Print

[CommunistsForKerry]

QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Sep 3 2004, 03:31 AM)

your still not getting it are you?? those 197 people were NO WHERE NEAR KERRY the only people near kerry at the time of the incidents, or the only people on his boat all testified in favor of kerry now isnt it a coinidence all the people that testified against him were not only no where near him at the times, but are also tied to the republican party in some way

Come, join your fellow comrades!

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (CommunistsForKerry @ Sep 2 2004, 09:50 PM)

Come, join your fellow comrades!

wow, you n00bs impress me now a days with you wanting to get banned or flammed

[pegasys]

QUOTE

i obviouslt dont think running the country into a deficit is a good thing, but thats kind of hard not to do during wartime.

 Hey Dark_Link2135 not to burst your bubble here, but the economy usually gets better in times of war, somehow with Bush in charge it has not.  The Deficit usually goes down.  War is good for the economy, but apparantly under Bush this is untrue.

[thomes08]

yeah, during every war people are always saying that's why we went.

thomes08

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Sep 2 2004, 11:23 PM)

hehe, charisma is funny.  i remember hearing one person calling kerry "al gore without the charisma" LOL, and im pretty sure he was a democrat too. its kind of sad when kerry is taking fire from people on his own side.

Believe it or not, I might be neutral on some issues.  I am talking about Charisma, and the only thing you like to do is to Bash Kerry.  

I am sure that Bush Sr. has a lot of Charisma who got voted out.

QUOTE

yes but still, i mean you have 197 versus kerry and a few shipmates...i mean, you must admit, the odds are against him.  dont get me wrong, im not saying that you have to agree with me that kerry is a liar, just that you should obviouslt see the odds are against him telling the truth.  dont get me wrong, there is a small chance that his is telling the truth (or mostly) about the silver-medal incident, but the odds are against it.

Why don't you read my previous post about this issue in this thread?

You might want to know after the Bush'it speech there's a lot of ammo that Kerry has now.  There's no way for Bush to pass those domestic issues.  Even if he does, it will drive the deficit up to roof .... errr sky.  His anti-gay and anti-abortion issues will drive moderates out.  Also, he seem to want to drive the US into WWIII with the middleeast on 'Terror.'  Whatever 'Terror' means.

[....::::THECAPTAIN::::....]

i would rather vote for a ham sandwich then that stupid moron bush

[thomes08]

i'm not understand why people this bush has a good plan for our country.  everything he's talking about doing takes the money he's letting rich people have.  It's not a plan if it goes against what you're already doing, giving tax cuts to the rich.

[....::::THECAPTAIN::::....]

and you know how he said that he got jobs for ppl, most of those jobs are in securty bcuz of him  for letting 911 happening.Plus he went to Iraq for the oil of course and hes banning steam cell research and gay mairrage which i dont really care about.

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

most of those jobs are in securty bcuz of him for letting 911 happening

How does one respond to something that ridiculous.

[thomes08]

QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 3 2004, 07:30 AM)

How does one respond to something that ridiculous.

ok i can see where this is goin.........look, captain i do like your stance on political issues and i think you have good intentions.  But i urge you to read up a little more on some of the things you say.  You are starting to sound like Mick Garvey or TheOrkanMan (look em up in this politics forum) but for democrats.  Bush didn't stop the the terrorist attacks but he didn't really have a chance to.  At leaste we don't have enough against him on that subject to claim it's the truth.  WHat happened on 9/11 took years of planning and many people.  And really they got lucky in what happened, we weren't as prepared as we should have been, but you can't just blame GWB.  And trust me buddy, i hate him as much as you do.

Don't get frustrated though, you can easily find another issue with more facts that will give you a better, more in depth argument against the person you're against.  You'll feel better when you have a more educated stance on what you believ in.

Don't give up, just look a little deeper.

thomes08

[....::::THECAPTAIN::::....]

He got intel reports from the C.I.A that stated that terrorist would try to launch attacks on american landmarks, back in august, he could of at least  increased air traffic control.

[leisenstein]

I see all these signs/stickers that say Bush Lied, or some people here have said Bush let 9/11 happen.

But they leave out one tiny piece of information.....   PROOF.
Apparently, you are innocent until proven guilty... unless you are the President of the United States(no, scratch that.... Clinton got away with it).

Its easy to call someone a liar if you never have to back up your claims.  Last time I heard, "Well you KNOW he did it" was not admissable in court as evidence.


I'd like to see one of these people get arrested for stealing, then have a judge put them in jail and say the only proof he needed was he just 'looked' guilty.

Put yourself in his position.  Would you want to be convicted without a trial?

[gronne]

A proof is always good, but when it's about people being killed and everything says Iraq didn't have wmd's, you can never demand a proof to make up your mind. Bush never did anything to establish a connection with either Iraq or Al-Qaeda, but I wouldn't really blame all on him for 9/11, you can go a long way back, before Clinton.

There's a difference between stealing a bag from runnning a war.

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

He got intel reports from the C.I.A that stated that terrorist would try to launch attacks on american landmarks, back in august, he could of at least increased air traffic control.

I'm really sick of reading fairytale stuff like this.  The most he could've done is notify the airlines to report any strange behavior as soon as possible.  That would still be under the discretion of the profit-hungry, corner-cutting airlines.    I'm not saying Bush handled things perfectly... but things aren't always as simple as "well he should've just notified thousands of people, caused chaos in airports, and not let the public know" (if they knew, it would've caused huge problems for something that may not even happen.. keep in mind, threats come in constantly).

Increased air traffic security:

A) Infringes on the convenience and usability of airports.
Costs tons of money and man-power.
C) Worries the public

All based on threats that roll into the white house like overpriced champagne?

So if you were president, upon every threat, you'd call each of the airports in the US and tell them to "increase security"?  How?  What would you expect them to do?  You can't tell them "stop everyone who looks like a terrorist".  "We might be attacked... make sure it doesn't happen.".  Right.

[Maximumbeing]

These reports were very specific, but Bush was too busy taking one of the longest vacations in presidential history to even read them.

Looking back on it, I'm sure we can all agree that it would have been wise to not ignore the threats, but OPERATION IGNORE was in full effect.