Death of a President

[Mebster]

Damn it was on last night and I missed it.

 

I soo wanted to see the tosser getting popped.

 

Anyone watched it?

Please tell me his head exploded?

[wildcat69410]

My question is why has bush not been impeached yet for all the {censored} he's pulled? (iraq war for starters). Clinton gets a knob job in the oval office and was impeached for lieing about it (like anyone would to not ruin a marriage!)...bush kills who knows how many people (whether directly or indirectly is inconsiquential) and no impeachment? The only thing that would upset me about bush getting shot is that chaney would take over...any other consequences would probably benefit the world more than it hurt it. 1-9-2009...I can't wait!!! The day america's global respect gets better no matter who takes office.

 

First off, Clinton freaking lied under oath, broke a law, lied to the American People, and you rationalize it by calling it "saving a marriage"? Seriously, think for a second. The man broke a freaking law here, and you're just rationalizing it away by saying its "saving the marriage". Give me a break, any marriage based on stupid lies like that is going to fail. The fact Clinton came out and eventually announced it, rather than let it surface from somebody else, is the ONLY reason Hillary is still married to that idiot.

 

As for Bush, I dislike the fact that so many people died in this war, that probably wasn't necessary. However, to say that Bush needs to be impeached for this war is pure lunacy. The man based the war upon faulty intelligence for one, which is faulty partly because of his agression for this new evidence, but I do admire the fact that he admitted he made a mistake, but will not change the course of war in Iraq. Any pathetic person could oblige the public, pull out of Iraq, and leave the Government and its people in shambles. However, Bush is sticking to Iraq, and trying to complete his ultimate goal of creating a free and democratic Iraq.

 

Plus, we have to remember, those who died are men and women of the Armed Forces. They knew the consequences heading into the engagement, and they knew what they were in for. These people died in order to spread democracy to Iraq, and to simply say that Bush killled them is left-wing stupidity.

 

I may appear to be rationalizing (Heck I may even be rationalizing), but you do have a point. This war, for the most part, has been virtually pointless. However, to throw off Clinton's perjury as a marriage saving measure, is just the biggest and stupidest liberal rationalization I've ever heard. Sorry.

[killbot1000]

First off, Clinton freaking lied under oath, broke a law, lied to the American People, and you rationalize it by calling it "saving a marriage"? Seriously, think for a second. The man broke a freaking law here, and you're just rationalizing it away by saying its "saving the marriage". Give me a break, any marriage based on stupid lies like that is going to fail. The fact Clinton came out and eventually announced it, rather than let it surface from somebody else, is the ONLY reason Hillary is still married to that idiot.

 

As for Bush, I dislike the fact that so many people died in this war, that probably wasn't necessary. However, to say that Bush needs to be impeached for this war is pure lunacy. The man based the war upon faulty intelligence for one, which is faulty partly because of his agression for this new evidence, but I do admire the fact that he admitted he made a mistake, but will not change the course of war in Iraq. Any pathetic person could oblige the public, pull out of Iraq, and leave the Government and its people in shambles. However, Bush is sticking to Iraq, and trying to complete his ultimate goal of creating a free and democratic Iraq.

 

Plus, we have to remember, those who died are men and women of the Armed Forces. They knew the consequences heading into the engagement, and they knew what they were in for. These people died in order to spread democracy to Iraq, and to simply say that Bush killled them is left-wing stupidity.

 

I may appear to be rationalizing (Heck I may even be rationalizing), but you do have a point. This war, for the most part, has been virtually pointless. However, to throw off Clinton's perjury as a marriage saving measure, is just the biggest and stupidest liberal rationalization I've ever heard. Sorry.

 

Honestly what I thought about clinton is that it was nobody's f***ing business whether he slept around on his wife or not, one would have to wonder if they would lie about that in his situation, to say that hes just wrong isnt really that clear cut, because it was about something so minor, I find it funny how you care more about a president sleeping with somebody other than his wife (almost all of them do that) rather than the president whos ordering soldiers to die for a war that is not relevant in any way...

[Mebster]

The man based the war upon faulty intelligence for one, which is faulty partly....but I do admire the fact that he admitted he made a mistake

Bush made his money from oil and he basically said

Bush: dad, i want to make some more millions... maybe even billions.

Bush2:well son you know there's always Iraq. i couldn't get the oil back in 91 but why don't you give it another try.

Bush: yeah... I’ll use this tererror thing to get the people behind me.

It's a bit late to then say "yep, we got it wrong.. there's no WMD" given that you rushed into it and have killed thousands. If he hadn't admitted they had found nothing over a year later he would look like a bigger idiot than he does. It only makes sense to say "we did a booboo".

 

Bush is sticking to Iraq, and trying to complete his ultimate goal of creating a free and democratic Iraq

American in particular need to get this through their heads. The middle east does NOT want democracy. It's the middle east for heaven’s sake. This is a western concept... on that Muslims despise. It look at the majority and casts a shadow of neglect on the minority. The Islamic system is based on Right vs Wrong. Forcing democracy on the middle east is like saying the east is going to enforce sharia law on the US. You wouldn't want that. But imagine the east said... “bullocks, it's what your people want”.

I'm sure there are countries who want democracy in the ME but to assume the entire ME wants this is ignorant. What the middle east needs is for someone to take out it's corrupt rulers. The same ones America hands prisoners over to be tortured to.

 

Plus, we have to remember, those who died are men and women of the Armed Forces. They knew the consequences heading into the engagement, and they knew what they were in for. These people died in order to spread democracy to Iraq, and to simply say that Bush killled them is left-wing stupidity.

They thought they knew why they were going in but since many question why they are even there. Many also don't want to go back once they return home but are threatened with court marshals. These people died for Bu$hes stupid cause and i feel sorry for them. You only get one life and theirs was wasted at the end.

[Nofences]

The best Signature I ever read went something like this....

 

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics...

you may win, but you are still retarded!"

 

I think this applies to everyone here arguing the pros and cons of the Bush administration. Your arguments right or wrong mean absolutely ZILCH! You are wasting space on this forum, the elcetricity it took to power your computer while you wrote it, the brain cells of the people reading it, not to mention the 30 seconds to 45 minutes of your life it took to formulate your rant! So why dont we all go back to the areas of this forum that are actually productive and help some people steal software from Apple and get it running on their PC's!

[Mebster]

NoOffence dude,

I'm not here to argue. :censored2:

I'm here to debate.

 

Actually you can (and I do) learn a lot from arguing/debating with people over the internet :censored2: :censored2: . It's quite different from a face to face argument as over the internet everyone has the ability to produce facts which then educate us all. Also people are blunter over the internet and so you get a fuller picture of a situation.

[xtraa]

I don't think the problem is the president.

 

I think the problem is how he could become a president.

 

America has a very antiquated democracy that makes it possible for a minority

to win an election.

 

I don't get that.

 

Even more strange is the fact that only zillionnaires have a chance to become a

president. But - being able to make or have lots of money does not mean to be

able to rule a nation. Right, Mr. Burns?

 

Americans are often so uncomplicated and flexible, but they still stick with that old

piece of shi*t and it seems like no one even cares.

[wildcat69410]

Bush made his money from oil and he basically said

Bush: dad, i want to make some more millions... maybe even billions.

Bush2:well son you know there's always Iraq. i couldn't get the oil back in 91 but why don't you give it another try.

Bush: yeah... I’ll use this tererror thing to get the people behind me.

It's a bit late to then say "yep, we got it wrong.. there's no WMD" given that you rushed into it and have killed thousands. If he hadn't admitted they had found nothing over a year later he would look like a bigger idiot than he does. It only makes sense to say "we did a booboo".

 

Care to explain how we've made money off the War in Iraq?

 

American in particular need to get this through their heads. The middle east does NOT want democracy. It's the middle east for heaven’s sake. This is a western concept... on that Muslims despise. It look at the majority and casts a shadow of neglect on the minority. The Islamic system is based on Right vs Wrong. Forcing democracy on the middle east is like saying the east is going to enforce sharia law on the US. You wouldn't want that. But imagine the east said... “bullocks, it's what your people want”.

I'm sure there are countries who want democracy in the ME but to assume the entire ME wants this is ignorant. What the middle east needs is for someone to take out it's corrupt rulers. The same ones America hands prisoners over to be tortured to.

 

A True democracy does indeed only look at the majority. However, a democracy filled with checks and balances, including the Judicial Court system for example, provides a balance that allows the minority to not become trampled upon. For example, look at Brown V. Board of Education in the US. The Judicial System allowed a repressed minority to gain their rights back.

 

And hey, Democracy tends to work a hell of a lot better than an Islamic Government. Simply because of the fact that Right vs Wrong deals in absolutes, absolutes that are difficult to judge, and provide no forms of mercy and specific situations. A flexible democracy allows for much more. Although I'm sure you'll disagree, and the United States doesn't exacly have any right to step into the Middle East and put Democracy to everybody, you certainly have to see the pluses of Democracy. At least in Democracy, you're not going to get a horrible Dictator.

 

I mean, with the war aside, which is worse for Iraq? Democracy, or Saddam Hussein?

 

They thought they knew why they were going in but since many question why they are even there. Many also don't want to go back once they return home but are threatened with court marshals. These people died for Bu$hes stupid cause and i feel sorry for them. You only get one life and theirs was wasted at the end.

 

The fact is, they signed up for this. They decided to put there lives on the line for Freedom. If they made that decision wrongly, then feel sorry for them. But don't blame it on the Bush administration.

 

Honestly what I thought about clinton is that it was nobody's f***ing business whether he slept around on his wife or not, one would have to wonder if they would lie about that in his situation, to say that hes just wrong isnt really that clear cut, because it was about something so minor, I find it funny how you care more about a president sleeping with somebody other than his wife (almost all of them do that) rather than the president whos ordering soldiers to die for a war that is not relevant in any way...

 

It's fairly clear cut when somebody's wrong or not. For example, when you take a courtroom oath to tell the truth, you're expected by law to tell the truth. When you lie under that oath, then it's clear cut that you lied, and therefore you should be punished. He was impeached not because of his affair, but because the fact he lied under oath. If he'd simply admitted it in the beginning, life could have gone on for him, and he wouldn't have been impeached. However, he chose to drag it out in a courtroom affair that nearly cost him his presidency.

 

At least Bush made a decision based upon what he believed to be Correct Intelligence. Clinton simply made a stupid decision based on what he wanted. Which by the way, how many other presidents have slept with someone else in office? Bush hasn't, Bush Sr. didn't, Reagan certainly didn't, dunno about Carter, but I'm making an assumption that he didn't. The last one to have an alleged affair in office, and correct me if I'm wrong, is Kennedy. Funny how the two presidents were both Liberals. That really shows the impressive Liberal morality.

 

I don't think the problem is the president.

 

I think the problem is how he could become a president.

 

America has a very antiquated democracy that makes it possible for a minority

to win an election.

 

Funny, because I don't believe Bush won his last election with a minority of the votes. In fact, I believe he won with the LARGEST amount of popular votes in history. Some minority huh.

 

The Electoral College works pretty well in my opinion.

[gwprod12]

I think it's fair to say that since the population of the united states has increased steadily since the founding and the percentage who vote has stayed roughly the same, that it's no wonder Bush got more votes than had ever before been gotten.

 

I think you should have said "Percentage of Votes" or "Margin of Votes".

 

George W Bush won in 2004 by 3 million votes out of 121 million., or about 51% of the popular vote

Bill Clinton won in 1996 by 8 million votes out of 86.5 million. or about 54% of the popular vote.

 

So, while it's true that George W Bush received more popular votes than anyone else had in previous elections, so did John Kerry.

 

EDIT: By the way. Liberals dont claim to have overwhelmingly superior morality and character. That's why the foley scandal is obliterating the republicans.

[wildcat69410]

EDIT: By the way. Liberals dont claim to have overwhelmingly superior morality and character. That's why the foley scandal is obliterating the republicans.

 

Ironically, that's also why they can't beat Bush, and even I admit he's a pretty sucky president. What he did was absolutely wrong, and I'm glad he resigned, and all those who covered up are getting punished. However, the probability of all this, is that whoever released this information most likely knew about it far ahead of time, and just released it in time to stymie the Republican efforts for House and Senate Majority this year. Although I agree what he did was horrible, I find it interesting the timing of its release.

[killbot1000]

Thinking along party lines is stupid, its really an effort to throw all of us into either one box or the other, instead of us all thinking outside the box. I just happen to be more liberal, so I kind of have to vote democrat.

 

Also, I dont mean to sound full of myself or anything, but I would much rather trust somebody's morals that they derived on their own rather than by some "divine command" no offense or anything, but I trust a person thinking in todays terms rather than a person thinking in 2000 years ago's terms.

[xtraa]

Funny, because I don't believe Bush won his last election with a minority of the votes. In fact, I believe he won with the LARGEST amount of popular votes in history. Some minority huh.

 

The Electoral College works pretty well in my opinion.

 

I was talking about the first election when he became president. Afaik you vote these electors and they vote

the president, right? And then (except the state of Maine), you have this slate of electors, and no matter if

it is the smallest or the biggest state of the U.S., all that counts are these electors.

 

So: if a bunch of tiny redneck states with only a handfull of citizens votes for the republicans, and only a few

of the biggest states with much more people living in there votes for democrats, then the republicans will win

although they became less votes.

 

I don't know what you call this, I call it minority, man.

 

(but yes, you are right, this wasn't the case when Bush became president)

[Mebster]

Care to explain how we've made money off the War in Iraq?

Are you serious?

Most if not all the contracts have gone to American firms. What were the chances of that happening?

 

BBC News

Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war

...

Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President {censored} Cheney for five years till 2000.

...

Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the contracts could be worth as much as $900m.

 

The deal on offer grows out of a 13-page document, "Vision for Post-Conflict Iraq", circulated to the five companies and to a small group of White House insiders, the Wall Street Journal reported.

 

Aside from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root, they include Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons. All five are US-owned and headquartered.

Now these deals were taking place even before the war in Iraq. Clearly the intention was to rebuild the country. And so they are handing out contracts left right and centre. But who's going to pay for all this reconstruction? Not the Americans. The Iraqis, from their oil, which the US firms are also contracted into managing. So this is all about money (oil). The big players in the US get richer from these high reconstruction costs.

 

Why do I say high? Because there are documents showing the contractors were several times paid millions to do simple jobs, which they did a lousy job of. The US then hired an Iraqi company to do the same job (redoing the shabby work again) for only a few thousand. A small fraction of what was paid to the US contractor by the US -> by the Iraqis.

 

This isn’t even an area I want to go into because it's too obvious and doesn't deserve an answer. But what I want to say is the link above is of one small article showing how the US is reaping from the Iraq invasions. There are thousands of others.

 

A True democracy does indeed only look at the majority. However, a democracy filled with checks and balances, including the Judicial Court system for example, provides a balance that allows the minority to not become trampled upon. For example, look at Brown V. Board of Education in the US. The Judicial System allowed a repressed minority to gain their rights back.

In a democracy the minority is always trampled over. I'm sorry but look at the Muslims who had nothing to do with terrorist. They are all being trampled over. We are being flown from A-B without any evidence and put in cages for years. As long as the majority agree with this it's good to continue happening. And so it is. If a democratic Muslim state started kidnapping and imprisoning Jews and the public agreed with it then that could continue. However if it ran under a corrupt free (important as many are corrupt) Islamic system then it would not (or should not at the least) happen because Islam would not allow this.

 

Today you are not allowed to marry your mother but with democracy tomorrow you may be able to.

 

Although I'm sure you'll disagree, and the United States doesn't exacly have any right to step into the Middle East and put Democracy to everybody, you certainly have to see the pluses of Democracy. At least in Democracy, you're not going to get a horrible Dictator.

US should not be going anywhere shining the light of democracy. He doesn't even see if the people want it. He just wants to establish one there and have his name stamped on it. Honestly if you like it then keep it. And that's fine. But don't go around forcing others to have it to. At least ask.

What pluses? Thousands of people if not millions marched against the invasion of Iraq. What happened to listening to the people that elected you then? Democracy never gave the blacks the rights to be free just like that even though they were also "the people". It isn't what gave women equal rights to men. They all had to struggle and die for it. And both of these were already established in the Islamic system 1400 years ago without democracy.

It's very well saying, democracy is fantastic but you only need to look back at history a little and wonder isn't that what they said then too.

 

Bush is a dictator. He does as he pleases and kills who he wants. That's saddams brother to me. Only difference is he goes killing outside his neighbourhood.

 

I mean, with the war aside, which is worse for Iraq? Democracy, or Saddam Hussein?

Tough one. One makes society worthless by taking all the good it had away and the other is a killer.

[gwprod12]

I disagree with you 100%. Except that I feel that Democratic Egalitarianism is something that you have to want, or it's worthless. If the Iraqis had wanted that, they should have fought for it themselves. It's not something that should be spread. Freedom is something you dont have and wont have, and will hardly recognize that you dont have unless you're willing to fight for it.

 

Some people dont like the US's "democracy", and that's fine. But "Different strokes for different folks" is something that the republicans and conservatives dont get. Of course everyone wants to have Democracy. Of course everyone wants to be rich. Of course everyone wants to be white. Of course everyone wants to be Christian. Of course everyone wants to be heterosexual. Of course everyone wants to be a stockholder. Of course everyone wants western civilization and values. They're just too ignorant and backward to realize how ignorant and backward they are.

 

Back to Freedom and Democracy. The United States isnt the freeist place in the world. It's not even as free as it was 5 years ago, or 10, or 50. Everyone is just too ignorant and backward to realize how ignorant and backward they are.

 

Where's Winston Smith when we need him?

 

EDIT: Democracy is actually a misnomer, and is often incorrectly applied. The United States was not founded on the principals of Democracy, per se, since Democracy is more correctly applied to a communist nation, a community of self-replicating machines who are bound together into a cooperative organism, or the Borg collective.

 

The United States was founded more on the pricipals of Cooperative Autonomy, such that I can do as I like in my sphere of influence, and you can do what you like in your sphere of influence, and we work together to make sure those spheres of influence dont overlap, or, when they do, to minimize the conflict.

 

The "majority rules" BS is just that. It was never intended that a group of people with an agenda could dictate to Me or You what you can eat, what you can wear, who you can fornicate with, or what kind of work you do. US society is disordered on purpose. Has a law-making body that cant get anything done. On purpose.

 

What the freedom of cooperative autonomy actually is:

Freedom to murder oneself

Freedom to find land not owned by anyone else and build a house

Freedom to say what you like

Freedom to worship as you like

Freedom to fornicate with who you want (as long as they're willing and capable of consent)

Freedom to complain to government

Freedom FROM people telling you what you can and cannot do with respect to yourself.

 

Why is this undesirable?

[Mebster]

I disagree with you 100%.

That's fine and i can respect that. I don't need or expect everyone to agree with my views.

 

Except that I feel that Democratic Egalitarianism is something that you have to want, or it's worthless. If the Iraqis had wanted that, they should have fought for it themselves. It's not something that should be spread. Freedom is something you dont have and wont have, and will hardly recognize that you dont have unless you're willing to fight for it.

 

Some people dont like the US's "democracy", and that's fine. But "Different strokes for different folks" is something that the republicans and conservatives dont get. Of course everyone wants to have Democracy. Of course everyone wants to be rich. Of course everyone wants to be white. Of course everyone wants to be Christian. Of course everyone wants to be heterosexual. Of course everyone wants to be a stockholder. Of course everyone wants western civilization and values. They're just too ignorant and backward to realize how ignorant and backward they are.

 

Back to Freedom and Democracy. The United States isnt the freeist place in the world. It's not even as free as it was 5 years ago, or 10, or 50. Everyone is just too ignorant and backward to realize how ignorant and backward they are.

 

Where's Winston Smith when we need him?

 

EDIT: Democracy is actually a misnomer, and is often incorrectly applied. The United States was not founded on the principals of Democracy, per se, since Democracy is more correctly applied to a communist nation, a community of self-replicating machines who are bound together into a cooperative organism, or the Borg collective.

 

The United States was founded more on the pricipals of Cooperative Autonomy, such that I can do as I like in my sphere of influence, and you can do what you like in your sphere of influence, and we work together to make sure those spheres of influence dont overlap, or, when they do, to minimize the conflict.

 

The "majority rules" BS is just that. It was never intended that a group of people with an agenda could dictate to Me or You what you can eat, what you can wear, who you can fornicate with, or what kind of work you do. US society is disordered on purpose. Has a law-making body that cant get anything done. On purpose.

 

What the freedom of cooperative autonomy actually is:

Freedom to murder oneself

Freedom to find land not owned by anyone else and build a house

Freedom to say what you like

Freedom to worship as you like

Freedom to fornicate with who you want (as long as they're willing and capable of consent)

Freedom to complain to government

Freedom FROM people telling you what you can and cannot do with respect to yourself.

 

Why is this undesirable?

Honestly said. Gimme gimme gimme some.

 

The deal with the majority telling the state what they want and then that becoming law is one that seriously troubles me. I hope it's bs but I worry that it's not. Let me give you a small example.

Recently Jack Straw made comments that he would like that all Muslim women not wear or take off the veil. That got major condemnation from Muslims (the minority) but major support from others (majority). Now if the majority made some stupid case for it to be banned (like you could go into a bank and rob it and they wouldn't know who it was) then the fact that the majority back this I’m certain the chances of this going through is highly likely. regardless of if it is right or wrong to do. This can apply to anyone. Jews and their hats, Christians their cross, Sikhs and their turbans, Hindus with their things. And then that leads onto issues of what the majority don't like what other non-religious minorities do/wear. It's a never ending spiralling circle which crashes.

[gwprod12]

I agree 100%. Lol.

 

In reference to Muslim women going about unmasked, as it were:

 

As much as it might seem to be a descriminatory policy directed at Muslims, the interest of public security requires some sort of method of identifying people, should a crime be committed. Faces are used currently almost everywhere to do so. Since it impinges religious freedom to require a muslim women to reveal her face in public, another form of identification, such as a thumb print, must be required. Does that unfairly target Muslim women? Possibly. But to not force her to identify herself in some other way would give her an unfair position from everyone else, who, by default is "unmasked".

 

A minority must either 1) Accede to the rules of the dominant culture (which I'm against personally), 2) Find some compromise solution, or 3) Sell your non-portable stuff and go elsewhere.

 

There has to be compromise. Always.

[xtraa]

There has to be compromise. Always.

 

Yea. I believe in Scarlett O'hara, too.

[killbot1000]

Compromise doesnt always mean loss, however many people see it this way, sometimes all it means is helping somebody else without hurting yourself, rather than helping yourself MORE at the expense of another.

[gwprod12]

And sometimes it's acceptable to get a little bit of something instead of a lot of nothing.

[Mebster]

Compromise doesn’t always mean loss

Compromise ALWAYS means loss, in any sense.

 

The whole point of when you compromise is to not to do everything you wanted to do but some of what the person wanted to do too. So you both gain a loss, although the compromise may end up being better.

[killbot1000]

Compromise ALWAYS means loss, in any sense.

 

The whole point of when you compromise is to not to do everything you wanted to do but some of what the person wanted to do too. So you both gain a loss, although the compromise may end up being better.

 

 

Well no, not necessarily, take USA for example, if theres a trade agreement brokered, if we dont compromise, the trade agreement will probably HELP us a bit, and hurt them a bit, however if its tweaked in a certain way, we may gain less than we normally would, but the other country will gain alot, were not losing anything, just gaining at a slower rate, but at the same time helping somebody else out who really needs it, nothing wrong with that.

 

I think the main problem with the world is the unwillingness to sit at the negotiating table and hammer out a deal.

[gwprod12]

Let's be rational here. Either the UK can force groups of people to obey their laws, or they can throw them in prison/deport them. In the US, it is against the law to remain masked when asked to unmask by law enforcement. I dont know if that's the case in the UK, but I'd imagine it is. Either way, Muslim women will be forced to obey the law. There's no question of that. Would you rather have a little bit of something, or a lot of nothing? Would you rather have Muslim women forcibly demasked in public against their religion, or identified in some other way (compromise)?

[Mebster]

Let's be rational here. Either the UK can force groups of people to obey their laws, or they can throw them in prison/deport them. In the US, it is against the law to remain masked when asked to unmask by law enforcement. I dont know if that's the case in the UK, but I'd imagine it is. Either way, Muslim women will be forced to obey the law. There's no question of that. Would you rather have a little bit of something, or a lot of nothing? Would you rather have Muslim women forcibly demasked in public against their religion, or identified in some other way (compromise)?

I would understand if a law enforcement office asked that a Muslims woman take of her veil for a "specific" reason. And I would hope Muslim women would understand this too. However the mood that Jack Straw stirred up and which a lot of stupid British people have now is one of banning it altogether. Simply because they feel uncomfortable. I might feel uncomfortable a woman wearing close to nothing searching me in a shop but does that mean there should be a law banning women from wearing very little clothe (as many do) all for the sake of me or my feel Muslim brothers and sisters discomfort? No! Similarly I don't expect it to happen the other way round either. But it does and is happening.

 

This worlds getting f'ed up and the more it gets like this more less sympathy I have when these places get blown up. And this is coming from someone who was in a form of shock at 7/7 and even 9/11.

 

Keep up the good work! If you really want to be hated even more than you are then ban the veil. But don’t come crying when someone gets pissed and decided it's time to get some payback.

[kinerry]

I only hope it really happens, Bush has done horrible things to this country that will have rammifications for years to come

 

 

If you live in the united states, you just committed a federal offense.

Good luck explaining this to the secret service.

 

Thinking along party lines is stupid, its really an effort to throw all of us into either one box or the other, instead of us all thinking outside the box. I just happen to be more liberal, so I kind of have to vote democrat.

 

Also, I dont mean to sound full of myself or anything, but I would much rather trust somebody's morals that they derived on their own rather than by some "divine command" no offense or anything, but I trust a person thinking in todays terms rather than a person thinking in 2000 years ago's terms.

 

I'm more conservative, I vote Libertarian when I can, and Republican when I can't

 

Let's be rational here. Either the UK can force groups of people to obey their laws, or they can throw them in prison/deport them. In the US, it is against the law to remain masked when asked to unmask by law enforcement. I dont know if that's the case in the UK, but I'd imagine it is. Either way, Muslim women will be forced to obey the law. There's no question of that. Would you rather have a little bit of something, or a lot of nothing? Would you rather have Muslim women forcibly demasked in public against their religion, or identified in some other way (compromise)?

 

I'd rather not continue to opress women, and let them express themselves freely and openly.

Do you even understand why they cover their faces?

[kevin_4e]

kernalzero, lieng[sp] to the face of every American as president of the United States is a lot easier to get impeached for then the deaths of many people due to the event of war(which is necessary in some people's points of views). Regardless of how bad you think Bush has done, Clinton wasn't any hero either.

 

Hoping for the death of someone is pretty messed up in my opinion. I guess it's a lot easier to understand when you've actually lost someone you knew. All I can say is that the mistakes made while trying to do good or better a country should never result in the hope of death.