Bush junior 2nd Term!

Bodhi · Nov 4, 2004

Turamber said:
Don't worry about it. McBodhi just likes to make outrageous statements, he doesn't have much clue about anything ... just that he wants to be different and "outrageous".

Just notiiced this comment.

Apparently being different and outrageous = falling in with popular opinion.

Never been so happy to be different and outrageous in my life.

Get off my case Turamber you sad brummy. It isn't my fault your footy team sucks ass.

Driwen · Nov 4, 2004

Bodhi said:
Yes, but his country voted him in again. So stop whining eh?

I didnt whine, I just pointed out that dysfunction wasnt right about how half the world is happy to see Bush re-elected or atleast the source in his post didnt prove that.

nath · Nov 4, 2004

Bodhi said:
Apparently being different and outrageous = falling in with popular opinion.

Popular American opinion yeah. And to be honest, Americans who voted Bush are either insane, retarded or both.

Still happy to be in with that popular opinion?

Yeah, thought you might be

edit: Oh yeah, given your clear hatred of liberal lefties - shouldn't you despise Bill Hicks - I'm fairly sure I remember you thinking he was great...

Tom · Nov 4, 2004

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

~Yuckfou~ · Nov 4, 2004

This may have been posted already, I really cba to read 9 pages, click.

Tom · Nov 4, 2004

Open the pod bay doors HAL.

old.user4556 · Nov 4, 2004

I saw your lips move.

maxi · Nov 4, 2004

Paradroid · Nov 4, 2004

Tinky said:
err, nope. Pretty much wrong there. There are certainly US and other nations submarines and surface vessels who visit there, but US facility ? Nope. Strategic class weapons aren't found outside the Continental US and nearby oceans. Faslane is UK. If you want to find out more read up on why the UK requires the ability for independant use of nuclear weapons rather than any dual key system. The UK would be an "instant" target in your scenario anyway, treaties and agreements kick in straight away - they have to it's the only way the prisoner dilemma works out with a decent score.

I meant that the US wouldn't launch a first-strike using their airbases in the UK (like they did on Gadaffi), and I was pointing out the UK has Faslane (a major target).

I remember years ago (mid-late eighties) a retired senior British Military dude exposed the British nuclear capability as a trumped-up charade. He unequivocally stated that the UK only had a handful of warheads and that everything else we heard to the contrary was just propaganda (helping to feed the cold war hysteria and anti-soviet sentiment).

Sounded perfectly reasonable to me, convince a potential enemy you've got stockpiles of these things - whereas, in reality, you can just spend the money elsewhere. Who the hell's going to use them anyway (apart from the US - they've done it before, they could do it again), and, if everyone did use them in a WWIII apocalypse scenario, who'd notice if we didn't fire any (and who'd be left alive to care?)...

Tinky · Nov 4, 2004

Paradroid said:
I meant that the US wouldn't launch a first-strike using their airbases in the UK (like they did on Gadaffi), and I was pointing out the UK has Faslane (a major target).

I remember years ago (mid-late eighties) a retired senior British Military dude exposed the British nuclear capability as a trumped-up charade. He unequivocally stated that the UK only had a handful of warheads and that everything else we heard to the contrary was just propaganda (helping to feed the cold war hysteria and anti-soviet sentiment).

Sounded perfectly reasonable to me, convince a potential enemy you've got stockpiles of these things - whereas, in reality, you can just spend the money elsewhere. Who the hell's going to use them anyway (apart from the US - they've done it before, they could do it again), and, if everyone did use them in a WWIII apocalypse scenario, who'd notice if we didn't fire any (and who'd be left alive to care?)...

"they've done it before, they could do it again" .. this is a common misconception, it was effectively the allies that dropped the bombs on Japan. The UK was fully involved in the project from it's conception and there were UK aircrew on the mission.

As to believing what one retired dude said, the UK has more than a few, certainly not as many as the US/Russia/Ukraine/China but certainly enough to invoke the assured destruction paradigm. I think you miss the point of the UK having them.

Faslane isn't as big a target as you think. The nukes don't live at Faslane.

Mellow · Nov 4, 2004

The good thing about Bush winning is that now that bird is able to run for president in 4 years. A female president would be rather better I think.

Damini · Nov 4, 2004

A pig tied to a stick, with it's mouth coated with peanut butter to give the impression that it's lips are moving, with a choir of braying donkeys providing the voice, would be better. Just, obviously, imo.

Mofo8 · Nov 4, 2004

Tinky said:
Faslane isn't as big a target as you think. The nukes don't live at Faslane.

No, they don't....they live at RNAD Coulport which is a whopping great eight miles from the sub base at Faslane, and indeed, both are considered part of HM Naval Base Clyde.

Furr · Nov 4, 2004

You think america will vote for a female president? americans are hard pressed to let in a president if he hasnt got a side parting yet alone a woman. One day a white middle aged male wont be elected , but dont expect to see it for a while.

Bodhi · Nov 4, 2004

Christ almighty, you're worried about Bush being in charge of all those nukes? I'm pretty sure that if a woman was in charge, there would be a period of time for about 5 days every month when no country would be safe.

old.user4556 · Nov 4, 2004

So true.

Bullitt · Nov 5, 2004

~Yuckfou~ · Nov 5, 2004

Bullitt you fell into my dastardly trap.

/edit, no apparently I did. 'kin hotlinking blockers :/
I'll get my coat.

~Yuckfou~ said:
This may have been posted already, I really cba to read 9 pages, click.

TheJkWhoSaysNi · Nov 5, 2004

Bullitt said:

This one is even better

~Yuckfou~ · Nov 5, 2004

Hope this biatchnitz works :/

Jonaldo · Nov 6, 2004

Can only hope George Bush has to drive past a grassy knoll some time in the near future.

maxi · Nov 8, 2004

Eh. If that were to happen, it'd only give the next Neo-Con Croney(DICK CHENEY, perhaps. A fate worse than Bush.) more power to reduce civil liberties within the US, and lets be honest it's bad(and getting worse) enough under Bush as it is. if Patriot Act I was scary, then the reforms after Bushs demise would be...too frightening to think about. 'it's not a viable solution'

maxi · Nov 8, 2004

Bodhi said:
Especially considering this is one of things they hate Bush for. It's so so tragic.

can you tell me of some issues on which we have been scaremongered?

the 'no more elections' from me was more flippancy more than real belief. But various thing he has done do not need sexing up, the facts are scary themelves.

Bodhi · Nov 8, 2004

maxi said:
yo, new president will elect the new Supreme Court Justices, which may amount to bans on abortion, gay marriage and a complete loss of civil liberties if Bush gets a second term. The only thing that's stopped him the first time round ws the SCJs. If he picks his own...

which is one of the many things...

more war
more debt
no more elections?

and stem cell research?

Pure scaremongering thx.

maxi · Nov 8, 2004

Bodhi said:
Pure scaremongering thx.

It's not unfounded though is it? and There is no doub it my mind that the US economy WILL suffer because of the re-election of Bush. It's pretty clear that it will. As for more War, looking at the facts: Afghanistan and Iraq in 4 years, it's pretty reasonable to believe theres a chance he'll attack more countries in the 4 years he has left.

I said the last comment about no more elections was flippant, again not entirely unfounded when you consider Bushs movement towards something that bears similarities to a fascist dictatorship (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm)

Jonny_Darko · Nov 8, 2004

Sir Frizz said:
To elaborate; why do we care who wins? I know i don't. And i'm pretty sure that whoever wins, will have only the smallest of significance on my life, being a Brit an' all.

Yeah, we're quite safe. We're the mouthy little kid in the playground who sucks up to the bastard bully and becomes his friend in exchange for protection.

American policy has and could effect our lives in many ways. Of course it matters. I don't care who won since I consider neither candidate suitable for such a position, and both capable of ruining the lives of people from all corners of the world, but then it's not up to me is it.

Tom · Nov 9, 2004

Always makes me laugh to see so many people declaring the reelection of Bush as the end of the world. Don't you guys remember what the cold war was like? I do.

maxi · Nov 9, 2004

I was thinking that last night, every generation must go a similar thing and It's probably not going to be as devestating as some people are suggesting, but saying that If people weren't worried and didn't voice their concerns then we'd be REALLY fucked, because there'd be no recovery...noone would care.

maxi · Nov 10, 2004

This is frightening though:

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W.
David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. This committee has not met
for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven
positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional
approval. The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee
makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drug used in the
practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties,
including hormone therapy, contraception,treatment for infertility, and
medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization
and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of
Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's practice. His
views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who
describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. In the book Dr. Hager wrote with
his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women
who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading
the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The
Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

Driwen · Nov 10, 2004

so that would mean that the FDA might claim that using the pill is similar to abortion so illegal?

Bush junior 2nd Term!

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

I am a FH squatter

Lovely person

I am a FH squatter

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Loyal Freddie

Part of the furniture

Fledgling Freddie

Can't get enough of FH

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.

One of Freddy's beloved

Lovely person

One of Freddy's beloved

Lovely person

Can't get enough of FH

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

I am a FH squatter

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Users who are viewing this thread