« A Constitutional Hurricane | Main | The Minority Become The Majority »

Sunday, September 25, 2005

WHY? A New Video From Bring It On

Click on image to play. Please be patient this is a 6mb file.

Posted by The Bastard at 10:51 AM in Video and Animation | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WHY? A New Video From Bring It On:

» MUST SEE VIDEO from Wasted Days Wasted Nites
I followed the links from Courting Destiny to Bring It On and found one of the most touching videos I've ever seen. [Read More]

Tracked on Sep 26, 2005 4:32:43 AM


Damn, Bastard! That gave me chills. Excellent video.

Posted by: mulligan | Sep 25, 2005 11:59:25 AM

Very moving; very maddening. Great job.

Posted by: Tom Harper | Sep 25, 2005 2:32:21 PM

When you get up to the number we lost in Vietnam up till 1968 (36,000) in a war started by Democrats and continued by Democrats and now being used as a comparison by Democrats, let me know.

Posted by: CSC5502D | Sep 25, 2005 10:38:24 PM


Now all the Dems are for Peace, not war. They're only for war when they are fighting it or not fighting it, (as when Saddam had already declared war on us),and helped those who carried out terrorist attacks on us to do so. Any war defending freedom and America is bad, any war or battle for no good reason whatsoever by a Dem is good. Or when Dem presidents turn tail and run is a good thing (Somolia, when they killed some Army Rangers when we had troops over there to feed starving people. Why not prove to al Quida how weak a Dem president is when faced with a crisis? If Clinton were not the moron that he is then we wouldn't have had to fight al Quida in Afghanastan and Iraq. Who was the moron who was offered to take custody of Osama years ago and said; "No, several times? Oh, yeah, that was Bill Clinton that's right". The same Osam that Dems grumble that Bush hasn't gotten yet. Well, if BC hadn't been to busy on his long game (No, Monica jokes please)gulf that is, then Osama wouldn't have been alive or able to plan the 9/11/2001 attacks or any others would he? But thanks to BC, Osama wasn't dead or captured then to keep 9/11/2001 from happening. and don't tell me they didn't know he was a dangerous person and responsible for several terrorist attacks, they know he was behind alot of terrorist attacks.

Posted by: Nate | Sep 25, 2005 11:00:58 PM

Nate, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

It's a common tactic of governments to blame previous administrations for failing to act. But the fact is the Bush Administration have been in power for five years. You'd think they could have caught OBL by now, don't you? Or are they really incompetent?

It's true that the Dems run from most wars. Unlike the Republicans, however, they are mostly not responsible for a) starting them and b) losing them through arrogance and stupidity and hubris.

Posted by: truelies | Sep 25, 2005 11:10:52 PM

He had links to al Quida, and helped them in several ways, and he even funded them too, or at least sometimes funded them. I never said he planned it or the main reason why 9/11/2001 happened. But there were several links between Saddam and al Quida. President Bush said; "That if you in anyway possible support or help terrorists then you are just as guilty as they are". So if you want to get rid of terrorism, then you have to get those who are also helping them too. At least Bush is trying to get Osama, what did BC do when he had the chance to get him, oh yeah, work on his gulf game, that was really brillant now wasn't it? If BC hadn't been such a moron, then we wouldn't have had to get Osama now in the first place and maybe the Twin Towers would still be standing today. Think about that the next time you want to blame Bush for anything that goes wrong in your life(which most libs try to do if they can). Think about the possibility of al Quida without anyone smart enough to plan the attacks on us. If BC had had 2 braincells in his head when he was President, then al Quida personel wouldn't have been able to carry out any attacks on us at all. And without the finances to carry out any attacks as well. How many attacks can anyone carry out, without the brainpower or money power to do so? But BC screwed up, because he was too busy (you know what he was too busy doing to respond to terrorist attack after terrorist attack) doing his thing, getting his grove on. Or whatever you want to call it. And libs defend him for screwing up completely, and yet blame Bush for every single thing they can possibly try to blame his for.

Posted by: Nate | Sep 25, 2005 11:59:44 PM

Nate no offense, but that is out and out bullshit, and if you can prove it, you should apply for a job at the White House because they couldn't prove it either.

By the way, "Al Quida" doesn't exist. If you were referring to "Al Qaeda" that's different.

I wasn't blaming Bush (for the record I take full responsibility for everything that goes wrong in my life I just think that guy is an asshole), nor was I exonerating Clinton. Clinton contributed just as much as Bush to the quagmire. But the fact is Clinton is not in office any more, so it's not his responsibility. Blaming someone who has no power anymore will not solve the problem. How about focusing on those who -do- have the power, and are failing, today rather than yesterday?

Incidentally if you really want to quibble, Al Qaeda was created by a Republican administration anyway, who were hell bent on kicking the Russians out of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda used to be America's friends (where do you think they got all that special ops training?). The problem is not Republican or Democrat though, it's -American-, your country spends five years creating a mess, then spends the next ten cleaning it up. It's the vicious cycle of realpolitik, and partisan morons just contribute to the cycle with their bitter tit for tat arguments on the sidelines. You all actually need to get together and take power for the people, not for the special interests feathering their nests.

BC -did- screw up. But seriously you're standing on thin ice talking about him improving his golf game when not a few weeks ago Bush was busy doing (what was he doing?) something completely irrelevant while New Orleans drowned for a week.

I repeat myself, but BC is not in power any more. You're blaming him for things that are happening -now- that can only be solved by those in power -now-. How is it that you propose Clinton can do anything? Cause if you want him back in office, please, be my guest. Otherwise you're just shifting the blame to someone who lost the white house FIVE YEARS AGO.

Posted by: truelies | Sep 26, 2005 12:14:33 AM

Goes straight to the heart, excellent!!

Posted by: Junebugg | Sep 26, 2005 4:17:24 AM

War is Hell--"Why?" is always a good question.

Posted by: Vince | Sep 26, 2005 5:52:28 AM

Nate, you're a lunatic.

As fo "why," let's see...

"We're takin' the War on Terror to them!" (iow: We're using Iraq as a terror magnet because we are too beholden to the real terror states and too scared to fight a real state like Iran).

Posted by: Jersey McJones | Sep 26, 2005 1:08:16 PM

Nice Job. I'm linking up.


Posted by: windspike | Sep 26, 2005 6:26:17 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.