[Ed O]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

Once upon a time many years ago in a wonderful little land of proud and honest people, there was a power-mad lunatic running the country. His henchmen broke laws, rigged elections, spied on American citizens, smuggled evil drugs into the land to enslave the masses, and mis-used the military in secret illegal wars. All but the most privileged young men were rounded up like cattle and sent to their deaths all for the greed of oilmen.

The American people took him down. The American people, with Mike Gravel's help, ended the draft. The American people exposed and stopped the illegal bombing of Laos. The American people impeached the criminal and drove him from power.

Funny how history often repeats itself.

And if you only know this story from history books and movies, you don't know the half of it.

So... you're talking about Nixon? Did he "rig" the election where he lost to JFK because he sweated on camera? How did the country survive with all but the most privileged men dying in secret and illegal wars that were in southeast Asia but somehow helped oilmen?

Fortunately the American people "drove him from power" after he ended the war that JFK started and LBJ escalated, huh?

And thank goodness Mike Gravel was there to end the draft! It's just too bad he wasn't there in the 1930's so we could have avoided that whole nasty WW II business.

I wasn't around for it, but the American people also used to own slaves and outlawed alcohol. The American people are capable of great things, but "great" does not always equal "good".

Ed O.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by Ed O

So... you're talking about Nixon? Did he "rig" the election where he lost to JFK because he sweated on camera? How did the country survive with all but the most privileged men dying in secret and illegal wars that were in southeast Asia but somehow helped oilmen?

Fortunately the American people "drove him from power" after he ended the war that JFK started and LBJ escalated, huh?

Ed O.

Your obvious confusion and bafflement on this important historical era demonstrates my point quite satisfactorily.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

Your obvious confusion and bafflement on this important historical era demonstrates my point quite satisfactorily.

Does it? I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about either. But as long as you are satisfied, that's ok.

barfo

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by barfo

Does it? I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about either. But as long as you are satisfied, that's ok.

barfo

Exactly.

[Hector]

Which conspiracy theorists should I side with? The ones who said that Saddam spent years secretly obtaining weapons of mass destruction, under penalty of war from the U.S? When they couldn't find the weapons, and captured Iraqi scientists denied under torture that such weapons existed, then the conspiracy theorists said that Saddam had fearfully buried his weapons of mass destruction under the sand, to rust and to have sand particles destroy delicate high tech electronics. That made sense to them, that he would risk his neck to get them, then make them unusable at the outset of the mother of all wars.

Or should I side with the conspiracy theorists who have found dozens of interesting contradictions in the official version of history which justified an evil war? I don't know, but this is the choice.

http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Is...eged_Coverups/

vs.
http://www.political-comedy-central....bush_it1_1.jpg

[Hector]

Originally Posted by Yega1979

It would be like me saying, "Crandc, you are the fattest woman in the world, I weighed you and you weigh 155 pounds." Someone can be wrong, and have correct facts at the same time. I don't know why I'm having to teach you all about logic instead of actually discussing the facts of the case.

As a new poster, I am getting used to this board. I don't think you should insult Crandc by calling him a woman. From the conservatism of his post on page 1 of this thread, Crandc is the most masculine one here.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Hector

Which conspiracy theorists should I side with? The ones who said that Saddam spent years secretly obtaining weapons of mass destruction, under penalty of war from the U.S? When they couldn't find the weapons, and captured Iraqi scientists denied under torture that such weapons existed, then the conspiracy theorists said that Saddam had fearfully buried his weapons of mass destruction under the sand, to rust and to have sand particles destroy delicate high tech electronics. That made sense to them, that he would risk his neck to get them, then make them unusable at the outset of the mother of all wars.

Or should I side with the conspiracy theorists who have found dozens of interesting contradictions in the official version of history which justified an evil war? I don't know, but this is the choice.

There are other choices. You could side with neither of them.

barfo

[Yega1979]

Originally Posted by Hector

As a new poster, I am getting used to this board. I don't think you should insult Crandc by calling him a woman. From the conservatism of his post on page 1 of this thread, Crandc is the most masculine one here.

I don't think you should insult her by calling her a man. She is a woman.

You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by Yega1979

I don't think you should insult her by calling her a man. She is a woman.

You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

He would have known that if he'd seen her previous avatars of nearly naked men.

[BenDavis503]

I cannot believe that 6 years after this happened and all the evidence that has come forth... that 80 percent of voters still think that terrorists did this and airplanes knocked down the towers. Just shows how stupid people are.

AN AIRPLANE CANNOT KNOCK DOWN A TOWER PEOPLE!!! WAKE UP!!!

We are a stupid country though. Lowest test scores. Voting Bush into office 2 terms in a row. No wonder you people believe that 9-11 was a terrorist attack. Your all idiots.

[Hector]

Originally Posted by Hector

From the conservatism of his post on page 1 of this thread, Crandc is the most masculine one here.

Well, at least I hear no argument on that.

[Hector]

Originally Posted by barfo

There are other choices. You could side with neither of them.

That's why I said, "I don't know, but here is the choice." If the poll hadn't been closed, I would vote undecided.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Hector

That's why I said, "I don't know, but here is the choice." If the poll hadn't been closed, I would vote undec