Post by: ..[[ModBoxMaster]].. on July 22, 2004, 02:28:00 AM
jibjab.comPost by: bx2a5z on July 22, 2004, 01:14:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| btw, this was a chain letter going around. some of you may have gotten it. its pretty good, read it. |
Right, so every crappy chain email I've gotten since about 1995 has been filled with half-truths and outright lies. But THIS chain letter, THIS is the one that's 100% true! THIS is the email that we should base our votes on in November!
Give me a break.Also, that list seems to be jam packed with military people calling Kerry a liar for talking about atrocities in Vietnam. Well, OF COURSE they're going to say that! What, do you think the veterans are going to stand up and say "He's right! I raped all those little village girls right before I burned down their village!"?
| QUOTE |
| btw, readers digest interviewed someone who grew up with kerry and he said he hates him, because hes cold, arrogant, and mean. lol, the people who have actually gotten to know him hate him. |
Oh, well NOW you've convinced me! I was on the fence before, but now that I know that ONE random person that knew Kerry decades ago didn't care for him very much, hell, I'm voting for Bush! Nobody who ever met him didn't like him!
Post by: thomes08 on July 22, 2004, 04:34:00 PM
I like how both sides are made fun of, it was a lot more middle of the road then your topic implied
thomes08
Post by: Colonel32 on July 23, 2004, 06:53:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| oh, so you APPROVE of kerry slamming war veterans? |
Not only do I approve it, but I thank him and think he is an American hero.
There were atrocities committed in Vietnam. A million people died.
Post by: X2Gamer on July 23, 2004, 07:02:00 PM
Post by: Colonel32 on July 24, 2004, 12:40:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. |
Perhaps we disagree because I don't think Kerry slammed veterans at all, rather the lack of leadership that made them all veterans.
Post by: bx2a5z on July 24, 2004, 12:39:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Jul 24 2004, 02:15 AM) |
| hmmm, show me where i said the chain letter was 100% true? because i dont believe i ever said that. apparantly you have a very, very active imagination |
I just figured that if you really wanted to frame some type of debate, you would have chosen a more authoritative source than spam...
| QUOTE |
| oh, so you APPROVE of kerry slamming war veterans? |
I approve of people telling the truth. I'm happy when someone can say what really happened during a war and express their opinion without being branded a traitor by slack-jawed idiots.
Post by: gronne on July 24, 2004, 03:44:00 PM
It's pretty safe to say that the world and USA will benefit if Kerry get's elected.
When USA has got some perspectives on it Bush will be remembered as the worst president ever. I even think the republicans will say this.
Post by: gcskate27 on July 25, 2004, 02:59:00 AM
Post by: pegasys on July 25, 2004, 07:30:00 AM
Post by: Sai1002 on July 25, 2004, 08:51:00 AM
Post by: Dark_Link2135 on July 25, 2004, 12:48:00 PM
| QUOTE (pegasys @ Jul 25 2004, 03:33 PM) |
| Kerry wasn't bashing veterans he was just pointing out that war crimes were committed, not EVERY soldier committed war crimes but many did. They were a bunch of scared kids fighting 4 their lives, but the truth should be told no matter what and Kerry told the truth. If someone on ur street raped someone and was brought 2 trial does that mean that the witnesses were saying every single resident of the street is a rapest, no they are not. He wasn't bashing all veterans, he meerely pointed out that atrocities were commited. At least when POW's are tourtured by Americans they don't say it classifies as tourture they say it's "abuse" so they don't get in trouble. They president can't even apoligise some intern in the White Hose daily breefing does 4 him. And all he can say is that it was "abhorent" as if Bush really know what that means. HA. |
okay, that makes sense. but still, he was with many of these guys he accused of doing horrible things...i mean, hes trying to get out of the blame while doing this, or at least thats the way i see it. and i think a united states soldier has every right to do what he wants to preserve his life. i mean, if hes just killing people for the heck of it, no, thats wrong, but if it is to save his own life - i mean, its justifiable.
and about the article, i mean obviously these guys are going to be dead set against him from the start. i put it here because it gives people an idea of what veterans think about him. but, yes, they are going to hate him, because nobody like being told they did something wrong.
and you cant just assume kerry told the truth.
he probably did about most things, or else the liberals/conservatives would be bashing the crap out of him.
yes, the liberals too, there are a lot of liberals who dont like him.
slate for instance, hardly a conservative magazine, ran an article titled "Don't like the senators plans? Just wait a week" lol, it was funny. may have not been that word for word, but it was very close to that.
Post by: nemt on July 26, 2004, 05:53:00 PM
Post by: Mick Garvey on July 29, 2004, 02:22:00 AM
Personally i liked the "hurmon munster" part and the "liberal pussy part" and the part where kerry says "this land is your land this land is my land" LOL
Post by: ..[[ModBoxMaster]].. on August 13, 2004, 07:43:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 14, 2004, 06:40:00 AM
Post by: thomes08 on August 14, 2004, 07:24:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on August 14, 2004, 09:20:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 15, 2004, 11:01:00 AM
| QUOTE (jesusphreak @ Aug 14 2004, 10:50 PM) |
| It's interesting. I was reading an article the other day in the paper about John Kerry's boat mates speaking out against him and his 3 Purple Hearts. A lot of them claim that he faked his injuries just so he could get discharged (3 purple hearts does so).... I don't recall the whole story, so I'm not gonna recount something innaccurate, but I'm not sure that the man is to be trusted..... |
and bush cant read/write/speak, im sure hes inbred
Post by: MrWizdumb on August 22, 2004, 02:57:00 PM
EDIT: sp mistake
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 22, 2004, 03:34:00 PM
how bush attacked kerry during a speech to a town that had lost people in iraq, and he attacked him on not giving the aid (80 million or whatever) to the troops
the funny thing is, we are giving the aid, but it doesnt seem to be making a differene, ie its very ironic
also, you dont need patriot missiles, f-15's, f-18's, stealth bombers, etc for the iraq war, and if you disagree on this, then let there be an argument i shall win
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 23, 2004, 07:47:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Aug 23 2004, 07:50 PM) |
| i kind of agree with this fact. i respect the fact that kerry did serve his country, and he IS a war hero. however he does not deserve that title because of his medals, rather, because of the fact that he is a war veteran. he did serve his country, and no one can take away that fact. but the fact that he got 3 purple hearts, for superficial wounds, is not really heroism. i can understand why he would want to get out of vietnam, asap, but its not right that he parades his medals. im not saying he didnt deserve them, but that he shouldnt parade them about like he half died to get them. shooting a fleeing sniper in the back (bronze or silver), i dont personally think he deserved a medal for that, but im not prepared to go against the miltary's reasoning on that, there are probably circumstances in that nobody but kerry knows. but if he got it because "he prevented the sniper from killing americans" which i have heard said before, then every vietnam veteran who ever killed a north vietnamese/vietcong soldier deserved a (bronze/silver), and as for the one in which he pulled a guy out of the water, now that i have read specifics about this, he does deserve this one. they were under fire, and instead of ordering the swift boat to ignore him, he had it turned around, and grabed him out of the water himself, while still under fire. i can definitely see why he deserved this medal. but like i said, the others are nothing to parade about, and the whole "im a vietnam veteran so i should be president" thing is illegit. and like you said, i agree that war service should not matter. and i think its sick when politics has degraded to the point of smear campaigns, and this goes for both sides. and kerry still insists bush cannot prove he showed up for guard duty, which he already released his records showing he was not awol'd. now kerry needs to do likewise, and either admit to the allegations of the republicans, or prove them wrong. he needs to release his war records, either to put to rest controversy which may be false, or, apologize to the american people for lying about his vietname service. personally, i think its quite suspicious that kerry is so reluctant to release his war records. and as far as trust, i wouldnt begin to trust ANY politician to tell the entire truth. thats absolutely ridiculous. and this illiterate, inbred bs is old and needs to stop. he can obviously do all three, or he wouldnt have gotten an MBA from harvard. you are doing the exact same thing you accuse republicans of, making false, unfounded accusations. and because someone speaks with an accent does not make them unable to speak. im sure someone from the east coast would think midwesterners speak with an accent, and they speak normally, and vice versa. also the fact that bush "stole" the election is bs. the democrats were actively trying to keep him from gaining office, and finally the supreme court put a stop to it. if you remember, it was the democrats who were trying to throw out military votes, which were primarily for bush. two counties in wisconsin (i think it was wisconsin) turned in more democratic votes then there were registered voters. nobody "stole" the election. in fact, a total recount of all votes in florida, acording to some, would have ended up with a stronger pro-bush vote. however, i do agree that obviously it was an extremely close election, and that the popular vote favored gore. but thats the reason we have an electoral collage, to make sure that your opinion DOESNT count. dont get me wrong, i wouldnt rather have gore, but i dont necisarily agree with the electoral collage either of course i can understand this, this is politics. |
hahahaha, i was actually respecting your post until this came up....
| QUOTE |
| or he wouldnt have gotten an MBA from harvard. |
honestly, the guys is dumb as shit, and he got a c-, which for anyone is a little below average, even espacially if your going to harvard
and you cant tell me his dad didnt have one single thing to do with his "great achievements at harvard"
pure and simple the guy is a moron
and dont even bring up the election thing, it definatly wouldnt have helped bush if the votes were counted, and the dems had the right idea to go to the supreme court
its one of those things we'll never know because of someone with higher power in a higher place doesnt want us to know
what im trying to say is, bush isnt fit to run america again, because this term, he has nothing to lose, so he could (and probably would) start another war for even more fucking fun (iraq was a joke)
i dont like either of the candidates, but kerry is more fit (mentally and politically) to run this country then george
Post by: cromat44 on August 24, 2004, 03:13:00 AM
Post by: pegasys on August 24, 2004, 09:27:00 AM
Post by: cromat44 on August 24, 2004, 03:34:00 PM
"ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
"wait xbox pwns"
"now ps2 roxxors my boxxors"
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 24, 2004, 03:37:00 PM
| QUOTE (cromat44 @ Aug 24 2004, 05:37 PM) |
| so here is kerry's thought.... "ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" "wait xbox pwns" "now ps2 roxxors my boxxors" |
ummmm, wow
you take being a complete retard to a whole new level
and pegasys, that was a mighty fine post
Post by: The unProfessional on August 24, 2004, 05:49:00 PM
Raptor: usually you're cool, and I mean no disrespect. But if someone puts alot of thought and insight into an anti-kerry (or god forbid pro-bush) statement, you tend to focus on one sentence of their post and ad-hominum their ass to the wall. But if they use game consoles to illustrate a pro-kerry statement, you praise them. Just seems awfully partisan to me.
Pegasys: you sound like an insightful guy. Your point about leaders who take the initiative to make changes is a great one. I'm just using the console thing to illustrate a point to my friend raptorbull.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on August 24, 2004, 05:53:00 PM
Kerry is a fucking tool.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 24, 2004, 08:40:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Aug 24 2004, 07:52 PM) |
| I see what pegasys is trying to illustrate. But changing your mind on the same issue for the sake of satisfying the audience is hardly a good thing... it's deception. Your point is excellent. I just don't think Kerry is the type of guy to make such changes. And it's true, no presidential hopeful should run around with their medals ona string... unless maybe it's a CMOH. It just doesn't outline what the guy will be like as a president. Raptor: usually you're cool, and I mean no disrespect. But if someone puts alot of thought and insight into an anti-kerry (or god forbid pro-bush) statement, you tend to focus on one sentence of their post and ad-hominum their ass to the wall. But if they use game consoles to illustrate a pro-kerry statement, you praise them. Just seems awfully partisan to me. Pegasys: you sound like an insightful guy. Your point about leaders who take the initiative to make changes is a great one. I'm just using the console thing to illustrate a point to my friend raptorbull. |
i want praising them, i was merley saying he put it in a good anology for most of the people on these forums to understand
as you can see by people like cromat, and others like him ,they dont really understand what there talking about, much rather a detailed political statement, but if you throw in game sonsoles as references, then they start to understand
its amazing really
Post by: cromat44 on August 24, 2004, 09:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Aug 24 2004, 07:43 PM) |
| i want praising them, i was merley saying he put it in a good anology for most of the people on these forums to understand as you can see by people like cromat, and others like him ,they dont really understand what there talking about, much rather a detailed political statement, but if you throw in game sonsoles as references, then they start to understand its amazing really |
if you think my statements were serious then you are the person that doesn't understand what you're talking about, not me.....
kerry is known for flip flopping, i was mocking that in my first post.... in my second post i was mocking pegasys....
Post by: pegasys on August 24, 2004, 09:55:00 PM
Post by: The unProfessional on August 25, 2004, 01:21:00 AM
pegasys: i believe many american's changed their minds once the facts became more "real". Kerry is pegged as swaying on more than one occasion.
My worry is that we're SOL either way.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 25, 2004, 05:00:00 AM
| QUOTE (pegasys @ Aug 24 2004, 12:30 PM) |
| At least kerry admits when he's wrong, he would say "oh know intelligence says that iraq is a threat to us, lets attack them. Oh shit we were lied to and they were not a threat thats not good maybe the war was a bad idea." some would call this flip-floping, I callit intelligent and logical. Bush would say, "I really wanna attack iraq, lets tell everyone they are a threat then attack them. Oh shit they found out we lied to them. Instead of admitting that the war in iraq was wrong lets keep saying it's a good war and make up excuses as to why we should have attak regardless of the fact that the whole premis for the war on iraq is a lie." Some would call this sticking to his ideals , I call it a crime, because lossing american and innocent iraqi lives because you are too fucking stubborn to admit you are wrong is fucking murder. For example, I used to like ps2 and thought it was a more powerful system than xbox, but then I learned the facts and decided that xbox is more powerful. Thats the same "flip-flops" that Kerry did and the is nothing wrong with that. Tell me have you never changed your opinion on something. If "good" leaders didn't change their minds than there would still be slavery, segragation. The onlt people that I have heard of that never change their opinions are members of the KKK. Is that the kind of president that you want? (I'm not saying that Bush is a member of the KKK, I'm just illistrating how changing your opinion is not a bad thing.) |
:::sigh:::
Bush, nor the CIA "Lied" - Bush acted on intelligence he believed to be true, as did the CIA in general (the conclusions based in large part on Joe Wilson (a democratic Kerry supporter) and his wife's reports on sales of yellowcake (that's Uranium ore) to Iraq, which last time I heard were actually TRUE, even though Wilson recanted later.
Secondly, Kerry stated that even without the WMD threat, he would still have voted to give the President authorization for using whatever force/action was needed to police Iraq.
Why do anti-Bush people insist on perpetuating their own set of lies in this? It serveds no purpose, and makes them look like total asses to those who actually read the news and keep up on the facts.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 25, 2004, 07:28:00 AM
| QUOTE (cromat44 @ Aug 24 2004, 11:20 PM) |
| if you think my statements were serious then you are the person that doesn't understand what you're talking about, not me..... kerry is known for flip flopping, i was mocking that in my first post.... in my second post i was mocking pegasys.... |
then why post in a political thread if all your going to do is make retarded statements, when you know yourself what your saying is retarded?
and for evreyone else
it doesnt matter if bush acted on bad intel, thats in the past
whats at focus here is that bush would still (according to his own words) attack iraq even if he knew they didnt have WMD's
but kerry on the other hand said he still take action against iraq, but what people dont understand is he means any action, ie, UN, inspectors, etc, kerry isnt limiting himself to saying flat out hed attack them militarilly
whats relevant here is bush, being the idiot he is, is basically saying hed sacrafice american lives for nothing, while kerry on the other hand has played a trump card, saying force isnt out of the question, but other, peaceful options are still up for using
anyone follow yet?
Post by: pegasys on August 25, 2004, 08:15:00 AM
For those of you who say that Kerry supporters perpetuate their own lies, thats not true. Maybe Bush didn't "lie", just whenever some intelegence pointed to a nation other that iraq being resposible or having a hand in 9/11, all Bush said was no we need to find out about iraq, Iraq did it. At this point I realize that when we have arguments about iraq and Kerry vs. Bush war record, we are playing right into the Bush supporters hands. We need to talk about how Kerry will pull the econamy out of the economic slump that we are in, generate more jobs, and provide healthcare for more people. We need someone to fix the problems that Bush caused. When the republicans say that Kerry wantys to raise taxes, you think, "oh thats no good", but in reality he is going to stop giving tax breaks to the rich. If you collect less money and spend more, it dosn't work, with Bush we ARE GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY. For the good of america and for our troops in the middle east we must vote Kerry. And for those of you wo think that i'm just some liberal, I voted for Bush. I have realized that that is a mistake, now I will vote for Kerry. I have flipflopped, and I am proud.
Post by: pug_ster on August 25, 2004, 09:42:00 AM
| QUOTE (pegasys @ Aug 25 2004, 05:58 AM) |
| First of all If you are going to have a debate about something don't just say "Bush rulz Kerry sux" use your minds, post some facts and maybe throw in a constructive thought or 2. And this ones for you cromat44 the media has blown up the whole flip-flopping thing, Kerry was given false facts by Bosh then made a descision based uppon those facts. Those facts were found to be incorrect so Kerry changed his mind. I'm begging you to say something that will make this bad other than just saying "Ummmm ah yes he flip-flopped." Unprofesional, you seem like an intelligent person, I don't think Kerry changed his mind just to sway the public. But even if he did that is not as bad as lieing and sending your country into war based on a lie it really isn't that bad. Also Kerry does not flaunt his medals, the Bush campaign trys to discredit them thus bringing them into the lime light. At least Kerry served instead of signing up just so it's on your record that you "sereved" like Bush did. He didn't even show up half the time. All of you I beg you don't vote Bush, people are losing their jobs and dieing needlessly, the world and country is in turmoil. Maybe Kerry is not the best man to fix the situation, only time will tell, but Bush definatly is not. |
It is unfortunate today that all you see in the news was that about Kerry 'flip flopping' and the Vietnam war metal issue. This is really a smokescreen over issues that we really care about. You don't see much news about Kerry or Edwards (or Bush for that matter) campaining about issues that we really care about. The only time you see that is the ads that they put money in.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 25, 2004, 09:53:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 25 2004, 11:45 AM) |
| It is unfortunate today that all you see in the news was that about Kerry 'flip flopping' and the Vietnam war metal issue. This is really a smokescreen over issues that we really care about. You don't see much news about Kerry or Edwards campaining about issues that we really care about. The only time you see that is the ads that they put money in. |
yea, ive been noticing that more and more
on another issue
anyone see dick cheneys stance on gay marriage last night, he thinks its ok and it should be allowed
thats gonna fuck up bush's campaign a little
*for those of you that dont know, cheney has a gay daughter, who he openly supports now
Post by: pug_ster on August 25, 2004, 10:17:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 25 2004, 01:03 PM) |
| :::sigh::: Bush, nor the CIA "Lied" - Bush acted on intelligence he believed to be true, as did the CIA in general (the conclusions based in large part on Joe Wilson (a democratic Kerry supporter) and his wife's reports on sales of yellowcake (that's Uranium ore) to Iraq, which last time I heard were actually TRUE, even though Wilson recanted later. Secondly, Kerry stated that even without the WMD threat, he would still have voted to give the President authorization for using whatever force/action was needed to police Iraq. Why do anti-Bush people insist on perpetuating their own set of lies in this? It serveds no purpose, and makes them look like total asses to those who actually read the news and keep up on the facts. |
I don't know where you get that information from about Joe Wilson.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain636473.shtml
Maybe it is more clearer once you have read this.
You know, at that time when the Whitehouse presented those 'facts' about the so called 'imminent' threat from Iraq early last year, a lot of gullable people believed it, including myself and probably Kerry. Unfortunately, we, including Kerry, are blindsided about this news so we don't believe in the contrary. Kerry would've probably had to say 'yes' to the war because if he wouldve say 'no' people look at him as being incompetent.
With this news as well as other kind of 'news' that the Bush administration spoon fed us. More and more people are sick of Bush administration's 'crying wolf' so that we can rally in his cause.
Propaganda is a very strong tool to persuade or dissaude people. In the past 4 years I see more of that stuff even the News channels are being fed with.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 25, 2004, 11:58:00 AM
| QUOTE (pegasys @ Aug 25 2004, 11:18 AM) |
| BenJeremy: Kerry said that he would do something "take action" not attack and when it's not working keep doing it so he could appear steadfast(cough... Bush). Anyone can make a desicion, and stick to it, we need someone who can make the right descision. For those of you who say that Kerry supporters perpetuate their own lies, thats not true. Maybe Bush didn't "lie", just whenever some intelegence pointed to a nation other that iraq being resposible or having a hand in 9/11, all Bush said was no we need to find out about iraq, Iraq did it. At this point I realize that when we have arguments about iraq and Kerry vs. Bush war record, we are playing right into the Bush supporters hands. We need to talk about how Kerry will pull the econamy out of the economic slump that we are in, generate more jobs, and provide healthcare for more people. We need someone to fix the problems that Bush caused. When the republicans say that Kerry wantys to raise taxes, you think, "oh thats no good", but in reality he is going to stop giving tax breaks to the rich. If you collect less money and spend more, it dosn't work, with Bush we ARE GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY. For the good of america and for our troops in the middle east we must vote Kerry. And for those of you wo think that i'm just some liberal, I voted for Bush. I have realized that that is a mistake, now I will vote for Kerry. I have flipflopped, and I am proud. |
:::shakes head at people with blinders on:::
Kerry stated he would have voted to give Bush the authority to take action, regardless of WMD evidence presented. He believed that the President has the perogative to use force, if needed, in such affairs. In that, he is not entirely correct, either - that's why it's up to a vote in the first place.
Beyond that, we do NOT know what action he would take, though keep in mind, under Clinton, he favored ALL military action taken against Saddam.
As for 9/11, it's another myth that Bush blamed the whole thing on Saddam. It's also still not proven, one way or another, whether he had involvement. There are actually some compelling, though tenuous bits of evidence that he did indeed have something to do with it, starting with potential sleeper agents planted in Kuwait in 1991 (several hijackers and other al qaida agents have history back to Kuwait, after the country was liberated, but NO TRACE of existence before then.) as well as meetings between Iraqi officials and known al qaida operatives in Europe. For all that's said about the differences between the Baathists and al qaida, they had a common enemy (the West), and as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - the two had plenty enough common "cause" to put aside those differences.
My point isn't to make the case they were working together - only that the possibility has NOT been disproven and there are still too many unanswered questions to make that statement.
Likewise, it's a terribly flawed logic to also state Saddam had no WMDs. We do know several things:
1. Saddam DID attempt to buy yellowcake from agents in Africa. Joe Wilson and his wife provided some evidence of this, though they've switched stories several times - but other witnesses have verified this as fact; and Wilson is anti-Bush, so his obvious flip-flops on the facts underscore his lack of credibility at this time.
2. Saddam's reluctance to allow inspectors free access. It still boggles the mind. Without WMDs, the only possible explaination is that Saddam THOUGHT he had WMDs, but was lied to by his advisors. The other reason, well.....
3. Various stockpiles of chemical artillery shells found around Iraq. Mostly these are discounted as old, aging relics of the 80's war with Iran, except two things bother me about it.... a) they were supposed to be destroyed, in accordance with UN resolutions after Desert Storm and
Some of the shells found could NOT have been that old, based on the agents involved. I can see several reasons for the US to hide the true facts here, but I feel the greater good would have been served to reveal it here. Obviously, the hunt is on for the remainder of these weapons, hence the downplay of these WMDs found as "old relics"4. Roach coaches or biolabs? We all saw the discovery of these, revealed embarrassingly on network news.... pooh-poohed by Blix as nothing more than roach coaches, though no food preperation appliances or whatnot was found, only ammonia and bleached -wiped surfaces hidden behind secret panels. The set up was ideal for a bio lab, not a rolling meal wagon. What happened to the contents? I'm sure that question is a scary one to intelligence - perhaps one bad enough to bury the discovery of these trucks? Nobody in the military has ever fully dismissed these trucks, either, to my knowledge - just ignored the situation until nobody asked about it anymore.
5. Buried treasures.... Saddam buried whole aircraft in the desert (quite a big desert, by the way), as well as missiles (under 6 yards of concrete, no less). He had bunkers 10 stories deep. We have still not located all of his caches and hiding spots. Advanced missile systems he was NOT supposed to have have been found in shipments of scrap metal sent out of Iraq as the US beat the war drums.
6. The curious rotation of border guards. The Baathists had an odd habit of occasionally, for a day or two at a time, replacing border guards along the Iraqi-Syria border with members of Saddam's personal guard. The only obvious reason is so material and people could be moved across the border. What kind of material might we be talking about, anyway? This happened much more frequently as the impending invasion neared.
Taken separately, I suppose "somewhat" plausable excuses could be made, but together? It's clear Saddam thought he had WMDs; the reality/fact of this is still in question, as his advisors might merely have been milking him for years.
Is the world safer with Saddam gone? Hell yes. The spasms of Islamists fighting the introduction of tolerance and democracy should be seen for what they are - the dying gasps and desparate grabs for power by criminal and radical elements alike. With all of the attention on "ousting" the infidels, there is nobody to sponsor training, financing and arming of terrorists, at least in Iraq. Iran is spending all of it's energy in two efforts: building a nuclear weapons program and supporting the Shiite insurgency in Iraq; Many Iraqis see Iran's role for what it is, by the way. We'll surely have to deal with Iran's nukes soon enough, as the UN Muslim nuke authority continues to dither and buy time for Iran - but it will happen.
Syria is also laying in wait for some serious attention, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn we've got a serious build-up of intelligence assets in country now; revealing "official" knowledge of WMD transfers to the Baaka Valley would likely jeopardize those efforts - meanwhile, Syria won't move a damn thing, for fear of being revealed themselves. In effect, their role as sponsors of global terrorism is limited, at best.
North Korea? They no longer have Libya and Iraq buying arms from them. Iran, yes, but for how much longer? China won't support any aggressive acts, nor their nuclear ambitions, so it boils down to attrition. Frankly, how much longer can they hold out without any new cash to feed and pay their army? It sounds cruel, as the waiting game will cause millions of North Koreans to starve to death, but it's Kim's choice, ultimately, unless we choose direct confrontation.
Iraq presented several tough problems from a sanctions standpoint. It's clear France, Germany and Russia illegally used the food-for-oil program to get oil from Iraq and it resulted in BILLIONS in profit (perhaps more so that WITHOUT the so-called UN sanctions) with the Iraqi people paying the price as Saddam luxuriated in his palaces and his sons raped and tortured the population. Food-for-oil officials also illegally raked in millions in bribes and incentives to look the other way as these activities went on. There was no way the West could "wait Saddam out". Meanwhile, Saddam was paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers as direct financial support of terrorist acts. Oh, and as a minor issue, he was thumbing his nose at the U.S. the whole time.... while it rankled, it could easily be forgotten (as in the case of Kim or Khamanei) except for the other little items in the Iraqi portfolio.
I'm not a big fan of some of Bush's policies, but even those I'm not fond of, he's managed to distance himself from taking action on (these being personal liberty issues). For those imprtant things, like the war on terrorism, he presents a far more attractive and focused leader on the matter than Kerry ever will. The worst thing I can say about Bush is the ever-growing deficit, but there are several factors (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the recession that began before he took office) which make arguing the fiscal situation moot at this point.
What should disturb you is what Kerry WOULD ACTUALLY DO, since it's clear what he says, and what he does are often different things. He's a war protestor who stands behind his "glorious war hero service" as evidence of his ability to act as commander in chief, yet even now, after evidence continues to mount, he admits his first purple heart resulted from self-inflicted wounds, and he was not under enemy fire at the time. He's a priviledged person with homes all over the world, able to do things on a whim you or I have to spend years planning and saving for. On Sunday afternoons, he's having wine and cheese socials arguing the finer points of a Manet he just bought, while "Dubya" is kicking back having a barbeque with his Texas neighbors, enjoying a football game. I know who I have more in common with....
Kerry's chief supporters are billionaires and millionaires - people who've NEVER had to worry about overdrafts and making a rent payment. They are people who have stated, time and time again (Hillary most recently stated it) "we will take your money and spend it for the good of the people" - Hmmm.... the good of MY people is what's best for my family, not what some stuck up socialite thinks my money should be spent on (like needles for heroin addicts or welfare checks). They've spent MILLIONS on "527" organizations like MoveOn.org, which exists solely to ATTACK Bush and have direct ties to the DNC and Kerry campaign, in violation of FEC regulations. They have stated, quite bluntly and openly that THEY know what's good for us, and they'll shove it down our throats for "our own good" whether we like it or not.
Kerry's people will not suffer $3-4/gallon gas prices.
Kerry's people will not be forced to use interest-only payment home loans.
Kerry's people will not be forced to debate bankruptcy proceedings to keep a roof over their family's heads.
Kerry's people will not ever contemplate the need to get food stamps to feed their children.
The more I am forced to rebut the anti-Bush crowd, the better I feel about voting for Bush in this coming election. As a veteran, and as somebody who knows many honorable Vietnam vets, I find Kerry more descpicable every day the election creeps closer. His own words and actions taint him and demonstrate his absolute inability to lead our nation as Chief Executive. Kerry's certainly proven himself as an excellent gigilo, servicing rich women. He's also great at delivering speeches, no matter what the facts really are. Realistically, though, the only reason most of his potential voters support him is becuase he's not Bush, and that's simply idiotic.
Post by: pug_ster on August 25, 2004, 02:11:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 25 2004, 08:01 PM) |
| :::shakes head at people with blinders on::: 5. Buried treasures.... Saddam buried whole aircraft in the desert (quite a big desert, by the way), as well as missiles (under 6 yards of concrete, no less). He had bunkers 10 stories deep. We have still not located all of his caches and hiding spots. Advanced missile systems he was NOT supposed to have have been found in shipments of scrap metal sent out of Iraq as the US beat the war drums. Taken separately, I suppose "somewhat" plausable excuses could be made, but together? It's clear Saddam thought he had WMDs; the reality/fact of this is still in question, as his advisors might merely have been milking him for years. Is the world safer with Saddam gone? Hell yes. The spasms of Islamists fighting the introduction of tolerance and democracy should be seen for what they are - the dying gasps and desparate grabs for power by criminal and radical elements alike. With all of the attention on "ousting" the infidels, there is nobody to sponsor training, financing and arming of terrorists, at least in Iraq. Iran is spending all of it's energy in two efforts: building a nuclear weapons program and supporting the Shiite insurgency in Iraq; Many Iraqis see Iran's role for what it is, by the way. We'll surely have to deal with Iran's nukes soon enough, as the UN Muslim nuke authority continues to dither and buy time for Iran - but it will happen. What should disturb you is what Kerry WOULD ACTUALLY DO, since it's clear what he says, and what he does are often different things. He's a war protestor who stands behind his "glorious war hero service" as evidence of his ability to act as commander in chief, yet even now, after evidence continues to mount, he admits his first purple heart resulted from self-inflicted wounds, and he was not under enemy fire at the time. He's a priviledged person with homes all over the world, able to do things on a whim you or I have to spend years planning and saving for. On Sunday afternoons, he's having wine and cheese socials arguing the finer points of a Manet he just bought, while "Dubya" is kicking back having a barbeque with his Texas neighbors, enjoying a football game. I know who I have more in common with.... Kerry's chief supporters are billionaires and millionaires - people who've NEVER had to worry about overdrafts and making a rent payment. They are people who have stated, time and time again (Hillary most recently stated it) "we will take your money and spend it for the good of the people" - Hmmm.... the good of MY people is what's best for my family, not what some stuck up socialite thinks my money should be spent on (like needles for heroin addicts or welfare checks). They've spent MILLIONS on "527" organizations like MoveOn.org, which exists solely to ATTACK Bush and have direct ties to the DNC and Kerry campaign, in violation of FEC regulations. They have stated, quite bluntly and openly that THEY know what's good for us, and they'll shove it down our throats for "our own good" whether we like it or not. Kerry's people will not suffer $3-4/gallon gas prices. Kerry's people will not be forced to use interest-only payment home loans. Kerry's people will not be forced to debate bankruptcy proceedings to keep a roof over their family's heads. Kerry's people will not ever contemplate the need to get food stamps to feed their children. The more I am forced to rebut the anti-Bush crowd, the better I feel about voting for Bush in this coming election. As a veteran, and as somebody who knows many honorable Vietnam vets, I find Kerry more descpicable every day the election creeps closer. His own words and actions taint him and demonstrate his absolute inability to lead our nation as Chief Executive. Kerry's certainly proven himself as an excellent gigilo, servicing rich women. He's also great at delivering speeches, no matter what the facts really are. Realistically, though, the only reason most of his potential voters support him is becuase he's not Bush, and that's simply idiotic. |
- Well, I took out a bunch of stuff but it seems to be pretty detailed...
- 'Buried Treasures' - There's no proof that WMD exists. All those pictures are superficial because they can't prove that it exists. Most of the chemical weapons used during the early 1990's have a shelf life of a few months. You remember that the UN was going to inspect all those sites but Bush had an itchy trigger finger. The Bush's administration convienced us that based on satelite pictures (where's no proof that it is a WMD factory) and paid iraql defectors claimed that saw those wmd's.
- Is it good that Saddam gone? Yes. One thing about Saddam was that Iraq never press his business outside the middle east. If I remember correctly, Hussein and Al Quada are enemies so you never have seen them operate openly except for North Iraq because Hussein don't have much control there. But now the Iraqi regieme was replaced by a bunch of pissed off Muslum Jihadists who is willing to die like cannon fodders just to kill one of us. So do you think we are safer than 4 years ago? Hell no.
- Talking about terrorists. I mean that 4 years ago we never thought terrorists being here in the US. Now we are being inunidated about when are we going to be attacked by terrorists. I rather have a president who tries to get us out of the mess in Iraq than someone who more likely to drag us to WWIII by attacking the rest of the middle east and North Korea.
- I mean why don't the Bush administration go after moveon.org and say that they are lying like those Swiftboat veterians for lies? Maybe there's some truth in what moveon.org has to say and the Bush administration can't disprove it...
About what negative things about what Kerry do to gas, home mortgage, etc... What proof do you have that is going to happen? You are probably right about the $3-4 on the gas though regardless who is president because the fisaco with Iraq will cause the oil price to jump.
You are right about people will vote anybody but Bush. If he didn't screw up for the last 3.5 years in terms of every aspect of his presidency. In fact, I would've probably voted for Bush if he did for what half of what Reagan or Clinton would've done. Call me idiotic, but this current president more worse than Carter and Bush Sr.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 25, 2004, 03:39:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 25 2004, 05:14 PM) |
| - Well, I took out a bunch of stuff but it seems to be pretty detailed... |
| QUOTE |
- 'Buried Treasures' - There's no proof that WMD exists. All those pictures are superficial because they can't prove that it exists. Most of the chemical weapons used during the early 1990's have a shelf life of a few months. You remember that the UN was going to inspect all those sites but Bush had an itchy trigger finger. The Bush's administration convienced us that based on satelite pictures (where's no proof that it is a WMD factory) and paid iraql defectors claimed that saw those wmd's. |
Um, what? Your "shelf life" statement actually supports the idea that Saddam had fresh chemical weapons - many chemical artillary shells have been found in Iraq, some definitely 80s' era, but several of them could only have been made recently, at the earliest, 1998 or so. I guess having actual chemical weapons in hand, courtesy of Baathist loyalists is not proof?
| QUOTE |
- Is it good that Saddam gone? Yes. One thing about Saddam was that Iraq never press his business outside the middle east. If I remember correctly, Hussein and Al Quada are enemies so you never have seen them operate openly except for North Iraq because Hussein don't have much control there. But now the Iraqi regieme was replaced by a bunch of pissed off Muslum Jihadists who is willing to die like cannon fodders just to kill one of us. So do you think we are safer than 4 years ago? Hell no. |
Well, you swallowed the blurry media image of Iraq and al qaida's relationship hook-line-and-sinker. They share one common, most hated enemy: the west. Did they work together? There's plenty of evidence Saddam often hosted Taliban and al qaida operatives in Iraq, and we KNOW Iraqi officials made contact with several conspirators of 9/11, according to Interpol and German police.
| QUOTE |
- Talking about terrorists. I mean that 4 years ago we never thought terrorists being here in the US. Now we are being inunidated about when are we going to be attacked by terrorists. I rather have a president who tries to get us out of the mess in Iraq than someone who more likely to drag us to WWIII by attacking the rest of the middle east and North Korea. |
Well, I would say getting warned, versus getting KILLED is a good thing, eh? What happened to the follow-up attacks? None, you say? Perhaps, maybe, you might consider that President Bush's administration might deserve a bit of CREDIT for the LACK of terrorist attacks here in the US and on American interests overseas, even amid the countless threats and deadlines given by terrorist groups?
A true idiot would discount this, of course, as proof Bush and his people are getting the job done....
| QUOTE |
- I mean why don't the Bush administration go after moveon.org and say that they are lying like those Swiftboat veterians for lies? Maybe there's some truth in what moveon.org has to say and the Bush administration can't disprove it... |
Actually, Bush has asked the Swiftboat vets to stop the attack ads, and he also called on MoveOn and others to stop as well. Suffice it to say, Kerry won't call off the MoveOn attack dogs, and he continues to ignore the fact that Bush did exactly what the DNC asked him to do. I guess you repeat a lie enough times (in this case, "Bush should call off the attacks", when he already has) and it just becomes true, eh?
| QUOTE |
About what negative things about what Kerry do to gas, home mortgage, etc... What proof do you have that is going to happen? You are probably right about the $3-4 on the gas though regardless who is president because the fisaco with Iraq will cause the oil price to jump. |
Not really. The Saudis won't price gouging happen, and as it is, the jumpiness is in SPECULATION, not because of ANY REAL threat to the supply. Even with the attacks on the pipelines and refineries, production and shipment continues at nominal levels in Iraq. The Saudis agree that oil is far to expensive for the current supply and demand, and will increase production even more (why not?)
Things will most certainly calm down. How many people do you honestly think are taking up arms against the new Iraqi government and the coalition forces there? I'll tell you, it's not more than a thousand or two. Attacks in Bagdhad havedropped off dramatically, and Najaf is in it's last legs. The only thing those Shiite thugs have going for them is that coalition and Iraqi forces are hesitant to damage the Shrine (Ali's tomb).
The region is far less of a tinderbox than it was 4 years ago.
| QUOTE |
You are right about people will vote anybody but Bush. If he didn't screw up for the last 3.5 years in terms of every aspect of his presidency. In fact, I would've probably voted for Bush if he did for what half of what Reagan or Clinton would've done. Call me idiotic, but this current president more worse than Carter and Bush Sr. |
Wow.... nobody was worse than Carter - he gave away too much (Panama turned into the Noriega fiasco), supported Saddam AND Bin Laden and didn't act to prevent Islamists from taking over Iran. Much of the current problems can be traced to HIS failed diplomacy.
As for Bush's failing, what, exactly are they? I pay less in taxes, inflation remains low, as do interest rates. The recession is recovering, rather than plunging further, and unemployment rates remain about the same level as averaged under Clinton's term. All that in the face of the dstruction of the World Trade Center, causing trillions of dollars in fallout/damage to the world and American economies.
I feel safe flying (Indeed, took my family flying across country two weeks after 9/11), and I've NEVER had my personal liberties intruded upon (other than a shoe search at the airport, once - big deal!).
My family is better off today than 4 years ago, my son's schools are great, and Bush has increased VA budgets at TWICE the levels Clinton managed in his 8 years.
I really don't know where Bush has failed anything.... but the media has, time and time again, in their attempts to assassinate him by character.
As for our image to the rest of the world, I'd ratehr be a proud American than a cowed earthling. Europe has been jonesing for ages to get it's lick in on America - and Americans should study history and understand that we've been fighting for our liberty since 1776, it's never stopped. Some people forget that, it seems.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 25, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 25 2004, 02:01 PM) |
| :::shakes head at people with blinders on::: Kerry stated he would have voted to give Bush the authority to take action, regardless of WMD evidence presented. He believed that the President has the perogative to use force, if needed, in such affairs. In that, he is not entirely correct, either - that's why it's up to a vote in the first place. Beyond that, we do NOT know what action he would take, though keep in mind, under Clinton, he favored ALL military action taken against Saddam. As for 9/11, it's another myth that Bush blamed the whole thing on Saddam. It's also still not proven, one way or another, whether he had involvement. There are actually some compelling, though tenuous bits of evidence that he did indeed have something to do with it, starting with potential sleeper agents planted in Kuwait in 1991 (several hijackers and other al qaida agents have history back to Kuwait, after the country was liberated, but NO TRACE of existence before then.) as well as meetings between Iraqi officials and known al qaida operatives in Europe. For all that's said about the differences between the Baathists and al qaida, they had a common enemy (the West), and as the saying goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - the two had plenty enough common "cause" to put aside those differences. My point isn't to make the case they were working together - only that the possibility has NOT been disproven and there are still too many unanswered questions to make that statement. Likewise, it's a terribly flawed logic to also state Saddam had no WMDs. We do know several things: 1. Saddam DID attempt to buy yellowcake from agents in Africa. Joe Wilson and his wife provided some evidence of this, though they've switched stories several times - but other witnesses have verified this as fact; and Wilson is anti-Bush, so his obvious flip-flops on the facts underscore his lack of credibility at this time. 2. Saddam's reluctance to allow inspectors free access. It still boggles the mind. Without WMDs, the only possible explaination is that Saddam THOUGHT he had WMDs, but was lied to by his advisors. The other reason, well..... 3. Various stockpiles of chemical artillery shells found around Iraq. Mostly these are discounted as old, aging relics of the 80's war with Iran, except two things bother me about it.... a) they were supposed to be destroyed, in accordance with UN resolutions after Desert Storm and Some of the shells found could NOT have been that old, based on the agents involved. I can see several reasons for the US to hide the true facts here, but I feel the greater good would have been served to reveal it here. Obviously, the hunt is on for the remainder of these weapons, hence the downplay of these WMDs found as "old relics"4. Roach coaches or biolabs? We all saw the discovery of these, revealed embarrassingly on network news.... pooh-poohed by Blix as nothing more than roach coaches, though no food preperation appliances or whatnot was found, only ammonia and bleached -wiped surfaces hidden behind secret panels. The set up was ideal for a bio lab, not a rolling meal wagon. What happened to the contents? I'm sure that question is a scary one to intelligence - perhaps one bad enough to bury the discovery of these trucks? Nobody in the military has ever fully dismissed these trucks, either, to my knowledge - just ignored the situation until nobody asked about it anymore. 5. Buried treasures.... Saddam buried whole aircraft in the desert (quite a big desert, by the way), as well as missiles (under 6 yards of concrete, no less). He had bunkers 10 stories deep. We have still not located all of his caches and hiding spots. Advanced missile systems he was NOT supposed to have have been found in shipments of scrap metal sent out of Iraq as the US beat the war drums. 6. The curious rotation of border guards. The Baathists had an odd habit of occasionally, for a day or two at a time, replacing border guards along the Iraqi-Syria border with members of Saddam's personal guard. The only obvious reason is so material and people could be moved across the border. What kind of material might we be talking about, anyway? This happened much more frequently as the impending invasion neared. Taken separately, I suppose "somewhat" plausable excuses could be made, but together? It's clear Saddam thought he had WMDs; the reality/fact of this is still in question, as his advisors might merely have been milking him for years. Is the world safer with Saddam gone? Hell yes. The spasms of Islamists fighting the introduction of tolerance and democracy should be seen for what they are - the dying gasps and desparate grabs for power by criminal and radical elements alike. With all of the attention on "ousting" the infidels, there is nobody to sponsor training, financing and arming of terrorists, at least in Iraq. Iran is spending all of it's energy in two efforts: building a nuclear weapons program and supporting the Shiite insurgency in Iraq; Many Iraqis see Iran's role for what it is, by the way. We'll surely have to deal with Iran's nukes soon enough, as the UN Muslim nuke authority continues to dither and buy time for Iran - but it will happen. Syria is also laying in wait for some serious attention, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn we've got a serious build-up of intelligence assets in country now; revealing "official" knowledge of WMD transfers to the Baaka Valley would likely jeopardize those efforts - meanwhile, Syria won't move a damn thing, for fear of being revealed themselves. In effect, their role as sponsors of global terrorism is limited, at best. North Korea? They no longer have Libya and Iraq buying arms from them. Iran, yes, but for how much longer? China won't support any aggressive acts, nor their nuclear ambitions, so it boils down to attrition. Frankly, how much longer can they hold out without any new cash to feed and pay their army? It sounds cruel, as the waiting game will cause millions of North Koreans to starve to death, but it's Kim's choice, ultimately, unless we choose direct confrontation. Iraq presented several tough problems from a sanctions standpoint. It's clear France, Germany and Russia illegally used the food-for-oil program to get oil from Iraq and it resulted in BILLIONS in profit (perhaps more so that WITHOUT the so-called UN sanctions) with the Iraqi people paying the price as Saddam luxuriated in his palaces and his sons raped and tortured the population. Food-for-oil officials also illegally raked in millions in bribes and incentives to look the other way as these activities went on. There was no way the West could "wait Saddam out". Meanwhile, Saddam was paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers as direct financial support of terrorist acts. Oh, and as a minor issue, he was thumbing his nose at the U.S. the whole time.... while it rankled, it could easily be forgotten (as in the case of Kim or Khamanei) except for the other little items in the Iraqi portfolio. I'm not a big fan of some of Bush's policies, but even those I'm not fond of, he's managed to distance himself from taking action on (these being personal liberty issues). For those imprtant things, like the war on terrorism, he presents a far more attractive and focused leader on the matter than Kerry ever will. The worst thing I can say about Bush is the ever-growing deficit, but there are several factors (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the recession that began before he took office) which make arguing the fiscal situation moot at this point. What should disturb you is what Kerry WOULD ACTUALLY DO, since it's clear what he says, and what he does are often different things. He's a war protestor who stands behind his "glorious war hero service" as evidence of his ability to act as commander in chief, yet even now, after evidence continues to mount, he admits his first purple heart resulted from self-inflicted wounds, and he was not under enemy fire at the time. He's a priviledged person with homes all over the world, able to do things on a whim you or I have to spend years planning and saving for. On Sunday afternoons, he's having wine and cheese socials arguing the finer points of a Manet he just bought, while "Dubya" is kicking back having a barbeque with his Texas neighbors, enjoying a football game. I know who I have more in common with.... Kerry's chief supporters are billionaires and millionaires - people who've NEVER had to worry about overdrafts and making a rent payment. They are people who have stated, time and time again (Hillary most recently stated it) "we will take your money and spend it for the good of the people" - Hmmm.... the good of MY people is what's best for my family, not what some stuck up socialite thinks my money should be spent on (like needles for heroin addicts or welfare checks). They've spent MILLIONS on "527" organizations like MoveOn.org, which exists solely to ATTACK Bush and have direct ties to the DNC and Kerry campaign, in violation of FEC regulations. They have stated, quite bluntly and openly that THEY know what's good for us, and they'll shove it down our throats for "our own good" whether we like it or not. Kerry's people will not suffer $3-4/gallon gas prices. Kerry's people will not be forced to use interest-only payment home loans. Kerry's people will not be forced to debate bankruptcy proceedings to keep a roof over their family's heads. Kerry's people will not ever contemplate the need to get food stamps to feed their children. The more I am forced to rebut the anti-Bush crowd, the better I feel about voting for Bush in this coming election. As a veteran, and as somebody who knows many honorable Vietnam vets, I find Kerry more descpicable every day the election creeps closer. His own words and actions taint him and demonstrate his absolute inability to lead our nation as Chief Executive. Kerry's certainly proven himself as an excellent gigilo, servicing rich women. He's also great at delivering speeches, no matter what the facts really are. Realistically, though, the only reason most of his potential voters support him is becuase he's not Bush, and that's simply idiotic. |
you must have blinders on too..........
any post with the referrel to the "yellowcake" points to someone that themselves have little idea what they are saying
Post by: thomes08 on August 25, 2004, 04:47:00 PM
say we knew for a fact saddam had those weapons...
Why is it OK for Bush to break treaties that he supported because saddam broke some rules?
HOLY SHIT HE FLIP-FLOPPED!
thomes08
P.S. i haven't been here in a few days and i want to give credit to 67, pug, pegasys, and even thoughi don't agree with him BJ for actually have some intelligent posts. Unlike ones posted from mick garvy and theorkanman... christ glad they're not ehre anymore, even though i think they were the same lam person
Post by: BenJeremy on August 25, 2004, 05:56:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Aug 25 2004, 06:56 PM) |
| you must have blinders on too.......... any post with the referrel to the "yellowcake" points to someone that themselves have little idea what they are saying |
Well, it's the term used by George Tenet and other Clinton-era intell people in their build up of evidence supporting the conclusion that Saddam was working on WMD production.
Yellowcake
A product of Uranium Ore, required to process into enriched Uranium.
Now, I knew exactly what I was talking about, but it seems you apparently do not? Perhaps you confused the term with "Urinal cake"? I can't understand how you might make that kind of strange leap, but it explains your perplexing lack of understanding.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 25, 2004, 06:05:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Aug 25 2004, 07:50 PM) |
| i have a question for some people say we knew for a fact saddam had those weapons... Why is it OK for Bush to break treaties that he supported because saddam broke some rules? HOLY SHIT HE FLIP-FLOPPED! thomes08 P.S. i haven't been here in a few days and i want to give credit to 67, pug, pegasys, and even thoughi don't agree with him BJ for actually have some intelligent posts. Unlike ones posted from mick garvy and theorkanman... christ glad they're not ehre anymore, even though i think they were the same lam person |
What treaties were broken?
Saddam was in violation of cease fire agreements made at the end of Desert Storm. These were agreements with the US as well as with the UN, and his violation of those agreements permitted the US to resume action against Iraq's Baathist regime.
This did not require the existence of any WMDs, only his refusal to permit weapons inspectors free access to all sites.
There were other violations as well... probably too numerous to detail here. It's a situation similar to what the Germans did prior to WWII, where they built up their navies and armies with total disregard to the Armistice agreements from WWI, and look what happened when the World League and an isolationist America ignored THOSE violations.
History teaches us a lot. If you want to study truly unjust wars, try spending some time reading up on the Thirty Years' War (the dangers of religious intolerance). You might also want to examine just about any socialist aggression (liberalism married to anarchy, enforced by a despot) in the past century.
Post by: pegasys on August 26, 2004, 08:07:00 AM
Post by: pug_ster on August 26, 2004, 08:25:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Um, what? Your "shelf life" statement actually supports the idea that Saddam had fresh chemical weapons - many chemical artillary shells have been found in Iraq, some definitely 80s' era, but several of them could only have been made recently, at the earliest, 1998 or so. I guess having actual chemical weapons in hand, courtesy of Baathist loyalists is not proof? |
Yeah, they could've have all those artillary shells, but doesn't mean that they made chemical weapons. The UN could've searched for chemical weapons. The US didn't even let the UN enough time to inspect for chemical weapons before the US decided to invade iraq.
| QUOTE |
| Well, you swallowed the blurry media image of Iraq and al qaida's relationship hook-line-and-sinker. They share one common, most hated enemy: the west. Did they work together? There's plenty of evidence Saddam often hosted Taliban and al qaida operatives in Iraq, and we KNOW Iraqi officials made contact with several conspirators of 9/11, according to Interpol and German police. |
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain630385.shtml
I quote from the article. "The report will also contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran - just weeks after the Bush administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, TIME magazine reports. "
Maybe I should be more clear? Unless you can prove an article from an unbiased source... Maybe Bush is too dumb to tell the difference betwen Iraq and Iran.
| QUOTE |
| Well, I would say getting warned, versus getting KILLED is a good thing, eh? What happened to the follow-up attacks? None, you say? Perhaps, maybe, you might consider that President Bush's administration might deserve a bit of CREDIT for the LACK of terrorist attacks here in the US and on American interests overseas, even amid the countless threats and deadlines given by terrorist groups? A true idiot would discount this, of course, as proof Bush and his people are getting the job done.... |
Maybe you didn't know this but the CIA and FBI, NOT the presidential administration's responsibility to gather information to thwart terrorist attacks. Before Bush's administration, FBI and CIA always have been working (though not 100% though) in the background with much of the media attention.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734564/
It was Bush's fault that they didn't act those warnings on briefing reports on August 2001.
| QUOTE |
| Actually, Bush has asked the Swiftboat vets to stop the attack ads, and he also called on MoveOn and others to stop as well. Suffice it to say, Kerry won't call off the MoveOn attack dogs, and he continues to ignore the fact that Bush did exactly what the DNC asked him to do. I guess you repeat a lie enough times (in this case, "Bush should call off the attacks", when he already has) and it just becomes true, eh? |
Yeah, moveon.org are attack dogs. I think that Swiftboat Veterians for Lies still shoving their ads even though Bush ask them to stop. So what is the difference...? The Bush Admistration should point out the lies of what moveon.org says, or they have nothing to say.
| QUOTE |
| Wow.... nobody was worse than Carter - he gave away too much (Panama turned into the Noriega fiasco), supported Saddam AND Bin Laden and didn't act to prevent Islamists from taking over Iran. Much of the current problems can be traced to HIS failed diplomacy. |
Carter wasn't a good president, yes. But president Reagan and then VP Bush Sr also helped out Saddam and Bin Laden too.
| QUOTE |
| As for Bush's failing, what, exactly are they? I pay less in taxes, inflation remains low, as do interest rates. The recession is recovering, rather than plunging further, and unemployment rates remain about the same level as averaged under Clinton's term. All that in the face of the dstruction of the World Trade Center, causing trillions of dollars in fallout/damage to the world and American economies. |
You're right about the tax cuts.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain636398.shtml
Problem, is that I am not in that top 1% to reap the rewards.
The unemployment rate is misleading. Unemployment rate means that the amount of people filing for umemployment vs. the amount of people who are currently employed. There are alot of people who just gave up looking for the job, doesn't claim unemployed, thus does not become part of the unemployed statistic. The amount of people who are employed in the US today is not as high before Bush took office. Second, many people who actually found a job didn't get as much money as their last job.
The reason for the low interest rate was the recession. If there was a growth in the economy, you will see the interest rate rise. Sometimes a rise in interest rate might be a good thing to the economy to slow down economy growth.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 26, 2004, 08:36:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 25 2004, 07:59 PM) |
| Well, it's the term used by George Tenet and other Clinton-era intell people in their build up of evidence supporting the conclusion that Saddam was working on WMD production. Yellowcake A product of Uranium Ore, required to process into enriched Uranium. Now, I knew exactly what I was talking about, but it seems you apparently do not? Perhaps you confused the term with "Urinal cake"? I can't understand how you might make that kind of strange leap, but it explains your perplexing lack of understanding. |
hahaha, no no no
thats not what i meant at all
i know what yellow cake is, and i know all about the stories of sadaam trying to buy it, but if thats the only real evidence the US has on sadaam, give it up, thats fucking pathetic
also, the yellow cake ordeal is one thing you dont use as an argument that sadaam could/does have wmd's, as its never been entirely proven
Post by: pug_ster on August 26, 2004, 09:15:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 02:08 AM) |
| [ This did not require the existence of any WMDs, only his refusal to permit weapons inspectors free access to all sites. |
| QUOTE |
| There were other violations as well... probably too numerous to detail here. It's a situation similar to what the Germans did prior to WWII, where they built up their navies and armies with total disregard to the Armistice agreements from WWI, and look what happened when the World League and an isolationist America ignored THOSE violations. |
That's interesting. I don't think we should compare Germany with Iraq in terms of arms race. Most of the arms that Iraq came has from us during the 1980's and they brought some of them from Russians (I could be wrong about it.) But in terms of the threat level, they are nowhere near what the US can do. This is compared US and Germany during the 1930's. There is no way for Iraq to be another Germany.
| QUOTE |
| History teaches us a lot. If you want to study truly unjust wars, try spending some time reading up on the Thirty Years' War (the dangers of religious intolerance). You might also want to examine just about any socialist aggression (liberalism married to anarchy, enforced by a despot) in the past century. |
Allright, I think you are going too off tangent here. Are you saying that Kerry is a despot because I didn't know about it until you said it.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 26, 2004, 10:12:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 26 2004, 11:28 AM) |
| Yeah, they could've have all those artillary shells, but doesn't mean that they made chemical weapons. The UN could've searched for chemical weapons. The US didn't even let the UN enough time to inspect for chemical weapons before the US decided to invade iraq. |
Yes, because 5 years for a handful of people being led around on a leash by Iraqi handlers is just not enough time (I agree).... but then, under the conditions allowed, how long is enough?
5 years is far too long to wait for those teams to be unshackled and given the access it needed.
| QUOTE |
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain630385.shtml I quote from the article. "The report will also contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran - just weeks after the Bush administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, TIME magazine reports. " Maybe I should be more clear? Unless you can prove an article from an unbiased source... Maybe Bush is too dumb to tell the difference betwen Iraq and Iran. |
Gee, I guess since al qaida was in cahoots with Iran, that rules out them operating with anybody else? That's a ridiculous bit of flawed logic.
Sorry, I don't care for misdirection as a debate technique. Regardless of ties al qaida had with any other country, there was, undoubtably, evidence of ties with Saddam, and he was the most visible and easily confrontanble state sponsor of terrorism.
Dealing with Iran presents a whole slew of problems, beginning with simple matters of diplomacy. Essentially, there were TWO tigers to take care of, but first, you divide and conquer - Iraq was in violation of ceasefire agreements, which enabled the US o deal with that problem first (and both were problems, beyond a doubt). If the US had picked on Iran, where would the justification be?
Regardless of your own personal beliefs, the US had legal justification for deposing Saddam; we don't have that in dealing with Iran. At that point, the decision is simple - take out the known state sponsor of terror that we can, and deal with the others at a later time, if needed.
| QUOTE |
Maybe you didn't know this but the CIA and FBI, NOT the presidential administration's responsibility to gather information to thwart terrorist attacks. Before Bush's administration, FBI and CIA always have been working (though not 100% though) in the background with much of the media attention. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4734564/ It was Bush's fault that they didn't act those warnings on briefing reports on August 2001. |
I see, so Bush doesn't get credit for stopping attacks now, but gets the blame for failing to stop them before.
Nice double standard there, pal.
With logic like that, it's clear you won't deal with the facts in a reasonable manner, but I'll plow on for the benefit of open minded people who might be reading.
| QUOTE |
Yeah, moveon.org are attack dogs. I think that Swiftboat Veterians for Lies still shoving their ads even though Bush ask them to stop. So what is the difference...? The Bush Admistration should point out the lies of what moveon.org says, or they have nothing to say. |
Nice name calling ("Swiftboat Veterians for Lies"). Does it work for you on the playground?
Kerry whined and cried about the ads, but has yet to refute any of the facts they've presented - instead, merely threatening stations and stores with vague threats. Meanwhile, organizations like MoveOn.org compare Bush with Hitler (only a raving lunatic would seriously make that comparison) and perpetuate myths (for example, calling for so-called "missing" records that have already been revealed).
Yes, Bush asked them to stop. Has Kerry reciprocated? NOPE. He simply has acted like he's got both fingers in his ears going "la la la la I can't hear you telling them to stop" and pulling dumb stunts like sending more letters to ask Bush to do what he's ALREADY DONE.
| QUOTE | ||
Carter wasn't a good president, yes. But president Reagan and then VP Bush Sr also helped out Saddam and Bin Laden too.
You're right about the tax cuts. http://www.cbsnews.c...ain636398.shtml Problem, is that I am not in that top 1% to reap the rewards. |
I'm not in the top 1%, either. I'm firmly in the middle class.... My home is worth much more then the $70k I paid for it 10 years ago, but it's no mansion. The tax cut has given me a nice breather.
Kepe swallowing the lines, Pug_ster, they've got you wrapped up by the gonads, as long as you keep believing in Robin Hood. The problem is that THIS Robin Hood has a track history of taxing the top 100%.
| QUOTE |
The unemployment rate is misleading. Unemployment rate means that the amount of people filing for umemployment vs. the amount of people who are currently employed. There are alot of people who just gave up looking for the job, doesn't claim unemployed, thus does not become part of the unemployed statistic. The amount of people who are employed in the US today is not as high before Bush took office. Second, many people who actually found a job didn't get as much money as their last job. |
No, it's not that misleading. People "give up" seeking employment all the time, believe it or not, there are people who "gave up" 10 years ago, 15 years ago, whatever... statistics can be spun just about anywhich way.
The thing most reasonable people remember is that Dubya was elected during the onset of a recession. The economy was on a downturn. The dot com bubble had burst, the AG was smashing the golden goose (M$) with antitrust lawsuits at the behest of Novell and Sun, and the Enrons and Worldcoms were just nearing the end of their unabaited (and apparently, mostly "virtual") growth on the coat tails of those dot coms. Instead of a slight dip of a cycle that we SHOULD have experienced in the mid-90s, we got a double-wallop at the end of the decade as part of a correction.
I'd say ol' "Dubya" faired pretty well, considering how bad it might have become.
| QUOTE |
The reason for the low interest rate was the recession. If there was a growth in the economy, you will see the interest rate rise. Sometimes a rise in interest rate might be a good thing to the economy to slow down economy growth. |
Yes, that's why the rates went SOOOOOO HIGH during the 90s, right? Honestly, the interest rates have been stable for the last decade and a half. Most of that is because Greenspan has not had a need to increase the Fed to stimulate the economy. Another sign the current administration has done a decent job controlling things.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 26, 2004, 10:16:00 AM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Aug 26 2004, 11:39 AM) |
| hahaha, no no no thats not what i meant at all i know what yellow cake is, and i know all about the stories of sadaam trying to buy it, but if thats the only real evidence the US has on sadaam, give it up, thats fucking pathetic also, the yellow cake ordeal is one thing you dont use as an argument that sadaam could/does have wmd's, as its never been entirely proven |
It's not the only real evidence; it's just the most reaidly understood by the "masses" and the most prominent, thanks to the whole CIA-leak scandal.
I don't have the link handy, but after the invasion, plenty of evidence was found to support the idea that Saddam developed WMDs, even if no stockpiles were found. This is where the media has been quick to play word games to dance around the clear indications that something was up.
If Saddam moved all that material to Syria, or had it buried in the deep desert and killed the people who know about it, how would we find those stockpiles?
Post by: BenJeremy on August 26, 2004, 10:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 26 2004, 12:18 PM) |
| That's interesting. I don't think we should compare Germany with Iraq in terms of arms race. Most of the arms that Iraq came has from us during the 1980's and they brought some of them from Russians (I could be wrong about it.) But in terms of the threat level, they are nowhere near what the US can do. This is compared US and Germany during the 1930's. There is no way for Iraq to be another Germany. Allright, I think you are going too off tangent here. Are you saying that Kerry is a despot because I didn't know about it until you said it. |
The comparison was simply this: In one case, we ignored the obvious violations of an armistice agreement, and it resulted in war.
The same might have happened if we had chosen to continue ignoring Saddam's desire to pursue ABC weaponary (the poor man's equalizer on the battlefield - but Saddam was no poor man, either)
Do you understand the doctrines of modern warfare? There are limits to which ABC weapons are to be used in theaters where they are (unfortunately) unleashed, at least in what is taught in the West (as well as in Russia). Saddam, however, had no such limits - his uses included (past tense, since he's already demonstrated by example) genocide and terror.
War is a terrible thing, make no mistake about it, but there's no such thing as world peace, nor will there ever be. Those who choose to turn their backs on the need to use controlled violence as a means to an end, when other options become impractical, will perish.
To hear the raving lunatics screech about it, you'd think "Dubya" was sending troops to squash Luxembourgh for farting in their general direction - but that's not the case, and it's disengenuous to make the case that Saddam was an innocent babe who was doing nothing wrong, or that he threatened nobody in the U.S.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 26, 2004, 10:29:00 AM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Aug 26 2004, 01:29 PM) |
| Kerry's response It's a candidates site so of course is 99% fluff... However, the point is there. The men didn't serve with him on the boat, there's no proof that doctor ever worked on him at all. I'm sorry if a rebuttal of SwiftBoat Veterans for Bush offends you BJ, but people are going to make them. They're not fighting for the rights of veterans here, they're fighting for Bush/Cheney '04. |
Again, if you can't use the correct term for the group, you've got NO objectivity.
It's not "SwiftBoat Veterans for Bush"
...and Kerry involved them when he used their images in his campaign.
If he didn't want these people to come forward, he should have stuck to his anti-war stance.
Kerry and the democrats have been nothing but a pain-in-the-ass for acrtive servicemen and vets alike. I served when a democrat-controlled congress voted down cost-of-living pay increases while voting themselves the biggest raises ever. Vietnam vets will remember Kerry's own words used to taunt POWs in Hanoi.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 26, 2004, 10:56:00 AM
More detailed
It's on their front page, the picture used in his campaign (seen in the TV ads), as well as details on who's supporting him - and who's not.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 26, 2004, 11:16:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 12:19 PM) |
| It's not the only real evidence; it's just the most reaidly understood by the "masses" and the most prominent, thanks to the whole CIA-leak scandal. I don't have the link handy, but after the invasion, plenty of evidence was found to support the idea that Saddam developed WMDs, even if no stockpiles were found. This is where the media has been quick to play word games to dance around the clear indications that something was up. If Saddam moved all that material to Syria, or had it buried in the deep desert and killed the people who know about it, how would we find those stockpiles? |
the funny thing about that is, we would be able to find them
if its just 1 or 5 WMD's, maybe you wouldnt, but if its a whole stock pile he tried to smuggle out of iraq and into syria, thatd be hard to miss from the air (i mean, we had lots of good shots of empty "bio-hazard" trucks or tractor trailers with "weapons labs" on them, how could we miss a convoy of trucks carraying weapons into a country??)
and if they burried them, they must have dug some big holes to hide them all, and keep them deep enough for us to detect any leaks, i mean hell, it takes a huge, huge ass concrete box to keep nuclear waste from seeping out, and even then, it still does seep into the ground, so, once again, im sure are intel and air patrols would have noticed a 20'x20' hole in the ground lined with cement right???
(it doesnt even have to be cement, if they burried them straight into a hole in a rush, ttheyd leak pretty quick, unless sadaam really did have "hollow titanium tubes used for missiles" everyone said he had)
Post by: pug_ster on August 26, 2004, 12:01:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 06:15 PM) |
| |
| QUOTE |
| Yes, because 5 years for a handful of people being led around on a leash by Iraqi handlers is just not enough time (I agree).... but then, under the conditions allowed, how long is enough? 5 years is far too long to wait for those teams to be unshackled and given the access it needed. |
I think 5 years of people leading off by the leash is better costing 100 billions of $'s and hundreds of american lives. Then again, it is probably too much of a headache to talk about it...
| QUOTE |
| Gee, I guess since al qaida was in cahoots with Iran, that rules out them operating with anybody else? That's a ridiculous bit of flawed logic. Sorry, I don't care for misdirection as a debate technique. Regardless of ties al qaida had with any other country, there was, undoubtably, evidence of ties with Saddam, and he was the most visible and easily confrontanble state sponsor of terrorism. Dealing with Iran presents a whole slew of problems, beginning with simple matters of diplomacy. Essentially, there were TWO tigers to take care of, but first, you divide and conquer - Iraq was in violation of ceasefire agreements, which enabled the US o deal with that problem first (and both were problems, beyond a doubt). If the US had picked on Iran, where would the justification be? |
You know, I don't blame you why you said that in the first place. Must of this information was recently de-classified. Before this, The Bush Administration was referring Iraq as an 'Terrorist Regime' and blaming Iraq having all those WMD which we never found. I mean that I was convienced by all the news media about associating Al Qaeda and Iraq last year. Before the 9/11 independent investigation came out, we don't know better.
| QUOTE |
| I see, so Bush doesn't get credit for stopping attacks now, but gets the blame for failing to stop them before. Nice double standard there, pal. With logic like that, it's clear you won't deal with the facts in a reasonable manner, but I'll plow on for the benefit of open minded people who might be reading. |
I never said that Bush having credit for stopping attacks now. I am just pointing out that we shouldn't give Bush full credit for this stuff. But it seems that Bush is hogging the spotlight for what FBI and CIA has been doing for years.
| QUOTE |
| Nice name calling ("Swiftboat Veterians for Lies"). Does it work for you on the playground? Kerry whined and cried about the ads, but has yet to refute any of the facts they've presented - instead, merely threatening stations and stores with vague threats. Meanwhile, organizations like MoveOn.org compare Bush with Hitler (only a raving lunatic would seriously make that comparison) and perpetuate myths (for example, calling for so-called "missing" records that have already been revealed). Yes, Bush asked them to stop. Has Kerry reciprocated? NOPE. He simply has acted like he's got both fingers in his ears going "la la la la I can't hear you telling them to stop" and pulling dumb stunts like sending more letters to ask Bush to do what he's ALREADY DONE. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5782560/
This is like an 'he said, she said' debate but if you read here. I appreciate for you putting those comments, but have some proof before making them.
| QUOTE |
| I'm not in the top 1%, either. I'm firmly in the middle class.... My home is worth much more then the $70k I paid for it 10 years ago, but it's no mansion. The tax cut has given me a nice breather. Kepe swallowing the lines, Pug_ster, they've got you wrapped up by the gonads, as long as you keep believing in Robin Hood. The problem is that THIS Robin Hood has a track history of taxing the top 100%. |
I like this spirited debate, but I would appreciate for you to leave my gonads out of the picture. If you have proof that this 'Robinhood has a tax history ot taxing the top 100%", I like to see it. Please don't pull the news from right wing fox news, or left wing cnn.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain636398.shtml
| QUOTE |
| Yes, that's why the rates went SOOOOOO HIGH during the 90s, right? Honestly, the interest rates have been stable for the last decade and a half. Most of that is because Greenspan has not had a need to increase the Fed to stimulate the economy. Another sign the current administration has done a decent job controlling things. |
Greenspan was here since the Clinton Days, Greenspan should get the credit and may not be from the administration.
Post by: pug_ster on August 26, 2004, 12:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 06:28 PM) |
| The comparison was simply this: In one case, we ignored the obvious violations of an armistice agreement, and it resulted in war. The same might have happened if we had chosen to continue ignoring Saddam's desire to pursue ABC weaponary (the poor man's equalizer on the battlefield - but Saddam was no poor man, either) Do you understand the doctrines of modern warfare? There are limits to which ABC weapons are to be used in theaters where they are (unfortunately) unleashed, at least in what is taught in the West (as well as in Russia). Saddam, however, had no such limits - his uses included (past tense, since he's already demonstrated by example) genocide and terror. War is a terrible thing, make no mistake about it, but there's no such thing as world peace, nor will there ever be. Those who choose to turn their backs on the need to use controlled violence as a means to an end, when other options become impractical, will perish. To hear the raving lunatics screech about it, you'd think "Dubya" was sending troops to squash Luxembourgh for farting in their general direction - but that's not the case, and it's disengenuous to make the case that Saddam was an innocent babe who was doing nothing wrong, or that he threatened nobody in the U.S. |
Yes, we have spent the efforts in Iraq when we can spend our efforts somewhere else. I can name a couple...
Afghanistan - Even though about 20k troups are there, Warlords still run parts of that country. Their major export is opium which the us troops did not focus as the problem. Instead of putting an effort of getting of Al Qaeda in there, Bush diverted money from there in his war in Iraq. Besides money from rich Muslims, how else can Al Qaeda have money to wage their wars?
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain589500.shtml
North Korea - Recently North Korea has the capability to have rocket launched nuclear weapons. You never hear Bush focus problems there...
Sudan - Thousands of people die and killed there everyday because of an ongoing civil war. Only the UN stepped up to the plate to do something about it, not the US.
Israel - Palestine - Since unrest between the 2 states all the past presidents have tried to bring peace between the 2 countries. Bush W is the first president who really did nothing about it.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 26, 2004, 01:01:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 26 2004, 03:33 PM) |
| Yes, we have spent the efforts in Iraq when we can spend our efforts somewhere else. I can name a couple... Afghanistan - Even though about 20k troups are there, Warlords still run parts of that country. Their major export is opium which the us troops did not focus as the problem. Instead of putting an effort of getting of Al Qaeda in there, Bush diverted money from there in his war in Iraq. Besides money from rich Muslims, how else can Al Qaeda have money to wage their wars? http://www.cbsnews.c...ain589500.shtml |
Hmmm... first off, Afghanistan is a pretty big place, even if you have 100k troops there... change does not happen overnight, but keep in mind, you certainly don't hear about much fighting going on there, unless it's a small band in the mountains. The Taliban and al qaida there are on the run, and the US has made great strides. Additionally, the UN is supposed to be helping us out there now, so other countries can pour their resources to help combat whatever threat you apparently still see there.
The most important thing is to stabalize a non-radical government there, and prevent it from becoming a huge training camp and financier (through drug trade) of terror.
BTW: the link you posted doesn't really state WHERE those drugs came from. It mentions the old source as Afghanistan, not as a current source, for al qaida supporting drug trafficking.
| QUOTE |
North Korea - Recently North Korea has the capability to have rocket launched nuclear weapons. You never hear Bush focus problems there... |
Actually, we've done quite a bit. It seems as though we have a lot of leverage in this sitation with China, which has put pressure on NK, and has far more reason to prevent NK aggression and terror in the region, due to it's new prosperity and trade ties to the West.
There has been plenty of action and lots of focus by the administration there - but because you live and die by the media, you won't see it - the action is in covering a car accident in Basra, of course!
| QUOTE |
Sudan - Thousands of people die and killed there everyday because of an ongoing civil war. Only the UN stepped up to the plate to do something about it, not the US. |
Please, this is an example where the UN has done FAR WORSE for the situation than they've helped. The US has stayed on the side because it's a legacy problem of the French and Europe in general. There is genocide going on, all the while, Annan and company stammer and sputter instead of taking action. It would be ridiculous for the US to push a presence there while the UN supposedly has it in hand.
Sudan is one of the most disgusting examples of UN ineptitude and evil since...
| QUOTE |
Israel - Palestine - Since unrest between the 2 states all the past presidents have tried to bring peace between the 2 countries. Bush W is the first president who really did nothing about it. |
...oh yeah, since the UN ambulance used to cart around Palistinian gunmen to attack settlers.
I'm disagree with the settlements, but the Wall has been a great boon, reducing attacks to an all time low. Why should we get involved here, either? We support Israel's right to built a fence/wall to prevent terrorists from attacking law abiding Israeli Jewish, Arab, and Christian women and children on buses and in shops.
Anti-semitism is at an all time high, probably as bad or worse than Hitler-era Germany. This should trouble people - mostly because the reasons given (to hate Jews) are total bullshit. The whole Zionism thing is just a smoke screen. Israel exists, and they've kicked everybody's ass who tried to destroy them - and the Palestinians go mostly caught in the middle as their "Arab brethren" made unprovoked war.
Do you side with the intolerance, racism, sexism of religious Islamist states, or with the democratic, tolerant, open state that is Israel?
So tell me what we are supposed to do with that situation, anyway, that we aren't already doing? The Intifada is dead, and Arafat is hanging on by his fingernails. Even many of the Palestinians are willing to see the handwriting on the wall. Used and abused by their so-called allies, treated like second class citizens (Arab version of Gypsies, though the Palestinians are Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, to a large degree) to forward the Arab Street's goal to destroy the infidels and drive them from the "Holy Land".
Post by: pug_ster on August 26, 2004, 01:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 06:59 PM) |
| Here it is More detailed It's on their front page, the picture used in his campaign (seen in the TV ads), as well as details on who's supporting him - and who's not. |
Well here's the account.
http://www.washingto...-2004Aug21.html
http://www.boston.co...ry146s_defense/
The thing is that most of the people who countered his claim weren't in the boat with Kerry. But about more than 100 yards away when they claimed that saw him. But in the heat of the battle there in that day, would those Swiftboat Veterans for Lies do A) Tried to save the comrads in the boat which was hit and watch out enemy fire or B ) Look at Kerry's boat which they claimed ran away.
If those vets were in constant fire by Viet Cong and was looking at Kerry's boat to see if it was being hit or not, rather than saving their asses must be stupid or lying.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 26, 2004, 01:23:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 03:04 PM) |
| Hmmm... first off, Afghanistan is a pretty big place, even if you have 100k troops there... change does not happen overnight, but keep in mind, you certainly don't hear about much fighting going on there, unless it's a small band in the mountains. The Taliban and al qaida there are on the run, and the US has made great strides. Additionally, the UN is supposed to be helping us out there now, so other countries can pour their resources to help combat whatever threat you apparently still see there. The most important thing is to stabalize a non-radical government there, and prevent it from becoming a huge training camp and financier (through drug trade) of terror. BTW: the link you posted doesn't really state WHERE those drugs came from. It mentions the old source as Afghanistan, not as a current source, for al qaida supporting drug trafficking. Actually, we've done quite a bit. It seems as though we have a lot of leverage in this sitation with China, which has put pressure on NK, and has far more reason to prevent NK aggression and terror in the region, due to it's new prosperity and trade ties to the West. There has been plenty of action and lots of focus by the administration there - but because you live and die by the media, you won't see it - the action is in covering a car accident in Basra, of course! Please, this is an example where the UN has done FAR WORSE for the situation than they've helped. The US has stayed on the side because it's a legacy problem of the French and Europe in general. There is genocide going on, all the while, Annan and company stammer and sputter instead of taking action. It would be ridiculous for the US to push a presence there while the UN supposedly has it in hand. Sudan is one of the most disgusting examples of UN ineptitude and evil since... ...oh yeah, since the UN ambulance used to cart around Palistinian gunmen to attack settlers. I'm disagree with the settlements, but the Wall has been a great boon, reducing attacks to an all time low. Why should we get involved here, either? We support Israel's right to built a fence/wall to prevent terrorists from attacking law abiding Israeli Jewish, Arab, and Christian women and children on buses and in shops. Anti-semitism is at an all time high, probably as bad or worse than Hitler-era Germany. This should trouble people - mostly because the reasons given (to hate Jews) are total bullshit. The whole Zionism thing is just a smoke screen. Israel exists, and they've kicked everybody's ass who tried to destroy them - and the Palestinians go mostly caught in the middle as their "Arab brethren" made unprovoked war. Do you side with the intolerance, racism, sexism of religious Islamist states, or with the democratic, tolerant, open state that is Israel? So tell me what we are supposed to do with that situation, anyway, that we aren't already doing? The Intifada is dead, and Arafat is hanging on by his fingernails. Even many of the Palestinians are willing to see the handwriting on the wall. Used and abused by their so-called allies, treated like second class citizens (Arab version of Gypsies, though the Palestinians are Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, to a large degree) to forward the Arab Street's goal to destroy the infidels and drive them from the "Holy Land". |
this is a prime example of how blind people can be when they accuse the UN of doing a bad job..........
The UN only works when a majority of the major countries back the plan/war/event at hand together
but since the US never gets directly involved in UN affairs (Iraq, Palenstine, Sudan) the places turn to shit
look at iraq, its a shitstorm of constent and never ending resistance fighters, and the place itself is a fuck whole, and look at sudan and palenstine....
what do they all have in common.........
either the UN, or the US is taking care of the problem BY THEMSELVES
Post by: pug_ster on August 26, 2004, 01:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 26 2004, 09:04 PM) |
| Please, this is an example where the UN has done FAR WORSE for the situation than they've helped. The US has stayed on the side because it's a legacy problem of the French and Europe in general. There is genocide going on, all the while, Annan and company stammer and sputter instead of taking action. It would be ridiculous for the US to push a presence there while the UN supposedly has it in hand. Sudan is one of the most disgusting examples of UN ineptitude and evil since... ...oh yeah, since the UN ambulance used to cart around Palistinian gunmen to attack settlers. I'm disagree with the settlements, but the Wall has been a great boon, reducing attacks to an all time low. Why should we get involved here, either? We support Israel's right to built a fence/wall to prevent terrorists from attacking law abiding Israeli Jewish, Arab, and Christian women and children on buses and in shops. Anti-semitism is at an all time high, probably as bad or worse than Hitler-era Germany. This should trouble people - mostly because the reasons given (to hate Jews) are total bullshit. The whole Zionism thing is just a smoke screen. Israel exists, and they've kicked everybody's ass who tried to destroy them - and the Palestinians go mostly caught in the middle as their "Arab brethren" made unprovoked war. Do you side with the intolerance, racism, sexism of religious Islamist states, or with the democratic, tolerant, open state that is Israel? So tell me what we are supposed to do with that situation, anyway, that we aren't already doing? The Intifada is dead, and Arafat is hanging on by his fingernails. Even many of the Palestinians are willing to see the handwriting on the wall. Used and abused by their so-called allies, treated like second class citizens (Arab version of Gypsies, though the Palestinians are Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian, to a large degree) to forward the Arab Street's goal to destroy the infidels and drive them from the "Holy Land". |
| QUOTE |
| Hmmm... first off, Afghanistan is a pretty big place, even if you have 100k troops there... change does not happen overnight, but keep in mind, you certainly don't hear about much fighting going on there, unless it's a small band in the mountains. The Taliban and al qaida there are on the run, and the US has made great strides. Additionally, the UN is supposed to be helping us out there now, so other countries can pour their resources to help combat whatever threat you apparently still see there. The most important thing is to stabalize a non-radical government there, and prevent it from becoming a huge training camp and financier (through drug trade) of terror. BTW: the link you posted doesn't really state WHERE those drugs came from. It mentions the old source as Afghanistan, not as a current source, for al qaida supporting drug trafficking. |
I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't specific enough about opium = Afghanistan so here it is.
http://www.time.com/...-674806,00.html
Yes, the changes won't happen overnight but US can do something if they at least double the amount of troops there.
| QUOTE |
| Actually, we've done quite a bit. It seems as though we have a lot of leverage in this sitation with China, which has put pressure on NK, and has far more reason to prevent NK aggression and terror in the region, due to it's new prosperity and trade ties to the West. There has been plenty of action and lots of focus by the administration there - but because you live and die by the media, you won't see it - the action is in covering a car accident in Basra, of course! |
Right, the Bush administration put a lot of efforts in NK, when pigs fly.
http://www.washingto...-2004Jun23.html
Post by: pug_ster on August 27, 2004, 08:54:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 26 2004, 09:25 PM) |
| Well here's the account. http://www.washingto...-2004Aug21.html http://www.boston.co...ry146s_defense/ The thing is that most of the people who countered his claim weren't in the boat with Kerry. But about more than 100 yards away when they claimed that saw him. But in the heat of the battle there in that day, would those Swiftboat Veterans for Lies do A) Tried to save the comrads in the boat which was hit and watch out enemy fire or B ) Look at Kerry's boat which they claimed ran away. If those vets were in constant fire by Viet Cong and was looking at Kerry's boat to see if it was being hit or not, rather than saving their asses must be stupid or lying. |
Ho Ho Ho, There was an account from one of the Swiftboat vets who says that those swiftboat veterians for Lies are really lying. And it is from pro-bush website like foxnews? This is the first...
http://www.foxnews.c...,130326,00.html
Here's another one from Lambert's local paper which is more detailed.
http://www.mailtribu...ies/01local.htm
So it does support my theory about them being too distracted to look at Kerry boat.
Post by: SmallBusinessGuy on August 27, 2004, 10:18:00 AM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Aug 26 2004, 09:26 PM) |
| this is a prime example of how blind people can be when they accuse the UN of doing a bad job.......... The UN only works when a majority of the major countries back the plan/war/event at hand together but since the US never gets directly involved in UN affairs (Iraq, Palenstine, Sudan) the places turn to shit look at iraq, its a shitstorm of constent and never ending resistance fighters, and the place itself is a fuck whole, and look at sudan and palenstine.... what do they all have in common......... either the UN, or the US is taking care of the problem BY THEMSELVES |
Listen robot, do not try to defend the UN, it is another failed experiment in the same way the LON was (although that was mainly because we refused to participate). The UN doesn't work, and never will, mankind is too selfish which is what makes us so beautiful. Again I must request that you not debate politics until you are 18, you cannot vote therefore you have no voice, so it is pointless and futile for you to think that anyone will care about what you have to say.
Then again you aren't 18 and you know everything, or at least more than me.
Post by: SmallBusinessGuy on August 27, 2004, 12:33:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 27, 2004, 02:42:00 PM
| QUOTE (SmallBusinessGuy @ Aug 27 2004, 12:21 PM) |
| Listen robot, do not try to defend the UN, it is another failed experiment in the same way the LON was (although that was mainly because we refused to participate). The UN doesn't work, and never will, mankind is too selfish which is what makes us so beautiful. Again I must request that you not debate politics until you are 18, you cannot vote therefore you have no voice, so it is pointless and futile for you to think that anyone will care about what you have to say. Then again you aren't 18 and you know everything, or at least more than me. |
at it again
if all you can do is attack my age, then go ahead, at least i know youll never be able to make a valid arguement about politics, sense you havnt already
the UN is failing because nations like (or should i say because of) the US doesnt do its part to support the UN, instead it takes matters into its own hands
Post by: thomes08 on August 27, 2004, 02:43:00 PM
| QUOTE (SmallBusinessGuy @ Aug 27 2004, 06:21 PM) |
| Listen robot, do not try to defend the UN, it is another failed experiment in the same way the LON was (although that was mainly because we refused to participate). The UN doesn't work, and never will, mankind is too selfish which is what makes us so beautiful. Again I must request that you not debate politics until you are 18, you cannot vote therefore you have no voice, so it is pointless and futile for you to think that anyone will care about what you have to say. Then again you aren't 18 and you know everything, or at least more than me. |
i think you give yourself too much credit, you're probably 18 and love the fact that you can now buy your own cigs and can vote. You've posted in here like 6 times you shouldn't be making the kinds of judgments you made here
thomes08
P.S. "Robot" good one!
Post by: The unProfessional on August 27, 2004, 03:53:00 PM
Post by: Mr. Chips on August 27, 2004, 07:07:00 PM
also a UN resource site would be nice too.
...it seems like they don't help as much with foreign aid as major charities do.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 27, 2004, 07:24:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Aug 27 2004, 05:56 PM) |
| Actually, the US does more than it's part to support the UN. Read up on it a bit. |
like what?
start a war without UN help/approval, then beg for it?
Post by: SmallBusinessGuy on August 27, 2004, 08:44:00 PM
Man I'm so glad you can't vote.
Post by: Maximumbeing on August 28, 2004, 10:43:00 AM
Then again, it's so much easier to watch the Fox media strongarm our population into national retardation.
Don't vote.
Post by: The unProfessional on August 28, 2004, 12:26:00 PM
Interesting how an opinion other than yours denotes "mental retardation."
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on August 28, 2004, 12:43:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Aug 28 2004, 12:46 PM) |
| I love how you people seem to think that the government hands out purple hearts like candy, then again, not all of our elected officials can just burn 10 years of their lives being alcoholics, *cough* BUSH *cough*, so maybe there's a chance that he actually did earn them. Then again, it's so much easier to watch the Fox media strongarm our population into national retardation. Don't vote. |
I think Ted Kennedy has burned alot more than 10 years.
Post by: Dark_Link2135 on August 28, 2004, 01:41:00 PM
lets take a return to logic here, shall we?
here we have on one side about 200 or so guys who served with kerry saying kerry lied about parts of his service in vietnam.
on the other we have kerry and a few faithful (well maybe not a few, but you get the picture) democrats saying kerry is truthful and he woudl never lie.
well we know already kerry lied about being in cambodia on christmas. and i highly doubt kerry is going to come out and say "i lied" or his faithful democrats.
then we have 200 people saying he did lie, hmm, are you calling 200 vietnam war veterans liars?
personally, i think the truth lies somewhere in between.
i really get a kick out of people who think one political side is all right and the other is all wrong. thats stupid, bigoted, and completely untrue and illogical. thats why, even being a conservative, i have absolutely no respect for rush limbaugh.
also consider this, if kerry won a silver star, a bronze star, and three purple hearts in only 3 and a half months, and actually did something to deserve them, he would be the most decorated soldier in the history of the united states, better even then audie murphy from wwii. anyone with sense knows that is a buch of bs
Post by: Dark_Link2135 on August 28, 2004, 01:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (HeLiuM @ Aug 28 2004, 09:38 PM) |
| Fox lures people in with its illusion of fair and balanced media. The sad thing is, most people who watch fox news are entirely unwilling to admit its even a little conservative (take nemt for example, who calls it moderate). Whether they actually believe it or not, who knows. Just to completely change the subject, here goes the Bush belly flop! |
okay...fox is biased because they show both sides of the issue. im not saying they are unbiased, because they definitely have a conservative slant.
but what most people are thinking of is that they show pro-conservative spots as well as pro-liberal.
as opposed to other networks that just show pro-liberal stuff, and gleam over the pro-conservative stuff
just because someone is actually willing to actually show both sides of a campaign and not consistently bash bush and praise kerry, (obviouslty not right out in the open, but they do this thru comments they slip in, spots they show (or dont show) etc..), does not make the network biiased
howeever fox usually does give the republican the last word, and tends to give more air time to pro-republican spots then pro-democratic spots
Post by: Maximumbeing on August 28, 2004, 03:19:00 PM
And agreed, Ted Kennedy is alot worse than Bush.
How do these people get reelected?
Post by: thomes08 on August 28, 2004, 04:44:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| then we have 200 people saying he did lie, hmm, are you calling 200 vietnam war veterans liars? |
200 nam vets that are republican sure have something to gain from lying. I like how they say he lied when there were only 3 people on the boat, in the dark, under fire, and somehow people had the time to look at kerry and see if he earned his purple heart.
fox news is really easy to pick apart. For example The O'R Factor.
Bill slams dems the whole time while saying stuff like "fair and balanced" and "we give the facts, you decide"> The republicans get more air time, and they are cut off almost every time they make a good point. Bill interupts when he's losing a debate on a subject to point fingers at something unrelated like a child. Then because it's obvious his show is slanted but yet he says it's not, he invites his late night lover Newt or some other sleezball kerry basher on there for a one on one interview.
(example, made up)
Newt "kerry sucks, he's a traitor"
Bill "oh come on he served his country"
Newt "he's a liar about the medals"
Bill "Well maybe so but he's not a bad guy, he's respectable"
Newt "no he's not"
Bill "well we'll let the audience decide"
He half assed defends kerry when he's interviewing just a republican, and expects his audience to actually believe he's defending kerry PROVING his show is "fair and balanced". It's ashamed his "robot" audience doesn't know he's not really defending kerry to these republicans, he's doing it like a democratic mick-garvey making the issues the democrats defend look like futile lies.
It's a shame people actually fall for that stuff though
thomes08
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 28, 2004, 05:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Aug 28 2004, 03:49 PM) |
| okay...fox is biased because they show both sides of the issue. |
wow
Post by: xFusioNx on August 28, 2004, 05:23:00 PM
The real reason behind these douche bags is:
1. They are Republican
2. They are Pro-War and most of them are extreme biggots (ask a Vet what they think about Iraq and you'll hear your fair share of biggotry)
3. They hate John Kerry because he returned to America and protested the Vietnam war.
4. THE REAL REASON: They think he is a traitor and a rat. He came back and testified about war crimes being commited by US troops. Talk about a stab in the back from a "family member". They hate his guts now and feel he isnt fit to lead because he ratted them out.
Oh well. At least he's as honest as you can expect a politician to be.
They can all go to hell and give up the act. The pentagon has reviewed the statements and awarded medals according to eye witness and 1st party testimony. Oh and guess what that was 30 years ago.
Get over it.
Post by: cromat44 on August 28, 2004, 07:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (SmallBusinessGuy @ Aug 27 2004, 09:21 AM) |
| Listen robot, do not try to defend the UN, it is another failed experiment in the same way the LON was (although that was mainly because we refused to participate). The UN doesn't work, and never will, mankind is too selfish which is what makes us so beautiful. Again I must request that you not debate politics until you are 18, you cannot vote therefore you have no voice, so it is pointless and futile for you to think that anyone will care about what you have to say. Then again you aren't 18 and you know everything, or at least more than me. |
wow.... thats just sad......
also i like how your profile says "Helping To Fight The Good Fight Against Corporate America" when you are either
a ) supporting the xbox, a product of MS, which is part of corporate america, a very big part.
b ) an idiot for posting on an xbox forum when you don't support the xbox
IM gonna get flamed.... i just stoped debating the main topic here because what i say has no effect on these people, so what's the point?
Post by: pug_ster on August 28, 2004, 10:58:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Aug 28 2004, 09:44 PM) |
| |
| QUOTE |
| i always get a good laugh when people call the swiftboat veterans for truth a bunch of filthy liars, or something to that extent. lets take a return to logic here, shall we? here we have on one side about 200 or so guys who served with kerry saying kerry lied about parts of his service in vietnam. on the other we have kerry and a few faithful (well maybe not a few, but you get the picture) democrats saying kerry is truthful and he woudl never lie. well we know already kerry lied about being in cambodia on christmas. and i highly doubt kerry is going to come out and say "i lied" or his faithful democrats. then we have 200 people saying he did lie, hmm, are you calling 200 vietnam war veterans liars? |
200? If I was not mistaken, about 20 of them served with Kerry. So that leaves about 180 of them never knew Kerry during the war say that he was a liar... For all I know that I could say you are a liar and I have never met you either:)
http://www.foxnews.c...,130326,00.html
Meanwhile, I mentioned earlier in the thread the other 20 vets who are actually there are too distracted to be looking at Kerry boat. Look at the FOXNEWS article.
| QUOTE |
| i really get a kick out of people who think one political side is all right and the other is all wrong. thats stupid, bigoted, and completely untrue and illogical. thats why, even being a conservative, i have absolutely no respect for rush limbaugh. also consider this, if kerry won a silver star, a bronze star, and three purple hearts in only 3 and a half months, and actually did something to deserve them, he would be the most decorated soldier in the history of the united states, better even then audie murphy from wwii. anyone with sense knows that is a buch of bs. |
Well, by that comment, I would say that you are not a Vet. While Bush's 'war wounds' was 2 silver fillings in his teeth, Kerry got shrapel wounds volunteering in Vietnam. And of all the things he did, he volunteered as being a swiftboat captain and a swiftboat is essentially a moving target. Maybe that could explain why he has seen more action which got those purple hearts.
The thing is that right now it is a 'he said, she said' kind of deal of the accounts. However, the accounts from the Swiftboat Vets for Lies doesn't add up and the Records at that time indicicate Kerry was telling the truth.
Post by: brandogg on August 28, 2004, 11:31:00 PM
If you think going to war with Iraq was wrong, then you don't deserve to vote. Our backs were against the wall. Kerry said along the lines of "we know for a fact Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons, and is, and has acted like a terrorist". He also voted to give Bush the right to take us to war, but now he's turning back into an anti-war sissy like he did after Vietnam. We would have never had to go to war if Saddam allowed inspections by the UN. If someone is being that shady, especially a leader of a radical nation like Iraq, a person who murders hiw own citizens and has no value for any human life other than his own, then they've got something to hide, and something has GOT to be done to take them out of power.
Anyway, I'm rambling - Bush will win, we will eventually pull out of Iraq, and you'll all be thanking him for being such a great president and for your protecting you and your families.
Post by: The unProfessional on August 29, 2004, 12:31:00 AM
P.S. Supporting a product like the xbox doesn't make you a hypocrate in being against corporate over-influence. That's like saying you have to raise your own dairy cows or you're a corporate twit. As a small business owner, I can say that from our perspective, large corporations conduct amazingly harsh business practices, and rarely express a sense of ethics. I believe he's trying to rally behind that idea.
Post by: The unProfessional on August 29, 2004, 12:48:00 AM
| QUOTE |
if you're gonna let Kerry's Vietnam record decide your vote, YOU DON'T DESERVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE |
Same goes for any president. War track records mean shit in politics... but we Americans love the notion of a "hero". Fits wonderfully in our hollywood-poisoned minds. Shooting VCs (and in turn taking a few bullets yourself) doesn't necessarily make a good, or bad president. Vote on other grounds.
Post by: pegasys on August 29, 2004, 08:14:00 AM
Post by: thomes08 on August 29, 2004, 09:52:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| If you think going to war with Iraq was wrong, then you don't deserve to vote. Our backs were against the wall. |
our backs were against the wall?!?! wow, that's a new one. I don't want to call you a retard cause people do that way too much on here, but...wow, i think you don't know what you're talking about. Please elaborate i may be wrong.
Also, if we don't agree with you, we shouldn't vote? I have no idea how old you are, but you're acting like a 7 year old. "no, i'm right, you're wrong, end of story. My way is best, you don't deserve to vote, waaaaaaaaaa!"
| QUOTE |
| Kerry said along the lines of "we know for a fact Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons, and is, and has acted like a terrorist" |
ummm yeah, bush told kerry and the rest of the world along the lines of "Saddam has wmd's and is going to use them. Be afraid, be very afraid. I'll raise and then lower, raise and then lower the threat level so people are afraid and think there is a threat of terror so they support my war. Oh and by the way, don't think about bin laden anymore, i've diverted your attention away from that now, saddam was involved even thought every source in the world tells me he wasn't"
you may trust everything that comes out of walker's mouth, but a lot of people, including kerry, have learned better.
no matter what your age, grow up
thomes08
yeah and don;t refer to the leader of any nation as "shady", it makes you sound like some wigger punk high school drop out, even though i doubt you are it just makes you sound like one
Post by: thomes08 on August 29, 2004, 12:29:00 PM
I'm not saying kerry didn't have anything to gain from lying, thanks for putting workds into my mouth. But i think it's pretty stupid of you to believe that those 200 vets for lies are telling you the truth when fox news doesn't agree with the, and GWB doesn't either. It's like me and 199 other people on this forum telling people that you lied about what you ate for breakfast this morning, while your family and your dog and you are saying what you really had. If he didn't earn his medals he wouldn't have 30 years ago. If he lied about them people would have brought it up 30 years ago, if republicans would stop bringing up this subject, and iraq (which is just opinion anyways) some real homeland issues might actually surface and you won't have anything to defend walker with.
Take your focus off what kerry did in the war, cause all it's doing is showing that your guy didn't go. This was a horrible war, and shouldn't have happened. Neither Kerry nor Bush should have been expected to go to war. This is a republican war we're in now, and the republicans are the ones who think we're hero's for going to war. So why knock somebody who actually fought for our country, while praising somebody who avoided it? Asnwer that question. Just try and answer it without sounded like the child of fox news and Rush?
for fucks sake let the war stuff go and focus on what actually matter, our country. Why don't you focus on heathcare which if you don't think is a major issue you should be without healthcare. Why don't you focus on the economy? Why don't you focus on what we could have done with the 135 billions dollars spent on this war (just fucking think for a few minutes what that could have done for our country)? Why don't you focus on our deficit? Why don't you focus on how kerry wants to better our homeland security, not the homeland security of a country we destroyed and now needs it from us? Why don't you focus on pushing to find the man responsible for over 3000 lives in 2001? Why don't you take the focus away from the 2 things you have and look at other issues. The next four years won't just have the iraq war, and john kerry's war record thrown at us, and hopefully the debates will point that out to people who are blind to that fact
thomes08
Post by: nemt on August 29, 2004, 01:21:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on August 29, 2004, 03:11:00 PM
anyways who cares, talk policy. talk stuff that matters.
Environment: like it or not, will chage your future. The ways things are going now we're fucvking it up while not spending enough to find better alternatives to things such as oil. We need to sign the Kyoto treaty instead of ignore it.
Healthcare Vs. Heated Steering Wheel: You can choose not to believe this and be blind to it. But there are people, probably people you know, or indirectly know, that are suffering with this. There are people who have to sacrifice some food for medicine, there are people who do not get the medical attention they need to live comfortably. We are now solving this problem by letting people who have more money than they know what to do with off the hook. What's more important... A woman who needs her heart pills, or a woman who wants to spend the extra couple hundred dollars on having a heated steering wheel in her BMW.
Welfare: People who don't know welfare first or second hand have no idea what it can do. People ARE NOT having more kids so they can get more in welfare. The amount of money welfare gives for an extra child does not exceed or even equal the cost of supporting that child. People who are on welfare on NOT on it just to be bums and get free money. Why don't you think homeless people are getting welfare? Because they are bums and they dont try. In order to be accepted into the welfare program you MUST show the agency that you are trying. Not just say "i'm trying really hard". You have to show proof of filling out aplications. The agency even calls potential employers to see that you have done so. Choose to be sheltered but there ARE people who are trying a hellofa lot harder than you or I in life and are recieving welfare. They just didn't have the opportunity like many of us had, and it's easy for privledged people to ignore that. It's like those rich people saying "money isn't everything". Well it is if you don't have any and have a family to support. This is another problem in America that can be helped by not letting that woman have her heated steering wheel.
Homeland Security: HOMEland security does NOT mean attacking another country for no reason. If you think Kerry is going to let up on this subject then you probably haven't even given the other side the respect to look at the issues.
Foreign Policy: there are over 6 billion people in the world, the US makes up about 5% of that number. Face it we're not the only people that live on this planet and we need to redevelope a foreign policy to gain friends again. Like him or not Clinton had a great foreign policy and the if the next president does half a good a job as he did we're heading in the right direction. All great empires eventually fall...FACT! If i'm alive when we fall i don't everyone to turn their backs on us like we have on them. "Everyone who isn't with us, is against us" is a statement that the rest of the world deserves an apology for. We can't insult our friends by calling them enemies ever again, or it may come true.
There are many more issues that should be brought to people attention other than somethign that has to do with war. Think about how sad that is for our country, the only political topics people are bringing up are the ones that have to do with war. We need to grow up and look at issues that affect us and the people of this nation.
thomes08
Post by: pegasys on August 29, 2004, 04:48:00 PM
. It's too bad that some of the "steadfast leaders" on here cannot absorb any of it. My only hope is that you bush supporters learn the facts an help pull our country out of the shit heap it's in now.
Post by: Hill_Dill on August 29, 2004, 05:55:00 PM
Post by: pegasys on August 29, 2004, 06:42:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 29, 2004, 07:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (Hill_Dill @ Aug 29 2004, 07:58 PM) |
| thomes08, I disagree with about every part of your article. First off, everyone knows Fox News tends to be conservative. But CNN and NBC are hard core liberal news groups. There is no denying that. 2nd, the democrats want to crack down so hard on environmental issues, but there dont' think of the consequences. Just look at Clintons great idea to shut down coal power plants and replace them with natural gas power plants. Well hello operator, you can't do that. Coal burns cleaner than they say, and the price of natural gas skyrockets. The democrats also want to shut down land from motorsports. Ex Yellowstone and other lands out west. Welfare is a great program, if used right. No one can deny that. But there are people who milk that program for years, and don't even attempt to get a job. Guess who pays for those lazy people, you can me. Homeland security's responsibilty is to prevent attacks in the US. But it is preaty hard to prevent attacks against the US without attacking people not in the US. If the terrorists are in the US it is too late. Yeah Clinton had a real great policy. He didn't take care of terrorists and Bin Laden when he had the chance. Sudan I believe it was had bin Laden in there sites ready to take down but Clinton didn't do anything. If the US doesn't do anything to stop terrorist WHO WILL??? |
well fusion already beat me to it but
natural gas is 100 times better then coal
yes, coal may burn cleaner then "they" say (which "they" could be a fucking 2 yr old) but that doesnt mean it burns cleaner then natural gas
thats like saying "kerry's ideas are wrong" without adding in "bush's ideas our right" (which i definatly dont agree with, its just an example)
if you dont compare one statement to the other, it means nothing
Post by: brandogg on August 29, 2004, 08:41:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on August 29, 2004, 09:08:00 PM
Post by: dss311 on August 29, 2004, 09:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (xFusioNx @ Aug 30 2004, 05:02 AM) |
| people who have a grasp on reality. |
Grasp on reality....give me a break. You actually sound like a clueless 20 year old.
I'm with Brandogg on this one. Protesting is one thing, but total civil caos is ridiculous. Waste of tax payer dollars and police resources if you ask me.
Post by: The unProfessional on August 29, 2004, 09:42:00 PM
| QUOTE (dss311 @ Aug 30 2004, 05:41 AM) |
| I'm with Brandogg on this one. Protesting is one thing, but total civil caos is ridiculous. Waste of tax payer dollars and police resources if you ask me. |
Ditto
Post by: thomes08 on August 29, 2004, 10:37:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: FreewayX327 on August 29, 2004, 11:03:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on August 29, 2004, 11:08:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: The unProfessional on August 29, 2004, 11:57:00 PM
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 08:29:00 AM
| QUOTE |
Azzam also claimed that the former regime of Saddam Hussein "strictly and directly controlled" members of bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terror network in Iraq before the US invasion, as charged by members of US President George W. Bush's administration... ... According to Hudayfa Azzam, Arabs who fought in Afghanistan began going to Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that were orchestrated by bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network. ... When the possibility of a US-led invasion became clearer "Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young Al-Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," he said. |
Hmmmm.... perhaps the liberation of Iraq did indeed help eliminate a large number of terrorists from the world, eh?
Of course, let's not believe a member of the al qaida. The only thing you should believe them on is their sincere wishes for the American people and their desire to see Kerry elected President.
Post by: nemt on August 30, 2004, 08:40:00 AM
Post by: nemt on August 30, 2004, 08:56:00 AM
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 09:22:00 AM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Aug 30 2004, 11:59 AM) |
| They're trying to rally the democrat vote, Russel Simmons said it himself. A mere 0.4% of voters registered through MTV initiatives expressed a desire to see Bush reelected. |
Of course, the funny thing about MTV is that the Kerry daughters were BOOED and the BOOS got LOUDER when they asked them to vote for their Dad.
Not surprisingly, later rebroadcasts added more clapping and attempted to edit out the boos altogether.
This is the mentality America is dealing with in its media - edit the truth out, when it doesn't suit your own agenda. Demonize any media that doesn't toe the line with the majority of the media (like Fox). Ignore common sense and obvious logic whenever possible.
Perhaps America really is intelligent - and is starting to wake up to this manipulation by the media for what it is.
Bush will win, of course, the only question now is if it will be a landslide - as backlash to the morons running the DNC and its propagandist friends in the media.
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 09:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 04:32 PM) |
| Hmmmm.... perhaps the liberation of Iraq did indeed help eliminate a large number of terrorists from the world, eh? Of course, let's not believe a member of the al qaida. The only thing you should believe them on is their sincere wishes for the American people and their desire to see Kerry elected President. |
| QUOTE |
| Son of bin Laden's mentor says Iraq a lightning rod for jihadists Yep, no connection at all between Saddam and Al Qaida... or was there? Oh, but surely the world is no safer with his regime gone, since they were never involved in terrorism against western interest, or.... |
Well, first of all, I must say that BenJeremy is the only pro-Bush person in this thread who seems to have something intelligent to say.
First of all, if you can get this kind of information from a reliable news source besides from a Lebanese newspaper. Second, it mentioned several corrupt officials in the government who probably work for Al-Qaeda but not that Saddam himself work with Al Qaeda. Third, there is Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they operate in the the Kurdish region in Northern Iraq, not in Bagdad because Saddam doesn't have a lot of control in that region. Mainly a lot of Kurdish didn't like Saddam because he gassed a bunch of Kurdish people after the first Gulf war.
You will also have to look at our country also who's supporting the Terrorists. US companies like Halliburton supports other countries like Iran and Syria. And guess who was the last CEO of that Company?
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain595214.shtml
Post by: nemt on August 30, 2004, 09:32:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 01:25 PM) |
| Bush will win, of course, the only question now is if it will be a landslide - as backlash to the morons running the DNC and its propagandist friends in the media. |
Of course Bush will win, I don't doubt that, but the popular vote is going to be tremendously close. The electoral college, however, is almost certainly going to be a reaganesque landslide, even now Kerry is seeing his slight leads slip into tossups, and any undecided voters he hasnt swayed yet will need something very drastic to be swayed away from the incumbent on election day.
Anyway, here's some media facts for those who say there's no liberal bias in american media:
89% of the Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Clinton in 1992, while only 7% voted for Bush.
The New York Times has not endorsed a Republican for President since Eisenhower.
On major networks, conservatives fill slots as the token conservative commentators on Sunday morning talk shows, but liberals are hired as anchors and hosts to deliver hard, "objective" news.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 09:50:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 12:28 PM) |
| Well, first of all, I must say that BenJeremy is the only pro-Bush person in this thread who seems to have something intelligent to say. First of all, if you can get this kind of information from a reliable news source besides from a Lebanese newspaper. Second, it mentioned several corrupt officials in the government who probably work for Al-Qaeda but not that Saddam himself work with Al Qaeda. Third, there is Al-Qaeda in Iraq, they operate in the the Kurdish region in Northern Iraq, not in Bagdad because Saddam doesn't have a lot of control in that region. Mainly a lot of Kurdish didn't like Saddam because he gassed a bunch of Kurdish people after the first Gulf war. You will also have to look at our country also who's supporting the Terrorists. US companies like Halliburton supports other countries like Iran and Syria. And guess who was the last CEO of that Company? http://www.cbsnews.c...ain595214.shtml |
Well, a Lebanese newspaper has to be one of the best sources. This isn't an Israeli or Russian newspaper, which might be suspect - it's a newspaper from a country currently controlled by Syria. I'd think they would have the inside track.
Now as to your own allegations, I'm sorry, but the word "corrupt" does not appear in the article. Are you a member of the Kurdish Mujhadeen, to have such inside information? The article stated Saddam's regime, no mention of rengade members of the government. There are many groups of Kurds, by the way, many allied with the Baathists; please do not stereotype them (Just like all New Yorkers are not asshats who perform illegal protests) - there are even big enough differences among Sunnis and Shiites that often, there is more in common between one Shiite sect and a Sunni sect than there might be between two Sunni sects.
Now, as to the TIRED AND OLD allegations about Haliburton, they are a mega corporation who everybody involved with Oil and establishing infrastructure calls when they need certain jobs done. They don't "support" those governments (and you know this, so please stop the misrepresentations) - I'd be willing to bet they'd be dancing in their boardroom if Iran's Ayatollahs and Syria's Baathists were swept from power. They simply do BUSINESS in those countries, and mostly with WESTERN Oil companies who contract them. Maintaining at least a neutral relationship with the host governments is only a smart thing to do, for their own business and for the safety of their people.
BTW: The French, Germans, Russians, Spanish, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and pretty much every other government in the world deals with these bastards.... so what is your point, in the grand scheme of things, besides to demonize a corporation and its former CEO unfairly?
Post by: nemt on August 30, 2004, 10:09:00 AM
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 10:19:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 05:25 PM) |
| This is the mentality America is dealing with in its media - edit the truth out, when it doesn't suit your own agenda. Demonize any media that doesn't toe the line with the majority of the media (like Fox). Ignore common sense and obvious logic whenever possible. Perhaps America really is intelligent - and is starting to wake up to this manipulation by the media for what it is. |
I sure that Fox's Bill Orielly's 'fair and balanced' Media doesn't say anything bad about Bush sound like everybody wants to hear. Wait a minute, does that sound like propaganda to you?
Yes, I agree, like When Swiftboat Veterans for Lies and Bush saying there's actually some connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda because they don't want to mention anything that would disagree with their agenda. We are sandpiled from these guys from the media claiming what they said was true but now we know better.
| QUOTE |
| Bush will win, of course, the only question now is if it will be a landslide - as backlash to the morons running the DNC and its propagandist friends in the media. |
It is even between Bush and Kerry right now, so we don't know if who wins this November. You have to think about the Republicans who will vote for Bush because he will push his Christian agenda to the government. Maybe that they forgot there is a seperation between Church and State written in our Constitution. If we don't, our government is no better than the middle eastern Islamic state.
Bush tried to push for ban in Gay Marriages and abortions, he got repeatly shot down, so what is the chances that he will get shot down in the 2nd term?
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 10:43:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 01:22 PM) |
| I sure that Fox's Bill Orielly's 'fair and balanced' Media doesn't say anything bad about Bush sound like everybody wants to hear. Wait a minute, does that sound like propaganda to you? |
Bill O'Reilly is one commentator, and he's bit more of a social liberal than Bush (often siding against the Republicans, but then, you are far too engrossed in the hatred spewing views espoused by die-hard liberals to actually WATCH his program once and a while to see that) - he's NOT all of "Fox News" - though he is top dog in the ratings, so clearly, his is a message to be heard.
I'll match O'Reilly with your Chris Matthews, at any rate, as a raging shill for one side of a political argument, damn-be-the-facts.
Again, you seem to confuse your views with generalities and get most of your impressions from the shrill mantras which eminate from the left.
| QUOTE |
Yes, I agree, like When Swiftboat Veterans for Lies and Bush saying there's actually some connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda because they don't want to mention anything that would disagree with their agenda. We are sandpiled from these guys from the media claiming what they said was true but now we know better. |
Now you really ARE confused. Swiftboat Vets for TRUTH (that's their name, please try and get it right) have not, as I recall, said anything about any matters other than the nature of Kerry's service and his anti-war activities. They are not "media" either. Perhaps that is where the Left is confused - they simply don't understand the difference?
The Swiftboat vets are a bunch of guys DRAGGED INTO THE FRAY by Kerry's own campaign. They'd be a non-factor if their images hadn't been used to support Kerry and the implication made that they, in any way, personally supported him as a candidate.
As for the truth of the matter, even Kerry has relented that some of the facts (the ones that cannot be obfuscated with time and foggy eye-witnesses) may agree with what the Swiftboat vets are saying.
| QUOTE |
It is even between Bush and Kerry right now, so we don't know if who wins this November. You have to think about the Republicans who will vote for Bush because he will push his Christian agenda to the government. Maybe that they forgot there is a seperation between Church and State written in our Constitution. If we don't, our government is no better than the middle eastern Islamic state. Bush tried to push for ban in Gay Marriages and abortions, he got repeatly shot down, so what is the chances that he will get shot down in the 2nd term? |
Believe it or not, the big reason there is a push to get the Gay Marriage Ban on the ballots in many states is because there it has popular support. What many Gay Marriage opponents disagree on is what level of law the ban should be at (Many feel a Constitutional Amendment is overkill and abuses the nature of our Constitution, while other feel it is the only way to prevent activist courts from striking any law that might be enacted). The issue isn't even a "Christian" one. You will find plenty of Jews and Muslims (Most particularly Muslims) against Gay Marriage.
As for any "Christian Agenda" - please tell me, beyond the label you've put on the Gay Marriage Ban and the Republican's faith-based initiative (which is intended to bolster a proven means of support for the needy), what have they done to "corrupt" our government with Religion? How have they forced YOU to accept Christian mores?
Sorry, but your fantasy just doesn't ring true. Above being a Christian, Dubya is also a political realist. Regardless of what "he wants" - he still has to find popular support in Congress, and with that, he has to find support amongst Democrats (at least those reasonable enough to not hold a grudge for losing the executive seat in 2000)
Post by: nemt on August 30, 2004, 10:51:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 02:22 PM) |
| I sure that Fox's Bill Orielly's 'fair and balanced' Media doesn't say anything bad about Bush sound like everybody wants to hear. Wait a minute, does that sound like propaganda to you? |
Oh, "you sure" now? Political analysis and news reporting aren't about what "everybody wants to hear." They're about giving viewers the facts, and that's what Fox News has over the competition, hence their dominance of the cable news market. Now, if "everyone" wanted to hear constant Bush bashing, and one sided reports of the President, does that sound like propaganda to you?
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 02:22 PM) |
| Yes, I agree, like When Swiftboat Veterans for Lies and Bush saying there's actually some connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda because they don't want to mention anything that would disagree with their agenda. We are sandpiled from these guys from the media claiming what they said was true but now we know better. |
I've yet to hear anyone disproving any of the claims made by the swiftvets, additionally, why is Kerry so vocal about his opposition to their ads, and even says Bush should force them to withdraw - meanwhile Kerry remains a silent supporter of other 527s such as MoveOn.org?
Also, newsflash, there IS an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Ever heard of Salman Pak? Ever heard of Ramzi Yousef? No, you haven't, because much of the liberal media wants to hide the connection, but the facts are all there. Ideological differences between Saddam and Qaeda wouldn't, and didn't, prevent them from working towards a common goal: destruction of the USA.
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 02:22 PM) |
| It is even between Bush and Kerry right now, so we don't know if who wins this November. You have to think about the Republicans who will vote for Bush because he will push his Christian agenda to the government. Maybe that they forgot there is a separation between Church and State written in our Constitution. If we don't, our government is no better than the middle eastern Islamic state. |
It's even in the popular vote, which, as we all know doesn't determine the winner of the election. Additionally, I'd like you to cite any example of Bush pushing a "Christian agenda" to the government, because I haven't seen any. No law mandating a specific religious involvement has EVER been passed.
You are a complete moron, totally misinformed and undereducated.
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 10:51:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 05:53 PM) |
| Well, a Lebanese newspaper has to be one of the best sources. This isn't an Israeli or Russian newspaper, which might be suspect - it's a newspaper from a country currently controlled by Syria. I'd think they would have the inside track. Now as to your own allegations, I'm sorry, but the word "corrupt" does not appear in the article. Are you a member of the Kurdish Mujhadeen, to have such inside information? The article stated Saddam's regime, no mention of rengade members of the government. There are many groups of Kurds, by the way, many allied with the Baathists; please do not stereotype them (Just like all New Yorkers are not asshats who perform illegal protests) - there are even big enough differences among Sunnis and Shiites that often, there is more in common between one Shiite sect and a Sunni sect than there might be between two Sunni sects. |
Do you seriously think a Lebinese newspaper wouldn't say anything like 'Terrorist,' 'Corrupt' Iraqi officals' or any kind of language which offends people in the middle east is a reliable source? I mean that Syria is one of the countries which we are not supposed to do business with, right?
I could tell that you are not a New Yorker because you didn't watch the news about the protests. There are illegal protesters who blocked streets which they are arrested. Then again, there were Republican protesters at the DNC in Boston too which got arrested protesting illegally too. However, there was a PERMIT for Sunday's protest which about 250,000 protesters showed up. I guess to you think they are illegal protesters too.
| QUOTE |
Now, as to the TIRED AND OLD allegations about Haliburton, they are a mega corporation who everybody involved with Oil and establishing infrastructure calls when they need certain jobs done. They don't "support" those governments (and you know this, so please stop the misrepresentations) - I'd be willing to bet they'd be dancing in their boardroom if Iran's Ayatollahs and Syria's Baathists were swept from power. They simply do BUSINESS in those countries, and mostly with WESTERN Oil companies who contract them. Maintaining at least a neutral relationship with the host governments is only a smart thing to do, for their own business and for the safety of their people. BTW: The French, Germans, Russians, Spanish, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, and pretty much every other government in the world deals with these bastards.... so what is your point, in the grand scheme of things, besides to demonize a corporation and its former CEO unfairly? |
Yeah right! The article says that Cheney managed was doing business with sponsoring State-run Al-Qaeda financially before he became VP. Al-Qaeda is not at war with the other countries but with the US so I don't think other Countries would care anyways.
Post by: Mr. Chips on August 30, 2004, 11:10:00 AM
'Proponganda' is a word thrown about too regularly.
Most of us are smart enough to know when our legs are being pulled. If they started broadcasting that slavery is OK, it's not like you will fall for it. If that already represents your opinion you may agree. If not you will be outraged. Should I point out that 'power' button on the TV set?
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 11:16:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 01:54 PM) |
| Do you seriously think a Lebinese newspaper wouldn't say anything like 'Terrorist,' 'Corrupt' Iraqi officals' or any kind of language which offends people in the middle east is a reliable source? I mean that Syria is one of the countries which we are not supposed to do business with, right? |
Wow... you really are off the rails now. The leap in logic is amazing.... a Lebanese newspaper (and the Syrian government) has nothing to gain by supporting the Bush administration's allegations about Saddam's connection with terrorism.
I'm probably not going out on a limb to say that if it was the NYT and WaPo featuring this article, you'd be accusing the Republicans of planting sleeper agents in their editorial staff or of slipping it in during the printing process.
| QUOTE |
I could tell that you are not a New Yorker because you didn't watch the news about the protests. There are illegal protesters who blocked streets which they are arrested. Then again, there were Republican protesters at the DNC in Boston too which got arrested protesting illegally too. However, there was a PERMIT for Sunday's protest which about 250,000 protesters showed up. I guess to you think they are illegal protesters too. |
264+ protesters were arrested for blocking streets ILLEGALLY. Also, it's not even close to 250,000 protestors, but then again, you can't tell the left their protest numbers are inflated (for example, the "Million Man March" was, what, one TENTH of that size?). How many millions live in New York?
Besides, what does this have to do with Boston? Obviously, by YOUR logic and generalism, because there were protestors on the right there, Boston is a bastion of neocons?
OFF. THE. RAILS.
| QUOTE |
Yeah right! The article says that Cheney managed was doing business with sponsoring State-run Al-Qaeda financially before he became VP. Al-Qaeda is not at war with the other countries but with the US so I don't think other Countries would care anyways. |
Again, you distort and twist the words to suit your own strange view of the cosmos. Cheney didn't deal with governments.... he dealt with COMPANIES. Legal teams and counsels work with proper diplomatic channels to insure proper immigration and customs work is handled. They work with beauraucrats to smoothe things over, but this is quite common, and EXPECTED. Cheney would not be doing his job, in the eyes of his employees and stockholders, had his company NOT taken business offered in those places.
Again, you seem to conveniently ignore the simple fact that Haliburton is FAR from the only company, be it American, French, British, Spanish, German, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Australian, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Georgian, South African, Brazilian, Canadian, Mexican, Norwegian, Finnish, South Korean, Kiwi, or even Etrirean who has dealt with these countries. Oil is a funny thing - everybody needs it, and where there's oil, there's a need for infrastructure.
It has nothing to do with how "evil" a country's regime is. Unless there are specific sanctions in place to restrict trade with/within a country, it's fair game. Only a MORON would dismiss business, wherever it might be, unless we are talking about armaments and nuclear technology.
Would you agree that Iran and Syria are bad people to give nuclear fuel to, for example?
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 11:42:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 07:19 PM) |
| Wow... you really are off the rails now. The leap in logic is amazing.... a Lebanese newspaper (and the Syrian government) has nothing to gain by supporting the Bush administration's allegations about Saddam's connection with terrorism. I'm probably not going out on a limb to say that if it was the NYT and WaPo featuring this article, you'd be accusing the Republicans of planting sleeper agents in their editorial staff or of slipping it in during the printing process. |
First of all, the article didn't say anything about Saddam working with Al-Qaeda at all. I find it amazing how can you draw up your own logic.
I would like to see those articles from NYT and WaPo because I don't think I believe a newspaper in a Terrorist government.
| QUOTE |
264+ protesters were arrested for blocking streets ILLEGALLY. Also, it's not even close to 250,000 protestors, but then again, you can't tell the left their protest numbers are inflated (for example, the "Million Man March" was, what, one TENTH of that size?). How many millions live in New York? Besides, what does this have to do with Boston? Obviously, by YOUR logic and generalism, because there were protestors on the right there, Boston is a bastion of neocons? OFF. THE. RAILS. Again, you distort and twist the words to suit your own strange view of the cosmos. Cheney didn't deal with governments.... he dealt with COMPANIES. Legal teams and counsels work with proper diplomatic channels to insure proper immigration and customs work is handled. They work with beauraucrats to smoothe things over, but this is quite common, and EXPECTED. Cheney would not be doing his job, in the eyes of his employees and stockholders, had his company NOT taken business offered in those places. Again, you seem to conveniently ignore the simple fact that Haliburton is FAR from the only company, be it American, French, British, Spanish, German, Russian, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Australian, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Greek, Cypriot, Georgian, South African, Brazilian, Canadian, Mexican, Norwegian, Finnish, South Korean, Kiwi, or even Etrirean who has dealt with these countries. Oil is a funny thing - everybody needs it, and where there's oil, there's a need for infrastructure. It has nothing to do with how "evil" a country's regime is. Unless there are specific sanctions in place to restrict trade with/within a country, it's fair game. Only a MORON would dismiss business, wherever it might be, unless we are talking about armaments and nuclear technology. Would you agree that Iran and Syria are bad people to give nuclear fuel to, for example? |
I guess I have to take back about you having something intelligent to say. Because none of this is making any sense at all.
Post by: thomes08 on August 30, 2004, 11:43:00 AM
third
time
(BJ EDIT: Removed the idiotic dots. Disrupt the forum like that again, and I'll make it a warning/temp ban)
can you say nothing other than stuff about the war and smearing?
Please sirs, i've mentioned twice before that all you talk about is the war and war related stuff, but you are blind to matters that make up our everyday life. I figured saying that twice would maybe get it through everyones heads that the war arguments are a little old right now, talk fucking policy and see what real life is like
thomes08
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 11:58:00 AM
Kerry: "Bring It On!"
Swift Boat Vets: "You lied and exagerrated!"
Kerry: "Cut it out! <whimper>"Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 12:02:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Aug 30 2004, 06:54 PM) |
| Oh, "you sure" now? Political analysis and news reporting aren't about what "everybody wants to hear." They're about giving viewers the facts, and that's what Fox News has over the competition, hence their dominance of the cable news market. Now, if "everyone" wanted to hear constant Bush bashing, and one sided reports of the President, does that sound like propaganda to you? I've yet to hear anyone disproving any of the claims made by the swiftvets, additionally, why is Kerry so vocal about his opposition to their ads, and even says Bush should force them to withdraw - meanwhile Kerry remains a silent supporter of other 527s such as MoveOn.org? Also, newsflash, there IS an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Ever heard of Salman Pak? Ever heard of Ramzi Yousef? No, you haven't, because much of the liberal media wants to hide the connection, but the facts are all there. Ideological differences between Saddam and Qaeda wouldn't, and didn't, prevent them from working towards a common goal: destruction of the USA. |
Before blabbering your brains off, please look at my previous posts from this thread.
http://www.boston.co...ry146s_defense/
http://www.foxnews.c...,130326,00.html
http://www.mailtribu...ies/01local.htm
Maybe you can get yourself educated by looking at them.
| QUOTE |
| It's even in the popular vote, which, as we all know doesn't determine the winner of the election. Additionally, I'd like you to cite any example of Bush pushing a "Christian agenda" to the government, because I haven't seen any. No law mandating a specific religious involvement has EVER been passed. You are a complete moron, totally misinformed and undereducated. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/
http://abcnews.go.co...gion010521.html
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain524268.shtml
I guess I am misinformed because I don't find news like that in foxnews. Thanks.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 12:06:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 02:45 PM) |
| First of all, the article didn't say anything about Saddam working with Al-Qaeda at all. I find it amazing how can you draw up your own logic. |
Saddam == Saddam's Regime. I'm guessing you haven't got a decent grasp of this whole "dictator" thing, eh? His "regime" didn't do things without his permission, or nasty things would happen. Ask his son-in-law - oops - you can't since he was MURDERED by daddy-in-law for disobeying.
It's all moot anyway, as his regime is as powerless as Saddam himself. So the end effect of the war was to remove a terrorist supporting regime. Q.E.D.
| QUOTE |
I would like to see those articles from NYT and WaPo because I don't think I believe a newspaper in a Terrorist government. |
Gee, I thought you considered the "Bush Regime" a terrorist government.
| QUOTE |
I guess I have to take back about you having something intelligent to say. Because none of this is making any sense at all. |
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 03:05 PM) |
| Before blabbering your brains off, please look at my previous posts from this thread. http://www.boston.co...ry146s_defense/ http://www.foxnews.c...,130326,00.html http://www.mailtribu...ies/01local.htm Maybe you can get yourself educated by looking at them. |
Oh my, you mean Kerry has only managed three or four supporters amongst ALL of those who served with him?
Former supporter:
http://home.nycap.rr...kerry page.html
My, my. I guess when there's a crime, the prosecution is right in utilizing the version 2 or 3 have over the completely diametrically opposed account of the 20 or 30 others standing nearby, as well as the testimony of experts in the field?
Sorry, but Kerry's stories are tall tales. They might have some basis in fact, but in many cases, don't even have a slight resemblence to reality. This is something Kerry himself has been forced to acknowledge.
| QUOTE |
http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/ http://abcnews.go.co...gion010521.html http://www.cbsnews.c...ain524268.shtml I guess I am misinformed because I don't find news like that in foxnews. Thanks. |
Wow.... smear pieces that actually have the gall to say Christians like Bush! That he PRAYS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! OMG!!! (oops, sorry about the "G" in that last bit).
It still says NOTHING about this so-called "Christian Agenda". The 60 minutes piece borders on being an anti-Zionist rant, lumping, conveniently enough for such an UNBIASED source as 60 minutes, Bush and his administration as some part of conspiracy to ::gasp:: allow Israel to exist!!!! The HORROR!
Geez. Honestly, if this is the best you've got, please don't bother wasting our time.
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 12:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Aug 30 2004, 06:54 PM) |
| Also, newsflash, there IS an Iraq-Al Qaeda connection. Ever heard of Salman Pak? Ever heard of Ramzi Yousef? No, you haven't, because much of the liberal media wants to hide the connection, but the facts are all there. Ideological differences between Saddam and Qaeda wouldn't, and didn't, prevent them from working towards a common goal: destruction of the USA. |
You're right, I haven't heard about Salman Pak until now.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4523156/
And So is Ramzi Yousef.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4799686/
Maybe the mainstream news media knows how to weed out Truth from BS.
Post by: thomes08 on August 30, 2004, 12:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 08:01 PM) |
| thomes08: If Kerry didn't want to discuss these things, then he shouldn't make them the centerpieces of his campaign. ---------------- Kerry: "Bring It On!" Swift Boat Vets: "You lied and exagerrated!" Kerry: "Cut it out! <whimper>" |
they are not the centerpieces of his campaign. People, like the swiftboat vets for crap are trying to make it the centerpiece. People like who you think that our life is about this war are making it the venterpiece. If people would actually read up and listen to what his campaign is about you'd see that. The swiftboat people have NOTHING to do with his campaign for a better america.
again, nothing but a smear
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 12:36:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 08:09 PM) |
| Saddam == Saddam's Regime. I'm guessing you haven't got a decent grasp of this whole "dictator" thing, eh? His "regime" didn't do things without his permission, or nasty things would happen. Ask his son-in-law - oops - you can't since he was MURDERED by daddy-in-law for disobeying. It's all moot anyway, as his regime is as powerless as Saddam himself. So the end effect of the war was to remove a terrorist supporting regime. Q.E.D. Gee, I thought you considered the "Bush Regime" a terrorist government. In other words, (wave file) |
Now what does all this have to do with 'Kerry Sucks'? Or all this is just irrevelant BS?
If you can show some kind of proof besides from somebody's website or from a Lebinese newspaper, maybe you can start talking some sense.
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 12:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 08:22 PM) |
| Oh my, you mean Kerry has only managed three or four supporters amongst ALL of those who served with him? Former supporter: http://home.nycap.rr...kerry page.html My, my. I guess when there's a crime, the prosecution is right in utilizing the version 2 or 3 have over the completely diametrically opposed account of the 20 or 30 others standing nearby, as well as the testimony of experts in the field? Sorry, but Kerry's stories are tall tales. They might have some basis in fact, but in many cases, don't even have a slight resemblence to reality. This is something Kerry himself has been forced to acknowledge. Wow.... smear pieces that actually have the gall to say Christians like Bush! That he PRAYS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! OMG!!! (oops, sorry about the "G" in that last bit). It still says NOTHING about this so-called "Christian Agenda". The 60 minutes piece borders on being an anti-Zionist rant, lumping, conveniently enough for such an UNBIASED source as 60 minutes, Bush and his administration as some part of conspiracy to ::gasp:: allow Israel to exist!!!! The HORROR! Geez. Honestly, if this is the best you've got, please don't bother wasting our time. |
I guess that truth of those news articles doesn't make any sense to you and you seem to be pretty good at drawing up your senseless conclusions without proof.
If I want to read exaggerated opinions and drama, I will read and understand your posts. Otherwise, I have better things to do and don't waste my time.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 12:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 03:39 PM) |
| Now what does all this have to do with 'Kerry Sucks'? |
Oh, is that what we are all here to do, support the idea that "Kerry Sucks"?
Well, considering he AGREES with the view that deposing Saddam's regime is a good thing, I must say he's right about that. Of course, he's got a track record of saying one thing and doing another, so we have to take THAT with a grain of salt, don't we?
| QUOTE |
Or all this is just irrevelant BS? |
I would quantify your posts as overzealous rantings, not irrevelant(sic) BS. There is a difference. Please don't be so self-depricating in the future (self-esteem is important!)
| QUOTE |
If you can show some kind of proof besides from somebody's website or from a Lebinese newspaper, maybe you can start talking some sense. |
Well, considering they are the ones doing the interview, it will have to wait until other news outlets pick it up (if getting it second hand is your style).
I wouldn't hold my breath for that, though.... NewsMax and WorldNet might pick it up.... Fox and WashTimes might even pick it up, but it simply doesn't fit the agenda of those other outlets you worship and blindly follow.
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 12:58:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Aug 30 2004, 03:47 PM) |
| I guess that truth of those news articles doesn't make any sense to you and you seem to be pretty good at drawing up your senseless conclusions without proof. If I want to read exaggerated opinions and drama, I will read and understand your posts. Otherwise, I have better things to do and don't waste my time. |
Sorry, but until you demonstrate one piece of "Christian Agenda" legislation that's passed, and the chilling effect it's had on all Americans, the whole thing is an amazing stretch.
The US has always strongly supported Israel, be it Carter, Kennedy, Reagan, Johnson, Clinton... why does this suddenly become proof that Bush is a Zionist "tool" pushing us towards armegeddon?
Republicans have generally been against abortion (some pro, with about an inverse ratio on the Democratic side).
Praying in the White House.... even Clinton did that. Numerous prominent Democrats are even :::shudder::: REVERENDS!!
Gay Marriage Ban? When was the last pro-Gay President? Oh, there NEVER WAS ONE. Clinton promised to support gays in the military, but instead, more gays were discharged, per year, under Clinton then under any other President. Don't ask, don't tell, indeed....
Faith-based initiative? It's supported by a lot of Democrats. It's opposed by the ones strongly in the ACLU camp. I'd call them "Jeffersonians" but it belittles Jefferson's real views on the matter. Most of those vehement attacks on Christianity invoking "separation of church and state" are simply anti-Christians. In reality, faith-based charities help a LOT of people. Allowing for more government assistance and giving Americans a choice in supporting these programs with their own money only makes sense.
Did I miss something in this evil tableau?
So what else was there?
Post by: thomes08 on August 30, 2004, 01:00:00 PM
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 01:02:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Aug 30 2004, 04:03 PM) |
| (side note just curious.... do you people work during the day? I just wanna know if i can get a job that lets be be on x-s all day) |
Well, I peruse X-S between compiles of code and sending e-mails to my Japanese development team (erm, for my "day job" as MXM does NOT have an offshore development team) and customers.
Post by: thomes08 on August 30, 2004, 01:22:00 PM
Post by: bluedeath on August 30, 2004, 01:26:00 PM
Post by: BenJeremy on August 30, 2004, 01:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Aug 30 2004, 04:25 PM) |
| (sounds interesting, japanese developers for what?) |
Development of a product for the automotive industry. That's about all I should really say. It's got software, so from that perspective, it's my territory.
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 02:21:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Aug 30 2004, 09:03 PM) |
| (side note just curious.... do you people work during the day? I just wanna know if i can get a job that lets be be on x-s all day) |
Well, I am at my cubacle all day so as long as I am doing 'work' nobody bothers you.
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 02:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 09:01 PM) |
| Sorry, but until you demonstrate one piece of "Christian Agenda" legislation that's passed, and the chilling effect it's had on all Americans, the whole thing is an amazing stretch. The US has always strongly supported Israel, be it Carter, Kennedy, Reagan, Johnson, Clinton... why does this suddenly become proof that Bush is a Zionist "tool" pushing us towards armegeddon? Republicans have generally been against abortion (some pro, with about an inverse ratio on the Democratic side). Praying in the White House.... even Clinton did that. Numerous prominent Democrats are even :::shudder::: REVERENDS!! Gay Marriage Ban? When was the last pro-Gay President? Oh, there NEVER WAS ONE. Clinton promised to support gays in the military, but instead, more gays were discharged, per year, under Clinton then under any other President. Don't ask, don't tell, indeed.... Faith-based initiative? It's supported by a lot of Democrats. It's opposed by the ones strongly in the ACLU camp. I'd call them "Jeffersonians" but it belittles Jefferson's real views on the matter. Most of those vehement attacks on Christianity invoking "separation of church and state" are simply anti-Christians. In reality, faith-based charities help a LOT of people. Allowing for more government assistance and giving Americans a choice in supporting these programs with their own money only makes sense. Did I miss something in this evil tableau? So what else was there? |
You remind me of what Cheney overexaggerates of one of Kerry's speech.
http://story.news.ya...ensitivewarplea
When Kerry said in his speech, "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history." Cheney took ONE word out of the context and slams Kerry on being too sensitive.
Instead of reading what I mentioned within the whole story, you take one sentence or phrase in the article and blown it out of porportion.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 30, 2004, 03:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Aug 30 2004, 05:04 PM) |
| i watch fox more than i do cnn thank you very much, but i do watch cnn. quite frankly i see them both as biased, although cnn takes it further than fox does. yes fox does have political analysts, but they bring in both democrats and republicans, a point you convieniently forgot to mention no you didnt say kerry did not have anything to gain from lying, but you definitly implied it. whether you meant it or not, thats what was implied, but im glad you made that clear here. but seriously, im tired of people thinking one side is lying for absolutely no reason. thats what i was trying to get accross. its not merely numbers that i belive the swift boat vets for truth's account is more accurate, its more, persay, logic. first off, i would never take ANY politicians word for truth without any backing. next, we know kerry is a habitual liar, and lied under oath, which further makes me think he is lying. next we know that war records for bronze, silver, gold, etc, awards awarded for heroic deeds are often "inflated" but thats not quite the right word, cant think of the word right now....exaggerated would be closer, they give more glory to the situation. people would not have necisarily brought it up 30 years ago. right now he is running for PRESIDENT! there was no reason to bring up his war record before now. and when you bring something up and put it as the showpiece of your campaign, you had better expect people to look into it. oh and to your question...because there is more to a presidential election then what people did 30 years ago. quite frankly im more interested in what a person is GOING to do, and what their plans are to do right now. people change in 30 years. however, kerry's war record is a hot topic, and there is not really much else people are debating over so, you could say im just "going with the flow" OH HO!!! you want me to focus on health care, okay, hows this! kerry wants to lift the aids immigration ban. if you cant see how bad that it, let me explain. health care is already a problem due to rising costs. imagine letting anyone with AIDS into the United States of America for treatment. an overwhelming number of these are going to be from impoverished countries, where are they going to get their money from for the treatment? thats right, the American taxpayer. you will no longer have health insurance, because you will not be able to afford it. thanks for bringing that topic up, its one of the first ive seen here for awhile that focuses on the future....unfortunately for you, being on the side of kerry, that wasnt a good choice to bring up. cheers! btw, i hope you arnt taking any of what i say personally and that goes for everyone. i tend to flame a bit, but dont take me seriously when i do, i respect everyone's right to an opinion, im just one of those wackos who finds forum-flaming fun |
no, it was said that fox brings in democratic anaylists, but incompetent ones, and even then they dont really focus on what there saying as much as the republicans
cnn is definatly not as biased as fox news, its plain and simple
do you ever watch headline news? its headlines, not commentary on what someone says, just headlines (ie, real news)
Post by: bluedeath on August 30, 2004, 03:17:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Aug 30 2004, 09:33 PM) |
| Development of a product for the automotive industry. That's about all I should really say. It's got software, so from that perspective, it's my territory. |
Software in a vehicle would be a disaster. Imagine a virus infecting your car. Wait I saw this one.... it ended with the world being destroyed by nuclear missles and John Conner hiding in a bunker.
SKYNET
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 30, 2004, 03:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Aug 30 2004, 05:29 PM) |
| i find it quite hard to take anyone seriously who thinks cnn is less biased then fox on their end of the scale. quite frankly i think in a forum where opinions are discussed and debated, it would be more useful to watch a show where opinions are discussed and debated, so you have a good idea on what each party thinks. maybe because almost all democrats are like this? |
haha, good joke
might i add, look whos president, and then we'll talk incompetent
and your honestly going to sit here and tell me headline news is biased, even though all they do is show all the news (ie, headlines) even from around the world? the only commentary they make is to tell you when its a commercial, what story is on next and sports
while on the other hand, all fox does is babble shit out of thier ass
wow, this is a hard choice
Post by: The unProfessional on August 30, 2004, 03:46:00 PM
Simply because you enjoy watching it more than fox doesn't make it unbiased. Why do you think each of the mass media networks are alive? Because they're all biased... and everyone loves their own flavor of bull shit.
Post by: pug_ster on August 30, 2004, 05:23:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Aug 30 2004, 11:29 PM) |
| i find it quite hard to take anyone seriously who thinks cnn is less biased then fox on their end of the scale. quite frankly i think in a forum where opinions are discussed and debated, it would be more useful to watch a show where opinions are discussed and debated, so you have a good idea on what each party thinks. maybe because almost all democrats are like this? |
The kind of crap that comes out from FoxNews sometimes astounds me. As an New Yorker, this one from the Oh Really? factor about the protests in NYC before the RNC.
http://www.foxnews.c...,130209,00.html
There are several conclusions that I can draw from this article:
- Protesters will eventually shut down the NYC because that is what happened in San Francisco.
- We should not protest because we are at war.
- Protesters will douse themselves with gun powder to cause security alarms to go crazy.
- Violent Protesters are killers
- All protesters are considered as terrorists and they should be locked up doing Federal Time
I mean that most pro-bush people would probably believe it in a second. Do you see CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN would say such BS like that? This is kind of 'Fair and Balanced' news that foxnews gives.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 30, 2004, 07:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Aug 30 2004, 05:49 PM) |
| Raptorbull, you honestly think CNN is free of bias?! That's just ludicrous, my friend. Simply because you enjoy watching it more than fox doesn't make it unbiased. Why do you think each of the mass media networks are alive? Because they're all biased... and everyone loves their own flavor of bull shit. |
i never meant to imply its free of biasm, but its definatly not on the level of fox
Post by: pegasys on August 31, 2004, 08:12:00 AM
Post by: brandogg on August 31, 2004, 09:49:00 AM
Post by: pegasys on August 31, 2004, 10:09:00 AM
Post by: brandogg on August 31, 2004, 11:05:00 AM
Post by: pegasys on August 31, 2004, 11:37:00 AM
Post by: The unProfessional on August 31, 2004, 12:08:00 PM
| QUOTE |
You are allowd to protest, it's in the constitution, you know the thing that gives us rights. |
Is it also in the constitution to beat people senseless and set other peoples' property on fire? Not in my America. Civil disobedience is one thing... violence is another.
Post by: pegasys on August 31, 2004, 01:06:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on August 31, 2004, 01:26:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 31, 2004, 02:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Aug 31 2004, 03:29 PM) |
| I'm not against protesting, only when it is utterly disrespectful, and being used as a diversion, like it is now. Anyway, George Pitaki, Rudy Guliani, and Mayor Bloomberg all asked George W if he would have his convention in NYC. He said yes, so they're having it there. If he'd said no, the Democrats would have called him out on that and used it against him. |
you call it a distraction, while others call it enlightenment
if you cant make the connection, there protesting to show the strong negative feeling against bush, and blame the news for "taking away from the convention" if you want to blame someone
what is it with republicans and whining
"well there taking away from our convention"
"we want Moores film off of advertisments, it could hurt the election"
to fucking bad
Post by: The unProfessional on August 31, 2004, 04:35:00 PM
Violent protesting is never cool... that has nothing to do with the convention or the election.
Post by: thomes08 on August 31, 2004, 05:02:00 PM
First off we;re allowed to protest.
Second, of the half million protestors you bring up one or two instances. Do the math. If you put a group of 500,000 buddists in a room there will probably be more violence.
Third, the whole point of protesting is to divert attention. Would you protest abortion outside a clinic if you had to do it when they were closed and if it didn't get any attention?
Fourth, yeah, the the republican mayor and ex-mayor are going to wath their guy to go there, but that doesn't meant 7 million people didn't.
And lastly, get fucking over the protesting. Your guy has put more hatred into the homes of the world than anyone else i can think of. You say it's not right for the people to protest and cause havoc, you say it's not ok for them to burn a dragon that an idiot cop hurt himself on. You say it's not ok for someone to get beat up (PS happens all the time), but for some reason it's ok for your guy to send our troops to another country and do all those things but 100x worse. Get over it, if they were your people you wouldn't think anything of it. Oh yeah, lemme guess, 500,000 republicans protesting the person they hate the most who is taking over their city wouldn't do anything right? They'd let it go and they would just respect the convention being there even though 85% of the people there don't want them there, there wouldn't be any problems cause you send your anger overseas, along with american jobs.
thomes08
Post by: The unProfessional on August 31, 2004, 06:19:00 PM
| QUOTE |
First off we;re allowed to protest. |
Yes, we're aware. The protesting isn't that big of a deal. Somehow it all got focused on me. I was simply aiding an earlier post by mentioning that effective civil disobedience doesn't necessarily include violence, and it's never OK.
| QUOTE |
Your guy has put more hatred into the homes of the world than anyone |
My points in regards to the convention and protesting said nothing about bush. "Your Guy"... gimme a break. Have you ever read my posts? I figured by now you'd know that I care far more for Americans and our libery than the dems, the repubs, bush, kerry, or the tooth fairy.
| QUOTE |
PS happens all the time |
So does murder.
Yes, getting your ass kicked is not a big deal. I was making a simple point. Saying it happens all the time is nothing more than a fallacy. I'm also trying to make the point that you should consider yourself in the situation of those affected rather than just seeing the political agenda.
| QUOTE |
if they were your people you wouldn't think anything of it you send your anger overseas, along with american jobs |
Thomes, don't be so partisan. I hate remarks like that. "My people"... "Your Guy"... even if I was a right-winger, I wouldn't consider myself part of some Republican Partridge family.
| QUOTE |
Oh yeah, lemme guess, 500,000 republicans protesting the person they hate the most who is taking over their city wouldn't do anything right |
And once again, turning my points on protesting into a partisan issue (out of nowhere). I believe I said...
| QUOTE |
Violent protesting is never cool... that has nothing to do with the convention or the election. |
Post by: thomes08 on August 31, 2004, 06:57:00 PM
but the fact that people are freaking out about these protestors and the 99.9999 percent of them that are peaceful and trying to turn them into terrorists or bad people is ignorant and quite frankly it shows you don't have any good political points. then you try and relate the democratic presidential canidate to the handful of people who have wronged in an attempt to divert the attention away from any issues that actually matter. It's like blaming bush for the iraqi prison abusers because they are bush-lovers
thomes08
edit: sorry if i offended you earlier unprof
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on August 31, 2004, 07:02:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Aug 31 2004, 06:38 PM) |
| Raptorbull, don't only just consider your own personal interests all the time. From your point of view, whatever hurts Bush's campaign = good. That's fine. But if you got your ass kicked by some "protestor" for reasons unknown, you'd still feel that it's okay? A strong negative feeling against bush is just fine. So, vote against him. What good does it do to reak havok. Civil disobedience usually serves a purpose... where protestors show up at an actual event in attempt to stop it. But how does "protesting" outside the convention accomplish anything. Violent protesting is never cool... that has nothing to do with the convention or the election. |
see, there it is again
your focusing on (2) dumbshits that dont belong in the group
im referring to the group as a whole, ie, peaceful. and whats his name (to lazt to scrool down) is whining that there taking away from the convention (again, im talking about the peaceful 99.9999998% of the people)
just like republicans said micheal moores commercials would hurt bush, so what, its a MOVIE preview
Post by: The unProfessional on August 31, 2004, 07:39:00 PM
About Michael Moore, I don't really care how it affects the election. If people put that much stock in movies then I really don't care what they think.
Post by: thomes08 on August 31, 2004, 08:19:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: The unProfessional on August 31, 2004, 09:47:00 PM
Post by: EveryNaziPlaneHasACross on August 31, 2004, 11:30:00 PM
Auf Wiedersehen!
Post by: The unProfessional on August 31, 2004, 11:36:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on September 01, 2004, 07:22:00 AM
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on September 01, 2004, 07:47:00 AM
| QUOTE (EveryNaziPlaneHasACross @ Sep 1 2004, 07:33 AM) |
| Hey if you guys enjoyed Fahrenheit 9/11, you should definitely check out Triumph Des Willens, which Michael Moore owes much of his manipulative success to. A beautifully disturbing film, the way the Hitler's plane is seen ascending from the heavens in the shape of a cross, the savior of the distraught and ill-fated German people. Some historians actually claim Hitler and the Nazi party was the best thing to happen to Germany period. Helping to quickly bring Germany out of a depression, supplying jobs and other social services to all of it's citizens by rearming Germany to help make it the post powerful nation in the world, post WWII. Auf Wiedersehen! |
I know that I might get flamed for it, but in the beginning of what Hitler did was good that he brought Germany out from the Depression to economic stability. I think his model of social and economic change has brought back countries like Japan and South Korea after WWII so quickly. Also some of the Eastern Europe countries after the cold war too.
Of course Hitler's ambition of taking over Europe as well as Germany does in the Concentration camps brought Germany down to its knees.
This just reminds of what is the message of some people who are speaking at the RNC. Moderate Republicans like Arnold and Giuliani speak in the convention doesn't really represent what most of the conservative Republicans want. Moderates views Stronger Military and tax cuts might appeal to most people. But the conservatives religious views like anti-gay and anti abortion is what they really care about.
I think this is the kind of 2-faced politics from Bush that we are seeing. At the midst of depression Germans voted for Hitler because his promise of economic prosperity but Hitler's real intention is to take over Europe. Right now Republicans tries to appeal to Americans like Tax cuts and Stronger Military but they really care about their conservative ambition.
Giuliani's and Arnold's 'True Lies' speech was conviencing, but Kerry already supports what most of the stuff they are saying, and you don't have to be a republican.
Post by: brandogg on September 01, 2004, 09:06:00 AM
Post by: bluedeath on September 01, 2004, 10:31:00 AM
Post by: Mr. Chips on September 01, 2004, 12:07:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I think this is the kind of 2-faced politics from Bush that we are seeing. At the midst of depression Germans voted for Hitler because his promise of economic prosperity but Hitler's real intention is to take over Europe. Right now Republicans tries to appeal to Americans like Tax cuts and Stronger Military but they really care about their conservative ambition. |
Hitler's real intention was to take over THE WORLD.
And to wipe out "inferior races" such as Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and Handicaps.
He was insane. There is lots of books about him to tell you so.
And was that a comparison to Bush?
Post by: pug_ster on September 01, 2004, 12:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (Mr. Chips @ Sep 1 2004, 08:10 PM) |
| Hitler's real intention was to take over THE WORLD. And to wipe out "inferior races" such as Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and Handicaps. He was insane. There is lots of books about him to tell you so. And was that a comparison to Bush? |
Read the whole article please. I am saying that Bush is a 2-face politican. Germans voted for Hitler promising them food and jobs before he did all those atrocities. I never said that Bush is going to do those same things. Most republicans are trying to appeal to their moderates but Bush wants to push out his conservative agenda.
Bush is taking advantage of the situation in 9/11 and the America's state of Fear and claims that he will remove all the Terrorists in the world. I mean did Bush's administration defines WHO are the actual terrorists? For all we know, anybody who 'is against him' like the NYC protesters are considered as terrorists to Bush because they have all those anti-Bush rallies.
Post by: brandogg on September 01, 2004, 01:20:00 PM
Post by: brandogg on September 01, 2004, 01:23:00 PM
Post by: bluedeath on September 01, 2004, 01:33:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Sep 1 2004, 09:23 PM) |
| First, a great chunk of the replubican money is being spent on security for the entire state of New York. Secondly, Arnold (who was not drunk, that's a retarded comment to make) gave one of the best speeches I've ever seen in a convention. Arnold is more in touch with the American people than you are. He is the definition of what the American Dream is all about. |
You have to be kidding? He sounded like an ignoramus.
'He admonished those who are pessimistic about the economy by admonishing them not to be -- quote -- "economic girlie men." '
Those who were captivated by the Republican Dancing Monkey "Ahnold" deserve the consequences that come from electing these fools.
Post by: pug_ster on September 01, 2004, 01:37:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Sep 1 2004, 09:26 PM) |
| And no one is "taking advantage" of 9/11. It was a major catastrophe and needs to be mentioned. The whole point of mentioning it is to show that we need to learn from the past, and take out potential enemies before they attack us like they did that day. Shame on you for saying that's taking advantage. |
Okay, maybe you can tell me why is the RNC is held in NYC where Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 1. Not to mention almost all the convention speeches mentions that Bush will 'protect America from Terrorism.' The only speech that I don't hear anything about Terrorism is those dumb giggling Bush twins, if you want to call it a speech.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 01, 2004, 02:31:00 PM
| QUOTE |
Okay, maybe you can tell me why is the RNC is held in NYC where Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 1 |
Didn't the mayor invite them?
Post by: pug_ster on September 01, 2004, 02:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Sep 1 2004, 09:23 PM) |
| First, a great chunk of the replubican money is being spent on security for the entire state of New York. Secondly, Arnold (who was not drunk, that's a retarded comment to make) gave one of the best speeches I've ever seen in a convention. Arnold is more in touch with the American people than you are. He is the definition of what the American Dream is all about. |
Oh yeah, It is a great 'True Lies' speech if you actually believe it. I think he should read a book on 'Republicans for Dummies' and rethink about what he said. I rephrase some things that he said.
| QUOTE |
| If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican. |
If you believe that government should be accountable to the people like what happened in Abu Ghraib, then you are a Republican.
| QUOTE |
| If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group, then you are a Republican. |
If you believe a person should be treated as a member of an interest group, not treated as an individual, then you are a Republican.
| QUOTE |
| If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican. |
If you believe in your country can run into a deficit so that you can give tax breaks to the Rich, then you are a Republican.
| QUOTE |
| If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children, then you are a Republican. |
If you believe in underfunding the educational system and expecting the education system to held accountable for the progress of our children anyway, then you are a Republican.
| QUOTE |
| If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope for democracy, then you are a Republican. |
If you believe that this country should be an Isolationist, then you are a Republican.
| QUOTE |
| And, ladies and gentlemen, if you believe that we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism, then you are a Republican. |
And, ladies and Gentlemen, if you believe that the government lying to you about going to war with Iraqi 'Terrorist' Regime which your government claims it has WMD, then you are a Republican.
Post by: pug_ster on September 01, 2004, 02:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 1 2004, 10:34 PM) |
| Didn't the mayor invite them? |
I am sure many Republican mayors would invite the Republicans to the city.
The question is why the Republicans would like their convention in NYC.
Post by: thomes08 on September 01, 2004, 03:37:00 PM
His daughters were retarded too. All they did was giggle and laugh, and talk about horrible family stories and their "gamm"Y and how they go to outkast concerts and now she knows it's not for rebels and so on. This has nothing with them being the daughters of the man i hate the most, this is all about the fact that their speech was completely irrelevant and horribly executed
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on September 01, 2004, 03:41:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Sep 1 2004, 11:40 PM) |
| where can i get a copy at arnold's speech. |
http://www.georgebus...ad.aspx?ID=3413
No prob.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 01, 2004, 03:52:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on September 01, 2004, 04:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 1 2004, 11:55 PM) |
| pug_ster... is it ok to take someone's speech, re-interpret the words, pack it with your own bias, then claim that you've stumbled upon the true meaning of the speech? Because that sort of thing is not only false but it really pisses people off. |
It seemed to pissed you off. If Arnold was telling the truth, I don't have to re-interpret it. Hey, I can quote a few sources for those 'lies' I put up.
If you believe that government should be accountable to the people like what happened in Abu Ghraib, then you are a Republican.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain638281.shtml
If you believe a person should be treated as a member of an interest group, not treated as an individual, then you are a Republican.
http://abcnews.go.co...40828_1191.html
If you believe in your country can run into a deficit so that you can give tax breaks to the Rich, then you are a Republican.
Well, I am not going to say anything about this one, unless you don't believe we are in a deficit.
If you believe in underfunding the educational system and expecting the education system to held accountable for the progress of our children anyway, then you are a Republican.
http://www.cnn.com/2...sh.no.child.ap/
If you believe that this country should be an Isolationist, then you are a Republican.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain616799.shtml
And, ladies and Gentlemen, if you believe that the government lying to you about going to war with Iraqi 'Terrorist' Regime which your government claims it has WMD, then you are a Republican.
This one is obvious, unless you only read Fox News.
Post by: thomes08 on September 01, 2004, 05:08:00 PM
Post by: The unProfessional on September 01, 2004, 05:18:00 PM
pug_ster... I don't want articles discussing whether or not your remarks were true. I was merely criticising the fact that you put a hell of alot of words into arnold's mouth. You can't just re-word someones speech for them, then criticize your evil version of it. If you want to post articles discrediting arnold's speech, simply post articles relating to HIS speech... not your skewed version of it.
Post by: thomes08 on September 01, 2004, 05:38:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 2 2004, 01:21 AM) |
| Thomes: I think the whole girlie men thing was lame, too. It makes me wish he'd never said it... because now if he plans to spout it off all the time, it'll really get tired. It makes me wish the SNL sketch was never written. pug_ster... I don't want articles discussing whether or not your remarks were true. I was merely criticising the fact that you put a hell of alot of words into arnold's mouth. You can't just re-word someones speech for them, then criticize your evil version of it. If you want to post articles discrediting arnold's speech, simply post articles relating to HIS speech... not your skewed version of it. |
agreed.... but he ended up doing that
Post by: pug_ster on September 02, 2004, 02:25:00 AM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 2 2004, 01:21 AM) |
| pug_ster... I don't want articles discussing whether or not your remarks were true. I was merely criticising the fact that you put a hell of alot of words into arnold's mouth. You can't just re-word someones speech for them, then criticize your evil version of it. If you want to post articles discrediting arnold's speech, simply post articles relating to HIS speech... not your skewed version of it. |
I didn't put words in Arnold's mouth. I just think his speech is nice but it is full of BS because of his view on what is the definition of a Republican. Arnold made a speech of what he meant and I put in my opinion of what it really means. I don't think I didn't anything wrong by skewing it. If it offends you, please say why.
Then again, after hearing Zell Miller and Dick Cheney's speech, I'm kind of sorry of what I said about Arnold yesterday. I can understand Dick Cheney's BS speech but the speech from the old, senile Zell Miller was off the wall. I don't expect Zell to get re-elected after his interview with Chris Matthews at msnbc.
At this point, things are not going well for Kerry. Kerry has a lot of chances to attack Bush because Bush has slipped up so much and attack him on those issues. But he didn't do that, so I would say that Kerry is a 'girlie man.' However, those issues still linger and Kerry can still win. Let's see what happens.
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 07:43:00 AM
thomes08
Post by: bluedeath on September 02, 2004, 08:06:00 AM
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 08:14:00 AM
example:
SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you very much. Thank you. What a greeting. What a greeting. Wow. This is like winning an Oscar -- as if I would know.
(LAUGHTER)
Speaking of acting, one of my movies was called "True Lies." And that's what the Democrats should have called their convention.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, on the way up here to the podium, a gentleman came up to me and said, "Governor, you are as good a politician as you were an actor." What a cheap shot.
(LAUGHTER)
Cannot believe it.
see
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on September 02, 2004, 08:23:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| "We're the America that fights not for imperialism but for human rights and democracy ... When that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America's hopes stood with him. And when Nelson Mandela smiled in an election victory after all those years in prison, America celebrated, too." This was Hallmarkian history. Schwarzenegger neglected to mention that not too long after the Tiananmen Square massacre Bush the Elder moved to improve ties with the butchers of Beijing and that Ronald Reagan -- hero to Schwarzenegger and every other Republican in the room -- supported the racist regime that had imprisoned Mandela (and that a congressman named Dick Cheney had opposed imposing sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa). |
Post by: The unProfessional on September 02, 2004, 10:40:00 AM
| QUOTE |
I don't think I didn't anything wrong by skewing it. If it offends you, please say why. |
Okay, I guess I have to explain why it's completely fallacious.
| QUOTE |
I just think his speech is nice but it is full of BS because of his view on what is the definition of a Republican |
I'll just interpret that as:
"Hybrids get better gas mileage than gas-powered cars."
Do you see the problem? I stated a fact, although it isn't what you said. If you really need to know why it bothers me, it's a classic Straw man. Read.
Post by: pug_ster on September 02, 2004, 12:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 2 2004, 06:43 PM) |
| Okay, I guess I have to explain why it's completely fallacious. I'll just interpret that as: "Hybrids get better gas mileage than gas-powered cars." Do you see the problem? I stated a fact, although it isn't what you said. If you really need to know why it bothers me, it's a classic Straw man. Read. |
Jeez, I guess I mastered the Straw man Technique, I didn't know about it until today. I really wanted to mean what the opposite of what it said, like a paradox.
Eg. If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government, then you are a Republican.
Bush's Republican government didn't held themselves accountable to the people because of what happened in Abu Ghraib.
Eg. If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does, then you are a Republican.
Bush's Republican government gave the rich Tax cuts and government ran to a deficit as a result.
Are you satisified now? I guess this is the kind of word games that the Republicans and Democrats play all the time, guess I am getting too political:)
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 12:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 2 2004, 04:26 PM) |
| I heard the Kerry Campaign is going to Shell out money on 20 States recently which is considered important. Thomes08, my friend, I feel sorry for you living in Indiana because it is considered as Bush country. I live in NYC myself and being pro-Bush here is not considered popular. You won't hear any local media saying any anti-Kerry stuff here. I would imagine that it will not be true where you live. Bluedeath, I never said that Arnold's speech was a bad speech. In fact, it is a very conviencing speech. However, if you can sort out the BS from the truth, especially about 'being republican.' I quote from the article here. http://www.cbsnews.c...ain640071.shtml And I quote from this article. |
yeah i just read he is is going to another 13 states other than the 7 he is in now. http://www.cnn.com/2...s.ap/index.html
wow we live in different areas for sure. I used to be like that republican in NYC, but now more and more people around here are straying from their parents POV and making their own which is usually against bush but not really for kerry. Most people around here don't know a damn about politics, they either know they hate bush or like him. If they hate bush they have their resons why if they like him i find that they don't have reasons why. A good extremely republican friend of mine replied "can i sit on that question for a while" when i asked him "well what do you like about bush". He never got back to me on that. They don't know what to think about clinton cause they weren't at all into politics then.
Basically the politics around here used to be like a disease passed down through the family. Not it's getting all messed up cause bush is making some think for themselves and some live in denial. it's really hard to tell who you're going to offend.
thomes08
Post by: nemt on September 02, 2004, 12:36:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 12:54:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on September 02, 2004, 01:24:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 2 2004, 08:39 PM) |
| John Kerry spends too much time trying to defend his war record, all he's really doing is shooting himself in the foot with his irrelevent campaign speeches. On a positive note, though, maybe he'll get another purple heart for it. |
I think you should start reading on your current events. You don't see much ads from Swiftvets for Lies anymore. By now, most Americans know that these ads are not true so it is not an effective tool. The republicans by now said that Kerry has served 'honorably' in war if you haven't watched the speeches in the RNC. Now there's a new bucketload of ads about his protest in Vietnam War.
Of course there are faults in Kerry's Campaign. For one thing, Kerry wasn't very charismatic. Kerry appeared in a talkshow with someone (I forgot his name) and he was more stoic than relaxed. Many democrats will vote for him but don't really know him becuase he didn't really take advantage when the media spotlight was on him.
It was starkly different from what Clinton did when he was playing a Saxophone in 1992 in the Arsenio Hall show shows that there is a human side of Clinton.
However, Kerry does have an advantage because he Bush's stubborness and his reluctance to hear critism. Personally, Edwards might have a very good chance to be president because of his charisma and his ability to communicate, something that Kerry and Bush does not have.
Post by: dss311 on September 02, 2004, 02:05:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| By now, most Americans know that these ads are not true so it is not an effective tool. |
Yea right. All these former war veterans are lying and one veteran sides with Kerry. Why?
| QUOTE |
Of course there are faults in Kerry's Campaign. For one thing, Kerry wasn't very charismatic. Kerry appeared in a talkshow with someone (I forgot his name) and he was more stoic than relaxed. Many democrats will vote for him but don't really know him becuase he didn't really take advantage when the media spotlight was on him. |
Charisma shouldn't influence people's views on a canidate but more often than not I think it does. Kerry and Chenney are very unappealing canidates but they do have their stong points.
On the other hand,
Clinton and Edwards are charming politians and they have quite a few faults. However, their personalites often help them achieve results that might not have been attainable otherwise.
Regarding Bush;
I think he was very "green" when he went into office and it showed early on in his speaches. Since 9-11 I believe he has overcome his short comings and is now a very effective speaker. Tonights campaign speach will be interesting.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 02, 2004, 02:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (dss311 @ Sep 2 2004, 04:08 PM) |
| Yea right. All these former war veterans are lying and one veteran sides with Kerry. Why? |
its already been discussed
because 197 of those vetarns werent even on kerry's boat, let alone next to him in combat during his "purple heart situations"
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 03:15:00 PM
eidt: dark link you don't agree with what he said or with what arnold said?
Post by: Dark_Link2135 on September 02, 2004, 03:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Sep 2 2004, 11:18 PM) |
| raptor you took the words right out of my fingers... don't bring that up again eidt: dark link you don't agree with what he said or with what arnold said? |
| QUOTE |
| If you believe that this country should be an Isolationist, then you are a Republican. |
| QUOTE |
| If you believe a person should be treated as a member of an interest group, not treated as an individual, then you are a Republican. |
im a little confused about hte whole situation here because i havnt been here a couple of days
if the quote above is what Arnold said, then yes, i do NOT agree with him.
if the quote above is what dss311 thinks, then yes, i do NOT agree with him.
oh wait, i did find one i agreed with:
| QUOTE |
| If you believe in your country can run into a deficit so that you can give tax breaks to the Rich, then you are a Republican. |
i obviouslt dont think running the country into a deficit is a good thing, but thats kind of hard not to do during wartime.
anywho, what i do agree with is giving tax breaks to the rich. we have 20% of people paying 80% of taxes, and 80% of people paying 20% of taxes.
hardly fair, imo.
plus, when the rich have more money (rich means over 200k a year salary), that means more people get jobs, it filters down so to speak. most of these people own small businesses, local-town type of stuff if you know what i mean, and then they can hire more people if they have more money.
im in favor of a flat tax rate for everyone. our current system punishes success.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 02, 2004, 07:28:00 PM
| QUOTE (Dark_Link2135 @ Sep 2 2004, 05:23 PM) |
| 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. |
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
Post by: CommunistsForKerry on September 02, 2004, 07:47:00 PM
| 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!
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 02, 2004, 08:04:00 PM
| 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
Post by: pegasys on September 02, 2004, 08:30:00 PM
| 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.
-
Title: Bush Vs Kerry
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 09:13:00 PM
-
yeah, during every war people are always saying that's why we went.
thomes08
-
Title: Bush Vs Kerry
Post by: pug_ster on September 02, 2004, 10:17:00 PM
-
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 09:13:00 PM
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on September 02, 2004, 10:17:00 PM
| 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.
Post by: ....::::THECAPTAIN::::.... on September 02, 2004, 10:25:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 10:50:00 PM
Post by: ....::::THECAPTAIN::::.... on September 02, 2004, 10:55:00 PM
Post by: The unProfessional on September 02, 2004, 11:27:00 PM
| QUOTE |
most of those jobs are in securty bcuz of him for letting 911 happening |
How does one respond to something that ridiculous.
Post by: thomes08 on September 02, 2004, 11:47:00 PM
| 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
Post by: ....::::THECAPTAIN::::.... on September 03, 2004, 01:01:00 AM
Post by: leisenstein on September 15, 2004, 02:15:00 PM
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?
Post by: gronne on September 15, 2004, 02:55:00 PM
There's a difference between stealing a bag from runnning a war.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 15, 2004, 03:09:00 PM
| 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.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 15, 2004, 04:04:00 PM
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.
Post by: dss311 on September 15, 2004, 04:25:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Totally dillusional image and comments. Time to lay off the smoke......
Post by: The unProfessional on September 15, 2004, 05:02:00 PM
| QUOTE |
These reports were very specific |
Have you read them? (seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn't count)
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 15, 2004, 07:26:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Totally dillusional image and comments. Time to lay off the smoke...... |
Thank you for your insightful and valid contribution to the debate?
Not like you could argue anything.
Post by: dss311 on September 15, 2004, 11:47:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Not like you could argue anything. |
Sounds like a challenge Maximumbeing. I am ready to shred any argument you want to start. However, like most of your previous comments in this thread you have nothing to stand on.
After digging through a few threads I have noticed you haven't even started a topic. Why is this Maximum? Don't you have anything to contribute? Do you not have something "insightful and valid" to contribute? I wanted to dissect one of your posts, but they are all useless. Here is an example of some of your posts:
"George W. Bush is obviously the Emperor of China, and he's using some sort of phallic arm to assault John Kerry.
Just like in real life."
and
"Me hate Bush cause he aint talk write.
That man represents our country, I find it offensive that he can't even speak English."
Now at least several other posters that I disagree with put up halfway decent comments. They can express themselves with valid arguments and facts. Your posts are all negative and fact less. Post a new intelligent topic to debate and I will chime in with my 2¢.
Post by: heoko on September 15, 2004, 11:57:00 PM
The weather channel is the only channel i watch that is "fair and Balanced"
Because you cant lie about the weather... Its infallible.
Post by: dss311 on September 16, 2004, 01:03:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Your vote does not count anyway so WHO CARES? People need to petition the Electoral System BEFORE we complain about who will be president... Untill that is fixed, I dont really care who wins |
What do you mean by "FIX" it? It seems very efficient the way it is structured now. Although no system will be perfect, the electoral vote allows the whole union to voice their vote with somewhat of a balance. It would be unfare for California, Texas, New York, & Florida to decide every election for the rest of the country if some type of popular vote was established. Also, we send delegates to vote for the President on our behalf. This is because the general population (myself included) do not know every issue and legal matter. This is why we in a sense hire professionals (represenative we voted for) to cast votes on our behalf.
Now take Colorado. They have 9 electoral votes to cast in the election. Some democrats want to change the way the 9 votes are distributed. In essence they want to divide the 9 votes by a percentage of the "popular vote". For arguments sake, lets say Kerry wins 51% and Bush 49% popular vote. The democrats would then send 5 Votes for Kerry and 4 for Bush. This STUPID idea leaves Colorado in essence with 1 vote (4 votes for each canidate cancel each other) casted for Kerry. Colorado would then have a smaller say on who is elected president than every other state in the Union.
Now since you brought up the idea of "fixing" the system. What sugestions do you have? Remember, you need to satisfy all 50 state before you will be able to change it. If you try to go straight popular vote I garantee every small populated state will argue against it. Why would a Idahoan want a New Yorker makeing all the decisions in voting elections. In our "Republic" society Mob does not rule and thus this is why the electoral vote was established.
heoko, I am interested in hearing your reply/comments.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 16, 2004, 01:03:00 AM
| QUOTE |
Because you cant lie about the weather... Its infallible |
Growing up in lake tahoe, the weather channel was hands-down the MOST fallable source of information on the boob tube.
Weather channel:
"The Winter Storm Warning should continue through the night leaving between 24" and 36" at lake level by morning with snowfall continuing through the afternoon." -> Translation... no school tomorrow
Reality:
I wake up, look outside, and there's 6" of snow and freshly plowed streets. Translation -> School
The flipside occured just as frequently however
Post by: heoko on September 16, 2004, 01:23:00 PM
Lets see... out of all alaska about 20 percent of the people will vote aginst the "3 Electoral" so called Votes... And all this 20 percent... Each person who voted...
Their Votes WILL NOT MATTER... If a state has less people then one persons vote will BARLEY effect the out come because you and 20 of your freinds votes cannot be the deciding factor to the outcome. Who cares if California has 33,871,648 circa 2000, Each persons vote should count. We tally up the popular vote anyway so I think this wont be such a big deal as you make it.
In small states they complain because they think their votes dont count.. Well, I live in the 3rd smallest state population wise. And people will bitch but isnt this what Democracy should be? Every person counts. We cannot generalize peoples opinions to make it seem fair that 1 state has more people so it has more power. Well each persons vote counts and we all live in the same country so it shouldent even matter. For state affairs let the state vote. For Federal affairs Let the Country vote, otherwise 1 person will not matter, and if at least a small percentage of people see this as a problem then they wont vote. This will be the solution for all the absent voters that should vote, because then, your 1 vote can change the world. Not a Sheep herder vote that masses to your population.
Right now under the All mighty Electoral college
Half of the United States votes...
Half of the people who vote vote for Snoopy, or other fictional or Non-Official Ballot vote
And your 1 vote wont matter in the electoral college because in a Majority of the states the Elector can vote for any candidate they wish... Ignoring your popular vote.
Google it and you can see some proof... I dont enjoy the "Proper" essay writing skills. I just want change and you make it seem like a crack pot idea when we allready do it.
So why dont we just make it count? IF 75 percent of the population wants Bush for president let it be. But please let the people choose, not special "Electors". That dosent seem "Democratic" to me, It sounds like a Democratic Repuplic. Where you dont matter.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 02:22:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Sounds like a challenge Maximumbeing. I am ready to shred any argument you want to start. However, like most of your previous comments in this thread you have nothing to stand on. |
Well, I'm glad you've decided to spend your time on me, Dss311, and regardless of your inability to spot sarcasm, or satire, or even know what either of the two means, I will retort.
I've started 2 threads actually, "Who do you think is the most valuable strategist of all time?", and, "Is This Two Party System Tearing This Country Apart?", congratulations on your crappy observation though.
As for my reponses generally being antagonistic, and instigative, as well as generally inane (I used bigger words than you did, because I feel you failed to show intelligence in your post, and I decided I'd revive the forums with a little word play) I used to type big long responses that carefully picked apart my opponents arguement, much like this one, but then I realized two things:
1. People don't give a shit enough to read them.
2. Republicans can't read past a 5th grade level, so don't try.
I do like that you took
| QUOTE |
| George W. Bush is obviously the Emperor of China, and he's using some sort of phallic arm to assault John Kerry. |
totally out of context, I was making an observation of a picture, and that's exactly what it looks like, not like you'd take the time to validate your arguement, or stack it with substantial reasons for thinking that I'm not a decent debater.
If you'd like to pull anymore republican-esque bashing of me or my character, go for it.
Why don't you get some swiftboaters to call me a baby killer?
I hear that one rules.
Edit: You may want to check my post in the assualt weapons thread, if you think I'm all fun and no debating.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 16, 2004, 07:15:00 PM
Kerry supporters assault this three year old and tear up her Bus/Cheney sign, making her cry.
What's next, Ter-ay-za saying "let them go naked"?
Oh, she did say that, didn't she?
How mean spirited can a person be, to attack a three year old and make them cry?
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 16, 2004, 07:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 16 2004, 09:18 PM) |
| Kerry supporters assault this three year old and tear up her Bus/Cheney sign, making her cry. What's next, Ter-ay-za saying "let them go naked"? Oh, she did say that, didn't she? How mean spirited can a person be, to attack a three year old and make them cry? |
wow
did anyone here, bush is a homosexual with the french that does drugs, while not supporting the weapons ban and he likes to kill babies while practicing nazism
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 16, 2004, 08:01:00 PM
USE THE AK KERRY!!!
Post by: pug_ster on September 16, 2004, 08:16:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 17 2004, 03:18 AM) |
| Kerry supporters assault this three year old and tear up her Bus/Cheney sign, making her cry. What's next, Ter-ay-za saying "let them go naked"? Oh, she did say that, didn't she? How mean spirited can a person be, to attack a three year old and make them cry? |
If I am not mistaken, she wants to wipe her ass with the bush sign. However, her dad (below her) don't want her to do it in public so her dad is trying to take it away from her. That is the reason that she is crying.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 16, 2004, 08:41:00 PM
Fascinating, and oddly not surprising.
Post by: pug_ster on September 16, 2004, 09:02:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 17 2004, 04:44 AM) |
| So the response from three flaming liberals is to make mean-spirited jokes about a three-year old being terrorized? Fascinating, and oddly not surprising. |
Well, I wasn't making a political statement about Liberals or conservatives.
You put a picture up there of a crying girl, so I am saying what I think it happened there.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 16, 2004, 09:51:00 PM
The story is here.
There's no "photoshopping" going on, which should be obvious, considering the photo's URL (not too hard to figure out, I hope).
Somehow, I think you'd be right at home as the guy smirking after making the poor girl cry. To hell with free speech and being sensitive to another human being (if they don't agree with your views).
Post by: thomes08 on September 16, 2004, 10:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 17 2004, 05:54 AM) |
| No, you guys are simply mean-spirited asshats. The story is here. There's no "photoshopping" going on, which should be obvious, considering the photo's URL (not too hard to figure out, I hope). Somehow, I think you'd be right at home as the guy smirking after making the poor girl cry. To hell with free speech and being sensitive to another human being (if they don't agree with your views). |
awwwww poor bj did you get all teary-eyed when you saw this. I agree it's dumb that his happened and it shoudln't have, but if you think about all of the people bush has made cry over the last 4, and especially 2, years this seems kinda pointless.
"Take little jimmy for example, his crack addicted parents can't take care of him but his older brother was going to make somethign of his life and bring himself and little jimmy out of the slums. Oh no his older brother is dead, now little jimmy is whoring his 12 year old body out to creepy old men for his own addiction. Republicans did this, see what kind of people they are like?"
at least his bush/cheney sign is intact though
you should know that sympathy stories don't make for a good argument on anything
thomes08
Post by: pug_ster on September 16, 2004, 10:06:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 17 2004, 05:54 AM) |
| No, you guys are simply mean-spirited asshats. The story is here. There's no "photoshopping" going on, which should be obvious, considering the photo's URL (not too hard to figure out, I hope). Somehow, I think you'd be right at home as the guy smirking after making the poor girl cry. To hell with free speech and being sensitive to another human being (if they don't agree with your views). |
Well, since you put up the link about the story, I guess I have to take back what I said about the picture.
Talking about mean spirited, Foxnews hit a new low showing pictures like this when they have to be political about Hurricanes.
Post by: dss311 on September 17, 2004, 03:20:00 AM
First off, remember your one vote could make the swing regarding what electoral votes your state casts in the primary election. Although the 3 electoral votes usually do not decide the outcome, there always is that possibility someday it will.
Now in regards to popular votes for your state. If you were to use a popular vote for Alaska, your state would in essence have a .2% vote (644k compared to 293m US population) because of Alaska's population. This is assuming 100% of the population voted for one candidate. As it stands right now with the Electoral vote, Alaska has a .5% vote (3 out of 538). Thus an electoral vote is more advantageous for Alaska. These differences are small but which odds would you take in a Vegas casino?
Last point you forgot to address. We send delegates to cast votes on our behalf because they know politics. Remember the general public knows zilch about politics and how the federal system works. Ask anybody on the street who is the current Vice President or how many branches of government exist and you will understand my point. Do you really think a crack head lying in the street should be making such important decisions regarding the welfare of your family and friends with their vote? I wouldn't want to entrust them in regards to my family. An elected representative will make a much better decision for all of us.
As you stated I dont enjoy the "Proper" essay writing skills I also struggle with my posts in conveying my thoughts. I do believe however I understood your comments. I know it is hard to communicate the pros/cons on forum like this because the written word does not always convey the intended meanings.
Hopefully I was able to reflect why the Electoral vote is not as flawed as people make it sound. It is not perfect, but I am yet to see a better alternative.
Maximumbeing,
I am not trying to spend my time on you or bash your character as you mentioned. I just noticed some of your posts were fictitious and outright baseless in my opinion and this is why I have replied with my comments. As always, I enjoy discovering why people make decisions like they do. Usually it is because they have failed to take the time to educate themselves in regards to the issues. I believe this is true in your case. You have made some farcical comments that do not seem to have any factual basis behind them. I would enjoy debating/discussing any topic that interests you and maybe we will both walk away with a better understanding on the subject. I will let this personal debate between us die because I see no need for us to hijack the thread. If you have an interesting topic to post I may jump in with my comments. I invite you to also reply to any of my threads if you feel you your comments are warranted.
DSS311
Post by: BenJeremy on September 17, 2004, 05:23:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 17 2004, 01:09 AM) |
| Well, since you put up the link about the story, I guess I have to take back what I said about the picture. Talking about mean spirited, Foxnews hit a new low showing pictures like this when they have to be political about Hurricanes. |
Hardly "tit for tat" - in one case, we have an act of God, sweeping up Kerry supporters' expensive yachts and political signs and smashing them. I don't believe the presumed "swipe" was intentional by Fox, either... just a picture of the damage and a Kerry sign happened to sneak in; they've presented dozens of photos, that one being ONE of many.
In the other, we have a union thug, assaulting a three-year old girl to squash freedom of speech.
P.S: thomes08 - please don't bother posting until you have something intelligent to say.
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on September 17, 2004, 06:00:00 AM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Sep 17 2004, 12:06 AM) |
| awwwww poor bj did you get all teary-eyed when you saw this. I agree it's dumb that his happened and it shoudln't have, but if you think about all of the people bush has made cry over the last 4, and especially 2, years this seems kinda pointless. "Take little jimmy for example, his crack addicted parents can't take care of him but his older brother was going to make somethign of his life and bring himself and little jimmy out of the slums. Oh no his older brother is dead, now little jimmy is whoring his 12 year old body out to creepy old men for his own addiction. Republicans did this, see what kind of people they are like?" at least his bush/cheney sign is intact though you should know that sympathy stories don't make for a good argument on anything thomes08 |
I'd like to see you or any liberal try that on my grandkid and me. I'd open up a can of whoopass. Better yet I'd like to see someone try that on BenJeremy and his kid. That punk would find out real quick how much pain a former marine ( or should I say marine because once a marine always a marine) can inflict on him. I think BenJeremy wouldn't even have to set his kid down to do it. He could reach over and put them down with one hand or finger.
EDIT:
Forgot to put this smilie in my post.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 17, 2004, 06:18:00 AM
| QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Sep 17 2004, 09:03 AM) |
| I'd like to see you or any liberal try that on my grandkid and me. I'd open up a can of whoopass. Better yet I'd like to see someone try that on BenJeremy and his kid. That punk would find out real quick how much pain a former marine ( or should I say marine because once a marine always a marine) can inflict on him. I think BenJeremy wouldn't even have to set his kid down to do it. He could reach over and put them down with one hand or finger. EDIT: Forgot to put this smilie in my post. |
Well, in fairness, I don't think the thug would have gotten the sign from my 4 year old's hands without a fight from him, either (and Wong Hung Lo knows how big and strong my kids are), heh heh...
...but yes, I've had to defend my family before, and I'd do it in a heartbeat if some adult has the nerve to touch my children in anything but a respectful manner. If it's another kid, I let my kids finish the job (been there, done that, too). Thankfully, word about a bully getting his ass handed to him gets around school fast, and my older boy doesn't get hassled anymore.
...and since Thomes08 wants to make it personal... perhaps now would be a good time to remind people that Texas' law governing sex toys (limiting number possessed) might be his real beef with Bush:
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2004, 08:27:00 AM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 17 2004, 01:26 PM) |
| Hardly "tit for tat" - in one case, we have an act of God, sweeping up Kerry supporters' expensive yachts and political signs and smashing them. I don't believe the presumed "swipe" was intentional by Fox, either... just a picture of the damage and a Kerry sign happened to sneak in; they've presented dozens of photos, that one being ONE of many. |
Now, now, you can't make claims about the picture that is not true. For one thing is that you can't say that the owners of the yacht are Kerry supporters, unless you know they are. Even if it is true, there is only one sign and the sign is not smashed.
Well, I think it was intentional by Fox because it was smacked middle when you go to www.foxnews.com yesterday. Whomever put the picture in the website and think that it wasn't intentional must be dumb or lying.
| QUOTE |
| In the other, we have a union thug, assaulting a three-year old girl to squash freedom of speech. |
That's fair, I can give you that. But I don't know if the union guy is a thug.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 01:00:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| I am not trying to spend my time on you or bash your character as you mentioned. I just noticed some of your posts were fictitious and outright baseless in my opinion and this is why I have replied with my comments. |
The fact is, you did spent your time, and you did attempt to bash my character.
| QUOTE |
| I will let this personal debate between us die because I see no need for us to hijack the thread. |
And you're letting it die because I exposed you for the Pussy Rush Limbaugh wanna be that you are.
I like how you ignored all your miss-statements though, no need to apologize to me, I realize you're just an idiot.
Post by: dss311 on September 17, 2004, 01:58:00 PM
Like I said POST AN INTELLIGENT TOPIC for everyone to comment on, or go FUCK YOURSELF in your basement closet. The choice is yours Maximumbeing. Do you get my drift girlieboy?
DSS311
Edit: To keep this thread "Bush Vs Kerry, PS Kerry Sux" on topic, I would like to say: I agree....Kerry Sux
LOL
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 17, 2004, 03:02:00 PM
You then take it a step further in implying that I sniff glue, or do any other drug of any kind.
I must applaud though, you manged to escape the fact that you are a dumbass, by making accusations and pretending like I didn't put you in place like the bitch you are.
You're a liar, and an idiot.
Good luck ever making something out of yourself.
And Helium....ZING!
Edit: Dss311, I'll start leaving footnotes for you at the bottom of my statements so you don't have problems understanding my position.
Footnote: A footnote is a note at the foot of a page to give the reader a key piece of information, or to cite a work.
Cont.:This post basically restated the fact that you're a dick.
Post by: dss311 on September 17, 2004, 03:18:00 PM
Lets not hijack a thread. Lets take up this foolish debate over here.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 17, 2004, 04:49:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Sep 17 2004, 07:18 PM) |
| The Dad in the picture is Phil Parlock, who was also "attacked" by Clinton supporters August 27, 1996. Lo and behold "attacked" again, this time by Gore supporters October 28, 2000. So now if I made a bunch of generalizations about how ignorant and brainwashed neo-cons are.... I would be an asshole wouldn't I, because its not that simple. |
So the Democrats attack anybody who speaks a different opinion than them?
Seems to be a trend.
Regardless of the fact this guy likes to show Republican campaign signs at Demcoratic "events" - it doesn't give a thug (yes, that's exactly what he is) the excuse to assault a three year old girl.
It's called common sense and decency. Trying to rationalize it only demonstrates the depths some will go to supress the opinions of others.
I don't recall the Republicans assaulting children brought by Democratic supporters to their events.
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2004, 05:11:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 18 2004, 12:52 AM) |
| So the Democrats attack anybody who speaks a different opinion than them? Seems to be a trend. Regardless of the fact this guy likes to show Republican campaign signs at Demcoratic "events" - it doesn't give a thug (yes, that's exactly what he is) the excuse to assault a three year old girl. It's called common sense and decency. Trying to rationalize it only demonstrates the depths some will go to supress the opinions of others. I don't recall the Republicans assaulting children brought by Democratic supporters to their events. |
Yesterday an old lady went to Laura Bush's speeches in NJ and protested about his son dying in Iraq war and had to be dragged out by Secret Service. The worst thing is that b*tch Laura didn't really care about her and just continued her speech.
I don't think you will be very popular either if you stormed into a church during a service and tell everybody 'there is no Jesus, all of you must believe in satan.'
This bonehead Parlock did just that. And the third time, he had to make his daughter hold the sign so this idiot doesn't have to have the bush sign taken from him by Kerry-supporters.
Post by: nemt on September 17, 2004, 05:14:00 PM
Post by: dss311 on September 17, 2004, 05:31:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| The worst thing is that b*tch Laura didn't really care about her and just continued her speech. |
Thats no way to talk about a lady pug_ster. Especially the 1st lady of the United States. No lady..(republican,democrat,muslim, whatever) deserves that verbal assault. Wait I take that back, my ex was a bitch! Nevermind.......
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2004, 05:39:00 PM
| QUOTE (dss311 @ Sep 18 2004, 01:34 AM) |
| Thats no way to talk about a lady pug_ster. Especially the 1st lady of the United States. No lady..(republican,democrat,muslim, whatever) deserves that verbal assault. Wait I take that back, my ex was a bitch! Nevermind....... |
Well, some people agreed that the Ex-First Lady Hiliary Clinton is a Fem-Nazi, what's wrong about that?
Post by: BenJeremy on September 17, 2004, 06:12:00 PM
If you don't understand the difference, then I fear there is no intelligent discource possible with you.
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2004, 06:26:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 18 2004, 02:15 AM) |
| Comparing a screaming liberal intent on disrupting an event, to a three year old girl holding a sign? If you don't understand the difference, then I fear there is no intelligent discource possible with you. |
I am just saying it was his Dad's stupidity giving her 'Kick me, because I don't like Kerry' sign. A 3 year old girl doesn't even understand the difference between Republican and a Democrat. It is the stupid for Parlock to allow her daughter to hold the sign because it is a cheap shot to be in a 'I am a victim' photoshoot.
On the other hand, a mom who lost her son in Iraq has the right to be upset. When she wanted to know why her son died, Laura Bush didn't care about what she has to say. That is a disgrace of what Laura Bush is doing to the fallen Troops who fought bravely in Iraq. And Bush wants his next administration to be called 'conservative compassionism.'
Post by: BenJeremy on September 17, 2004, 06:51:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 17 2004, 09:29 PM) |
| I am just saying it was his Dad's stupidity giving her 'Kick me, because I don't like Kerry' sign. A 3 year old girl doesn't even understand the difference between Republican and a Democrat. It is the stupid for Parlock to allow her daughter to hold the sign because it is a cheap shot to be in a 'I am a victim' photoshoot. On the other hand, a mom who lost her son in Iraq has the right to be upset. When she wanted to know why her son died, Laura Bush didn't care about what she has to say. That is a disgrace of what Laura Bush is doing to the fallen Troops who fought bravely in Iraq. And Bush wants his next administration to be called 'conservative compassionism.' |
Keep rationalizing.
They were carrying simply a "Bush/Cheney" sign, ands they weren't disturbing anything.
The shrill lady might have lost her son, but Bush didn't kill him (contrary to your own personal beliefs). Assuming she actually did lose a son, it still doesn't give her the right to disrupt an event; she could have simply chosen to peacefully protest, but insteas, like the thug, chose violence. See a pattern here?
Post by: pug_ster on September 17, 2004, 07:19:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 18 2004, 02:54 AM) |
| Keep rationalizing. They were carrying simply a "Bush/Cheney" sign, ands they weren't disturbing anything. The shrill lady might have lost her son, but Bush didn't kill him (contrary to your own personal beliefs). Assuming she actually did lose a son, it still doesn't give her the right to disrupt an event; she could have simply chosen to peacefully protest, but insteas, like the thug, chose violence. See a pattern here? |
I think both of those people are in a place where they don't belong (ie, a Bush supporter in Kerry's campagain and vice versa.) However, unlike in Kerry's Rally's they are never dragged out, but booed out. Whereas, you don't see any protestor's in Bush's rallys because they are 'screened' and any protestor are dragged out. And as far as I know, this protestor in NJ wasn't violent.
As for the person who died, he died while diffusing a bomb which he is not trained for. Bush didn't directly kill him, but Bush might as well be sending him to his death by il-equipping him.
Post by: BenJeremy on September 17, 2004, 08:50:00 PM
| QUOTE (Colonel32 @ Sep 17 2004, 11:25 PM) |
::Waitingforanyonetofigureitout:: ^_______________^ |
:::sigh:::
Yeah, it may LOOK like the same guy, but that doesn't mean it is. Besides, the thug had sideburns and his head looks it tapers. Trying to match two people from poor pictures, is NOT proof of anything.... just a wild stretch. There are other details, but quite honestly, unless you have some more proof than that, there's no point even considering such a connection. By your measure of evidentiary validity, I might also conclude Kerry was the guy who played Lurch on the Addams Family.
The union has apologized for it's member's behavior; obviously they figure it was one of their people.