PW: john kerry, what a guy [Archive] - Zilvia.net Forums | Nissan 240SX (Silvia) and Z (Fairlady) Car Forum

TBreu007

09-15-2004, 11:23 PM

It's easy to stereotype and go along with what is heard in the media like elite rich people= Republican and hard working blue collar people and minorities= Democrat.
Bottom line is all government is corrupt and all political parties are corrupt. Democrats say "we're starting this new government program called (insert name here)". The truth is, they get kickbacks as well as all their buddies while taxpayers get the shaft because tax money is going into an official's pocket. Try and get money from a government "program" whether it's FEMA, dept. of labor, or whatever and you'll see what I mean.
Republicans are a bit more crafty. They get kickbacks from big business and in turn give them tax breaks and other perks to "stimulate the economy" and "create more jobs". That being said...didn't NAFTA get pushed through when a Democrat was in office? hummmmmm
The truth is, Kerry's wife is one of the most wealthy women in the world and regularly donates millions to leftist extremist groups. Do we want any kind of extremist in office? Bush on the other hand is a religious extremist...I personally don't want religion in my government either whether it's the same religion as mine or not!
I'm trying to get everyone to think and not trying to bias anyone now, but I GUARANTEE we would have more terrost attacks and more America women and children dead if GW didn't blow the shit out of "Al-Kaka". With something like 80% of those cowards dead or in jail, that a whole lot less people that could or would attack us. Yes, anyone can strap on a bomb and blow themselves up in a public place ala Israel, but it's very tough to arrange something like a 911 with GW and pals looking for a fight.

The only just government is no government the only democracy is pure democracy.
Anarchy in the USA :)
Stepping off soapbox

edit nasty typo

kazuo

09-16-2004, 02:47 AM

You know how you protect America from terrorism? Stop getting in other countries mix.. thats how this shit all started anyway, and you're mistaken if you believe otherwise.

Imagine you are chilling in your house, and your neighbor from down the street comes over and decides he doesnt like the fact that you live there. So he kicks you out and gives the house to someone else.

Wouldn't you be pissed off too, esp. if he killed a family member and/or destroyed your existing home in the process?

Voting for the President based of how well he will "protect us from terrorism" is stupid and laughable because the only way they can do that is turn this country into a police state, and if you vote for Bush, that is potentially (very likely, in fact) what you will be getting us into.

Sieg Bush! Sieg der Kaiser!

"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
- Theodore Roosevelt

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither."
- Benjamin Franklin

Imporant quotes to keep in mind.

If we don't learn from the past, we won't learn anything at all.

kazuo

09-16-2004, 02:51 AM

The only just government is no government the only democracy is pure democracy.
Anarchy in the USA :)
Stepping off soapbox

edit nasty typo

I'm sorry, but anarchy is the dumbest idea of all time, next to communism and the pet rock.

The best kind of government is a dictatorship. :D

The only problem is that the dictator must be a just man; he cannot be a tyrant. That goes without saying.

The country would be better off as a true republic IMHO.. our psuedo-democracy doesnt work for the most part anyways.

sykikchimp

09-16-2004, 08:22 AM

I understand that Kerry has been portrayed as someone who "waffles", but it simply isn't so. The Bush campaign has crafted that view by peicing together specific statements without all facts included. He hasn't flip-flopped, he simply sees the BIG picture, and takes in all the information when making a decision.

Why is Bush an Ass Hat? hmm...
http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-05-12/news.html

Bbandit

09-16-2004, 08:41 AM

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/

aznpoopy

09-16-2004, 09:06 AM

kazuo : you're oversimplifying the problem in the middle-east. it's a combination of a lot of complex factors with a lot of history... oil and culture being two major parts of the problem. we've been under attack for decades, but the public conscious didn't realize it till 9-11. they don't hate us b/c we suddenly kicked down their door one day and started shooting at em... it goes way deeper then that.

the reason i dislike bush is that he lied to the american public, pure and simple. weapons of mass destruction? link to terrorists? no and no. so remind me why we went into iraq again? how are we safeguarding our borders by invading another country? bush knew it was a lie from the start... my guess was he was hoping to find something to justify the war after the fact and overestimated saddam's development capacity.

not to say his agenda in iraq has no just cause to it - democracy in the middle east. however, if you believe that policy is for THEIR benefit you are kidding yourself. middle east is a hotbed for global conflict and we're protecting our own interests by trying to mold them into something they're not. that doesn't mean i think it's wrong... hell if it keeps me alive i'm all for it. but, it's gone the wrong way and i don't think it's going to work. for that, IMO he's out.

Var

09-16-2004, 09:20 AM

Andrew Bohan

09-16-2004, 09:21 AM

thanks to whoever added the "PW"
it didn't need it at first, but it sure does now

RJF

09-16-2004, 10:46 AM

thanks to whoever added the "PW"
it didn't need it at first, but it sure does now

That's why I get paid the big bucks.... :)

Has this discussion run its course? Do I hear a motion for a lock?

ThatGuy

09-16-2004, 11:13 AM

:lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd:

BTW: Vote for Bush so I can keep my job, please.* :D
With Kerry's proposed military budget cuts, I'm not sure my experimental aircraft will make the grade. :cry:

*Not the complete reason to vote for Bush, but the one that hits the closest to home for me.*

sykikchimp

09-16-2004, 11:13 AM

lock? why?

autobahNESSA

09-16-2004, 11:47 AM

Whats PW mean?
My conclusions from reading this thread
Bush= screwup
Kerry= deuchbag (sp)

vote neither go green party! :rofl:

Andrew Bohan

09-16-2004, 11:59 AM

political warning
don't read unless you want a political debate

TBreu007

09-16-2004, 12:03 PM

I'm sorry, but anarchy is the dumbest idea of all time, next to communism and the pet rock.

The anarchy comment was said a bit tongue in cheek...stupid comments with :D after them usually mean someone is screwing around.

And FWIW, communism is a great IDEA...it works lovely on paper. It's an awful idea on execution though.

The justification on the war with Iraq is this...Iraq was defeated and signed disarmament agreements. Those agreements stated UN inspectors had the right to inspect any site they wanted to look for WMD, or whatever the hell they wanted to look for. Iraq stopped those inspectors on numerous occasions...what was Iraq hiding? Look at it this way...imagine after WW2 when Gremany was defeated...what if Gremany didn't allow allied officials into airplane factories to make sure they were beign dismantled. After WW2 we would have just bombed those factories, or started WW2 all over again. Iraq defied the US and the UN and dishonored a signed agreement; in doing so, they brought whe war on themselves. If inspectors were allowed into those sites to see for themselves there were no WMD, there probably would not have been a war and Saddam would still be in power....and all of the middle east would still hate us as much as they do now.

RJF

09-16-2004, 01:42 PM

:lockd: :lockd: :lockd: :lockd:

Do I have a second?

Var

09-16-2004, 01:56 PM

nobody is bickering in here, it's all in good taste

Andrew Bohan

09-16-2004, 03:37 PM

smady's lock happy

TBreu007

09-16-2004, 07:45 PM

AHHHHHHHHHHH! People are having a somewhat intelligent discussion on an internet car chat board without bickering...LOCK IT QUICK! Before someone starts using their brain! :rolleyes:

ThatGuy

09-16-2004, 07:53 PM

I threw in my :lockd: because I dislike political debates. Usually they turn into pissing contests. This one however has been somewhat decent thus far. As long as everyone stays mature about this, we should be ok. I'm am not withdrawing my :lockd: vote, simply delaying it.

Carry-on.

TheTimanator

09-16-2004, 09:10 PM

But when stem-cell research is being banned, .
Not sure if someone else already mentioned this but...

Goverment funded stem-cell research on aborted babies was banned. Privately funded research is still legal.

For those of you that bash Bush. You can join the Communist Party. They hate GWB. The CP (as well as Fidel Castro and the Dictator of North Korea) actually endorses Kerry. Checkout there website if you don't believe me http://www.cpusa.org

For those that support Kerry: Do you really want 2 lawyers running the country? Talking about how the Republicans are only for the rich. The Kerry's are insanely rich. Teresa doesn't even know what Chili is! haha. Did any of you guys see the report John Stossel did on Edwards?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/GMAB_edwards_040723-1.html

I don't care how much you hate Bush, but how could you vote for Kerry?

TheTimanator

09-16-2004, 09:12 PM

oh...and no matter who you're for you gotta check this out. haha :rofl:

http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp

mbmbmb23

09-16-2004, 09:23 PM

Vote Kerry; bring the English language BACK to the Whitehouse.

Speaking of "English" someone needs to give Theresa Heinz-Kerry some "how to sound like an American when speaking" lessons........hows she gonna be the heiress to an "all American" company (and first lady) while speaking English with a funky Euro accent?

-m

Andrew Bohan

09-16-2004, 11:30 PM

hows she gonna be the heiress to an "all American" company (and first lady) while speaking English with a funky Euro accent?

by just being who she is, because in america it doesn't matter where you're from (except if you wanna be president).

check out arnold. he's from austria and still has his accent, and he's the governor of califuckinfornia

evilimport

09-17-2004, 04:22 AM

The justification on the war with Iraq is this...Iraq was defeated and signed disarmament agreements. Those agreements stated UN inspectors had the right to inspect any site they wanted to look for WMD, or whatever the hell they wanted to look for. Iraq stopped those inspectors on numerous occasions...what was Iraq hiding? Look at it this way...imagine after WW2 when Gremany was defeated...what if Gremany didn't allow allied officials into airplane factories to make sure they were beign dismantled. After WW2 we would have just bombed those factories, or started WW2 all over again. Iraq defied the US and the UN and dishonored a signed agreement; in doing so, they brought whe war on themselves. If inspectors were allowed into those sites to see for themselves there were no WMD, there probably would not have been a war and Saddam would still be in power....and all of the middle east would still hate us as much as they do now.
This is very well written and absolutely true A+!

and to all you people who say "Bush lies. Bush lies!" -- bullshit. He acted on information at the time that was the best he couldve had or that anyone couldve had. He made a decision based on those "facts". A year or so later nothings turned up...He didnt lie, he made a desicion on bad information that wasnt his fault to begin with. It sucks none-the-less, but there is a lot of good going on in iraq now (you wont see it on the news though) because we went in.

Kerry? Isnt that a girl's name? <-- :mrmeph:

HaLo

09-17-2004, 08:25 AM

Kerry? Isnt that a girl's name? <-- :mrmeph:
Bush? Isn't that plant's name? :rolleyes:

Let's try to keep this civilized unless you want this topic locked down...

RJF

09-17-2004, 09:17 AM

And FWIW, communism is a great IDEA...it works lovely on paper. It's an awful idea on execution though.

Speaking of Communism...guess who the Communist Party endorses this year? (Found this on another website.) :eek:

We aren't running a candidate for president this year simply because John Kerry embodies much of what we believe and wish to accomplish for this country. Also, the reality is that if Bush is going to be defeated this year, it will be by Kerry, and it is crucial that we beat Bush. Bush is a ruling class candidate and there are significant differences between him and Kerry-for example, You will not hear John Kerry invoke the name of God which we find repulsive. Countries in the Middle-East are terrified of Bush and his so-called war on terrorism. We trust Kerry will not pursue war there and exit Iraq and Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Cuba is worried that if Bush is re-elected, Bush will invade Cuba. For example, Kerry has pledged to sign a bill legalizing card-check union elections, which would result in the organization of many million more workers into the labor movement. While we disagree with some of Kerry's positions, we aren't indifferent to the differences between the Republican and Democratic positions and policies. Republicans completely disagree with our agenda and the Democrates mostly agree. Also it may interest you to know that Kerry has been endorsed by virtually all of the communist world to include Cuba, China and Vietnam. We aren't running national candidates this year for several reasons:
1. Our focus on the defeat (or re-defeat) of Bush. This is the critical task facing our country.
2. Since we are a small party, we don't want to dissipate our efforts.
3. Over the past decades, many state legislatures have made it more difficult to get candidates on the ballot-by requiring huge numbers of voter's signatures, by requiring that anyone who signs a petition to place a "minor" party candidate on the ballot is thereby ineligible to vote in a major party primary, or requiring signatures from all counties in a state. The requirements vary from state to state, but these requirements constitute a significant barrier to ballot access, and consume huge resources just to get on the ballot in most states.

Thanks for your interest, and I hope this response clarifies our
position.

Peace and Socialism,

Marc Brodine
Chairman
Communist Party
USA National Office

sykikchimp

09-17-2004, 01:58 PM

Not sure if someone else already mentioned this but...

Goverment funded stem-cell research on aborted babies was banned. Privately funded research is still legal.

For those of you that bash Bush. You can join the Communist Party. They hate GWB. The CP (as well as Fidel Castro and the Dictator of North Korea) actually endorses Kerry. Checkout there website if you don't believe me http://www.cpusa.org

For those that support Kerry: Do you really want 2 lawyers running the country? Talking about how the Republicans are only for the rich. The Kerry's are insanely rich. Teresa doesn't even know what Chili is! haha. Did any of you guys see the report John Stossel did on Edwards?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/GiveMeABreak/GMAB_edwards_040723-1.html

I don't care how much you hate Bush, but how could you vote for Kerry?

That article is repugnant at best. It attempts to blame Edwards for the faults of our ENTIRE legal system. Absolute non-sense.

Did you actually read the link to the article I posted earlier?

if you do, I say the same.. How can you possibly vote for Bush, (who btw makes Kerry (minus his wife.) look like poor white trash when it comes to net worth.

TheTimanator

09-17-2004, 02:01 PM

Speaking of Communism...guess who the Communist Party endorses this year? (Found this on another website.) :eek:

Cool, you found it. Thats what I was looking for.

sykikchimp

09-17-2004, 02:04 PM

Of course the communist party will endorse Kerry. He's a liberal democrat. Democratic views have always embraced a govt. helping the people which is what socialism, and communism are all about. OBVIOUSLY being democratic is NOT being communist. It just happens that they are a poor party and need to attach themselves to someone elses party to get any sort of a voice.

It would be akin to just about any religious extremist group backing the republican party..

RBS14

09-17-2004, 11:43 PM

don't let Bush and his gang of incompetent fucks feed you shit! that is exactly what he has done over the last 4 years. The U.S. is in the worst shape it has been in in a long time. I'm begging of you guys:

VOTE FOR KERRY!

you ask what can Kerry do that bush can't? why should I vote for him over Bush?

Because he won't put this country into a worse state of dissaray, debt, and contempt from other nations. He wont be able to clean things up in Iraq in a jiffy, nobody could. But what he won't do is go and do it all over again somewhere else, where as I would not put it past bush for one second to create another horrible situation like this that is costing our nation over 100 human casualties a month (and Iraq CIVILIANS 10x that), fighting a war we cannot win.

I know he's not the best, but he is MUCH better than the retard who is running the conuntry now.

go watch Farenheight 9/11. It'll open your eyes. Seriously. It's easy to accept all the crap our current administration says and whatnot, but if you investigate, you find a whole different story.

seeing how as most of Zilvia.Net's community is made up of males of age to be drafted (I know this is an extreme example) ask yourself this....

would you be willing to go fight in Iraq/Afghanistan?

He is fighting a war that cannot be won. plain and simple. On top of that, he is going about it the worst way possible.

THINK for yourself.

evilimport

09-18-2004, 12:58 AM

go watch Farenheight 9/11.
That movie is full of bullshit and outright lies and its been proven in quite a few places. If youre basing your voting on a half-ass movie made by an ignorant asshole (who's known for being an asshole and an outright lier) then youve got some thinking to do.... :confused:

Even Bin Laden's brother said that the movie is full of lies and half truths. :keke:

That pathetic movie shouldve never made it to the theaters. M.M. is anti-American. :madfawk:

evilimport

09-18-2004, 03:52 AM

of course these debates can go on for ever......

RBS14

09-18-2004, 12:04 PM

I don't personally like Michael Moore, however some of the stuff in it is true. Not all of it, but it still has some good points in it. all of the shit with the saudi's supporting the Bush family business endeavours.

No I am not basing my opinion on it, but it sure doesn't make dubbya look any better in my mind. His (dubbya)'s blatent disregard for every nuclear treaty as well as many environmental gains made by Clinton are all down the shitter also. I base my political views on a large base of information, not just a movie by a far left wing documentarian.

Oh yea, if any of you are thinking of voting for Nader........ DONT!!! you might as well be voting for bush. Vote for kerry if you are going to vote for Nader.... that incompetent ass.

Andrew Bohan

09-18-2004, 12:11 PM

gore would have won if nader didn't run last time

RBS14

09-18-2004, 12:16 PM

yea, I know. Not that I like gore, but he's better than the shrub. And if you watch farenheight 9/11, you will see that gore actually won the election anyways. that one's not debatable.

citizen

09-18-2004, 12:38 PM

Citizen for Pres!
/end debate

RJF

09-18-2004, 12:42 PM

you will see that gore actually won the election anyways. that one's not debatable.

Here we go again.....the election was stolen. More BS... :blah:

Even CNN (Clinton News Network) reported that Bush won.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/

RBS14

09-18-2004, 02:05 PM

^^^^^

yea, after a bush affiliate reported it before anyone else had!

I'm not complaining, its' in the past, there is nothing we can do about it now. However I was just pointing it out.

It's so funny, political debating/discussing is sooooo pointless. nobody is ever going to change the other person's point of view.

so what are your reasons for wanting to actually vote for him? besides "because he is a good president." or some shit like that. what GOOD has he done our nation in these last 4 years?

I just can't describe how happy I am the presidents are limited to 2 terms. thank god!

KA24DESOneThree

09-18-2004, 02:08 PM

He may not be the best leader in the world, but at least Bush isn't the twatwaffle Kerry is.

You're a dick to idiots AND like Bush more than Kerry.... GODMOD!

nismo2491

09-18-2004, 02:30 PM

bush all the way. and yes I am more than willing to fight in iraq or afghanistan or korea or anywhere they want to send me to fight. I knew what I was doing when I signed the papers.
Semper Fi
KEvin

MakotoS13

09-18-2004, 02:54 PM

bush all the way. and yes I am more than willing to fight in iraq or afghanistan or korea or anywhere they want to send me to fight. I knew what I was doing when I signed the papers.
Semper Fi
KEvin

i just wish they'd quit interviewing the ones that were watching their bank account while they signed up. when you join the military you sign up to do whatever they say no matter what... its a VOLUNTARY thing.

rockorz to you and anyone else that signs that dotted line and doesn't puss out when the lead starts flying.

evilimport

09-18-2004, 03:20 PM

RBS14

09-18-2004, 03:46 PM

ThatGuy

09-18-2004, 05:06 PM

nismo2491

09-18-2004, 05:09 PM

I never said I agreed with this war, and I never said that I disagreed with it either. I have real mixed views on it personally. I am willing to fight with my life for anything this country asks though. like I said I knew the risks when I signed up.
KEvin

mrmephistopheles

09-18-2004, 05:21 PM

And if you watch propaganda films, you will see that jews are inferior and evil anyways. that one's not debatable.

Anyone spotting a trend here?

RBS14

09-18-2004, 05:54 PM

interesting quote there. I guess i'm a Nazi now. Ich bin der fuhrer!

Nismo2491: That is exactly what I am asking you to do tho. question what the president is asking. What if he wanted you to chop your head off. would you do it? Thinking for yourself is very important. I don't care if the president is a Democrat or Republican, when it comes to something as important as your life, you owe it to yourself to figure out whether what is being asked of you is fair or not. There are many reasons we are fighting in Iraq right now, and many of them are personal reasons to Bush. Is that your problem? Is his beef with people worth your life?

MakotoS13

09-18-2004, 07:06 PM

I hope with all my heart that you get home safe, as I do not want any of our troops killed.

However, it's too bad that you are so misguided as to think that it is actually worth you life to fight for this.

it's too bad you can't see that it doesn't matter what they are going because its their job. they pledged their life to any cause our government deams worthy. that is the life of the warrior.

evil can only triumph if good men do nothing, just be glad someone is willing to "waste" their life while you watch a media that sells you whatever story you want if it gets enough ratings.

and i swear the next time i hear "michael moore is a genius" i'm gonna snap...

RBS14

09-18-2004, 07:56 PM

it's too bad you can't see that it doesn't matter what they are going because its their job. they pledged their life to any cause our government deams worthy. that is the life of the warrior.

that's some crazy talk. "the life of a warrior" ? this is 2004. People are allowed to think for themselves, you won't be decapitated for it.

What If I happened to be the president and I was having our troops march into kilns and roasting them to death? Is that the life of a warrior? doing whatever the person in charge thinks is right? The mentality you have is exactly what leads to the rise of people like stallin, hitler etc. doing whatever you are told, no matter if it is right, wrong, good, bad. What would happen if everyone in our nation thought like you and we got someone even crazier than bush into office. He could tell everyone to go kill the first person that said Hi to them and they would do it because "it's what our country thinks is best" :jerkit:

read my previous post about michale moore. I never said he was a genious. In fact I said I didn't like him, and I don't. He's an egotistical idiot. However, he does have some good points.

RJF

09-18-2004, 08:02 PM

What would happen if everyone in our nation thought like you and we got someone even crazier than bush into office.

Like Kerry? He seems to have multiple personalities, since he's always on both sides of an issue. :)

RBS14

09-18-2004, 09:11 PM

Like Kerry? He seems to have multiple personalities, since he's always on both sides of an issue. :)

sitting on a fence post is worse than sending your country into a war on which the basis is purely fictional? c'mon man.

nismo2491

09-18-2004, 10:50 PM

Var

09-19-2004, 01:13 AM

Like Kerry? He seems to have multiple personalities, since he's always on both sides of an issue. :)

that's bs

sitting on a fence post is worse than sending your country into a war on which the basis is purely fictional? c'mon man.

and that's bs

This is the most generic argument i always hear about both sides and they are both untrue

evilimport

09-19-2004, 04:17 AM

yeah some of the reasons we are in Iraq are personal but also look at the whole picture here.
the reason we are there isn't because he tried to kill big George Bush. thats just what the media nitpicks at. after the first gulf war there was signed treaty's saying that Iraq couldn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). and in making sure that they didn't UN could inspect their stuff anytime they wanted. Look at how many times the UN inspectors weren't allowed into factories to inspect, or were told to come back a week later or whatever. whether or not they had WMD is beside the point. as a safety issue we had to make sure they didn't and saddam wasn't letting us. thats the major reasons we are there.
KEvin
this is true, and I stated this earlier, I think. I dont understand how people cant see that...?
A soldiers job and duty to to follow the commander in chief orders, that is it. Plain and simple. "if the president said to cut your head off would you do it?" What in the hell kind of example is this?? Of course not, gezzus, our soldiers arent stupid. If the next country we need to get our hands on to straighten this terrorist mess out ends up being Iran (or wherever) the soldier's duty to his country is to take that opposing country and secure it. If the day comes where soldiers start disagreeing and disobeying orders because they might not agree with whats going on, THAT will be a sad day in the history of our mighty Armed Forces and will ultimately lead to our demise. Our military is the best in the world, HANDS-DOWN! They know what they are doing and they are the best at doing it.
Besides, guys, think about it, when democracy takes over in Iraq and every corner has a Wendys and a Jiffy Mart, with a Wal-Mart Supercenter around the corner and an SR20 swap shop next to that, and every little Iraqi child has internet access in their own bedrooms and are well on their way to any Iraqi "IVY" league college. Iraq will be the shining light in the mid-east, the new Paris, an example of what CAN be with some open minds at work. Hell, it would be great one day for any of us to go jet skiing in the Tigris River because you could. There is such a bigger picture here than people wanna see. The road getting there is bound to be tough, but you gotta see the end product. Unfortunantly, it takes time and, well, lives to achieve such great things.

RJF

09-19-2004, 09:23 AM

that's bs

and that's bs

This is the most generic argument i always hear about both sides and they are both untrue

Really?

Kerry is always on both sides of the issues, depending on how the poll results or what the focus-groups are saying. As an example, he's changed his stance on Iraq so many times, it's hard to keep track if he's for the war or against it this week.

I have a 13-page document that shows his frequent "change-of-mind", it's too long to post here, but I can send it to you if you are really interested.

The Oval Office is where the final decision has to be made, we can't have anyone in there that's going to "waffle" when the media or public sentiment starts disagreeing with the President's decisions. That'll do more harm than good and risk even more American lives.

DuffMan

09-19-2004, 11:01 AM

All I have to say is:

1000 American soldiers dead
Thousands injured

20,000+ (conservative estimate) Non-combatant Iraqis dead.

Are we any safer: no. Are we less safe than before we invaded Iraq: most likely.

And yet people belive Bush keeps us safer :cj:

RJF

09-19-2004, 12:42 PM

September 11, 2001 - 3000+ Americans killed....or is everyone forgetting that? And what did we do to prompt that attack?

USS Cole attack (2000) - 17 Navy Sailors killed

US Embassy bombings (1998, I think) - Several hundred killed, mostly Africans.

What were the reasons for those attacks?

-----------------------------------------------------
Have there been anymore attacks here? Like those in Europe(Spain) or Russia? Numerous terrorist cells have been eliminated/arrested, along with a number of plots stopped before they happened. Plus, all the new security measures that are being taken to protect us and our infrastructure. I know, since I've been working on homeland security related projects for over 2+ years now.

So, I would say we are safer.

As for the American soldiers lives lost, it is sad, but they fought for this country, so we can be sitting here debating issues and not be worrying about attacks in malls, subways, schools or sporting events.

The 20,000+ non-combatants killed in Iraq: Who is killing them? Not us, but instead other Iraqis and these terrorist nut-jobs, who want to kill us as well.

National security and winning this war on terror is key to our way of life, because if we get hit big again, especially somewhere vital, like Wall Street, banking/financial, it'll hurt us all.

RJF

09-19-2004, 12:59 PM

Plus there are all these facts on why not to vote for Kerry. :D

http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/index.php

RBS14

09-19-2004, 03:10 PM

RJF: there have been absolutely no connections between 9/11 and Iraq, whatsoever. So what we need to do is try to fight terrorism, not Iraq. that's what I disagree with. Another reason to get bush out of office is that so many people hate him now, we are quite possibly at a greater risk of an attack now then before.

Duffman: exactly.

Nismo2491: That was one of the interesting parts of Farenheight 9/11. They've got video of Colon Powell, Condolezza Rice, Cheney and some other officials all saying that they had no reason to believe Sadaam had even the capabilities to acquire the materials needed to make WMD, much less produce them. that was shortly after Bush got into office. Then after 9/11, they are all on video saying the EXACT opposite of what they said before. Coinicidence? I think not. As for the inspectors, it's a mixed bag. Them being kept out of certain areas alone is hardly a basis for a war. it's one of what should have been many reasons. but Bush didn't have any other good reasons (because there wern't any) so he made that the reason. It's especially interesting that now that we have access to those places, and we still havn't found any WMD. Another thing to note is that many of the inspectors felt that they were cut short and didn't have adequate time to do their job. Bush should have listened to them, they are the inspectors. They know what their job is better than he does.

another thing that I hate is that he declared the "war" over, over a year ago. I'd say losing an average of 3 us troops a day in warfare half way around the world would be considered war. He won't even give our soldiers the dignity of acknowledging it as a war. It's just a "conflict" bullshit! If I was in the military, i'd be really pissed that he is trying to play down the fact that we are actually at war. He's just pretending you guys (service men) are going over for tea and crumpets. It really bugs me.

Evilimport: I'm not saying that our troops should start disobeying orders at all. what I am saying is that they should look at all of the facts BEFORE they sign up. Once you are in, you don't have a choice on what to do. However, before you are in is when you have the coice. I just so easy to listen to bush and believe what he says. He tries to make people feel unpatriotic (something nobody wants to be accused of) if they believe differently than he does. It's a lot easier to listen to one person and believe it then do research and find out the other side of the story. I'm sure you can agree that there are ALWAYS 2 sides to a story.

DuffMan

09-19-2004, 04:08 PM

RJF

09-19-2004, 05:36 PM

RBS14

09-19-2004, 06:52 PM

yes he helped terrorists, but Saudi Arabia is a MUCH larger backer of terrorism. 15 of the 18 major people involved in 9/11 were Saudi nationals, and none were Iraqi. and there are more training camps in Saudi Arabia then Iraq, so that's not a valid statement. yea we went after someone aiding terrorism, but a country next door is a much bigger contributor than Iraq. haha....... when is "yet" going to turn into today? we can't even take care of our own people within our borders, that's what's wrong with "liberating" 25 million Iraquis.

DuffMan

09-19-2004, 07:40 PM

I never said that Iraq was connected to 9/11 or those other attacks, but Iraq was a haven for terrorists. There were training camps in the country, along with Hussein sending money to the terrorist families of those blowing themselves up in Israel.

Also, while we haven't found any WMD yet....Saddam did have chemical weapons and he used them on his own people in the mid-90's. How difficult would it be to bury some trucks in the dessert? Not very.

As for removing Saddam from power and liberating 25 million Iraqis, what's wrong with that?

Why didn't we bitch when we sent troops to Somalia or to Kosovo? American soldiers died there too. Were those missions more important and what did they have to do with our security? Or could it have been there was someone else in the White House?

Iraq being a haven for terrorists, and loosely supporting terrism in Israel is not a justification for war. If that was valid criteria for war, we would be at war with almost the entire middle east. It's like someone kills your brother, so you retaliate by killing their 2nd cousin twice removed that they met once at a wedding when they were 5. Just doesn't make sense.

Somalia and Kosovo we got involved to stop a massive loss of life. In Iraq we've only increased the loss of life. Yes Sadam was an evil dictator, but over the last 10 years, the country has been relatively peacefull. The most loss of life of under Sadam was durring the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s and the rebellions that occurred after the 1st Gulf War that we encouraged but then didn't support. But recently the country was stable.

Whats wrong with liberating 25 million people? Well some of them didn't want to be liberated, and now we have violence that shows no signs of stopping or even slowing down. That and we've lost a lot of support from the rest of the world, and motivated more of the middle east to hate us.

RBS14

09-20-2004, 12:45 AM

Besides, guys, think about it, when democracy takes over in Iraq and every corner has a Wendys and a Jiffy Mart, with a Wal-Mart Supercenter around the corner and an SR20 swap shop next to that, and every little Iraqi child has internet access in their own bedrooms and are well on their way to any Iraqi "IVY" league college. Iraq will be the shining light in the mid-east, the new Paris, an example of what CAN be with some open minds at work. Hell, it would be great one day for any of us to go jet skiing in the Tigris River because you could. There is such a bigger picture here than people wanna see. The road getting there is bound to be tough, but you gotta see the end product. Unfortunantly, it takes time and, well, lives to achieve such great things.

hahahahahahaha.... I didn't actually read this until just now. have you ever heard of Imperialism? that is word for word what you just described. It's never been beneficial to anyone and has never worked. we've already tried in the Philippines in the early 1900's and Mexico shorly thereafter. So it's miraculously work over in Iraq? If bush could pull his head out of his ass he could learn from the past endeavours of U.S. presidents and their Imperialist tactics, to see that it never works. What even makes you think that they want a wal mart on every corner? that's the most fucked up thing I've heard in a long time. we have our culture, they have theirs. We have absolutely no right to force it on them.

Bush would have been wise to follow his father's footsteps in enlisting the help of the United Nations Security Council, and created a coalition including Iraq's neighbors to deal with Iraq. what did he do instead? esentially told them to go to hell, we don't need your help. look where that got us. And why wouldn't any of Iraq's neighboring countries join, because bush was attempting to something so stupid that none of them would back him? what does that tell you?

evilimport

09-20-2004, 03:56 AM

Yes Sadam was an evil dictator, but over the last 10 years, the country has been relatively peacefull. The most loss of life of under Sadam was durring the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s and the rebellions that occurred after the 1st Gulf War that we encouraged but then didn't support. But recently the country was stable.
Nazi Germany was "stable" too, but that doesnt mean the best thing for Germany was Hitler running it....

evilimport

09-20-2004, 04:10 AM

What even makes you think that they want a wal mart on every corner? that's the most fucked up thing I've heard in a long time. we have our culture, they have theirs. We have absolutely no right to force it on them.
In a way you are right, you cannot force anything on anybody and expect them to like it. And its probably not the most fucked up thing you've heard in a long time either (this thread isnt locked yet :D ). You know what WILL throw WalMarts on every corner in Iraq... If the Arabs in the mid-east gave the women of those countries the same rights and voice as the men. THAT is when things will change.

sykikchimp

09-20-2004, 04:42 AM

Plus there are all these facts on why not to vote for Kerry. :D

http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/index.php

HAHAHAHAHAHA.. that's some funny shiat!

Can you post up a link to the document you are talking about? we'll call it, the "waflle files" harr.. I'm very interested to see it.

Honsetly, I'm going to vote for Kerry b/c when I weigh the pros and cons of eacch candidate, Bush has MANY more cons. I've been trying to find good solid arguments to not vote for Kerry, but I haven't found one yet.

Charles

RJF

09-20-2004, 08:34 AM

I have the document on my hard disk, someone sent it to me awhile ago. Not exactly sure where they got it, but this link basically states the same facts:

http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?id=4285

Let me know if you want a copy and I can email it. It's a PDF.

As a small business owner (consulting), I just can't see all my hard-earned money going to the government in taxes and fees, if Kerry gets elected and he's already said that he would raise the tax rates.

RBS14

09-20-2004, 12:20 PM

so it doesn't bother you that stuff isn't getting paid for with the taxes you paid that were supposed to fund programs in the U.S., but is instead paying for the war/"rebuilding" or Iraq? I'd much rather have my taxes go to making our homeland a better place, then fixing a country half way around the world, that we tore to shit.

evilimport

09-20-2004, 02:07 PM

Iraq wasnt that great looking of a country before we got there and its not like we are carpet bombing cities flat to kill terrorists, car bombings and suicide bombs have easily done the same or more damage than our smart bombs. Besides the government is planning on making a killing off of Iraq when they get things sorted out over there and the terrorists starting useing their little pea-brains for a little bit more than bomb-making.....

evilimport

09-20-2004, 02:13 PM

I've been trying to find good solid arguments to not vote for Kerry, but I haven't found one yet.
One thing about him, that really bothers me, is the fact that him being in the military and he's voted against almost every single weapon system we use today that keeps us ahead of everyone else in the world. Thats just terrible. He will be vetoing the shit outta everything that remotely has to do with the military if he gets in office. He will weaken this country through his own pussyness. America is strong and should remain that way and it can only do that with a strong powerful military force and with the latest and best state-of-the-art technology...we wont have that with Kerry.

RBS14

09-20-2004, 05:19 PM

and its not like we are carpet bombing cities flat

what the hell do you think "shock and Awe" was? jesus christ. Dispite what the bush administration wants you to believe, there have been Thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties. As Duffman stated, I've also heard over 20,000 civilian casualties! I'd say that it takes more than 1 or 2 stray bombs to do that. Our military is doing a lot more than "getting rid of terrorism" and unfortunately, it's all horrible.

to kill terrorists, car bombings and suicide bombs have easily done the same or more damage than our smart bombs.

Bullshit. plain and simple. find a reliable source that can prove that suicide bombings have killed 20,000+ people. now way, no how.

Besides the government is planning on making a killing off of Iraq when they get things sorted out over there

yea, it's called Imperialism, not "liberation". That's a line of shit the bush administration is feeding the American public, to try to justify and unjust war. Imperialism is morally, and ethically wrong. And we've never done it successfully in all our failed past tries to boot! Want to guess why? Because people are willing to fight to the death to keep from being overtaken and exploited by a foreign country, especially us. Many terrorists have even said exactly why they hate us, and it's not just because we are the U.S. They have said over and over that they will fight against Imperialism until it's end.

And what about the abu Grahb POW torture? The Troops did it because there were no consequences from higher up in the administration. Bush let Rumsfeld sign an act that left it up to the people "interrogating" the POW's as to what tactics they wanted to use, and when th POW's cold recieve medical treatment. This was a violation of the Geneva Convention.

And about Kerry "waffling". what about when bush was sitting in that classroom when he was told by a cia agent that a plane had crashed into the first world trade tower. He sat in that classroom with a blank stare on his face until another cia member came into the classroom and told him he should leave and deal with the situation. Bush sat there until he was told what to do! Some kind of national leader. :jerkit: I'm sure he had his mind on what to do but just wanted to stay there to be polite. yea right. He had absolutely no Idea what to do. should I stay? should I go tend to a disaster that is very possibly an act of terrorism? WTF do you think asshole? yea, just sit there. that's the right thing to do.

So as far as I'm concerned, bush is just as bad as kerry in that respect. And honestly, if that's the only arguement you can find not to vote for him, yet there are a slough of reasons not to vote for Bush, that's pretty weak. someone give me a DIFFERENT reason not to vote for kerry? a reason worth bringing up? as for Kerry not voting for many of the military weapons developement programs, maybe that's because we don't need them. ever think of that? we are already so far advanced in comparison to everyone else, it's not even funny. And the next 2 top military powers (England and Japan) are our allies. so why do we need MORE than thousands the times of nuclear warheads than everyone else? Do we really need "baby" nukes? nuclear warheads being designed (under bush's request) that are purposely smaller than all other warheads. but here's the catch. They are specifically being designed to be used in metropolitan areas. but they bury underground before detonating, so it's fine right? NO! that just means that in addition to the human life lost, the soil within a 2 mile radius of the epicenter of the explosion will be radioactive for thousands of years to come. This is all in strict violation of many of the nuclear treaties in place today, that EVERY U.N. country has signed, except for bush. he refuses to sign them.

so why should you elect him for president?

sykikchimp

09-20-2004, 05:28 PM

I need more cowbell.

We could cut military program after military program and still easily be the strongest nation on the planet. Diplomacy, and Allies that share your goals are they way to peace. Not more violence, and intimidation.

MakotoS13

09-20-2004, 05:28 PM

that's some crazy talk. "the life of a warrior" ? this is 2004. People are allowed to think for themselves, you won't be decapitated for it.

what does decapitation have to do with the fact that the commoners need warriors to protect them? just because you don't see the obvious similarity between people who were trained to kill and follow orders without question and people who are trainted to follow orders without question doesn't mean anything is different. don't be so closed minded as to think that we have gotten so open minded as a people that we don't need warriors.

What If I happened to be the president and I was having our troops march into kilns and roasting them to death?.

you're an idiot if you seriously think that is a valid argument.

Is that the life of a warrior? doing whatever the person in charge thinks is right? The mentality you have is exactly what leads to the rise of people like stallin, hitler etc. doing whatever you are told, no matter if it is right, wrong, good, bad. .

I didn't sign up to follow my govt to hell and back so I have the right to tell a marine sergeant to piss off if he thinks i should go to war for em. these people gave up that right and most of em would do it again.

What would happen if everyone in our nation thought like you and we got someone even crazier than bush into office. He could tell everyone to go kill the first person that said Hi to them and they would do it because "it's what our country thinks is best" :jerkit:

again with the complete LACK of logic. and crazy? the guy did what he thhought was best. do you think he gets kicks outta seein folks die? i'm GLAD we went to war if for no other reason than to show the world that we will still kick their can through their skull if push comes to shove.

read my previous post about michale moore. I never said he was a genious. In fact I said I didn't like him, and I don't. He's an egotistical idiot. However, he does have some good points.

all his points are based on human emotion or out and out lies all for the sake of greed. defamation? yeah, he totally lied about the president of the united states and made millions from it... moore is thhe biggest hipocrite of them all.

RBS14

09-20-2004, 05:37 PM

He did what was in his best PERSONAL interest. If he honestly thinks it was the right thing to do, he needs to be admitted to a psychiatric ward ASAP. Read my last post before this. what about his military policy? what he's trying to get the american people to believe so we'll back him. Do you think he's really doing what is best for the country? regardless of what HE thinks is best for it.

RJF

09-20-2004, 06:48 PM

One thing about him, that really bothers me, is the fact that him being in the military and he's voted against almost every single weapon system we use today that keeps us ahead of everyone else in the world. Thats just terrible. He will be vetoing the shit outta everything that remotely has to do with the military if he gets in office. He will weaken this country through his own pussyness. America is strong and should remain that way and it can only do that with a strong powerful military force and with the latest and best state-of-the-art technology...we wont have that with Kerry.
Excellent point........these are from Kerry's own Senate campaign.

http://www.access-solutions.com/images/kerry-defense1.bmp
http://www.access-solutions.com/images/kerry-defense2.bmp

Our military will be fighting with spitballs, as Zell Miller said.

Without these weapons systems, the Cold War never would have been won. I'm probably quite a bit older than most of you, but I still remember "duck & cover" drills and instead of fire drills, we were marched to the fallout shelter in case of nuclear attack, when I was in elementary school.

ThatGuy

09-20-2004, 06:53 PM

Well I don't see MV-22B on the list, but I still don't feel secure about my job if he gets elected.

RJF

09-20-2004, 06:59 PM

Well I don't see MV-22B on the list, but I still don't feel secure about my job if he gets elected.

That list is from the 1980's, but it's an example on how anti-military Kerry is.

His anti-Vietnam stunts and treason after his 4-month tour-of-duty probably cost hundreds of American lives back then and is probably costing more lives today, since the terrorists are just salivating, hoping that he gets elected.

TheTimanator

09-20-2004, 09:04 PM

Hey RJF. Living where i do, i havent heard anyone support Bush like you do. I didnt even know ppl like you exist. I guess we are more liberal here in Norcal/SF area. I'm not saying i'm for Kerry, just that it's interesting knowing people's opinions from other areas.
Maybe that's why it seems everyone of these boards are so liberal/bush haters. I went on some local car forums and it seemed almost the opposite.

He did what was in his best PERSONAL interest. If he honestly thinks it was the right thing to do, he needs to be admitted to a psychiatric ward ASAP. Read my last post before this. what about his military policy? what he's trying to get the american people to believe so we'll back him. Do you think he's really doing what is best for the country? regardless of what HE thinks is best for it. Do you seriously not care what happens to people in other countries. Do you not care that these people lived under a tyrant like Husain (sp?) That he killed his own people testing his weapons? So many people suffered for no reason, and when one of our presidents finally has the guts to take him out (Clinton had a chance), people criticize him for it. He did what he, and many others thought was right. What is going on over there will be a good thing in the end.

RBS14

09-21-2004, 12:07 AM

evilimport

09-21-2004, 03:45 AM

what the hell do you think "shock and Awe" was?
Do you even have a clue what shock and awe is?? Its when 15 smart bombs go threw 15 windows of 15 command centers all at the same time at 2:00am, thats what "Shock and Awe" is.... Carpet bombing is what we did in WW2 and Vietnam with B17's and B52's, where the target is in a 5 square mile radius and the entire 5 square miles gets levelled.....there is a BIG fucking difference.

RJF thanks for posting those documents, proof is right there, fellas. Fucking two-face is what he is..."proud serving his country" and then he goes and does that... those Patriot missiles that he thought we didnt need saved my brother's life in the first Gulf War...

evilimport

09-21-2004, 04:07 AM

Maybe that's why it seems everyone of these boards are so liberal/bush haters. I went on some local car forums and it seemed almost the opposite.
Thank, god, there are some smarter people out there....

And one reason we probably didnt jump the 38th parallel and roll through N. Korea first is the fact they have over a million man standing army and could possibly employ nukes against us, plus they are backed by the biggest army in the world, China. Besides we already had a pretty bad war over there in 1950-53. If it could be handled diplomatically, that would be the way to do it. Iraq's military was still a bit torn up from the first war and the sanctions against the country for the last 10 years. There also wasnt a diplomatic solution available thanks to Saddam fucking around with the UN inspectors and basically spitting in our faces about it. WMD's? This also means chemical and biological weapons...and it was a fact he had enough, anthrax, bubonic plague, mustard gas, sarin, and small pox (just to name a few) to wipe out the population of the world several times over... Where are they then? Some were destroyed, some got used (ask the Kurds up north about that), buried (the desert there is pretty big with lots of dirt), prolly some got into Syria and maybe Jordan, hell, maybe Iran for that matter...but thats not the point, the point is we have one less "Hitler" running a country in this world and THAT makes the world a safer place to live.

sykikchimp

09-21-2004, 07:03 AM

They are both bastards. choose your bastard:

1. Extreme right wing religious conservative who thinks the US can kick any bodies ass and needs no ones help to do it. The "War President" who loves oil, and stirring shit in the Middle East. Plans to continue a military precense in the ME for at least 15-20 years. Favors privitization of everything (especially if the privateers are his friends.) Has destroyed our relationship with the UN, and could seem to care less. Domestic policies have REDUCED jobs, and pay, and increased costs for services.

2. Extreme Left wing liberal who believes that fighting in iraq will not currently bring peace, and likely will favor diplomacy over ass kicking in any given situation. Plans to create an "exit strategy" for iraq b/c he doesn't think an "Occupation" can be won (ala vietnam). He would be a "Domestic Policy" president focused on making our lives better with policies that will increase jobs, and pay, and decrease costs. Does not believe in the privitization of things like Social Security, or Medicare. Will improve foreign relations with UN.

I personally like to travel abroad, and NO ONE likes our government. They all think Bush is the closest thing to Hitler anywhere.

Liberator or agitator is nothing but a difference of pov. It appears the folks in iraq that believe he is an agitator are gaing ground since it seems that there have been multiple cities in Iraq now deemed to dangerous to even enter. Including BAHGDAD. Wow.. we've done a bangup job with our foreign policy there.. ugg..

The tax cuts did SHIT. I now pay MORE in taxes, and take home LESS than I did 4 years ago when I was a lowly helpdesk dork. (now network eng.) Everyone I know's experience has been the same. When Clinton was in office, and they raised all those taxes did I loose out? NO. I took home more money than ever before. Life was good.

RJF

09-21-2004, 08:41 AM

it's horrible that they have to suffer those situations, but they are not alone. North Korea is WAY worse off than Iraq. Over 1/2 of the population is starving, and that's just the beginning of it. We knew they had nuclear weapons, and we thought Iraq did. So seeing how as they are worse off in every way, and we KNEW they had nuclear weapons, what the hell are we doing in Iraq. If this is really about liberating people and making the world a better place, North Korea should have been our first choice, hands down. But it's not. That is not Bush's motive, he just wants it to appear that way so there won't be a public backlash. 9/11 was the best thing to happen to Bush's Presidency. It gave him the ability to pass of anything (monetary and action) and call it "national security", or "part of the war against terrorism". and the best thing for him is that since Terrorism can never actually be defeated, this can go on until the end of time. A blank check to do whatever he wants, and republicans are letting him get away with it.

Lets also not forget that he turned a $5 trillion surplus, that clinton created, into a $4 trillion defecit. All those tax refunds that everyone hailed as being so great, were straight out of that surplus. So it's no wonder Kerry is going to have to raise taxes, bush managed to throw away 10 TRILLION dollars!!!

Whose fault is it that North Korea has nuclear weapons? And that people are starving? It was under Clinton's watch that his envoy Jimmy Carter negotiated a deal with the North Koreans, that basically said "we'll look the other way." Now they have nukes that could reach the west coast. Do you want to risk going in and liberating and having a missle getting through and wiping out Seattle? I think not.

As for your comment about 9/11 being the best thing ever for George Bush, that's the most irresponsible thing to say. Do you think he wanted 3000+ people to die? Or are you one of those Michael Moore idiots that believe that Bush knew about the attacks before they happened? I can only imagine what would have happened if Gore was elected. We'd have done nothing, put out another warrant for UBL's arrest, like the indictment that Clinton issued after the embassy bombing, since they felt it was a law enforcement problem.

As for the deficit, don't you think that all the extra expeditures related to 9/11 and security have something to do with that? What do you think all the extra security measures that are now in effect at our airports, ports, etc... cost? A whole new government agency (Homeland Security) was created and the intelligence infrastructure needed to be rebuilt after being neglected for the previous 8 years.

Plus nobody mentions that the recession started in 2000 under Clinton's watch, so his surplus projection should actually be lower. The tax cuts helped stimulate the economy and shortened the depth and length of the recession.

Also, what does a surplus mean? That means the government took in too much in taxes. Taxes = our money. I don't know about you, but I'd rather spend my own money, instead of letting the government spend it. That's why a national sales tax instead of income tax would be more fair. You make more, you spend more, you get taxed more.

RJF

09-21-2004, 09:17 AM

According to Kerry's speech yesterday, the world was better with Saddam in power. :wtf:

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/092004v1.wmv

sykikchimp

09-21-2004, 10:16 AM

Saddam wasn't the biggest threat to the world (hardly). I believe Osama Binladen is worse, and he is still alive and free.

Var

09-21-2004, 10:19 AM

who erased my post? :(

RJF

09-21-2004, 12:18 PM

New movie showing the Iraqi paradise that we screwed up according to Kerry.

http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/buried_in_the_sand.htm

sykikchimp

09-21-2004, 12:41 PM

who erased my post? :(

Sorry about that.. :( total accident. I was trying to click something else and hit the "remove" button. Didn't even know who the post was from. one click, and *poof*, gone.

sykikchimp

09-21-2004, 12:44 PM

New movie showing the Iraqi paradise that we screwed up according to Kerry.

http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/buried_in_the_sand.htm

I don't believe he ever depicted it as a paradise. But we certainly have killed a whole crap load of their civilians, and there are AT LEAST as many terrorist there now as there were when Saddam was in power. To me, it seems he was making the point that it's gone from bad to worse. Not paradise to hell.

Certain areas of iraq I am sure are now much better off. But other areas are almost toally lawless, and are no different today than they were under Saddam's control (if not worse.) Just recently MORE civilians were takn hostage, and another american has been beheaded.

RBS14

09-21-2004, 01:15 PM

Whose fault is it that North Korea has nuclear weapons? And that people are starving? It was under Clinton's watch that his envoy Jimmy Carter negotiated a deal with the North Koreans, that basically said "we'll look the other way." Now they have nukes that could reach the west coast. Do you want to risk going in and liberating and having a missle getting through and wiping out Seattle? I think not.

so it's Clinton's fault that bush isn't doing anything about North Korea? The major problem is that bush is sending a horrible message to North Korea as well as the rest of the world. "once you get nuclear weapons, we won't try to keep you in check because we're afraid of you" what then? by showing them we won't mess with anyone once they have WMD, we are certain to get hit with one sooner or later. So we have nothing to lose by trying to disarm them/ get a new leader now.

No I don't think Bush wanted all those people to die. Has he been taking advantage of 9/11? yes. I personally think it's a discrace to the people lost in 9/11 that he's using their deaths to push his personal agenda and get away with whatever he wants.

No, I do not believe he knew. could he have done more to try to prevent it? yes. what about the report that he refused to read from a collection of intelligence that said it was very likely that there was going to be a taliban attack on U.S. soil? was that part of his "war on terrorism"?

so you are saying that there were 9 trillion dollars of expenses associated with 9/11? please. A surplus does not necessicarily come from over taxation. It can (and in clinton's case, did) come from not wasting trillions of dollars and spending it more effectively. I've got multiple pages of examples of bush's redicluous wasting of $. Money that could have been spent much more effectively.

Any economist will tell you it was not a recession at the end of Clinton's term. It was coming down off of a bubble, the magnitude of which has not been seen in many decades. However, Bush' economic policy turned it into a recession immediately. And now we are paying for it.

drift into a curb

09-21-2004, 01:20 PM

Chief Flip Flopper
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
http://media.skoopy.com/vids/vid_00244.wmv

I think Kerry has a vision for leading the US for the long term. Bush hasn't done shit for us; economy has suffered, health and medical are down, social security, etc. You guys are all discussing international issues, but there's many more domestic issues that need to be addressed.

His anti-Vietnam stunts and treason after his 4-month tour-of-duty probably cost hundreds of American lives back then and is probably costing more lives today, since the terrorists are just salivating, hoping that he gets elected.

All these assumptions. At least John Kerry served time in the navy. What did Bush do? National Coast Guard? hmm. WOw.

Senator John McCain all the way!!

RJF

09-21-2004, 01:22 PM

Any economist will tell you it was not a recession at the end of Clinton's term. It was coming down off of a bubble, the magnitude of which has not been seen in many decades. However, Bush' economic policy turned it into a recession immediately. And now we are paying for it.

The Council of Economic Advisors concludes that the "Clinton Recession" began in the third quarter of the year 2000, at least 6 months before Bush took office.

Economists define a recession as a negative downturn in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two consecutive quarters.

Look at the attached chart.

RJF

09-21-2004, 01:26 PM

All these assumptions. At least John Kerry served time in the navy. What did Bush do? National Coast Guard? hmm. WOw.

Senator John McCain all the way!!

Yeah he served, but it's what he did afterwards that hurt this country.

mms://a1281.v125028.c12502.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1281/12502/v0001/eaglepub.download.akamai.com/12502/Friends.wmv

RJF

09-21-2004, 01:47 PM

so it's Clinton's fault that bush isn't doing anything about North Korea?

No it's not Clinton's fault that Bush isn't doing anything publicly about North Korea, but there are negotiations going on.

As for getting us into the mess, yes, it was Clinton's fault with the deal that he made in October 1994.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9566.pdf

nismo2491

09-21-2004, 02:34 PM

I don't care what anybody says I'm voting for Bush.

just in case there was any concern over who I was voting for.
KEvin

RBS14

09-21-2004, 04:30 PM

just in case there was any concern over who I was voting for.

did anyone ask? I don't think so.

RJF: What is that graph trying to point out? that during the time that clinton was in office, the GDP did absolutely nothing but go up? Granted that is has with bush too, but at a sever cost to our environment, and relations with other nations. So i'd rather our GDP didn't climb as fast, rather than ravage our environment, and other places around the world to have a higher GDP.

What did Clinton do wrong by making that treaty and signing it in conjunction with N. Korea? It looks to me like getting them to sign a treaty that called for the halting of nuclear weapons production was the right thing to do. what would you suggest should have been done instead?

I fail to see how Kerry voting against excessive military spending damaged our country? And besides, like drift into a curb said, Kerry served, bush did not. plain and simple. He's got no ground to stand on when he makes jabs at kerry about his voting in the senate on military issues. Bush never served!

RJF

09-21-2004, 04:57 PM

RJF: What is that graph trying to point out? that during the time that clinton was in office, the GDP did absolutely nothing but go up? Granted that is has with bush too, but at a sever cost to our environment, and relations with other nations. So i'd rather our GDP didn't climb as fast, rather than ravage our environment, and other places around the world to have a higher GDP.

What did Clinton do wrong by making that treaty and signing it in conjunction with N. Korea? It looks to me like getting them to sign a treaty that called for the halting of nuclear weapons production was the right thing to do. what would you suggest should have been done instead?

I fail to see how Kerry voting against excessive military spending damaged our country? And besides, like drift into a curb said, Kerry served, bush did not. plain and simple. He's got no ground to stand on when he makes jabs at kerry about his voting in the senate on military issues. Bush never served!

The graph shows that we were already in a recession 6 months before Bush took office. The GDP growth rate was flat as you can see on the graph. So, don't go blaming Bush for the economy and if the economy is as bad as Kerry says, where are the food lines, why are the malls and stores always so crowded. Unemployment rate today is lower than it was when Clinton was running for re-election in 1996.

As for North Korea, we tried to "buy" them off by offering to sell oil and such if they would only develop the reactor for "light-water" production, in other words electrical use only. We then didn't follow up and stay diligent making sure it was only used for electricity. Meanwhile they develop the capabilities to refine uranium and there are absolutely no power lines leaving the plant.

Regarding his Senate record, how can somebody who is so anti-military and against national defense say they will keep this country safe. If those weapons systems hadn't been approved, we never would have won the Cold War. As I said in a previous post, I remember having drills in elementary school in case of nuclear attack.

And keep spewing the DNC talking points on Bush not serving....I'd like to see you go up to a veteran who served in the National Guard and tell them they didn't serve. How about all the Guardsmen and women that in Iraq right now, they're on a vacation, huh.

nismo2491

09-21-2004, 09:27 PM

did anyone ask? I don't think so.

no, but I just wanted to post whore to see if I had any more priveleges like changing my status, when I got to 300 posts.

kerry served yes. and now thats a big claim to fame for him. but what he did when he came back is pretty shameful. he took his metals off and stomped on them. basically denounced ever serving, saying it was the worst thing he ever did basically, blah blah blah, you get the point. thats not somebody who's proud of serving their country if you ask me.
KEvin

sykikchimp

09-22-2004, 08:47 AM

no, but I just wanted to post whore to see if I had any more priveleges like changing my status, when I got to 300 posts.

kerry served yes. and now thats a big claim to fame for him. but what he did when he came back is pretty shameful. he took his metals off and stomped on them. basically denounced ever serving, saying it was the worst thing he ever did basically, blah blah blah, you get the point. thats not somebody who's proud of serving their country if you ask me.
KEvin

HOLY SHAT! talk about twisting what happened completely!

It's not the he wasn't proud to serve his country, he was pissed off b/c of what his country had asked him (and thousands of other americans) to do.

VIETNAM WAS A MISTAKE. It was an unwinnable war. To ask people to go to a place like that and die for no reason what so ever is dispicable. That is what Kerry was pissed about. Every man who served in vietnam should be commended. Kerry served his duty TWICE. Then came home, and voiced his AMERICAN given priveliege of freedom of speech.

I think that's being the very epitome of a patriotic american.

.....I would hope random political disscusions on an internet car forum would NOT sway your decision on who your voting for. But rather, it may shed a little light on what to expect from who you vote for.

A person will vote for which ever candidate has the values that are most in line with that persons own values. If everyone had the same values, we wouldn't need elections. Just have an emperor who's family controls everything from now on. :-P

sykikchimp

09-22-2004, 08:52 AM

That graph shows the internet boom slumping. That's about it.

and as I said before, saying we wouldn't have wont the cold war b/c of one thing or another is an assumption with no base. The media then is no different than the media now. There have been countless documentaries on how many of the threats during the cold war were far exaggerated.

New movie showing the Iraqi paradise that we screwed up according to Kerry.

http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/ReviewsText/buried_in_the_sand.htm

this movie is no different than Moore's stupid ass propaganda flick.

mrmephistopheles

09-22-2004, 09:12 AM

I can't wait until we get some decent candidates for office.

PRATT IN 2016! He'll BAN terrorists and moderate taxes! Rely on Pratt to make serious posts about health care, unemployment and the military!

Who would vote for me? At this point, I doubt I'd do a great job, but I think I could make a few changes to make things better.

mrmephistopheles

09-22-2004, 09:13 AM

this movie is no different than Moore's stupid ass propaganda flick.

Agreed. The difference is that Moore's film is seen as gospel to those who don't know any better, probably due in part to it's bigger budget.

Andrew Bohan

09-22-2004, 09:35 AM

president mephisopheles sounds good to me

RJF

09-22-2004, 09:37 AM

VIETNAM WAS A MISTAKE. It was an unwinnable war.

Why was it a mistake? And unwinnable? Maybe because of the anti-war activists like Kerry and the media.

WWII would have been unwinnable if we fought that war the same way the Vietnam war was fought.

In WWII, before political correctness, we didn't screw around, entire cities were bombed, killing thousands of innocent civilians. I even remember reading something once where we bombed and leveled a monestary/hospital (Monte Casino, I think), where the German army had taken shelter and were firing mortar rounds at our troops.

I agree, War sucks, people die, but I'd rather it be our enemies.

RJF

09-22-2004, 09:38 AM

.

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm

RJF

09-22-2004, 09:46 AM

And about Kerry "waffling". what about when bush was sitting in that classroom when he was told by a cia agent that a plane had crashed into the first world trade tower. He sat in that classroom with a blank stare on his face until another cia member came into the classroom and told him he should leave and deal with the situation. Bush sat there until he was told what to do! Some kind of national leader.

I know this was alittle back in the thread, but I just noticed it.

According to Kerry's own statement he was frozen, unable to think for 43 minutes. That is not a deer in the headlights like he slams Bush for, that is a deer dismembered by a semi truck.

RBS14

09-22-2004, 12:07 PM

I'll agree, Kerry likes to stradle fences and changes his mind, but I fail to see how that makes bush better than he regarding presedency. besides, bush does the same. He promised to do all kinds of stuff before taking office, then after he did, it was a whole different story. I'm honestly interested to see the reasons that the pro bush people on here have for re-electing him. what is he going to do BETTER than kerry? would you put it past him to do something like he did in Iraq in another country when the Iraq war doesn't hold the media/public's interest anymore? I've posted tons of reasons why he souldn't be elected, now lets hear some reasons why he should be elected.

sykikchimp

09-22-2004, 02:13 PM

Why was it a mistake? And unwinnable? Maybe because of the anti-war activists like Kerry and the media.

WWII would have been unwinnable if we fought that war the same way the Vietnam war was fought.

In WWII, before political correctness, we didn't screw around, entire cities were bombed, killing thousands of innocent civilians. I even remember reading something once where we bombed and leveled a monestary/hospital (Monte Casino, I think), where the German army had taken shelter and were firing mortar rounds at our troops.

I agree, War sucks, people die, but I'd rather it be our enemies.

I also think our enemies should die first. It's deciding WHO is the enemy?! Vietnam would have never been won b/c there was nothing to win. We were occupiers sitting in a country that wanted nothing to do with us. Imagine if China decided to liberate us from our imperialist leader Bush.. Don't you think we would fight until every last american was dead to remove that country's hold on ours? OF COURSE. It's the same reason we orginially fought to free ourselves from brittain. The oppressed will succeed until you beat all of them into nothing. That's not exactly the best way to harbor growth and good will is it? We are in a very similar situation in Iraq. Our intentions are different of course, but they do not know that. They see an imperialist nation trying to take advantage of them and their country and they want no part of it.

Now, I know we have good intentions. And things COULD turn around. But it will be up to the Iraqi people to determine this for themselves. Us staying in iraq only enforces the view that we want to retain control. I pray that the elections in Iraq go off without a problem, and that the people of Iraq get to feel the joy of that kind of freedom, and liberty. I KNOW that will be a defining moment in their history. I know we must try to help them to that point. But we must not baby them, or patronize them into democracy. Democracy must be a choice. I have not got the feeling that Bush and his administration feel the same way. I fear that Bush's ties to oil, and big corporations may do nothing but swell the fear many iraqi's have about our want to control their world and their resources.

I have heard nothing from the Bush campaign to make me see otherwise. Kerry on the other hand has recently laid out a very specific plan for getting them on their feet, and getting us out of their face. Whether either one of the candidates plan's will work is yet to be seen.

evilimport

09-22-2004, 03:22 PM

Well, we fought in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism (much like Korea). At the time our armed forces werent prepared to take on a war like the one in 'Nam...besides with the draft and the demonstrations (way to go, Kerry) during the war it just made for a record low in the nation's history. We won militarily(they couldnt beat us on the battlefield) but lost as a whole. The people have to have a heart and a mind before we can win them both.

Any of you avid gun owners out there better watch who your voting for....Kerry is the most anti-gun (2nd Ammendment) would be president EVER. You will not have guns with him in office. This is posted in the NRA's month membership magazine called Freedom.

ThatGuy

09-22-2004, 04:22 PM

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

If Kerry is elected I will be an outlaw!

HaLo

09-22-2004, 05:00 PM

Guns are one thing, but semi-automatic rifles? Why would anyone need that in their homes?!

ThatGuy

09-22-2004, 05:11 PM

I am a Gun Collector. I use an M-16 in the military so naturally I wanted An AR-15 for my own target use. I also have an AK, because if push came to shove and I was sent to fight, the AK is most common weapon I would run into. By owning one I am fairly proficient in the maintanence of one. Therefore if for some reason my M-16 malfiunctions, I could easily grab another weapon to use.

Mainly I just enjoy shooting, so I have weapons of all kinds to shoot with. Owning these weapons does not make me a criminal, or cause me to want to commit violent crimes.

mrmephistopheles

09-22-2004, 05:46 PM

Vietnam is really a moot point in terms of this election. In hindsight, Vietnam was a fiscal and social disaster, and had no justification for the time and blood we spent there. To call it a mistake is not right though. Consider the time that we entered Vietnam as 'advisors'... the mid-late 60s. The Cuban missile crisis weighed heavily on the minds of every American, and stopping the spread of Communism was a very big deal. It was basically the 'terrorism' of their day, so you can understand their desire to curb it.
To be honest, the actions of these 2 guys 30 years ago shouldn't reflect on their character today. I don't know about you, but I mature and grow wiser with time.
Anyway, as far as gun control goes, I REALLY don't want Kerry in office. If he's as down on guns as everyone says he is, then I don't want him in power.
Not that I'm a gun aficionado or own assault rifles. I don't own any guns (at the moment). I'd like to have a few guns in a few years though. Among them I'd like to have 'assault rifles', pistols, and a shotty or two.
Again, I'm no gun freak. I AM a wholehearted believer in armed citizens. I don't plan on ever using the guns for anything besides recreational use, unless I HAVE to.
I don't want to get into an arms control debate, but the party most responsible for the death of a person by a firearm is the person controlling the firearm, not the firearm itself. To outlaw a particular kind of weapon based on it's 'danger level' is ludicrous. All firearms are dangerous. That's their inherent design. Granted, Joe American has no REAL need for a Mk19 40mm fully automatic grenade launcher. That's silly. Anything below a crew-served automatic weapon should be fair game though.
As far as a plan for Iraq, I'm all for getting us out of there ASAP. If we could pull out today, I'd be for it. The sad fact is, no matter whose plan you choose, things will not go to plan, and what it's going to boil down to is the status of Iraq when we do leave. I have no doubt Kerry would be fine with leaving it pretty much how it is right now. Bush on the other hand, is intent on following through to a stable government and police force. It's that sort of thing that'll determine the future of that country.
I GUARANTEE that when we pull out of Iraq (mostly - I have a feeling we'll have a base or 2 there for quite a while) there will be at least one attempted coup. If we let that happen, we've thrown away alll the work we've done, and all the lives we've lost.

Speaking of lives lost...
Everyone harps about the 3k or so people (mostly civilians) killed on 9/11 and the 1000+ military members killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq. American citizens in general are fucking pussies as far as their acceptance of human sacrifice (not ritual sacrifice, weirdo).
Let me run a few numbers by you:
5,000 American people killed on 9/11 and in resulting War on Terror (rough overestimate) over about 3 years
19,000 American soldiers killed during the Battle of the Bulge (conservative estimate, doesn't include wounded/missing in action, or soldiers who died from their battlefield injuries) over a ~40 day period.

So let's put that in perspective: War on Terror, avg deaths per day is 4.56. That's alot, sure. It'd stink losing 5 people every day from "peacetime" activity. Battle of the Bulge avg deaths per day: 475. That's a fuckton. That means in 11 averaged days of the Battle of the Bulge, you've already surpassed the number lost in THREE YEARS by the US.

Now which would you say had a more pivotal effect on the world? The Battle of the Bulge was a counteroffensive to keep the German army from regaining lost ground. It resulted in heavy losses to the German army, and helped weaken them, disabling their warmaking capability. The War on Terror has deposed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and overthrown Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Two democratic governments are now being established in places where democracy was a dream.

Not to say I support our reasons for going into Iraq and doing what we did, but at least the ends are better than the means.

Anyway. Kerry is a waffling douche who will say anything he has to to gain office or approval. At the very least Bush seems to be a man of principal, and will stand by what he says.

Cliffnotes: fuck you and read it.

ThatGuy

09-22-2004, 11:04 PM

Very well written, Kevin. I couldn't agree more.

evilimport

09-23-2004, 04:10 AM

Vietnam is really a moot point in terms......blah,blah,blah....blah,blah,blah......A t the very least Bush seems to be a man of principal, and will stand by what he says.
Brilliantly written!! I agree, 100%! You really are the shit....

RJF

09-23-2004, 09:11 AM

Well said!

Var

09-23-2004, 09:34 AM

At the very least Bush seems to be a man of principal, and will stand by what he says.

Cliffnotes: fuck you and read it.

Some of us see that as an inability to distinguish between good and bad decisions. Although he does always stand by what he says even if it makes him look like a complete moron.

There are things about Bush that I like, but what i dont like about him is the way he speaks to the public which includes the manner in which he gives speaches and the information he feeds us in his speeches. I'd rather him not explain himself AT ALL and just go do the damn thing. He makes himself look unfit to serve.

sykikchimp

09-23-2004, 09:45 AM

At the very least Bush seems to be a man of principal, and will stand by what he says.

really?

how about when he said a dept of homeland security wasn't neccesay, and then suddenly we have one.

Or when bush promised not to use the military for nation building, and then he does exactly that in Afganistan and Iraq

or how he originally supported extending the assault weapons ban, and now he is against it. WTF

Or how he waffled on any commision where his judgment might come into question until the public pressure FORCED him to create those commisions.

Or how about his oppiniong on Gay marriage, or Abortion doing FULL 180's??

Both men do have points which they are steadfast on. I'm just making the point that the issue here shouldn't be that men change thier minds, or voice opinions about issues from different angles. Things are NEVER as black and white as the media makes them appear. Take a full look at any single decision and you will find that there is more than meets the eye.

How about reading b/w the lines, and seeing that he has crapped on domestic policy. I don't know how his views that making corporations richer will somehow benefit the poor and needy and stimulate the economy. This activity only stimulates corporate power, and monopolistic practices. In effect reducing choices for consumers, and forcing them to spend more money on the choices they have. How does that help????

And Kerry would not leave iraq in the state it's in. He has stated on multiple occasions that he knows we can not pull out of Iraq as it stands now. He has made it clear that there must be certain things that have to happen. #1 is that we need more international support. (which bush has failed to accomplish in his few attempts.) #2 we must do more to train Iraqi military, and police. (obviously this will take time, but it shouldn't take as much time as it is now.) #3 Reconstruction efforts that will actually bring tangible benefits to the people of iraq. #4 he knows elections MUST happen, and that steps must be taken to ensure it is happening.

Now, this is not a new plan. What it is, is Kerry displaying that he knows just as well as Bush what has to happen in Iraq. It's very obvious, and its simple in idea. And honestly I don't think either man will have a problem cleaning up the mess that is Iraq because we have an amazing force of soldiers that will be helping, and will that will not be shaken.. eventually.

Kerry's anti-war actions may have come at a bad time, but they do display that he is very much a doer. And character traits like that don't change. What changes is maturity. Those actions were the actions of an immature young man with fiery ideals. Add some maturity, and a better understanding of the world around him, and you have the makings of a amazingly steadfast leader who will work tenaciously to complete his goals.

nissantuner22

09-23-2004, 09:54 AM

Im voting bush simply because I dont support communism.

sykikchimp

09-23-2004, 10:03 AM

Im voting bush simply because I dont support communism.

wow. I'm amazed at your thorough research into the subject. :eek3:

RBS14

09-23-2004, 10:04 AM

sykikchimp: damn it you beat me to it. "oh yea, I hate kerry because he waffles" haha you guys, look at Bush. And there are more examples than sykikchimp posted. OPEN your eyes.

here's another to add to the list: (i'll post more later, going to school now)

or how 2 trillion of the 5.3 trillion dollars in tax cuts came directly out of money he pormised time and again never to touch that was for social security.

nissantuner22: a comment like makes me wonder how you are even old enough to vote. I can think of no better way to blatently state that you are an idiot than your above post. But if you are, I guess it's good that you aren't trying to hide it.

RJF

09-23-2004, 11:03 AM

really?

how about when he said a dept of homeland security wasn't neccesay, and then suddenly we have one.

Or when bush promised not to use the military for nation building, and then he does exactly that in Afganistan and Iraq

or how he originally supported extending the assault weapons ban, and now he is against it. WTF

Or how he waffled on any commision where his judgment might come into question until the public pressure FORCED him to create those commisions.

Or how about his oppiniong on Gay marriage, or Abortion doing FULL 180's??

Both men do have points which they are steadfast on. I'm just making the point that the issue here shouldn't be that men change thier minds, or voice opinions about issues from different angles. Things are NEVER as black and white as the media makes them appear. Take a full look at any single decision and you will find that there is more than meets the eye.

How about reading b/w the lines, and seeing that he has crapped on domestic policy. I don't know how his views that making corporations richer will somehow benefit the poor and needy and stimulate the economy. This activity only stimulates corporate power, and monopolistic practices. In effect reducing choices for consumers, and forcing them to spend more money on the choices they have. How does that help????

And Kerry would not leave iraq in the state it's in. He has stated on multiple occasions that he knows we can not pull out of Iraq as it stands now. He has made it clear that there must be certain things that have to happen. #1 is that we need more international support. (which bush has failed to accomplish in his few attempts.) #2 we must do more to train Iraqi military, and police. (obviously this will take time, but it shouldn't take as much time as it is now.) #3 Reconstruction efforts that will actually bring tangible benefits to the people of iraq. #4 he knows elections MUST happen, and that steps must be taken to ensure it is happening.

Now, this is not a new plan. What it is, is Kerry displaying that he knows just as well as Bush what has to happen in Iraq. It's very obvious, and its simple in idea. And honestly I don't think either man will have a problem cleaning up the mess that is Iraq because we have an amazing force of soldiers that will be helping, and will that will not be shaken.. eventually.

Kerry's anti-war actions may have come at a bad time, but they do display that he is very much a doer. And character traits like that don't change. What changes is maturity. Those actions were the actions of an immature young man with fiery ideals. Add some maturity, and a better understanding of the world around him, and you have the makings of a amazingly steadfast leader who will work tenaciously to complete his goals.

Answering some of your points:

Do you have facts to backup your claims?

Re: Homeland Security - On June 6, 2002 US President George W. Bush proposed a permanent Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, an agency that would include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Customs, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration, among others. The INS would be part of the Border and Transportation Security pillar. The Department of Homeland Security also would have legal authority over visa issuance. Congress has begun holding hearings on this proposal, which has similarities with an earlier proposal by Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), S2452, as well as with the recommendations of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century (the Hart-Rudman Commission).

Re: Assault Weapons Ban - Where did he support it? Also, it never would have had enough votes.

Re: Which Commissions?

Re: Abortion - He has never supported abortion.

Re: Domestic Policy - Cite facts. He has spent more on education than any other President.

Re: Iraq - Funny, Kerry's plan sounds alot like what we are doing now. As for Kerry's constant whining that we are doing everything alone, I wonder how the 48 other countries feel when they hear than. Just because the French aren't involved, no one else counts.

Forty-nine countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Also, did anyone watch Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi address Congress this morning?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133279,00.html

aznpoopy

09-23-2004, 11:06 AM

agreed with sykik... nice post btw.

bush is an idiot.

kerry on the other hand is a uncharismatic doof, but he hasn't had a chance to mess up yet, so i say give him one.

RJF

09-23-2004, 11:15 AM

RBS14

09-23-2004, 12:24 PM

RJF: that's great the bush has thrown a buch of money into the educational system. However, simply throwing money at a problem with little/no/wrong direction does absolutely nothing to fix it.

wow, that's a huge list of countries. what have each of them donated to the war? they might be in support of it, but if you aren't doing anything, what the hell difference does it make if you are publically for or against it?

I've asket multiple times, why are you pro-bush people going to vote for him? What is he going to do to put our country in a better place than kerry?

what's also funny, is that if the govt. was lurking this thread, they could legally gain all of the information on us anti bush people, come to our house, search it without probable cause, detain us indefinately, and convict us of any crime they wanted, in secret courts, not havig to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we were guilty of the supposed crime. All legally. All thanks to Bush's USA Patriot Act. Isn't the president supposed to uphold the constitution? I guess Bush is exempt. Oh, and lets not forget that he's in the middle of drafting the patriot act 2. As you can guess, it somehow manages to strip our citizens of even more rights than he already has.

RJF

09-23-2004, 01:07 PM

what's also funny, is that if the govt. was lurking this thread, they could legally gain all of the information on us anti bush people, come to our house, search it without probable cause, detain us indefinately, and convict us of any crime they wanted, in secret courts, not havig to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we were guilty of the supposed crime. All legally. All thanks to Bush's USA Patriot Act. Isn't the president supposed to uphold the constitution? I guess Bush is exempt. Oh, and lets not forget that he's in the middle of drafting the patriot act 2. As you can guess, it somehow manages to strip our citizens of even more rights than he already has.

What's wrong? Why are you worried? You been hanging out with Cat Stevens? :D

Patriot Act - If it was so "evil", why did the Congress and Senate approve it almost unanimously?

Regarding the reason I'm voting for Bush is because he's in favor of a form of government where people not only elect their representatives, but also have a say in how they can lead their lives, unlike Kerry and the Democrats, who seem to think that the American people are too dumb to run their own lives.

I don't want the government to run my entire life, like in socialist countries.

I want to be able to pick up the phone make a doctor's appointment, with the doctor of my choosing and not have to wait 3 weeks. I also think I can do better in planning and saving for my retirement, by having control over a portion of MY money, which I can invest the way I see fit.

All of Kerry's plans make it sound like the government is going to give you something. Keep in mind that everything the government gives you is yours in the first place. Every paycheck you and I receive has a good chunk taken out in taxes. I'd rather be able to keep more of my money.

I realize that we all have to pay for services, but to go and "grow" the government more and make everyone believe that the government is "giving" them something, when we are actually paying for it oursleves is nuts. If taxes go up as planned under Kerry, the economy will take a big dump like in the late 1970's (Carter), where unemployment was something like 11% and interest rates were near 20%. Only thing that solved that were Reagan's tax cuts, which put more money in everyone's pockets to spend as they wanted.

Bush is also a man with principals, who does what he believes is best for the American people. Granted, he is also a politician like all the rest, but his leadership is firm and strong and he is committed to doing the right thing and letting the American people run their own lives.

As for Kerry, he just comes across as a spoiled rich kid, who always got what he wanted. Or he will do whatever he has to to get ahead. Just look at his anti-war record and how he said all Vietnam vets were war criminals, only because there was a huge anti-war sentiment in this country when he got back and he wanted to run for Congress. If he hated the war so much, why did he volunteer for Vietnam? He felt he could use his experience as an advantage to get votes. His tax-and-spend voting record in the Senate for the past 20 years and most recently his flip-flops on the Iraqi war. He will say whatever he thinks the people want to hear.

sykikchimp

09-23-2004, 01:25 PM

Here's some news for John "I love the United Nations" Kerry:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133212,00.html

We need to kick the UN out of this country and turn the headquarters building in New York into condos.

The Oil-for-food fiasco is a program run by Koffe Anan (sp?). He is the MFer that is fucking that program and helping russia, france and iraq, all the while calling the actions of the US illeagal. He is totally full of shit. The mojority of the UN is not involved in the crap that went on with this. The fact remains that if the UN is debunk, then we still need some sort of international counsel. Just removing the UN would open all kinds of doors for crime, and terrorism. Maybe we should start a new club, and not allow girls. :D

..btw - nice discussion. Very well thought out replies. :) I'll get to the other stuff when I get home this afternoon.

Var

09-23-2004, 01:33 PM

BAHH talking politics is worthless. People dont ever treat both sides equally. RJF you look at Kerry how Democrats look at Bush. RBS14 has a good point with this statement

I've asked multiple times, why are you pro-bush people going to vote for him? What is he going to do to put our country in a better place than kerry?

God should make me dictator of Earth and it will be a better place.

evilimport

09-23-2004, 02:31 PM

God should make me dictator of Earth and it will be a better place.
BUT, I was planning on ruling the World!!! ;)

sykikchimp

09-23-2004, 03:13 PM

Answering some of your points:

Do you have facts to backup your claims?

Re: Homeland Security - On June 6, 2002 US President George W. Bush proposed a permanent Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, an agency that would include the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Customs, the Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration, among others. The INS would be part of the Border and Transportation Security pillar. The Department of Homeland Security also would have legal authority over visa issuance. Congress has begun holding hearings on this proposal, which has similarities with an earlier proposal by Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), S2452, as well as with the recommendations of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century (the Hart-Rudman Commission).

(These are straight from that link I posted other "Flip-flopper-in-cheif")

BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

Re: Assault Weapons Ban - Where did he support it? Also, it never would have had enough votes.

Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

Re: Which Commissions?

1. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent 9/11 Commission

Bush Flip: Initially Opposed to Independent 9/11 Commission
Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]

Bush Flop: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission
President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance." [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]

2. Bush Flip-Flops on Independent WMD Commission

Bush Flip: Refuses to Call for Independent Bipartisan Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction
"President Bush said on January 30, 2004, 'I want to know the facts' about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation." [AP, 1/30/04]

Bush Flop: Bush Appoints WMD Investigation Commission
President Bush named a nine-member bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in February 2004. The AP noted, "Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats." The Los Angeles Times reported, "The White House opposed that panel initially, then backed down under pressure, and some say administration officials now regret doing so because the administration has become locked in a series of embarrassing battles with the Sept. 11 commission." The New York Times noted Bush "gave the panel until March 2005, well after the November elections, to submit its conclusions." [NY Times, 2/7/04; LA Times, 2/1/04; AP, 2/6/04]

Re: Abortion - He has never supported abortion.

"Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

Then he said later: "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

Re: Domestic Policy - Cite facts. He has spent more on education than any other President.

Education?!!

"BUSH’S BROKEN PROMISES TO AMERICAN SCHOOLS

* Under-Funded No Child Left Behind by $27 Billion. Bush’s last four budgets have cumulatively provided $27 billion less than what was pledged under NCLB. [President’s FY 2005 Budget, www.ed.gov; historical data at www.ed.gov]
* Cut Funding for the School District He Praises Today. In today’s radio address, George Bush praises a school district in Asheville, North Carolina. Yet George Bush cut Title I funding for that district by more than $100,000. North Carolina has been one of the nation’s leaders in education reform since the era of Jim Hunt, North Carolna’s “Education Governor.” [Center for American Progress, 04/06/04]
* Proposed Cutting 500,000 Children from Afterschool Programs. In his 2004 budget, George Bush proposed cutting afterschool funding by 40%, cutting off afterschool opportunities for 500,000 children. [www.afterschoolalliance.org; ed.gov, FY 2004 Budget data]

BUSH’S FAILURE TO REFORM HIGH SCHOOLS IN TEXAS AND ACROSS AMERICA

* Bush and Paige’s “Texas Miracle” Exposed As a “Tall Tale.” Bush modeled No Child Left Behind after the “Texas Miracle” over which Rod Paige presided as superintendent of Houston schools. Yet, a Texas Education Agency probe into 16 Houston schools found widespread fraud and misreporting. “Houston as a whole reported a 1.5 percent annual dropout rate, though education experts estimate that the true percentage of students who quit before graduation is nearer 40 percent.” Other experts placed Houston’s dropout rate as high as 50 percent. [Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2004; New York Times, 7/26/2003; New York Times, 7/11/2003; 60 Minutes, 1/7/04]
* One-Third of American Students Allowed To Drop-Out. The national graduation rate “is not the widely broadcast 85 percent,” but closer to 68 percent. In fact, about half of African-American Latino, and American Indian youths do not finish high school. [Education Week, 7/28/04; Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2/04] "

How about health care?
"The Lewin Group study shows that Bush plan raises health premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for families. Bush claims that his plan would make health care more affordable – but The Lewin Group contradicts him. It finds that the average family will see their health costs go up by $68 under the Bush plan and down $451 under the Kerry plan. In addition, it finds that health premiums would go up for all income groups making over $10,000 under the Bush plan and down for all income groups under the Kerry plan. [The Lewin Group, “Bush and Kerry Health Care Proposals: Cost and Coverage Compared,” 9/21/2004, Figure 20]"

Or how about the environment? Bush has cut enforcement of clean water safeguards. Supported rolling back Clean Water Act protections for 60% of our nation’s waters. Refuses to reduce mercury emissions from power plants until 2018. Allowed 17,000 old coal-fired power plants, refineries, and other factories to avoid reducing their pollution by gutting Clean Air Act safeguards. Cut EPA law enforcement. Issued 60% fewer violation notices and 28% fewer fines against polluters than the previous administration. Forced taxpayers – rather than chemical companies – to pay to clean up toxic waste sites. Has deeply cut funding for alternative energy options and has consistently worked with big oil companies to block bipartisan efforts to increase fuel efficiency and decrease oil consumption. Wants drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other sensitive lands and coastlines. Rolled back protections for roadless areas, allowing subsidized logging in almost 60 million acres of national forest lands. Denied needed funds for National Parks’ budget. Pulled out of international negotiations to fight global warming. Ignored scientific findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences.

Re: Iraq - Funny, Kerry's plan sounds alot like what we are doing now. As for Kerry's constant whining that we are doing everything alone, I wonder how the 48 other countries feel when they hear than. Just because the French aren't involved, no one else counts.

Indeed it does. That was sort of my point. They both (kerry and bush) know what has to happen, and both will stay the course.

the French can kiss my ass. Bunch of faggoty sissies. There are ~192 countries in the world of which 189 are represented at the UN. 49 don't sound like a whole lot does it? And of those 49, the UK is about the only one who has supplied a fair amount of support, and that was against the popular will of it's people. Tony Blair may have very well commited political suicide by helping. (Although I am very happy he did, and I hope the brits see the good that came of it.)

RBS14

09-23-2004, 03:34 PM

sykikchimp: I'm glad you took the time to point some of those things out, my computer crashed right before I was done writing a post that took me almost an hour, covering those and more areas.

the bottom line is that he is neither a man of his word or principles.

these don't sound like principles to me:

destroying the environment
cutting funding to social programs, right after visiting them and telling them what a good job they are doing
cutting funding to his own creation, homeland security.

As for the patriot act thing. it passed for 2 reasons. the fear of the congressmen and senators of being labeled by bush as unpatriotic, and the more important reson. Bush implied that the members who voted against it would be blamed for any future attacks - a tactic that fit one of the act's own broad new definitions of terrorism: to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion".

your statement about universal healthcare is incorrect also. It is a common misconception about universal healthcare that the quality of care and ability to choose doctors is eliminated. it is in fact, the opposite. click the link below to learn more.

http://www.amsa.org/hp/theories.cfm

RJF

09-23-2004, 04:33 PM

Did you actually read some of your references?
Look at the budget numbers: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget05/summary/appendix1.pdf

That's why the budget is up almost 36% since Clinton's last budget.

As for some of your other sources:

New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Associated Press
60 Minutes <- That's a reliable news source
Education Week
Harvard

You sure Pravda didn't have any quotes or stories? Michael Moore not available? :)

About the quotes, if you are going to hold Bush to such a high standard, then Kerry is fair-game with just his 14 or so flip-flops on the Iraq war.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC132004T.wmv

Even a Kerry supporter can't figure him out:
"I asked him a number of questions about Iraq and I can't tell you what he said." -- Don Imus, Radio Host

RJF

09-23-2004, 05:28 PM

Who made the following statement?

"... we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to ensure the survival and the success of liberty!"

That's exactly what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Answer to come later.

RBS14

09-23-2004, 07:49 PM

I'm guessing anybody but Bush. I'd be willing to bet he doesn't know half of the words in there.

it's also far too eloquent for bush to have said it....

ThatGuy

09-23-2004, 08:05 PM

Well it sure as hell wasn't John Kerry, unless his wife told him to say it.

mrmephistopheles

09-23-2004, 08:08 PM

I know who said it. :D

mrmephistopheles

09-23-2004, 08:15 PM

I'd rather him not explain himself AT ALL and just go do the damn thing. He makes himself look unfit to serve.

I wouldn't have a problem with that either, but most of the country wants to know reasoning behind actions. Everyone is an armchair quarterback when it comes to national policy. By not explaining his actions, he risks alienating the populatce, and generating distrust. By being forthcoming, he's more likely to gain the trust of the people.

evilimport

09-24-2004, 04:04 AM

Well it sure as hell wasn't John Kerry, unless his wife told him to say it.
OUCH! :werd:

sykikchimp

09-24-2004, 06:25 AM

Ok.. whatever. So now respected news outlets liek the New York time, the AP, LA Times, and Harvard aren't good enough for you. LOLOLOL Your just like Bush.. Totally unable to accept facts even when their from your OWN PEOPLE. Most of those site direct quotes from white house officials.

I guess I just need to get the president himself to come out and say "I SUCK COCK< DON'T VOTE FOR ME." but then you would say some sleasy democrat must have a gun to his daughters head, and forced him to say it.

And as I said.. I wasn't holding bush to any higher standard than Kerry, just pointing out that Bush's own sleazy campaign is BULLSHIT b/c he hasn't come up with ANYTHING that he hasn't done himself. All he can do is label Kerry. The next thing I expect to hear out of bush's (or more likely Cheny's) mouth is "Kerry's a STUPID DUMB HEAD. SO HE'S UNPATRIOTIC!"

I say there's simply TOO much "Bush" http://charles.sykikchimp.org/images/bushy.JPG in the Whitehouse. Get some real testosterone in there. Someone who can actually run this country and make GOOD things happen. VOTE AL SHARPTON!! ahahahahaha

(JFK said that. he was a democrat.)

sykikchimp

09-24-2004, 06:28 AM

Well it sure as hell wasn't John Kerry, unless his wife told him to say it.

somebody sounds jealous. :drama:

hehe.. j/k mang.

RJF

09-24-2004, 07:02 AM

Ok.. whatever. So now respected news outlets liek the New York time, the AP, LA Times, and Harvard aren't good enough for you.

Respected? When all their stories are slanted to the left? And Bush is compared to Hilter? When 60 Minutes knowingly (yes, they knew. Anyone who's ever used MS Word knew) presents known forgeries to try and discredit the President and influence the election, I wouldn't call them respected. So no, I don't believe a word they say.

Yes, it was John F. Kennedy who made that quote.

RJF

09-24-2004, 07:07 AM

Well it sure as hell wasn't John Kerry, unless his wife told him to say it.

No, couldn't have been Teresa Heinz-Kerry. She justs tells reporters to "Shove it" and calls people idiots and scumbags.

Some first lady she'd be.

--------------------------
Don't buy Heinz ketchup, buy real American ketchup. www.wketchup.com

http://www.wketchup.com/images/bottles/w_ketchup_14oz.gif

sykikchimp

09-24-2004, 08:15 AM

How about Cheney cussing at congressmen IN congress, the day they pass some decency bill. lol.

sykikchimp

09-24-2004, 08:17 AM

Respected? When all their stories are slanted to the left? And Bush is compared to Hilter? When 60 Minutes knowingly (yes, they knew. Anyone who's ever used MS Word knew) presents known forgeries to try and discredit the President and influence the election, I wouldn't call them respected. So no, I don't believe a word they say.

Yes, it was John F. Kennedy who made that quote.

It doesn't matter if your respect them or not. As I said. Many are direct quotes from Whitehouse officials. I doesn't matter if hitler is telling you, if it's in black and white on whitehouse letterhead.

RJF

09-24-2004, 08:53 AM

How about Cheney cussing at congressmen IN congress, the day they pass some decency bill. lol.

Senator Leahy needs to be cussed at sometimes. :D

He's probably one of the most obstructionist politicians around, blocking most of the judicial nominees these past 4 years.

I heard a quote by some commentator on Air America last night, which sums up all the Democrats anger. "I don't like being the minority party." So, it's all for the power.

Meanwhile, it was fine while the Democrats controlled the House and Senate for over 40 years. The American public voted the Republicans into power (House and Senate) in 1994 for a reason. Maybe the democratic party is alittle out of touch with the American majority.

sykikchimp

09-24-2004, 09:32 AM

That very well may be. Honestly I don't think either guy will screw up. They got this far, and our country has a serious slew of checks and balances to keep them in line. :spank:

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! :bowrofl:

RJF

09-24-2004, 12:11 PM

Ooops, I quoted something from the respected Washington Times.

He's changed his story so many times, he can't even remember what he's said. :confused:

Plus he actually blasted France. :)

Inside the Beltway
By John McCaslin
Published September 24, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry out attack
During a 1997 debate on CNN's "Crossfire," Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.
So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.
Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available, Mr. King in recent days produced a tape of the show, sharing it with New York radio host Monica Crowley for broadcast, and this Inside the Beltway column for publication. Stay tuned.

Var

09-24-2004, 12:57 PM

"We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."

Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Although Bush probably didnt go in there because he was threatened. He's looking at the long run. We need a strong hand in the middle east.

evilimport

09-24-2004, 03:04 PM

Where Bush Got His Marching Orders

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matte rs a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschl e (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "San Fran Nan"

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons pro grams. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Sadd am Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hus sein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F.. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.

RJF

09-24-2004, 03:08 PM

evilimport - Nicely done! :rawk:

evilimport

09-24-2004, 03:36 PM

I only do what I can....

KA24DESOneThree

09-24-2004, 05:37 PM

Props to you, evilimport... VERY well compiled.

On a side note, why are all the Google ads advertising Kerry stuff?
*Edit: and now they aren't.*
*Edit edit: thanks That Guy*

ThatGuy

09-24-2004, 05:44 PM

The google ads constantly change.

dunno

09-25-2004, 02:33 AM

I hope you're not taking credit for that, it's a chain e-mail that made it's way to me too. Not that I'm against anything in it, but it's not your work.

-Matt

KA24DESOneThree

09-25-2004, 09:42 AM

Eh, still props to evilimport because he posted it.

Var

09-25-2004, 10:21 AM

I think it's kinda funny that Kerry is a Democrat. He's the war veteran. A slow talking ancient looking man. Boring as all hell. But he's the Democrat. Then there Bush. Good 'ol Dubya. Crazy kid i tell ya. Snortin coke. Partying hard. Ditched the armed forces..but he's.....a......Republican?

evilimport

09-25-2004, 11:07 AM

I hope you're not taking credit for that, it's a chain e-mail that made it's way to me too. Not that I'm against anything in it, but it's not your work.
who cares, really. I saw it I posted it, period..... Fact are facts.

dont get mad get glad. :rolleyes:

RJF

09-25-2004, 12:57 PM

Well, this seems to explain it all. :bigok:

http://www.rjwest.com/blog/video1.wmv

Var

09-25-2004, 01:29 PM

That was entertaining but dont hate on Michael Moore. He has a right to his opinion. YEEE HAAA GO DUBYA!

"Right now this is his truck. Not his family's" :bowrofl:

RJF

09-27-2004, 08:48 AM

Sen. Edward Kennedy has been pummeling the Bush administration in daily speeches in the Senate, serving as one of the most aggressive flame-throwers for Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign.

I didn't realize that the Senate floor was now a campaign stop for Kerry.

Teddy should worry about where his next Happy-Hour is.

Kerry on the campaign trail? :wtf:
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040925/i/r1883463487.jpg

Andrew Bohan

09-27-2004, 10:05 AM

i had no idea me posting an innocent news story would spawn a 6 page political argument. you guys are great
:fart:

RJF

09-27-2004, 03:19 PM

Well so much for the French and Germans helping in Iraq.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html

Wonder what story John-boy will come up with now?
"They'll send the troops after they refuse to send the troops" :loco:

Here's a new information website: http://kerrysenate.com/index.htm

RJF

09-27-2004, 03:24 PM

For those that are interested, President Bush will be interviewed tonight on "The O'Reilly Factor" on FoxNews. 8PM EST

http://www.billoreilly.com/images/LOGOS/orf125b.jpg

Why is Kerry not doing serious news show interviews?

mrmephistopheles

09-27-2004, 06:40 PM

Why is Kerry not doing serious news show interviews?

No idea. He WAS on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central not too long ago (even though that mostly consisted of John being fellated by Jon).

sykikchimp

09-28-2004, 07:15 AM

HAHAHAHZHAHAHWSR:OJSWA)#tr lololers! NOW "The Oreilly Factor" Is a "Serios news show" HAHAHQAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQ

Fox, and everything on it is nothing but a bunch or right wing Bush nut swingers.

mrmephistopheles

09-28-2004, 07:53 AM

I agree that Bill O'Reilly isn't an impartial 'journalist', but I don't recall him ever saying he is. That show is about HIS opinion on different subjects. I think FOX is less like Charles described, but I won't discount the distinct possibility of behind-the-scenes spinning going on.

sykikchimp

09-28-2004, 08:20 AM

well.. I was exagerating to make a point specifically about the close mindedness of people and politics. (kinda picking on RJF.. I am also not immune. :coolugh: :) )

mrmephistopheles

09-28-2004, 08:33 AM

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to pull your pump card. :fawk:

Dee240sx

09-28-2004, 09:13 AM

RJF

09-28-2004, 11:25 AM

Fox, and everything on it is nothing but a bunch or right wing Bush nut swingers.

Still not as bad as CNN (Clinton News Network)......

Kerry has two CNN employees (Carville and Begala) working for his campaign, so that's not exactly fair and balanced. :nono:

KA24DESOneThree

09-28-2004, 02:04 PM

There's a pre-debate Crossfire on at 4pm, 8pm, and 1am PST.

Modern Angel

09-28-2004, 02:35 PM

I realize that we all have to pay for services, but to go and "grow" the government more and make everyone believe that the government is "giving" them something, when we are actually paying for it oursleves is nuts...

Bush is also a man with principals, who does what he believes is best for the American people...

As for Kerry, he just comes across as a spoiled rich kid, who always got what he wanted. Or he will do whatever he has to to get ahead... If he hated the war so much, why did he volunteer for Vietnam? He felt he could use his experience as an advantage to get votes.

First of all, under the Bush administration government has grown immensely. How do you think we went from the huge budget SURPLUS we had during the Clinton administration to the huge DEFICIT we have now? That's not from making a small government. And, oddly enough, just like with you and I, bills need to paid eventually. While Bush keeps on spending, spending, spending our deficit grows and grows. So what do you think a rational person would do to keep themselves from getting into more and more debt? Spend more? Make less money? Do both?!?! No, of course not, that's just plain stupid, right? Well, that's exactly what Bush has decided to do with our budget by increasing spending monumentally and then cutting taxes. Sooner or later we're going to have to pay that debt off. You, me, and our kids and grandchildren will be paying the price for W's little romp in office.

And speaking of his little romp, how can you possibly call Kerry a spoiled rich kid without at least doing the same for W. George W. Bush had the good fortune of being the son of not only an oil tycoon, not only an ex-head of the CIA, and, no, not only an ex-Vice President of the United States, but, hell, he's also the son of an ex-President of the United States. Gee. It really doesn't get much better than that as far as being a spoiled rich kid. Hell, his dad gave him the money for most of the companies he started and then ran into the ground with his wonderful steadfast principles.

And if you think Kerry went to Vietnam, got shot and risked death just to get a few votes then, crap, you've got issues that no rational argument is going to overcome. :)

RJF

09-28-2004, 03:40 PM

Well, that's exactly what Bush has decided to do with our budget by increasing spending monumentally and then cutting taxes. Sooner or later we're going to have to pay that debt off. You, me, and our kids and grandchildren will be paying the price for W's little romp in office.

Well, how do you think we got that surplus, by the tax cuts initiated by Ronald Reagan back in the 80's. It helped stimulate the economy, created jobs, which carried over into the 90's and Clinton gets credit for, even though he didn't do anything. If he gets credit for the boom, then he should also be blamed for the recession he put us in, back in 2000.

And speaking of his little romp, how can you possibly call Kerry a spoiled rich kid without at least doing the same for W. George W. Bush had the good fortune of being the son of not only an oil tycoon, not only an ex-head of the CIA, and, no, not only an ex-Vice President of the United States, but, hell, he's also the son of an ex-President of the United States. Gee. It really doesn't get much better than that as far as being a spoiled rich kid. Hell, his dad gave him the money for most of the companies he started and then ran into the ground with his wonderful steadfast principles.

Yeah, but at least Bush worked his entire life, unlike Kerry who marries rich women. He was married to a millionaire, but decided to upgrade to a billionaire. Plus, his 20 years in the Senate have no major accomplishments.

And if you think Kerry went to Vietnam, got shot and risked death just to get a few votes then, crap, you've got issues that no rational argument is going to overcome. :)

Kerry never got shot, unless you call that piece of rice in his ass, shot. He ran from Vietnam so quick, it made other Navy vets head spin. As for his wounds, why did he never spend an hour in the hospital and all the wounds were treated with a bandage? If he was really wounded and deserved those medals, then why does he refuse to sign the Form 180 and release all his military records. There's something in there that he doesn't want anyone to see. Bush released all his military records.

Other subject: Your signature is too big. 400x200 maximum

Modern Angel

09-28-2004, 04:11 PM

Well, the sig is fixed now. :)

So, with that out of the way, you never addressed the enormous and fast-growing debt that Bush has decided to burden our country with.... or, for that matter, how you can reconcile that fact with your claim that the Bush administration represents smaller government.

And, at any rate, Kerry at least actually went over to Vietnam instead of staying close to daddy at home and sittin' pretty in Texas with his National Guard squad.

RJF

09-28-2004, 04:41 PM

So, with that out of the way, you never addressed the enormous and fast-growing debt that Bush has decided to burden our country with.... or, for that matter, how you can reconcile that fact with your claim that the Bush administration represents smaller government.

And, at any rate, Kerry at least actually went over to Vietnam instead of staying close to daddy at home and sittin' pretty in Texas with his National Guard squad.

So, fighting a war, homeland security and rebuilding the military (that was stripped down by Clinton) doesn't cost anything? Plus all the social programs that Bush has initiated, such as education, don't cost anything either. Home ownership is at an all-time high, plus tons of other things that he has done that you won't hear the MSM advertise.

The tax cuts are our money that we are being allowed to keep. Plus, as any economist will state that by allowing consumers to keep more of their own money and spend it as they wish will stimulate the economy. It happened in the 80's with the Reagan tax cuts and it'll happen again, but it doesn't happen overnight.

If sitting at home in Texas includes flying missions over the Gulf...then remember that we were in the middle of the Cold War back then and Russian bombers were always prowling our borders. So both of them served in the military and were honorably discharged.

sykikchimp

09-28-2004, 05:18 PM

WOW.. those tax cuts are awesome! so awesome I was able to buy a stick of chewing gum. I love bush and his amazingly HUGE middle class tax cuts. HOORAY!! The only people I've seen benefit are millionaires, and big corporations.

And housing ownership is NOT because of bush, it's b/c of ultra low interest rates caused by the fed trying to turn our economy around. The work the FED did is what is bringing us out of recession. Not W's measly tax cuts.

sykikchimp

09-28-2004, 05:21 PM

June 19, 2002
Bush's "Lucky me, I hit the Trifecta" joke

During the past few months, President Bush has been going around and telling people a story about how the only reason he would break his no-deficit promise was if there was a war, a recession, or a national emergency. In a crowd-pleasing line repeated to Republican audiences around the country, President Bush then delivers the punch line, “Lucky me, I hit the trifecta.”

That’s pretty funny stuff. I suppose he’ll be at Ha-Ha’s in Cleveland on Saturday night – don’t forget to tip your bartender.

We, the American people, have hit a trifecta of a different sort. Our trifecta – the Bush trifecta – unfortunately is no laughing matter. Ours was, in a way, a matter of luck, but more so the result of the legal gymnastics performed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Like much of official Washington, President Bush recently left for his annual summer exodus to his Crawford, Tex. ranch. The White House, sensitive to concerns about the appearance of a president vacationing in the midst of a sliding economy and corporate corruption (not to mention the war against terror), reassured reporters that the president would keep up his work schedule. During the month-long respite, besides trimming shrubs and clearing land, that schedule is expected to include day trips to raise money from fat cat contributors (including a few CEO’s) for Republican candidates around the country. And so it goes.

Before heading off for his holiday, President Bush signed legislation giving him fast-track trade authority. It allows the president to more freely negotiate trade agreements with other nations and then present them to the Senate for vote without amendment. The Clinton administration had sought it for years, despite the objections of labor unions, environmental groups and House Republicans.

House Republicans? But wait, aren’t Republicans for free trade? Interestingly, the trade debate reveals a little hypocrisy among our Republican friends in Congress.

Gasp! I’m shocked, just shocked, that there’s gambling in this casino!

Trade authority had been a long standing tradition among presidents until Congress allowed it to lapse in early 1995. At the time the new House Speaker, a history professor from Georgia named Newt Gingrich, and the Republicans he led were reluctant to hand President Clinton a legislative victory on trade – even though they had campaigned in favor of free trade. So when the time came, Republicans abandoned their principles and voted to allow the law to lapse.

Fast forward to 2002 – new president, same debate. This time when the president asked, many of the same Republicans who had opposed trade authority in 1995 were suddenly among its biggest cheerleaders. The bill passed. And so it goes.

During his first year in office, President Bush scored a big victory on his tax cut proposal. Bush was the toast of the town, the guy who sent us that $300 check, which we of course used to get the economy moving again. It turns out that check was just the first part of the tax cut. The other part is a pretty hefty tax cut that will be phased in over the next ten years. Unfortunately, most of us won’t see any of that – it goes to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.

Why, you ask, is the tax cut structured that way? Good question. The answer is so that the Bush administration can avoid telling the whole truth.

Take, for example, a press release issued by the Office of Management and Budget in July. According to New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the O.M.B. claimed that tax cuts account for only 15 percent of the deficits over the next ten years. Unfortunately, they got caught telling a half-truth – or a half-lie depending on whether the glass is half-full or half-empty.

The whole truth is that the 15 percent figure only refers to the effect of those $300 checks on this year’s budget. According to the administration’s estimates, buried deep in the President’s own budget, a whopping 40 percent of the decline in the 10-year budget picture is due to the trillion dollar tax cut (remember, those big time tax cuts for the wealthy are complete in 2010).

When Krugman pointed out the half-truth, the O.M.B. got just a wee bit upset and claimed that the offending press release had been “retracted.” Oops – not quite true. Apparently, the O.M.B. had quietly deleted the inaccurate portion of the press release on its website, but did not reissue a corrected version or otherwise inform reporters or the public of the retraction. After all, the Bush administration looks better if reporters and the public believe its half truth (or half lie) about the deficit.

And so it goes. Such is life in the Bush era.

mrmephistopheles

09-28-2004, 05:35 PM

It'd be nice if people cited their sources.

RJF

09-28-2004, 09:07 PM

Why does everyone take John Kerry's and the MSM's word on everything they say? The tax cuts were across the board and effected all income groups, yet the top 20% of the income earners in this country pay 82% of the income tax.

So before you all start spouting "only the rich got tax cuts" check your facts and your paystubs.

Also, those of you that look forward to that big refund every year, You are actually getting your own money back, which you lent to the government interest-free for several months.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0408/27/a09-255537.htm

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2004/08/27/asec/082704-o-bushtaxcuts-cht.jpg

KA24DESOneThree

09-28-2004, 10:42 PM

Bush and Arnold need to allow stricter immigration controls. Oakland rescinded license checkpoints because of Latino group pressure, which was created because so many illegals were being caught at the checkpoints. Why did they (the INS and the Oakland PD) cave? Because of these bullcrap politilocos who care more about pandering for votes than our good interests.

By the way, did anyone catch part two of O'Reilly's interview with the Pres?

sykikchimp

09-29-2004, 07:23 AM

http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0408/27/a09-255537.htm

http://www.detnews.com/pix/2004/08/27/asec/082704-o-bushtaxcuts-cht.jpg

According to that chart, the tax cuts for the top 20% was about double on average of what the middle and lower class cuts were.. and that Tax burden crap is totally pointless b/c it doesn't give the number of the total tax burden. If they were paying 78% of 1,000,000,000 before, and now they are paying 82% of 500,000,000, they are benefiting MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more than ANYONE else. That number is important to that chart and it was convieniently left out.

and your right I should have given a source for that article. I don't think I really trusted the source b/c it was on what appeared to be a very liberal site. I had read it before from a trusted news source who I can't remember, and you can find plenty of references to the exact same thing all over the net. So I figured I would post just to throw some fuel on the fire. :) From what I can tell from reading in different places he did say that on multiple occasions, but in what context I have no idea since that part is always left out. go figure.

RJF

09-29-2004, 07:47 AM

According to that chart, the tax cuts for the top 20% was about double on average of what the middle and lower class cuts were.. and that Tax burden crap is totally pointless b/c it doesn't give the number of the total tax burden. If they were paying 78% of 1,000,000,000 before, and now they are paying 82% of 500,000,000, they are benefiting MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more than ANYONE else. That number is important to that chart and it was convieniently left out.

The Top 20% of income earners pay 82% of this nation's taxes, and that's not enough???? :wtf:

How much should they pay? And what's the incentive them for people to work hard, make money and succeed if the government takes it all away?

Why don't we just become a socialist country, take everyones possesions away and redistribute, because that's what it sounds like suggesting.

RedlineRacer

09-29-2004, 08:58 AM

What the hell? Who cares about our deficit? Its not like any other country is trying to cut their spending and pay their debts to us and pay us back for all the times we bailed their asses out of tyranny. Germany and the UK owe us a shit load, but do you really think they care or are even going to pay us back? HELL NO!!!

bing

09-29-2004, 09:23 AM

i cant handle rading 7 pages, someone wanna give me the jist?

looks like some guys are using actual facts to support arguements, that's wicked.

Var

09-29-2004, 09:29 AM

Cliffs notes: political argument/discussion

Modern Angel

09-29-2004, 09:39 AM

What the hell? Who cares about our deficit?

Um. Because money doesn't magically appear out of nowhere. I don't want to go into an economics 101 crash course here for you but just stop and think for a second... Our country is able to go into debt because we borrow money from other countries and foreign banks. These foreign banks do not have unlimited amounts of money and the value of the money they do have (as well as our US Dollar) is in a constant state of flux. One of the chief determinations of the strength of a country's currency is how strong it's economy and how much foreign investment there is in a country. The US's recent huge debtload incurred by President Bush's fiscal policy as well as our weakened economy has caused a marked decrease in foreign investment in the US... a clear indication of a downturn of faith in the US's ability to repay it's debt. The Dollar has already fallen considerably against the Euro, the Pound, the Yen, and most other currency because of this. The less purchasing power the Dollar has the harder it becomes to repay the debt we already have.

Eventually, if the situation gets bad enough a country's economy can default on it's loans - with catastrophic consequences to not only our own economy but the entire world. Now, truthfully, I don't forsee this happening to the US anytime soon but it CAN happen. Just a couple years ago it happened to Argentina...

So - to simplify - a country's finances aren't really that different from your own... the less debt you have the better. Some debt is okay but huge deficits with no plan to get rid of it ... that's just a bad idea.

And... the "trickle-down" economics plan that Bush is using is flawed. It might work if we actually lived in an unregulated economic world but we don't. More and more all that extra money we're letting the rich keep isn't "trickling down" to you and me. Instead they just dump it into foreign investments or put it in an off-shore bank account. Wow. You think Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by letting all his money "trickle down" to you and I? No.

Moreover regarding the "War on Terror..." it will never be won. Remember when Reagan started our "War on Drugs"? Man.. that sure worked great didn't it? I know nobody does drugs anymore in the US right? It's silly. Sure 9/11 was a huge, horrible tragedy but it's not like that was the start of some war. Folks, Al-Qaeda tried to blow up the WTC back in 1993. Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in Oklahoma. Planes were hijacked back in the 70's... terrorism has been around forever and always will be. So, basically, we're ALWAYS going to be fighting the war on terror and we'll ALWAYS have a "war" president. I guess that means that we should always keep on spending our way into a gigantic hole too since, shit, it's justified... I mean, we've got to win this war on terror right? Wake up folks. The Bush Administrations "War on Terror" is just an excuse for fiscal recklessness, a tool to incite fear in the populace and a blatant twisting of the truth that he hopes the average american buys into so he can get himself re-elected.

On another note, I like how folks say that Bush is all about leaving choice in the hands of the people and not the government ... but at the same time Bush says that he's anti-choice regarding abortion and is also against giving gays the choice to be married. Hmmm. That sounds a bit like having government make decisions for me, doesn't it?

Also, let me just say that I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican... so I'm not just saying this crap because I'm towing some bullshit party line. I'm saying it because it's common sense. :)

sykikchimp

09-29-2004, 10:07 AM

From the Congressional Budget Office..
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1&from=0

Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities
(each number goes up 1 year successively starting from 2001 on the far left all the way to 2014 on the right.)
Lowest
Quintile 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5
Second
Quintile 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.6
Middle
Quintile 10.0 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.3 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7
Fourth
Quintile 18.5 19.1 19.2 19.5 19.0 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.1 19.2 19.1 19.1 19.2 19.2
Highest Quintile 65.3 64.2 64.1 63.5 64.3 64.2 64.0 63.8 64.1 64.1 63.2 63.1 62.9 62.8

All Quintiles 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Top 10 Percent 50.0 48.5 48.5 47.6 48.8 48.7 48.5 48.3 48.6 48.5 47.9 47.7 47.6 47.4
Top 5 Percent 38.5 36.9 36.9 35.9 37.3 37.3 37.0 36.7 37.1 36.9 36.6 36.5 36.3 36.1
Top 1 Percent 22.7 21.2 21.1 20.1 21.5 21.3 21.1 20.7 21.1 20.9 21.2 21.0 20.8 20.7

Income Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities

Lowest
Quintile -2.3 -2.3 -2.7 -2.7 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9
Second
Quintile 0.3 0.4 -0.2 -0.1 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4
Middle
Quintile 5.2 5.5 5.2 5.4 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.6
Fourth
Quintile 14.3 14.8 14.8 15.2 15.4 15.5 15.7 15.9 15.8 15.9 16.1 16.3 16.4 16.5
Highest Quintile 82.5 81.7 83.0 82.1 80.6 80.0 79.5 79.1 79.2 79.1 75.6 75.2 74.8 74.4

All Quintiles 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Top 10 Percent 67.7 66.6 67.9 66.7 65.3 64.8 64.2 63.7 63.9 63.7 60.8 60.3 59.9 59.5
Top 5 Percent 55.2 54.0 55.1 53.7 52.6 52.1 51.5 50.9 51.3 50.8 48.7 48.3 47.9 47.4
Top 1 Percent 34.4 33.3 33.6 32.3 31.6 31.0 30.4 29.8 30.3 29.9 29.4 29.0 28.7 28.3

That news article twisted reality on things a bit.
According to this, The rich (top 10%) pay LESS while the middle class pays more, and more every year.

RJF

09-29-2004, 03:12 PM

That news article twisted reality on things a bit.
According to this, The rich (top 10%) pay LESS while the middle class pays more, and more every year.

:wtf: Where are you seeing that?

RedlineRacer

09-29-2004, 04:40 PM

On another note, I like how folks say that Bush is all about leaving choice in the hands of the people and not the government ... but at the same time Bush says that he's anti-choice regarding abortion and is also against giving gays the choice to be married. Hmmm. That sounds a bit like having government make decisions for me, doesn't it?

You know, there is a thing called ethics. If the american people had any, those issues wouldn't even be questioned. Abortion is murder, no matter how you look at it, and gay marriages is a sin (also very disgusting).

nokeone

09-29-2004, 07:02 PM

You know, there is a thing called ethics. If the american people had any, those issues wouldn't even be questioned. Abortion is murder, no matter how you look at it, and gay marriages is a sin (also very disgusting).

you have no idea what you are talking about...if abortion is murder then so is eating animals...and i would bet anything you are not a vegetarian...what is the difference between a fetus and a full grown living animal?..neither one has the capacity to reason...or what we consider speach...or anything that defines a living, human being...a necessary thing when discussing murder...

gay marriage is a sin huh?..guess we should base who we vote for on what the church says right?..that's a laugh...god damn western religious people crack me up...lol..

sykik and rbs and modern...you guys fuckin rock..excellent points..well researched and thought out...as with all bush / kerry debates i have seen...bush people just keep saying the same things over and over again without really "saying" anything..."well we think this, and in our opinion he's this, and i'm pretty sure he did this"...with little facts to back it up...although i must say RJF comes off as intelligent and well read...a rareity when looking at Bush supporters...

look at the state this country is in right now....look at what we're doing over seas...look at bush's track record as president...and those are ALL the facts necessary to show that bush is a complete moron and has no business running this country...shit, he had no business int he first place even being in office...guess it's nice having brothers who can help fix elections for you...

(granted Kerry hasn't had a chance to fuck up as pres...he might...but i'd rather take a chance with someone who hasn't taken a country to a toilet yet as opposed to someone who has)

Var

09-29-2004, 08:53 PM

you have no idea what you are talking about...if abortion is murder then so is eating animals...and i would bet anything you are not a vegetarian...what is the difference between a fetus and a full grown living animal?..neither one has the capacity to reason...or what we consider speach...or anything that defines a living, human being...a necessary thing when discussing murder...

One can argue that a full grown living animal will never be a human, but a fetus is destined to be one. It will grow up and be another human on earth. It will live life and maybe change the world. I'm not pro-life, just another POV.

nokeone

09-30-2004, 12:36 AM

One can argue that a full grown living animal will never be a human, but a fetus is destined to be one. It will grow up and be another human on earth. It will live life and maybe change the world. I'm not pro-life, just another POV.

really?.it's destiny huh?...so no children ever die at birth?...noone ever doesn't live to adulthood?..

you should change your ideas to might....ur right..that fetus MIGHT grow up to be the next President of the USA...damn, i'm glad i'm pro abortion...if bush had been aborted all this would be mute...:)..but that fetus might also never make it past the 3rd trimester...but it really doesn't matter..it's not anything during the period where abortions are generally performed...one should be allowed to do anything with their own unborn fetus they want to...it's not a human being..it's not a citizen..it does not have a social security number, birth certificate, or anything else and therefor does not get the rights granted to US citizens...such as protection from murder....

but we're digressing...

dunno

09-30-2004, 01:24 AM

you have no idea what you are talking about...if abortion is murder then so is eating animals

I just had to step in. I thought it was way too ironic that you said, "if abortion is murder then so is eating animals," and, "you have no idea what you are talking about" in the same quasi-sentence (I'm not sure if I'm able to separate your posts into sentences).

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

:hammer:

-Matt

nokeone

09-30-2004, 01:40 AM

I just had to step in. I thought it was way too ironic that you said, "if abortion is murder then so is eating animals," and, "you have no idea what you are talking about" in the same quasi-sentence (I'm not sure if I'm able to separate your posts into sentences).

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder
Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

:hammer:

-Matt

haha..true..my "sentences" are def not complete in a grammar sense...

however...you proved my point exactly...i do not think eating animals is murder..not in the least...even when i was a vegetarian i did not think this...and i also do not think abortion is murder...

so therefor my comparo is perfectly fine and supported by your post...aborting a fetus does not in any way fall under your posted definition...it is not unlawful...they are not yet human beings...and it is not done with malice...as defined by your link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=malice

malice:
1. A desire to harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite.
2. Law. The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another.

they are not suffering...i don't see it as ill will...and there is just cause and reason behind most abortions....

therefor..it is NOT murder...:)

evilimport

09-30-2004, 04:36 AM

This is getting horribly off topic.... ^ be careful of what you say about the church, this country was founded on it... and homosexuals should never EVER have the right to get married. It doesnt matter if its a sin, its just not right.

:ghey: = :nono:

RJF

09-30-2004, 04:45 AM

OK, time to get this back on-topic.

Who watching the debate tonight?

Here's a list of things everyone needs to watch (from SwiftVets.com forum)

1) Dramamine: you will need to take a few to prevent motion sickness from listening to Kerry's plans as they will make you spin.

2) Tape a piece of paper under the tv which states.."LIAR"..not that we need the reminder, but your friends might!

3) straws and spitballs..anytime Kerry mentions the military, fire away!

4) Remove all breakables from the room.

5) Remember to take all blood pressure medication, this one could make your pressure zoom..keep the valium handy!

6) Shut the drapes, neighbors may wonder why you are screaming and jumping around..could get messy.

7) Where loose clothing, see #6!

IF possible refrain from drinking ..choking hazard..

9) When Bush has a chance to speak, breathe and remember, chant..HE WILL WIN..

10) The minute it is over..turn OFF the tv, the pundits will make you crazy. refer to #5.

tah

09-30-2004, 04:50 AM

mrmephistopheles

09-30-2004, 05:57 AM

I don't get why it's wrong. If you don't consider it a sin, then why is it just not right?
That's easy. He's homophobic.

sykikchimp

09-30-2004, 06:16 AM

Oh and check this out about the beloved patriot act:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040929/us_nm/rights_patriot_dc_9&printer=1

Seems that part of it is, wait.. what??? UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?> How could that be?!?! :eek3:

and that budget thing.. check the link and read through that. Those numbers are percentages of the burden they will pay over the next 10 years (including the last 4)

RedlineRacer

09-30-2004, 07:34 AM

one should be allowed to do anything with their own unborn fetus they want to...it's not a human being..it's not a citizen..it does not have a social security number, birth certificate, or anything else and therefor does not get the rights granted to US citizens...such as protection from murder...

So, you are saying the only thing that makes one a human being is being a citizen, have a social, birth certificate, and rights? So what do you consider people living outside our country? Also, what makes you think an unborn fetus isn't a human? before one is born, it has ever characteristic you and I have as human beings.

sykikchimp

09-30-2004, 07:57 AM

The topic is not ABORTION.. please drop that now, or start a new thread.

Andrew Bohan

09-30-2004, 09:45 AM

be careful of what you say about the church, this country was founded on it

it was founded on freedom of religion.

and about abortion: i'm not pro-life, or pro-choice. i'm pro-death.

Var

09-30-2004, 10:07 AM

9) When Bush has a chance to speak, breathe and remember, chant..HE WILL WIN..

[/I]

9)When Bush tries to speak, bite down on a piece of wood and refrain from breaking things.

Modern Angel

09-30-2004, 10:10 AM

Here's a list of things everyone needs to watch (from SwiftVets.com forum)

2) Tape a piece of paper under the tv which states.."LIAR"..not that we need the reminder, but your friends might!

7) Where loose clothing, see #6!

I'm assuming #2 is meant for BOTH candidates since they're both politicians and they're both liars. It's just that one of the candidates lies has cost the US and Iraq 1000's and 1000's of lives.

Oh yeah, and it's wear, not where. The intelligence level of whoever the original poster of that list was is really shining through here... :)

nokeone

09-30-2004, 10:18 AM

Var

09-30-2004, 10:19 AM

.

Oh yeah, and it's wear, not where. The intelligence level of whoever the original poster of that list was is really shining through here... :)

Ahh..a Republican tactic. using irrelevant points to make your opponent look bad, then relating to the issue at hand and questioning his intelligence

Modern Angel

09-30-2004, 10:29 AM

Ahh..a Republican tactic. using irrelevant points to make your opponent look bad, then relating to the issue at hand and questioning his intelligence

Except that it's not irrelevant... Think about it - if you're going to take the time to write up a little list of points to make fun of/bash someone you better at least take the time to make damn sure nobody else can come along and take an easy pot-shot at your own statements. A second of proofreading would've cured that spelling problem but, apparently, the poster doesn't care too much about how his intelligence is perceived by the reader. And if that's the case then why should the reader (i.e. you and I) care too much about what he has to say?

Basically, if you're going to make a point it's in your own best interest to present it as intelligently as possible.

Var

09-30-2004, 10:49 AM

agreeed on importance of appearance but IMO this is bordering on a slippery slope

Modern Angel

09-30-2004, 11:05 AM

agreeed on importance of appearance but IMO this is bordering on a slippery slope

Roger on that. Well for my part, at least, there'll be no more grammar critiques in my posts... :) There's more than enough to comment on just sticking to the issues anyway.

Var

09-30-2004, 11:59 AM

AGREED AGAIN. THis year there are so many people interested in politics. We are getting together at my uncle's house to watch the debate tonite. We're ordering a pizza! BALLS OUT!!!

Andrew Bohan

09-30-2004, 12:26 PM

get little caesars! and i'll get it at the same time but at my place

Var

09-30-2004, 12:30 PM

totally off topic..but something is wrong with an large pizza that costs 2 dollars. :ugh:

sykikchimp

09-30-2004, 12:47 PM

ehh.. I think the topic is getting kind of tired anyway.

Have you guys read that this year is a record for new voter registration? Probably gonna be the biggest voter turn out evAR!

RBS14

09-30-2004, 01:02 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thank God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andrew Bohan

09-30-2004, 01:07 PM

little caesars are 5 bucks

sykikchimp

09-30-2004, 01:20 PM

Check this out:
http://www.business-journal.com/NoJokeDailyShowViewersKnowIssues.asp

Basically says Daily Show viewers are more knowledgable about politics than ANYONE!! HAHAHAHAAHA.. :rofl:

Var

09-30-2004, 01:32 PM

I was watching the Daily Show yesterday night. Jon Stewart deserves every award they give him. The guy is funny and he makes some good points.

He mentioned that study by University of Pennsylvania and they DID conclude that the Daly Show viewers are more knowledgable by statistics than that absolute ASSHAT of a human being Bill O'Reilly's viewers.

As a joke Bill O'Reilly had called Jon Stewart's viewers "Stoned Slackers" or something close to it. After the relults of the study came in , Jon Stewart boasted a little bit, then made some jokes, then he called Bill O'Reilly's viewers "strung out on crystal meth" :bowrofl:

sykikchimp

09-30-2004, 01:35 PM

nokeone

09-30-2004, 06:52 PM

Have you guys read that this year is a record for new voter registration? Probably gonna be the biggest voter turn out evAR!

if that holds true up until the votes are cast then Kerry will win...there are statistically more Democrats in this country then Repulicans...voter turnout hurts us every time though...more Republicans care enough to vote...

FastBack 240

09-30-2004, 07:00 PM

I'm assuming #2 is meant for BOTH candidates since they're both politicians and they're both liars. It's just that one of the candidates lies has cost the US and Iraq 1000's and 1000's of lives.

Oh yeah, and it's wear, not where. The intelligence level of whoever the original poster of that list was is really shining through here... :)

:jerkit:

Not to jump ship here but what happend back in the Clinton admin. when we lost just as many lives in Mogadishu? We wern't even at war either.

How was it a lie? His intelligence officials thought that such weapons were present. BTW inst Hussein enough of a weapon of mass destruction? Also is gasing an entire Kurdish town destruction or am I missing somthing? Im registerd repub. but in this election I feel if you vote either side your gonna get bent over.

ThatGuy

09-30-2004, 07:19 PM

The debate is on, right now. Listen in and make your own choice. Drift the Vote. lol

RJF

09-30-2004, 08:38 PM

Bush Rocks!!!!

nokeone

09-30-2004, 09:00 PM

Bush Rocks!!!!

hahahah...he lost...hands down...even the republican commentators said he lost...look at the preliminary polls...

please....kerry owned him big time...bush came off as a redundent fuck tard...no surprise there..:)

Andrew Bohan

09-30-2004, 09:12 PM

bush sucks at talking. when he can't think of a response he tells lame jokes.

dunno

09-30-2004, 11:38 PM

I NEVER would have expected the democrats to say Kerry won.

-Matt

FastBack 240

09-30-2004, 11:46 PM

they are both lame.

evilimport

10-01-2004, 04:49 AM

Kerry has always been an awesome debater so its not a suprise that he won the debate.... doesnt mean anything really...this is the most mud-slinging election ever....

sykikchimp

10-01-2004, 07:26 AM

"Can't we all just get along" :D

RJF

10-01-2004, 08:20 AM

So, everyone is saying that Kerry won the debate, well maybe on style, but he even lied during the debate.

Kerry stated: 'That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' (Driving home point that Bush as not done enough to protect the country.) The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet NY1.

Also, why couldn't Kerry look directly into the camera? He was always looking off to the right. Couldn't look us in the eyes. President Bush was talking to us.

Four more years! :w00t:

sykikchimp

10-01-2004, 08:28 AM

Cause bush didn't lie??

100,000 trained iraqi troops? Try 50,000.

Kerry DID look into the camera. Especially during his entire closing statements.

Bush sounded as if he was about to cry like a spoiled little brat.

I'm sorry mr. president, but your baseless attacks don't hold water when the attackee is standing there making it very clear your full of shit.

RJF

10-01-2004, 08:34 AM

OK, another one:

KERRY CLAIMS HE'S "NEVER, EVER" USED WORD "LYING" IN REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT BUSH ON IRAQ. JIM LEHRER: "New question, Senator Kerry. Two minutes. You've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq. Essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth." SEN. KERRY: "Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word as you just did." (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

BUT IN DECEMBER 2003, KERRY TOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE EDITORIAL BOARD BUSH "LIED" ABOUT REASON FOR GOING TO WAR IN IRAQ. "Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, a word Kerry has been reluctant to use publicly for months. Yesterday he said he did not plan to use the word again." (Patrick Healy, "Kerry Camp Lowers N.H. Expectations Behind In Polls, Senator Now Seeks Spot In 'Top Two,'" The Boston Globe, 12/8/03)

Also, Kerry made the comment that he knows what it's like to loose troops in battle. He was never in any combat situations where someone was killed.

Another "lie", When he said he went to Triblinka to go through the KGB Headquarters, neat trick since Triblinka was a Nazi concentration camp during WWII.

Just another example that he'll say anything and makeup facts. :blah:

sykikchimp

10-01-2004, 09:11 AM

Ok.. since you want to continue this.. how I point out more:

Bush twice suggested al Qaeda is a vastly diminished force at the top, saying at one point that "75 percent of known al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice," and at another, Osama bin Laden is "isolated -- 75 percent of his people have been brought to justice."

But al Qaeda is still considered a mortal danger in part because it refills its ranks and leadership. The president was actually referring to deaths or arrests of operatives who powered al Qaeda when it mounted the September 11 attacks, not those behind the organization today

the president's assertion in reference to Iraq that "the enemy attacked us ... and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people."

As Kerry pointed out, Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States. And the administration has backed away from earlier claims of a direct link between bin Laden and Saddam.

Bush, for instance, hailed the coming presidential election in Afghanistan, saying that the fact that 10 million people had registered to vote was a "phenomenal statistic." But Human Rights Watch this week said that figure was inaccurate because of multiple registration of many voters. In a lengthy report, the respected organization also documented how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, with voters in many areas having little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia factions.

Bush also made an error when he corrected Kerry to say he forgot to mention Poland supplied forces when the invasion began. Kerry said there were three countries --Great Britain, Australia and the United States -- and Bush said, "actually he forgot Poland."

Poland later supplied troops, and actually commanded a zone of Iraq. But they were not part of the original ground invasion. And although Bush said there are 30 countries in the coalition, he neglected to say that about a half dozen countries have withdrawn their troops in recent months.

On North Korea, Bush charged that Kerry's proposal to have direct talks with North Korea would end the six-nation diplomacy that the administration has pursued over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Kerry has said he would continue the six-party talks as well, but Bush said direct talks with North Korea would drive away China, a key player in the negotiations.

But each of the other four countries in the talks have held direct talks with North Korea during the six-party process -- and China has repeatedly asked the Bush administration to talk directly with North Korea. Moreover, the Bush administration has talked directly to North Korean diplomats on the sidelines of the six-party talks, and Powell met with his North Korean counterpart over the summer.

Granted Kerry had a few more too, like his 200 billion spent on iraq statment.. It has actually been about 120 billion, but he added in the funds that have been requested. stretching the truth to a degree. Or his Pottery barn comment, but even though there is some discrepency with that, the point was sound: That when you break it, you buy it. The US has broken it, and he knows we've bought it, and have to fix it. Bush refuses to even think there there could have been mistakes made. Somehoe this "perfect" man has no flaws.. :rolleyes: