Agreed with Lisser. Inu, when you resort to using such petty and untrue stereotypes you immediately lose any ground in your argument. Generalizations will get you nowhere and it only makes you look close-minded.
I, for one, do not appreciate being told that I "f*ck my cousin/brother/father/uncle" simply because I have Southern blood or because I have family who live in the South. How would you feel if someone said something that was blantantly false about you and the people around you?
And since when have you become a gay-activist? I've been here for as long as you have, Inu, and I have not forgotten all of the anti-gay remarks that you have made in the past. But you wanna look all big and act as if you are so up-to-date with the politics of today, so I will let you carry on with your inane rants like the little boy that you are.
Also I don't ever recall Bush telling me when I could get a job or how I should live my life, but hey, you seem to be on the inside of things so you certainly know better than I.
But like Lisser said, you are entitled to your opinion.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Agreed with Lisser. Inu, when you resort to using such petty and untrue stereotypes you immediately lose any ground in your argument. Generalizations will get you nowhere and it only makes you look close-minded.
I, for one, do not appreciate being told that I "f*ck my cousin/brother/father/uncle" simply because I have Southern blood or because I have family who live in the South. How would you feel if someone said something that was blantantly false about you and the people around you?
And since when have you become a gay-activist? I've been here for as long as you have, Inu, and I have not forgotten all of the anti-gay remarks that you have made in the past. But you wanna look all big and act as if you are so up-to-date with the politics of today, so I will let you carry on with your inane rants like the little boy that you are.
Also I don't ever recall Bush telling me when I could get a job or how I should live my life, but hey, you seem to be on the inside of things so you certainly know better than I.
But like Lisser said, you are entitled to your opinion.
I couldn't have said this any better Miss James. Thank you! Two snaps guuuurl!
Dark, I hope you can stop putting your foot in your mouth soon bc I really do believe that you are a smart young man. But I keep seeing you make the same foolish mistakes over and over on this board. Do you want negative attention or just any attention?
Just a suggestion and maybe I shouldn't suggest but I'm going to...don't be a follower of something you don't believe in just bc it is the popular opinion. You'll get any respect you deserve when you can state your opinions in a mature, consistent way. Don't hate President Bush just bc the majority of posters on here might dislike him. Don't assume that all Americans commit incest, or that all Americans are rednecks. I promise you that America is a huge melting pot of all different sorts of people. Many wonderful people, many, for lack of a better word, scum. I think every person on this board can relate that they have their share of law-biding, good citizens along with their own population of scum. There are many posters on this board that are very proud of their leader and some that are very disappointed in them. I don't know any leader in the world's history that was ever liked by 100% of their people. Does anyone else know one? I'd love to hear who it was.
I happen to enjoy living in America bc I do get to experience many different types of cultures and heritages. I take the good with the bad and keep my not so desirable opinions to myself. Well not all the time, but hey I'm trying!!!
;)
Bush should not have visited Germany under those oppressive conditions. Germany should never have considered imposing these outlandish house arrest conditions. The security of one man is not worth disrupting the lives of millions of people. Any goodwill Bush might have developed by his visit is erased by this security fiasco. It would have been better for everyone if Bush had stayed away from Germany, rather than turning Germany into a prison.
Was security as oppresive in France when Bush visited?
Was security as oppresive in France when Bush visited?
double post
i was talking not so long ago to a guy from iraq he and a friend had to leave just b4 the war started due to his life was in big danger most of his family had been tortured and some had disapeard a lot of his friends had been killed, and i asked him what he and his family thought about bush they said" we like him and blair because they got rid of evil saddam and his henchmen soon as they rid the areas where the terrorists are i.e. al-ziqaui* etc iraq will start to rebuild, he said we can say what we like now without being in fear" and thats an iraqi opinion.... p.s all those mass graves full of hundreds of thousands of bodys +children,
Off course, Sadam was a disaster for Iraq and I understand that the people are glad that they've got rid of him. And IF (It's unsure to me, but they say the terrorists will run out of money someday) the terrorism will stop, the people have their right to speak free and Bush has his oil. Everybody happy.
But there are so many countries with evil regimes. Bush wanted to invade Iraq because of the oil, I tell you. The stories about nuclear weapons and Sadams' contacts with Al Qaeda were just excuses. In fact, Al Qaeda was not active in Iraq because they were afraid of Sadam. I think he has to play with open cards, instead of telling lies.
But it's not only the Iraqi war. It's his whole attitude that makes us hate him (and that's make you like him). He's not the king of the world! As Jingles said, let him first solve the problems in his own coutry.
Mike, he was not in France, he was in Brussels, Belgium, which is a secure city anyway (NATO Headquarter)but the security in Germany was demanded by the US side. No other president ever had such requests including Bush senior who was very welcome here. For example, the complete inner city was closed and people were not allowed to open their windows (let alone leave their houses) because Mrs Bush visited the cathedral.
In the end it does not matter whose paranoia was satisfied here. The results have been just awful. People feel nothing but deep contempt for this man (question: why do you think Europe is important for the USA? answer Bush: come to my speech) and some companies want to be refunded for their financial loss. Lufthansa, for example, lost millions through cancelled and delayed flights because the restrictions were harder than they had been told.
In the end it does not matter whose paranoia was satisfied here. The results have been just awful. People feel nothing but deep contempt for this man (question: why do you think Europe is important for the USA? answer Bush: come to my speech) and some companies want to be refunded for their financial loss. Lufthansa, for example, lost millions through cancelled and delayed flights because the restrictions were harder than they had been told.
As Jingles said, let him first solve the problems in his own coutry.
Actually it was Lisser, the one who said that.
Personally I think Bush couldn't even handle solving the problems of a small town with a population under 1,000.
Believe it or not the guy has done more damage to America than to the rest of the world. He ignored memos warning of the 9/11 attacks, he admitted not being too concerned about finding Osama Bin Laden, he sent troops to fight in Iraq unprepared and without armor (forcing families of soldiers to buy the armor for them), he has cut fundings towards education, health, and social programs. When it comes to environmental affairs he's without a doubt the worst president when it comes to those issues, by not willing to sign and be part of the Kyoto protocol to reduce air pollution which was signed by all industrialized nations (except Australia).
And Dark, as Amanda and Lisser mentioned before stereotyped comments are really bad.
Imagine if someone said that all Canadians like Celine Dion.
Imagine if someone said that all Canadians like Celine Dion.
Bush really, really frightens me. I don't trust him at all and I'm really pleased that Helen Clark, our Prime Minister has the balls not to as well.
I'm very pleased that US presidents can only have two terms - only three years to go!
I'm very pleased that US presidents can only have two terms - only three years to go!
And Dark, as Amanda and Lisser mentioned before stereotyped comments are really bad.
Imagine if someone said that all Canadians like Celine Dion.
Good point. I don't like Celine for one.
Sorry if what I said was dumb and not very bright, but I wanted to express my opinions about Bush.
I voted for Bush but I don't have time to list every single reason why and justify it to everyone on here. It really is a personal choice and it really shouldn't matter to anyone else why I voted for him. I voted for him for reasons that benefit me. Would it benefit my neighbor to vote for Bush? Would it benefit someone in Iraq if I voted for Bush? I do not know the answer to that bc I can only say what presidential candidate is the best choice for my personal beliefs. I would never call someone who voted for Kerry any negative names and I hope no one on here would call me any names for voting for Bush. We are free to vote for who we want to and I exercised that right.
I voted for Bush but I don't have time to list every single reason why and justify it to everyone on here. It really is a personal choice and it really shouldn't matter to anyone else why I voted for him. I voted for him for reasons that benefit me. Would it benefit my neighbor to vote for Bush? Would it benefit someone in Iraq if I voted for Bush? I do not know the answer to that bc I can only say what presidential candidate is the best choice for my personal beliefs. I would never call someone who voted for Kerry any negative names and I hope no one on here would call me any names for voting for Bush. We are free to vote for who we want to and I exercised that right.
noooooo no ones gonna call ya names, i would of voted for bush!! :)
"Good point. I don't like Celine for one.
Sorry if what I said was dumb and not very bright, but I wanted to express my opinions about Bush."
- Sorry, but Dark being accused of being a fan of Celine Dion is slightly different from being told you commit incest. How about this one: Dark, you're a pig. You're a pig because you're a man and don't you know all men are pigs?
(This is not my philosophy - truth be told, I'd say there are both men and women who are complete pigs. This is an extreme case in which you are simply lumped into a bunch and it is completely unfair.)
Next time you want to voice your opinions about Bush, Dark, you may want to do it in a way in which you actually voice your opinions on Bush and not just throw around false insults about other people in the process.
*Steps off soapbox* :p
Sorry if what I said was dumb and not very bright, but I wanted to express my opinions about Bush."
- Sorry, but Dark being accused of being a fan of Celine Dion is slightly different from being told you commit incest. How about this one: Dark, you're a pig. You're a pig because you're a man and don't you know all men are pigs?
(This is not my philosophy - truth be told, I'd say there are both men and women who are complete pigs. This is an extreme case in which you are simply lumped into a bunch and it is completely unfair.)
Next time you want to voice your opinions about Bush, Dark, you may want to do it in a way in which you actually voice your opinions on Bush and not just throw around false insults about other people in the process.
*Steps off soapbox* :p
DepartmentThe Prime MinisterTranscript
22 October 2003
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW: ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON SECURITY MEASURES FOR U.S & CHINESE PRESIDENTIAL VISITS
QUESTION:
Mr Ruddock, could you please outline for us the security measures that are taking place for the visit of President Bush?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL PHILIP RUDDOCK:
Well I mean, obviously I can't outline all of the security measures. It would be quite inappropriate for me to do so. Security measures need to be put in place to ensure the safety not only of those who are visiting us but also to secure the safety and protection of the Australian community.
But where there are resources that need to be deployed, we've made announcements particularly in relation to the arrangements for the FA-18 Hornets that will be used to escort the President's flight safely to Canberra and will also provide overflight arrangements here in Canberra. These were the sort of arrangements that were put in place when we had the Heads of Government meeting in Queensland a little while ago and are seen in certain circumstances to be an appropriate and prudent response.
We've also outlined that certain military assets have been deployed, not necessarily to be used, but to be available. The arrangements for security are in the hands of civilian authorities. The local police have the primary role in relation to these matters. But the various Commonwealth agencies have been closely involved in the discussions we've shared with others who are interested in the appropriateness of the arrangements, the way in which we've tasked our resources and they are satisfied with those matters.
We know of no particular threat but prudence demands that you take all reasonable measures that you can to minimise the possibility of any particular risk that may be unknown to you.
QUESTION:
Obviously...
QUESTION:
Is this the biggest security operation ever mounted in Australia for a visiting dignitary?
PHILIP RUDDOCK:
Well look, I think these things are incremental over a period of time. You enhance your capacities and you refine them. You deal with issues in a different way. I don't think it's always possible to compare one gathering, one visit with another. You respond to the issues as they arise with professional advice.
We have very professional organisations who have over time developed a great deal of experience but we've worked with organisations that we collaborate with internationally.
And we will take every step that we reasonably can to protect not only our international visitors but to protect the Australian community.
QUESTION:
Obviously a lot of instructional direction has come from American authorities to Australian authorities. Do you think Australia or Australian authorities have learnt a lot from this?
PHILIP RUDDOCK:
I don't necessarily like the word instruction. We don't operate under instruction, we liaise. We talk through issues, and there are matters about which we've had a view as to how they should be addressed and others need to be accepting of that. And equally, we don't claim to have all of the expertise that can't be improved by liaison and listening to others. It's a collaborative exercise and I think it needs to be seen in that context.
QUESTION:
The rules of engagement for the Hornet, I gather, allow them to shoot down any intruding aircraft. That indeed is the situation, is it?
PHILIP RUDDOCK:
Well let me just put it this way. When you deploy assets of that sort, there have to be rules of engagement approved by the Minister for Defence. I don't wish to go into the nature of those rules of engagement but the extent to which, if there was a hostile act intended to Canberra from the air, you would want your forces to have rules of engagement that would permit them to deal with it.
And all I would say is that the rules of engagement are approved by the Minister for Defence
22 October 2003
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW: ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON SECURITY MEASURES FOR U.S & CHINESE PRESIDENTIAL VISITS
QUESTION:
Mr Ruddock, could you please outline for us the security measures that are taking place for the visit of President Bush?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL PHILIP RUDDOCK:
Well I mean, obviously I can't outline all of the security measures. It would be quite inappropriate for me to do so. Security measures need to be put in place to ensure the safety not only of those who are visiting us but also to secure the safety and protection of the Australian community.
But where there are resources that need to be deployed, we've made announcements particularly in relation to the arrangements for the FA-18 Hornets that will be used to escort the President's flight safely to Canberra and will also provide overflight arrangements here in Canberra. These were the sort of arrangements that were put in place when we had the Heads of Government meeting in Queensland a little while ago and are seen in certain circumstances to be an appropriate and prudent response.
We've also outlined that certain military assets have been deployed, not necessarily to be used, but to be available. The arrangements for security are in the hands of civilian authorities. The local police have the primary role in relation to these matters. But the various Commonwealth agencies have been closely involved in the discussions we've shared with others who are interested in the appropriateness of the arrangements, the way in which we've tasked our resources and they are satisfied with those matters.
We know of no particular threat but prudence demands that you take all reasonable measures that you can to minimise the possibility of any particular risk that may be unknown to you.
QUESTION:
Obviously...
QUESTION:
Is this the biggest security operation ever mounted in Australia for a visiting dignitary?
PHILIP RUDDOCK:
Well look, I think these things are incremental over a period of time. You enhance your capacities and you refine them. You deal with issues in a different way. I don't think it's always possible to compare one gathering, one visit with another. You respond to the issues as they arise with professional advice.
We have very professional organisations who have over time developed a great deal of experience but we've worked with organisations that we collaborate with internationally.
And we will take every step that we reasonably can to protect not only our international visitors but to protect the Australian community.
QUESTION:
Obviously a lot of instructional direction has come from American authorities to Australian authorities. Do you think Australia or Australian authorities have learnt a lot from this?
PHILIP RUDDOCK:
I don't necessarily like the word instruction. We don't operate under instruction, we liaise. We talk through issues, and there are matters about which we've had a view as to how they should be addressed and others need to be accepting of that. And equally, we don't claim to have all of the expertise that can't be improved by liaison and listening to others. It's a collaborative exercise and I think it needs to be seen in that context.
QUESTION:
The rules of engagement for the Hornet, I gather, allow them to shoot down any intruding aircraft. That indeed is the situation, is it?
PHILIP RUDDOCK:
Well let me just put it this way. When you deploy assets of that sort, there have to be rules of engagement approved by the Minister for Defence. I don't wish to go into the nature of those rules of engagement but the extent to which, if there was a hostile act intended to Canberra from the air, you would want your forces to have rules of engagement that would permit them to deal with it.
And all I would say is that the rules of engagement are approved by the Minister for Defence
another take--this one from the world socialist web site----
United States President George W Bush’s fleeting visit to Australia this week took place behind unprecedented levels of security. Thousands of armed police, soldiers and US security personnel practically “locked down” the capital city to ensure that ordinary people would not get near enough to Bush to voice any opposition to his administration’s criminal war on Iraq.
During his 21-hour visit, as part of a whistle-stop tour of Asia, Bush spoke only to dignitaries, parliamentarians, a handful of vetted guests and military personnel. Even the Australian media—not known for challenging the Bush administration’s war crimes—was barred from speaking to the president, a privilege accorded only to selected White House journalists.
While the official purpose of his trip was to “thank the Australian people” for the Howard government’s participation in the Iraq war, Bush avoided visiting any major cities, confining his stopover to Canberra, Australia’s isolated rural capital.
The visit began with a moment that was truly surreal. After his plane touched down at Fairbairn air base, Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, together with their wives, posed at the top of the plane’s steps waving as if to a large crowd of well-wishers. A photograph of the scene appeared on newspaper front pages around the country. The tarmac, however, was empty except for US diplomatic personnel, contingents of security agents and White House journalists.
United States President George W Bush’s fleeting visit to Australia this week took place behind unprecedented levels of security. Thousands of armed police, soldiers and US security personnel practically “locked down” the capital city to ensure that ordinary people would not get near enough to Bush to voice any opposition to his administration’s criminal war on Iraq.
During his 21-hour visit, as part of a whistle-stop tour of Asia, Bush spoke only to dignitaries, parliamentarians, a handful of vetted guests and military personnel. Even the Australian media—not known for challenging the Bush administration’s war crimes—was barred from speaking to the president, a privilege accorded only to selected White House journalists.
While the official purpose of his trip was to “thank the Australian people” for the Howard government’s participation in the Iraq war, Bush avoided visiting any major cities, confining his stopover to Canberra, Australia’s isolated rural capital.
The visit began with a moment that was truly surreal. After his plane touched down at Fairbairn air base, Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, together with their wives, posed at the top of the plane’s steps waving as if to a large crowd of well-wishers. A photograph of the scene appeared on newspaper front pages around the country. The tarmac, however, was empty except for US diplomatic personnel, contingents of security agents and White House journalists.