Is there any particular reason why the original poster, a presumed soldier (and thus older than, say, eighteen), types like a thirteen year old girl?
Edited, Sat Sep 11 12:21:40 2004 by RPZip
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Vote for Bush!!
Vote for Bush!!Follow
#53
Sep 11 2004 at 11:47 AM
Quote:
Both presidents are cutting the military in size
Yeah, but Bush's first 1000 cuts have been rough.
#54
Sep 11 2004 at 11:57 AM
Quote:
Now think about this If you bring home all the troops how is one supposed to keep friends close and keep the enemy closer.
#55
Sep 11 2004 at 12:22 PM
I would NEVER give up mine or anyone elses civil liberties just for the promise of a little bit of saftey. I would not let the government trample over my constitutional rights. Rights upon which this country was founded on. Those that would are the ones being unpatriotic by not upholding the spirit of this great Nation.
Sure today its not taking knitting needles and scissors on airpolans which is a minor thing really. But being asked for id for absolutly NO reason whatsoever starts to boarder on harassment. Taking away a few minor civil liberties is just the start of it.
Whats next. How bout we remove the right to a fairtrial. guilty until proven innocent anyone? infact lets just jail american citizens for 2 years without a lawer or a trial. Oh wait theyve already done that. >:(
Sure today its not taking knitting needles and scissors on airpolans which is a minor thing really. But being asked for id for absolutly NO reason whatsoever starts to boarder on harassment. Taking away a few minor civil liberties is just the start of it.
Whats next. How bout we remove the right to a fairtrial. guilty until proven innocent anyone? infact lets just jail american citizens for 2 years without a lawer or a trial. Oh wait theyve already done that. >:(
#56
Sep 11 2004 at 12:24 PM
dirges wrote:
Quote:
6. I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
Who? Am I out of the loop? Is this an obscure reference, or is it something I should know?
Who? Am I out of the loop? Is this an obscure reference, or is it something I should know?
McVeigh pleaded guilty, and called off further attempts at a stay for his own execution. Yeah, Bush is a bad, bad man for that.
#57
Sep 11 2004 at 12:36 PM
PieMan wrote:
But being asked for id for absolutly NO reason whatsoever starts to boarder on harassment.
Um, not it isn't. Carrying identification is the law. Why would there be a law to carry identification at all times if it is harrasment for an official to ask you for it. If you've done nothig wrong, you shouldn't have a problem with providing identification when asked. It's not an infringement on your civil liberties to be asked for identification when checking in at the airport to prove who are are, when operating a motor vehicle, when opening a bank account or cashing a check, when entering a federal or state building, or any number of other instances. What specific civil liberty is being infringed upon by being asked for identification? I don't understand.
Quote:
Whats next. How bout we remove the right to a fairtrial.
This is completely different topic, but I have stated before that I am against tort reform. There are statutes in place to aid in preventing frivolous lawsuits, and the penalties for actually persuing a claim found to be frivolous are serious.
The system works. No, it's not perfect. No system will ever be perfect. But, capping jury awards and attorney fees would essentialy remove middle class and below individuals' rights to civil justice. Basically, making the system unusable by them. Attorneys who work on a contingent basis would be all but exinct, and that removes all but the rich from having a right to civil justice.
I have not read or heard anything about any changes to the criminal court system.
#58
Sep 11 2004 at 1:34 PM
Main reason to vote for bush: Nerfing Frivolous Law Suits.
Main Reason to vote for kerry: "Pulling u.s. troops out of an unnescary war".
Those are my main reasons why I vote for bush. I dont ******* care about any god damned dead iraqis or 1 dead american. Why should you? I saw some democrats protesting bush and they asked me to hold up a sign, and I said to them "Sorry Im a republican" and they lectured me on all their **** and eventually said Im wrong and tried to explain to me why bush is like hitler. Hitler, a socialist... now, correct me if im wrong but it seems to me democrats are trying to be socialists here. I mean, lets see... Free Health care(Government takes care of you in socialist countrys), free health care sounds alright but I dont want a p.c. lawsuit hungry fiends running this country. And any one who is with this P.C. **** are marxsists. And it seems democrats are trying to enforce their marxisim on us. Imo, democrats contradict them selves. I dont see how democracy plays in a democrats title. Being that it seems free speech has been banned by you. You cant speak your mind anymore with out being labled a rascist or some kind of a hate filled person. I.e. David Duke, democrats came down on him when he created EURO, but democrats love NAACP. Not much a diff, it seems democrats just are here to cater the minorites needs and the rest of the white liberals/the poor. What about the conservatives who actually practice freedom of speech? It seems to me like any form of p.c. is killing all american values. This probably didnt make too much sense because Im horrible at wording when I have alot going thru my mind(THE HURRICANE EEK!), and Im not always the most articulate when explaining my thoughts. I know my thoughts are all confusing, but Ill try and reword them later in a more readable summary.
Main Reason to vote for kerry: "Pulling u.s. troops out of an unnescary war".
Those are my main reasons why I vote for bush. I dont ******* care about any god damned dead iraqis or 1 dead american. Why should you? I saw some democrats protesting bush and they asked me to hold up a sign, and I said to them "Sorry Im a republican" and they lectured me on all their **** and eventually said Im wrong and tried to explain to me why bush is like hitler. Hitler, a socialist... now, correct me if im wrong but it seems to me democrats are trying to be socialists here. I mean, lets see... Free Health care(Government takes care of you in socialist countrys), free health care sounds alright but I dont want a p.c. lawsuit hungry fiends running this country. And any one who is with this P.C. **** are marxsists. And it seems democrats are trying to enforce their marxisim on us. Imo, democrats contradict them selves. I dont see how democracy plays in a democrats title. Being that it seems free speech has been banned by you. You cant speak your mind anymore with out being labled a rascist or some kind of a hate filled person. I.e. David Duke, democrats came down on him when he created EURO, but democrats love NAACP. Not much a diff, it seems democrats just are here to cater the minorites needs and the rest of the white liberals/the poor. What about the conservatives who actually practice freedom of speech? It seems to me like any form of p.c. is killing all american values. This probably didnt make too much sense because Im horrible at wording when I have alot going thru my mind(THE HURRICANE EEK!), and Im not always the most articulate when explaining my thoughts. I know my thoughts are all confusing, but Ill try and reword them later in a more readable summary.
#59
Sep 11 2004 at 2:11 PM
Quote:
It seems to me like any form of p.c. is killing all american values.
I couldn't agree more.
#60
Sep 11 2004 at 2:15 PM
Deathwysh wrote:
Quote:
dude...he said he was against the war on iraq then said he voted for it...i listen to the news...
Do you mean the war that Bush lied to us all about? The one he said was justified because Saddam was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons and giving them to Al-Qaeda? Is that the war you're talking about?
The one in which we have found NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction?
Frankly you'd have to be an idiot to vote FOR that war twice.
Yeah. Right. you're on the ball there.
Have you read this?
Quote:
The Cambridge dictionary defines Pre-emptive as something that is done before other people can act, especially to prevent them from doing something else.
So I’d like to know how it is a lie that we didn’t find something we told everyone in advance we were determined to stop pre-emptively. One – one -- of the reasons for going to Iraq was to prevent Saddam from acquiring and using Weapons of Mass Destruction, weapons that no one denies he once had, he once used, and continuously tried to obtain again. No serious person can deny this.
We have prevented Saddam, and Iraq, from acquiring and using Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only other way to prevent him from doing so would have been to continue the sanctions, and the torture, and the mass murder – indefinitely. That’s fine, as far as some people are concerned. So long as they don’t have to watch GWB on TV anymore.
It is true that Saddam had managed to convince the President, and the Congress, that he was further along with these programs than he actually was. In fact, it appears that many in his own regime had lied to him regarding this progress, and these lies and communications were intercepted, analyzed, compared to his known previous efforts, and presented to the President and the Congress. Those politicians now howling that President Bush lied to them were accessing the same information he had. The record of them condemning Saddam’s WMD programs has filled volumes. Presumably, even a Congressman is capable of weighing evidence and making his own decision. Page after page after page shows they reached the same decision, based on the same evidence, that the President, the former President, the British Prime Minister, The Secretaries of State and Defense, and countless other bright people from all across the political spectrum had done.
Does anybody actually think that the President would make such a case, knowing full well that no WMD’s existed? Do you honestly think he planned this action based on a lie, and therefore pinned his entire political career and the Nation’s credibility on the hope that everyone in the world would forget if none showed up?
The WMD intelligence was clearly at fault regarding Saddam’s progress toward WMD’s. This does not affect by one particle the fact that Saddam had repeatedly used chemical weapons, had at one time a universally acknowledged nuclear weapons program, and had enormous amounts of biological weapons material the destruction of which he could not provide documentation for. These are undeniable facts.
And if you are one of the people howling with outrage over the fact that significant WMD’s were not discovered, perhaps in the future we can count on your support the next time some genius wants to gut and field dress the entire military intelligence establishment.
Saddam’s progress was irrelevant to the motivation. The man had used them before, and if he obtained them, would use them, or threaten to use them as he has done time and again. He was pre-emptively – don’t forget the outrage! – stopped in these designs, and so the risk of an Iraqi nuclear or germ or gas attack on the US or his neighbors has dropped to zero. Maybe the threat was overrated, based on his previous predilections. But that threat is zero now. I spell that M-I-S-S-I-O-N A-C-C-O-M-P-L-I-S-H-E-D.
So I’d like to know how it is a lie that we didn’t find something we told everyone in advance we were determined to stop pre-emptively. One – one -- of the reasons for going to Iraq was to prevent Saddam from acquiring and using Weapons of Mass Destruction, weapons that no one denies he once had, he once used, and continuously tried to obtain again. No serious person can deny this.
We have prevented Saddam, and Iraq, from acquiring and using Weapons of Mass Destruction. The only other way to prevent him from doing so would have been to continue the sanctions, and the torture, and the mass murder – indefinitely. That’s fine, as far as some people are concerned. So long as they don’t have to watch GWB on TV anymore.
It is true that Saddam had managed to convince the President, and the Congress, that he was further along with these programs than he actually was. In fact, it appears that many in his own regime had lied to him regarding this progress, and these lies and communications were intercepted, analyzed, compared to his known previous efforts, and presented to the President and the Congress. Those politicians now howling that President Bush lied to them were accessing the same information he had. The record of them condemning Saddam’s WMD programs has filled volumes. Presumably, even a Congressman is capable of weighing evidence and making his own decision. Page after page after page shows they reached the same decision, based on the same evidence, that the President, the former President, the British Prime Minister, The Secretaries of State and Defense, and countless other bright people from all across the political spectrum had done.
Does anybody actually think that the President would make such a case, knowing full well that no WMD’s existed? Do you honestly think he planned this action based on a lie, and therefore pinned his entire political career and the Nation’s credibility on the hope that everyone in the world would forget if none showed up?
The WMD intelligence was clearly at fault regarding Saddam’s progress toward WMD’s. This does not affect by one particle the fact that Saddam had repeatedly used chemical weapons, had at one time a universally acknowledged nuclear weapons program, and had enormous amounts of biological weapons material the destruction of which he could not provide documentation for. These are undeniable facts.
And if you are one of the people howling with outrage over the fact that significant WMD’s were not discovered, perhaps in the future we can count on your support the next time some genius wants to gut and field dress the entire military intelligence establishment.
Saddam’s progress was irrelevant to the motivation. The man had used them before, and if he obtained them, would use them, or threaten to use them as he has done time and again. He was pre-emptively – don’t forget the outrage! – stopped in these designs, and so the risk of an Iraqi nuclear or germ or gas attack on the US or his neighbors has dropped to zero. Maybe the threat was overrated, based on his previous predilections. But that threat is zero now. I spell that M-I-S-S-I-O-N A-C-C-O-M-P-L-I-S-H-E-D.
Bill Whittle--STRENGTH part II
Edited, Sat Sep 11 15:15:42 2004 by Shaedii
#61
Sep 11 2004 at 5:53 PM
Alright, knitting needles have been mentioned twice and I need you people to get this straight. Knitting needles are allowed on airplanes. But some screeners may not be aware of the TSA policy.
As for the need to show identification when asked by authorities, even though you have done absolutely nothing to warrant it, could be construed as a violation of the 4th amendment - you know the right to unnecessary search and seizure. However, the supreme court has recently decided that showing identification to police when asked, even if nothing occurred to warrant it, is allowed.
As far as I am aware it is NOT illegal to not have identification on you.
Edited, Sat Sep 11 18:54:28 2004 by kundalini
As for the need to show identification when asked by authorities, even though you have done absolutely nothing to warrant it, could be construed as a violation of the 4th amendment - you know the right to unnecessary search and seizure. However, the supreme court has recently decided that showing identification to police when asked, even if nothing occurred to warrant it, is allowed.
As far as I am aware it is NOT illegal to not have identification on you.
Edited, Sat Sep 11 18:54:28 2004 by kundalini
#62
Sep 11 2004 at 10:14 PM
The system of police being allowed to ask for ID when nothing was done to warrant it is fundamentally flawed.
ex. Lets say Police man A for some reason jsut doesn't like Citizen B.
Police man A can then request ID from Citizen B at every most inconvient time possible. While Police man A may say it was for saftey concerns the reality is that the only reason he does it was to make Citizen B's life a living hell. Now lets say that Citizen B forgot thier I.D at home now they are subject to being arrested... what kind of Bull is that simply because the Police officer A has a problem with Citizen B.
Even as a liberal I don't agree with friviolus lawsuits I think their a waste of time and taxpayer money. I will agree with you there.
You say that in socialist countrys the government takes care of you, through free health care. Heres a challange for you. Argue against free healthcare for the less fortunate WITHOUT (key word) without looking like a complete jackass. Just because you can afford health care doesn't mean everyone can. Also as a republican your stance usually is that people need to get jobs. You republicans are the same people who reward companies for outsorcing jobs. How can people get jobs when your sending them overseas. You don't honestly expect every lower class person to survive on minimum wage do you. People need real jobs. Same thing with gay rights. By arguing against equal treatment under the law that does make you a biggot and/or racist. As far as being P.C is correct. The increased need for PC prevents people from openly shouting racist remarks along with hate speech (neither of which are protected by the first amendment).
As a republican you need to realize that your anti- gay, anti-black, anti- woman messages ARE biggotry and be prepared to be called a biggot.
ex. Lets say Police man A for some reason jsut doesn't like Citizen B.
Police man A can then request ID from Citizen B at every most inconvient time possible. While Police man A may say it was for saftey concerns the reality is that the only reason he does it was to make Citizen B's life a living hell. Now lets say that Citizen B forgot thier I.D at home now they are subject to being arrested... what kind of Bull is that simply because the Police officer A has a problem with Citizen B.
Even as a liberal I don't agree with friviolus lawsuits I think their a waste of time and taxpayer money. I will agree with you there.
You say that in socialist countrys the government takes care of you, through free health care. Heres a challange for you. Argue against free healthcare for the less fortunate WITHOUT (key word) without looking like a complete jackass. Just because you can afford health care doesn't mean everyone can. Also as a republican your stance usually is that people need to get jobs. You republicans are the same people who reward companies for outsorcing jobs. How can people get jobs when your sending them overseas. You don't honestly expect every lower class person to survive on minimum wage do you. People need real jobs. Same thing with gay rights. By arguing against equal treatment under the law that does make you a biggot and/or racist. As far as being P.C is correct. The increased need for PC prevents people from openly shouting racist remarks along with hate speech (neither of which are protected by the first amendment).
As a republican you need to realize that your anti- gay, anti-black, anti- woman messages ARE biggotry and be prepared to be called a biggot.
#63
Sep 11 2004 at 10:18 PM
Quote:
But the question is why do you hate someone who takes care of the people who Protect YOu?
This statement deserves the GFY of the year.
#64
Sep 12 2004 at 8:46 AM
Quote:
You say that in socialist countrys the government takes care of you, through free health care. Heres a challange for you. Argue against free healthcare for the less fortunate WITHOUT (key word) without looking like a complete jackass.
The standard of care drops considerably with socialized healthcare. Why do you think people from Canada come to the U.S. to have major suregeries and treatments done? Hypothetically, if you or someone you love dearly (a parent, sibling, spouse, or you child) had to have a major organ trnsplant, and you could have it done for free in Canada or pay to have it done in the U.S., which would you chose? Research your options carefully before answering.
Your turn to not look like a complete jackass.
Quote:
As a republican you need to realize that your anti- gay, anti-black, anti- woman messages ARE biggotry and be prepared to be called a biggot.
That's not very PC, now is it? Careful, you're starting to sound like a Republican. (Dislcaimer, I am not a Republican or Democrat, I am a moderate conservative.)
Edited, Sun Sep 12 09:47:44 2004 by Shaedii
#65
Sep 12 2004 at 11:16 AM
To above poster BEING IN THE MILITARY is the key phrase
How can people be against a president who takes care of the people that protect YOU?
------------------------------------------------------------
please explain how fighting a war against a defenseless country is protecting ME?
i keep getting hung up on this one. i voted for his father.
how is starting a war in iraq protecting ME?
i can tell you how occupying a muslim country is putting ME in greater danger.
i can tell you how alienating most of our allies is putting ME in greater danger.
back up your rehtoric, how is fighting a unnecessary war in iraq protecting ME?
How can people be against a president who takes care of the people that protect YOU?
------------------------------------------------------------
please explain how fighting a war against a defenseless country is protecting ME?
i keep getting hung up on this one. i voted for his father.
how is starting a war in iraq protecting ME?
i can tell you how occupying a muslim country is putting ME in greater danger.
i can tell you how alienating most of our allies is putting ME in greater danger.
back up your rehtoric, how is fighting a unnecessary war in iraq protecting ME?
#66
Sep 12 2004 at 11:18 AM
Quote:
The standard of care drops considerably with socialized healthcare. Why do you think people from Canada come to the U.S. to have major suregeries and treatments done? Hypothetically, if you or someone you love dearly (a parent, sibling, spouse, or you child) had to have a major organ trnsplant, and you could have it done for free in Canada or pay to have it done in the U.S., which would you chose? Research your options carefully before answering.
As far as having a love one have a major medical procedure in Canada, I have and had no fear of anything happening. In fact I would have more fear of the same procedure happening in the US with all the reports of mishaps during surgury.
You also think that for some reason Canadians do not pay for their health care, again your are grossly mistaken. Canadians pay for their health care through taxes, then the government pays the doctors, it is not like the doctors do all the work for free like you are trying to imply. You really need to do more research on your topics before you reply.
#67
Sep 12 2004 at 12:36 PM
Quote:
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.
I see. I have never met anyone with such incredible foresight. Would you care to share the final scores of all of today's football scores? I need to make some quick cash.
I try very hard to stay away from politcal discussions, but some of the insane ramblings in this post are driving me nuts.
What gives this country the RIGHT to invade countries who have done NOTHING to us. NOTHING!!
Bush has made the United States, which already had a fragile relationship with the rest of the World, a f**king joke. I don't want to hear that Iraq is better off without Saddam. Probably is. But the point is that our government brushed aside the UN without blinking, and then LIED to us. Can you imagine what our response would have been if another country pulled a stunt like this??
This "mightier than thou" attitude we have is ridiculous.
Our government is comprised of hypocrites. Last I checked, we have nuclear weapons, and actually used them twice at one point in our history, although the decision to use them was to end a war, not start one.
Bottom line. It's going to take STRONG leadership to dig us out of this mess. It's not going to happen in this election, but it will happen sooner with Bush out of office.
Then he will have plenty of time to read "My Pet Goat".
#68
Sep 12 2004 at 1:31 PM
#69REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 12 2004 at 3:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#70REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 12 2004 at 3:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) even tho i called u a commi earlier, i was quick to hit enter, are you aware the p.c. is a modern day spin off of marxism? And if we cant shoot off openly rascist remarks that under your book arent true(go to detroit and learn what the word n!gger means, then go thru the polish section of detroit and see what the word white means, then go to the trailer park and see what less fortunate means), cont- if we cant shoot off openly rascist remarks that under your book arent true then doesnt that contradict free speech. And p.c. is like marxism because its basicly creating a system made not to offend any one and build YOUR idea of a utopia. Isnt that the same thing as p.c., a system created by people not to offend any one to create a "Utopia". yes? Well, correct me if Im wrong but that sounds anti-american. Limiting peoples free speech and making america a land based on athiesim is what p.c. is. You bastards are killing our morality and what makes america great. I dont know how any of you bastards can say that you love america yet be a liberal. For this is what you stand for... you say you want america to be equal, well why dont u refer to my thoughts on how you help minorities. You are just power hungry marxisists. Go to russia and take hilary clinton, youd love it there.
#71
Sep 12 2004 at 4:36 PM
dirges wrote:
You also think that for some reason Canadians do not pay for their health care, again your are grossly mistaken. Canadians pay for their health care through taxes, then the government pays the doctors, it is not like the doctors do all the work for free like you are trying to imply. You really need to do more research on your topics before you reply.
I am very well aware of how socilaized health care works in Canada. I know it is funded from taxes. The standard of care is still lower there than the standard of care in the U.S. You yourself just said that minor medical procedures are put on the back burner. Canadians come to the U.S. because the U.S. doesn't put things "on the back burner."
dirges wrote:
Look at France
You're kidding me, right? Look at France?
Mtt wrote:
I see. I have never met anyone with such incredible foresight.
So, do you think a person who is imprisoned for murder should be set free? Just because he has done it numerous time before doesn't meant that he will do it again I suppose, eh? We knew Saddam's history. We knew that he had been trying to aquire nulear capability. We knew he'd had and used WMDs in the past. The UN and every country who is a member of the UN agreed that they believed he still had WMDs. How quickly we forget some things. The UN was sitting on thier hands about it (as they have always done about everything), a vote was never cast on occupying Iraq because France of all nations said they would veto it as soon as it hit the UN floor. France. Who gives a fu[u][/u]ck what France thinks? France has never stood up for itself, much less anyone else.
So yes, while Iraq may not have been an immenant threat to the U.S. or any other country, Iraq was an eventual threat, Saddam was breaking UN resolutions and sanctions, and nothing was being done about it. Meanwhile, known terrorist groups were passing through the country as they pleased, going unchecked, and generally feeling pretty safe and secure in their little isolated muslim part of the world.
If the threat was even 1% that Saddam would aquire nuclear capability within the next 5 years, that threat is zero now. With the power of nuclear capability come responsibility. Saddam had proven over and over again that he was not responsible enough to possess nuclear arms, or any major arms for that matter.
We tried the UN for 10 years. It didn't work because little loud-mouthed chicken ***** like France, who wouldn't help a drowning child if they though they might break a fingernail, yet have been rescued countless times by other nations, wouldn't stand up for something. Never. Not once. Seriously, where do the french get off on thinking thier opnion counts? And now they're feeling it. Anti-semitism is rampant there, and it's not from the french. Who do you think it is? That's right. The big bullies they thought weren't such a problem. The big bullies who they helped to engineer bunkers and war technology for.
You wanna know where the cash for socialized healthcare in France comes from? Ask Saddam. Bet he knows. He probably gave them some of it.
#72
Sep 12 2004 at 4:54 PM
Quote:
If the threat was even 1% that Saddam would aquire nuclear capability within the next 5 years, that threat is zero now.
Thank GOD we can all sit back and relax now that the threat of terrorism no longer exists.
#73
Sep 12 2004 at 6:20 PM
Mtt wrote:
Quote:
If the threat was even 1% that Saddam would aquire nuclear capability within the next 5 years, that threat is zero now.
Thank GOD we can all sit back and relax now that the threat of terrorism no longer exists.
Read that again. I did not say that the threat of terrorism no longer exists, nor did I even imply that Saddam was a terrorist. I explained in great detail why it was considered a threat, not only by the U.S., but every other country who is a member of the UN, that Saddam attain nuclear capability. Kinda neat how the entire UN agreed on that.
#74
Sep 12 2004 at 6:58 PM
Quote:
You @#%^ers give ****, women, @#%^s, asians, jews and the poor the @#%^ing pedestool! Wht the saddest part is, is you deny it and say that what your doing is for equality!
Ghanha, no liberals do not make you look racist, I think you are doing a pretty good job of that yourself.
You seem to think that being a liberal is equal to being a communist. I think you need to look up the definition of both of these items first. Liberal is not a dirty word.
Liberal - Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Communism - A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members
Just out of curiosity, why are you comparing the NAACP, an organization to promote a group of people who have been oppressed for hundreds of years, to the EURO, a form of currency?
What the hell is wrong with trying to promote equality anyway? It's just the enforcement of the laws of the US. You might want to take a look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights again.
People like you make me sick.
#75
Sep 12 2004 at 8:36 PM
/shakes head disappointedly
The sandbox is full of some sad, little individuals.
#76
Sep 12 2004 at 9:39 PM
Deathwysh wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dude...he said he was against the war on iraq then said he voted for it...i listen to the news...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean the war that Bush lied to us all about? The one he said was justified because Saddam was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons and giving them to Al-Qaeda? Is that the war you're talking about?
The one in which we have found NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction?
Frankly you'd have to be an idiot to vote FOR that war twice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
So what about all the other countries that posess nuclear capabilities? How about you guys go and attack them too? Engliand, France, China, they are all conspiring againt you America! Go attack them and make more enemies!
But honestly, living up here in Canada out of the propaganda you poor people endure I think a vote for Buch is a vote for 4 more years of terror. He is trying to win your vote by placing fear into your hearts. "Vote for me or you'll all be the terrorists nest target." Because the gas station in Nowhere Iowa is the next international terrorist target.
I do not know the fear Americans have lived through, terrosists are not a huge issue in Canada becuase we are not threatened by them. Why you ask? Becuase we do not pose a threat to them. We do not invade and occupy foreign countries on the hunch that they **might** have nuclear capabilities. Why not worry about the rogue nations with nuclear capabilities? What about North Korea? China? Nuclear weapons in the old Soviet Union? Libia? Who knows how many other places?
Bush went to Iraq not to be the patriot and free people, he wanted to win the war his daddy couldn't so he could secure one of the largest oil pipelines in the world. Same in Afghanistan, one of the largest oil pipelines being built to date. He doesn't care about their justice or their freedom, if you want to solve your terrorist problem get it at the source. Muslims worry about the encroachment of American culture unto their own, foreign occupation of their countries does not help. I guarentee world opinion of Bush is far far below 50%. Think of your relationship with Canada. Bush and the softwood lumber comission imposed a 27% tarrif on Canadian softwood exports, and that hurts here in BC where 30-40% of the economy is based of lumber. So guess what NAFTA ruled? Those duties are completely illegal? Guess who has to pay who 4.2billion dollars?
Also his point of view on the envionment. You guys are in an energy crisis huh? The smart thing to do would be to develop clean efficient modes of energy production, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, even nuclear. And true many places have exploited these natural resources, but you know what Bush proposed? 1400, yes one thousand four hundred coal burning, smog producing power plants....Great idea!!! I'm sure you all wonder what the hell is going on with climate change, and those of you who claim it does not exist think ******* again. Open your arrogant ******* eyes. Glaciers 10% the size they used to be, entire ice shelves collapsing, extreem dought, the list goes on and on, even the weather paterns.
Wonder why Florida has been his by 3 incredibly powerful hurricanes? The melting of the northern polar icecap, releasing cold water into the ocean, draws on the Atliantic current, drawing warmer water north. That change in the current means the area where Atlantic hurricanes form gets warmer...which means you get more bigger and powerful hurricanes. I do not know Kerry's opinion of the environment, but it cannot be worse that Bush's.
Seriously people, you have to think things over. Look through the campain lies of both parties, look at if from another perspective. Ask yourself if the world Bush proposes is a world you want your children to live in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dude...he said he was against the war on iraq then said he voted for it...i listen to the news...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean the war that Bush lied to us all about? The one he said was justified because Saddam was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons and giving them to Al-Qaeda? Is that the war you're talking about?
The one in which we have found NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction?
Frankly you'd have to be an idiot to vote FOR that war twice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
So what about all the other countries that posess nuclear capabilities? How about you guys go and attack them too? Engliand, France, China, they are all conspiring againt you America! Go attack them and make more enemies!
But honestly, living up here in Canada out of the propaganda you poor people endure I think a vote for Buch is a vote for 4 more years of terror. He is trying to win your vote by placing fear into your hearts. "Vote for me or you'll all be the terrorists nest target." Because the gas station in Nowhere Iowa is the next international terrorist target.
I do not know the fear Americans have lived through, terrosists are not a huge issue in Canada becuase we are not threatened by them. Why you ask? Becuase we do not pose a threat to them. We do not invade and occupy foreign countries on the hunch that they **might** have nuclear capabilities. Why not worry about the rogue nations with nuclear capabilities? What about North Korea? China? Nuclear weapons in the old Soviet Union? Libia? Who knows how many other places?
Bush went to Iraq not to be the patriot and free people, he wanted to win the war his daddy couldn't so he could secure one of the largest oil pipelines in the world. Same in Afghanistan, one of the largest oil pipelines being built to date. He doesn't care about their justice or their freedom, if you want to solve your terrorist problem get it at the source. Muslims worry about the encroachment of American culture unto their own, foreign occupation of their countries does not help. I guarentee world opinion of Bush is far far below 50%. Think of your relationship with Canada. Bush and the softwood lumber comission imposed a 27% tarrif on Canadian softwood exports, and that hurts here in BC where 30-40% of the economy is based of lumber. So guess what NAFTA ruled? Those duties are completely illegal? Guess who has to pay who 4.2billion dollars?
Also his point of view on the envionment. You guys are in an energy crisis huh? The smart thing to do would be to develop clean efficient modes of energy production, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, even nuclear. And true many places have exploited these natural resources, but you know what Bush proposed? 1400, yes one thousand four hundred coal burning, smog producing power plants....Great idea!!! I'm sure you all wonder what the hell is going on with climate change, and those of you who claim it does not exist think ******* again. Open your arrogant ******* eyes. Glaciers 10% the size they used to be, entire ice shelves collapsing, extreem dought, the list goes on and on, even the weather paterns.
Wonder why Florida has been his by 3 incredibly powerful hurricanes? The melting of the northern polar icecap, releasing cold water into the ocean, draws on the Atliantic current, drawing warmer water north. That change in the current means the area where Atlantic hurricanes form gets warmer...which means you get more bigger and powerful hurricanes. I do not know Kerry's opinion of the environment, but it cannot be worse that Bush's.
Seriously people, you have to think things over. Look through the campain lies of both parties, look at if from another perspective. Ask yourself if the world Bush proposes is a world you want your children to live in.
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 150
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (150)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Vote for Bush!!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC