| Saint Jiub 28.07.2004 23:37 |
John Kerry sent me letter begging for money. "end the Bush presidency" ... "drive Bush from the White House" ... "ending Republican assaults" ... "break George Bush's grip on the White House" ... "wrestled power from George Bush" Does Kerry have any other opinions other than his dislike for Bush? |
| Brandon 28.07.2004 23:39 |
He obviously needs money. The man (And his wife) make the Bushes look like paupers. |
| geeksandgeeks 29.07.2004 10:04 |
He's sent me about 865 of those. That's the only thing he ever wants you to do, if you volunteer for his campaign. |
| Music Man 29.07.2004 10:09 |
Well, yes, Kerry has many other opinions (subject to change). |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 29.07.2004 10:21 |
He needs money in order to make bigger coins. If they put him on one, it'll need to be bigger than a silver dollar for his big head. :) "Hope... is on... the way..." My Dad: Well, good for Hope. |
| deleted user 29.07.2004 11:12 |
He has my vote, and support in the elections this year. I just can't understand why some of you are on the Dubbya bandwagon. He is a liar, and the cause of the relationships between the US and their 'allies' falling to pieces. He should be proud of himself for the countless deaths of American lives, and those lives of innocents in Iraq. WOMD. Um, sure George. You just wanted Daddy to be proud of the little Bush and finish what he started. Not to mention he is an ignorant, arrogant, stupid bastard. Sounds just like his pop 'eh? |
| geeksandgeeks 29.07.2004 11:27 |
_Manley_M@tthew_ wrote: He has my vote, and support in the elections this year. I just can't understand why some of you are on the Dubbya bandwagon. He is a liar, and the cause of the relationships between the US and their 'allies' falling to pieces. He should be proud of himself for the countless deaths of American lives, and those lives of innocents in Iraq. WOMD. Um, sure George. You just wanted Daddy to be proud of the little Bush and finish what he started. Not to mention he is an ignorant, arrogant, stupid bastard. Sounds just like his pop 'eh?I'm supporting him too, but I'd feel better about it if he weren't such a wimp. |
| deleted user 29.07.2004 11:29 |
LOL Mandy :) True. But I think Edwards will help with that. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 29.07.2004 13:51 |
_Manley_M@tthew_ wrote: Not to mention he is an ignorant, arrogant, stupid bastard. Sounds just like his pop 'eh?Wow. I can voice my dislike of Kerry and what he stands for simply here: he doesn't stand for anything. He stands for "I'm not Bush". Well neither am I, does that mean I should be president. And frankly, I don't like the way you toss around things like "he's ignorant and stupid", and also the way you act like anyone who disgrees politically with you is a complete idiot and "on the bandwagon". I'm not on anyone's bandwagon, I support Bush because Bush stands for what /I/ believe, and if that mean I support an "ignorant, arrogant, stupid bastard" then I do. You could have made your point, had you had one, without resorting to name calling, thank you very much. I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of all of the bashing of Bush and his supporters that happens on this board. I could care less if you support Kerry, but when you insinuate that we are stupider than you, and that you know so much better, then you're crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed. I'm not standing here calling Kerry or anyone else I disagree with a "stupid bastard". |
| deleted user 29.07.2004 14:24 |
Hmm...I don't think I directed my opinion AT anyone in paticular. If you feel it was troward you, then ooops...sorry. So you are a Bush backer. So what. If you would like to see this country go further into a tailspin than it has been in the last 50 years, then I could care less. You probably watch FOX News too. And no doubt you are blinded by the 'patiotism' act he has been operating under the guise of almost since he first took office. Tell you what. You give me valid proof that he isn't a liar, murderer and complete moron, and I'll listen to you. If not, I have nothing else to say on the subject. Pack a lunch, you'll need it. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 29.07.2004 14:47 |
_Manley_M@tthew_ wrote: Hmm...I don't think I directed my opinion AT anyone in paticular. If you feel it was troward you, then ooops...sorry. So you are a Bush backer. So what. If you would like to see this country go further into a tailspin than it has been in the last 50 years, then I could care less. You probably watch FOX News too. And no doubt you are blinded by the 'patiotism' act he has been operating under the guise of almost since he first took office. Tell you what. You give me valid proof that he isn't a liar, murderer and complete moron, and I'll listen to you. If not, I have nothing else to say on the subject. Pack a lunch, you'll need it.Yes, I do watch Fox News, along with every other news channel. You'd like valid proof? How about the fact that Clinton knew about Osama bin Laden, he watched the first WTC attack unfold, and what did he do? The first WTC attack, that was back by the Iraqis? Nothing. Later, he used NATO for purposes it wasn't intended for to direct the media's attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. What is your opinion on that? He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism. He was also president when two U.S. embassies were bombed. He was also president when terrorists blew up the U.S.S. Cole. What did he do? Nothing. Bush, on the other hand, indeed used patrioism. He used patriotism to rally a broken country, to get through a horrendous massacre that could have destroyed another nation. He launched an attack against Afghanistan which is still going on today. Maybe it's not in the news, but we still have men and women there searching for the members of Al-Quaeda. This is something that should have been done long ago. And Iraq? What about the sarin gas that has been found? That is indeed a weapon of mass destruction. The Iraqis backed both WTC bombings. Saddam was gassing his own people, and you call Bush a murderer? We should have stepped in and taken down Saddam the tyrant ages ago. Now we have him and, hopefully, he'll get what's coming to him. |
| Krizzy 29.07.2004 15:03 |
Boy FGT are you misguided! The facts still remains that no WMD were found in Iraq as Bush had spoonfed to the American public to go into Iraq and take down Hussein. By his declaration of war (and if you know your history, dear the Prez needs no congressional approval to declare war, no matter how futile!) He has made not only NATO and the EU take the defensive and lose face in many countries instead of working with those Middel Eastern countries that surround Iraq. Meanwhile our young men and women keep being killed as well as many innocent Iraqi ppl. So you want Bush for four more years! Not me, sweetie! I want a future for my family! I want our troops of young ppl to come home and live the rest of their young lives! I want someone in the White House who knows the cost of war both financially and personally, John Kerry has my vote! Out with that lousy shrub! Kriz ;o) |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 29.07.2004 15:27 |
And you don't call sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? You think Bush is killing more people than Saddam was? |
| Margo 29.07.2004 15:33 |
I fully support kerry. of course- I'm not goving him any money, but thats because I don't have any. (I was a "Deaniac", but can't be any more because he dropped out). I support Kerry's views on pretty much everything, which, considering that I don't agree with Bush at all, is pretty good. and I'm not bush and should be presidant. but that's just MY humble opinion. :P |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 29.07.2004 15:49 |
Margo wrote: I fully support kerry. of course- I'm not goving him any money, but thats because I don't have any. (I was a "Deaniac", but can't be any more because he dropped out). I support Kerry's views on pretty much everything, which, considering that I don't agree with Bush at all, is pretty good. and I'm not bush and should be presidant. but that's just MY humble opinion. :PI would vote for you :) |
| iron eagle 29.07.2004 16:22 |
US/British/Russian intelligence all said there *was* WMD in Iraq-- 9/11 Commission-Senate Intelligence Committee-Lord Butlers investigation--all concluded Bush did not lie Kerry and Edwards-- who had the same intelligence reports Bush did-- voted for the war.... so how in the hell is just Bush made out to be the liar???? i asked this two weeks ago--and i noticed it was not answered-- why is Kerry and Edwards being absolved but Bush is being villified for it??? |
| Brandon 29.07.2004 16:32 |
Krizzy wrote: Boy By his declaration of war (and if you know your history, dear the Prez needs no congressional approval to declare war, no matter how futile!) Kriz ;o)Apparently, you don't know your "history." (Shouldn't it be US law? Or, at the very least political science?) Anyway, only CONGRESS can declare war, not the president who is commander in chief. And unfortunately, I think the upcoming election is between the evils of two lessers. |
| deleted user 29.07.2004 16:52 |
"You'd like valid proof? How about the fact that Clinton knew about Osama bin Laden, he watched the first WTC attack unfold, and what did he do? The first WTC attack, that was back by the Iraqis? Nothing." Clinton was another moron. All he knew about was how to screw interns. And in turn, the people of the US. "Later, he used NATO for purposes it wasn't intended for to direct the media's attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. What is your opinion on that?" Again. Moron. "He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism." Same answer. "He was also president when two U.S. embassies were bombed. He was also president when terrorists blew up the U.S.S. Cole. What did he do? Nothing." Same answer again. "Bush, on the other hand, indeed used patrioism. He used patriotism to rally a broken country, to get through a horrendous massacre that could have destroyed another nation. He launched an attack against Afghanistan which is still going on today. Maybe it's not in the news, but we still have men and women there searching for the members of Al-Quaeda. This is something that should have been done long ago." First of all. The country wasn't broken. Stunned maybe, but broken? I doubt it. Maybe Pearl Harbor would be a better thing to talk about being broken. And as for the Afghanistan thing, he tried to blame Bin Laden, anything to get the blame off of him and his cronies. Now that he couldn't kill Bin Laden, he decided to go after Saddam. Still flying the 9-11 flag to do so. There are, and were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN weapons inspectors say so as well. Would you be foolish enough to believe the CIA and the FBI? They can't find their ass with both hands. Peter Jennings interviewed a high ranking official not too long ago and asked him this. 'So there were no weapons of mass destruction?' the reply was 'No.' "And Iraq? What about the sarin gas that has been found? That is indeed a weapon of mass destruction. The Iraqis backed both WTC bombings. Saddam was gassing his own people, and you call Bush a murderer? We should have stepped in and taken down Saddam the tyrant ages ago. Now we have him and, hopefully, he'll get what's coming to him." Sarin gas. Whoopie! Saddam had NO way of getting chemicals here. He barely had enough 'fire power' to launch a rocket to hit Iran. He was NO threat to the US. So he killed his own people. Not a good thing granted, but who is to say what is right or wrong in someone elses country. I don't condone murder in any form (including Capitol Punishment). Bush just wanted a scape goat from the middle east and found one in Saddam since he was too lame to find Bin Laden. So your logic says the USA is 'Big Brother', and can hunt down, and take out whom ever it deems 'bad'. Hell. Lets go after France and Germany then. They didn't back down. They must be tyrants too. They didn't help even when Bush said 'you owe us for WW2'. Bullocks. |
| Margo 29.07.2004 16:59 |
Brandon wrote: Apparently, you don't know your "history." (Shouldn't it be US law? Or, at the very least political science?) Anyway, only CONGRESS can declare war, not the president who is commander in chief.I do think the point that Krizzy was making is that in the past, even though congress did not declare war, the president still pushed on and fought it (like Desert Storm and (if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong) Vietnam), and therefore doesn't REALLY nead congress. (of course, thats against the constitution, but no one respects that nowadays anyhow) |
| Maz 29.07.2004 18:06 |
In Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, the President needed Congressional authorization to use military force. "Declaring War" is largely a legal term that only Congress can do according to the Constitution. (Vietnam and Korea are often referred to as "Police Actions" in a strictly technical sense.) In Vietnam, for instance, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which allowed President Johnson to escalate the conflict in Vietnam by sending more and more troops. The last time that the United States "declared war" was on December 8, 1941. "He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism." George Tenet came highly recommended by the first President Bush, an ex-CIA chief himself. That's one of the reasons that Tenet was one of the few holdovers from Clinton to Bush, Jr. If you truly believe that Tenet screwed up, then both Presidents Clinton and Bush (along with Bush, Sr.) are to blame. |
| iron eagle 29.07.2004 18:29 |
lets not forget the gulf war ended in a cease fire-- WMD or not-- he violated that not once but numerous times--- the end result was through all Saddam's pushing-- Bush ended up pushing back harder..... |
| LittQueenie 29.07.2004 18:31 |
Iron Eagle, I must agree with you, my dear!! You hit the nail on the head again! Right on, baby!!!! :-) |
| Holly2003 29.07.2004 18:38 |
Sorry, that's nonsense. Saddam wasn't "pushing" at all. He wa concerned with maintaining his own power and had no practical ambitions against America. Even the new darling of the right, Christopher Hitchens, agrees with that analysis. Or has everyone forgotten about "pre-emption" now that it has gone out of fashion? |
| Music Man 29.07.2004 18:44 |
_Manley_M@tthew_ wrote: First of all. The country wasn't broken. Stunned maybe, but broken? I doubt it. Maybe Pearl Harbor would be a better thing to talk about being broken. And as for the Afghanistan thing, he tried to blame Bin Laden, anything to get the blame off of him and his cronies. Now that he couldn't kill Bin Laden, he decided to go after Saddam. Still flying the 9-11 flag to do so. There are, and were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN weapons inspectors say so as well. Would you be foolish enough to believe the CIA and the FBI? They can't find their ass with both hands. Peter Jennings interviewed a high ranking official not too long ago and asked him this. 'So there were no weapons of mass destruction?' the reply was 'No.'Pearl Harbor? Break the country? Hell no, it just made it pissed off. 9/11 affected Americans much more deeply than did Pearl Harbor. Although, Pearl Harbor an was unexpected and unprovoked attack which removed a fleet of battleships. I don't know about you, but when our battleships are destroyed, I am deeply affected...I mean, it's so personal. But luckily, I have this neat little country to lay my wrath upon, afterwards eliminating any threat from that country. After 9/11, there was no clear cut enemy whom we could do away with a simple exercise of power. It wasn't so basic as an overt attack from a foreign country. Our country has never had to war against a network of enigmatic and surreptitious terrorists before. George W. Bush chose a path...I don't agree that it was the best path, or a good one at that, but it was a logical path to take at the time. Here's a hypothetical situation: You are the President of the United States of America. A terrorist attack has just been made on two major buildings in one of the country's largest cities. The CIA and British intelligence have concluded that a foreign country is a threat to your country and has been supporting terrorists as the ones who had made the said attack. The entire Congress is pressing for you to go to war. The entire country is pressing for you to go to war. You have the ability and, or so you thought, valid reasons to go to war. What do you do? THIS country is in the hands of the people, not the President. P.S. I truly dislike how people think that a single administration can completely ruin the country...and their family, and that their lives are so much worse with Bush in power. Truthfully, if I payed no heed to the government at all, my life would be none the different, and never would be. |
| iron eagle 29.07.2004 19:19 |
he wasnt pushing? he didnt try to get around the cease fire? the UN inspectors?? perhaps i should use a better PC term then??? |
| LittQueenie 29.07.2004 19:20 |
There are no PC terms to describe what that filth-bag Saddam has been doing.....he is fooling NO ONE. |
| Music Man 29.07.2004 19:30 |
Also, Bush was pushing too, but at the time, most people wanted him to. Honestly, if I had the vote, I'd lean towards Kerry, but I have to point out that Bush isn't the evil man who is the sole ruin to our country that everybody makes him out to be. |
| Holly2003 29.07.2004 19:32 |
So I'm "politically correct" for correcting your revisionist history. Sorry about that... Yes Saddam was an arsehole doing all the things you say, but he was not a threat to the USA. I assume that's what you mean by "pushing"? Bush's policy of preemption is illegal under international law. Sorry to break that news to you. The truth is, however, that America is a super power that spends more on its military budget than the next 14 nations combined, and therefore doesn't worry too much about "law." You may tell yourself you're a "freedom-loving democracy" but to much of the rest of the world America is behaving exactly as one would expect a lone super power to act. Talking about democracy in Iraq, non-existant WOMD, "pushing" etc is smokescreen and wishful thinking. |
| Music Man 29.07.2004 19:38 |
Are you implying that the actions of America are inhibiting freedom and democracy? |
| Holly2003 29.07.2004 19:51 |
When it suits American interests, yes I'm absolutely saying that. Look up American foreign policy behavior in Chile for example. If you don't want to read leftists like Noam Chomsky look up right wing media darling Christopher Hitchens who has written a book about Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger), which details how the US murdered democratically elected politician Salvador Allende and installed the fascist dictator Pinochet instead. How was that "spreading democracy"? Or there was that litte incident called the Vietnam War - 4 million dead. But as long as they died democrats then everything's fine I suppose? |
| Music Man 29.07.2004 19:54 |
Well, honestly, I hold my interests above freedom and democracy. :P And none of that history involves Bush's presidency. |
| iron eagle 29.07.2004 21:04 |
no by pushing i meant the intentional violation and ignoring of the terms of the gulf war cease fire |
| deleted user 29.07.2004 21:06 |
Holly this is one topic we totaly agree on. When 9-11 happened, it was a terrible thing. But it didn't 'break' America. The problem is, that Bush went after Bin Laden. After he figured out that the US FBI and CIA were so useless, he needed someone else to beat up. And that just happened to be Saddam. As Holly says, he was no threat to the US. He was someone to use the 'Shock and Awe' tactic on. IE said that he admits there were no weapons of MD, but quickly adds that 'but he needed to be removed anyway' (not a literal quote...but the same). Oh, so after Bush and his people purposly LIED to the US (the people who were so hurt by the attacks) and ready for any blood (again the over use of the 'patriotic fever' thing that he played on and is still playing on) and after the UN said there was nothing there he decides to bomb the hell out of them anyway. Heck. We could kick their ass anytime. Lets show the world just how powerful the US is. We don't care about International Relations, or what is happening in Israel (a very long term friend of the US) or even in this homeland of ours. Let's not forget about his dealings with ENRON. He got off scott free, and he is just as guilty as the rest of the crooks that are getting busted. Again more lies and decieving the people of the US and the World. The sooner he is gone, the better. The sooner he is gone, the sooner the US can begin the process of taking the troops out of Iraq, and letting them be a country. The sooner he is gone the repair work can begin on relations strained with friendly countries that have been so for eons. He has ruined almost everything that the US stands for in 4 short years. The US can't afford 4 more. |
| deleted user 29.07.2004 21:08 |
iron eagle wrote: i meant the intentional violation and ignoring of the terms of the gulf war cease fireSo that makes it all alright? Isn't that something that the UN should decide? Not 'big brother'. |
| iron eagle 29.07.2004 21:32 |
Answer mine first! :-)) why is Kerry and Edwards absolved from the 'war debacle' when they voted and based their judgement on the same faulty intelligence that bush did?????????????? |
| deleted user 29.07.2004 22:10 |
Ok. I'll try to by my own opinion. By saying that, I'm not brining anyone down, or singling them out. This is how I feel, right or wrong. Paul, I feel that they did it because of the way it was presented to them. Like most of the people did in congress that voted for it. They weren't told the truth, at least the whole truth anyway. That is not an exscuse to get them off the hook. I feel the President and his sources for the war, are more responsible then those who voted for it. If something is presented to you in a way that seems logical, but behind the scenes it's nothing but a guise, then I think you are manipulated into doing something you wouldn't have done if the entire truth were told. I tried my best, and I like conversation with you Eagle, so lets keep it cool :) |
| iron eagle 29.07.2004 22:34 |
They weren't told the truth, at least the whole truth anyway----- yes but neither was Bush--- |
| Saint Jiub 29.07.2004 23:58 |
_Manley_M@tthew_ wrote:Good Idea - Let the United "Oil for Food" Nations decide.iron eagle wrote: i meant the intentional violation and ignoring of the terms of the gulf war cease fireSo that makes it all alright? Isn't that something that the UN should decide? Not 'big brother'. |
| Holly2003 30.07.2004 05:21 |
Bully, as I said, America behaves like one would expect a lone superpower with a massive military budget to behave. So naturally you wouldn't want to let the UN decide because that would be taking a chance that the decision would not be 100% in your favor. Why take that chance of letting the UN decide when you can just force your way through instead? Use your military and economic power to get what you want and call it a war for "democracy" or "freedom" or some other BS even though, as has been mentioned before to the point of tedium, America is not remotely concerned with democracy in the Middle East and never has been. Just ask those great "democratic" allies, the Saudis. Or, if Saddam survives until his trial without suffering a mysterious heart attack or stroke or commits "suicide," maybe he will be able to enlighten us about American support for his "democratic" regime in Iraq for all those years when he was murdering his own people... |
| Music Man 30.07.2004 07:57 |
iron eagle wrote: They weren't told the truth, at least the whole truth anyway----- yes but neither was Bush---That's right. The truth at that point was incorrect and mislead. Then Bush went to war. Now, all of a sudden, half of America comes to the belief that war wasn't such a good idea. What is an incumbent President to do? He has to justify his actions, for, if he admits and acknowledges his faults, he would lose support of both halves. But if he tries to justify his actions, he will have the support of half the country, which is good enough for the election. Do you honestly think that if Bush admitted his wrongs, his attackers would be "Well, that's what we wanted you to say. It's cool now." No, he would receive millions of "I told you so's" a day. That is why it is so ridiculous for people to ask this of him. |
| Saint Jiub 30.07.2004 08:33 |
Hollie - Can you provide a leftist perspective of why the UN is so corrupt and inept? ... or would you rather ignore the oil for food fiasco? |
| deleted user 30.07.2004 08:43 |
"Do you honestly think that if Bush admitted his wrongs, his attackers would be "Well, that's what we wanted you to say. It's cool now." No, he would receive millions of "I told you so's" a day. That is why it is so ridiculous for people to ask this of him." No. If he admited (which he is not man enough to do) that he KNEW that Iraq had no WOMD (which was his basis for attacking and the 'link' between the 9-11 attacks with Saddam and Bin Laden which is total BS) and just said "I want to remove Saddam from power. He's a bad guy that kills his people." Do you think that congress would have given him the green light to attack? Of course not. So in light of all the things that are, and have come out about the fabrication of the 'facts' you can plainly see that he was and is still using the patriotism flag to whip Americans into a fever for the 'War On Terror'. It really is sad that people haven't seen this, and that he'll get votes in November. |
| Krizzy 30.07.2004 09:26 |
War aside Iron Eagle,sir, can you honestly tell me that Bush represents the average Amercian in this country when he is supporting a bill in congress to prevent ppl from suing billion dollar pharmaceutical companies for damages caused by their medications. Mr. Cheney still has money in Halliburton one of the bigger firms who won the contract in rebuilding Iraq....hmmmm. Bush and Cheney representing the average American ppl, sorry I have to disagree. As for Mr. Clinton and the Monica-gate, so what? Many presidents have had affairs that were never leaked to the public. AS far as the first attack on the WTC, I lived in NYC during both attacks and I can tell you there were two fundamental differences between the two. First off the first attack was perpetrated by a group of Muslims living here for quite sometime in America led by a radical Muslim cleric. Secondly the 9/11 attacks were planned for many years overseas by not only the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden (who was given weapons by our government to fight the Russians in 1981 during Reagan's presidency BTW) but by other nations and not one of them mention Iraq or Saddam Hussein. |
| Music Man 30.07.2004 09:33 |
_M@tt_ wrote: No. If he admited (which he is not man enough to do) that he KNEW that Iraq had no WOMD (which was his basis for attacking and the 'link' between the 9-11 attacks with Saddam and Bin Laden which is total BS) and just said "I want to remove Saddam from power. He's a bad guy that kills his people." Do you think that congress would have given him the green light to attack? Of course not. So in light of all the things that are, and have come out about the fabrication of the 'facts' you can plainly see that he was and is still using the patriotism flag to whip Americans into a fever for the 'War On Terror'. It really is sad that people haven't seen this, and that he'll get votes in November.No, Bush was fed information based on CIA and British intelligence that Iraq indeed possessed WMDs and was dangerous. He likely didn't just make up information just so he could attack Iraq. However, afterwards, yes, all his reasoning and all his logic were thrown to the wind. But what I mean is, at the time, his actions were understandable. |
| Music Man 30.07.2004 09:56 |
That seems to be the general attitude. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 30.07.2004 10:23 |
So, I see, you'd rather vote for John "Shoot 'Em in the Back" Kerry? Kerry is a total hypocrite. He'll say anything. Bush at least knows the definition of the word honesty, if I don't always agree with him. Kerry's for things like weekend furloughs for murderers - oh, what a fantastic idea. |
| Music Man 30.07.2004 10:26 |
It's the hypocrite vs. the idiot. Why can't we ever have able people run for office? Because they're all doing the important things in life, like teaching, engineering, and such. Like I say, your life is influenced very little by the guy we call the President. |
| Brandon 30.07.2004 11:02 |
Krizzy wrote: War aside Iron Eagle,sir, can you honestly tell me that Bush represents the average Amercian in this country when he is supporting a bill in congress to prevent ppl from suing billion dollar pharmaceutical companies for damages caused by their medications.Who do you think pays for the lawsuits, though? The next few million people who buy medication!! So why make many millions suffer for the revenge of one? Also, exactly how much is pain and suffering worth? I doubt millions. No, I belive that people should make their millions the old-fashioned way; earn it. Mr. Cheney still has money in Halliburton one of the bigger firms who won the contract in rebuilding Iraq....hmmmm. Bush and Cheney representing the average American ppl, sorry I have to disagree.One of the biggest firms wins a bid in their field of operation??? Now that sounds a little crazy doesn't it??? As for Mr. Clinton and the Monica-gate, so what? Many presidents have had affairs that were never leaked to the public.Two wrongs (Or numerous wrongs as the case may be.) do not make a right. AS far as the first attack on the WTC, I lived in NYC during both attacks and I can tell you there were two fundamental differences between the two.Blaming any one president for these occurances is a mistake. It's taken years of ignoring facts and a relaxed attitude about domestic security to allow 9/11 to occur. We can start with blame, probably s far back as Carter, and not only hit presidents but also leaders of FBI, CIA, etc. PS: I love Zeni and I don't care who knows it! |
| deleted user 30.07.2004 12:00 |
"Bush at least knows the definition of the word honesty, if I don't always agree with him." I'm rubbing my eyes trying to see if that was a typo. He knows the definition of honesty?! Bush and honesty don't work in the same sentence together. Good Lord. Have you been living under a rock for the past 4 years? Shall I go into his honesty a bit for you? 1. Enron 2. The Iraq war 3. "I have created millions of jobs." Maybe for Mexico. While the rest of the US languishes in the worst unemployment to hit in years. Show me the jobs. Michigan still sits around 10%. You want more proof of the 'honest man'? 4. WOMD "We have credible evidence that Saddam had WOMD." Hmm... funny that the UN inspectors didn't find any. And still haven't. And won't because there aren't any. I can go on if you want. |
| Krizzy 30.07.2004 12:09 |
Applauds M@att No one is perfect Mr. Brandon. Certainly not Bush nor Clinton for that matter. Bush making a statement that he is a "War President" certainly scares me enough. Especially since he did not ever really serve overseas in any kind of military action and his "war record" seems to have been conveniently "deleted" by the State Dept. Hmmmm? Honesty once again. Now, don't get me wrong I'm not misguded enough to think that any politicain running for office will be completely honest, certainly not! But there are many many ppl sir, who think Bush is not the man for the job anymore. Kriz :o) |
| Margo 30.07.2004 12:23 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Bush at least knows the definition of the word honesty, if I don't always agree with him.SaraJane, As much as I love you, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Matt also provided examples, but not my favourate one which is a report of terrorist attacks 2002 vs. 2003. The Bush administration used it to show that their 'war on terror' was working because there were much less attacks in 2003. As it turned out, however- the entire month of November for 2003 was left out in the report- and really there was an increase of attacks. honesty? whatever. |
| Holly2003 30.07.2004 12:56 |
"Can you provide a leftist perspective of why the UN is so corrupt and inept? ... or would you rather ignore the oil for food fiasco?" Have I ever said the UN is perfect? It might be a little less imperfect if the USA paid its debts or abided by its decisions. But the US ignores those decisions that go against its interests eg rulings against Israel. And you wonder why people don't trust America to make these decisions for us? In cases like Iraq I would rather have the UN make decisions about war and peace than the US on its own. I guess you can't see why because you're American. But the other 95% of the population of the Earth is not American... Or look at it this way: going it alone has gotten the US into a mess in Iraq. There have been at least 15,000 civilian deaths, and 900+ American. Your huge military budget didn't prevent 9-11, and actions since then won't prevent what your experts call another "inevitable" attack on the US. Added to that, Bin Laden is still running around three years later. Things couldn't have gone much worse for America due to Dubya's go-it-alone policies. How could cooperating with the UN on international issues (including terrorism) be any worse than that record? |
| Ramses 30.07.2004 13:06 |
LOL...It appears that this conversation is going in circles. I purposly avoid political arguments because I see them as pointless. Person A has his opinion and Person B has hers. Nothing either says will change the others opinions, so I just ignore the political differences. We can banter back and forth until November, but why? We've been hearing the same comments for the past four years and i'm quite sick of the rhetoric. The only comment I'll make is a sincere fear I have: I think a lot (majority??) of votes John Kerry will get will be votes against President Bush, not for Kerry. This is unsettling for me, because people should vote as a support for one candidate and his views and not as a vote NOT for Bush. I wish there could be a pleasant solution for all this, but I don't see the left-right line blurring anytime soon. |
| Maz 30.07.2004 13:26 |
"Person A has his opinion and Person B has hers. Nothing either says will change the others opinions," But you forget about Person C, the outsider who merely reads the debate and has no firm opinion. It's them we should be trying to reach. And Brandon- I'm married. But I'll keep you in mind if things start to go south. :) |
| Music Man 30.07.2004 15:01 |
That's one point...but the real reason is...it's fun. |
| iron eagle 30.07.2004 15:52 |
kizzy because i post as i do it should not be assumed i am a Bush fan..... |
| deleted user 30.07.2004 16:30 |
I love you Paul. :) |
| Saint Jiub 30.07.2004 17:21 |
Matt, maybe you have a chance with Paul, because Bush won't let him get married. Matt the reason the jobless rate is so high in Michigan is because Michigan workers are overly bureaucratic , underworked and overpaid (ie unionized). Move to Chicago metro area - the economy is overheating here. Bush may suck, but Kerry and Edwards are twice as bad. Elect them and watch the ecomomy go to the shitter. Colin Powell, John McCain, Tom Daschle, Barrack Obama and Joe Lieberman are just a few off the top of my head that would have been better. Edwards - member of LOL - "Law Office Lottery" |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 30.07.2004 17:46 |
Margo wrote:I respect your point. I was moreso referring to the fact that Kerry flip-flops on his views. He says one thing, then says another...FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Bush at least knows the definition of the word honesty, if I don't always agree with him.SaraJane, As much as I love you, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Matt also provided examples, but not my favourate one which is a report of terrorist attacks 2002 vs. 2003. The Bush administration used it to show that their 'war on terror' was working because there were much less attacks in 2003. As it turned out, however- the entire month of November for 2003 was left out in the report- and really there was an increase of attacks. honesty? whatever. |
| Mr.Jingles 30.07.2004 17:59 |
I respect those who are not very convinced by Kerry due to his flip-flop views. But C'mon!!... After all the crap that Dumbya has gotten us into? If Jessica Simpson, was running against Bush I think I'd vote for her. |
| deleted user 30.07.2004 18:01 |
"Matt, maybe you have a chance with Paul, because Bush won't let him get married." LOL! I'm straight..I just think Paul is a good guy :) Matt the reason the jobless rate is so high in Michigan is because Michigan workers are overly bureaucratic , underworked and overpaid (ie unionized)." That may be partially the truth. However we have lost MANY jobs, including the removal of LifeSavers to Canada, and part of the Johnson Controls plant to Mexico. Over 800 people and counting just from JC alone. Lucky for me I have skill/trade and work for myself. But even so there are more on unemployment because of the above mentioned, then in many years. This shipping out of jobs and training a forigner to take your job has to stop. And Kerry will do it. |
| Mr.Jingles 30.07.2004 18:05 |
Bush is more concerned about not allowing gays to marry than creating new jobs. That tells a lot about him. |
| Music Man 30.07.2004 18:09 |
Bush would not be so concerned if there were not so much political pressure on him concerning the topic. |
| jasen101 30.07.2004 18:21 |
Bush is a drunk texan hick who got into politics because daddy paved the way for him a long time ago. I'm counting down to the day that W gets his ass kicked out of the white house and back to crawford texas were he belongs...with all the other cattle shit. I don't like Kerry that much...his wife is a total bitch...but he is definately the lesser of two evils. |
| Music Man 30.07.2004 18:29 |
You win the Ignorant Post of the Thread Award, congratulations! |
| geeksandgeeks 31.07.2004 20:42 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Okay. Most of these things can be explained._Manley_M@tthew_ wrote: Hmm...I don't think I directed my opinion AT anyone in paticular. If you feel it was troward you, then ooops...sorry. So you are a Bush backer. So what. If you would like to see this country go further into a tailspin than it has been in the last 50 years, then I could care less. You probably watch FOX News too. And no doubt you are blinded by the 'patiotism' act he has been operating under the guise of almost since he first took office. Tell you what. You give me valid proof that he isn't a liar, murderer and complete moron, and I'll listen to you. If not, I have nothing else to say on the subject. Pack a lunch, you'll need it.Yes, I do watch Fox News, along with every other news channel. You'd like valid proof? How about the fact that Clinton knew about Osama bin Laden, he watched the first WTC attack unfold, and what did he do? The first WTC attack, that was back by the Iraqis? Nothing. Later, he used NATO for purposes it wasn't intended for to direct the media's attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. What is your opinion on that? He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism. He was also president when two U.S. embassies were bombed. He was also president when terrorists blew up the U.S.S. Cole. What did he do? Nothing. First of all, Clinton did NOT do "nothing" when the first WTC happened. Clinton immediately increased anti-terrorism spending (which Bush later slashed drastically). A former Reagan speechwriter actually said that he thought the Clinton administration did a wonderful job in the anti-terrorism department, and his only qualm was that - this was before 9/11 - he was TOO OBSESSED with bin Laden. And can you really blame the poor guy for wanting to direct attention away from the Lewinsky thing? Did we really need to know about the stain on the dress? ;) I'm sure we've all gathered by now - I don't like Bush. I think he's mean, manipulative, and and that he's using 9/11 as an excuse to fuck with the Constitution. That said, I wish Dean were the Democratic candidate. He may have acted a bit loony sometimes, but he knew what his opinions were and was not afraid to hold onto them. |
| jasen101 01.08.2004 01:16 |
Hey Music man ... fuck you bitch! Toodles. |
| jasen101 01.08.2004 01:21 |
hey music man...and your posts are so fucking clever?? Fuck you bitch! Toodles. |
| jasen101 01.08.2004 01:28 |
Music Man, you're a stupid c*nt. My post wasn't ignorant. It was to the point. I say things the way they are. I don't write paragraphs of boring crap. Let's hope the next terrorist attack wipes you and Bush out. Maybe then we'll have less innocent american troops dying for WMD's that don't exist. |
| Saint Jiub 01.08.2004 02:24 |
I love the smell of political debate on Queenzone in the morning. |
| The Real Wizard 02.08.2004 01:41 |
jasen101 wrote: Let's hope the next terrorist attack wipes you and Bush out. Maybe then we'll have less innocent american troops dying for WMD's that don't exist.lol... amen |
| Krizzy 02.08.2004 14:40 |
My mistake Iron Eagle and I do apologize. LOL@Jasen101! Kriz ;o) |
| Margo 02.08.2004 16:01 |
jasen101 wrote: I don't like Kerry that much...his wife is a total bitch...but he is definately the lesser of two evils.Kerrys wife is awesome- shes really into politics and not at all stupid- which is nice. I really liked her talk at the DNC. otherwise- i agree wholeheartedly with your post. |
| FairyQueen 02.08.2004 18:29 |
Well, I found something out that shows Kerry in his true form, oh boy. He tells the Arab league that the wall Israel built was wrong and unjustified, etc. Then, hear this people. He tells a Jewish organization right after, that the wall is justified and is for their own protection and that Israel has every right to do it. WTF? I don't trust him. I know you're gonna' start with "Oh, Bush is a big fat liar, blah, blah". Bush doesn't act like a goddamn backstabbing friend, because that is what Kerry reminds me of, an un-pretty one for that matter. Please, don't vote for this guy, Kerry, just because you have a deep unjust hatred for Bush. The world isn't stable enough for Kerry and he tells you things that are different from what he told another person. I have a bad feeling about this guy, I don't hate Kerry but, he's a little off. I knew something wasn't right when he would always hang around Ted Kennedy. Kerry only tells you what you want to hear and you are not sure if that are his true feelings.For example, he was at a Pro-abortion rally. Then a few days later he says, personally he's against abortion but, he believes women should have the right to an abortion. WTF? Then why didn't he say that at the rally? At least Bush is straight foward, agree with him or not, he tells you what needs to be said. By the way, about this Iraq war. If the MI-6, the Russian intelligence, FBI or CIA, even the French are saying, "Yea this guy has some dangerous stuff", I wouldn't want a president to sit on his ass and say , "Lets do nothing", Bush didn't lie. It's rediculous the amount of hindsight that are coming out of people's mouths. Clinton even said himself that he would have went to start a war with Iraq without any support whatsoever, not from the U.N., no one. That says something and this was on CNN. I don't get it when Kerry says we went to the war alone. WTF? What does this son of a hound dog mean? The last time I checked, we had 30 allied countries with us and we also had 17 out of the 26 NATO countries. Did Kerry want more NATO countries? He should stop hanging around Ted Kennedy before he kills someone. To me, that's just insulting the countries that went in there with us and Kerry looks at them as if they're not there. He spits on them. Oh, I'm sorry. How dare I state the facts, I'm going to hell now, aren't I? Is it a special hell for people who are't crazy? Anyway, that's my opinion my fellow peeps, enjoy yourselves! P.S Just because someone serves in a war doesn't make them smarter or dumber than the person next to them. In the army you just take orders and do what you have to do. Unless you were a goddamn commander or general, it shouldn't make a difference in an election considering it obivoulsy didn't matter to democrats when Clinton was running in 96'. Bush served 5 out of 6 years for the army. He was a goddamn pilot and a lietenant. It's a pain in the ass to become a pilot. They don't give a hoot who you are, you still have to gove through years of training which Bush did. I know Bush didn't serve in the war and I say, didn't Kerry turn against his fellow soldiers after the war, therefore making him a backstabber? I'm sorry, but Kerry shouldn't be glorifying his service in Vietnam if he seemed to be so ashamed of it. |