Tri for President Bush! - Triathlon Week

09-28-2004, 09:45 AM

Ok folks join the human bumper sticker project!

If you're going to run one of the big Tri's in the next few weeks you
can make yourself a Runners for Bush 2004 shirt.

You need inkjet transfer paper (wally world, office despot etc), a
shirt (walmart or use an old one), an iron and a printer!

Instructions and artwork at

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-28-2004, 05:07 PM

Sounds great. 4 more baseless wars! Wooo hooo! I can hardly contain my
excitement! Bush, Bush, BUSH!

09-29-2004, 07:05 PM

I'd give up the sport first

09-29-2004, 08:55 PM

Here's a another Bush Bumper Sticker Idea

"War, It's What I TRI 4"

That was the official tagline of the 2004 Halliburton Escape from Abu
Ghraib Triathlon. What a hoot that was. Can't wait til the 2012
edition. I am training hard for it!

09-30-2004, 11:31 AM

Please, please, leave the sport. You're embarassing us.

09-30-2004, 08:37 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (triinginphoenix) wrote in
news:a4636961.0409300931.61f67034@posting.google.c om:

> Please, please, leave the sport. You're embarassing us.

Yes, don't you realize that we're all supposed to be people that believe
that appeasement will work against an enemy that attacked us and wants us
all dead, no mater how nice we are to them.
Don't you know that every thing would be OK if we would just turn over our
security to the United Nations?
And that we just can't stand someone that takes a moral stand on an issue
and stands his ground.

Damn You! Go away!

10-01-2004, 07:24 AM

Yeah, it's a perfectly great idea to attack a country that has little
to do with our real problems in the world and for a rationale that
turns out to be totally baseless. We've found no WMD & no link to al
Qaeda, even according the the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report, but
the ideologues keep telling us that we were under immediate threat.

What we've witnessed here is a case study in what happens when
citizens stop thinking for themselves and blindly follow the party
line, putting their partisan interests above the national interest.

Reminds me of what Hermann Goering had to say during his trial at
Nuremberg.

"people don't want to go to war.... But, after all, it's the leaders
of the country who determine the policy. Voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All
you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater
danger. It works the same way in any country."

10-01-2004, 08:12 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote in
news:54486da6.0410010524.55185baa@posting.google.c om:

> Yeah, it's a perfectly great idea to attack a country that has little
> to do with our real problems in the world and for a rationale that
> turns out to be totally baseless. We've found no WMD & no link to al
> Qaeda, even according the the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report, but
> the ideologues keep telling us that we were under immediate threat.
>
> What we've witnessed here is a case study in what happens when
> citizens stop thinking for themselves and blindly follow the party
> line, putting their partisan interests above the national interest.
>
> Reminds me of what Hermann Goering had to say during his trial at
> Nuremberg.
>
> "people don't want to go to war.... But, after all, it's the leaders
> of the country who determine the policy. Voice or no voice, the people
> can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All
> you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
> pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater
> danger. It works the same way in any country."
>

Would everyone who's mind was changed as to whom they will vote for by
this brilliant little debate please speak up?

Hello?

Anyone?

Ah, I thought so. Turns out you all just wasted bandwidth. What a
surprise.

10-01-2004, 08:25 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>Yeah, it's a perfectly great idea to attack a country that has little
>to do with our real problems in the world and for a rationale that
>turns out to be totally baseless. We've found no WMD & no link to al
>Qaeda, even according the the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report, but
>the ideologues keep telling us that we were under immediate threat.

Actually, if you examine the records, it's the ideologues that were
claiming the administration said we were under immediate threat. Feel
free to look up something to the contrary, but FYI you won't find it.

Bottom line is, almost everyone thought Iraq was a serious threat, and
the decision was made on the information everybody had at the time.
Yes, it seems that some of the intel was bogus, but the independent
commissions examining the source and handling of the info concluded
there was no coercion by the administration to alter or supress any of
the evidence (not a big surprise since the same conclusions were
reached by the previous administration as well).

Now in the political silly season, a polititian can say "well, knowing
what I know NOW I wouldn't have made the same mistakes...", and there
are those who think that means something. What mattered is what we
knew THEN, and THEN they were all in agreement (OK, probably not
Howard Dean).

>What we've witnessed here is a case study in what happens when
>citizens stop thinking for themselves and blindly follow the party
>line, putting their partisan interests above the national interest.

Well there has been some blatant examples of that, to be sure. Right
now I'd say that partisan interest seems to trump national interest
for a large percentage of the population (I'll leave the "how" to the
imagination of the reader).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

10-01-2004, 08:32 AM

Yeah, "Runners For Bush"! But with all the reduced environmental
standards (ha! those aren't standards, those are concessions and
kick-backs!) the group should really be called "Indoor Treadmill
Runners Who Need an Air Purifier For Bush".

10-01-2004, 02:22 PM

I grudgingly supported the war at the time, so I am not some hardline
democrat who will reflexively oppose the opposition. What irks me is
not necessarily that the Bush got the intelligence wrong (although I
am not pleased about it), but that the president hasn't even come
close to recognizing that it's majorly problematic that we got the
intelligence wrong, that we attacked a country for ultimately no good
reason, and that this mission is wasting our time. Instead it's spin,
spin, spin. There's no accountability, and no sense that the truth
matters.

Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq; that other countries
(N. Korea, for example) and terrorist organizations present a much
more severe threat; and that we've diverted our resources in a serious
way. Most Americans won't consciously admit this because they want to
support the troops. But I can guarantee you that if N. Korea attacked
us tomorrow, there would be tremendous anger towards Bush because
everyone would suddenly see Iraq as a needless drain of our resources.

10-01-2004, 06:33 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] m:

> I grudgingly supported the war at the time, so I am not some hardline
> democrat who will reflexively oppose the opposition. What irks me is
> not necessarily that the Bush got the intelligence wrong (although I
> am not pleased about it), but that the president hasn't even come
> close to recognizing that it's majorly problematic that we got the
> intelligence wrong, that we attacked a country for ultimately no good
> reason, and that this mission is wasting our time. Instead it's spin,
> spin, spin. There's no accountability, and no sense that the truth
> matters.
>
> Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
> largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
> admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq; that other countries
> (N. Korea, for example) and terrorist organizations present a much
> more severe threat; and that we've diverted our resources in a serious
> way. Most Americans won't consciously admit this because they want to
> support the troops. But I can guarantee you that if N. Korea attacked
> us tomorrow, there would be tremendous anger towards Bush because
> everyone would suddenly see Iraq as a needless drain of our resources.
>

OK, dhcrunner (Democratic Headquarters Runner?), actually I understand
although we obviously disagree. I do see reason for the war, like
everyone wish it was over and will be glad when it is.
My real issue was with the thinking that "you are embarrasing us so
leave" which smacks of including me in a group that is too PC to suffer
any differing opinions and would indicate that we are all of one mind
here. Also would suggest that I was part of a group (like many of the
liberal bent) that is obcessed with careing about what someone thinks
about my/our position. Some people need to just grow a set, .. well,
unless they are female in which case. . get some fortitude, self estem or
whatever. . .
Tri On
Van

10-01-2004, 09:44 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

>I grudgingly supported the war at the time, so I am not some hardline
>democrat who will reflexively oppose the opposition. What irks me is
>not necessarily that the Bush got the intelligence wrong (although I
>am not pleased about it), but that the president hasn't even come
>close to recognizing that it's majorly problematic that we got the
>intelligence wrong, that we attacked a country for ultimately no good
>reason, and that this mission is wasting our time. Instead it's spin,
>spin, spin. There's no accountability, and no sense that the truth
>matters.

I think your view of "no good reason" is quite different from my view.
I see a tyrannic dictator who had killed at least 300,000 of his own
people (we've gone into other countries for less). We would have
taken him out in '91, but Saddam signed a cease-fire guaranteeing he
would destroy his known and admitted WMD stores (something he never
did comply with). He ignored 17 UN sanctions, tried to assassinate an
ex-US president, and was openly aiding terrorists. Quite simply, he
had to go.

And I happen to agree with Bush's assessment of what a free Iraq and
Afghanistan will mean to the region. Only time will tell if we're
right, or hopelessly optimistic. Thing is, my international
experience makes me even more convinced that people really do tend to
want the same things, even across very different cultures.

>Most every American knows in their heart of hearts that this was a
>largely pointless war. If you're really honest with yourself, you'll
>admit that the "imminent threat" wasn't in Iraq; that other countries
>(N. Korea, for example) and terrorist organizations present a much
>more severe threat; and that we've diverted our resources in a serious
>way. Most Americans won't consciously admit this because they want to
>support the troops. But I can guarantee you that if N. Korea attacked
>us tomorrow, there would be tremendous anger towards Bush because
>everyone would suddenly see Iraq as a needless drain of our resources.

I think a better question would have been this... had Bush NOT taken
out Saddam, and then we were attacked and tens of thousands of
Americans killed by WMDs that were traced to Iraq, can you even
IMAGINE the outcry by those who are now screaming the loudest about
going into Iraq? Personally, I like the fact that the US has a little
more credibility when we bark now (witness the huge changes in Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan toward terrorists, and the disarming of Libya, for
example). But that's just me - we'll both know in 20 years whether
it's the right path or not.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Home of the $695 ti frame

10-02-2004, 09:00 AM

Consider this: The only thing people in the Middle East hated more than
Sadam Hussein is the USA. They are fools to do this, but hey, it is a fact.
So the only country that - guaranteed - never will be able to make peace in
the Middle East is the USA. Take it or leave it: That's a fact too.

What is really sad is: The USA now own the place and you can never leave
because removing Sadam has left a gigatic power vacuum now filled out by
the Al-Quaeda. You will have to stay there for generations to come and you
will have to pay for it in oil, blood and dollars.

Please, vote for Kerry!

sinc.
Kim

10-02-2004, 02:33 PM

> had Bush NOT taken
> out Saddam, and then we were attacked and tens of thousands of
> Americans killed by WMDs that were traced to Iraq

Oh come on.. I tried to leave this thread alone... but ****...what if,
what if, what if... you sound like ole W trying to scare us and justify
his collasal mistake. The 911 guys got help from the Saudis and Iran;
why didn't we invade them?