Wouldn't it be great...

FFishstick · Post by **FFishstick** » May 13, 2005 6:29 pm

This was forwarded to me today.... thought I would pass it on.

Wouldn't it be great to turn on the TV and hear any U.S. President, Democrat or Republican, give the following speech?

"My fellow Americans: as you all know, the defeat of the Iraqi regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete. This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Befor me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell-holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption. Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the Earth. Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France, or maybe China.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, Germany, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. Bon chance, mes amis.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickest tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers, and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.

A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not p*** us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put them? Yep, border security. So start doing something with your oil.

Oh by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska - which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you are an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there, they care.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, "darn tootin." Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America. It is time to eliminate World Cup Soccer from America. To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thanks guys. We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic. God Bless America. Thank you and good night. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier."

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » May 13, 2005 7:52 pm

wouldn't it be nice if the facts used to support such a speech were actually true. And wouldn't it be better if the President giving this speech understood that dissent is healthy and an exercise of freedom of speech without trying to wrap himself in the flag....

FFishstick · Post by **FFishstick** » May 13, 2005 8:08 pm

RinglingRingling wrote:wouldn't it be nice if the facts used to support such a speech were actually true. And wouldn't it be better if the President giving this speech understood that dissent is healthy and an exercise of freedom of speech without trying to wrap himself in the flag....

Oh I agree, but since when were political speeches supported by facts? Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are all guilty of political speeches lacking supporting facts, and wrapping themselves in a flag. The last two are more guilty of these offenses than the others, but a the spirit of the post hits home.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » May 13, 2005 8:09 pm

FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:wouldn't it be nice if the facts used to support such a speech were actually true. And wouldn't it be better if the President giving this speech understood that dissent is healthy and an exercise of freedom of speech without trying to wrap himself in the flag....
Oh I agree, but since when were political speeches supported by facts? Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are all guilty of political speeches lacking supporting facts, and wrapping themselves in a flag. The last two are more guilty of these offenses than the others, but a the spirit of the post hits home.

no, it doesn't. especially the expectation that dissenters should leave. Sorry.

FFishstick · Post by **FFishstick** » May 13, 2005 8:14 pm

RinglingRingling wrote:
FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:wouldn't it be nice if the facts used to support such a speech were actually true. And wouldn't it be better if the President giving this speech understood that dissent is healthy and an exercise of freedom of speech without trying to wrap himself in the flag....
Oh I agree, but since when were political speeches supported by facts? Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are all guilty of political speeches lacking supporting facts, and wrapping themselves in a flag. The last two are more guilty of these offenses than the others, but a the spirit of the post hits home.
no, it doesn't. especially the expectation that dissenters should leave. Sorry.

Your humble opinion differs with mine, got a problem with that?

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » May 13, 2005 8:16 pm

FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:wouldn't it be nice if the facts used to support such a speech were actually true. And wouldn't it be better if the President giving this speech understood that dissent is healthy and an exercise of freedom of speech without trying to wrap himself in the flag....
Oh I agree, but since when were political speeches supported by facts? Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are all guilty of political speeches lacking supporting facts, and wrapping themselves in a flag. The last two are more guilty of these offenses than the others, but a the spirit of the post hits home.
no, it doesn't. especially the expectation that dissenters should leave. Sorry.
Your humble opinion differs with mine, got a problem with that?

No. You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to think you are wrong and short-sighted, but you're entitled to that position if you want to endorse the thing letter by letter and word by word.

FFishstick · Post by **FFishstick** » May 13, 2005 8:18 pm

RinglingRingling wrote:
FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:wouldn't it be nice if the facts used to support such a speech were actually true. And wouldn't it be better if the President giving this speech understood that dissent is healthy and an exercise of freedom of speech without trying to wrap himself in the flag....
Oh I agree, but since when were political speeches supported by facts? Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are all guilty of political speeches lacking supporting facts, and wrapping themselves in a flag. The last two are more guilty of these offenses than the others, but a the spirit of the post hits home.
no, it doesn't. especially the expectation that dissenters should leave. Sorry.
Your humble opinion differs with mine, got a problem with that?
No. You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to think you are wrong and short-sighted, but you're entitled to that position if you want to endorse the thing letter by letter and word by word.

Never said i did endorse it letter by letter word by word now did I? I think you are wrong, and that the spirit hits it on the head. I will however refrain from name calling or judgement.

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » May 13, 2005 8:20 pm

FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:
FFishstick wrote:
RinglingRingling wrote:wouldn't it be nice if the facts used to support such a speech were actually true. And wouldn't it be better if the President giving this speech understood that dissent is healthy and an exercise of freedom of speech without trying to wrap himself in the flag....
Oh I agree, but since when were political speeches supported by facts? Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush are all guilty of political speeches lacking supporting facts, and wrapping themselves in a flag. The last two are more guilty of these offenses than the others, but a the spirit of the post hits home.
no, it doesn't. especially the expectation that dissenters should leave. Sorry.
Your humble opinion differs with mine, got a problem with that?
No. You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to think you are wrong and short-sighted, but you're entitled to that position if you want to endorse the thing letter by letter and word by word.
Never said i did endorse it letter by letter word by word now did I? I think you are wrong, and that the spirit hits it on the head. I will however refrain from name calling or judgement.

by offering it up without any disclaimers or qualifiers, one would take the inference that you support all the points in it. If you don't, then why bother to post it without them?

FFishstick · Post by **FFishstick** » May 13, 2005 8:22 pm

"letter for letter word for word" your words not mine. I agree with the spirit of the document. My words. If you want to pick a fight, do it with someone else.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » May 13, 2005 8:30 pm

Ringling, don't you know a discussion forum is not for DISCUSSION?

Now agree or move along.

FFishstick · Post by **FFishstick** » May 13, 2005 8:35 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:Ringling, don't you know a discussion forum is not for DISCUSSION?

Now agree or move along.

you point out where he was discussing and I would agree with you

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » May 13, 2005 9:04 pm

FFishstick wrote:"letter for letter word for word" your words not mine. I agree with the spirit of the document. My words. If you want to pick a fight, do it with someone else.

Including things like "if you don't like it here, leave. If you disagree with me, leave or be quiet." I've seen you demonstrate that particular point of empathy with the post that started this thread fairly recently...

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » May 13, 2005 9:04 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:Ringling, don't you know a discussion forum is not for DISCUSSION?

Now agree or move along.

I hate it when that happens.

Key Lime Lee · Post by **Key Lime Lee** » May 13, 2005 9:07 pm

FFishstick wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:Ringling, don't you know a discussion forum is not for DISCUSSION?

Now agree or move along.
you point out where he was discussing and I would agree with you

His opinion seemed at least as germane as the original post.

UAHparrothead · Post by **UAHparrothead** » May 13, 2005 9:12 pm

Key Lime Lee wrote:
FFishstick wrote:
Key Lime Lee wrote:Ringling, don't you know a discussion forum is not for DISCUSSION?

Now agree or move along.
you point out where he was discussing and I would agree with you
His opinion seemed at least as germane as the original post.

The hot dang Germans got nothing to do with it

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » May 13, 2005 10:59 pm

The one thing that I could never figure out is why Americans are p*** off when France or Germany or any other country decided not to join this war. Is it not their right as a soverign nation to decide if they want to go to war or not? Or is it just up to us and everyone else has to go with us. "You're either with us or against us", just proves how little they do know about freedom.