So Bush almost got the boot...

[the_jimmy_james]

I wanna have shoes thrown at me so I can be like Goerg Bewsh.

 

[melanie2]

i believe i can arrange that o mighty Jimmy James..

 

[David Tyler]

Its not a needless war when our troops are keeping your sorry ass safe. and clinton getting his pole smoked in the oval office, is the same as spitting in the face of the presidency. Bush may not be the best president, but at he respects the office of the presidency.

Are you honestly trying to tell us that we were in danger of being attacked by IRAQ?????

The same Iraq that could barely get a working scud missile into it's neighbors land?????


We were never in any danger from Iraq. We weren't attacked by Iraq. Hussein was a terrible despot, true... but WE put him in power. We spanked his ass in Desert Storm and he was no threat to us. We could have controlled him through stronger sanctions without putting our soldiers needlessly in harms way. Those soldiers had a more important mission - to get Bin Laden. Instead Mr. Bush and co pulled them from that mission and sent them to Iraq based on erroneous WMD reports. The info Bush was operating on was so thinly supported that it almost seems like Bush didn't want to verify it. The letter that supposedly stated that Iraq was 6 months away from nuclear ( not nukular ... Mr. Bush) weaponry was outdated by a whole other war and written, not by some military researcher, but by a European college student. The FBI has come forward and stated that they told the President that the info was faulty and they doubted it's veracity. The inspectors told Bush that they needed more time because they weren't finding any evidence of nuclear activity in Iraq..... meanwhile North Korea were waving theirs in our face. If we were really interested in WMD, we would have been going to Korea. Instead we went to Iraq and, eventually, changed what we named the mission. We no longer spoke about WMD but, rather, how we needed to free those people from their despot leader. Well, we freed them alright but now their borders are so porous that the terrorists who weren't there before have poured into the Iraq. Our soldiers faced more mortal attacks after we took the country than when we were invading. You can thank those porous borders for that.


Those soldiers in Iraq aren't keeping 'my ass' safe. They're covering Bush's ineptitude. We were in danger of being attacked by rebel factions of Saudi's of whom Bin Laden is one. Not ONE of the highjackers involved in the attack on September 11, 2001 were Iraqi. Not one.

Back in the first attack on the World Trade Center the Clinton admin were caught just as flat footed as Bush but were able to capture the main attackers - who now are in prison.

To shift gears - Clinton was not the first American president to have an affair in the White House and he probably won't be the last. It is less reprehensible than the damage Bush has done to how we're viewed by our world neighbors (not to mention what he's done to the economy with his war spending and tax cuts for those that didn't need them). Fortunately, like a lot of us in the country, most foreign lands realize that the decisions made by one President don't necessarily reflect the feelings of the American citizens and are willing to wipe the slate clean with a new president.

Hope Obama can live up to the challenge of cleaning up our image. He's a smart man and he's taken a lot of intelligent people into his cabinet. 'Hope' is his buzz word. Hope he's a good as his word.

 

[melanie2]

ah David..talking to maniac is like talking to a brick wall when it comes to politics and Bush..the day the war started in Iraq, we were visiting the local museum..and there was some Iraqi displays..beautiful pieces of art..and i got sad, thinking that Iraq was no match for our troops and weapons..and i was right..we went in..and totally destroyed a country..i was against that war from day one..it was not about the WMD..it was about oil, and revenge..

 

[maniactickler38]

David, Iraq left us no choice. they broke numerous UN agreements. i know youd have preferred to let them get away with murder (which they did) but enough was enough. the pussy ass UN wasnt about to do anything, so we stepped in to do the right thing. we all know Iraq has WMDs. they used them on their own people. they had chemical weapons, and im sure were very close to getting stronger weapons. i know the anti Bush crowd would have preferred to do nothing, let Sadaam continue to break rules and regulations, and eventually get nukes to kill thousands of people, but Bush showed balls and did the right thing. the only problem i had about the war was the poor planning.

P.S. ignore isabeau when it comes to politics. she picks candidates based on how nice their buns are. :laughing:

 

[David Tyler]

David, Iraq left us no choice. they broke numerous UN agreements. i know youd have preferred to let them get away with murder (which they did) but enough was enough. the pussy ass UN wasnt about to do anything, so we stepped in to do the right thing. we all know Iraq has WMDs. they used them on their own people. they had chemical weapons, and im sure were very close to getting stronger weapons. i know the anti Bush crowd would have preferred to do nothing, let Sadaam continue to break rules and regulations, and eventually get nukes to kill thousands of people, but Bush showed balls and did the right thing. the only problem i had about the war was the poor planning.

P.S. ignore isabeau when it comes to politics. she picks candidates based on how nice their buns are. :laughing:

ONE.... devaluing Isabeau on some preconceived notion of how intelligently she picks a candidate or a cause ... IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

TWO ... There is a huge difference between WMD's which originally meant nuclear (that's Nuclear, Mr. Bush ... not NUKULAR) weapons and the chemical weapons that Hussein used ... and I'm not defending Hussein so knock it off. Somehow the Bush admin and their supporters got the phrase 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' changed to fit whatever they needed it to fit.


THIRD ... The only traces of chemical weapons that were found were some very old cannisters that were empty except for TRACES of chemicals. These cannisters were left-over from Desert Storm.

FOURTH ... we are the United States of America ... we're supposed to represent the higher standards. We are not supposed to be the country that strikes first on nothing more than a bare perception of a threat. The evidence that Bush used to promote this war was very thin and disproven pretty early on but the Bush supporters were confused as to who actually attacked us on 9/11 and were easily swayed. It wasn't until the Kerry/Bush debates that the general public finally got the message that we weren't attacked by Iraq. At least most of us did. That's when the country started waking up from the Bush coma.

FIFTH... there are other, worse attrocities being committed against people in countries other than Iraq... are we invading them next? Do we have the right to go unbidden into other countries and overthrow them because they mistreat their citizens? Sorry that you disagree with the UN but that's why they were put in place. If Bush hadn't been beligerent and used diplomacy, we would have had the UN on board in had we presented a solid case for human attrocities. Maybe not from a full on military assault .. but in some capacity. But, let me remind you... we didn't go into Iraq because of the humanitarian situation. We went because Bush insisted there were WMD's. And the world isn't ours to run.


FIVE .... I've already told you that the intelligence reports ... and you can look this up ... did not support the argument that Iraq was close to creating Nuclear weapons. The FBI themselves discounted those reports. Weren't you paying attention when the former head of the came forward with the statement that he tried to tell the President that those reports represented a high improbability that Iraq had or were soon to have WMD's?

SIX ... and just to repeat ... we DIDN'T all know that Iraq had WMD'S .... it seems like only the Bush supporters knew that. The Day the empty cannisters were found, FOX News were the only ones to misrepresent that as finding WMD's. The rest of us understood that it was empty cannisters buried from the previous conflict containing only a trace of chemicals. Iraq, following their defeat in Desert Storm were ordered to dismantle their arms and those looked to be what was left.

SEVEN ... as to Iraq and the sanctions. Those sanctions needed to be toughened up and new sanctions needed to be imposed on the countries blocking those sanctions... countries like Germany .. if they continued to ignore those sanctions themselves.


Laws are in place for a reason. When everyone's a cowboy and makes their own rules, anarchy follows. There is no place for John Wayne in the real world. He's a fantasy ... like Batman or James Bond.

And, one last time... denigrating Isabeau was ignorant and not acceptable.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

A lot of good points have been made. A lot of bad points have been made. Now let me make a point.

STFU.

This is politispeak, no good can come of it. Only grudges and whination. Iraq War SUX. Bush SUX. These two things are proven quantifiably. The loss of Allied lives vs. progress made: We've been there nearly as long as we were fighting World War II and we're still not done with this one shit-ass place.

Bush SUX: Under his watch, the economy slumped into the worst shape it's been in since the S&L Crisis of the late 80s; Divisiveness in politics due to extreme conservatism and the extreme liberal backlash threatens to tear people apart. I'm sure there's other things, too, I just don't care to list them.

These facts are not in dispute, as they are facts. It's time to stop giving your opinions and go talk about tickling. This is a tickling forum, people. A place for everyone to have fun and not yell at each other. My the Lord (or the mods) save us from this politics garbage.

1 vote for bin on this thread.

 

[melanie2]

last i read, this is the GENERAL DISCUSSION..where topics other than tickling can be discussed...tired of politics and those threads? avoid them..it's that easy...

and David Tyler...excellent posts..both of them...you rock..

 

[the_jimmy_james]

last i read, this is the GENERAL DISCUSSION..where topics other than tickling can be discussed...tired of politics and those threads? avoid them..it's that easy...

No. I've seen what these topics can do to a forum population too many times. Not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES I've seen friendly, open forums turn into hotbeds of flamewars due to this very crap. One thread goes too long, feelings get hurt, people ask for it to stop, but someone does just what you did. "We can say what we want!"

Well keep it up there, kid. It's all fun and games until someone gets their e-motions hurt.

 

[melanie2]

*ponders the use of the word "kid"* thank you for looking out for the well being of the forum...lol...

 

[David Tyler]

No. I've seen what these topics can do to a forum population too many times. Not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES I've seen friendly, open forums turn into hotbeds of flamewars due to this very crap. One thread goes too long, feelings get hurt, people ask for it to stop, but someone does just what you did. "We can say what we want!"

Well keep it up there, kid. It's all fun and games until someone gets their e-motions hurt.

Yes.

You're right. I just have a problem with people spreading disinformation and it gets under my skin.

But, on another topic..... the new Trek Movie? Since you have Mark Leonard as the first Romulan we've ever met as your avatar... what are your thoughts?

 

[David Tyler]

last i read, this is the GENERAL DISCUSSION..where topics other than tickling can be discussed...tired of politics and those threads? avoid them..it's that easy...

and David Tyler...excellent posts..both of them...you rock..

and you've never hear me play...

Thank you, sweetie.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

Yes.

You're right. I just have a problem with people spreading disinformation and it gets under my skin.

I understand that, aye. I just worry a lot when I see threads take this kind of turn! A politics thread that runs so long quickly turns into divisive "labarul vs cunsarvatov" flames and things. That leads to hurt e-motions. That leads to forum drama.

But, on another topic..... the new Trek Movie? Since you have Mark Leonard as the first Romulan we've ever met as your avatar... what are your thoughts?

From what I've seen it looks like it's going to be awesome. A new take on Trek, one that's fresh and accessible from all appearances. Personally, I never liked the turn that the franchise made after Gene Roddenberry passed away. They put far too much "particle of the week" stuff into it. Instead of being a show about people showing how life can be better in the future if we all just learn about peace and understanding... it became a show about how to shoot pseudoscience at space rifts and travel through time to fight some alien that won't matter next week.

The upcoming film looks like it's going to get back to being a STORY about people and how their actions improve things. It shows Captain Kirk as being a hero, and not "just another guy who was captain of the Enterprise". There are events that span space and time and just from how things are depicted, aren't stupid time-travel stories. There's Romulans (I love Romulans as you guessed 😉 ) and Captain Pike and Spock and all those dudes.

I'm looking forward to it. I can't wait to get a toy of the new Enterprise so that I can tear it out of the box, devalue it greatly and then play with it without ever caring that some guy on eBay might be crying that I killed its collector value.

:: Goes to play with his huge stash of toys that have all been callously ripped from their boxes ::

 

[Wade1]

It's true that the mainstream US media lost credibility during the Bush administration, but that's primarily because they were too deferential to the administration for too long. Maybe it was a post-9/11 timidity or a reluctance to be seen as criticizing a war effort ( we saw that during GHW Bush's Gulf War too), but they were insufficiently inquisitive about the buildup to war and the WMD misdirections, and lots of major news organizations had to backpedal and apologize as a result. If they've been harder on the Bush administration in the last few years--and I think they have--it's only because that administration's ineptitude and the angry tide of public opinion against it made that increased rigor inescapable.

It's not the media's job to support the president but to hold him (or her) accountable. Let's hope the media does a better job of that with Obama than they did with Bush.

 

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

And still, the world-at-large ignores Crazy Naked Hippy-Lady's urgent appeal... :tired:

 

[the_jimmy_james]

It's true that the mainstream US media lost credibility during the Bush administration, but that's primarily because they were too deferential to the administration for too long. Maybe it was a post-9/11 timidity or a reluctance to be seen as criticizing a war effort ( we saw that during GHW Bush's Gulf War too), but they were insufficiently inquisitive about the buildup to war and the WMD misdirections, and lots of major news organizations had to backpedal and apologize as a result. If they've been harder on the Bush administration in the last few years--and I think they have--it's only because that administration's ineptitude and the angry tide of public opinion against it made that increased rigor inescapable.

It's not the media's job to support the president but to hold him (or her) accountable. Let's hope the media does a better job of that with Obama than they did with Bush.

I also think that JJ Abrams has a chance to help save sci-fi from itself. Of late, it's become so mired in grimdark (not a bad style in of itself) and reality show level character drama that it's not fun to watch anymore. Combine that with the last bastion of televised science fiction, the Sci-Fi Channel doing everything it can to kill off their shows, things don't look good for sci-fi.

Abrams' Trek film looks like it brings action, flash, and most of all ADVENTURE back to sci-fi and the big screen. Adventure is something that's been lacking in Hollywood for a few years, along with things like storytelling and creativity.

Let's take Indy 4 and Spielberg's War of the Worlds as examples. They combine adventure, excitement, and suspense with FUN. They're both creative, imaginative and a joy to watch. Michael Bay's Transformers, though? It's indicative of the low-brow, poor quality shlock that plagues our cinemas in this decade. Some parts are simply stupid, others are boring. Characters are so 2-dimensional that they're transparent. Others are 1-dimensional in their use. Others are throw-away and didn't belong in the film.

Then, go further to the new re-make of The Day The Earth Stood Still. WTF? The story had a meaning, so some nutjob said "omg wee kan haev teh keanu reavz aect leik teh pupuhaed and peeple will leik it???"

Yeah. That's what it was.

Anyway, I don't like a lot of stuff. I like things that rock and hate things that suck.

 

[Wade1]

I don't think J.J. Abrams is ideally positioned to be the savior of anything; he can't even save his own TV shows from sucking.

That said, the trailer for his new Star Trek movie shows promise. If it doesn't get too swallowed up in CGI shots of ships and explosions it might be alright.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

I don't think J.J. Abrams is ideally positioned to be the savior of anything; he can't even save his own TV shows from sucking.

That said, the trailer for his new Star Trek movie shows promise. If it doesn't get too swallowed up in CGI shots of ships and explosions it might be alright.

We shall see. "Lost" unfortunately falls into the trap of being a network TV show. Now, I myself am a detractor of new-fangled CGI effects, but I'll give credit where it's due. If things are well-used, then it's good. If things are poorly used, it's not. I'd rather they built a filming model. It would be better.

But even if there is a lot of flash, who cares? It's the story that matters.

 

[David Tyler]

We shall see. "Lost" unfortunately falls into the trap of being a network TV show. Now, I myself am a detractor of new-fangled CGI effects, but I'll give credit where it's due. If things are well-used, then it's good. If things are poorly used, it's not. I'd rather they built a filming model. It would be better.

But even if there is a lot of flash, who cares? It's the story that matters.

I have mixed feelings about the new film. First - I love that the characters are being reborn but Shatner will ALWAYS be Kirk to me. It's unfortunate that he had to grow old and no longer able to play the character the way he did in his younger days. Chris should do fine as long as he keeps Shatner's determination balanced with humour.

The new Enterprise looks great from the front. A bit concerned about how it looks from the side. I'm also a bit concerned about the new bridge. Guess seeing them in action will answer those questions for me. The new uniforms, however, are just brilliant. I love them. They've taken Bill's original designs and tweaked them so that they work on the big screen. I just want them to bring back the badges he used on the original costumes.

Now.. as to the story... I've heard some great stuff. From what I've heard, the reason this Jim Kirk is a bit of a wild child is that the Romulan actually made it back to the past and killed Kirk's father. He's now growing up a different person. Should be very exciting.

I can't imagine someone better to take over the mantle of Spock than Quinto. There's a clip of him on-line beaming down to some planet that, at first glance, looks so much like Nimoy that you can't tell at first. Having Nimoy on this film will be a plus to Quinto. Though Zach will eventually put his own spin on the character, he has Nimoy to guide him in the early steps.

It's going to be exciting.

 

[melanie2]

i think Daniel Craig makes the best Bond ever...aren't we talking James Bond vs politics?

and David..you know i would love to hear you play..you know that..sighs..down izzy down girl...you are a married woman...o so what isabeau, i can flirt can't i? but izzy, you are a married woman...o go blow, isabeau...now the both of you calm down this minute...you stay out of this, izzles..o yea? make me izzy and isabeau..with pleasure izzles..and what a stupid name izzles..where did you get that? from Duke Diablo..and you better watch out calling him names..he is a mod and will rape your goat..izzles for crying out loud...that is totally disgusting..well, last night i was so hot, (says izzles) that i could cook a Croatian sausage on my bod...

ooo sorry there folks..

 

[maniactickler38]

Isabeau, have you considered trying out for a bond girl? if you do, ill try out for the james bond part. then i can pick on you through the whole movie. :2thumbs:

 

[melanie2]

hmm you as James Bond...has there ever been a comedic Bond movie? so to speak..i mean not tongue in cheek humour..and what will you do as Bond? go around creating new forms of bodily gas functions?

 

[Wade1]

We shall see. "Lost" unfortunately falls into the trap of being a network TV show. Now, I myself am a detractor of new-fangled CGI effects, but I'll give credit where it's due. If things are well-used, then it's good. If things are poorly used, it's not. I'd rather they built a filming model. It would be better.

But even if there is a lot of flash, who cares? It's the story that matters.

The problem with most CGI is that it doesn't look very good. And the problem with a lot of flash is that it's generally there at the expense of the story. I was a fan of the Iron Man movie, which had tons of effects but you don't think back on it as primarily an effects movie because that's not where its main interests lay (though even it did get a little dull and fighty at the end).

 

[bobc1313]

hmm you as James Bond...has there ever been a comedic Bond movie?

The original Casino Royale, starring David Niven.