$3-$4 a Gallon for Premium Gas + 18 mpg Mustang

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by GM Dude, Mar 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Oh i disagree with the statement that he doesn't understand the needs and values of the common working man. I think he is better in this aspect then MOST presidents in the last 40 years.

  2. Then why is there an effort to get rid of overtime. Why is the economy so **** poor and unemployment going through the roof. We have yet to see any real economic stimulation. And healthcare insurance has gone up 38% in 2 years. How is that a better understanding.
  3. I stand by George W Busch. He is doing the right thing by trying to promote peace and civil order in Iraq. Some of you people in here who don't like what he's doing don't get it do you? Freedom does NOT come for free. People, whether they are Americans, British, Spaniards, ect. are getting killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan for Freedom and for peace. And what they are doing is NOT wrong. The left wing liberals who beleive otherwise should go to Iraq and Afghanistan and live there and become part of Al Quaida and the Taliban. Those of you who don't support the President are obviously the ones who want America to be attacked by the terrorist Arab Muslim towel heads. You have no love for America and no understanding that there is a human cost for Freedom. I am sick and tired of people putting down the war effort in Iraq. The ones in here who are doing this have forgotten what happened on September 11th. I didn't forget September 11th, 2001 and I also sure didn't forget what happened a few days ago on March 11th, 2004.

    President George W. Busch is trying to prevent any more terrorist attacks from happening. He is doing a hell of a good job. He has the balls to stand up to the terrorists and to Al Quaida. And the military is backing him up 100% on this. If it wasn't for our military, there would be no freedom in America and in many other foreign countries. America and its allies are trying to make this a better world to live in while the left wing liberals are against it. The people who don't support Busch and the American war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan should all go live in the middle eastern Arab Muslim countries where they can be tortured and have no freedoms. Then they will change their minds quickly.
  4. Ron, first of all, Busch is a beer. Second of all, there is no connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. There is a connection between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 attacks (most of the hijackers were Saudis, for one). Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and is just as bad when it comes to human rights violations as Iraq. But the Bush family loves them Saudis.
  5. Ron there are a few issues you with your assertations there. Saddam had nothing to do with Sept. 11. We did not need to invade Iraq until the job was done in Afghanistan. And just because I don't agree with the timing of Iraq does not mean I want America to be attacked. That kind of assertation is just stupid. Yes there is a cost in human lives for freedom and Democracy. Does that mean we need to throw lives away? You keep bringing up terrorist attacks. Yet none of them have been done on the orders of the Iraqi government. And you could say Bush is actually provoking terrorist attacks now. Since we are now invading a muslim nation.
  6. The country is going down the crap hole.

    svtdriver, you have a HUGE misconception about one thing. The fact that you credit a president to being in charge of all the aspects of the economy is something that the news media has caused by manipulating the truth. Congress has more control over the economy than the president...and congress has little direct control as it is nearly split down the center and is very difficult to pass anything that is too partisan'd. There is no possible way that ANY branch of the government is directly at fault for our economic situation. I'm a republican and i will admit that just about every president in history has done very little to actually directly help the economic cycles to smooth out in a recession phase. The only president i can think of is Ronald Reagan. We know democrat hardcores hate him because he is one from hollywood and not like the rest, two an EXTREMELY popular president (possibly the most popular sense FDR), and lastly because he was actually affective in stimulating the economy into a the largest expansion in history. He i think is the ONLY president ever that can be attributed to a meanful recovery in the economy. President bush has taken steps to help encourage a recovery...he hasn't done anything extreme because he doesn't have the support that reagan did and he is smart not to push his luck too far.

    All this being said Clinton, nor both bush's have directly caused the economy to grow nor have they caused it to plummet as so many people attribute to bush for some wierd reason. I would also like to add the stock market and economic data as well as specific large cap companies were already showing signs of a decent sized recession coming. So if anything your view should say clinton was the direct cause of the recession were dealing with now.

    As for iraq...it should have been done years ago...and its good we have now done what we have. Anyone can come up with plenty of reasonable excuses for avoiding getting involved in Iraq at this time. But its only delaying the inevitable conflict with Saddam Hussein. We no longer have to worry about that. If that doesn't make you sleep better at night i really dont know what will. When a man that is so cruel and hateful that he will kill thousands of his own people to further his grip on their society (not just kill but gas them with chemical weapons) is in custody i think the world of terrorism becomes a considerable amount smaller.

  7. You still don't understand what I am trying to say here. What I am trying to say is that the ones who are behind the terrorist attacks are the Muslims. They are from all over the world from all the different middle eastern countries and from some of the southeastern Asian Muslim countries. These countries are all threats to America. That's what I'm trying to say in here. Any Muslim country where ANY terrorists LIVE or ANY country who supports Al Quaida and/or Osama Bin Ladin is a threat to the United States. PERIOD.

    Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and to the rest of the world because he supported terrorists and terrorism and because he had accessibility to chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction. The rest of the Arab Muslim countries around the world are no different than Iraq and Afghanistan. They are all a threat to America and to the West. All Muslim countries have terrorists. There is no Muslim country which doesn't have any terrorists. That's the point that I am trying to get across in here. I don't see how you think that 9/11 was only linked to Saudi Arabia when in reality many hundreds of thousands of citizens from all the Muslim countries around the world want to committ terrorist acts against America and the West. There is no Muslim country in the world today which doesn't have terrorists in it. They ALL have terrorists and these terrorists are a great threat to America and to the rest of the NON-Muslim world. Period.
  8. Ron there is a diffference between wanting to commit acts of terrorism and actually doing so. You keep refering to 9-11. Yet you don't give credit to the saudi people who not only commited the act. But Osama is saudi and he financed it. That there are other muslims in other countries that may do it in the future is another issue altogether. Are you promoting us invading every country that has muslims? Why not lower our dependance on their oil. And then pull our troops out of the area entirely. Sure Saddam was a problem in the area. I am not saying he didn't need to go. But To say he had chemical weapons to use against us. Has so far been proven untrue. They have searched and found nothing. And we know he used the chemicals on his own people. But in that time no terrorists managed to get thier hands on them. No terrorists managed to get a WMD. These are facts not assumptions.

    As far as Bush is concerned. Who has blown the idea of a balanced budget in favor of tax cuts? Don't get me wrong I'm not a democrat nor a republican. I think the country needs much more radical thinking to get our act straight. And as far as I am concerned none of the politicians seem to have anything going for them.
  9. Ron,
    You seem to be painting with a mighty large brush. While it may be true that the one's that commited the latest batch of terrorism have been muslim. And it may also be true that from our perspective the muslim religion is a hate filled religion. What isn't true is that they are the only hate filled religion. It is also untrue that ONLY muslim nations have terrorists that hate America. You said "Any Muslim country where ANY terrorists LIVE or ANY country who supports Al Quaida and/or Osama Bin Ladin is a threat to the United States." May I ask, why should only Muslim countries that have terrorists be threats? Should we say that All terrorists, and any country that supports them are threats to America?
    In previous posts it has been stated that we should kill all the Arab people because they attacked us. From my perspective, it's a good thing that we didn't take this tactic after Pearl Harbor. True, we did attack back. True, we did glass a couple of cities. We killed many, but we did not kill them all. If we had killed them all we wouldn't be able to have such sport on the freeways against little Honda's. Maybe in 50 years, we will have sport on the roads against electric powered cars from Iraq... Then again, maybe not.
  10. Yeah, if you like the deficit, vote for Bush.

    "On Monday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office published new calculations showing that the budget deficit now stems almost entirely from tax cuts and spending increases rather than from lingering effects of the economic slowdown."


    Meanwhile, Bush won't hold the Saudis accountable, but maybe this guy will have some success with his lawsuit.

    "As a trial lawyer, Motley thinks of terrorism not just as a form of war, but as a business -- a depraved, ruthlessly efficient business, whose financiers must be exposed and held accountable for their role in sowing harm. In the case of Sept. 11, Motley, like many in the American intelligence community, concluded that the 19 hijackers would never have been able to carry out their plans without generous Saudi assistance. Nineteen months ago, he filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in Washington charging that a wide variety of parties from the kingdom sponsored the attacks, either directly or indirectly, by making donations to institutions that they knew fostered terrorism. Among the case's 205 defendants are seven Saudi charities, including the largest in the Muslim world; three Saudi financial institutions, including one that is now state-run; dozens of prominent Saudi individuals; and perhaps most audaciously, several members of the royal family."


    (you'll have to register at the NYTimes site to read both articles)
  11. Please don't go off the subject about what we are talking about in here. I am not talking about any other group of people other than the terrorists who come from any of the Arab Muslim countries in the Muslim world. And I am talking about anyone who is Muslim that may be a terrorist. I am not refferring to anybody else in here. Keep on the subject. I only care about terrorists who are Muslims who come from any of the Muslim countries around the world. These are the ONLY individuals who I am referring to in here. These are the group of people who America is having problems with regarding terrorism. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Quatar, Jordan, UAE, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Morrocco, Chad, Somalia, Lybia, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, parts of Indonesia, Turkey, Georgian Republic, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Kazakistan, Bosnia, Turkmenistan, ect. are good examples of some of the many Muslim countries in the world where terrorists like the ones who committed the September 11th attacks live. These are just some of the countries around the world where there are many terrorist cells plotting to attack the United States and the West. If anyone in here hasn't heard of any of these Muslim countries, I suggest that you buy a map and look them up. They are all Muslim countries. And they are Muslim countries where terrorists live who are plotting to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and the West. As long as there are Muslims in any of these countries making plans to committ terrorism, then these particular countries are a threat to America and to the Non-Muslim world. Period. We either have to deal with all of them and protect ourselves from them or just let them kill more Americans and other westerners. Which choice do you prefer? I prefer to get rid of terrorism rather than see it spread like it has. Sooner or later if there is more Muslims commit terrorism, we will have to go after them and after the countries where these terrorists reside in. We cannot be afraid or sensitive about doing this. We must not tolerate terrorism.
  12. Countries with terrorists are not threats to America. The terrorists in it are the threat. And in all likelyhood there are terrorists in EVERY country. Some of these terrorists come in through Canada. Should we invade them?
  13. Again, you are going off the subject. Stay ONLY with the Muslim countries. These are the countries who are a threat to us and to the rest of the west.

    If there are any Muslims living in any Non-Muslim countries like Canada or the United States or Europe, then we will have to hunt them down try them and punish them accordingly under the common law. But for the most part, let's keep this conversation only about the muslim terrorists who are currently living only in any of the muslim countries around the world. These are the individuals and the countries which I want to keep this debate on. Thanks.
  14. How do you figure I'm off topic. I stayed with the topic of muslim terrorists. Did you not hear about the terrorist (I believe it was Ahmed Rassam) who was caught coming from canada into washington state? Or are you just trying to narrow the topic so far down that someone may say you are correct? Is it next going to be only muslims in muslim countries, against the U.S., between the ages of 15 and 35, with no family?
  15. You are still not sticking with the subject. Read my post above. The post is quite clear.

    Like I said before, if we catch any Muslim terrorists in Canada, the United States or anywhere else around the world where the country that they were captured in is "NOT" a Muslim country, we will have to prosecute them under the common law. If these same types of terrorists are from Muslim countries and are caught in a Muslim country, we have to make that particular Muslim country aware that they have to crack down on their citizens who are Muslim and who are also terrorists. And they have to severly punish these terrorists. If they don't do this, these same Muslim countries will have to pay the same consequences as Iraq and as Afghanistan did. How hard is this to understand? And don't tell me that you are sensitive to this. There is no reason to be sensitive about this issue. It's just another measure to take in order to protect the United States and the West from further Muslim terrorist attacks. Why would you be against this? You are protecting the United States and other people in other Non-Muslim countries by supporting these type of security measures.
  16. Please stay on topic. The topic is muslims in muslim countries, against the US between the ages of 15 and 35, with no family, that pay $3-$4 a gallon for Premium gas.

    Thank you. :flag:
  17. Ron none of your posts have been terribly clear. You advocate nuking them. Now your down to enforcing the law. And making sure other countries work to stop terrorism. What is it that you truly believe. Because on this thread you seem to waffle back and forth like a politician trying to get votes.
  18. I advocate Nuking them "AND" enforcing the law. I am not sensitive about these things like you are. Nuking them is fine with me. And enforcing the law is fine with me too. I don't discriminate on which choice is the best. Either one is fine with me. Or even a combination of both is fine with me too. The sooner we do this, the safer the world will be from Muslim terrorists attacking America, Americans, the West and Westerners all over the world. Period. We must deal with this problem before it's too late. And we must not be sensitive about it.
  19. Ok saying we shouldn't destroy the environment and the oil fields we rely on is being sensitive. Well yeah I suppose in a way it is. I want to see the terrorists stopped. But unlike you I would rather do it without wasting innocent lives. Now mind you I am all for acceptable losses. But I don't see the need for all the problems using that kind of force would bring about. How long do you think we could push around these countries before the legitimate armies and leaders became a serious problem and started allying against us. I think I happen to be more about stopping terrorism than you are. Since you only seem to want to stop muslim terrorists. While I view all forms of terrorism to be wrong and should be stopped. Regardless of religous preference and country of origin.
  20. I would leave that problem to our military strategists. They will be able to handle it.

    And again, we are ONLY talking about the Muslim terrorists in here. I am NOT talking about Non-Muslim terrorists. Just about Muslim terrorists. The Muslim terrorists are the main problem here. Not the Non-Muslim terrorists.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.