Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

The 50 Most Loathsome People in America
addi Posted: Tue Jan 24 08:20:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Satirical(and disturbing)look into 50 headline making boobheads in 2005. This is one list you do not want to be included in...and unfortunately the average joe american citizen makes the #4 spot. Ouch! At least we're in good company with God taking the #13 spot.

*yeah, hif, a few democrats take it in the shorts here...and probably deserve it. But, fear not, White House officials and conservatives far outnumber all others...and they DO deserve it.
: )

http://buffalobeast.com/91/50.htm


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 08:30:29 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Without Ted Kennedy on that list, it has no merit.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 08:32:37 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Without Ted Kennedy on that list, it has no merit.
>
It's an unoriginal rip-off of Bernard Goldberg.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jan 24 08:35:22 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Rita Cosby

Anne Coulter






Good list. EXCEPT LARRY THE CABLE GUY. Get him off that list pronto, and replace him with Kevin Federline, because I mean come on, what a douchebag.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jan 24 08:41:28 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And I'd just like to say, seeing Hilary Clinton on there makes me very happy. Prince Harry should be on there as well, though. He's such a little cheesedick.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jan 24 08:50:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>He's such a little cheesedick.

I believe cheesedick is a popular breakfast item in Germany, is it not?

"Passieren Sie bitte den cheesedick, Wolf....bitte."


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jan 24 09:12:47 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Ever tried Spotted Dick? Good stuff.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jan 24 09:16:17 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>
> Kevin Federline, because I mean come on, what a douchebag.



http://www.youtube.com/w/Kevin-Federline-jamming-to-PopoZao?v=Q7Ys46KA4xw


Points: +1--->me. I don't know why he doesn't just come right out and announce he wants someone to end his life.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Jan 24 10:34:02 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I say hif should go read entry 4.
oooh! Burn!

This is a great list. Seriously, wtf is Tom Cruise's problem? If you are a human being, people will both like and dislike you. Don't be a douche, douche. He's even trying to ban one of the funniest South Park's because they spend half the episode saying he is "in the closet" (he was in the closet, with Travolta and R Kelly) and the other shalf showing how stupid Scientology is.

Being from NY, I can easily say I hate Hilary. She's a politician for power's sake and hasn't done anything to make her unique or helpful. I like Schumer because he has the gall to take on the big causes. And he comes to as many community events as he can. He's an awesome public speaker, even for the little things like the annual interfaith service.

Rita Cosby, Sentence: Kicked in the nuts.
ha!


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 13:10:51 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>*yeah, hif, a few democrats take it in the shorts here...and probably deserve it. But, fear not, White House officials and conservatives far outnumber all others...>: )
>
Of course they outnumber the liberals, that's because the conservatives are the ones in power now, not that the guy that made the list would be biased or anything.

I question the absence of Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Barbra Streisand, Al Sharpton, the New York Times. . .



 
FN Posted: Tue Jan 24 13:21:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Question though hif, is there anything on there that isn't true? (no sarcasm here as I don't know most of the people mentioned)


 
FN Posted: Tue Jan 24 13:23:34 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Also, if you want to see the southpark episode, you can see it here:



http://zattevrienden.be/node/29270


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 13:31:30 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Question though hif, is there anything on there that isn't true? (no sarcasm here as I don't know most of the people mentioned)
>
That depends on one's definition of the truth. There are no hard facts there, just generalities and opinions.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jan 24 13:46:20 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>That depends on one's definition of the truth.

The mantra for this administration. It's like silly putty to them..it can so easily be stretched and twisted and shaped into whatever they want it to be.

For example, Bush has been wiretapping americans now for years without using the legal route to do so. In April of 2004 (while this practice was already going on) he stated that he would never do such a thing...that it was illegal to do so without the proper court authority.
You see! The truth can be whatever the hell you want it to be! And most Americans are either too gullible, dumb or apathetic to give a flying fuck. Isn't that cool!
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 13:59:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>
>>That depends on one's definition of the truth.
>
>The mantra for this administration. It's like silly putty to them..it can so easily be stretched and twisted and shaped into whatever they want it to be.
>
>For example, Bush has been wiretapping americans now for years without using the legal route to do so. In April of 2004 (while this practice was already going on) he stated that he would never do such a thing...that it was illegal to do so without the proper court authority.
>You see! The truth can be whatever the hell you want it to be! And most Americans are either too gullible, dumb or apathetic to give a flying fuck. Isn't that cool!
>: )
>
Addi is absolutely correct and told a glaring lie to make his point.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jan 24 14:05:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You know she's already smoking again?!?!?! Man, she just got those lips, too......


 
addi Posted: Tue Jan 24 14:14:32 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Buffalo Speech
April 20th, 2004

"...Now, by the way, any
time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the
way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
getting a court order before we do so."


Don't make it so easy for me, hif
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 14:42:16 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Buffalo Speech
>April 20th, 2004
>
>"...Now, by the way, any
>time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
>requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the
>way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
>getting a court order before we do so."
>
>
>Don't make it so easy for me, hif
>: )
>
Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrantless wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be. The fact that there has been no declaration of war is a distinction without a difference. Congress has approved military action and within that approval lies an implicit assumption that the president will use our intelligence services to prevail militarily, on the home front as surely as he does in Iraq and Afghanistan.



 
addi Posted: Tue Jan 24 15:19:38 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>addi said:
>>Buffalo Speech
>>April 20th, 2004
>>
>>"...Now, by the way, any
>>time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
>>requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the
>>way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
>>getting a court order before we do so."
>>
>>
>>Don't make it so easy for me, hif
>>: )
>>
>Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrantless wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be. The fact that there has been no declaration of war is a distinction without a difference. Congress has approved military action and within that approval lies an implicit assumption that the president will use our intelligence services to prevail militarily, on the home front as surely as he does in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spoken as if straight from the mouth of Rush himself. : )

In summary then:
It's wartime (no matter that it's not a conventional war, and there's no forseeible end to this war on terror), so the pres can do whatever he damn well feels like, whenever he damn well feels like it.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 15:27:13 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>addi said:
>>>Buffalo Speech
>>>April 20th, 2004
>>>
>>>"...Now, by the way, any
>>>time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
>>>requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the
>>>way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about
>>>getting a court order before we do so."
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't make it so easy for me, hif
>>>: )
>>>
>>Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrantless wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be. The fact that there has been no declaration of war is a distinction without a difference. Congress has approved military action and within that approval lies an implicit assumption that the president will use our intelligence services to prevail militarily, on the home front as surely as he does in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
>Spoken as if straight from the mouth of Rush himself. : )
>
>In summary then:
>It's wartime (no matter that it's not a conventional war, and there's no forseeible end to this war on terror), so the pres can do whatever he damn well feels like, whenever he damn well feels like it.
>
Is that what you think it says ?

No matter, the NSA intercepts, if they occurred as he said they did, were legal, period.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 15:52:56 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Excerpted from Ben Johnson's Jan 17 article on Front Page Magazine:

Most legal scholars believe the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps to collect foreign intelligence, and no statute – including FISA – can reverse that. Citing a 22-year-old precedent, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled in 2002 that “the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information...We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president’s constitutional power.” John Schmidt, President Clinton’s associate attorney general from 1994-7, wrote that NSA surveillance against al-Qaeda “is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents”; FISA “did not alter the constitutional situation.” He quoted Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s 1994 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee: “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” This led the way for President Bill Clinton’s Echelon program, which unleashed a far greater “invasion of privacy” during peacetime by intercepting millions of communications, often between American citizens – including Senator Strom Thurmond.




 
addi Posted: Tue Jan 24 15:56:09 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you're just so stubburn sometimes
: )

Clinton getting a bj from Monica was having sexual relations. I don't care what kind of spin the white house put out.

Bush secretly tapping phones without going through the legal approval process is illegal. I don't care what kind of spin the white house puts out.

end of story


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jan 24 16:14:11 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>you're just so stubburn sometimes
>: )
>
>Clinton getting a bj from Monica was having sexual relations. I don't care what kind of spin the white house put out.
>
>Bush secretly tapping phones without going through the legal approval process is illegal. I don't care what kind of spin the white house puts out.
>
>end of story
>
Talk about stubborn, I put the facts in front of you and you still say the emperor has new clothes.
Just because you want it be so, doesn't mean it's illegal.
And if you don't want our guys intercepting the overseas calls of known Al-Quaeda associates, then I have to question your smarts.
That's not spin, it's legal precedent.
Now it's "end of story"


 
addi Posted: Tue Jan 24 18:09:26 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  with all due respect hif I feel like i'm having a debate with a 6 year old sometimes when it comes to political thread discussions with you. At some point in the thread logic and any degree of objectivity goes out the window with you.
You didn't "prove" jack shit in any of your posts, except that you can't see past your nose when it comes to any Bush policy. It's so very easy for me to copy and paste several articles disputing every one of the "factual" statements Ben Johnson made. Pardon the arrogant sound of this, but you're not arguing with a middle school teen here.
And then I get the classic neo-conservative response that I'm al-queda soft by objecting to the wiretaps. Really childish.
I feel kinda stupid even having to type this out, but since you don't seem to grasp the issue I guess I must.

Of course I want any and every Al-Queda agent caught. It really offends me that you would insinuate that. If they need to tap into the phone lines of suspected terrorists, and they have good reason to suspect that person, then by all means do it. However...do it legally. Seek the proper permission either before or within 3 days after the deed and obey the law. Out of the thousands of requests for wiretaps before Bush came along I read only 4 times had permission been denied. So go after them, but do it within the laws we've set up for a purpose. Don't go cowboy on us and send a message to the country that you're above the law (I know..I know..you've "proven" that he didn't break the law). The FBI has admitted that they were so overwhelmed with trying to process all the information coming in from this that they couldn't handle it with exsisting personel. Which makes it clear that it wasn't just a handfull of Al-queda suspects being tapped...it was a lot more american citizens, maybe more than we'll know for a long time because of the paranoid secrecy of this administration.
If you fail to see the danger in overstepping his legal executive priviledges then you fail to see the big picture of his actions.

.. and I know I'm just talking into the wind with this post. You'll come back with some brilliant post from Ann Coulter or the likes..with proof that all liberals are Al-Queda lovers and America haters.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 08:03:38 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Let me get this straight now, are you actually saying that the president does not have the authority to conduct warrantless searches for the purposes of foreign intelligence gathering ?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 08:36:55 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>with all due respect hif I feel like i'm having a debate with a 6 year old sometimes when it comes to political thread discussions with you. At some point in the thread logic and any degree of objectivity goes out the window with you.
>You didn't "prove" jack shit in any of your posts, except that you can't see past your nose when it comes to any Bush policy. It's so very easy for me to copy and paste several articles disputing every one of the "factual" statements Ben Johnson made. Pardon the arrogant sound of this, but you're not arguing with a middle school teen here.
>And then I get the classic neo-conservative response that I'm al-queda soft by objecting to the wiretaps. Really childish.
>I feel kinda stupid even having to type this out, but since you don't seem to grasp the issue I guess I must.
>
>Of course I want any and every Al-Queda agent caught. It really offends me that you would insinuate that.
>
Now there you go again, not being objective and putting words in my mouth.
Nowhere did I infer that you soft on Al-Quaeda, If you read it again, I said "I question your smarts".
Please don't put words in my mouth.
You should "feel kinda stupid" for that.
As for being objective, where is your objectivity ?
If legal precedent doesn't sway you and you still say they were illegal, then you cannot possibly say you're being objective.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jan 25 09:22:54 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  FISA was created in the 70's because of executive abuse of wiretaps.
This administration is attempting to undo legislation that was born out of years of abuses of civil liberties.

I hear Bush giving his usual "trust me on this one" routine.
His track record demonstrates however that he can't be trusted. I happen to feel it's very important to have the checks and balances of our democratic system fully operational. So I ask myself, why do I have to rely on trusting you when laws already exist to ensure that you are being trustworthy? Also why does the Bush administration even feel the necessity to go around the established FISA laws? It just doesn't add up to me.


>You should "feel kinda stupid" for that.

: (
you really are a tool sometimes, hif

I'm off to bury a close 19 year old friend of mine and my son today. He was a good kid that made a very stupid choice, and paid the ultimate price for it.
I have zero patience or stomach for stupidity today.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 09:58:40 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>FISA was created in the 70's because of executive abuse of wiretaps.
>This administration is attempting to undo legislation that was born out of years of abuses of civil liberties.
>
>I hear Bush giving his usual "trust me on this one" routine.
>His track record demonstrates however that he can't be trusted. I happen to feel it's very important to have the checks and balances of our democratic system fully operational. So I ask myself, why do I have to rely on trusting you when laws already exist to ensure that you are being trustworthy? Also why does the Bush administration even feel the necessity to go around the established FISA laws? It just doesn't add up to me.
>
>
>>You should "feel kinda stupid" for that.
>
>: (
>you really are a tool sometimes, hif
>
>I'm off to bury a close 19 year old friend of mine and my son today. He was a good kid that made a very stupid choice, and paid the ultimate price for it.
>I have zero patience or stomach for stupidity today.
>
I respect your grief, but not your use of it to infer stupidity on my part.


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Jan 25 09:59:46 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>I'm off to bury a close 19 year old friend of mine and my son today. He was a good kid that made a very stupid choice, and paid the ultimate price for it.
>


Sorry to hear that Ol' Chap. :(


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jan 25 10:15:12 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I am truly sorry for your loss Addie, it is always especially tragic when a young person is lost because of an unfortunate decision on his/her part.
I personally consider myself to be lucky to be alive when I consider the preponderance of stupid things I did in my youth.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jan 25 11:09:36 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  sorry friends and hif. I'm having a hard time even getting my tie on right now. Bit of an emotional wreck at the moment. Perhaps explains, but doesn't excuse, my short temper these past few days.

To all of my young good friends here: Please use your head when it comes to mixing hard alcohol and drugs. One slip up...one night of not using your common sense...and tragic things can happen.

I know you don't need a lecture. It's the parent in me coming out.


 
Mesh Posted: Wed Jan 25 11:38:19 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>To all of my young good friends here: Please use your head when it comes to mixing hard alcohol and drugs. One slip up...one night of not using your common sense...and tragic things can happen.
>
>

Sound advice which unfortunately goes unheeded all too often. The "it happens to other people, not me" thing creeps in and you think you can get through it alright. :(


 
addi Posted: Fri Feb 10 07:59:24 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  34. Scooter Libby

"WASHINGTON - A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that his superiors authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq, according to court papers."

The white house response:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to comment. "Our policy is that we are not going to discuss this when it's an ongoing legal proceeding," he said.

Also...

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Jack Abramoff said in correspondence made public on Thursday that President Bush met him "almost a dozen" times.."
"Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his Texas ranch."

The white house response:
"Bush has said he never had a discussion with Abramoff and does not remember having his picture taken with him."
"White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Thursday that the revelations did not prove Bush knew him well."


The bullshit just keeps coming and coming from these assholes.
The sad thing is that half of America (and most of Kentucky) will respond like mindless cattle with, "Lies! Lies by the liberal media!"

This list needs to be redone...

#4 Scooter Libby
#3 Jack Abramoff
#2 Dickless Cheney
#1 George Bush




 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Feb 10 10:45:59 2006 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Awwww damn, and Howard Dean says this Abramoff thing is a republican scandal, and not one democrat, not one, had anything to do with it.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]