Bush likes head

Oh! Cross over where exactly, may I ask?

 

Why, Uruguay. Where I live, y'know?

 

You might be my closest, then. I thought of Chile first, but then I said, "no, she can't be". Well, he might be there for a day, since it's pretty close and paying a visit to the neighbours is a very civilised thing to do.
Now that I think about it, since he's not civilised, he might not.

 

SO MUCH INFO... CAN'T TAKE IT ALL IN!
There, see I can use caps. And if you have time, look at some of my posts when I first started posting here, I DID USE CAPS.

DE, I must have missed the part in the rules that says that I have to use caps.

Damn, this sucks being gone for three days and so little time to reply to all this, so just imagine that I did and we can call it even, I won't have to spend hours typing, and everyone else won't have to read it.

 

And after that disclaimer, what was the message?

 

At least you have spared them that. Look man, I am sorry, you seem rather blunt, in mental terms , and I tend to make occasion of using language quite elaborate language. Should you need me to restate some of my points, simply tell me to cease.

In other terms, stop me if I move too quick for you, we can backtrack and I'll use little words.

First of all, no Kerry wasn't a perfect choice, no where close. He was not worse than Bush. And his campaign consisted of more than just Vietnam hype; if you thought that then maybe you should study some American politics before you post back. After you do that, you still won't be able to imply that anyone here knows less than you about politics, because you have been a member here for about 3 days, absent for most of them, and you don't seem to have impressed many people in that short time. I've debated every person here, with the exception of Bunny, nice to meet you by the way, and although I am loathe to admit it in some cases, every one of has repeatedly shown an amount of knowledge over America which rivals my own, which is vastly superior to barely consequential drivelings you've posted so far.

John Kerry may have 'sucked', and his campaign did contain more hype than not. Valid points were made, however, on foreign perceptions of the United States, which any of the damnably apathetic foreigners with no opinion of the US on this board can go into detail about.

Bush also makes it a habit to mess up national policy as often as he does international relations. There's a funny story about his scheme to privatize Social Security, it involves two equally funny facts. Fact one is that Social Security still takes in far more than it gives out yearly. The second story involves the fact that this excess fund is repeatedly borrowed against to pay for Congressional overhead, like those sparkly white buildings and their slutty interns, and military excursions, like that one in that weird little muslim country, which one was that again? Try to guess if you know what the funny story abou Social Security is now.

I do take exemption to that high school dropouts jibe, I know many high school drop outs, most of them far more intelligent than you. Pre-collegiate school is about work, not intelligence. If you didn't figure that out yourself, and you're in middle school or up, take that as proof that you don't have to be the sharpest tool in the proverbial shed in order to walk out of grade 12 with a robe and a diploma.

Everyone on this forum will agree that, objectively and without bias, America is the strongest nation on Earth. Why shouldn't everyone care what forces are shaping her behavior? If you lived net to a dragon, and you know the dragon had a fight with its mate, you would want to know, some time before the angry, jilted dragon burned your home down and ate you. America, being so powerful, is a threat to every other nation on Earth should she let loose her powers unchecked. So all of the other nations have a right to be as concerned about America's politics as Americans themselves, especially when American politics involve letting a deceitful, greedy, pretentious fool command her great powers.

As a final note, I find it offensive that you even suggest that just because someone is a foreigner they should explain their motivations for interest in American politics. Interest does not have to be rationalized, nor does knowledge; ignorance demands justification, however, and you have alot of explaining to do.

EDIT: I fixed a minor punctuation error.
EDIT2: There was a much more idiotic error I caught just as I hit submit fixing error 1.

 

Nice to meet you too.

Especially when throughout history, American politicians adhered to intrusive foreign policies. Fortunately, (yes, I consider this a blessing, why wouldn't I since the Constitution of my country was based, among other fine works, on the US Constitution) there is much more to "American politics" than George W.'s presidency.

 

Using caps properly is part of the "proper spelling and grammar" thing.

 

i no like fo a fact engish class does tat stuf in it

 

Hey Blinky, learn to read sarcasim! While you're at it, read slower so you can understand what I said. On top of that you people need to stop putting words in my mouth, or to my fingers rather.

I don't know where you got the idea that I've been here only three days, I've been here sense August 3rd... look before you leap.

I never claimed I was an expert about politics, of any country. Yes, you are correct about the Kerry campaign and the Social Security. But sense none of my generation was going to be able to use it, it doesn't really matter who was pres as far as that goes. Ask me later how corrupt I think my government is.

Yes, I do agree with you, there are very intelligent high school dropouts out there. But then why did they drop out? The drop outs I know make me fear for the future of this country.

America may be the most powerful nation, yes. But that can easily be
countered simply by having the majority of the countries in the UN come up to our front door, kicking it down, drag our lazy asses to the front lawn and kick the living shit out of us. Now how likely is that to happen in our lifetime, probably not going to happen. But yes it needs to happen, because the majority of my generation doesn't know what a true war is!

 

Say! You're right stang4me2! We do need a third world war! And the reason? Why, because our generation doesn't know the kind of hell the world went through in WW1 and WW2, and that's a real shame, don't you think? That we don't know what it's like to have to ration food and conserve everything from scrap metal to burlap to support the war effort, because if we don't, our boys overseas might not have the supplies they need to preserve our freedom? Thats sure is a shame. Idiot.

The shame is that people of our generation, who have never endured the slightest hardship or made the smallest sacrifice in the name of freedom, take freedom and the American way of life for granted. They bitch and moan about how crappy our country is, while having no concept of what life under a tyrannical dictatiorship would be like. To those people I say, If you don't like it here, leave. Nobody is forcing you to live here. Move to China or North Korea to experience the utopia that is communism.

EDIT- Oh, and take your own advice and learn to understand sarcasm genius.

 

I can tell from what you are saying right now that you don't know shit about what a true war is since you are even suggesting that people need war.

Second the us navy and airforce would have anihilated any force even trying to bring war to american soil as soon as it left its airports/harbors. If that will not work the force would have been anihilated as soon as it reached shore. The US has an allmost impenetrabale strategic location that makes it close to impossibole to asail with ordinary means.

 

You spelled sarcasm wrong, and most people will tell you, I've quite sarcastic. And don't think of stealing my insults, first you don't use them well enough, second you're an idiot.

Yea, sorry, I fucked up. You had been here all of 2 months and 3 days when I wrote that. I guess I should go bow to your status as a vet shouldn't I?

I don't need to ask you your opinions of the government. Any moron can form an opinion. I would ask you what your stance on the government is, but you don't have one. Because stances, as opposed to opinions, require you to know something about what you're talking about. All you give are vague conjecturings about topics that you know little about, unfounded opinions that you are entitled to have, but that I really am not interested in wasting my time reading.

Perhaps you didn't get the point from my funny story, Social Security isn't going bankrupt, or wouldn't be if all the excess money that is supposed to be saved for the future wasn't being wasted in Iraq. George Bush as a leader divides us, as a humanitarian fumbles relief efforts to our own states, as a eneral proceeds to violate almost every single tenet that any successful general has ever laid down, including just about single idea set forth in the Art Of War, and as a diplomat drives our allies away. Now tell me there isn't a problem with that.

The only good war is the one that has never been fought, and for even suggesting that war is something that should be encouraged you should get beat in the face by every soldier in Iraq right now. Do they need to be there? Do children need to die so that politicians can learn lessons that we learned back in the 70s, 40s, and 10s? Leaving aside the fact that the United States could melt any opposing country long before they could mount an attack, and the fact that the United States is a veritable fortess, let's talk about your idiotic infatuation with a "true war" for a few more moments. A true war is when you get drafted on your birthday to go die for a war that's not fully explained to you. In a true war there are no grand armies in humvees, there are young men and women, hiding behind walls in fear that they'll be blown up without a second thought. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the greatest American general, "There is no true honor in war."

In a military sense, however, the United States in undefeatable at the moment. True we might be pushed back on the offense, but to literally invade involves being able to plant ground troops in the opposing country. Usually this involves getting a neighboring country to serve as a staging area. Let's look at the choices. A small Carribean nation that we could literally MOAB into a floating parking lot? Canada is actually a choice, but consider that every major Canadian city is within an easy day striking distance of American ground troops. So in actuality, unless they wanted to run their invasion from Hudson Bay, they couldn't do a thing. Mexico could be a staging area. It's right next to Texas, which could take down our southern neighbor single-handedly.

Stang, you're an ignorant fool. Sorry to break the news. You talk about things you know nothing about and pretend to have authority on them, and you bring forth such fanciful notions based on nothing more than your own idiocy and a few too many John Wayne movies. War is the most regrettable institution in existance, and thinking anything different only proves your own ignorance.

 

I agree that war is a bad thing, but yet people still make war. Look at Africa for example. As long as people crave power, there will always be war. WW1 and 2 were thought to be wars to end wars, that turned out not to be the case. Until people see a war that causes them to literaly vomate at the mere thought of it, they will still demand a war for some reason or another, it's unavoidable.

For every thing you say about me not knowing a damn thing about what I say, you don't have much place to talk.

Oh, I forgot you're a politician, and an expert on every subject I might possibly state my opinion or fact on. I bow before your almighty wisdom, because you clearly know so much more than me, having had personal experience in such things.

Maybe the next time I want to gain limitless amounts of knowledge about something related to these subjects, I should just come straight to you to find out the truth.

You obviously have no clue as to what you mention, though you did come close. Our military is so spreadout in this world that the majority of our defense would be left to the National Guard. That wouldn't be too bad if the senario were against one or two nations, but that is not the case. I said the majority of the nations in the UN (or all of them), hell, even some that aren't, here's a lits of some of the countries I had in mind. Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Austrailia, China, Japan, Canada, Italy, Mexico, and a few nations in South America. Now that I have clearified the force I was thinking of, maybe you would like to rethink your "stratigic planing".

Oh, and we (my generation) still didn't have a chance of seeing SS even in the 80's. The government constenly uses what ever money is in there causeing the current working force to pay for the previous one. So I fail to see how you think this war is the cause of it.

Did you ever pay attention in class? You're not a dropout are you?

 

Actually I'm at RPI right now, a college student, from your generation, who knows exactly what we've seen in terms of SS.

I'm sorry I know a few things about tactics. Sorry I've read a few fucking books in my time. Maybe you should try it, you'll find those words tend to form into general ideas and concepts that you can thereby learn from.

Yes, stupid people seem to like war alot. But it's not unavoidable. We just have to not elect stupid people. They're exceedingly few in number, yet they have a very simple logic that usually sounds kind of nice. It attracts people who aren't really stupid, but think that the stupid ideas of stupid people might have some intelligence to it. They're usually wrong. The human race will not be whipped out of this belief by more war. We need to educate ourselves to a level where war is only the instrument of the stupid and that the intelligent have enough power to keep the stupid from acting up.

I knew exactly who you meant. They would lose. Unless they employed unconventional methods of either deployment or attack, by unconventional attacks I mean massive bombings, they would lose. When I referred to Canada and Mexico I was referring to the fact that those are the only too places to launch a land assault against the homeland United States. Both would be neutralized quickly. If they tried to swim, we'ld sink them. If they tried to paradrop, we'ld blow them out of the skies. And if they bombed us, we would melt them with the vast supply of nukes we still have. They would lose. The American army is defeatable abroad, but not at home.

Also, the hype about our troops being stretched too thin is overblown. We have a full third of our troops devoted, more than any 'nonwar' situation. We still have the other two-thirds. And the national guard. And the draft which we haven't had to implement. And when someone attacks America, each and every red-blooded American, myself included, is going to be staring them down with the same determination that decimated the British over two hundred years ago.

And you obviously didn't read my fucking post if you don't see how the war is related to SS. SS is used to pay our current retirees, yes, that's the fucking idea. But, there is still a gigantic surplus every year. This should be going into a savings account for future years. But instead Congress borrows against the money to pay for overhead, like interns and limos. Bush borrows against it to buy cruise missles. And they never pay it back.

I'm sorry your high school social studies class never covered this. But it's still the truth, regardless of whether it's on your curriculum or not.

Just a quick run down of that dream team list you have... those few nations in South America shouldn't even be mentioned, none of them have shit of a military. I'm more scared of Columbian drug dealers attacking America than the Columbian military. Canada and Mexico were already discounted. Italy has shit of a military too. Japan only has a defensive army, and a quite small one at that. It's in their Constitution, that's all they allow themselves. Spain I would have been scared of 500 years ago. Not now. Sweden and Norway, sorry fellas, but not happening. Australian troops are a different term for British fodder, unfortunately for the Aussies. France and Germany, don't make me laugh. Even en masse they can't do anything. China, Britain, and Russia are the only real threats to America, and an even match doesn't quite make it the massacre you're describing.

If those are just some of the countries you're referring too, I'ld love to hear the others. Is Croatia getting in on the action too? Let's not even get into the fact that Israel is our closest military ally, has the second most powerful military on Earth, mostly composed of our used shit, which is still vastly superior to everyone else's, and they wouldn't turn against us unless we elected a muslim or something like that. Hold your breath until that happens.

 

I think he meant Luxembourg.

 

I hope you were joking about Israel's military.
What does RPI stand for?

 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, don't you even have google, you moron?
Why would he be joking about Israel's military, although he did use a reasonably large amount of hyperbole throughout, that really wasn't an example of it, it was all reasonably correct.

 

Now I know why I've never heard of it, it's a religious school. It looks like it might be a pretty nice size one too, religious or not.
I disagree about Israel, I would have to say China is more likely to be second most powerful. Does Israel even have a navy?