Print

[gronne]

QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 9 2004, 08:51 PM)

Exactly, the majority voted for the man they wanted, that's what a democracy is supposed to do, many people do base their votes on one event (ie the Iraq war), but us residents of America have other topics we have to base our vote on too. We have internal problems just like every other nation. Except for the 48% of the voters who voted aginst Bush. Look at some facts before you make assumptions. I'm quite happy that Bush took the intiative to do something about Saddam. The UN are jsut a bunch of cowards who are too afraid to do anything, in fear of another World War (refer to the League of Nations). He had sanctions on him, we've seen the facts against him, and finally someone stepped up and took him out of power. I agree, TV networks suck, that why I stay away from TV news, but with our first Amendment, the networks have their right to give whatever sided news they want.

When I adress something you always quote one word without answering the rest. It's not black and white. I use one word and then watch it from another p.o.v. Please don't quote if you won't answer the full context.

If you say you're not happy with the current situation, then why the hell didn't you vote someone else???

QUOTE

Except for the 48% of the voters who voted aginst Bush. Look at some facts before you make assumptions.

Again you didn't get the message. I said there's no organisation behind them. No one really says THIS IS ENOUGH!!! There's been a lot of hate towards Bush, but the opposition is not at all as organized as in the seventies. 48% is only a number, what actions did they take against Bush? Way too little acted in purpose of switching opions. (I like how you say "voted against Bush", instead of "voted for someone else". It's true alright, but funny).

QUOTE

I agree, TV networks suck, that why I stay away from TV news, but with our first Amendment, the networks have their right to give whatever sided news they want.

OK, but you won't question yourself whether something actually could be wrong with the amendments, right? And the thing with Fox is that they haven't oficially announced they are republicans, instead they say "fair and balanced", and "we let you decide". If they could at least say they were republicans the issue wouldn't be that important. In my country the news stations don't have the right to fool people like Fox do. We had a reporter (for a small company) saying it would be bad if Bush got re-elected, and she got tossed out immediately. I mean if it was about swedish candidates I could understand it, but her opinion couldn't affect the american election. But I think it's good, so people can make up their minds on their own, instead of having Fox telling them what to think.

You might be happy Bush took care about Saddam, but the 100,000 innocent people that died, probably wouldn't agree with you. You see Saddam killed 300,000 people during his almost 30 years in power, when it only took Bush 1½ year to kill 100,000.  

100,000 people, do you realize how many that is? Yet you defend Bush's action like it's nothing. You only react when american soldiers come home in coffins "What, do they die in war???".

Many americans can't understand why you are so hated in the world. For example, is it strange the french hate you when you say "France is shit, hate them, don't drink their wine, we want "freedom fries"". When Clinton was in power parts of Europe started taking a liking of you, but when Bush came to power we HAD to hate you. Yet you only say "penis envy", well why didn't we hate you that much during Clinton's presidency?

[EverythingButAnAnswer]

QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM)

100,000 people, do you realize how many that is?

Do you realize that that figure is only an estimate?

QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM)

And the thing with Fox is that they haven't oficially announced they are republicans, instead they say "fair and balanced", and "we let you decide". If they could at least say they were republicans the issue wouldn't be that important.

That would be fine, as long as the rest of the major media networks admitted they were liberal or biased (CNN, CBS, BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc.). Anyone who wants an unbiased report should watch CSPAN.

QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM)

In my country the news stations don't have the right to fool people like Fox do.

Oh the irony.

[K98]

QUOTE

We had a reporter (for a small company) saying it would be bad if Bush got re-elected, and she got tossed out immediately. I mean if it was about swedish candidates I could understand it, but her opinion couldn't affect the american election. But I think it's good, so people can make up their minds on their own, instead of having Fox telling them what to think.

Speak your mind and lose your job in Sweden. I guess they dont like free speech there. Censorship is the key to a good society of sheeple. Sweden has shown me the way. I doubt you've even watched the American stations to even know what to think.

[damam]

QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 10 2004, 02:41 AM)

Again you didn't get the message. I said there's no organisation behind them. No one really says THIS IS ENOUGH!!! There's been a lot of hate towards Bush, but the opposition is not at all as organized as in the seventies. 48% is only a number, what actions did they take against Bush? Way too little acted in purpose of switching opions. (I like how you say "voted against Bush", instead of "voted for someone else". It's true alright, but funny).

what are you talking about
This election saw the largest protest demonstrations of any election against the president.  You appear to be totally ignoring the countless left leaning 527's who were very well organized and very well funded.  Not to mention propaganda blitzes like Farenheit 911, and the steady stream of anti-bush books that started coming out about a year ago, and got tons of undeserved attention ( I read quite a few of them so I know ).  I live in a pretty conservative state, and moveon.org still managed to visit me at my house twice, and get to me in several parking lots in their efforts to sway my vote.  I imagine it was far more pervasive in other larger states.  As a matter of fact, I saw the left as so well organized, that I honestly did not believe Bush had a snowballs chance in hell.

What would have told you that they were saying "enough", attempted assassinations?  As far as I am concerned, they did everything they legally could, and were very successful in rallying people.  But at the end of the day, they are still in the minority.  End of Story.

Edit added below

QUOTE

You might be happy Bush took care about Saddam, but the 100,000 innocent people that died, probably wouldn't agree with you. You see Saddam killed 300,000 people during his almost 30 years in power, when it only took Bush 1½ year to kill 100,000. 100,000 people, do you realize how many that is? Yet you defend Bush's action like it's nothing. You only react when american soldiers come home in coffins "What, do they die in war???".  Many americans can't understand why you are so hated in the world. For example, is it strange the french hate you when you say "France is shit, hate them, don't drink their wine, we want "freedom fries"". When Clinton was in power parts of Europe started taking a liking of you, but when Bush came to power we HAD to hate you. Yet you only say "penis envy", well why didn't we hate you that much during Clinton's presidency?

We are never happy that people are dying.  Putting that aside, this war has seen the fewest civilian casualties of any war we have been involved with.  If the jihadists dont want to die, then they should not pull the trigger.  Rules of Engagement state we cant fire, until fired upon.  Most of them shouldnt even be there in the first place cause they are not even Iraqi's.  If you are talking about the iraqi's killed during the war, we gave them ample and unprecedented opportunities to surrendor.  Opportunities that put our soldiers into greater risk.  And we did this in the interests of saving lives.

QUOTE

Many americans can't understand why you are so hated in the world. For example, is it strange the french hate you when you say "France is shit, hate them, don't drink their wine, we want "freedom fries"". When Clinton was in power parts of Europe started taking a liking of you, but when Bush came to power we HAD to hate you. Yet you only say "penis envy", well why didn't we hate you that much during Clinton's presidency?

Clintons relationship with france was better, Ill admit that.  Buts thats only because Clinton sent in our troops to solve French and UN problems that really were not in the best interests of America.  And gave our tax dollars to those causes as well.  

[pug_ster]

Bush won the election twice like Nixon, well he won 1 1/2 times because the first time he didn't get the majority votes.  During the the 2 elections that Nixon has won, he basically wooed the votes from the Evangelicals, yet I don't see you Republicans glorifying this guy in terms of what Nixon did for our Country.

The fact is that most of you Bush voters are brainwashed to think that Kerry is the son of the Devil or something.  Bush can't run his election by making himself look good all the time so he make Kerry's record look bad.  Unfortunately, this president's 'my way or the highway' approach won't garner himself more popularity, especially for people who voted against him.

[damam]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 06:07 PM)

The fact is that most of you Bush voters are brainwashed to think that Kerry is the son of the Devil or something.  Bush can't run his election by making himself look good all the time so he make Kerry's record look bad.

Bush did not have a monopoly on this approach.  Both candidates did that.

As a bush voter, I dont think that Kerry is the devil - this country is bigger than even the president.  It would not have been the end of the world if kerry got elected.  The thing is that most of you kerry supporters are acting like it is the end of the world now that bush is in office.

Every election, some group of people says that if X gets elected im moving to Y country.  They get my hopes all up, then when X gets elected, they totally let me down by staying.  Thats the problem -> no follow through  

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (damam @ Nov 10 2004, 06:26 PM)

Bush did not have a monopoly on this approach.  Both candidates did that. As a bush voter, I dont think that Kerry is the devil - this country is bigger than even the president.  It would not have been the end of the world if kerry got elected.  The thing is that most of you kerry supporters are acting like it is the end of the world now that bush is in office.

I do think that Bush is going to push us to the end of the world if he stays in Office.  Bush is always saying we should focus on Terrorism.  How about Nuclear proliferation?  We have been fortunate that even during the Cold war that there was never a nuclear war.  The thing is that Bush is putting in a half-ass effort towards nuclear proliferation while countries like Iran and North Korea has building its nuclear ability in the first 4 years of Bush's Presidency.  The only person whom that I seen is doing a half-ass effort is Colin Powell trying to convinence China to ask NK to disarm.  If one of these countries has throws a nuclear missile at another country, it will surely start WWIII.

QUOTE

Every election, some group of people says that if X gets elected im moving to Y country.  They get my hopes all up, then when X gets elected, they totally let me down by staying.  Thats the problem -> no follow through

Yes, there's always talk like that.  But it won't happen because there will be moderate repubs and democrats who will oppose his conservative views.  So if we don't have a president who don't reach out to the other side, we will end up having another Lame Duck President.

[damam]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 07:04 PM)

I do think that Bush is going to push us to the end of the world if he stays in Office.  Bush is always saying we should focus on Terrorism.  How about Nuclear proliferation?  We have been fortunate that even during the Cold war that there was never a nuclear war.  The thing is that Bush is putting in a half-ass effort towards nuclear proliferation while countries like Iran and North Korea has building its nuclear ability in the first 4 years of Bush's Presidency.  The only person whom that I seen is doing a half-ass effort is Colin Powell trying to convinence China to ask NK to disarm.  If one of these countries has throws a nuclear missile at another country, it will surely start WWIII.

Cant we just get the UN to write nasty letters of disapproval to get them to stop?  Its worked so well in the past.  They can probably figure out a way of embezzling money in the process too.  

Seriously though, I agree with you, Nuclear proliferation is and has been a big problem.  A bigger problem is that when we try to stop these countries from developing it many see it as the U.S. trying to keep them down.  Mao Tsetung in his little red book declared that america without a monopoly on Nuclear Weapons is a paper tiger.  Most of the world views this as being true.  Hence there eagerness to have a nuclear capability.  I am actually more concerned with deployment capabilities then with actual nuclear processing knowledge.  

but you cant convince me that kerry would have done it differently.  what did he say about iran - something to the effect of we'll supply them with all the uranium they want, and if they dont return the waste in proper quantities, we'll know where they REALLY stand on the matter.  So first we'll arm our enemies, then well just stand back smuggly knowing we were right all along.     That stance is just ludicrous.

It is my belief that WWIII is over (that was the cold war) - and one of these nuclear missiles would simply be an attack in a war that is already going on WWIV.  None-the-less, I really dont want to see it happen.  So we really should step up on this since it appears that no one else in the global community has the balls to do it.

[Baner]

QUOTE ("pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 01:04 PM")

The thing is that Bush is putting in a half-ass effort towards nuclear proliferation while countries like Iran and North Korea has building its nuclear ability in the first 4 years of Bush's Presidency.

Wouldn't you say that's a pretty hypocritical statement?
Weren't you one of the many who are completely against the Iraq war? Didn't we take out a Tyrant who wanted to develop WMDs and a means to launch them? Yet you say Bush did nothing to stop nuclear proliferation. We are only one nation, and considering that everytime we do anything that might somehow effect another nation in a bad way we're called the devil, it's kinda hard to do a lot.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 10 2004, 08:05 PM)

Wouldn't you say that's a pretty hypocritical statement? Weren't you one of the many who are completely against the Iraq war? Didn't we take out a Tyrant who wanted to develop WMDs and a means to launch them? Yet you say Bush did nothing to stop nuclear proliferation. We are only one nation, and considering that everytime we do anything that might somehow effect another nation in a bad way we're called the devil, it's kinda hard to do a lot.

Yes, it is a hypocritical statement because he is doing a half ass job.  There's no way for Iraq to have nuclear weapons, unless you disagree and have proof that they are able to deliver nuclear missiles.  I don't know what kind of WMD's you are talking about, but compared to conventional, biological and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons is the most deadly and longest lasting effect.  So the US should lead an international effort to get rid of it...

http://www.wagingpea...n-examining.htm

That being said, I guess we will never know how Kerry would do about Nuclear Proliferation since he is not president.  One of the things that Kerry said that he would've done was that having a bi-lateral talks with North Korea, not just a six-party talks involving other nearby Asian countries.

Remember how the cold war got started?  Us build some nuclear weapons pointing to the USSR and USSr build some nuclear weapons point the US.  It never stop until when Reagan have peace talks during his 2nd year of presidency.  And now Bush wants to undo what Reagan did by developing nulear 'bunker busting' bomb.  Other 'axis of evil' countries will see as developing nuclear programs as a necessity because US are doing it.

It is not just the more powerful countries like China and Russia having nuclear weapons but these smaller countries like North Korea who seems to have less to lose when using these weapons is what I am afraid of.

[damam]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 10 2004, 08:33 PM)

Yes, it is a hypocritical statement because he is doing a half ass job.  There's no way for Iraq to have nuclear weapons, unless you disagree and have proof that they are able to deliver nuclear missiles.  I don't know what kind of WMD's you are talking about, but compared to conventional, biological and chemical weapons, nuclear weapons is the most deadly and longest lasting effect.  So the US should lead an international effort to get rid of it... http://www.wagingpea...n-examining.htm That being said, I guess we will never know how Kerry would do about Nuclear Proliferation since he is not president.  One of the things that Kerry said that he would've done was that having a bi-lateral talks with North Korea, not just a six-party talks involving other nearby Asian countries.

From the website you provided:

QUOTE

Senator Kerry has set forth a plan to create a consortium to supply Iran with the fuel it needs for peaceful purposes with the agreement that Iran would return the spent fuel to the consortium, thus eliminating the threat that this material would be converted to use for weapons.

this is absurd

This may seem off topic so bear with me I have a point:
Let's say a police officer walks into a garage.  The garage is filled only with the chemical glassware required to make Meth.  The police officer notices some shelves and on the shelves only chemicals required to make Meth are present.  On a counter top, all the glassware is arranged just as you would expect it to be if someone were making meth.  On the wall, is a sheet of instructions title "How to Make Meth" followed with step by step instructions on how to make meth.  But, at long last no meth is found on the premises.

Now do we have a meth lab here?  The answer in the eyes of the Law, is NO.  In order to have a meth lab, meth must be present at the site.  But what does common sense tell us?  Answer:  in all likely hood somebody was making meth in this garage.

labs just like this were found all over iraq, the only issue is that they never found any weaponized chemicals.  they just found labs that appeared to be all setup, have the right chemicals etc.  So what does common sense tell you?  Were there WMD's?

[Ween311]

QUOTE

They air Leno one week later here and I just watched the episode when Bush had won, and he did the "Jay-walking". For crying out loud, how stupid are people? They say the most amazing things. He asked them to follow up "It's better to have loved and lost...", and one woman knew it " ...than to have never loved at all". The rest of them had no idea, and one of them was a therapist.

Hahahaha....Jaywalking.  I like to watch that too.  You do know that those are edited.  They only show the dumbest people to make it funny.  If they showed all the people getting the right answers, what would be funny about that.  Don't base you opinions about the intellect of our country on a television comedy show.  What if we based our opinions of Swedes on the Muppet Show?  Swedish Chef anyone?

[Baner]

QUOTE

What the hell?  That's not the california I live in (I'm in LA).  Black men?  Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men.

QUOTE

You scumbag racist. It's not hard to see why you love Bush. You've never thought the white men have created the violent and criminal black men? The violent black americans are a direct result of the white mens action towards them, especially before the sixties. They have never asked to take part of the american society, so I can see why they are pissed at you. However there are a lot of black people that are not violent, or criminal. Maybe if you treated them better they might assimilate better in the white society, but I can surely understand if they don't want to.

Only a retard would think that someone saying that Blacks aren't the majority is a racist remark... All he was saying was around the area he lives in, the Blacks aren't the majority. It's people like you that keep racism alive. You always have to bring it up if the topic ever ends up on minorities.
I live 30 minutes outside of Atlanta, if I go into town, 5 to every 1 person is Black. Is that being racist? The crime rate of our state is highest in Atlanta. Now am I being racist? A man that works for my dad was attempted to be robbed (long story) by a black man. Am I any more racists? If I am, then that's funny, cause everything I've said is fact.

QUOTE

Who wants america to be the world police? Americans?

I've heard, so many time in so many places, the America needs to do "blank" to this country. And America did "blank" wrong. I've heard it here, from elders, from school teachers. I don't want America to be the world police, it gives us a bad name. If we do go into a country, trying to restore peace, or give people better lives, all you hear about later is the amount of "American inflicted civilian casualities" and for what?
I wouldn't mind a world police (hmm isn't that what the UN and Nato are suppose to do?), but the group we have in charge of that rely too much on begging, and too little on actions.


About the fuel rods and Iran, I thought America didn't negotiate with terrorists. Bribing them not to obtain nuclear weapons is doing just that isn't it?

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

What the hell?  That's not the california I live in (I'm in LA).  Black men?  Blacks aren't even a majority here, let alone men.

You

QUOTE

You scumbag racist. It's not hard to see why you love Bush

You've got issues, Gronne.  I merely mentioned that black men aren't the majority here.  That's racist?  Hispanics are the growing majority in LA, and in my area, probably Asians as well.  

Jesus.

It's people like you who feed racism in a bogus front to stop it.  Someone mentions the word black and you go ape shit.  Way to go... Hey, my car's black... (ooooh)

[damam]

QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 11 2004, 07:31 PM)

Like Foxnews and CNN, there's always 2 sides for every story.  Aljazeera represents voices in the Arab countries.  And I am sure that most arabs would want to read news that is concerned to them.

Im not trying to silence their voice.  The point is that they should state their biases somewhere instead of claiming to be Journalists.  And they should only report stories that are true.

Just as all the reporters/journalists at CNN and FoxNews should as well.  To Give an example, no one is ignorant to the fact that Combs is a moderate liberal, or that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative.  They state it themselves, so everything they say from that point on can be evaluate with that in mind.  

Really I think journalism is dead.  I would much rather listen to commentators from the left and right, then journalists claiming to be neutral.  Its just more honest.

Second, I dont care whether your arab, american, British, or ethiopian, wouldnt you at least like to read or see stories that have actually happened from your news source?  Al Jazeera has flat out lied at times,  putting them in the realm of the national inquirer and the star.  But unlike the national inquirer and the star who right there stories with a nudge and wink, they still claim to journalists reporting the truth.  They never offer retractions, and the untrue stories are almost always anti-american.

QUOTE

but the group we have in charge of that rely too much on begging, and too little on actions.

Never underestimate the power of nasty letters of disapproval