Bush state of the union slips
Bush state of the union slips
Guaranteed to turn the heads of even the staunchest supporters..
http://www.unsavoury.net/~murena/movies/union.wmv
http://www.unsavoury.net/~murena/movies/union.wmv
To anyone who views this little parody and thinks about getting pissed off:
1. I'm a die-hard Ultra-Right-Wing Conservative. While I do not agree with 100% of everything that President Bush has done in office, I do support most conservative ideals and their effective implementation. Has he done that? No, not as much as I'd like. But oh well.
2. I think that's the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time.
3. And anyone who thinks it's not should read a little paragraph someone wrote a couple hundred years ago. What was it? Oh yeah. "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". What kind of speech do you think they were talking about? It wasn't the right to yell fire in a crowded room when there was no fire.
It's the right to criticize the government.
Enjoy the "new" State of the Union. Thank you, GOD bless you, and GOD bless the United States of America.
-Reyel
1. I'm a die-hard Ultra-Right-Wing Conservative. While I do not agree with 100% of everything that President Bush has done in office, I do support most conservative ideals and their effective implementation. Has he done that? No, not as much as I'd like. But oh well.
2. I think that's the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time.
3. And anyone who thinks it's not should read a little paragraph someone wrote a couple hundred years ago. What was it? Oh yeah. "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". What kind of speech do you think they were talking about? It wasn't the right to yell fire in a crowded room when there was no fire.
It's the right to criticize the government.
Enjoy the "new" State of the Union. Thank you, GOD bless you, and GOD bless the United States of America.
-Reyel
Reyel wrote:To anyone who views this little parody and thinks about getting pissed off:
1. I'm a die-hard Ultra-Right-Wing Conservative. While I do not agree with 100% of everything that President Bush has done in office, I do support most conservative ideals and their effective implementation. Has he done that? No, not as much as I'd like. But oh well.
2. I think that's the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time.
3. And anyone who thinks it's not should read a little paragraph someone wrote a couple hundred years ago. What was it? Oh yeah. "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". What kind of speech do you think they were talking about? It wasn't the right to yell fire in a crowded room when there was no fire.
It's the right to criticize the government.
Enjoy the "new" State of the Union. Thank you, GOD bless you, and GOD bless the United States of America.
-Reyel
I couldn't agree more, but Cherzra isn't american so such things don't apply. Funny or not, Cherzra is still an anti-american hatemonger, not to mention an ass about it too.
As an american, I'll agree that I question the decisions being made concerning Iraq. I do however think that a president with a spine is preferable to one without, and I'm glad I live in a country important enough so that the world knows who it's leader is.
-Zen
The Lord of the Iron Wastes holds his hammer high in the air, shouting a torment... 'Weak fools!'
Teej tells you 'I think they're deliberately outsourcing - trying to improve their genetics.'
Teej tells you 'I think they're deliberately outsourcing - trying to improve their genetics.'
Yeah... that was great. A video which seamlessly depicts our president as a murderous monster on par with Saddam or Osama themselves.
You're right Cherzra, we shouldn't go to war. We should let Saddam create all the chemical, biological and nuklear weapons he wants. Then America should sit back and watch as he conquers the Middle East and extends his grasp into Europe, maybe even practicing a little ethnic cleansing along the way. Maybe, just maybe, we'll deign to get involved and help you guys out. But I hope we wait until after he's made it to your country, and dropped some kind of plague on your head so that you can see what our President is trying to stop.
I'm sorry that we're so evil. I'm sure we'd all be better off if we waited until thousands, or even millions, of people died just so we could be sure we were doing the right thing.
You're right Cherzra, we shouldn't go to war. We should let Saddam create all the chemical, biological and nuklear weapons he wants. Then America should sit back and watch as he conquers the Middle East and extends his grasp into Europe, maybe even practicing a little ethnic cleansing along the way. Maybe, just maybe, we'll deign to get involved and help you guys out. But I hope we wait until after he's made it to your country, and dropped some kind of plague on your head so that you can see what our President is trying to stop.
I'm sorry that we're so evil. I'm sure we'd all be better off if we waited until thousands, or even millions, of people died just so we could be sure we were doing the right thing.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Zen wrote:Reyel wrote:To anyone who views this little parody and thinks about getting pissed off:
1. I'm a die-hard Ultra-Right-Wing Conservative. While I do not agree with 100% of everything that President Bush has done in office, I do support most conservative ideals and their effective implementation. Has he done that? No, not as much as I'd like. But oh well.
2. I think that's the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time.
3. And anyone who thinks it's not should read a little paragraph someone wrote a couple hundred years ago. What was it? Oh yeah. "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". What kind of speech do you think they were talking about? It wasn't the right to yell fire in a crowded room when there was no fire.
It's the right to criticize the government.
Enjoy the "new" State of the Union. Thank you, GOD bless you, and GOD bless the United States of America.
-Reyel
I couldn't agree more, but Cherzra isn't american so such things don't apply. Funny or not, Cherzra is still an anti-american hatemonger, not to mention an ass about it too.
As an american, I'll agree that I question the decisions being made concerning Iraq. I do however think that a president with a spine is preferable to one without, and I'm glad I live in a country important enough so that the world knows who it's leader is.
-Zen
No, that's not correct. Cherzra has as much right to freedom of speech as anyone. Just because he isn't American doesn't mean he should be forced into silence. When our Constitution was written, it was written to protect the rights of all people. However we can only enforce that right within our own country, so if another country denies it we can't do much more than look downcast and mutter about the inhumanity. Well, we could... but then all those liberated people would just hate us for it.
However, having the right to speak also means having the responsibility to do it in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Cherzra's posts merely tend to amount to flames against this country.
Sarvis wrote:Zen wrote:Reyel wrote:To anyone who views this little parody and thinks about getting pissed off:
1. I'm a die-hard Ultra-Right-Wing Conservative. While I do not agree with 100% of everything that President Bush has done in office, I do support most conservative ideals and their effective implementation. Has he done that? No, not as much as I'd like. But oh well.
2. I think that's the funniest thing I've seen in a long, long time.
3. And anyone who thinks it's not should read a little paragraph someone wrote a couple hundred years ago. What was it? Oh yeah. "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". What kind of speech do you think they were talking about? It wasn't the right to yell fire in a crowded room when there was no fire.
It's the right to criticize the government.
Enjoy the "new" State of the Union. Thank you, GOD bless you, and GOD bless the United States of America.
-Reyel
I couldn't agree more, but Cherzra isn't american so such things don't apply. Funny or not, Cherzra is still an anti-american hatemonger, not to mention an ass about it too.
As an american, I'll agree that I question the decisions being made concerning Iraq. I do however think that a president with a spine is preferable to one without, and I'm glad I live in a country important enough so that the world knows who it's leader is.
-Zen
No, that's not correct. Cherzra has as much right to freedom of speech as anyone. Just because he isn't American doesn't mean he should be forced into silence. When our Constitution was written, it was written to protect the rights of all people. However we can only enforce that right within our own country, so if another country denies it we can't do much more than look downcast and mutter about the inhumanity. Well, we could... but then all those liberated people would just hate us for it.
However, having the right to speak also means having the responsibility to do it in an intelligent, thoughtful manner. Cherzra's posts merely tend to amount to flames against this country.
Actually, that is correct. The constitution only applies to American government directly, and only indirectly to it's citizens. My point was that to say Cherzra or any non american has any rights or duties under the american constitution is to be intolerant of their own government. The constitution applies to AMERICAN GOVERMENT only. If Cherzra has the right to free speech, wich he does, it comes from something other than the Constitution of the United States. It might come from the God given rights that the constitution was based on tho.
That said, I want to go down as saying I fully support everyones right to be stupid.
-Zen
Bleh. Wish it wouldn't include quotes when you quote someone.
Back to the topic...
I didn't say he had that right under our constitution. I said he had that right as a <b>person</b>.
And God didn't give us any rights. If he had it wouldn't have taken us thousands of years to realize people should be allowed to have opinions.
Back to the topic...
I didn't say he had that right under our constitution. I said he had that right as a <b>person</b>.
And God didn't give us any rights. If he had it wouldn't have taken us thousands of years to realize people should be allowed to have opinions.
Sarvis wrote:Bleh. Wish it wouldn't include quotes when you quote someone.
Back to the topic...
I didn't say he had that right under our constitution. I said he had that right as a <b>person</b>.
And God didn't give us any rights. If he had it wouldn't have taken us thousands of years to realize people should be allowed to have opinions.
The quote in quote in quote thing is nuts. What you said is that I was incorrect, but I thank you for your kind recanting. What I said was applied only to the constitution, not freedom to mouth of in general. However, to say that we should all respect his right and not get upset is to deny that fundemental right to mouth off to whomever posts second. It just doesn't work that way.
As for God not giving us rights, you can disagree with all your atheistic morals all you want, but if God didn't give us rights, then who's to say that the weak should not be dominated by strong? It presumes much to say that people should be allowed an opinion without some standard other than enlightenment of our consciences. It presumes even more to say that humans are bright enough to get it right on the first try. That's one statement that certainly isn't supported in history.
-Zen
Last edited by Zen on Sun Feb 02, 2003 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
Zen wrote:The quote in quote in quote thing is nuts. What you said is that I was incorrect, but I thank you for your kind recanting. What I said was applied only to the constitution, not freedom to mouth of in general. However, to say that we should all respect his right and not get upset is to deny that fundemental right to mouth off to whomever posts second. It just doesn't work that way.
As for God not giving us rights, you can disagree with all your atheistic morals all you want, but if God didn't give us rights, then who's to say that the weak should not be dominated by strong? It presumes much to say that people should be allowed an opinion without some standard other than enlightenment of our consciences. It presumes even more to say that humans are bright enough to get it right on the first try. That's one statement that certainly isn't supported in history.
-Zen
I didn't say we shouldn't get upset. I said that you shouldn't just decide he doesn't have the right to speak simply because he isn't American. I have the right to say anything I want about his country (Denmark?) so it's only fair that he have the same right. However, if I were to say anything about his country I'd make sure I was informed first, and wouldn't simply post blatant flames.
As for this:
<i>then who's to say that the weak should not be dominated by strong? </i>
The wise. Face it, if the strong dominate the weak God isn't going to step in and slap the strong around. And even if he did, that's just God being the Strong and dominating the weak. The only thing that keeps the strong from dominating the weak these days is that we are slowly learning that there's no need for domination.
On the other hand, the financially strong still dominate the financially weak.
Lastly: Why the hell are <i>we</i> arguing? We should be teaming up against Cherzra. ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
That video was pretty damn funny. :lol:
You guys are so easily trolled, it's almost sad.
As I understand it, the intention of U.S. Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) was to guaranty government protection of the stated rights for its citizens. It's not our job to guaranty those rights for people outside the power of our protection.
However, that is not to say that the framers of the constitution believed that those rights applied only to U.S. citizens. Look no further than the Declaration of Independence. It begins with an Americanized declaration of the rights of man. Clearly, the founding fathers, who were children of the Enlightenment, believed in principal that all (white) men (who owned property) everywhere deserved the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Mp
You guys are so easily trolled, it's almost sad.
As I understand it, the intention of U.S. Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) was to guaranty government protection of the stated rights for its citizens. It's not our job to guaranty those rights for people outside the power of our protection.
However, that is not to say that the framers of the constitution believed that those rights applied only to U.S. citizens. Look no further than the Declaration of Independence. It begins with an Americanized declaration of the rights of man. Clearly, the founding fathers, who were children of the Enlightenment, believed in principal that all (white) men (who owned property) everywhere deserved the protections of the Bill of Rights.
Mp
thats just too funny:) Dont really need to parody bush tho, he does it on his own.
Mysrel tells you 'have my babies'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
You tell Mysrel 'u want me to be ur baby daddy?'
Mysrel tells you 'daddy? No, I think you have the terminology wrong'
You tell Mysrel 'comeon now we both know i would be the top'
Mysrel tells you 'can be where ever you want to be, yer still getting ****** like a drunken cheerleader'
danger-saddam
This always cracks me up. Saddam taking over the world. Hahahahhah!
Seriously. He had a little war with his third world neighbor, Iran. Iran had just had a bloody revolution (US supported) in which nearly ALL of its military officers were executed, and the infantry was pretty much decimated. On top of this, please remember that Iran IS a run-down 3rd world country, hardly a techno-superior-threat.
So Saddam has a war with them. He gets support from the USA (billions of dollars, AND weapons), he gets support from the UN (same kinda thing, but less of it) AND he gets support from most of his arabian neighbors (money, processed oil, weapons) because russia is supporting iran and the arabs REALLY hate those guys.
He spends NINE years with all this support trying to defeat his 3rd-world, half dead, bombed out NEIGHBOR COUNTRY. Result: utter failure, he could scarcely make headway over the border. AFTER NINE YEARS of fighting. AND YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THIS GUY IS A THREAT TO THE WORLD????
Serious, people think im an anti-american american. But please read your history a little more thouroughly.
PS: a side note to peeps who think he IS dangerous cuz he could launch missiles to other countries in order to start a chainreaction war...
ISRAEL has a foreign policy called the Samson Complex (you know, the strong guy who loses his power and prays to god and gets it back and pulls down a philistine temple killing himself and more philistines than he had ever done in his whole life in one bang) of which they are quite open, even blatant about. Basically, the Samson Complex states that if they dont get their way, and are pressed too hard where they feel their survival is at stake, they WILL toss nuclear weapons into Russia, in order to insure that everybody dies. This is open policy, on similiar terms with MAD (mutually assured destruction) and they have the actual capability. US helped them gain nuclear weapons in late 50's, they developed the necessary rocket power to hit moscow in 60's (and consequently stopped rocket research). So why does the world not take measures to stop these bastards who ARE killing innocent children in their neighbor countries, and who HAVE threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction, and who ARE capable of carrying out this threat? Damn... mebbe im just a fascist anti-american bastard, and i deserve to be raped in one of your prisons for even mentioning the idea that certain things could be WRONG!
Seriously. He had a little war with his third world neighbor, Iran. Iran had just had a bloody revolution (US supported) in which nearly ALL of its military officers were executed, and the infantry was pretty much decimated. On top of this, please remember that Iran IS a run-down 3rd world country, hardly a techno-superior-threat.
So Saddam has a war with them. He gets support from the USA (billions of dollars, AND weapons), he gets support from the UN (same kinda thing, but less of it) AND he gets support from most of his arabian neighbors (money, processed oil, weapons) because russia is supporting iran and the arabs REALLY hate those guys.
He spends NINE years with all this support trying to defeat his 3rd-world, half dead, bombed out NEIGHBOR COUNTRY. Result: utter failure, he could scarcely make headway over the border. AFTER NINE YEARS of fighting. AND YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THIS GUY IS A THREAT TO THE WORLD????
Serious, people think im an anti-american american. But please read your history a little more thouroughly.
PS: a side note to peeps who think he IS dangerous cuz he could launch missiles to other countries in order to start a chainreaction war...
ISRAEL has a foreign policy called the Samson Complex (you know, the strong guy who loses his power and prays to god and gets it back and pulls down a philistine temple killing himself and more philistines than he had ever done in his whole life in one bang) of which they are quite open, even blatant about. Basically, the Samson Complex states that if they dont get their way, and are pressed too hard where they feel their survival is at stake, they WILL toss nuclear weapons into Russia, in order to insure that everybody dies. This is open policy, on similiar terms with MAD (mutually assured destruction) and they have the actual capability. US helped them gain nuclear weapons in late 50's, they developed the necessary rocket power to hit moscow in 60's (and consequently stopped rocket research). So why does the world not take measures to stop these bastards who ARE killing innocent children in their neighbor countries, and who HAVE threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction, and who ARE capable of carrying out this threat? Damn... mebbe im just a fascist anti-american bastard, and i deserve to be raped in one of your prisons for even mentioning the idea that certain things could be WRONG!
Re: danger-saddam
grorrakk wrote:(snip)
Iran had just had a bloody revolution (US supported) in which nearly ALL of its military officers were executed, and the infantry was pretty much decimated.
(snip)
Serious, people think im an anti-american american. But please read your history a little more thouroughly.
Unless I'm very mistaken, the Iranian revolution overthrew the U.S.-supported regime of the Shah. We have to shoulder some of the blame for the revolution because our buddy the Shah was an oppressive autocrat, but we certainly didn't support it. The revolutionaries were so mad at us, in fact, that they took our embassy personnel hostage during the 1980 presidential campaign, effectively knee-capping Jimmy Carter's re-election effort.
You might want to withhold your chidings until you are certain you've got the story straight, too *wink*.
Mp
doh
You are absolutely right...got mad and charged right in there heh. Unfortunately an easy mistake to make when we are so often behind political overthrows.. and once again in this case, on the morally/democratically corrupt side.
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests