I'm skeptical about the theory that Bush was afraid there were "internet terrorists" attacking his site. I'm also skeptical about the theory that he closed the site to outsiders to prevent "Bush haters from Europe" from hacking his site. It's most likely a technical thing, probbably not even within Bush's knowledge. Just because Akamai declined to comment doesn't mean that Bush knew anything about it.
The election is over. Stop the shit about "Skerry" and "how he accused all soldiers of being baby killers." You know who you are. You know what you are saying is misleading to say the least; either that or you are so stupid that you take anything from the RNC or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as God's Truth. Just stop the smearing...and don't start up again in 2008 either. If you don't, then Democrats won't.
Well I’m glad you admitted Skerry was wrong Deaddan. I’m also sorry you are against being a patriot, or, independence.
But you’re the bad guy with the gun according to your signature, so I’ll just say “shove it, pull the trigger, and I’ll freely post anything I feel like here”. So please shut the hell up..."boy”!
I believe you should consider leaving your country and residing elsewhere…. Well… “When you grow up and can run away from home”.
1. I think this is a major problem that I want a say on: Nationalism is not patriotism. Patriotism is love of country, nationalism is belief in the superiority of your country. Patriotism is all about questioning your government. We (well, not me, but you civvies) are not subservient to the government, but vice versa.
However, once the decision has been made, I say this to y'all: Put up and shut up until you have a real need to speak.
2. Bobo, Kerry spoke out rightly against the war, the accusations he made were true. If too general in word choice, the crimes mentioned in his Senate testimony were quite accurate, he never called them "baby killers" or disrespected who they were; he merely criticized their actions. In fact, if you ever see the HBO special "Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam, you will hear a wounded soldier crying on the table about how he had to decide: nape the village teeming with VC, killing many women and children, or letting the enemy do as they wish, inxcluding kill their comrades. And he wasn't a close friend of Jane Fonda. Kerry was there. War is a special knowledge. When Kerry spoke of soldiers committing gruesome acts, he was accusing the very people he fought in combat with. He knew soldiers, and he knew what they did from their own mouth. It was disguting and unfortunate, but it was true.
There were two anti-war movements: the SDS side, AKA the Fonda people, who were little more than a Vietnamese mouthpiece. This side stoked the inflammatory language and hurt things.
Then, there was the VVAW side. This side knew what was happening in Nam, how fucked up it was, and yet still loved their country, and were (generally) patriots. They didn't believe either side was right. This was the side Kerry was on, and to call what he did treacherous is incorrect.
EDIT: The Republicans nuked and naped Clinton for 8 years, and they would have done the same with Gore or Kerry. Both sides have their venom, and are mean.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."-James Madison
Last edited by !moof; November 9th, 2004 at 06:06 PM.
Not true cataphract...dems started atacking Bush the second he was inaugriated...
Right. Don't forget that Republicans also attacked Clinton as soon as he got into office, like accusing him of murdering an old friend while he was President!
My point is that most liberals are starting to get tired of these stupid attacks against Bush. Doesn't mean we don't criticize him, but the only liberals that are still bringing up stuff like "Bush stole the election" are the stupid hardcore ones, which are not the majority.
Exactly right, moof. Kerry said that US soldiers had committed atrocities because they did commit atrocities. The point of his testimony was not to condemn soldiers though, it was to show how the Vietnam War was wrong.
But for many people who refuse to believe that US soldiers committed atrocities, they are either naive, or they are totally against the idea of admitting it, for nationalistic reasons, or they use it as a political issue and accuse the opposition of "blaspheming American soldiers."
Thank you Bush, for showing what a complete and utter xenophobic moron you are*
*more so that is
More proof why that dimwit never should have been reelected. Just by seeing this article, I know that international affairs for the next four years will be rocky.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: All I can say is... 
Chief Master Sergeant
Linear Mode
