You are dodging the question

unpatriotic cowards always hide behind that two faced double talk

4/11/2008 4:09:16 PM