Vote for Bush!!Follow

I just read through this thread, And I think most of us have to agree that any president other then Bush would be better then what he have now. There are the few people that believe Bush is better, and those people dont think for themselves they are just followers, but thats okay. We will never change their mind and they cant change ours, I just really fuc[i][/i]king hope that the majority will vote for Kerry and bush can get the hell outta there.

My real voting Position is: I dont want Bush, and I dont want Kerry, but I would rather have Kerry then Bush. So I vote for Him.

Sometimes I wonder Why a normal person cant be our president already, or a normal person be a politician. The answer is, Because no normal person wants to be a President.
Our presidents are just money hungry, power hungry, and will do anything to get what they want. They are Whiney lil ********
(maybe not all, but many, and most politicians, and Bush)

Good for you, unfortunately that is not the case for many.


"Studies indicate that 30 percent to 40 percent of activated Guard members and reservists lose income when deployed. A Pentagon survey in 2000 found that most troops reported an income loss of $3,750 or less while on active duty. But some, about 7 percent of survey respondents, reported much larger losses, in the range of $37,000 to $50,000 annually." Fortunately, we have Democrats in Congress who will stand up to support equal pay for our troops."

"Over the last two years, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and others have pushed various bills that would require federal agencies to make up the difference between civil service and military pay for those on military duty."

"Then there are those GOP broadsides against John Kerry's supposed vote 'against funding our troops.' President Bush, Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration, and Kerry's vote against the entire bill was rooted in a dispute with the administration over how to pay for $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction of Iraq."

Study Peter Pan. Find a way to stay young. For all of us.

Thinking for yourself is the next step.

Yeah, the U.S. should have waited until Saddam actually did have nuclear capabilities, and then waited even longer for Sadaam to use them before we made a pre-emptive strike.

Oh, right. Then it wouldn't have been pre-emption. I understand now.

You're kidding me, right?

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot all about the dozens of nuclear warheads that we found in Saddam's outhouse. And the thousands of gallons of biological agents that he was keeping in old 2 liter Pepsi bottles.

Iraq was never a threat to this country, and never would have been a threat to this country.


What Bush did was the equivalent of you going across town and burning down the house of some guy that brews his own beer, on the basis that he might some day have given that beer to someone who might then have driven drunk in your neighborhood and run over the kids you might someday have.

I think you missed the point about pre-emption. See, the purpose of that was to prevent him from having them. Don't think for a second the reason he did not have nuclear capability at the time we occupied was because he didn't want to. If there had been no sanctions and inspections for the last ~10 years, he defintely would have had them by now.

Additionally, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Looking for weapons in billions of square miles of nothing but sand is like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles. You are aware that we accidentally found MiGs burried in the sand with thier wings removed and some of the electrical and jet engine components covered in plastic to prevent the sand from destroying them, didn't you? And that the military had been camped within yards of where they were burried for months without knowing they were there? The only reason they were discovered is because the winds had blown away part of the sand covering one of the tail sections of one of the jets. Of course, I'm sure that Saddam was just finished with those MiGs and that was his way of disposing of them.

The military is not in Iraq walking over every square foot of the country with a metal detector.

There's also the issue of the dual chamber mix-in-flight bombs that were found. There are WMDS with sarin gas, and were against the sanctions. They also were not in existance before the sanctions so it's not as if he aquired them before the sanctions. Additionally, even if he had somehow miraculously aquired them before the sanctions, he never declared that he ever had them and that they were supposedly destroyed, which is also against the sanctions.

Yeah, we should have just trusted the man. He was an honorable ruler and served his countrymen well as a fair and just leader. He was always truthful with other countries of the world, and wouldn't even kill a fly, much less members of his own family just for thinking that they might get a tad bit in his way. Newp.



Hmm. Guess the U.S. and quite a few other countries wasted over 10 years debating how to handle Iraq's sanctions, attempting to enforce them, and doing routine inspections. We should have just trusted the man. He had proven his trustworhtiness countless times before, right? Hell we should have even trusted him to have nuclear weapons. Perhaps we should have given them to him also. I mean, he would have surely only used them on his own people as he had done with his other weapons in the past, right?



That's the worst analogy I've ever read. "might haves" are not the same as "has done, and has the propensity to do worse." I won't say Iraq was an "immenant threat," but I will say under that regime, it was an eventual threat, and had been for years. If you can't see that, then you know absolutely nothing about either Iraq or Saddam's rule.

Perhaps you should try to find some more reliable sources of information than Allakhazam's message boards and cnn.com. You're seriously out of the loop on many things.

I'm not telling!

But if we have to give up the liberties to keep them then we really havn't kept them intact now have we.


And where does this line of thinking end. How many liberties do we have to give up. How close to **** germany do we have to get before we are safe.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Yeah it was someone you should know. He caused the greatest act of terrorism on US soil before 9/11, Timothy McVeigh.