Post by: shanafan on September 02, 2004, 09:57:00 PM
Yeah Kerry, we know you are against the war.. you don't have tor repeat yourself twice in one minute.
Hey Kerry, how is your track record in the Senate? Everyone is talking about it, why don't you defend yourself on it?
Bush is going to win this election in a landslide.
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on September 02, 2004, 11:57:00 PM
| QUOTE (shanafan @ Sep 3 2004, 06:00 AM) |
| Bush is going to win this election in a landslide. |
I think you underestimate how many people hate bush, and would rather vote for saddam himself than see dubbya serve another term.
PS i am not saying he will lose because i think he will win, its just i would be amazed if it was a landslide.
Post by: HeLiuM on September 03, 2004, 08:52:00 AM
| QUOTE (shanafan @ Sep 3 2004, 06:00 AM) |
| So, he comes out at midnight in Ohio, and bash Bush for 10 minutes? Finally, he talks in generic tone about what he wants to do. I think I could do a better job speaking on my behalf, than "I will.. help to make.. this country.. great." Kerry has nothing. Yeah Kerry, we know you are against the war.. you don't have tor repeat yourself twice in one minute. Hey Kerry, how is your track record in the Senate? Everyone is talking about it, why don't you defend yourself on it? Bush is going to win this election in a landslide. |
I'm sorry, but it seems you've just forgotten what it sounds like when a politician is capable of speaking english.
As for repeating himself twice in once minute.. Bush repeats himself every 5 seconds. The terrorists have to go, the terrorists have to be stopped, we have to stop these terrorist killers, we have to stop misunderestimating the ability of human being to coexist with fish peacefully (ok, so that was a couple quotes in one.)
Hey Bush, how's your track record in the national guard? Drug use? Education?
If you're going to take a partisan cheapshot, at least think about the arguments on the other side first.
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 09:36:00 AM
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 11:31:00 AM
Also, but has already proven he fulfilled his air national guard duty.
Post by: thomes08 on September 03, 2004, 11:32:00 AM
thomes08
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 11:36:00 AM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 03, 2004, 11:40:00 AM
Post by: thomes08 on September 03, 2004, 12:05:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| A candidate's war experience isn't important in this, or any election. The Kerry camp tried for months to make it into an issue, and when they finally succeeded, they get slammed with the truth (swiftvets), but I hardly see what that has to do with Bush. I've also watched nearly every speech from both men, have you watched anything outside of the daily show and weekend update? |
never even seen weekend update, i watch the daily show when it's on and i have nothing better to do, probably less than once a week. I watch Fox news more than i watch CNN, CBS, or any other "news" channel. Afterall it's the only news source that is "Fair and balaced" so why would i go anywhere else?
| QUOTE |
| He is right, vietnam should have nothing to do with this election, oddly though it does. Also keep in mind most vietnam vets served at least 12 months, kerry only served 3-4. |
....... ok, he is a vet, is Bush? Did bush go overseas to fight? Was bush even at his national gaurd post the whole time? If you're going to try and discredit someone's war record your guy's war file should be full of somethign other than
'absent"
thomes08
Post by: BenJeremy on September 03, 2004, 12:33:00 PM
| QUOTE (thomes08 @ Sep 3 2004, 03:08 PM) |
| ....... ok, he is a vet, is Bush? Did bush go overseas to fight? Was bush even at his national gaurd post the whole time? If you're going to try and discredit someone's war record your guy's war file should be full of somethign other than 'absent" |
thomes08, you are venturing into pure asshattery mode.
Going overseas to "fight" does not make one a vet, first of all. Becoming a full-fledged member of the armed forces (as both Bush and Kerry did) makes you a veteran.
Bush isn't running on anybody's war record. He's publicly stated, many, many times, that he respects Kerry for his service in the Navy, and doesn't question his valor or medals in any way.
Putting words into his mouth is certainly a truly dishonest thing to do, especially when he is on record as stating EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
As for Bush's records, they've all been found quite a long time ago, and additnionally:
| QUOTE |
COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) open public letter to Washington Times 8/24/2004 - A Navy Vet Letters to the Editor 'Bush and I were lieutenants' George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch. It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention. The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers. If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment. The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into non-flying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore. Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam. There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys. The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life. Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard. Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign. Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire. As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready. Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts: First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly - the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc. If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user. Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000. Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions. While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen - then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard. In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off. COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard Herndon, Va. |
Kerry is the one who refuses to relent, continuing to make disparaging remarks about Bush, while not one single quote from Bush has said a bad word about Kerry's war record. For that matter, I don't even think he's said a bad word about the thing that SHOULD concern America: Kerry's record AFTER he came back from Vietnam with regards to his ties to hostile governments and anarchistic so-called "peace" movements.
What it boils down to is that you seem to be riding your bets on a pack of lies, which you yourself are gleefully willing to repeat and further exagerrate, while Bush takes the high road.
My "Bush favorability level" has risen yet again. The more I see of these dishonest tactics used by Kerry supporters, the more right it feels to elect Bush. Thank you for proving what Kerry is all about: Lies and deception.
Post by: Yuyu on September 03, 2004, 12:39:00 PM
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 03, 2004, 01:09:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 3 2004, 01:39 PM) |
| A candidate's war experience isn't important in this, or any election. The Kerry camp tried for months to make it into an issue, and when they finally succeeded, they get slammed with the truth (swiftvets), but I hardly see what that has to do with Bush. I've also watched nearly every speech from both men, have you watched anything outside of the daily show and weekend update? |
wow, just for using the swift vets in your statement, you dont deserve to post again
how many of the 200 vets were actually near kerry, or actually served on his boat, 5-10, at the most
so, the other 190 are just fucktards for the republican cuase
Post by: LepPpeR on September 03, 2004, 01:17:00 PM
They certainly answer a lot of my questions.
Post by: Baner on September 03, 2004, 01:18:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on September 03, 2004, 01:20:00 PM
| QUOTE (BenJeremy @ Sep 3 2004, 08:36 PM) |
| thomes08, you are venturing into pure asshattery mode. Going overseas to "fight" does not make one a vet, first of all. Becoming a full-fledged member of the armed forces (as both Bush and Kerry did) makes you a veteran. Bush isn't running on anybody's war record. He's publicly stated, many, many times, that he respects Kerry for his service in the Navy, and doesn't question his valor or medals in any way. |
Well, because of Bush Dad's political connection, he ended up in the Air Force here in the US instead fighting in Vietnam. And Cheney chickened out by dodging the draft.
| QUOTE |
| Putting words into his mouth is certainly a truly dishonest thing to do, especially when he is on record as stating EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. As for Bush's records, they've all been found quite a long time ago, and additnionally: Kerry is the one who refuses to relent, continuing to make disparaging remarks about Bush, while not one single quote from Bush has said a bad word about Kerry's war record. For that matter, I don't even think he's said a bad word about the thing that SHOULD concern America: Kerry's record AFTER he came back from Vietnam with regards to his ties to hostile governments and anarchistic so-called "peace" movements. What it boils down to is that you seem to be riding your bets on a pack of lies, which you yourself are gleefully willing to repeat and further exagerrate, while Bush takes the high road. |
Kerry wasn't on the offensive. If you heard the speech from the 'angry,' senile Zell Miller speech, Kerry had to attack back because his whole speech was a total BS. The only people who says that Kerry was weak on Defense was from the Repugs.
Well, the only thing I hear about Bush is that how he gloat about his failed war record on 'Terror' when Bush don't even describe who the actually terrorists are. He believed that Iraq has Al-Qaeda people and WMD. However, Iran wants to start a nuclear missle program and has Al-Qaeda operate openly there. Since our Iraq occupation, foreign Al-Qaeda from countries like Syria and Iran go to Iraq to cause trouble.
His speech yesterday about declaring war on 'Terror' will drag us into a WWIII with middle east. Anybody with half a brain could probably be a better Commander-in-Chief than Bush.
| QUOTE |
| My "Bush favorability level" has risen yet again. The more I see of these dishonest tactics used by Kerry supporters, the more right it feels to elect Bush. Thank you for proving what Kerry is all about: Lies and deception. |
You have to start describing what are those dishonest tactics because I don't know what you are talking about.
Bush, like Kerry before, got a after-the-Convention bounce. Bush's speech will be forgotten in a few days and let's see when happens.
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 01:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 3 2004, 05:21 PM) |
| ...Bush wouldn't have been able to go overseas and fight, whether(sp?) he wanted to or not. His father's position in the government disallows anyone related to him to fight across the way. Bush may not be the most professional speaker, but being able to learn how to fly a fighter jet requires some intelligence... And about the topic, I agree |
swish
Post by: pug_ster on September 03, 2004, 01:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (LepPpeR @ Sep 3 2004, 09:20 PM) |
| I have no comment on the issue but I thought these would cheer you up. They certainly answer a lot of my questions. |
I'm sure it answers a lot of questions for someone with a brain of a 4-year old like 'Who's that superhero?' and 'Who's that green Teletubbie.'
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 01:34:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 3 2004, 05:33 PM) |
| I'm sure it answers a lot of questions for someone with a brain of a 4-year old like 'Who's that superhero?' and 'Who's that green Teletubbie.' |
I bet you're relieved you won't need to lay awake at night anymore!
Post by: Baner on September 03, 2004, 01:35:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Anybody with half a brain could probably be a better Commander-in-Chief than Bush. |
Why don't you run for office?
| QUOTE |
| he ended up in the Air Force here in the US |
He didn't "end up" in the air force... he joined the National Gaurd to do what he could for his country.
Edit: Green teletubie is Dipsy
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 03, 2004, 01:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 3 2004, 03:38 PM) |
| Why don't you run for office? He didn't "end up" in the air force... he joined the National Gaurd to do what he could for his country. Edit: Green teletubie is Dipsy |
you mean get drunk and be a total moron?
Post by: Baner on September 03, 2004, 01:51:00 PM
)
Post by: pug_ster on September 03, 2004, 01:54:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 3 2004, 09:21 PM) |
| ...Bush wouldn't have been able to go overseas and fight, whether(sp?) he wanted to or not. His father's position in the government disallows anyone related to him to fight across the way. Bush may not be the most professional speaker, but being able to learn how to fly a fighter jet requires some intelligence... And about the topic, I agree |
Not true, because Bush Sr. was in the government, Bush Jr. has an option of where to serve.
Since Bush never showed up for service while in the National Guard, how could've he learned how to fly?
Post by: LepPpeR on September 03, 2004, 01:57:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 3 2004, 04:57 PM) |
| Not true, because Bush Sr. was in the government, Bush Jr. has an option of where to serve. Since Bush never showed up for service while in the National Guard, how could've he learned how to fly? |
Not true, Bush DID show up for his service. If he did not John Kerry would be all over it. Read the reports, see the pictures (there are some).
Post by: Baner on September 03, 2004, 01:59:00 PM
Post by: LepPpeR on September 03, 2004, 02:00:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 3 2004, 05:02 PM) |
| Do a bit of research, W. Bush is able to fly, I think, the f-14. Not sure about the acctually plane, but he can fly. No, he couldn't serve overseas because it would be a libility to the nation, ex: W. gets caught, People were fighting want a randsom, Bush SR. does everything in his power to get it. (It could be worse, that's why they don't allow relatives of government officials to fight overseas) |
Hey, Didn't John Kerry vote against the F-14 or maybe that was every other aircraft. Not sure, I get mixed up, maybe that was created before he was able to vote No for it.
Post by: Baner on September 03, 2004, 02:06:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 02:22:00 PM
The whole AWOL thing was made up by people like Moore and Franken who have no real facts for which to base their attacks.
Post by: Baner on September 03, 2004, 02:27:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 02:31:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 3 2004, 06:30 PM) |
| This is no fun without the Kerry's Advocates |
Kerry advocates cut and run faster than their french heroes as soon as you spring any amount of logic on them.
Post by: nemt on September 03, 2004, 02:58:00 PM
Post by: pug_ster on September 03, 2004, 03:02:00 PM
| QUOTE (LepPpeR @ Sep 3 2004, 10:00 PM) |
| Not true, Bush DID show up for his service. If he did not John Kerry would be all over it. Read the reports, see the pictures (there are some). |
Sure he did.
http://www.usatoday....h-service_x.htm
Post by: pug_ster on September 03, 2004, 03:08:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 3 2004, 11:01 PM) |
| I guess you're right, the liberals here are represented by such brilliant orators as pug_ster and xfusionx. |
Thanks.
Post by: shanafan on September 03, 2004, 03:32:00 PM
| QUOTE (cainedna @ Sep 3 2004, 12:38 PM) |
| Wow. Kerry seems to make his cases for a lot of issues whenever I hear him speak. The military history issue came around when the Bush administration challenged his record. The fact that Kerry was even in combat, while Bush has yet to prove that he wasn't AWOL for a portion of his national guard service should tell you how weak the argument is. |
Everyone and their mother knows Kerry was in combat. But, does this mean he will be on the front lines with the US Army in a war? Nope. It's a lame attempt by Kerry to prove he is here to defend America.. and Bush isn't? Until I see Kerry pulling a Bill Pullman in Independence Day and fly with Will Smith against the aliens, Kerry will set comfortably in the Oval Office (well, won't ever) and clean his medals while American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq or any upcoming war
Post by: thomes08 on September 03, 2004, 03:44:00 PM
). can't wait till i'm president and i have the best toy collection of them all.Again i'd like to say i'm not a bible thumping ignorant greedy brainwashed republican, and i'm proud of it.
good night and god bless
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 03, 2004, 03:49:00 PM
When was the last time Kerry started an illegal war based on lies?
I've got the perfect response for all you Nemt-Heads - "Oh, you're just using the same stupid forum arguement that all the Bush hating liberal wackos use!"
What's the point?
Post by: Yuyu on September 03, 2004, 04:01:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 3 2004, 04:52 PM) |
| When was the last time Kerry started an illegal war based on lies? |
Well, I would say never, but neither did Bush. His reasoning for starting the war has changed several times. Overall I would say he did not start an illegal one, and it was definitely not unjustified. If he would of just stuck to the fact that it was to be a humanitarian war (such as the upcoming war I forsee in Sudan,and yes you can quote me on that) , and he was disposing of a murderous son of a bitch that killed 175,000+ people, then I believe not so many people would be as angry as they are. Oh well, to each his own, believe and see the issue as you want to.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 03, 2004, 04:06:00 PM
And while the war in Iraq proved to be one worth fighting (you can quote me on that), it doesn't mean Bush had the right intentions when he started.
Post by: Foe-hammer on September 03, 2004, 04:06:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 3 2004, 11:52 PM) |
| When was the last time Kerry started an illegal war based on lies? |
Good one, Moore.
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on September 03, 2004, 04:07:00 PM
| QUOTE (shanafan @ Sep 3 2004, 11:35 PM) |
| Everyone and their mother knows Kerry was in combat. But, does this mean he will be on the front lines with the US Army in a war? Nope. It's a lame attempt by Kerry to prove he is here to defend America.. and Bush isn't? Until I see Kerry pulling a Bill Pullman in Independence Day and fly with Will Smith against the aliens, Kerry will set comfortably in the Oval Office (well, won't ever) and clean his medals while American soldiers are getting killed in Iraq or any upcoming war |
God damn shanafan, you say some stupid things. Everyones know there is no such thing as aliens, ID4 was just a movie.
Post by: pug_ster on September 03, 2004, 04:09:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| sorry pugger, the brilliant debating from nemt, |
I think the problem is that a lot of people watch and listen to news programs that is biased. After digesting that stuff, they come here and decided to post stuff that they believe it is true.
If you want to state your opinion, fine. State what you believe it is true because you heard from your neighbor or from an RNC speech, I would be more than happy to reply:)
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 03, 2004, 04:10:00 PM
Ass.
At least Halo will be a nice prep for when Bush sends your ass to the desert.
Post by: shanafan on September 03, 2004, 06:20:00 PM
| QUOTE (Hercules Q Einstein @ Sep 3 2004, 06:10 PM) |
| God damn shanafan, you say some stupid things. Everyones know there is no such thing as aliens, ID4 was just a movie. |
The president (Bill Pullman) joined in the combat effort to fight off the aliens. Maybe you thought I was being serious.. but I said it because you would never see Kerry do the same thing (join in the combat effort of a war) no matter if it was in fact aliens or an opposing group
Post by: Hercules Q Einstein on September 03, 2004, 07:36:00 PM
| QUOTE (shanafan @ Sep 4 2004, 02:23 AM) |
| The president (Bill Pullman) joined in the combat effort to fight off the aliens. Maybe you thought I was being serious.. but I said it because you would never see Kerry do the same thing (join in the combat effort of a war) no matter if it was in fact aliens or an opposing group |
The Poster (Hercules Q Einstein) joined in the posting effort although he ahd nothing to say. Maybe you thought I was being serious.. but I said it because you would never see Kerry do the same thing (join in the combat effort of a war) because its imposible.
If you still havent relized it, i am joking around. Although its hard to tell. There was no need to take my previous post seriously.
Post by: Foe-hammer on September 04, 2004, 12:46:00 AM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 4 2004, 12:13 AM) |
| At least Halo will be a nice prep for when Bush sends your ass to the desert. |
Correction, Halo 2 will be.
Post by: Mr. Chips on September 04, 2004, 12:58:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| The reason people are pissed about Iraq have to do with the fact that it didn't accomplish a goddamn thing as far as catching the perpetrators of 9/11. You can then add the fact that the justifications he presented were false, it was an unprovoked attack (a first for the US,) and that it has accomplished nothing than make the entire region of the planet even more distrustful of us. I haven't heard anyone say that Saddam was a swell chap who got misrepresented. I just want someone to explain how exhausting and demoralizing our troops, stirring up anti-US sentiment in an area that obviously wasn't happy with our military forces already, and letting the Afghanistan situation rot in the meanwhile was a good thing. Oh, and um, Osama bin fucking Laden. I can't imagine someone who's experienced even a drop of the stupidity that occurred in Viet Nam, much less received injuries injuries there to make the same moronic mistakes this president has. That's why his military record is important. Crap. ID4 was pretty good, huh? Hey, our president can fly a plane, right? |
Yeah, the Iraq-Al-quida connection was never fully established. It's easy to finger that as a hidden agenda.
But you can't rule out the possiblility. To these extremist muslim groups, America is the infidel. Every day, they are killing american soldiers. Yet everyone seems to think the Iraqis are just innocents caught in the crossfire. A murderous person will always pretend to be innocent, right up until they see their opportunity to strike. They don't run out in the streets screaming waving guns, they'll use carbombs and other explosives.
Bottom line,.. it would be nice for Bush to promise to catch Osama in the coming months. I doubt it will be well-recieved however. Some people cannot even stomach to see him speak. Right now one of his speeches seems A LOT less deceitful than JF Kerrys.
What ever is best for America is the concern, not what is best for its image. It's plain to see the world despises Americans already.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 04, 2004, 09:46:00 AM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 3 2004, 04:09 PM) |
| ya, along with the b-1, b-2, apachee, two forms of the f-14, hmm what else did good old Zell say? oh ya, aegis and patriot missle prevention systems. |
the B-2 is a needles peice of shit, along with the patriot missiles
he voted against them because we dont need them in iraq, look at the style of fighting going on, urban
you dont use patriot missiles to shoot down a RPG, or a b-2 to bomb a civilian building
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 04, 2004, 09:50:00 AM
| QUOTE (Yuyu @ Sep 3 2004, 06:04 PM) |
| Well, I would say never, but neither did Bush. His reasoning for starting the war has changed several times. Overall I would say he did not start an illegal one, and it was definitely not unjustified. If he would of just stuck to the fact that it was to be a humanitarian war (such as the upcoming war I forsee in Sudan,and yes you can quote me on that) , and he was disposing of a murderous son of a bitch that killed 175,000+ people, then I believe not so many people would be as angry as they are. Oh well, to each his own, believe and see the issue as you want to. |
you try applying the iraq war to the Just War Theory
see how it squares up
Post by: The unProfessional on September 04, 2004, 12:59:00 PM
| QUOTE |
you try applying the iraq war to the Just War Theory |
Whether or not the war was just is an ongoing argument, of course. But seriously, try applying any modern urban war to the Just War Theory, when armed civilians are shooting at you. They just war theory provides a clearcut definition of a justified war, which is good. The problem is, war and politices are much more complicated than a 300 word definition of justice.
What I said has nothing to do with Iraq, specifically... it's something to really chew on.
Post by: nemt on September 04, 2004, 07:30:00 PM
| QUOTE (67thRaptorBull @ Sep 4 2004, 01:53 PM) |
| you try applying the iraq war to the Just War Theory see how it squares up |
http://forums.xbox-s...5
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 05, 2004, 02:59:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 4 2004, 09:33 PM) |
| http://forums.xbox-s...5 |
nemt, i remember you doing that a couple of months ago, but unfortunately, its not god enough, it doesnt qualify as a just war
and Unpro, i get what your saying, but techinically the war is "over" (remember mission accomplished) so this is just needless violence, but in the first few months, when it was actual fighting of armies or militia's, it still wasnt just
ok, here i go
nemt, you said
-A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered.
Over a million civilians murdered, I'd say that's a wrong suffered.
well, that is true, but it wasnt our civilians, and it had nothing to do with us, if this was the case, why arent we attacking african nations that have militias commiting genocide?
you cant just start a war because of what someone did to his people years ago, only if its for defense does it apply
next one
-The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.
Civilians are treated better by the invaders than by their own government.
This is not true at all. Under sadaam the people actually had water, power, stability, police and other essentials, now a days theres over 10,000 dead civilians, crime is up, power and water our scarce, if even availabe at all
the theroy doesnt apply
Post by: nemt on September 05, 2004, 03:31:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on September 05, 2004, 03:54:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| you don't know anyone who knows more about catholicism than I do |
that's almost as funny as dark link's claim that he's NEVER lost an argument
Post by: nemt on September 05, 2004, 04:28:00 PM
Post by: thomes08 on September 05, 2004, 06:08:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 6 2004, 12:31 AM) |
| Okay, go ahead and point out any time I've ever been wrong about Catholic doctrine, teaching, or history. |
never ever. you know more than anyone
Post by: nemt on September 05, 2004, 07:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (ZeroDown @ Sep 5 2004, 09:15 PM) |
| Duh, he's probably a SENIOR in high school. Don't mess with him. |
You have a pretty cavalier attitude for someone with a Slipknot avatar.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 06, 2004, 03:20:00 PM
| QUOTE (ZeroDown @ Sep 6 2004, 12:39 AM) |
| Clearly any fan of Slipknot is an idiot. It's been proven by many scientific studies. Damn, why do I feel burned? |
because he very clearly burned you....................
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 06, 2004, 03:25:00 PM
(The band, for those of you who lack culture)
Post by: The unProfessional on September 06, 2004, 11:42:00 PM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on September 06, 2004, 11:45:00 PM
Post by: The unProfessional on September 07, 2004, 12:02:00 AM
Post by: gronne on September 07, 2004, 03:46:00 AM
hmm... now let's find those buttons.
Post by: 67thRaptorBull on September 07, 2004, 06:39:00 PM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Sep 7 2004, 05:49 AM) |
| Nemt is a fragile little know-all that would fall apart if pushed on the right buttons... hmm... now let's find those buttons. |
a guy liberal that looks like micheal moore and who also makes movies like micheal moore and that actually does know everything ( so, basically just like nemt, except a liberal and not a conservative, and hed make movies not POS websites)
Post by: nemt on September 08, 2004, 08:27:00 AM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 6 2004, 06:28 PM) |
| Nemt's clearly a fan of the masterful works of Genesis. (The band, for those of you who lack culture) |
No, I only like bands with seventeen guys dressed in clown makeup and "satanic" apparel, screaming incoherently into the microphone.
Post by: bluedeath on September 08, 2004, 08:56:00 AM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 7 2004, 07:45 AM) |
| Please don't bring up Genesis. My musical abilities are sucked from my body everytime I hear Phil Collins. |
"I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite. "
Somebody had to do it
Post by: mike96sc2 on September 08, 2004, 12:18:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 5 2004, 09:38 PM) |
| You have a pretty cavalier attitude for someone with a Slipknot avatar. |
When the discussion stops going your way start avatar bashing, always a good idea.
Yeah Kerry needs to get in line and figure out what he wants to say and say it, not bash Bush so much.
Then again you can walk out a Bush speech and only remember one thing because he had to repeat it 25 different ways to make it seem as if he answered the question.
Post by: thomes08 on September 08, 2004, 12:25:00 PM
| QUOTE (mike96sc2 @ Sep 8 2004, 08:21 PM) |
| When the discussion stops going your way start avatar bashing, always a good idea. Yeah Kerry needs to get in line and figure out what he wants to say and say it, not bash Bush so much. Then again you can walk out a Bush speech and only remember one thing because he had to repeat it 25 different ways to make it seem as if he answered the question. |
i think he needs to start bashing him more. The fact is a lot of morons that believe anything vote and when you have bush and cheny saying stuff not far from "if you vote for kerry you are voting for a terror attack as big as 9/11" (anyone else read that yesterday?) you need to be dirty right back. he had a thing where he didn't want to make it dirty and talk about policy which would have been a great thing but is too idea in the system we had set up. He's being advised to do more baching to match up to bush, it's been clear there has been a lack of it up to this point. I hope that changes
thomes08
Post by: HeLiuM on September 09, 2004, 08:19:00 AM
The good news is, I'm sure when he gets angry the speeches will get even worse.
Hilarity ensues.
Am I bush bashing? I hope so. I was going for the style of Bush's latest attack ad.
Don't like it? Don't be a hipocrite, speak out against pointless character assassination.