Print

[OrkanMan]

QUOTE

very serious, look at arvarden's posts and your own before you went and edited all of them.....

Whatever dooode.  And I only edited like, 1 post.

[Baner]

QUOTE

look at arvarden's posts

QUOTE ("Arvarden")

Are you gay? Do you whip your friends with daffodils?

I don't think he's a conservative.

QUOTE

he even got a report about bin laden with the title "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US".What did he do after he read that?Nothing cus he didnt,he didnt think is was more important than golf.

Looks like you got that striaght from the devil's, I mean Moore's mouth.
I'd like you to tell me what you would have done if you got a report that said, World's most wanted and richest terrorist is planing an attack somewhere in America (you know, with the 250 Million targets(people), and land mass bigger than most nations in the world, not to mention all the embasies, military bases, and various other american owned entities in the world). You have no clue how he's going to attack, boat, plane, suicide bombers? You have no clue where he is, you have no clue how many followers he has. Sure, the Twin Towers were a large target, but so are many other buildings in the states.

QUOTE

He said he would get the soldiers out of Iraq and I thought if they're not in Iraq they probably wont die so much.I guess that issue didn't matter to most people.

I want the troops out of the Middle East as much as the next repub or demo, but I would rather have had it happen before our march in Iraq. We've lost too many soldiers to pull out half-way thru, thier lives would have been wasted for no reason. The elections in Iraq are coming closer everyday, maybe, with a bit of luck(and with the death of Arafat, yay he's in a coma!!), thier might be peace in the Middle East for some period of time.

QUOTE

Kerry wanted to federally fund stem cell research

I'm not one to play God. I find it taking it to far when people are put on life support for long amounts of time. Hate to say it, but some people are less fortunate than others.(I know your goign to say, what if you needed it, if I had the choice, I'd decline it. If it's my time, then it's my time)

[pepsik]

Here's my argument, it's not security but economy. The clinton administration turned a 3 trillion dollar deficit into a 400 billion dollar surplus in 8 years. In 4 years the Bush administration turned the surplus into a 7 Trillion dollar deficit. 9-11 can be blamed for a little of that but the rest is just plain negligence and a clearly war driven agenda. I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt on his second term as he seems to have a clear cut agenda on what was overseen during his first term but if the issues don't get addressed I think impeachment will threaten his second term as it did Clinton's. This country is split down the middle on this, if a few more industrial sectors lose more jobs abroad I'm sure the public's opinion will sway.    

American diplomacy also took a dive this term with the rest of the world viewing america as the asshole in the west, whether we like it or not our economy is globally based and we need to convince people outside of this country that we aren't going down the shitter with internal conflicts.

/end .02 cents

[Baner]

QUOTE

Here's my argument, it's not security but economy.

If you do a bit of research, you'll see that the previous adminastration leads the economic outcome of the next adminastration. I'm not saying that Clinton is completely at fault for our current deficit, but he didn't aid it at all. Notice how the economy is now growing, much like it was with Clinton going into his second term.
Our economy isn't as bad off as many are made to believe. Many large companies stocks that were projected to be going under, are actually on the rise, take Delta for example. They've recently laid off a large group of workers, but thier stock never did take a large hit.

QUOTE

impeachment will threaten his second term as it did Clinton's.

Clinton's second term wasn't threatend with an impeachment til his scandel with Lewinski. The only reason for his impeachment was him lieing under oath, it had nothing to do with the way the country was being run.

QUOTE

American diplomacy also took a dive

Our diplomacy isn't too bad either. Many of the other nations despise Bush, but still accept America. We still have our allies backing us up that we expected to have (ie. Britain & Austrlia), and for those who oppose America's presence in the Middle East, it wasn't a shock either. Germany never did have the same views as America, France is about the dirtiest players in the book, and Russia is always iffy. As far the other nations who pulled out after a couple of thier citizens were captured by terrorists, and in Spains case, terrorists attacks on thier nation, are pussys. If they committed to going in at first, pulling out due to a terrorist attack(which is what they're fighting against, is it not?), is cowardly. You can't expect to go into a war, with your enemies so hell bent on destroying your idealolgy that they'll sneak attack 3000 of your civilians, and not lose a life. (sorry for getting off topic, thoughts just kept flooding my head, and now it hurts. )

[dss311]

FYI
Here is a final map of how counties voted across america.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 5 2004, 09:56 PM)

If you do a bit of research, you'll see that the previous adminastration leads the economic outcome of the next adminastration. I'm not saying that Clinton is completely at fault for our current deficit, but he didn't aid it at all. Notice how the economy is now growing, much like it was with Clinton going into his second term. Our economy isn't as bad off as many are made to believe. Many large companies stocks that were projected to be going under, are actually on the rise, take Delta for example. They've recently laid off a large group of workers, but thier stock never did take a large hit.

I don't know what you are talking about.  Clinton tries to run his government like MS.  He tries to get rid of the debt and we actually have a surplus.  Whereas Bush runs the government like Enron.  They run their government on borrowed money and tells everybody that the economy is healthy until one day the government is bankrupt.

[Baner]

[pepsik]

QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 5 2004, 09:56 PM)

If you do a bit of research, you'll see that the previous adminastration leads the economic outcome of the next adminastration. I'm not saying that Clinton is completely at fault for our current deficit, but he didn't aid it at all. Notice how the economy is now growing, much like it was with Clinton going into his second term. Our economy isn't as bad off as many are made to believe. Many large companies stocks that were projected to be going under, are actually on the rise, take Delta for example. They've recently laid off a large group of workers, but thier stock never did take a large hit.

I did do my research, 7 tillion dollars isn't a figure I made up and 400 billion surplus isn't a number I felt was a shocker, these are real numbers.

How is pointing out a company laying off employess a positive in our economy? Delta is primarilly based in California so my state will end up feeling more of the financial hardships that we already faced these past 4 years. Pennsylvania and Michigan are in the same boat and voted according to what I feel was economy not morality. The issues are still real, and just because you don't feel it's impact it doesn't mean others out there aren't struggling to make a living.

On the basis of impeachment the president made statements to both houses of congress and addressed the nation that weapons were in Iraq and to this day none have been found. Isn't that lying under oath? 1,128 deaths and counting.

if you or a family member or friend was affected by this downslope in the economy, I'm sure your post would be of a differnt view.

[Baner]

QUOTE

Delta is primarilly based in California

There hub is based in Hartwick Airport, Atlanta, 30 minutes down the street form where I'm sitting right now, my family's close friend is an electronics technician for Delta, he witnesses what Delta goes thru everday at work. I was basing my information on the stocks of Delta, showing that they are coming back to what they once were. Higher stock = higher profit.

QUOTE

Isn't that lying under oath?

I'm not sure if Bush was actually sworn to tell the truth, and the information he presented to congress, was thought to be true, at the time, by various other organizations.

QUOTE

if you or a family member or friend was affected by this downslope in the economy, I'm sure your post would be of a differnt view.

We are suffering from the economy, my dad owns a small business, and compared to the previous 5 years, his sales have taken more than a 60% decrease. We've cut back on many costs, my dad does odd-jobs when he can. He is now getting into the sub-contracting business. It's not my fault that others do not know how to manage thier money, and find a steady job market for the times.

Edit: Sorry, last post of the week, See ya'll Monday (Work days over. )

[pepsik]

Well I expressed my views and why I made my decision. I hope we can stay united as a country as a lot of bickering is all I see.

[Ronnie]

QUOTE (Mr. Chips @ Nov 5 2004, 06:04 AM)

sorry, but that is a lame argument. Because, even if he could tell from that memo that Osama Bin Laden was DEFINATELY going to make these huge attacks, Bush would not have been able to stop him.  I feel the real failure was on the part of these airport security personnel, on that terrible morning.  Seems suspicous when a large group of mean-looking Saudis walk by, don't you think? It is purely ludicrous to say Bush could have prevented this attack.  Even with the US's current anti-terrorism laws, it is not going to be airtight, I'm sure there may be more attempts to come.  We can only hope they can be prevented. Actually, think about it long enough, and you will reach the same conclusion the President did.  The best way to defeat terrorism is to spread freedom.  We can change the world in which we live, and it is a noble role to assume in the world.  Of course America will catch a lot of flack for it.  I beleive the flack was in the EXTREME.  Many people who disagree with Bush's policies (not based on the policies themselves, but based on what they think his intentions are), distrust those who wear their morality like a badge. And that is where I disagree with Bush.  He is far to open with his beleifs, causing unbeleivers to question his credibility.  After all, he is the president of the united states of america, not an evangelist.  While I can see how christians like myself are called to spread the gospel, he is far too open with his religion.  It makes everyone uncomfortable, so now most people believe that the armageddon is coming soon! Whether that is the case or not, I still tend to agree with Bush.   He said, "I love to hear people tell me they are praying for me and my family".  THAT is exactly where americans gets uncomfortable.  It has the appearance of Bush saying he cannot make a mistake because he has the "back-up" from the Lord. Mr. Chips

ok so youre with me when I say Clinton didnt fuck up with Bin laden?

[brandogg]

...no need to argue, that is the truth.

[Ronnie]

QUOTE

fact: 1. saddam had weapons in the past 2. saddam used the weapons in the past (on his own people) 3. saddam tried repeatedly to attain nuclear weapon-making capabilities 4. saddam's regime was friendly to terrorist organizations, including al qaeda (see 911 report) 5. regime change in iraq has been the united states' policy for over 10 years, starting with the clinton administration

1.He bought them from the US!!
2.Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam after using these weapons.
3.The US didnt stop Israel from starting a nuclear program.Im sure we got them on their way.North Korea and China made nukes over the past 10 years.Theyre not "friends of freedom".Id say they are more horrific that Iraq ever was,
4.Im not reading the 9/11 report because it has been censored by our government.Until ALL facts are revealed I cant believe anything that the government has said on the issue.
5.The US loved Saddam until he messed with Big Bushes oil buddy's in Kuwait.

The sanctions on Iraq stopped Saddam from rebuiling his weapons program.The sanctions also were responsible for daily air strikes on Iraq and the deaths of over 500,000 children.

You have to look at all sides of an issue before you can defend one of them.

please tell me Im wrong about anything Ive said.

[Bulletproof]

FYI, saddam killed 300,000 Iraqi's in 30 years, america has killed 100,000 in 2.  That makes america no better then saddam(not americans, but administration etc...)

[alwaysonjohn]

QUOTE

1.He bought them from the US!! 2.Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam after using these weapons. 3.The US didnt stop Israel from starting a nuclear program.Im sure we got them on their way.North Korea and China made nukes over the past 10 years.Theyre not "friends of freedom".Id say they are more horrific that Iraq ever was, 4.Im not reading the 9/11 report because it has been censored by our government.Until ALL facts are revealed I cant believe anything that the government has said on the issue. 5.The US loved Saddam until he messed with Big Bushes oil buddy's in Kuwait.

*censored?  where the proof there.  Also Bush doesn't have oil buddies in Kuwait, nor did he ever, again quit watching hollywood movies and bringing them here as truths...

BTW, we gave Israel nukes, but they are not a known member of the nuclear club.  Anywho, they are ON OUR SIDE, so what does it matter.