Print

[jokk]

Face it, no one care...

[self]

QUOTE (XPxAxBxLxOX @ Jul 10 2004, 01:53 AM)

Just an update about the polls.  I was watching the news and bush is still in favor with 49%.  Kerry 44% and Nadar with 3%.

In all seriousness, can someone please explain to me how this is possible?

[thomes08]

QUOTE (self @ Jul 10 2004, 02:16 PM)

In all seriousness, can someone please explain to me how this is possible?

who votes in these polls anyways?  I'm not trying to downplay any party i'm just curious, cause i didn't

thomes08

[self]

Ok. So does anyone have any trustworthy info on who is 'in the lead' so to speak?

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (self @ Jul 10 2004, 11:08 AM)

Ok. So does anyone have any trustworthy info on who is 'in the lead' so to speak?

all i know is bushs approval rating is hover at or below 50%, which has got to help kerry

this election is between a dumbass and a well educated man, who should we chose?

[nfs911]

You guys are a bunch a f*cking liberals, bush did nothing wrong. If f*cking gore would of won we might of been blown up casue all you dumb liberals dont like war. Kerry sucks the big one.

KERRY WAFFLES ON ALL SUBJECTS....he said he was for war, no his isnt, he fricken lies!
DO THE FOLLOWING:

1. GOTO GOOGLE.COM
2. TYPE IN waffles
3. WHAT DO YOU KNOW, JOHN KERRYS WEBSITE COMES UP!!!!!
YOU OWN GOOGLE!!!!!

SIGN THE JOHN KERRY PETETION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[self]

QUOTE (nfs911 @ Jul 10 2004, 05:30 PM)

If f*cking gore would of won we might of been blown up casue all you dumb liberals dont like war.

Right.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (xFusioNx @ Jul 10 2004, 01:46 PM)

BAHAHAHA! Do you know anything of service buddy? Being willing to give your life for your country? Probably not. I bet you don't have any close family or friends in the military either do you? Apparently not, because if you did, you would know he DID in fact do something wrong: He attacked a country that posed no immediate threat to our country for the sole purpose of making himself, the Saudis, and his friends and families more money. And he's using our military to do it. As of Friday, 875 US men and women have died since the begining of military operations in Iraq. Bush declared Mission Accomplished on May 1st 2003. Uh, ok well remember those 875 people? I know you don't care at all cause you're a little lemming douche bag, but of those 875 people that have died since the start of this "war", 737 have died since he declared mission accomplished.   Huh? How is this possible? Let us recap, 875 TOTAL US DEATHS since the start of the war in Iraq. Bush declares "Mission Accomplished" and since then 737 US DEATHS since May 1st when he declared his fallicy. So that means: 138 men and women died during the "war" 737 men and women died during our unnecessary occupation. If you ask me that's not fair to the 737 families that lost loved ones over our illegal occupation and takeover of Iraq. NATO wouldn't even back us for fucks sake. That's proof enough that there was no reason for it. Bush is one of the first Presidents I can think of to ever defy their sworn allies and start a war. The countries that backed us, or the "Coalition of the Willing" as Bush and his PR advisors called it, 90% of the countries list within don't have a standing army, let alone anything to contribute to the "fight". Using the military unecessarily to take over a country is a crime. If you ask me an impeachable one. Fuck they wanted to impeach Clinton over getting a fuckin BLOW! What the fuck is wrong with everyone who cant see something wrong here?

couldnt have said it any better

[nfs911]

actually my uncle is in the 82nd airborne........so i would stfu if I were you....bush made no mitake so stfu

Oh, and btw.....

John F. Kerry missed 72% of 119 recorded votes held in 2003 on issues President Bush had taken a position on according to Congressional Quarterly. Fellow Massachusetts senator Teddy "Chappaquidick" Kennedy missed only 3% of these votes.

John Kerry met with Ralph Nader last week. Both sides of every issue were
discussed. And then, Nader spoke

KERRY CANNOT MAKE UP HIS MIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone can figure out what John Kerry stands for other than John Kerry getting elected please let me know.  Bush's latest attack is that Kerry voted against the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraqi reconstruction.  Kerry's response:

I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it...

Heres a list of all the things kerry changed his mind on:

Troop Funding
Tough on Castro
Kyoto Treaty
Arafat
50 Cent Tax Hike
Abortion as a State Issue
ANWAR
PAC Money
$10,000 PAC Donation Limit
Personal Funds in Campaign
Vietnam in Campaigns
NAFTA
Federal Health Benefits
Military Service for Office
Burma Sanctions
Health Coverage
Welfare Reform
Gay Marriage
Litmus Test for Judges
Medical Marijuana
Affirmative Action
Death Penalty
Business Income Taxes
NCLB
Raising Taxes during downturn
Double Taxation of Dividends
Patriot Act
Intelligence Cuts
Cuban Sanctions
Persian Gulf War
Iraqi War
Israeli Fence
Criticizing president during war
ethanol

Play the Kerry vs Kerry Game!

John Kerry on tax issues:
December, 2002 - Senator John Kerry supports ending the double taxation of dividends: "To encourage investments in the jobs of the future - I think we should excite the capital markets by eliminating the tax on capital gains for investments in critical technology companies - zero capital gains on $100 million issuance of stock if it's held for 5 years and has created real jobs. And we should encourage the measurement of the real value of companies by ending the double taxation of dividends." (Senator John Kerry, Remarks At The City Club Of Cleveland, 12/3/02)

May, 2003 - Candidate Kerry flip-flops in favour of class warfare: "I'm not going to allow a specialized tax for the wealthiest Americans to be bum-rushed through the United States Senate and Congress...." (Adam Nagourney, "Kerry Introduces Health Plan, Pointing Up Divisions Among Democratic Contenders," The New York Times, 5/17/03)

"Kerry also reiterated his opposition to the Republican plan to cut taxes on stock dividends. 'This is not the time for a dividends tax cut that goes to individuals,' he said." ("Kerry Says Time Is On Dems' Side," The Associated Press, 5/8/03)

In September 2001, Kerry Said We Should Not Raise Taxes In An Economic Downturn. "The first priority is the economy of our nation. And when you have a downturn in the economy, the last thing you do is raise taxes or cut spending. We shouldn't do either. We need to maintain a course that hopefully will stimulate the economy. . . . No, we should not raise taxes, but we have to put everything on the table to take a look at why we have this structural problem today. . . . you don't want to raise taxes." (NBC's "Meet The Press," September 2, 2001

In December 2002, Kerry Flip-Flopped. NBC's Tim Russert: "Senator . . . should we freeze or roll back the Bush tax cut?" Kerry: "Well, I wouldn't take away from people who've already been given their tax cut . . . . What I would not do is give any new Bush tax cuts. . . ." Russert:"So the tax cut that's scheduled to be implemented in the coming years . . . ." Kerry: "No new tax cut under the Bush plan. . . . It doesn't make economic sense." Russert: "Now, this is a change, because let me show you what you said in September of 2001 when I asked you the very same question." (NBC's "Meet The Press," December 1, 2002)

[self]

Ok, so on one side we have a guy who actually changes his mind. (OMG WTF)

On the other side we have the guy who has so far killed 900 american soldiers and 12000+ iraqi civilians, in an illegal war, started on the basis of lies, that has increased worldwide terrorism.

Tough choice.

(Seriously, looks like I probably would have voted for these guys if I were in your position, but thats just me)

[nfs911]

OK AS*HOLE....YOU ARE SAYING BUSH killed 900 american soldiers and 12000+ iraqi civilians, in an illegal war, started on the basis of lies, that has increased worldwide terrorism.
HE DIDNT KILL THEM U DUMBA*S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG BUSH DID NOT KILL THEM HIMSELF YOU DUMBSHIT STFU; I OWN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HOW IS THE WAR ILLEGAL? 12,000 CITIZNES, YOU DUMBA*S THE TERRIOSTS ARE KILLING THEM YOU AS*.

BUSH DID NOTHING WRONG DUMB SH*TS STFU NOW!!!!!!!!!

[xFusioNx]

QUOTE (XPxAxBxLxOX @ Jul 9 2004, 08:53 PM)

Just an update about the polls.  I was watching the news and bush is still in favor with 49%.  Kerry 44% and Nadar with 3%.

Oh and I just wanted to let you know those polls were wrong anyway:

47% Kerry
44% Bush
3% Nader

Those asked without Nader as a choice said:

51% Kerry
44% Nader

[thomes08]

the nader thing is really too bad for dems.  Nothing against nader i actually like him.  He's got a TON of things i agree with, and many people would too if they knew anything about politics (which most don't they just go on what they were raised and don't have argument).  But the fact is he doesn't have a chance, and he's further away from republicans than the dems are.  So pretty much 100% of his votes would go to the dems if he weren't running.  But life's life.  I just hope they let nader in on the presidential debates, spice things up a bit, make it interesting, and have someone up there who will tear bush apart more than kerry will.

I thought the 1000th US soldier just died?  I am sure i read it, am i wrong?



"HOW IS THE WAR ILLEGAL? 12,000 CITIZNES, YOU DUMBA*S THE TERRIOSTS ARE KILLING THEM YOU AS*."

Terrorists??  Do you mean us?  If not i assume you're talking about the Iraqi people.  If you are then you are a poor sheltered little boy if you think they're terrorists because they live in iraq.



i agree, however that terrorists are killing them.  I think this girl was killed by terrorists.  

i mean look at her.... at least the terrorists built her a nice wooden box to lay in.  Oh wait, we built the box, and we killed her.  Was she a terrorist?  I think not, we're the only people causing terror, we're the terrorists.



and what if your uncle were killed?  Would it all be worth it then?  It makes a big difference if youre affected by this rather than just being an insensitive asshole.

so "STFU" and think about it.... you know, with your brain

thomes08

[nfs911]

BUSH HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. IF WE WOULDNT OF GONE TO WAR, WE ALL MIGHT OF BEEN KILLED!!!!! PLEASE GIVE ME THE ARTICLE WERE IT SAYS THAT THE US KILLED THAT CHILD!!!!!!! AND NO, BUSH DID NOT KILL THEM HIMSELF......SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT KILLED ALOT OF PEOPLE IN WORLD WAR 2 BECAUEE HE WAS THE PRESIDENT??? YOU ARE SAYING THAT ANY PRESIDENT THAT HAS A WAR WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY IS RESPONSILBE FOR ALL DEATHS?? AND SINCE WHERE IS THERE SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL WAR?


BUSH SENT THEM THERE FOR A REASON, THE US COULD OF BEEN BLOWN UP AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES. BRITIAN, SPAIN, ITALY, AUSTRIALA, THEY ARE IN THIS WAR ALSO, HOW COME EVERYONE IS BLAMING BUSH? BUNCH OF FRICKEN LIBERALS!

IF THE LIBERALS WERE IN POWER, THE US WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP!!! WE WOULD OF NEVER WENT TO WAR, TERROISM WOULD OF OCCURED, AND WE COULD OF ALL DIED.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE (nfs911 @ Jul 10 2004, 09:06 PM)

BUSH HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. IF WE WOULDNT OF GONE TO WAR, WE ALL MIGHT OF BEEN KILLED!!!!! PLEASE GIVE ME THE ARTICLE WERE IT SAYS THAT THE US KILLED THAT CHILD!!!!!!! AND NO, BUSH DID NOT KILL THEM HIMSELF......SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT KILLED ALOT OF PEOPLE IN WORLD WAR 2 BECAUEE HE WAS THE PRESIDENT??? YOU ARE SAYING THAT ANY PRESIDENT THAT HAS A WAR WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY IS RESPONSILBE FOR ALL DEATHS?? AND SINCE WHERE IS THERE SUCH THING AS AN ILLEGAL WAR? BUSH SENT THEM THERE FOR A REASON, THE US COULD OF BEEN BLOWN UP AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES. BRITIAN, SPAIN, ITALY, AUSTRIALA, THEY ARE IN THIS WAR ALSO, HOW COME EVERYONE IS BLAMING BUSH? BUNCH OF FRICKEN LIBERALS! IF THE LIBERALS WERE IN POWER, THE US WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP!!! WE WOULD OF NEVER WENT TO WAR, TERROISM WOULD OF OCCURED, AND WE COULD OF ALL DIED.

jesus fucking christ even calling you an idiot right now

i mean, being republican and dumb is one thing, but being republican, dumb, immature and basing stuff on facts is being Bush


ill number my points so you can follow along at the "slow pace"

1) IRAQ, yes thats right, IRAQ was never, never, never a threat to the US, never, not in a million years. thats like saying cuba is a direct threat to the US, its just ignorant to say that. Show me the WMD's or magical hollow aluminum tubes he had that would have killed people, show me.
And on top of that, he had no means to strike the US, unless hes going to pull a ICBM out of his ass, god damn you republicans are retarded

2)

QUOTE

BUSH SENT THEM THERE FOR A REASON, THE US COULD OF BEEN BLOWN UP AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRIES. BRITIAN, SPAIN, ITALY, AUSTRIALA, THEY ARE IN THIS WAR ALSO, HOW COME EVERYONE IS BLAMING BUSH? BUNCH OF FRICKEN LIBERALS! IF THE LIBERALS WERE IN POWER, THE US WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN BLOWN UP!!! WE WOULD OF NEVER WENT TO WAR, TERROISM WOULD OF OCCURED, AND WE COULD OF ALL DIED.

What the fuck are you talking about? you think the war right now is helping us to protect ourselves from terrorists? are you blind to realize, this war just fuels terrorism and its cuase to kill the "infidels" or is your head to far up your ass? terrorists are people trying to get a point across, ie this point is stay the fuck away from our land, the land we've been living on for 2,000 fucking years, i mean, our americans that ignorant to think they can tell people to do what the fuck they want without backlash?? this war is just going to FUEL terrorism, you fucking moron, wake up

3) you need to tone it down, and yes, as commander in chief in charge of the over all operations and deployment of troops, its Bush's fault for the deaths of these soldiers and civilians, and get this, it was also Franklin Roosevelts fault for all those deaths, but theres a BIG BIG difference, WWII had a purpose, a real purpose, we were DIRECTLY attacked by japan, and we had the need to fight them off, i didnt see IRAQ DIRECTLY attack us, so the need to get people killed in iraq didnt exsist, IE, its an uneccesary war in which all the casualties fall as bush's fault since hes keeping the soldiers there, and he sent the soldiers there.
In laymens terms (just for you)
WWII + Roosevelt + casualties = ok, as it was directly needed (but no casualty is "ok")
Iraq + Bush + all the casualties = his fault, as the war wasnt necessary

Do you get it yet? or do i need to draw it in crayon?