|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Feb 19th, 2004, 5:27am http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html just some statistic but really interesting Lets talk about it in here..... Seems to be a Gradual Decrease in voters turnout as the years go by despite of the increase in voter population? Post away!!!! ;D Lets here it from u guys ;) wonder if matthew is included in this turnout...lol :P |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Apr 1st, 2004, 9:55am americans, americans. where the heck are you guys? i created this thread for u guys... post away ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by ReeBop on Apr 1st, 2004, 10:23am Okay mymy, I'll bite. I'm going Kerry for 2004. I'm a center-left kinda guy, but the only Democrats I have ever voted for was Gore and Dukakis. The first time I voted, was for John Anderson. I even volunteered on his campaign for a time. I voted for Perot twice, only because he looked at the funding of American infrastructure in a different way. I find the polarization of American politics rather troubling. As much as I like Ralph Nader, I feel even he makes a lot of polarizing statements. I feel that Kerry can get the job done because he is best able to reach comprimise with congressional Republicans. His voting record does not point out a weakness to me....it points out a strength in reaching out to the other side of the aisle. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by keensryche on Apr 1st, 2004, 4:16pm Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! Vote for Bush!! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Apr 11th, 2004, 11:58pm Well I dont like these democrats blaming Bush for the 911 incidnent. They say he had all this knowledge, thats a bunch of bull. They say the CIA had letters about the threat. Well yes i would imagine the CIA get millions of letters a year about some kind of threat. This is a cheap shot by democrats. It wouldnt of mattered who was president, it probably would of still happened. Democrats know this. Besides this is something that happened almost 3 years ago, I guess its election year and this is some good bullshit to bring up. This is the kind of mudslinging i hate about american politics. And i know the republicans do it also. And there is nothing wrong with mudslinging when the mud being slung is accurate and true. Like bush could of done anything about it. Thats just plain democratical bullshit. I also heard that bush let the whole thing happen so we could send troops to Afganistan. I wonder what idiot democrat thought up this plan that Bush had to go to war with Afganistan. Both parties need to stick with the facts and have accurate statistics about each other. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Apr 14th, 2004, 9:43am actually i'm waiting for the Weapons of Mass Destruction... i mean show the evidence cause until now the US troops can't find it? isn't it the reason of all this war with IRAQ? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by keensryche on Apr 14th, 2004, 9:34pm on 04/14/04 at 09:43:34, mylane wrote:
Actually they found 3 Saddam, Qusay and Uday Hussian |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on May 9th, 2004, 2:35am Who cares about weapons of mass destruction. We know he had them at one time thats reason enough for me. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on May 9th, 2004, 7:04am on 05/09/04 at 02:35:31, thebeast wrote:
Who cares? I care. We cares. The reason of all this war in Iraq was because of this weapon of mass destruction. To be fair enough, show the evidence. anyway we're to way out of the topic. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on May 9th, 2004, 1:06pm The topic is back open. We know he had them and we know he wont stop trying to produce them so y not nip it in the bud right now untill waiting for him to develope them again. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on May 9th, 2004, 3:07pm I wonder why Bugs Bunny hasnt been elected by now!Its clear discrimination against us wabbits.No I dont want a cawwot!Stop stereotyping me! [smiley=wall.gif] [smiley=furious3.gif].I always vote for more bush myself ;Dlol |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on May 9th, 2004, 3:08pm Like I really wanna vote fer more taxes ::) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Jul 6th, 2004, 4:36pm Well personally, I think Bush did a good job. He made some tuff decisions. You gotta respect a guy that does something thats not good for his political carreer. He had to do something. You just cant sit on your ass all day and make speaches that say we dont tolerate terrorism and then dont do nothing about it. And those who blame the economy on him well look at how things are now. The economy here in the states is getting better every day. The employment rate is up. Those same companies that fired all the previous employees have hired lots of them back. But you know what, Bush didnt have a damn thing to do with it either. Its something that happened due to stocks being over priced, enron like companies scamming, and the cherry on the top was 911. This was what made the economy down for that period. Now what improved the economy. Well sad to say but it was the war in the middle east. Its sad but its true. But war is not popular with the voters when body bags are coming home with american lives in them. In lots of ways some americans are exactly like middle easterners. When the going is good oh yeah no problem we support you, but when the going gets tuff somehow you seem to lose all the support you once had. Congress supported Bush with every decision he made. Most democrats said hell yes for sending troops to afgan and Iraq. He told everyone this was gonna take a long time to do. If he didnt send troops to afgan and Iraq there is not telling how many more attacks would of been here on U.S. soil. He sent a message to everyone. It said if you are a terrorists we are coming after you. I know there are terrorists in Iraq. Saddam is a terrorists in my opinion. I think Bush deserves another term. As far as Kerry goes, I dont know much about him. I dont like this kicking a guy out of office just cuz he made some unpopular decisions that were decisions that had to be made cuz of the circumstances he was facing. So on election day all you voters put yourself in George Bush shoes. What would you do? Something thats good for the country or something thats good for your political carrer? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Jul 6th, 2004, 4:44pm Just an update on American Election 2004: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry named John Edwards as his running mate Tuesday, calling the North Carolina senator "a man who understands and defends the values of America." Edwards was Kerry's most persistent rival in the primaries, but became one of Kerry's biggest supporters once he threw in the towel on his own campaign. who's Bush running mate anyway? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by keensryche on Jul 6th, 2004, 9:38pm It still doesn't change my vote. BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! BUSH!!!!! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Jul 7th, 2004, 10:53am so cheney is Bush running mate then, Kerry/Edwards vs Bush/Cheney- can't wait for the result. I'll predict Bush will win the presidential elections, especialy if something, or someone like Osama Bin Laden appears before the election day. ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Jul 8th, 2004, 10:19pm I watched Larry King tonight. John Kerry and his wife Teressa Hienz Kerry were on. I put 2 and 2 together. Teressa is a billionare and she used to be married to a republican. She is a very charming lady. I bet she will get Kerry a bunch of votes. Especially the female votes that were not born here in the states. As far as Kerry goes, he seems to be very clever. I dont think any politician regardless of party would of done anything any differently than Bush. Of course they said they would now. Its gonna be another close one I suppose. One thing Kerry did say on Larry King Show was he would of waited a little longer on the invasion of Iraq to get more support from the UN and other foreign nations. Well you can of waited for a few more months yes, but it wouldnt of made any difference. And wait for what? What for another attack on United States soil? Why should we wait for any country who is with us at the start anyway. And why should these countries even expect some kind of deal on a contract to rebuild Iraq when they were not willing to sacrafice nothing in the first place. Yes the middle east hates America and everthing America stands for but you know what they hate each other also. Its gonna be interesting to see how the next few years is gonna go there. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Jul 9th, 2004, 10:06pm Pardon my ignorance, but I'm curious about the issues between the two political party. Anyway, are these right? Democrats are for: Fighting for the man below, pro life, for social welfare, for cloning, gun control and foreign aid. Republicans are for: Fighting for the man on top, pro abortion, no social welfare, no cloning, no gun control and no foreign aid. Educate me guys. I'm kinda confused ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Jul 11th, 2004, 1:04pm mylene democrats are against abortion but this is how kerry explains it. He is catholic and abortion goes against everything he stands for, but he isnt gonna fight it cuz there is legislation in the United States that makes it legal. So in other words, democrats are probably against it but they arent gonna do anything about it cuz they consider it not an issue since its legal to get an abortion. Its a neuteral stand or a cop out. Republicans are the same way about that issue. Most of the issues like gun control and abortion are already set in law. Not much you can do to change them. You can put restrictions on them yes but that dont help much. Its every man and womans right to have a gun. Thats in the constitution and they have already so many amendments in it I dont think they can do anything else. For this years election not much issue difference between each party other than Bush and Kerry say they can do better. Thats about it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Jul 12th, 2004, 7:33am Well personally I think it's hyporcritical of americans to go to war on the basis that another coutnry has weapons of mass destruction when they as a nation are sitting on the biggest stock pile of WMD in the world. Also with regard to the election and the so called best democarcy in the world, I don't necessarily agree with that one either. Bush, didn't even get the most votes in the last election, Gore did and in the true democratic sense the guy with the most votes should be the winner, then there is the controversial "Florida incident". I wonder is Bush would have won that state at all if his brother wasn't governor.. but maybe I'm just skeptical. So it will be intersting to see what tactics are employed in this race... |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Jul 23rd, 2004, 3:47pm prrrttt....back to the topic ;D I really feel sorry for both Bush and Kerry. It must be horrible to have millions of people picking at every tiny little thing you do. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Jul 23rd, 2004, 3:52pm on 07/11/04 at 13:04:42, thebeast wrote:
What if Kerry is of the view that life begins at conception, and that abortion is wrong. But being understanding of the idea that it is unethical to impose one's views on the entire population of a country, he takes this stance of pro-abortion? So, you would commit murder for pay? Just to please your customer? But ofcourse...lol |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 10th, 2004, 4:46pm Mylene it really dont mean nothing about what Kerry believes or says he believes. Its not an issue because its legal to get an abortion in the United States. Now here is a mind twister about Kerry. Kerry says everything that he stands for is against abortion but wont do anything about it cuz its legal to get one yet he is for lifting the government restrictions on stem cell research. Well, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. How can u be against abortion yet dont do anything about it then on top of that want to increase the funding for research in stem cell studies. All stem cell is is abortion. U take a fertilized egg and u destroy it by removing cells from it. Look at it anyway u want, stem cell is just another form of abortion. I think whenever Kerry opens his mouth he just sticks his foot in it. He is in such need of votes he will say anything to get them. What he says about abortion is true not anything u can really do about it legally, but stem cell is still in its developmental stage. If people wanted to they could nip in the bud right now. Personally abortion is wrong, but The United States is a democratic country. If a lady wants an abortion she has every right to get one. Its her body. I dont totally agree with it but it is her body and if she wants to do that its her right. Im for stem cell research as well. I think finding a cure for diabeties and alzhiemers would be wonderful. I accept the pros with the cons. I dont like homosexuals. Lets be honest. What homosexuals do is wrong. Being homosexual is wrong just like getting an abortion is wrong, but when u live in a free society sometimes u have to accept what seems to be wrong in order to be free. Lots of people died for people like me to be free. If we went out and said u cant get an abortion or u cant be homosexual what they died for wouldnt be worth anything. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 10th, 2004, 4:55pm on 07/12/04 at 07:33:58, Stonser wrote:
Stonser must be from mars. Dude let me explain to u like u are a 8 year old. hyporcritical of americans to go to war on the basis that another coutnry has weapons of mass destruction when they as a nation are sitting on the biggest stock pile of WMD in the world. Yes The United States may have the biggest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, but guess what we dont use them on human beings when we are at war. So its okay for us to have them. Sadam/Iraq used chemical and biological weapons on his own people so he has a history. Has The United States ever used them? The answer is no. Next Also with regard to the election and the so called best democarcy in the world, I don't necessarily agree with that one either. Bush, didn't even get the most votes in the last election, Gore did and in the true democratic sense the guy with the most votes should be the winner, then there is the controversial "Florida incident". I wonder is Bush would have won that state at all if his brother wasn't governor.. but maybe I'm just skeptical. Hey dude its called the electorial college vote. I dont care if u have all of the popular vote cuz its the electorial college vote that counts its the electorial college vote that is legal and its the electorial college vote thats democratic. And as far u being skeptical about the incident in Florida believe me u are being skeptical. I think u put to much fantasy in things just like the Movie Farenheight/911 does. The war in Iraq is not just about WMD. We know they had them, we know they used them, we know he will try to make them again, we also know he did not live up to the agreement that was made during Dessert Storm. There are terrorists in Iraq. Sadam is a terrorist. This war in Iraq is a war on terrorism. Maybe the terrorists in Iraq are not the same terrorist that killed thousands of americans on 9/11, but it really dont matter cuz a terrorist is a terrorist no matter how u slice it up. Maybe if Ireland had some balls they would rid problem of terrorists in their country. So my irish friend we americans are not hypocritical we just dont take crap from terrorists. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 17th, 2004, 5:54am on 08/10/04 at 16:55:33, thebeast wrote:
If you say no, your view of history is well tinted. So dropping Atomic bombs was not using weapons of mass destruction. on 08/10/04 at 16:55:33, thebeast wrote:
I'm not desputing that the electorial college system isn't legal, and I can't argue that's it's not democratic, as I do know the ins and outs, but I still think that true democary the most votes wins. As for me putting to much fanstasy into moives like Farenheit 911, I had my opinions on the whole Florida thing long before that movie was released. on 08/10/04 at 16:55:33, thebeast wrote:
Can't argue with you on the terrorist thing. A terrorist is a terrorist but it's open to opinion. You think Saddam was a terrorist, prehaps the Iraqi people think Bush is one. As for the war about being more than WMD, the basic war on Iraq was fought under the pretense that there were WMD there. The UN inspectors couldn't find any evidence in the two years they were there, the coalition still hasn't found any evidence. You say it was a war on Terrorism, and you say there are terrorists in Ireland, so are the US going to invade Ireland. You have terrorist in your own country, in Columbia etc. Are you going to invade them too? Are you going to invade Suadi Arabia, after all the majority of terrorists involved in 911 were Suadi? There are terrorist in Isreal, yet the US nation is funding their weapons program. Personally I think Ireland has a lot of balls. We've you'd politics and discussion to get us to where we are which is far more courageous than carpet bombing innocent civilians. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 17th, 2004, 8:50am Dude u obviously dont understand the rules of war. In war innocent people get killed. Sometimes even in war people from the same side kill their own people. Not on purpose, but it happens. Nobody likes war, Americans hate war. It costs a lot of money and young americans die. Somebody has to do something. The rest of the world wont do anything so its up to the United States to do something. People in Iraq dont even know what freedom is like. They have been butchered and terrorized so long they wouldnt know what freedom was if it knocked on the door. As far as Sadam being a terrorists yes it fits my description as a terrorists. Hell he killed more innocent civilians than the war in Iraq did. And he killed them intentionally. As far as invading Ireland, or Saudi, or Iran, or anywhere else. It would be great if we could clean all this up. We need help. We cant rid the world of terrorists without help from other countries. Other countries dont want to get involved. So they sit by and wait and after things are done they want to come in and profit from all the american lives that we have sacraficed and all the money we spent. They want contracts to rebuild Iraq. They wanna make deals that will make profits and create jobs for their country after americans have spilled their own blood. And as far as the atomic bomb being dropped on Japan. The atomic bomb saved more lives than it did kill them. If the war in the pacific was prolonged both america and japan would of lost more lives and cost more money if we didnt drop the bomb. The japanese were never gonna give up so we would of had to invade japan. All these things are planned out and the statistics are calculated. Its not something that we just do on the spur of the moment. Iraq could learn a lot from Japan. Look at japan today. One of the strongest economies in the world. A relatively safe place to live. A good example of a democractic type of government at its finest. And its ironic to think that the dropping to the atomic bomb had a lot to do with it. But its true it had everything to do with it. As far as Iraq thinking Bush is a terrorists. Maybe a few do think this. I think a majority of them dont. The ones who do think this are probably terrorists. Iraq needs to lean to get along with each other. Iraq has an opportunity to be one of the richest countrys in the world. But they would rather bicker about religous rights. Religion is a good thing but it dont belong in rebuilding economies and nations or politics. Muslims are for the most part a peaceful people. Its the radicals who want to keep things like they are still like they were 300 years ago. How could anyone think that what the United States is doing in Iraq is anything but good for Iraq and the rest of the world. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 17th, 2004, 9:11am ???All this war in Iraq is not neccessarily because of WMD? if not because of WMD? for wat then? OIL? Personal revenge? or US got nothing better to do with their war weapon? I have to agree with Stoner's statement....it is not enough nor acceptable to say: We know we had them and used them....EVIDENCE...many innocent people are in the edge of this said scenario (war). on 08/17/04 at 05:54:35, Stonser wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 17th, 2004, 10:52am I understand the rules of war enough to know you can't invade a country, who hasn't done anything to warrant it. And you are using such double standards by saying it was okay for the US to use the atomic bomb becasue it saved lives in the long run. You can either use WMDs or you can't. Have you ever thought that you can't get other people's help is that other people don't think what the US are doing is the right thing, and taking to doing things you feel right on you own, is what some people call dictatorship. So is the US going to be a global dictator and do what it feels rights. And you wonder why anyone would want to attack you!! I like what you say about contracts in Iraq. Did you think it's odd that quite a few of them weren't even tendered in the US and that a lot of them went to companies, that have direct links with Bush and his cronies. Yes War is expensive and it's cost a lot, but it's always great for the american economy, and it deflects from some deeper issues at home. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 17th, 2004, 11:59pm I never said that the A bomb was okay. I said it saved lives. And in the rules of war saving lives is the right thing to do. Did u know that the allied forces air raid attacts on Dresden, Germany killed more people and did more destruction than all of the A bombs dropped on Japan in WW2. How come nobody ever talks about this? Just think what the world would be like if a Hitler or a Sadam got his hands on this kind of weapon. There was proof found in Iraq that WMD was there. Now there hasnt been a whole weapon put together and ready for lift off. And as long as we are gonna make stuff up and call America a bunch of Dictators and that Bush planned this whole thing out including 911 so America could cash in on all that oil(by the way gasoline hasnt gotten cheap here) and so that Bush could give all these money making contracts to all his cronies ( I guess u believe in Santa also) why cant we also say that Sadam made a deal with some other terrorists country and got his WMD out of there b4 The allied forces could get there. I mean as long as we are gonna not stick to facts, I guess thats possible as well. Lets stick to facts Fact: Bush had the okay to go to War with Iraq by congress and the majority of the american people. No missleading here he showed them all the info we had. That democratic in my book. Fact:Bush and Collin Powell went to the UN and made them aware that Sadam was not living up to the agreement that was made during dessert storm. U know the agreement that said it would be a bad idea for him and Iraq not to live up to or serious consequences would result. The one he had been cheating on ever since Dessert Stom ended. The board appointed to the task by the UN said he was not cooperating. Does this sound kind of fishy? Like maybe he is hiding something? If there was no WMD y wouldnt he cooperate? Fact: 40% of the UN agreed something should be done. Does this sound like something a dictator would do? Fact: We waited. Hell we been waiting ever since Dessert storm was over cuz ever since then Sadam hasnt been cooperating. How much longer should we wait. Maybe untill he does develope one and use it on more innocent people. Fact: We said allied forces were gonna invade Iraq and that everything would be fine if Sadam and all his cronies left. We gave them plenty of time to pack their bags and leave. No surprises here. Fact: Less people in Iraq died during the actual war in Iraq than Sadam killed and terrorized every day. Fact: Fewer innocent people are dying today now that the allied forces are in Iraq than if Sadam was still in charge. Fact:The Iraqi people are being medically taken care of. Lots of people from there were even brought to the United States so they could have surgery. Now this sounds a lot like something that a blood thirsty, greedy, power hungry country would do doesnt it? How many more facts do u need to know to understand this was the right thing to do. After 911 George Bush said there needed to be a war on terror and pretty much of all the sane people in the world agreed with him. He said lives would be lost. He said innocent people were likely to be killed. Everyone pretty much understood and agreed that he was right. Well y all the hastle when all we are doing is pretty much what we said would happen. Stonser i bet u were on the bandwagon when he made the speach just like everyone else but now u and others like u choose to jump off the bandwagon just because u see and understand that war is not fair its not pretty its not glorious and its not holly. The United States is not a perfect nation, but we are a leader of the world as is England, Austraila and a few other nations. We should and will not back away from doing what is right just because a few other power houses dont want to get involved in a dirty job. We will do what is needed to be done and lots of countries will spit in our faces and think we are hypocrytical or just power hungry. But when these countries are in trouble who do u think they will come to to seek help? Maybe we will help them maybe we wont, but its gonna be a decision thats gonna be made by the majority of the country and congress not the president or any other single person. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 18th, 2004, 5:22am the fact that i know: The USA don't find any weapons after telling us 100 times they existed. That fact alone would down any other leader in the world. The war was started on completely false pretenses. Bush's unnessesary war has killed twice as many CIVILIANS as were killed by 9/11. IMHO, Bush wanted Saddamn dead and would use just such an unrealistic excuse to justify a war. USA can't fight terror with guns. Terror and hate for the US can't be stopped. Even Osama bin Laden dies, there will still be terror networks and threats. They most they could is prevent these plots from happening with intelligence. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 18th, 2004, 8:02am How much are you will to bet I was on a bandwagon when he made his speech? I wasn't at all so I didn't have to jump of it. Where did I say that Bush planned the whole 9/11 thing? I never said anything about oil either, but now that you mention it it is a nice "bonus". You could be right, if he did have WMD it's possible he could have got them out. I'm not going to deny that. As for Santa.. delusions of grandeur there if you think I still believe in him. on 08/17/04 at 23:59:05, thebeast wrote:
The UN sent in inspectors. Saddam I agree wouldn't comply originally, but the inspector still didn't turn up any hard evidenve after two years. on 08/17/04 at 23:59:05, thebeast wrote:
40%, I'll take your word on that becasue I don't have a figure, it's still not enough to have the full backing of the UN, but you still went ahead anyway, which is leaning toward dictatorship. But at least the UN was consulted. on 08/17/04 at 23:59:05, thebeast wrote:
You were waiting becasue you didn't have a justifiable reason to go in there, but you took 9/11 and the war on terror and made it justifiable. on 08/17/04 at 23:59:05, thebeast wrote:
Just becasue he was asked to leave and didn't. Using the fact if I were the leader of a country with a nice sizeable army and went to bush and told him if he didn't leave the States I was going to invade, it would be alright on 08/17/04 at 23:59:05, thebeast wrote:
And yo have proof of this, where? How do you know how many people were dying everyday? on 08/17/04 at 23:59:05, thebeast wrote:
Again you have proof? on 08/17/04 at 23:59:05, thebeast wrote:
No, that's good PR, and the right thing to do, chances are it was US bombs that injured them. Although the percussion some suffered has to be considered. I don't need anymore facts. And all this was done to free the people of Iraq from percussion and the US is great at freeing people form percussion of the leaders. So why aren't the helping in Sudan, the Congo, Nigra, where people are being percuted by their dictator leaders everyday? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by spittingbeauty on Aug 20th, 2004, 3:01am If the US is so hell bent on "protecting" the innocents..... why aren't you (yanks) touching North Korea? No oil there, right? North Koreans are soooo way out of your league, man. No doubt it's going to be another "Vietnam" in the making. But what do I know, I'm not American. 'Nuf said. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 20th, 2004, 6:36am Welcome Spittingbeauty ;D Lets go back to the topic guys, US presidential elections ;) Kerry's campaign speeches sound good with plenty of promises but no details on how he is going to do it. He said he will announce the details when he is already elected president. Is that acceptable?..lol ;D Don't you agree the voters need to know before election what exactly his policies will be IF he is elected president. Not just: "I can do it better than Bush" or "Bush lied to you." |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 20th, 2004, 9:15am Listen, I never said or even hinted The United States was better than any other country. As far as North Korea goes, they only thing they are doing is developing nuclear power plants as far as I know. They are a communist country so they probably dont treat thier citizens fairly, but I dont think they go out and kill to intemedate like Sadam in Iraq did. North Korea is just making The United States is a little nervous with its nuclear plants they are making. When the bomb was dropped on Japan, it really changed things in the world. I know its unfair for the United States to tell other countries what they should and shouldnt do. But the world today it has become a global economy. Which means our economies are affected when one isnt doing so well. We are all connected. Somebody has to be the watchdog. Who is it gonna be? This whole thing about America in Iraq for oil is silly. Iraq only accounts for a very small percentage of oil in the world and The United States stills has an embargo on Iraq Oil as far as I know. Iraq oil fields are in shambles and not from the allied forces bombing them. Just like in Kuiwat, terrorists have destroyed them. The United States wants Iraq to become an oil producing country like Saudi Arabia but not for the good of America or any other country, only for Iraq. If Iraq can become a steady supplier of oil, Iraq and the whole world would be a better place. Evertime the United States gets involved with a middle eastern country the oil card is played. Even when Iraq invaded Kuiwat, the americans were there for oil. lol. Kuiwat, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, pratically every middle eastern country pratically begged The United States to get involved in Kuwait and the oil card was still played. Thats just crazy. What I type in this are what I have seen on the news or have read somewhere. Most are factual others are borderline factual. WMD have not been found yet in Iraq, but evidence for the materials are all over the place. Chemicals like insectisides used in mustard gas were found in very large quantities and not far from those large amounts of chemicals were found were catridges and casings were found. Yes a complete missle with a chemical weapon ready to explode have not been found yet, but the materials to make one were found. Mylene u keep saying that WMD is the reason y we are in Iraq when the fact is its not. George Bush was never gonna be that specific about y The United States should invade Iraq. The reason y or the reason he told the UN was that Sadam/Iraq had not been cooperating with the deal that was made during the first time we were in the middle east during Dessert Storm. Making WMD is only one of the litterally hundreds of things he wasnt supposed to be doing. He wasnt cooperating with the inspectors from the UN is one of the many things he was doing. He had other weapons which he was not supposed to have also. And that is true. Sadam made things as difficult as he could on the inspectors. The evidence that we had at the time, which was both from the CIA and Great Britains inteligence was he did have WMD was just icing on the cake. Sadam was never gonna conform and 12 years after the first war, we realized that. We should of taken care of the problem back in the 90s, but politics got in the way. I was there. We could of blown Sadam and his army to kingdom kum. Sadams best troops right there in our sights and we didnt do anything. Everyone was disapointed, but thats what our comander and chief, George Bush Sr. wanted us to do. It would of been less messy and less american and civilian lives probably would of been lost if it was taken care of then. The United States has a long history of not finishing the job due to politics and it has come back and become even a bigger problem. Thats what the whole Iraq and middle eastern thing is in a nutshell. The fact is the world is a better place without Sadam and Osoma Been Hiding in charge. I know Osoma is still at large, but at least we are making things a lot more difficult for him. Who is gonna argue about that. I was watching the olympics the other day and saw the Iraqi soccer team playing. The Iraqi soccer team has won 2 games and lost 0. B4 the war in Iraq, Sadam's son Umay was in charge of the soccer team. Umay would torture the players when they lost or when one of them made a bad play. When the Iraqi soccer team lost a game, Umay would throw them in prison and starve and beat them. Now look at them. With no fear of being beaten to death they are in the olympics and actually winning. I think sometimes we tend to focus on all the negative things about the U.S. invasion of Iraq. When something positive happens the public relations card gets thrown which is only a pessimetic thing to say. You show me something negative I can show u 2 or 3 times positive. Iraq and the world are gonna be a lot better off in the long run. Thats it. Im not saying anything more on the subject of the U.S. in Iraq. Im leaving for Vegas in a few hours and if I continue I am gonna get my shot gun and shoot all the liberals at the casinos in Vegas. lol |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 20th, 2004, 11:17am Beast, I'm going to stop too, but the one thing I'll say is this. You need to move away from listen to facts as you see them on the news on TV. I'm not wanting to offend here and I only say it becasue I heave spent a bit of time in the US and have family there, but the news is very biased and in times of war is even more so. Fox News being the worst culprit. I have Sattelite TV here to and get the US News channels, amongst other, and UK, Irish, and European Channels are a lot more liberal in their reporting. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 20th, 2004, 11:18am on 08/20/04 at 06:36:23, mylane wrote:
No, I don't think its fair on the people that he has no policies out there before he is elected |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Aug 22nd, 2004, 11:19am on 08/20/04 at 03:01:09, spittingbeauty wrote:
Dont worry ;)Theyre next ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Aug 23rd, 2004, 3:46pm on 08/23/04 at 09:10:33, mylane wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by gracia on Aug 23rd, 2004, 7:04pm All countries needs tough presidents i guess...but hopefully he's tough but still sensitive to the needs of others. Seeing fellow citizen on a killing field is tough, but hopefully will not come that far. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 24th, 2004, 5:44am Tatay Wabbit, If America needs a conservative President, then Bush would not be a good candidate? His administration has been hijacked by NeoCons, who have little claim to the term "conservative". Bush's deficit spending is far from conservative. Whatever happened to conservative economics? What is conservative about invading Iraq? He barged in there without a thought, and never bothered to check facts and only said "You're either with us, or against us." In two years (2001-2003) the US invaded two countries (Afghanistan & Iraq) and not one stable success is the result. Afghanistan is degrading back down into Civil War, the Taliban are on the Rise. What is happening in Iraq is obvious to everyone. No Osama bin Laden, no WMD. What's conservative about pissing off the world? Nothing. I thought conservative diplomacy was about avoiding international conflict to get results. What's your thought, Tatay? ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Aug 24th, 2004, 7:57am Hes better than Kerry I can tell you that!Kerry scares me. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by gracia on Aug 24th, 2004, 10:22am bush looks better than kerry ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 24th, 2004, 10:47am I guess there is a case for better the devil you know. I'm not so sure in this case. Unfortunately I don't knwo enough about Kerry or his background to put up a valid arguement for or against him. But I think the world would a a little safe with Bush gone. All I can think of is if he gets back in is who's next to be invaded. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 24th, 2004, 11:26am on 08/24/04 at 10:47:58, Stonser wrote:
hahahha.... world war 3 is very much possible once GWB got elected again. who's next to be invaded? hmmm...probably the whole middle east ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Aug 24th, 2004, 4:17pm Yeah baby!!!!The whole oil fields baby!greed greed greed!!Honestly Kerry is being set up to fail.He is not meant to win.They are setting up Hillary to be the winner in 2008.They hope!Then thats when 2008 will come.Maybe Kerry should win....might just spoiled the democraps plans:P |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 24th, 2004, 4:30pm Bush has his conservative side. I think u all are giving Bush to much credit for all the war thats going on in the middle east. Bush went to congress and they decided to send troops to Afgan and Iraq. It really makes no difference if he wanted it or not. Congress is what sent troops to the Middle East. They make the decisions. So if u wanna call bush a hungry war dog I guess u are gonna half to call pretty much all of the house of representatives and senate hungry war dogs also, because when he asked pretty much most of them agreed and for the most part still do agree to what The United States did and currently doing in the middle east. The United States didnt invade Afgan or Iraq, The United States liberated Agan and Iraq. These words like caused war or invaded are a poor choice of words. Oh and I think im the only one in here that dont take this seriously ;D And my opinions are my own opinions and pretty close to factual no matter of where I watach or read the information from. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 25th, 2004, 1:11am r on 08/24/04 at 16:17:13, killerabbit wrote:
I'm ur momma not your baby :P ;D on 08/24/04 at 16:30:57, thebeast wrote:
What's "tough and conservative" about him? And why does America need a "tough conservative president" when all he tends to do is piss off the international community? Quote:
poor choice of words? wat's the rite words then? ;D US military is being stretched to the limit in places where the successes are limited and the cost is not worth those limited successes. What do u guys think about Nader? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 25th, 2004, 3:09am Quote:The United States didnt invade Afgan or Iraq, The United States liberated Agan and Iraq. These words like caused war or invaded are a poor choice of words. I guess the choice of words depends on what side of the fence you sit and how you see things. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 25th, 2004, 11:37am What do u guys think about Nader?[/quote] Who the hell is Nader? lol Bush dont take no bull. He is a man of action. If he thinks something needs to be done, he gets a feel for what the country wants and goes for it. He is conservative in his economic policys and he is tough cuz he stands by the decisions that were made. He doesnt second guess himself about decisions that were made. Kerry is a whinner. Wha wha wha. He brags about his military service in Vietnam, yet when he gets back he condemns the Vietnam war, but when people criticize him of whatever happened over there he wants people to take what was said back. Listen Mr. Kerry if you want to promote the fact that you served your country in Vietnam, be prepared to take the verbal abuse whether its true or not. If you dont want to take the abuse you shouldnt bring it up as a reason y u should be president. Bush had nothing to do with trying to tarnish the record of Kerry. Yet Kerry has released all kinds of negative media on the Bush administration. What exactly does Kerry want? To me he needs to stop crying about what happened and get back to the issues at hand. Nobody really cares what happened in Vietnam anyway. Thats over with a long time ago, just like no one really cared that Clinton smoked mary wanna or got a blow job by a female that was not Mrs. Clinton. Stick with what you know. Bush has done a good job. Terrorism is not as rampid as what it once was. The economy is better and improving more every day. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 25th, 2004, 9:31pm Nader is running for presidential election as well. I'll banter your comment later, beast ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 25th, 2004, 11:06pm mylene, I know Ralph Nader is running for president on the independent ticket. I think Ralph used to be in charge of the Food and Drug Administration. When I say who is Nader, I meant it to be funny, because even though Nader is probably a good guy and might make a decent president, he gets no respect. Im willing to bet that at least 50% of america dont even know he is running for president and dont even know who he is. After what Ross Perot pulled when he was and independent against Clinton and the republican candidate back in the mid 90s, I doubt a person running as an independent will never be taken seriously. When Perot announced he was running for president the polls said Perot had a good chance of winning. After hearing this Ross Perot backed out of the race and then after that decided to re enter the race. Old Ross never wanted to be president he just wanted to look like a hot shot. Its the same with Nader. I dont think he really wants to be president. If he did want it he would pick a party. Either republican or Democratic. And as far as Hillary Clinton being a future president? I dont think she has a snowballs chance in hell of even getting selected to run. Americans wont even let females fight in combat, which I think is right, why would anyone think a female would ever be president. Im not saying a woman couldnt make a good president or couldnt make a good combat soldier. I am saying it will never happen. The reason y? I think one reason is it would put America in a vulnerable situation especially if a woman was in the infantry as a combat soldier. You already hear crys of horror when young american men come home in body bags. Can u imagine what it would be like when young american women come home in body bags. I dont think the American people are capable of digesting this. I guess im just in the frame of mind that women should be protected and safe and ready to embrace their fighting men, who love them and thier country very much, when they return. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 26th, 2004, 3:45am on 08/25/04 at 11:37:52, thebeast wrote:
Tell that to the vets. I it will probably be a big factor, becasue people will compare the current situation in the Middle East with Vietnam. Totally different situations I know. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 26th, 2004, 3:50am on 08/25/04 at 23:06:13, thebeast wrote:
That doesn't reflect well on the people of the nation. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 26th, 2004, 3:58am on 08/25/04 at 23:06:13, thebeast wrote:
Tough call this, becasue I think Hillary has a good shot at being put forward, next time around. As to whether America is ready for a female president or not, I tend to agree with you beast that the people may not go along with it. It's nothing to do with a female havign served in combat, and personally I don't agree with not allowing women in combat, equal opportunities so if you let them join the services let them fight if they want, it's more to do with perception. Not being offensive or sexist here, but I think the american nation would think it a weakness havign a female president. Again I don't necessarily agree with that. There are a few countries out there with Female presidents that do a fine job, it could actually be good for America. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 28th, 2004, 12:42am on 08/26/04 at 03:45:49, Stonser wrote:
Cant compare now and then cuz 2 different times and situations. Like apples and oranges. And besides most normal people, including vets, are interested whats going on today or what can the person running for me do for me and my country today. Kerrys purple hearts that he got in vietnam are not what people are gonna vote for Kerry for. What Kerry says he can do as a president now is what people are gonna vote for him for. And by what he is saying its not much different than Bush Im a Dessert Storm vet. My brother is a dessert storm vet. I have a nephew thats in Iraq right now. My father is a vietnam vet. My Grandfather is a WW2 vet in the pacific. I know lots of vietnam vets. I know lots of vetrens from WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the mild skirmishes between those wars. As far as Vietnam goes, its something they wanna forget not remember. Soldiers were called baby killers and spit on when they returned. Its an event that tore this country apart. Iraq is not this. Why? Because the United States congress never said lets liberate Vietnam. Congress did decide to liberate Iraq. Like I said my irish friend. Apples and oranges. Most people in United States agree with what is being done in Iraq. They just want to see it over as quickly as possible. This isnt gonna happen, but they will accept it because they know its the right thing. Most vetrens of any war agree as well. Thats the thing about a vetren of any war. He is gonna agree with what his commander and cheif says needs to be done. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 28th, 2004, 1:02am Im willing to bet that at least 50% of america dont even know he is running for president and dont even know who he is. on 08/26/04 at 03:50:34, Stonser wrote:
Maybe its not that at all. Maybe it dont reflect well on u is what it is. And do you think the people of The United States care about what you think. Some people could care less about politics. Some people could care less about who is president. Some people dont even know what the issues are and are not even gonna vote. Does this make them a people that should looked down on? I dont think so. I call it freedom. Freedom to do what they want. Freedom to think like they want. Besides do u really think that whoever is president is gonna make that big of a difference. If Al Gore was president we would probably be pretty close to the same circumstances we are in now. Presidents have all kinds of advisers. Economic, military, civil rights that they listen to. A president is considered a great president not by what bills are passed or what he says he is gonna do. A great president is considered by what happens during his tender. And this is something he has no control over. Something happens and he has to react. Im willing to bet that pretty much would all do the same thing for the most part. Its completely logical to think that. Nader is a nobody. Y would anyone even wanna vote or even know who he is when he isnt gonna have a chance of winning anyway. He doesnt even have the funds to advertise on television. The media knows he hasnt gotta a chance of winning so y would they even waste time on him with a front page story? He isnt even campaigning. So y would a lot of people even know who he is? Especially ones who find politics uninteresting. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 28th, 2004, 1:20am U think Hillary has a good shot? If thats the case, you need to wake up and come home from the dreamland your are at now. Well u probably dont live here then. If you do u are way out of touch, or maybe u are just a brown noser and want to make yourself out to look like some kind of do gooder for all of the opposite sex in here. Hell, I bet Hillary dont want to be president anyway. She has already been the first lady. I bet she made most of the decisions for this country when she was first lady, except for the blow job Bill got of course. I wonder if Hillary gives Bill a blow job now? Im a betting man and I say no way to Hillary being president and giving Bill anymore blow jobs. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Forum Admin on Aug 29th, 2004, 10:26pm Politics can bring out the worst debating behavior in all of us. Battle out with facts and credibility. A forum debate is nothing more than a mix of decent argumentative college-level Critical Reading & Compositin class essays. State a fact, rebutt, and rebutt rebuttals. Back 'em up; cite them if you can. As you all noticed, I deleted most of the posts that are not related to the topic. Debate the issues, don't attack the debater! There are consequences involved for not complying with this basic rule. Void yourself of negative emotions. They only cloud your focus. Personal matters can be discuss using the private messaging system of this board. Lets all go back to the topic. Thank you very much. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 30th, 2004, 4:40am on 08/28/04 at 00:42:10, thebeast wrote:
That is why I said totally different situation |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 30th, 2004, 4:46am on 08/28/04 at 01:02:58, thebeast wrote:
I know the people of the US couldn't give a rats arse what I think, is just my opinion, and since you harp on so much about freedom I've the right to express it without being personally attacked because my views differ. on 08/28/04 at 01:02:58, thebeast wrote:
To me its seems pretty logical that people would want to know about the people running for president. I agree with you 100% that not everyone is interested in polictics not everyone is going to vote and that he hasn't a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but he is still running. If it were me, I'd like to knwo a bit about the guy. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 30th, 2004, 4:49am on 08/28/04 at 01:20:07, thebeast wrote:
You don't even know me and you are attacking me as being a brown noser to make myself look good. What has the fact of blow jobs got to do with anyone ability to run for office? I maybe in dreamland to you, but my own opinion and that of some of the international media is that Hillary will be a canidate, if not the next time then in 2012. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by okasantina on Aug 30th, 2004, 5:04am ahmmmm ahmmm ::) Keep cool guys [smiley=bobby.gif] can i be the arbitrator here?? ::) ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 30th, 2004, 9:46am I have no clue about Nader's policies but I will try to research for it or if you know any of his policies beast, please do post it. About Hillary, I dont think that it would change anything if even more women become leaders of their nations. It will be exactly the same. Wars would still be raging, people would be complaining about gas prices. Beside most women are not interested in politics for that matter. Almost 98% of all leaders in human history in every country has always been male. All the US presidents were white males. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 30th, 2004, 10:00am on 08/20/04 at 03:01:09, spittingbeauty wrote:
The reason the US does not invade North Korea is because they already have nukes and they are crazy enough to use them. ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 30th, 2004, 10:38pm on 08/30/04 at 09:46:40, mylane wrote:
Well mylene I have looked a little and i cant find any Nader policy. He is such a nobody and he went into this kind of spur of the moment he might not have any. He was insulted when he wasnt invited to the conference they have for all the parties running to discuss the issues. Thats about all I have heard about him. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 30th, 2004, 11:13pm In the paper I read today that in New York City protestors were walking with cardboard boxs draped with american flags in front of the Republican Convention and calling for George Bushes oust. I know its their right to do this, but I dont understand the reason. What do they think Kerry is gonna do if elected. I guess he is just gonna bring the troops home the day he is in office. lol These people are idiots cuz even Kerry said he isnt gonna change the policy thats in Iraq. Its just a waste of energy to me. Kerry isnt fooling me by his statements either. He says he will build the friendship between the U.S. and other nations. LOL I guess he is gonna go over to isreal and palestine and talk to them and they will start loving each other and then the palestines will just shower thier love on the United States. Mr Kerry, the middle eastern countries of Iran, Pakistan, Palistine and whatever other country will always hate each other and hate the United States gutts. Hating the United States is what gives them motivation to terrorize. The fact is anyone will hate the United States cuz they are probably jealous. Jealous of our not perfect system that works. And americans, y shouldnt we try to give what we have to other countries who dont have it, but want it. U can say well things are not perfect here. Well guess what. Things will never be perfect, but it works. If people die for u so u can march around with card board boxes with flags draped over them, why cant those same people die, who volunteer by the way, for the independence of another country. If things are so bad here y dont u go to Iraq or Iran where things are so much better. I bet u wouldnt like it there cuz if u marched around with a flag around a cardboard box u would be shot. So whats wrong with doing what is humane and right? ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 31st, 2004, 12:13am on 08/30/04 at 23:13:13, thebeast wrote:
System works? Like what? taken advantage of UN? ??? I do not hate nor dislike US, but the power, the politics and the attitude that generally comes with it. If you do not like decisions made by the United Nation, try to convince them of your point; prove to them why you are right and why they should go along with it. Just like this for example : If your civic government passes a law that you don't like, do you just openly disobey the law because you don't like it? If you do not like speeding restriction, do you speed all over hell? The international community is more than willing to cooperate with US if it is shown respect and also if US shows that it is willing to act as a member of the global community, not its controller. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 31st, 2004, 12:53am mylen i see your still stuck on this UN and WMD issue. May I explain. UN made a contract up that stated if Iraq did not live up to the restrictions "Serious Consequences" would result. We had a embargo on them. Inspectors have been going there over 10 years. They would show up places and Iraqi troops would not let them in. They found materials to make WMD. They found other weapons that they were not supposed to have. Meanwhile the people living there were being terrorized. So what should U.S. do? Wait another 10 years? It should of been taken care of during Dessert Storm but it wasnt, but just because it wasnt does that mean it still shouldnt be taken care of? The United States is who founded the UN. Members of the UN and the United States had a different interpretation of "Serious Consequences" And it sure is funny how countries against the U.S. dont want anything to do with the liberation of Iraq, but they sure want to help to rebuild it. Other countries dont want to sacrafice cuz they dont believe. U gotta believe in something better than what there is now over there. But maybe just maybe with, Gods help, if things can work out in Iraq, then the surrounding countries will understand. Stop hate and declaring holy war and terrorizing each other and become a safe and prosperous nations with equal opportunity for all sexes and religions. Its probably never gonna happen, but we still gotta try. It dont seem that way, but thats the goal. United States doesnt want to be controller they want world to be safe place. boy that sure sounds good, pretty soon the battle hymn republic song will play.... Glory....Glory....Hallelujah....Glory....Glory.... Hallelujah.... His truth is marching on. LOL ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 31st, 2004, 1:32am on 08/30/04 at 04:49:58, Stonser wrote:
Well stonser if Hillary gave u a blow job would u vote for her. Hell thats pretty damn tempting lol And if she did give u one and u did vote for her would that make u a brown noser? These are questions that have been pondering the male gender for centuries. lol I know maybe if hillary gave a blow job to every voting male in the country then she might have a chance of being president but I dont think Bill would go for this, especially when he is the only voting male not getting a blow job. lol |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Stonser on Aug 31st, 2004, 5:14am on 08/31/04 at 01:32:45, thebeast wrote:
Even if she did and I voted for her doesn't mean I'm a brown noser. It would take a lot more than a blow job for me to vote for someone |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Aug 31st, 2004, 6:12am Beast, I'm not stuck in WMD and UN, I'm just commenting your post about imperfect system that works. Quote:
Here's the thing, nobody ever said that Iraq had nukes, probably or surely the reason for dethrowning Saddam was because he was actively seeking nukes. (as they so, and not the oil) The reason the US did not do anything to prevent other countries like Pakistan, India, and North Korea from getting nukes is because at the time Bill Clinton and the Democrats were in power and it is well established that Democrats are weak on national defense and security threats. on 08/31/04 at 00:53:42, thebeast wrote:
So are you saying since the United States was the one who founded the UN, then it is just fine to bypassed it? You should be required to obtain approval from the UN. In simple words, you should have to justify your actions in front of the UN and convince it that your attack is necessary. Any nation that chooses to participate in the UN automatically becomes an equal to the poorest and the richest nations of the world. If the United States chooses to go a separate way everytime the other 90% of the world's population reaches a decision that the US cannot handle, then the whole system breaks down. Reminder: If the topic about blow job will continue, we might as well transfer this thread to ALL ABOUT SEX |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Aug 31st, 2004, 7:45pm Okay mylene lol no i didnt mean that because the U.S. founded the UN gives them any special privilages. I meant we invented it to make the world a safer place. Let me ask u these questions and u answer simple yes or no answers. Mylene or anyone just answer yes or no. 1. Is Sadam and all the others in leadership positions under him terrorists? 2. Is the world a better and safer place with Sadam and his supporters either dead or in jail? 3. Do u think Sadam had WMD? 4. Do u think Sadam deserves to be a leader of his country? 5. Do u really honestly think the U.S. invaded Iraq for its oil? 6. Do u think Sadam could be trusted? 7. Do u think that the UN is always right? Yes or No that means no if or ands or buts. As far as the blow job goes, Im not sure if anyone remembers or knows this. It was a blow job that President Bill Clinton got and a blow job that he lied about recieving that almost got his ass impeached. lol So in a very weird and freaky way blow jobs have a little to do with politics. lol I was using it as an example as how silly and low american politics can get. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 1st, 2004, 5:49am I cannot be submissive and answer your question with a simple yes or no. This is a battle out with facts and credibility. You should state a fact, rebutt, and rebutt rebuttals. You fail to incorporate reason into your arguments. As for the blow job thing, I'm aware of that event between Monica and Bill. Quote:
In order for the UN to be made stronger, it needs US cooperation, disobeying the United Nation, US jeopardize its relevance. Doing something that the majority of the world thinks is the right thing to do, meaning doing something morally superior than if it were against the wishes of the majority of the population. Quit trying to justify the lack of support US had. It was wrong, quit trying to spin it. Simple arguement: why there is a law against murder? To restrict people's freedom to act how they please!" |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 1st, 2004, 12:22pm awful lot of mudslinging going on in here.A person cant see clearly with all the mud in this room.I know....lets spray it down with a firehose and start again! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 1st, 2004, 12:39pm The UN plays an important role in America's War on Terrorism. Some might say it's the lead role. As a sovereign nation, the U.S. does not need to ask permission or get a consensus from any other country or countries before defending itself. Probe to blow the lid off massive U.N. scandal. Documents prove oil-for-food corruption involving world leaders.(of course they try to say thats the US goal)All are involved. The United Nations: A Totalitarian Appeasing Debating Society. The United States provides 22 percent of the U.N.'s general operating budget. By contrast, France, Great Britain, China and Russia combined contribute less than 15 percent. However, as members of the Security Council, each of those nations enjoys veto power over the U.S. Perpetual War: President Bush did not seek the expected congressional declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution. Instead, our commander in chief sought permission and approval from the United Nations. Dragging its feet, the U.N. Security Council finally passed Resolution 1373, authorizing America to fight the "war on terrorism." The Immorality of a Self-Defense Consensus: Do people who value life, liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity understand that they have a right to defend themselves against people who want to kill them? If the answer is yes, then a powerful, free country defends itself. If no, then it seeks consensus, at first with allies and then with enemies, and it proceeds only with their agreement. So far, America has taken the latter path. These thoughts are taken from Andrew K.Dart.Whom I mostly agree with. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 1st, 2004, 5:34pm Dang rabbit thats will shut me up. lol But it still dont say if the United States was right or wrong now does it lol I wanna talk about the republican convention and Arnold Schwarzeneggers speach. I like this dude. I dont like his politics but he is a charismatic son of b. I guess u could say he is a liberal republican. I mean he is for gay rights, pro abortion, and gun control. That dont sound to republican to me. I know y though. He is the gov of california. He is for gay rights cuz Im willing to bet the gay vote is quite large in California. He is pro abortion cuz with all the liberals that live there want thier kids to get an abortion. He is for gun control cuz in California, thats where everyone shoots everyone without a gun. Its so funny how 2 states like Texas and California can be so different yet in the same country. The gay people have a parade there every year. 10000 gay people marching the streets in San Francisco yelling Im proud to be gay. I dont get it. Okay u are gay, but do u have to be proud u are gay. Heck I guess all the heterosexuals should get together and have a parade and yell Im proud to be straight. If the gay people had a parade in Texas all the texans would get their guns and shoot them. Cuz in Texas the people love thier guns and they dont want anymore gun control. Anyway like I said, I like Arnold but not cuz of his politics but because of his story. Here is a dude that came here from Austria with nothing. Hell he couldnt even speak english. He got into body building and won Mr Olympia for a number of years. He was probably on steriods, but back then not much was known about it. He has heart problems today due to it probably. Then he starts making movies. I saw the first movie Arnold made. It sucked. Then came the conan movies and u could tell his english was getting better but not much. Then the terminater. Perfect movie for Arnold cuz he didnt have very many lines in it. And bang a star is born. Anyway look at him today. A dude born in Austia who is now the Gov of Cali. The perfect example of what the american dream is all about. With hard work, good choices and some luck it can happen. The Bush people were scared to ask Arnold to speak cuz the feared he might get better ratings than George Bush would. Mr. Bush listen. This is no time for egos. This guy can get u some votes. If anyone saw Arnold speak please post and give your thoughts. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 1st, 2004, 8:44pm He has a wife who is democrat.LOL.Whatcha expect:P On gay marriage, Schwarzenegger said: "I do support domestic partnerships." But he said he is against state-sanctioned unions for gays and lesbians. "Marriage should be between a man and woman," he said. Described himself as "pro-choice" and said he would defend a woman's right to abortion services. But he said he is against late-stage procedures that some call "partial-birth" abortions. Medical marijuana? He's for it. On the radio show, Schwarzenegger said he is opposed to giving a driver's license to an illegal immigrant. A ban on assault weapons? "Yes, I do support that." (Not a ban on weapons altogether) Yeah hes a bit wishy-washy...but hes in California.He has a tough job on his hands.Things are different than it was in Reagans time. Heres a thought.We all know Kerry is being set up to lose.He will most likely be running mate for Hillary in the next election.Guess they figure that then they will have no one to fight against in the repbulican side.What if Arnold is elected because we decided to amend the constitution.Wouldnt that draw their panties in a wad. ;D ;D ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 1st, 2004, 10:05pm Arnold Schwarzenegger was visiting the firefighters in New York City B4 his speach at the convention. He told the press qoute "I love firefighters, they got balls" lol U gotta love a guy like that. lol |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 1st, 2004, 10:21pm on 09/01/04 at 12:39:15, killerabbit wrote:
I did not say anything about givin up your sovereignity. Do wat you want to do or will within your own borders BUT when you wish to attack another country, I believe that you should be required to get approval from the United Nation. IMO, the moment you impose your values forcibly, even if you believe it to be the right thing to do, it will only course more problems than it will ever fix. You are seeing the evidence of that. Quote:
What about the majority who want to exercise their right through democracy? Should their wishes be ignored or deemed unworthy in favor of the minority who use violence? Thats all. Now lets go back to the MAIN topic. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 1st, 2004, 10:29pm on 09/01/04 at 12:39:15, killerabbit wrote:
*ahem* Nanay...This didnt answer your question? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 1st, 2004, 10:32pm ....and the majority favor war with Iraq...the minority opposed it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 1st, 2004, 10:38pm ahem u too tatay... I'm not familiar with that resolution but since u said its about "war on terrorism" and not approval to attack IRAQ. Post more about the resolution and lemme see. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 1st, 2004, 10:55pm To me war on terrorism war on Iraq are both the same. And thats what Bush and congress think also. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 1st, 2004, 11:05pm Part of Dick Chenny's speach at the republican convention. The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe - yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed “only at the directive of the United Nations.” During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm. Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a “more sensitive war on terror,” as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America - after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it - and that includes the use of military force. Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve - as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. I think Dick Chenny pretty much summed up the U.N. and Iraq ordeal tonight in his speach. Dick I agree with you. If attacks are made on the United States screw the UN. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 2nd, 2004, 12:03am Part of a democrat senator named Zell Miller's speach at the republican convention. Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror. Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts. The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom. The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq. The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora. The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11. I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against. This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs? Im glad Zell is on our side lol |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 2nd, 2004, 12:10am on 09/01/04 at 22:55:14, thebeast wrote:
is this wat the resolution says too? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 2nd, 2004, 12:33am mylene i was a soldier for my country, I dont care what a resolution says. I would imagine u might feel the same way if u were a soldier in america and u saw the world trade center go down in flames. Terrorists did a cowardly thing and wrecked not just our economy but the whole worlds economy for a brief period. Not only did lots of people die but lots of people lost thier jobs. I do not like war. No american likes war. I dont like innocent people getting killed in war, but its all part of it. Death and war go together. Im glad we did what we did and I am proud of the american troops in Iraq. U can criticize all u want and wait as long as u want. For me and lots of other americans something had to be done. Im speaking from my heart. I dont care what some piece of paper says what we can and cant do. U can call it controlling u can call it manipulative u can call it cocky u can call it lots of things, but to me its always gonna come down to defending my country and I could care less about what other countries on the board at the UN think we should or shouldnt do. ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by cebuanalyn on Sep 2nd, 2004, 7:34am KERRY...KERRY..KERRY... sorry Americans... i was paid to campaign for him here in Philippines ;D ...so Filipinos...KERRY for President.... Kerry, Kerry, Kerry......... |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 2nd, 2004, 8:03am Here ya go nanay.In direct answer to your query....no beating around the bush(sorry pun intended)... Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime; Hmmm,they told US that we should go get him in '98....hmmmmm.... Friday, November 08, 2002 UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council on Friday unanimously approved a resolution that forces Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm or face "serious consequences" that would almost certainly mean war with Iraq. The vote was 15-to-nothing. A minimum of nine votes and no veto was required for the resolution to pass. Hmmmm.....interesting. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 2nd, 2004, 10:50am will you please post the URL where you get the information? I need to check that out before I do my rebuttal. I would aprreciate if you can post your own opinion as well. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 2nd, 2004, 10:57am on 09/02/04 at 00:33:43, thebeast wrote:
One thing I noticed that your attacked is always directed to me. Attack the topic. You dont care? but this a battle out with facts and credibility. And still, you failed to incorporate reason into your arguments. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 2nd, 2004, 12:07pm on 09/02/04 at 10:50:59, mylane wrote:
Oh?I would have thought these references were a reflection of my opinions. ;DAs for your links...here they are http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/ |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by teagirl on Sep 2nd, 2004, 3:50pm on 09/01/04 at 20:44:55, killerabbit wrote:
|
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 2nd, 2004, 4:17pm Thats funny may since i got this quote from his own website! And yes....democrats will do anything to win. ;D ;D ;D ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by teagirl on Sep 2nd, 2004, 4:48pm on 09/02/04 at 16:17:18, killerabbit wrote:
Democrats will do anything to win?? So Kerry is set up to lose?? Ayayay. I'd better go. I hear the mall calling. PS. I know what I heard on The Tonight Show. And I dont think my listening comprehension is that of an idiot. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 2nd, 2004, 5:13pm on 09/02/04 at 10:57:51, mylane wrote:
LOL I have given all the facts that there are. Facts of the Liberation of Iraq 1) Liberation of Iraq is a war on terror 2) United States did the world a favor by putting Sadam in jail. 3) The U.N. and the United States have differences of opinion on what serious consequences are. U.N. thinks serious consequences means more embargos more investigation on Iraq, while the United States has embargos on Iraq the rest of the world still trades with Iraq, included in these trades are weapons, all kinds of weapons and information how to build chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Also in the meantime the people of Iraq are being raped, butchered, and starved to death by a dictator terrorist named Sadam. The Uniteds States and a few other nations were following the embargo but lots of other countrys were not. These same countries that sit on the board at the U.N.. Nations that continued to trade with Iraq are Russia, France, and Canada. These are the largest nations that objected to the liberation of Iraq. Listen an embargo is not gonna work unless everyone participates. 4)No complete WMD was found yet, but materials to make WMD were all over the place and other weapons he was not supposed to have per the agreement made after dessert storm. 5)Most of the people of Iraq wanted United States to liberate them, but some of them wanted us to liberate them and leave. If U.S. did that there would be just another dicatator in place and more fighting between the diff religious groups in Iraq. What Iraq needs is a democratic government. They have one in place now. 6)The United States does not need a permission slip from anyone to defend the United States. After 9/11 the United States declared war on terror. Iraq = terror. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Sep 2nd, 2004, 6:27pm amen to that beast!Well since this is about Presidential elections and not Iraq...I will say that my vote goes to Bush.Im sorry but the democrats stand for all the wrong reasons.They are pro abortion,pro gay rights,pro anti christian,pro socialism.(Thats right I said it ,socialiams and communism.System that have failed each time).They do not impress me either way.I will not apologize for the USA for defending ourselves.Going to Iraq was an act of defense.No matter what your arguements are.We will not go quietly into the night and lay down like sheep.Terrorism wherever it may be needs to be abolish.It will not go away with talk.That has already been proven.Tell the parents in Russia that its ok to submit to terrorists.It is acts like these which make them,NOT US,an abomination.If you stir up a hornets nest you are bound to get stung.Bush all the way baby!Not some terrorist loving democrat.By the way...it took a republican to get us of the trouble Carter got us into.Standing firm with my decision.Wabbit. By the way tea.I did not intentionally mean to discredit what you heard.If I have offended then Im sorry. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 11th, 2004, 4:12pm well the democratic and republican conventions are over. Its time for the real mud to sling. Im ready for a presidential debate. They have a few scheduled b4 election day. Im not sure how this is gonna turn out. I live in Texas and this is bush country. All kinds of bush bumber stickers on cars. I was asked to put one on my car, but I dont do that. I will probably vote for bush but I am not putting a bush bumper sticker or any kind of bumber sticker on my car and truck. I just dont do that. I dont put signs in my yard either. So dont be coming around my house to ask to put a bush sign in my yard cuz I will say no. Y? Well cuz its my yard thats y. I will hang the american flag on appropriate days and my Oklahoma University Flag on the weekends. I hang the important flags u see. A guy like me has to have his priorities straight. Like I said the presidential race might be another close one. The polls say bush has a slight lead but I never believed in those polls. LOL Kerry is making a run to try to get gun owners votes. lol This is funny because he has done everything while in congress to try to make it more difficult to own a gun. He is such a wishy washy person. Says this one week then something completely different the next week. Anyway the NRA(National Rifle Association) told kerry to go to hell, the NRA was not gonna support Kerry for president. NRA has always supported the republicans. ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by teagirl on Sep 11th, 2004, 5:31pm on 09/11/04 at 16:12:11, thebeast wrote:
I've read about "Labor Day Yardstick" the other day and it seems that it has been proven over the years that whoever leads the polls after Labor Day wins the election. So I guess, if thats true, the Democrats cant Kerry the presidency as there is no beating (around the) Bush . Pun intended. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 13th, 2004, 10:45pm I read in the paper today where it said that most people who were voting for kerry were not really voting for kerry they were voting against bush. Its a sad day, when u dont even like a guys politics, but u still vote for him cuz u dont like the other guys politics either. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 14th, 2004, 10:17am For sure Bush will going to win since he is better than alternative. This is not who you want to win, it is for who you think will win. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 16th, 2004, 6:08pm mylene of course im for bush, but i think its gonna be a lot closer than lots of people think. Part of me hopes it turns out like the last time. I liked the way bush just took control when all the confusion was happening in florida. It shows he has good leadership skills. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Sep 16th, 2004, 6:13pm boy these liberal media people like dan rather of CBS are really pounding this unfounded military stuff of george bush. Making a big deal because he missed a few weekend drills while he was in the National Gaurd. Hell I missed drills when i was in the Oklahoma National Guard. I just didnt want to go. Y? Well because it was so damn boring is the main reason. Sitting around drinking coffee on a Saturday and Sunday is not my idea of fun. So I didnt show up a few times. But I called my (CO) Commanding Officer the day b4 to let him know. Heck I know for a fact that my own CO missed a drill one weekend just so he could go hunting for some turkeys during turkey season. How do I know this? Well because I was with him thats how. So whats the big deal? Everyone does it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Sep 17th, 2004, 2:55am on 09/16/04 at 18:08:25, thebeast wrote:
Quote:
When Bush admitted that he did not think America could win the war on terror but that it could make terrorism less acceptable around the world, a departure from his previous optimistic statements that the United States would eventually prevail...I have to admire Bush on saying that...he is being realistic atlast. No matter how many times we would capture the Bin ladens and Sadamn Hussiens, there are still a lot of fanatical and fundamental groups that could be turned into terrorists because of their blind beliefs and followings. Just like, we cannot win crime in the streets, or crime in general BUT we can do something to prevent some and minimize the whole shot. So i can say he is better than alternative. When I read John Kerry statement declaring that he has a plan to defeat those who threaten the United States. He talks a lot, I wonder if he can talk the talk and walk the walk at the same time. For clarification my statement above does not mean I'm a pro nor anti-bush. I'm an anti-Arroyo bigtime. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Oct 1st, 2004, 1:33pm Watch the Bush/Kerry debate last night. No knock out blows. I wanna say this though. Kerry did a decent job. Its hard to debate Kerry because in the senate he votes so many different ways its hard to know what he is for or against. One thing that kerry did say he was gonna increase taxes. Im sure lots of americans dont want that. LOL Bush sticks to his guns. I like that. Its easy to criticize when you arent the one making decisions. All in all the pressure was put on Kerry and Kerry did a decent job. But no winners in this debate. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by xXx on Oct 4th, 2004, 11:29am I watched the debate and it was uncomfortable to watch Bush. It was like his brain was a teleprompter and Cheney was backstage typing out his responses and would have typos. Bush would stutter or stare blankly into the camera for a few seconds until Cheney could retype the message. I can just see a blinking cursor erasing a whole statement and having it retyped with "we are defending freedom" every so often. I just read too much into the body language maybe? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Oct 5th, 2004, 5:03pm I wathced the debate as well. I thought Kerry did a good job. But lets be real. He is a slime ball lawyer. All lawyers can debate. He is hard to debate because he cant make up his mind about anything. Example, Kerry says his strong catholic religion goes against abortion but its not an issue to him because its set in law, yet he is for lifting the ban on stem cell research. Hello goofball Kerry, abortion and stem cell research is the same damn thing. I guess his strong catholic beleifs just vanished in thin air. I also dont like the idea of him asking permission from the UN or other countries when something bad happens here in the United States. I can see it now, bombs killing thousands of people in the United States and Kerry is up at the UN wasting his time talking when action needs to be taken. I guess when Kerry gets elected the Middle East and all the other countries of the world are gonna just rush to our side and give us help just because he asked. Have they ever done that before? When have the countries agaisnt us in Iraq ever helped the United States before? I tell you when, NEVER! And you expect me to think that its gonna be different because Kerry is the president. I guess Im wrong about that one. NOT! Kerry seems to think the terrorists are gonna be our bestest friends also. Kerry will give the terrorists so much love, they will just lay thier weapons down and jump for joy. He lies about getting american troops back home any quicker than Bush will. American Troops are stuck in Iraq till Iraq can take care of the problems. And Mr. Kerry thats gonna be a long time. Being everyones best friend is a wonderful idea but it usually gets u screwed also. Plus its easy to critisize someone who made some tuff decisions. I saw Bush get angry and heard him bang his fist on the podium. I like that. It shows me he is a firey person. Look at Kerry, same boring look on his face the whole time. If someone shot his wife Teresa in the head and blood was all over the place, I bet his expression wouldnt change. I know from experience the dudes who show no emotion are usually the ones who will sell you out when the going gets tuff. Kerry blamed Bush for the sanctions on Iran. When the fact is those sanctions were on Iran for a long time b4 Bush was even president. Get your facts right Kerry. I guess Kerry wants to be good buddies with the Iranians also. Iran= Terrorists. What a dope. That shows you he knows nothing about leading a country. If Kerry wants to make so many friends, maybe he should run for the president of the All I Wanna Do Is Be Your Friend While You Screw Me In The Ass of America, because thats exactly whats gonna happen. Also, Kerry wants to raise income taxes to pay for all these wonderful ideas he has. Wow now thats a real smart strategy there. Im sure lots of Americans are just dying to pay more income taxes. I can hardly wait to pay mine. I just cant wait till its time to pay more income taxes. ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Oct 6th, 2004, 1:29pm http://www.berkeleybreathed.com/Images/hamster-GRAB_1.jpg |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mymy on Oct 8th, 2004, 10:19pm Hmmm...thats funny xXx ;D Damn I have to watch that debate. To Bush supporters: You finally admit Bush lost the debate and now you have to make excuses for Bush sucking in the debate. The fact is that Kerry won in style. All Bush did was seem angry and said the two things, Kerry is a flip flopper and we can't get allies. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by TeaGirl on Oct 9th, 2004, 6:26pm http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/teagirl/bc.jpg |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Oct 18th, 2004, 10:15am Go BUSH! ;D ;D ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Oct 18th, 2004, 1:38pm I watched all the debates. As far as the Kerry/Bush debates go. I feel it was pretty even. Kerry is a talker. Thats pretty much it. Bush is a doer. What Kerry says he will do and the way he has voted in the past is 2 totally differnt things. He uses a lot of double talk also when his voting record is brought up. I just dont like Kerry. Its cool that he served his country but the things he did when he came back is what really bothers me. War is an ugly thing and ugly things happen. No doubt about it. When he came back from Vietnam he started to point the finger at everyone. Telling everyone about the innocent people killed and all the bad stuff that goes along with war. He even named the people who were responsible. I just dont agree with this. If he was gonna do any good y didnt he try to fix the problem when he was in Vietnam? Instead he comes back and points the finger at everyone else. I was a soldier once. Ive been shot at by the enemy. When you are being shot at you only have one thing on your mind. And thats shoot the person shooting at you. The enemy will do anything to try to make you look bad. He hides among innocent people. Its not an easy to defend yourself and protect others when this kind of thing is going on. And I dont care what nation or military u are in. Everyone of them including the United States has some bad apples in them. But you dont come home and start pointing the finger and criticizing your troops and the ones who lead them. Even if it is a mistake to be there. Not only is Kerry not a good leader he is not a team player either. I learned this in the military. In order to be a good leader you also have to be a good team player. They both go hand in hand. Hell Bush probably isnt even as smart as Kerry. But I dont care how smart and clever you are. Being smart and clever are not what makes you a good leader or president. You lead by example and the way you react when in tuff circumstances. Kerry's example and record are not consistent with what he says he is gonna do. With Bush you get what he says he is gonna do. Oh yeah, you can say Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. He didnt lie. Its all in the way you look at it I guess. I always said I like the guy who makes choices that are not always politically correct. I could care less about whats politically correct. Issues that are politically correct never get taken care of. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections - Good...bad Post by scottman on Oct 28th, 2004, 3:01pm Can't vouch for all the facts presented here, but I recognize some of them as true... ---- Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad... Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...a Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... Clinton bombs Chinese embassy -- good... Bush bombs terrorist camps -- bad... Clinton commits felonies while in office -- good... Bush lands on aircraft carrie! r in jumpsuit -- bad... No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad... Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad... Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad... Clinton says Saddam has nukes -- good... Bush says Saddam has nukes -- bad... Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... Milosevic not yet convicted -- good... Saddam turned over for trial -- bad... Ahh, it's so confusing! Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates? Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim. Heinz has more overseas employees than US employees. Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame). Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Nov 3rd, 2004, 10:29pm hmmm....mmmm... ::).....mmmm...hhmmmm ::) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Nov 3rd, 2004, 10:30pm What is this? No comments on the presidential election? I guess everyone is sick of all the speaches and campaigns. LOL Everyone is like me. Glad it is over so we can watch something new on CNN or Fox News. I have some interesting facts on the election here in Texas. Of course Bush won Texas big time, but he lost in Dallas County of Texas big time. Kerry won Dallas county Texas. That seemed odd to me. I am in Collin County, Texas and Bush won that. I knew it was gonna be a close race nationally. At least this time the media got it right. No false projections this time. And what about these election day polls. The media really got ripped off on these polls. These polls stated that Kerry was gonna win a landslide victory. Who were these people the these polls were polling? My guess is voters who were gonna vote for Kerry. I guess all the Bush voters somehow got skipped over. Kerry was hoping to get a lot of 18 to 24 year old votes. You know the voters who are in college. Well, all I know is when I was in college I had more important things to do than wait in line for 8 or 12 hours to vote. You know like homework, study [smiley=juggle.gif], or even more importantly drink beer [smiley=icon_drink.gif], chase girls [smiley=party.gif], and watch the sports. ;D I admire Kerry for closing the election by conceiding when he did. Unlike last time when Gore dragged the whole thing out for a month. It was a close race and Kerry made it close but it was just not meant to be. Bush won popular vote by over 3 million and electoral votes came down to just a few states that were just won by 3 or even lower percentage points. One thing for sure is the republicans won big time. So this means probably nothing will get done due to the grudge the democrats are gonna have. I wish after the elections this party thing can be forgotten and the people we elect just get down to business and do what they are supposed to do. Lets do what we need to do. Lets get terrorism in control and get our troops back home as soon as possible. Lets support all the military objectives. It will give them the confidence and the courage they need to have. I know the troops in Iraq get angry when they see americans, their own people, protesting against what they are doing. They have enough on there mind over there. Why would any american want to burden them anymore? It seems that Americans care about moral issues more than I thought they did. Issues like anti abortion and anti gay marriage are apparently important to lots of people. Issures like the war in Iraq and the economy are secondary I guess. I never blame the president for war or the economy. These are things that are really beyond his control. The economy was due for a fall after 911 and Bush really didnt have any other choice but to go to war in the Middle East. I think he is the right man for the job. I also think its gonna be hard for anyone who is a senator or congressman to get elected for president. A governor or federal administrator is a better choice maybe? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by okasantina on Nov 10th, 2004, 10:44am on 11/03/04 at 22:30:57, thebeast wrote:
Lets vote for BEAST! ...i agree to that JOel...so who u voted? hmm? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by keensryche on Nov 13th, 2004, 9:46am [smiley=drummer.gif] [smiley=huepfenicon111.gif] BUSH WON!!!!!!!!! [smiley=woot.gif] |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Nov 15th, 2004, 4:36pm on 11/03/04 at 22:30:57, thebeast wrote:
Well I'm kinda suprised when Kerry conceded....I already begun to brace myself for a long drug out dramatic battle that would out do the disgrace of 2000 ;D I think Kerry did the math and recognized there was no hope of winning Ohio. Does it mean new map of US after the election opppss or should i say America? kidding aside ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Hernando on Nov 16th, 2004, 7:13pm In this election, I see that he was elected fairly. So I acknowledge him as the legimitate president just like I did after 2000. However I pretty much oppose anything he has done, and oppose all his current plans, so I do not support him at all. I will not act against my country, and also will not work to hurt Bush in anyway, but I'll be damned if I'll support his idiotic policies. I always think that in a democracy like the US you get the leaders you deserve. I just wonder what it was the rest of the world did to deserve Bush. I hope the world survives the next 4 years. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Nov 24th, 2004, 2:39am >:(Of course all are entitled to ones opinion.But heres a thought.Would one rather be serving under a muslim terrorist regime where all our freedom was stripped away from us?Or put up with someone trying to make us a proud nation again?As for the rest of the world.They can all pucker up and kiss our....hehe. ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by teagirl on Nov 24th, 2004, 4:25am on 11/24/04 at 02:39:32, killerabbit wrote:
Thats exactly the kind of attitude why the world thinks America is arrogant. But of course, this doesnt apply to all Americans. I should know that. I can still vouch for a few decent ones whose opinions I still care very much about. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Nov 24th, 2004, 5:33am on 11/16/04 at 19:13:11, Hernando wrote:
ohhh...if I were you I will support him for fear of getting shot if he thought I had WMDs. bwahahahaha ;D Nice to see your post Hernie ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Nov 24th, 2004, 5:40am on 11/24/04 at 04:25:31, teagirl wrote:
Either they are proud to be arrogant or just proud to be plain and simple ignorant... ;D Well I guess the american culture as being intellectual, knowledgable and open-mided is a bad thing. It has a negative effect on the number of knowledgable people in the united states...lol ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by teagirl on Nov 24th, 2004, 11:03am on 11/24/04 at 05:40:33, mylane wrote:
*ouch* hehe ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Nov 27th, 2004, 7:17pm on 11/24/04 at 05:40:33, mylane wrote:
Every country has bad apples in it. Yes we are a proud people as is any country is. For the most part we are not arrogant. We have our share of problems. We are an endless changing society. We are a peacefull nation, but we will not bargin with terrorists or any other nation who supports terrorism or who who wants to develop weapons of mass destruction. Some may call us evil, overbearing, cockey but the fact is we are just trying to make the world a better and safer place. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by teagirl on Nov 27th, 2004, 9:29pm on 11/27/04 at 19:17:09, thebeast wrote:
OH PUHLEEZZZZZ! You would CONCEDE to a description of "overbearing, cockey" but you ARE NOT ARROGANT?! Spare me the semantics. After your grammar lessons, time for vocabulary lessons for you, Joel--- cocky [n] adj. cockier, cockiest Overly self-assertive or self-confident. overbearing [adj] 1.Domineering in manner; arrogant: an overbearing person. 2.Overwhelming in power or significance; predominant. arrogant [adj] 1.Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance. 2.Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. Now, now, Joel---dont be foaming at the mouth now...I didnt make up these word meanings. If DOUBT, you must, I copy/pasted them from http://dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cocky http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overbearing http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arrogant Wait, wait---I'm not finished yet. "We are just trying to make the world a better and safer place." ROFLMAO. It is so nice and convenient to have your finger in every pie, doesnt it? And pretend your are protecting and POLICING the world. So what are you saying...those Americans who are against your war against Iraq and Afghanistan---they're bad apples? Cos that's the bottomline, isnt it, Joel? I wonder how your fellow americans who lost a son, a husband, a father, a family member to the war will react to that---bad apples, indeed. But, wait a minute, maybe I'm way off tangent here. I directed that "arrogant" word to Wabbit when he made a stupid, ignorant, half-assed, arrogant remark. And in turn, Mymy agreed with me. And you are telling us now there are some bad apples --- are you IN ESSENCE, calling Wabbit a "bad apple"? Just wondering. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Dec 4th, 2004, 6:47pm It is easy to be arrogant when one lives in the greatest nation on earth.Im so lucky to be here and thankful for it everyday.Yes Im spoiled and loving it.But for those who refer to me being arrogant for loving this country...are you not in fact yourselves being arrogant?Naw dont think about it or try to come back with some witty remark.You know its true.But before you go off and get your blood pressure going,think about this....if America is so baddddd....why is everyone trying to come here or imitate us?Once again....you know its true.So just sit back,shut up and continue on with your meager lives.(ooooo that was arrogant).Hehehe.Lighten up guys.Geez.Got dem dere panties all in a wad.By the way I doubt "dere" and "dem" is in the dictionary.So dont bother.Just kidding.Love you all! |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Dec 4th, 2004, 7:14pm Let me post my initial reply to the issue here. The words "America" and "American" in this thread don't apply to all of those who would call themselves "American" or claim to be from "America." They do apply to certain factions of the population, however, so please try to interpret that accordingly. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Dec 4th, 2004, 7:26pm Quote:
It seems that this FEW Americans are having a hard time admitting imperfections. For example: Making a decision and sticking to it. What's wrong with admitting you made a mistake? Is there any feature in a human being that displays more confidence than the ability to admit one's own mistakes? What would be the harm in saying "we've made some mistakes, we're real sorry and we're going to fix them because we're America and that's what we do: we make things right." Why is that so hard? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Dec 4th, 2004, 7:31pm on 12/04/04 at 18:47:30, killerabbit wrote:
The only difference that America has from other countries is that it has developed imperialism as it's economic system. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by okasantina on Dec 4th, 2004, 8:23pm on 12/04/04 at 18:47:30, killerabbit wrote:
How easy wabbit? being arrogant cuz u live in the greatest nation on earth? Think about it pls..Be proud of it but not to be arrogant. ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by Hernando on Dec 4th, 2004, 8:46pm on 12/04/04 at 19:26:50, mylane wrote:
There's a fine line between admitting you are wrong and being a fairweather politician. Make no mistake, I guess Bush is clearly on the wrong side of that line in the stubborn area but you clearly cannot have a President that makes decisions every time the whim of the world swings a different way. There is something to be said for remaining steadfast in your opinions and your ideals in the face of adversaries, but you have to make sure that they are just that, opinions and ideals, not facts. You have to be willing to say that you've made a mistake with certain things, WMDs obviously being the most prominent example. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Dec 5th, 2004, 12:12pm on 12/04/04 at 20:23:13, okasantina wrote:
Arrigato Okasan!Thank you for politlely reminding me of proper behaivor instead of being insulting like others.Just to clue you guys in on whats been going on with me lately,I am not as arrogant as I have been portraying myself of late.I just reach this point where I am tired of the arguements and tired of the finger pointing and tired of all the mud being slung everywhere.Everyone has skeletons in their closet.Those who say they dont are living in the fantasy world. I dont like it when someone says be tolerate of other peoples culture,religion or behaivor.I think you should instead enrich yourselves,immerse oneself with all the varieties this world has to offer without interfering with their ways and not surrendering yours.In the end both will come out with memories to treasure and share with others. Nuff said....Im getting off subject.Bush is president again.And the world is a much better place for it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by killerabbit on Dec 5th, 2004, 12:24pm on 12/04/04 at 19:14:54, mylane wrote:
Ach no not political correct agin ::)I 'ate litical correct.hehehe. well this doesnt apply to what you are talking about but,well sorta...america doesnt just apply to USA but canada,mexico,brazil and so on.And when I try to tell a mexican this she freak and got mad saying she was in no way an american.When in fact she is.America is the new world.Time for all those old world fogeys to get a clue. ;) And while its true as history has proven that all great nations end up falling on their asses after awhile,we will be around for quite awhile since we are still new at this. Who knows,maybe things will be like in the movie "Starship Troopers" and Brazil will be the next future superpower of the world. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by mylane on Dec 5th, 2004, 2:31pm on 12/05/04 at 12:24:52, killerabbit wrote:
The only part of America that's separate from the world is the Moon. Which belongs to America. :-/ |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by okasantina on Dec 5th, 2004, 2:57pm I guess were out of the topic now ::) Keep cool ;D |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by kim on Dec 10th, 2004, 10:00am well now that the elections are over, will you americans still march on the streets because the person who won is not the one you voted for? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Dec 11th, 2004, 9:14pm on 11/27/04 at 21:29:55, teagirl wrote:
LOL, May I need no lessons in grammar or vocabulary. And I dont concede to anything. I think you read to much into what I type. You analyze every word frontwards and backwards. All countries have people who are arrogant, cocky, overbearing in it. General George S Patton once said quote: Inside every human being, be he communist, peasant, or whatever, there is an American living. What he said is true. Think about it...Who wouldnt want to be free? Who wouldnt want live his or her lives and raise their families the way they think it should be. Free to worship anyway you wanted to. Free to elect your own officials. Free to kick officials out of office if they are not doing what they should be doing. The freedom to choose what you want to do with your life. And the freedom to do these things without the fear of getting your head chopped off just because some guy with more power and money than you can do it? Everybody wants this. This is the way it should be. So May and anyone else who is thinking that America, as a whole, isnt a great nation with good intent, go ahead and be hypocritical and narrowminded. I dont get it. The United States helps other countries. We give them money, aid, and security. What is wrong with trying to make the world a more democratic place to live without the threat of destruction. A world where the voice of everyone is heard. A world that is equal or as close to it as you can get? As far as sticking our finger in everyones pie??? Well thats the blood for oil card played again. lol When are you people ever gonna understand that its not all about money. The United States dishes more money out to help 3rd world countries and countries who are in trouble than any other nation. I bet we spend 20 or 30 times more money than we will ever get back. Here is the thing. If everyone followed the United States lead, everyone would profit. Not only financially but the quality of life as well. Its never gonna be perfect but it well be as close to perfect as you can ever get. May, as far as rabbit goes he isnt a bad apple. He is trying to be funny in his own way. But what he says is true. Just because you are confident donest make you cocky. Just cause you want the world to be a better place doesnt make you overbearing. Just because you believe that a free form of decmocracy is the only way does that make you arrogant? There is more than one way to skin a cat. Thats what democracy is. Jelousy and contempt for the American way is rabid in the world. So much so that some countries want to keep thier nations poor, uneducated, threatened and forced to live one way. I say there is a better way. Does that make me or any other American that thinks this way...cocky, arrogant, or overbearing? |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Dec 11th, 2004, 9:55pm on 12/10/04 at 10:00:28, kim wrote:
I dont think so Kim. Everyone will kiss and make up and attempt to get things done. I doubt you will even see very many protests about the war in Iraq. Why? Well the majority of people are okay with the war in Iraq. The minority can protest but why do that. Its a wasted cause. It will do no good. LOL I hear Michael Moore is making another Fahrenheit/911 movie. I cant stand the fat ass big mouth. His plan didnt work but he still made a lot of money. I cant understand y the liberals and other democrats dont see that. |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by kim on Dec 13th, 2004, 7:23am I was that documentary joel... And i'd rather say no comment to that ;)... Kiss n make up would be a very productive thing to do instead of wasting time money and resources protesting and getting mad about every move that the government makes (Applies to all countries). |
||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: US Presidential Elections Post by thebeast on Dec 14th, 2004, 3:43am well kim here in the states both the house and senate are a majority republican. Bush and the republican party will try to push as much as possible through b4 the senate and house elections next year. The democrats will be stubborn Im sure, but i think they will concede if the bill trying to be passed is a good bill. Bush is trying to push this social security bill through. He wants people to handle part of their social security like a 401k or Individual Retirement Account(IRA). I dont see how this solves the social security problem. The problem with social security is there isnt enough money. The money drawn out of my check and everyone elses check for social security is supporting those who are on social securtiy now. Im not a big fan of social security because they keep raising the age to collect on it. I think its like 68 years old now to collect full social security. I got over $100,000 dollars in my social security account now. Ive been working since I was 13 and I cant touch it till Im 68. Its probably good though cuz I would just spend it. Another thing Bush says he is gonna do is make the income tax filing process more simple. That would be great but I doubt it can be done. |
||||||||||||||
|
1freeworld Groups » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |