O
O'Rothlain
Guest
You probably could, but you'd have your government watching you!
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
You probably could, but you'd have your government watching you!
T
tituslechmakus
Guest
classic french view point eh?
I love how he "doesn't care about their lives" first of all, if it were for oil why are we still paying $2.50-3.10 a gallon? Secondly, thats their job, to protect this country, and let me see here if im not mistaken i believe Bush has the power to send the military into conflict if he sees fit, thats what they get paid for. Third, it wasnt just Bush who sent them over, look at the whole congress, senate, house of representatives.
Classic french viewpoint, with the classic french battle flag White on White.. oh yes i forgot you supply the weapons to saddam, hope the sanction would be lifted so your own oil giants could secure the oil.. so basically our troops are getting fired at by iraqi's who were supplied by your ignorant french selves.. dispicable.
[/b][/quote]
yep classic french point of view ... i don't get your point saying bush could send the military into the conflict ? isn't it wgat has been done 3 years ago ? aren't the 2000 dead american, soldiers ? hum it seems we don't get the same news. or we don't understand it the same way ... did you know that TV news is not the absolute truth and god's expression ?
and you said it wasn't bush who sent them there ... but he controlled EVERYTHING in your country's decisons since yesterday (congress, senate, house of representatives) ... even his closest collaborators are liars (see collin powel's speach at the UN on weapons of mass destruction (probably french missiles btw)) ...
and i'm sorry but when US invaded irak, the first place secured in bagdad, which was i think at that time, more unattackable than any other place in the world, was the irakian ministery of pertroleum !!! hum it seems oil isn't involved in that conflict ...
and french tv is also not the truth but at least i know it ... it sometimes is quite useful to be a never-happy-sucker !!! at least you're less easy to lie to, being never happy and having all the time something to say !!!
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
If I was French, all I'd do is watch the news!
Cheers to Melissa Theuriau!
T
tituslechmakus
Guest
If I was French, all I'd do is watch the news!
Cheers to Melissa Theuriau!
[/b]
understandable !!!
but this is a satelite chanel unfortunatly ... beware mate or i'll tell your wife you're watching french tv !!!
A
An Tarbh
Guest
don't know about al jazeera but the US have no say in what happens to Saddam, they've made that perfectly clear.
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
If I was French, all I'd do is watch the news!
Cheers to Melissa Theuriau!
[/b]
understandable !!!
but this is a satelite chanel unfortunatly ... beware mate or i'll tell your wife you're watching french tv !!!
[/b][/quote]
How much does satelite cost in France? Basic Satelite subscription in the US starts at around $45USD.
D
DC
Guest
classic french view point eh?
I love how he "doesn't care about their lives" first of all, if it were for oil why are we still paying $2.50-3.10 a gallon? Secondly, thats their job, to protect this country, and let me see here if im not mistaken i believe Bush has the power to send the military into conflict if he sees fit, thats what they get paid for. Third, it wasnt just Bush who sent them over, look at the whole congress, senate, house of representatives.
Classic french viewpoint, with the classic french battle flag White on White.. oh yes i forgot you supply the weapons to saddam, hope the sanction would be lifted so your own oil giants could secure the oil.. so basically our troops are getting fired at by iraqi's who were supplied by your ignorant french selves.. dispicable.
[/b][/quote]
yep classic french point of view ... i don't get your point saying bush could send the military into the conflict ? isn't it wgat has been done 3 years ago ? aren't the 2000 dead american, soldiers ? hum it seems we don't get the same news. or we don't understand it the same way ... did you know that TV news is not the absolute truth and god's expression ?
and you said it wasn't bush who sent them there ... but he controlled EVERYTHING in your country's decisons since yesterday (congress, senate, house of representatives) ... even his closest collaborators are liars (see collin powel's speach at the UN on weapons of mass destruction (probably french missiles btw)) ...
and i'm sorry but when US invaded irak, the first place secured in bagdad, which was i think at that time, more unattackable than any other place in the world, was the irakian ministery of pertroleum !!! hum it seems oil isn't involved in that conflict ...
and french tv is also not the truth but at least i know it ... it sometimes is quite useful to be a never-happy-sucker !!! at least you're less easy to lie to, being never happy and having all the time something to say !!!
[/b][/quote]
2000 dead american soldiers GOD DAMN! Sure it is tragic that there are that many dead, but still the democrats here like for our soldiers to get killed so they can sit there and act as if they were right all along. Theres something wrong with the media i.e. left wing newspapers cleveland plain dealer, new york times, etc.. that when a soldier dies thats the first thing they look at, nothing of the good that the allied troops have done in the country and i believe that is just sad. Then you get left wing cooks like Cindy Sheehan who uses her sons death as a tool to try and become a force in democrat america, all i've got to say to her is f*** YOU. Thats why you get idiots like John Kerry defaming the troops the way he did, what a f***ing idiot, stupid worthless no good piece of **** John Kerry. Anyways see bush doesn't "control" the senate, congress, or h.o.r. They are controlled by house leaders, and any major conflict not only had to garner UN attention but it also had to be passed through the votes of the senate, congress, h.o.r. It wasnt as if bush sat there with a button on his desk that reads "deploy all troops." YES keep listening to Jaque Iraq about how Bush Lied Soldiers Died and you'll form a widely accepted opinion of America that the french have.
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
Thank you DC. I don't think anyone gets that, even within the US. It's two continual spin machines that are more interested in capitolizing on the mistakes of the other party than they are fixing anything. This is why we are falling apart both domestically and internationally. John Kerry is a retard...no offense to anyone on this board who is retarded.
T
tituslechmakus
Guest
classic french view point eh?
I love how he "doesn't care about their lives" first of all, if it were for oil why are we still paying $2.50-3.10 a gallon? Secondly, thats their job, to protect this country, and let me see here if im not mistaken i believe Bush has the power to send the military into conflict if he sees fit, thats what they get paid for. Third, it wasnt just Bush who sent them over, look at the whole congress, senate, house of representatives.
Classic french viewpoint, with the classic french battle flag White on White.. oh yes i forgot you supply the weapons to saddam, hope the sanction would be lifted so your own oil giants could secure the oil.. so basically our troops are getting fired at by iraqi's who were supplied by your ignorant french selves.. dispicable.
[/b][/quote]
yep classic french point of view ... i don't get your point saying bush could send the military into the conflict ? isn't it wgat has been done 3 years ago ? aren't the 2000 dead american, soldiers ? hum it seems we don't get the same news. or we don't understand it the same way ... did you know that TV news is not the absolute truth and god's expression ?
and you said it wasn't bush who sent them there ... but he controlled EVERYTHING in your country's decisons since yesterday (congress, senate, house of representatives) ... even his closest collaborators are liars (see collin powel's speach at the UN on weapons of mass destruction (probably french missiles btw)) ...
and i'm sorry but when US invaded irak, the first place secured in bagdad, which was i think at that time, more unattackable than any other place in the world, was the irakian ministery of pertroleum !!! hum it seems oil isn't involved in that conflict ...
and french tv is also not the truth but at least i know it ... it sometimes is quite useful to be a never-happy-sucker !!! at least you're less easy to lie to, being never happy and having all the time something to say !!!
[/b][/quote]
2000 dead american soldiers GOD DAMN! Sure it is tragic that there are that many dead, but still the democrats here like for our soldiers to get killed so they can sit there and act as if they were right all along. Theres something wrong with the media i.e. left wing newspapers cleveland plain dealer, new york times, etc.. that when a soldier dies thats the first thing they look at, nothing of the good that the allied troops have done in the country and i believe that is just sad. Then you get left wing cooks like Cindy Sheehan who uses her sons death as a tool to try and become a force in democrat america, all i've got to say to her is f*** YOU. Thats why you get idiots like John Kerry defaming the troops the way he did, what a f***ing idiot, stupid worthless no good piece of **** John Kerry. Anyways see bush doesn't "control" the senate, congress, or h.o.r. They are controlled by house leaders, and any major conflict not only had to garner UN attention but it also had to be passed through the votes of the senate, congress, h.o.r. It wasnt as if bush sat there with a button on his desk that reads "deploy all troops." YES keep listening to Jaque Iraq about how Bush Lied Soldiers Died and you'll form a widely accepted opinion of America that the french have.
[/b][/quote]
i agree but i said bush was controling everything 'cause the 3 houseleaders were republicans ... its not hard to take decisions if you know that everybody will agree with you !!!
and what did you mean in your last sentence, i didn't get it at all ???
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
I wonder what the No Spin Zone will make of this!
D
DC
Guest
classic french view point eh?
I love how he "doesn't care about their lives" first of all, if it were for oil why are we still paying $2.50-3.10 a gallon? Secondly, thats their job, to protect this country, and let me see here if im not mistaken i believe Bush has the power to send the military into conflict if he sees fit, thats what they get paid for. Third, it wasnt just Bush who sent them over, look at the whole congress, senate, house of representatives.
Classic french viewpoint, with the classic french battle flag White on White.. oh yes i forgot you supply the weapons to saddam, hope the sanction would be lifted so your own oil giants could secure the oil.. so basically our troops are getting fired at by iraqi's who were supplied by your ignorant french selves.. dispicable.
[/b][/quote]
yep classic french point of view ... i don't get your point saying bush could send the military into the conflict ? isn't it wgat has been done 3 years ago ? aren't the 2000 dead american, soldiers ? hum it seems we don't get the same news. or we don't understand it the same way ... did you know that TV news is not the absolute truth and god's expression ?
and you said it wasn't bush who sent them there ... but he controlled EVERYTHING in your country's decisons since yesterday (congress, senate, house of representatives) ... even his closest collaborators are liars (see collin powel's speach at the UN on weapons of mass destruction (probably french missiles btw)) ...
and i'm sorry but when US invaded irak, the first place secured in bagdad, which was i think at that time, more unattackable than any other place in the world, was the irakian ministery of pertroleum !!! hum it seems oil isn't involved in that conflict ...
and french tv is also not the truth but at least i know it ... it sometimes is quite useful to be a never-happy-sucker !!! at least you're less easy to lie to, being never happy and having all the time something to say !!!
[/b][/quote]
2000 dead american soldiers GOD DAMN! Sure it is tragic that there are that many dead, but still the democrats here like for our soldiers to get killed so they can sit there and act as if they were right all along. Theres something wrong with the media i.e. left wing newspapers cleveland plain dealer, new york times, etc.. that when a soldier dies thats the first thing they look at, nothing of the good that the allied troops have done in the country and i believe that is just sad. Then you get left wing cooks like Cindy Sheehan who uses her sons death as a tool to try and become a force in democrat america, all i've got to say to her is f*** YOU. Thats why you get idiots like John Kerry defaming the troops the way he did, what a f***ing idiot, stupid worthless no good piece of **** John Kerry. Anyways see bush doesn't "control" the senate, congress, or h.o.r. They are controlled by house leaders, and any major conflict not only had to garner UN attention but it also had to be passed through the votes of the senate, congress, h.o.r. It wasnt as if bush sat there with a button on his desk that reads "deploy all troops." YES keep listening to Jaque Iraq about how Bush Lied Soldiers Died and you'll form a widely accepted opinion of America that the french edit: and many other europeans have.
[/b][/quote]
i agree but i said bush was controling everything 'cause the 3 houseleaders were republicans ... its not hard to take decisions if you know that everybody will agree with you !!!
and what did you mean in your last sentence, i didn't get it at all ???
[/b][/quote]
Its a little chant the dems have here goin on about how bush lied an soldiers died yadayadayada
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
I just watched Bush inagurate the National Marine Museum...and I believe he was a tad bit misty-eyed by the end of his speach. Ploy, or real? Since when did we have to start guessing whether or not peoples emotions were genuine or staged?!
A
An Tarbh
Guest
classic french view point eh?
I love how he "doesn't care about their lives" first of all, if it were for oil why are we still paying $2.50-3.10 a gallon? Secondly, thats their job, to protect this country, and let me see here if im not mistaken i believe Bush has the power to send the military into conflict if he sees fit, thats what they get paid for. Third, it wasnt just Bush who sent them over, look at the whole congress, senate, house of representatives.
Classic french viewpoint, with the classic french battle flag White on White.. oh yes i forgot you supply the weapons to saddam, hope the sanction would be lifted so your own oil giants could secure the oil.. so basically our troops are getting fired at by iraqi's who were supplied by your ignorant french selves.. dispicable.
[/b][/quote]
yep classic french point of view ... i don't get your point saying bush could send the military into the conflict ? isn't it wgat has been done 3 years ago ? aren't the 2000 dead american, soldiers ? hum it seems we don't get the same news. or we don't understand it the same way ... did you know that TV news is not the absolute truth and god's expression ?
and you said it wasn't bush who sent them there ... but he controlled EVERYTHING in your country's decisons since yesterday (congress, senate, house of representatives) ... even his closest collaborators are liars (see collin powel's speach at the UN on weapons of mass destruction (probably french missiles btw)) ...
and i'm sorry but when US invaded irak, the first place secured in bagdad, which was i think at that time, more unattackable than any other place in the world, was the irakian ministery of pertroleum !!! hum it seems oil isn't involved in that conflict ...
and french tv is also not the truth but at least i know it ... it sometimes is quite useful to be a never-happy-sucker !!! at least you're less easy to lie to, being never happy and having all the time something to say !!!
[/b][/quote]
2000 dead american soldiers GOD DAMN! Sure it is tragic that there are that many dead, but still the democrats here like for our soldiers to get killed so they can sit there and act as if they were right all along. Theres something wrong with the media i.e. left wing newspapers cleveland plain dealer, new york times, etc.. that when a soldier dies thats the first thing they look at, nothing of the good that the allied troops have done in the country and i believe that is just sad. Then you get left wing cooks like Cindy Sheehan who uses her sons death as a tool to try and become a force in democrat america, all i've got to say to her is f*** YOU. Thats why you get idiots like John Kerry defaming the troops the way he did, what a f***ing idiot, stupid worthless no good piece of **** John Kerry. Anyways see bush doesn't "control" the senate, congress, or h.o.r. They are controlled by house leaders, and any major conflict not only had to garner UN attention but it also had to be passed through the votes of the senate, congress, h.o.r. It wasnt as if bush sat there with a button on his desk that reads "deploy all troops." YES keep listening to Jaque Iraq about how Bush Lied Soldiers Died and you'll form a widely accepted opinion of America that the french edit: and many other europeans have.
[/b][/quote]
i agree but i said bush was controling everything 'cause the 3 houseleaders were republicans ... its not hard to take decisions if you know that everybody will agree with you !!!
and what did you mean in your last sentence, i didn't get it at all ???
[/b][/quote]
Its a little chant the dems have here goin on about how bush lied an soldiers died yadayadayada
[/b][/quote]
That is quite tragic. No wonder they took such a beating 2 years back.
S
sanzar
Guest
I believe that would be since politicians first appeared on television... But hey, you never know. Isn't bush one of those crazily fanatical born again types that takes the word of the Bible literally? If that's the case, then it could very well be genuine, because he probably thinks the election has 'damaged Gods work'.
Seriously, no offence to normal Christian people in general, but what is it with the US and fundementalist "I wanna bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who do stem cell research" christians over there? What a bunch of freaks!
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
I believe that would be since politicians first appeared on television... But hey, you never know. Isn't bush one of those crazily fanatical born again types that takes the word of the Bible literally? If that's the case, then it could very well be genuine, because he probably thinks the election has 'damaged Gods work'.
Seriously, no offence to normal Christian people in general, but what is it with the US and fundementalist "I wanna bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who do stem cell research" christians over there? What a bunch of freaks!
[/b][/quote]
I'm going to not take that offensively seeing as I am against abortion and stem cell research and am christian and american...having said that, we do have a problem with fanatical groups. People do take things too far. I always use the argument of christians trying to have pornography (ie playboy, ect...) banned. If they ban a magazine like that, what's to stop them from banning the bible, which is easily as offensive to the gays? I believe in liberty, as long as such liberty does not infringe on human life (which is why I take a stance agains stemcell research and abortion). The Bible preaches peace, and love. It teaches acceptance and redemption. It however does not teach inclusionism, which is where some people get messed up. Bush, I genuinly believe, is trying to do things the "Christian" way. I know a number of people that have been called into the whitehouse for "spiritual" advisement. I believe the right-wing conservative majority have distorted the christian viewpoint and used it to justify their actions...that is sad. It's sad for christianity, and I personally believe in the realness of the diety, so I believe it has to be sad for Him. Christ himself was politically impartial "Give to Caeser what is Caesers." His stance was purely that of justice, not politics. Righting wrongs, helping those in needs, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, looking after widows and orphans. As christians (whether we're american, european, southern hemisphere) we need to be active in these things.
I will now stand down from my soapbox.
S
sanzar
Guest
What about Asian and Arab Christians?
Sorry, couldn't resist with the way you phrased that last bit .
Sorry, couldn't resist with the way you phrased that last bit
.
T
tituslechmakus
Guest
I believe that would be since politicians first appeared on television... But hey, you never know. Isn't bush one of those crazily fanatical born again types that takes the word of the Bible literally? If that's the case, then it could very well be genuine, because he probably thinks the election has 'damaged Gods work'.
Seriously, no offence to normal Christian people in general, but what is it with the US and fundementalist "I wanna bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who do stem cell research" christians over there? What a bunch of freaks!
[/b][/quote]
I'm going to not take that offensively seeing as I am against abortion and stem cell research and am christian and american...having said that, we do have a problem with fanatical groups. People do take things too far. I always use the argument of christians trying to have pornography (ie playboy, ect...) banned. If they ban a magazine like that, what's to stop them from banning the bible, which is easily as offensive to the gays? I believe in liberty, as long as such liberty does not infringe on human life (which is why I take a stance agains stemcell research and abortion). The Bible preaches peace, and love. It teaches acceptance and redemption. It however does not teach inclusionism, which is where some people get messed up. Bush, I genuinly believe, is trying to do things the "Christian" way. I know a number of people that have been called into the whitehouse for "spiritual" advisement. I believe the right-wing conservative majority have distorted the christian viewpoint and used it to justify their actions...that is sad. It's sad for christianity, and I personally believe in the realness of the diety, so I believe it has to be sad for Him. Christ himself was politically impartial "Give to Caeser what is Caesers." His stance was purely that of justice, not politics. Righting wrongs, helping those in needs, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, looking after widows and orphans. As christians (whether we're american, european, southern hemisphere) we need to be active in these things.
I will now stand down from my soapbox.
[/b][/quote]
well as far as i know, the only jesuits and franciscans were on that point of view and the whole christianity were like the contrary (see for example the Cluny abbey), that is massacre and money earning. it seems that our friend bush and his band of chrisitanists (christian ultra radicals) have forgotten the main principles of what they're fighting for !!! btw i think that cell research is not, if i get into your way of thinking, against god's will ... He has put into our hands the tools to do that (intelligence and hands) ... and abortion is more human than what you think ... if you forbid it, then many women will be in the total **** ... having to feed a baby and all what it implies, even if their own situation is very bad -> it'll get worse ... its not a pleasure for those women, i think, to abort ... anyway, its your own opinion ...
O
O'Rothlain
Guest
1. Stem Cell research in and of itself isn't bad. What I don't like is the idea of human cloning, or part harvesting that goes along with it.well as far as i know, the only jesuits and franciscans were on that point of view and the whole christianity were like the contrary (see for example the Cluny abbey), that is massacre and money earning. it seems that our friend bush and his band of chrisitanists (christian ultra radicals) have forgotten the main principles of what they're fighting for !!! btw i think that cell research is not, if i get into your way of thinking, against god's will ... He has put into our hands the tools to do that (intelligence and hands) ... and abortion is more human than what you think ... if you forbid it, then many women will be in the total **** ... having to feed a baby and all what it implies, even if their own situation is very bad -> it'll get worse ... its not a pleasure for those women, i think, to abort ... anyway, its your own opinion ...
[/b]
2. I can't get my head around justifying abortion. There are some consequences in life you have to deal with. Pregnancy, for women, is one of them. When two adults have sex they always risk pregnancy. I don't see how ending one human life to make anothers life easier is justifyable. Seriously. I know that it's tough for single mothers, I know that it's especially tough for rape victims. I am not taking away from those sort of scenarios. Unfortunately the reproductive system reproduces life, in all cases: plants, animals, humans. Once there is an embryo, there is life. Argue with me if you want, but that's factual.
S
sanzar
Guest
1. Stem Cell research in and of itself isn't bad. What I don't like is the idea of human cloning, or part harvesting that goes along with it.<div class='quotemain'>
well as far as i know, the only jesuits and franciscans were on that point of view and the whole christianity were like the contrary (see for example the Cluny abbey), that is massacre and money earning. it seems that our friend bush and his band of chrisitanists (christian ultra radicals) have forgotten the main principles of what they're fighting for !!! btw i think that cell research is not, if i get into your way of thinking, against god's will ... He has put into our hands the tools to do that (intelligence and hands) ... and abortion is more human than what you think ... if you forbid it, then many women will be in the total **** ... having to feed a baby and all what it implies, even if their own situation is very bad -> it'll get worse ... its not a pleasure for those women, i think, to abort ... anyway, its your own opinion ...
[/b]
2. I can't get my head around justifying abortion. There are some consequences in life you have to deal with. Pregnancy, for women, is one of them. When two adults have sex they always risk pregnancy. I don't see how ending one human life to make anothers life easier is justifyable. Seriously. I know that it's tough for single mothers, I know that it's especially tough for rape victims. I am not taking away from those sort of scenarios. Unfortunately the reproductive system reproduces life, in all cases: plants, animals, humans. Once there is an embryo, there is life. Argue with me if you want, but that's factual.
[/b][/quote]
Indeed it is, but then sperm is 'life' as well in reality and every single one could potentially form a human being, yet we don't worry too much about salvaging all of them.
As a species we have very little quarm with ending life in general, but when it comes to stuff like abortion or stem cell research we get all squeemish...
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
Rape victims should not even have their decision questioned if they choose an abortion.
