If Bush wins...

[Jakeic]

Someone should explain to me how the privileged son of an oil and munitions mogal, who spent most of his adult life trying to run businesses, but only succeded in running them into the ground, who admittedly had a substance abuse problem, who openly lied to his constituancy and the world, and who can barely speak coherently for sixty seconds, suddenly became the most morally guided person in america.

It is a farce.

I can not understand why people believe outright lies about john kerry and his life, but choose to ignore the things Bush has done in his. people honestly believe GW is a good person, and i want to know why you would think that. Or tell me how Dick Cheaney is a good person.

I can understand supporting bush on the issues. But then again, bush's stances have driven us to our present situtation. A situtation that puts the US against the world (which, btw, the world did not attack us, Al Queda did, and they are hardly the world, they are more like a radical faction of a religuos group, sorta like the Christian Right). A situtation that has the US at odds with former allies and dwindling support from our current allies. A situtation that has spread hate about the US around the world, all the while letting rouge nations, nations part of the Axis of Evil, procure nuclear weapons.

How can a man who is morally sound make the world view america as a bunch of criminals, who instigate illegal wars for our own gain?

Furthermore, we need more troops on the ground in Iraq. If they don't come from our allies, they come from the US. But the US forces are thinnly spread, and fewer people are joining the millitary. This leads to only two logical conclusions. One, we withdraw from Iraq, which Bush won't do. Or two, we institute a draft to increase the size of our armed forces, again is an unpopular move, but necessary to gain control of Iraq.

Anyone in the military has to be stupid to support Bush, if you can not figure out why, my point is proven.

 

[Jakeic]

and another thing...

watching 30 seconds of Fox News and listening to Bush campain ads doesn't not make you versed in american politics, which for the vast majority of the constituancy, that's their only exposure to politics.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Debate

"And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there."

But he wants to "significantly" reduce the number of troops in Iraq?

What is meaningful? Meaningful to the fight in Iraq? Meaningful to the soldier that are there? Meaningful to the American public?

Also, 10,000 troops would be 7.2% not 33% as you claimed before.

Meaningful to the war plan.

Also, I said 10,000+ troops.

Major effect on what? Important how and for whom? For the the war, for the soldiers, for the public? Fairly large? All subjective.

Again, the effect on the overall war plan. I think that 10,000 troops is the smallest number you can conceive to be large when compared to the number of troops we have in Iraq today. As you pointed out, that is merely 7.3% so we are giving Kerry a gimme on that.

But as for the real number he would like to pull out we have no idea because it is impossible to judge it on one word that can have many meanings.

When a person hears the word 'substantial' do they think 'a lot' or 'a little'? If he meant a moderate amount then why didnt he say "We will begin the very first phase of removing troops from Iraq six months from now, and get fully rolling when my first term ends"? Again do we have the troops to begin 'substantial' withdrawal in six months when...

And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there

Which doesn't mean we can't try to get more support from them or that they're are no other countries we can try to persuade into providing some support.

But France and Germany have said they wont be providing troops in any situation. Again, what specific countries do you think can provide the major support Kerry says he can get? What about his comments insulting our current allies in the war?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Someone should explain to me how the privileged son of an oil and munitions mogal, who spent most of his adult life trying to run businesses, but only succeded in running them into the ground, who admittedly had a substance abuse problem, who openly lied to his constituancy and the world, and who can barely speak coherently for sixty seconds, suddenly became the most morally guided person in america.

It is a farce.

I can not understand why people believe outright lies about john kerry and his life, but choose to ignore the things Bush has done in his. people honestly believe GW is a good person, and i want to know why you would think that. Or tell me how Dick Cheaney is a good person.

I can understand supporting bush on the issues. But then again, bush's stances have driven us to our present situtation. A situtation that puts the US against the world (which, btw, the world did not attack us, Al Queda did, and they are hardly the world, they are more like a radical faction of a religuos group, sorta like the Christian Right). A situtation that has the US at odds with former allies and dwindling support from our current allies. A situtation that has spread hate about the US around the world, all the while letting rouge nations, nations part of the Axis of Evil, procure nuclear weapons.

How can a man who is morally sound make the world view america as a bunch of criminals, who instigate illegal wars for our own gain?

Furthermore, we need more troops on the ground in Iraq. If they don't come from our allies, they come from the US. But the US forces are thinnly spread, and fewer people are joining the millitary. This leads to only two logical conclusions. One, we withdraw from Iraq, which Bush won't do. Or two, we institute a draft to increase the size of our armed forces, again is an unpopular move, but necessary to gain control of Iraq.

Anyone in the military has to be stupid to support Bush, if you can not figure out why, my point is proven.

Its all partisan man. You need to realize that I am not 'stupid' for supporting the President, you dont seem 'stupid' for supporting John Kerry either because you appear to be informed. To get anywhere you need to become a tad bit more open to other people's ideas rather than calling them dumb (when you infact spelled the VP's name incorrectly in your post along with a million other mistakes).

 

[Jakeic]

But France and Germany have said they wont be providing troops in any situation. Again, what specific countries do you think can provide the major support Kerry says he can get? What about his comments insulting our current allies in the war?

Which countries were being paid by Saddam in oil? Which countries economies are probably hurting now (this is speculation, but i assume they have similar economies to the US in that the price of oil is a major factor in the economy)? Who would probably be willing to send aid for returns in something black?

Then again, you must remember who doesn't want to share the oil of Iraq.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

something black.. like dick cheney's heart?? we can pay them in cheney hearts!?

 

[Jakeic]

I don't believe i called anyone but supporters of Bush in the military stupid.

I understand people support the president, but I do not understand why. I have not heard one legitimate reason to support Bush.

I know I make typing/spelling/gramatical errors in posts, I don't take the time to make sure everything is correct (like many other posters). Ofcourse, I expect people to look at the substance of the post and not the errors.

 

[KidRock]

And Jesse Ventura for Vice President right?

god that would be cool. i would definetly vote for them just becuse it would be hilarious hahaha. I could see arnie puncing the president of france in his face calling him a girly man.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Which countries were being paid by Saddam in oil?

Hopefully none because what I think you were referring to was against UN Resolutions.

I know I make typing/spelling/gramatical errors in posts, I don't take the time to make sure everything is correct (like many other posters). Ofcourse, I expect people to look at the substance of the post and not the errors.

Well when you call millions (or thousands) of people stupid then you better double check.

 

[CptStern]

Hopefully none because what I think you were referring to was against UN Resolutions.

"According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company"

not oil but still illegal

 

[Neutrino]

But he wants to "significantly" reduce the number of troops in Iraq?

A "significant reduction" in the number of US troops. This does not include all troops or Iraqi military or police. Why do constantly try to twist his words into something else?

Meaningful to the war plan.

Also, I said 10,000+ troops.

Again, the effect on the overall war plan. I think that 10,000 troops is the smallest number you can conceive to be large when compared to the number of troops we have in Iraq today. As you pointed out, that is merely 7.3% so we are giving Kerry a gimme on that.

Pure speculation and conjecture. You don't know if he meant meaningful to the warplan. It is equally as possible he meant it would be meaningful to the American public or to the soldiers. Until we know more it is all subjective, which is nicely demonstrated by your "I think" comment.

When a person hears the word 'substantial' do they think 'a lot' or 'a little'? If he meant a moderate amount then why didnt he say "We will begin the very first phase of removing troops from Iraq six months from now, and get fully rolling when my first term ends"? Again do we have the troops to begin 'substantial' withdrawal in six months when...

The word was "significant" not "substantial." When exactly did that change? There is a difference and if your argument forces you to change the actual words used I think this is a good indictation of the validity of that argument.

I can't even really believe your trying to attack him over this comment. Let's just look at exactly what it was one more time:

I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan.

"I believe"
"could significantly reduce"

How in the world are you even attacking him over this comment? What exactly is so horrible about it to you? I'm not seeing it. You want me to start pick apart every one of Bush's words and attacking him on semantics?

Also, I apologize for not catching this earlier but he does say "American forces". This can even include things like non-military personell, planes, tanks, or any number of other things. It just again demonstrates the limits of what conclusions you can draw from one single subjective statement.

But France and Germany have said they wont be providing troops in any situation. Again, what specific countries do you think can provide the major support Kerry says he can get? What about his comments insulting our current allies in the war?

I don't know which specific countries might provide support. I'm not well versed enough on foreign politics to even make an educated guess on what countries might relent. And yes I will admit that it is in the realm of possibility that no one else will help us. But that doesn't make his plan wrong. I support the idea of trying everything we can to bring in outside support. Such an attempt can't hurt and can only bring positive benefits to us and Iraq if it works. So yes, I think we should officially apeal to the UN and NATO to help Iraq. I realize that many were and are against the war, however hopefully we can convince some to realize that the Iraqi people's current crisis is more important than the reasons for that crisis when considering whether or not to give them aid.

If it doesn't work then we'll continue the way we are, just as Bush is doing now. Atleast we will have made the attempt.

About any comment of Kerry on our allies, please provide a link to the quotes if you want to discuss them. I don't really feel like digging them up right now.

 

[Jakeic]

Hopefully none because what I think you were referring to was against UN Resolutions.

I believe it was reported on NPR and the BBC. Like it even matters, our administration really gives a two shakes of a fist what the UN says? Why would France and Germany give a veto to the UN for their security?

Well when you call millions (or thousands) of people stupid then you better double check.

I will again clarify my statement. If you are in the military, and you support George Bush, you are an idiot.

I just want to know, why do people believe in a president that rules through fear?

 

[Homless Snark]

If Bush wins, nobodies gonna do a god damn ****ing thing at all, all these people "moving" will not move because they know just how great we've all got it here.

And I would know that my vote has counted.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

"If Bush wins, nobodies gonna do a god damn ****ing thing at all"

isn't that the RNC's current slogan?

 

[gh0st]

If you are in the military, and you support George Bush, you are an idiot.

i disagree, my family members who are in the armed forced in iraq right now support george bush, i wouldent call my brother, uncle, and 2 cousins stupid, but its the thought that counts... dipshit.

 

[Jakeic]

isn't that the RNC's current slogan?

I believe it is, "F*ck you, what are you going to do about it?"

 

[Neutrino]

Just before anybody jumps on this for any reason, I made a mistake in my above post with this quote:

But France and Germany have said they wont be providing troops in any situation. Again, what specific countries do you think can provide the major support Kerry says he can get? What about his comments insulting our current allies in the war?

I accidently wrote Kerry in the quote instead of seinfeldrules like it should have been. Sorry about that.

 

[qckbeam]

If Bush wins, nobodies gonna do a god damn ****ing thing at all, all these people "moving" will not move because they know just how great we've all got it here.

And I would know that my vote has counted.

So basically, every single person in the US is living a great life right now, and couldn't possible find anything better in another country like say, Canada? I beg to differ.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

beg all you want!

 

[qckbeam]

beg all you want!

Oh I'll beg.......I'l beg

 

[Jakeic]

i disagree, my family members who are in the armed forced in iraq right now support george bush, i wouldent call my brother, uncle, and 2 cousins stupid, but its the thought that counts... dipshit.

Ok, so you're saying these things don't apply to you and your family?

1. Went to war unjustly.
2. Did not send enough troops to secure the country.
3. Did not supply troops properly.
4. Tried to pass cut in combat pay.
5. Extended tours of duty and the back-door draft.

They basically sent out the military with out thinking. They had no idea what was going on, now our troops are paying for it. They hung them out to dry. I know I support an adminstration that does those things, amoung others, to it's troops.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Ok, so you're saying these things don't apply to you and your family?

1. Went to war unjustly.
2. Did not send enough troops to secure the country.
3. Did not supply troops properly.
4. Tried to pass cut in combat pay.
5. Extended tours of duty and the back-door draft.

Great, so now your personifeing elements used against "Bush's" war, against someones family. Thats narrowminded. Half of those things cannot even be done by the common family.

So whats the point of half accusing him of the spin put against Bush?

 

[seinfeldrules]

A "significant reduction" in the number of US troops. This does not include all troops or Iraqi military or police. Why do constantly try to twist his words into something else?

Yes, but Kerry says we dont currently have enough troops in Iraq to prevent WMD from crossing over the border. How many policemen and Iraqis does he plan on training in a mere six months? First off, it would take time for him to get the correct American troops in there to train the new Iraqi troops. Secondly, that would require sending in more troops that we cannot spare according to Kerry "We are stretched too thin" as he put it.

Finally, in Afghanistan Pres. Bush used Afghani warlords to assist US troops in hunting Osama Bin Laden. Kerry attacked Bush over this, but he is willing to turn around and use Iraqi troops to hunt Iraqi terrorists? I agree with this, but he appears to be contradicting himself. The warlords may have been in collaboration with the Taliban, but who knows how many future Iraqi soldiers were involved with Saddam.

Pure speculation and conjecture. You don't know if he meant meaningful to the warplan. It is equally as possible he meant it would be meaningful to the American public or to the soldiers. Until we know more it is all subjective, which is nicely demonstrated by your "I think" comment.

Alright, how many troops do you consider a 'significant' amount?

The word was "significant" not "substantial." When exactly did that change? There is a difference and if your argument forces you to change the actual words used I think this is a good indictation of the validity of that argument.

I can't even really believe your trying to attack him over this comment. Let's just look at exactly what it was one more time:

It was late at night and my mind was wandering. I meant to put the word 'significant' in place of 'substantial'.

And yes I am attacking him over the comment where he says, and I am paraphrasing, "We will 'significantly' reduce the number of US troops over the first six months of my Presidency". Later he attacks the President for "not currently having enough US troops in Iraq" to prevent WMD from crossing the border.
I cant believe you attack Bush over some of the things you do, but I dont whine about it.

I don't know which specific countries might provide support. I'm not well versed enough on foreign politics to even make an educated guess on what countries might relent. And yes I will admit that it is in the realm of possibility that no one else will help us. But that doesn't make his plan wrong. I support the idea of trying everything we can to bring in outside support. Such an attempt can't hurt and can only bring positive benefits to us and Iraq if it works. So yes, I think we should officially apeal to the UN and NATO to help Iraq. I realize that many were and are against the war, however hopefully we can convince some to realize that the Iraqi people's current crisis is more important than the reasons for that crisis when considering whether or not to give them aid.
If it doesn't work then we'll continue the way we are, just as Bush is doing now. Atleast we will have made the attempt.
About any comment of Kerry on our allies, please provide a link to the quotes if you want to discuss them. I don't really feel like digging them up right now.

We are currently appealing to NATO and the UN. NATO, if I recall correctly, is in the process of sending in troops to help train Iraqi policemen and soldiers. And why would they help out the Iraqi people first? The situation is just as, if not more dire in Sudan.

John Kerry- "The greatest position of strength is by exercising the best judgement in the pursuit of diplomacy," he said, "not in some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted, but in a genuine coalition."

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20687439.html

 

[Pogrom]

Yes, but Kerry says we dont currently have enough troops in Iraq to prevent WMD from crossing over the border. How many policemen and Iraqis does he plan on training in a mere six months? First off, it would take time for him to get the correct American troops in there to train the new Iraqi troops. Secondly, that would require sending in more troops that we cannot spare according to Kerry "We are stretched too thin" as he put it.

Thirdly, he wants the coalition to share more of the burden. He wants less US troops, more coalition (not Iraqi) troops.

His plan: Gets the US troop commitment scaled back. Bring in reinforcements from other countries.

Finally, in Afghanistan Pres. Bush used Afghani warlords to assist US troops in hunting Osama Bin Laden. Kerry attacked Bush over this, but he is willing to turn around and use Iraqi troops to hunt Iraqi terrorists? I agree with this, but he appears to be contradicting himself. The warlords may have been in collaboration with the Taliban, but who knows how many future Iraqi soldiers were involved with Saddam.

There is a difference between using soldiers that are under the command of local warlords, and using soldiers that have reported for retraining as part of their own national force.

In Afghanistan - using soldiers that belonged to local warlords
In Iraq - Training new soldiers that answer only to the new government.

Alright, how many troops do you consider a 'significant' amount?

Enough so that the US isn't the single biggest military presence in Iraq? It's a subjective question anyway.

It was late at night and my mind was wandering. I meant to put the word 'significant' in place of 'substantial'.

And yes I am attacking him over the comment where he says, and I am paraphrasing, "We will 'significantly' reduce the number of US troops over the first six months of my Presidency". Later he attacks the President for "not currently having enough US troops in Iraq" to prevent WMD from crossing the border.
I cant believe you attack Bush over some of the things you do, but I dont whine about it.

Again, Kerry attacks Bush for not having enough troops to control Iraq. Then he says he wants less US troops in Iraq and other nations to take a greater share of the burden. We come back to that concept of less US troops not having to mean less overall troops in Iraq.

Hardly seems like a double standard to me.

We are currently appealing to NATO and the UN. NATO, if I recall correctly, is in the process of sending in troops to help train Iraqi policemen and soldiers. And why would they help out the Iraqi people first? The situation is just as, if not more dire in Sudan.

I beg to differ here. The Sudan, while a humanitarian crisis, is not the haven for terrorists that today's Iraq is.

Plus the current administration already rebuffed NATO before invading Iraq in the first place. It stands to reason that Kerry would have a better chance at placating disgruntled allies.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Pogrom your whole case hinges upon other countries sending in troops. Tell me, which countries will send 10,000+ troops

 

[Pogrom]

Pogrom your whole case hinges upon other countries sending in troops. Tell me, which countries will send 10,000+ troops

It's not my whole case, it's Kerry's whole case.

But maybe the USA could bribe and cajole some more countries into joining the coalition.

Or maybe it could play fair, admit there was a mistake. Hand control over to the UN. Whatever else you say about the UN, it does have a pretty good record at nation-building and peacekeeping.

I have a feeling that if the USA stopped acting like the rest of the world was an inconvenience, if it stopped acting like it didn't need any help, then maybe other countries would be willing to step up and lend a hand.

If you treat allies with dignity and respect they are more likely to support you.

 

[Korgoth]

We don't need other troops seinfeld, remember what bush said, there are 100,000 trained iraqi police and 25,000 more by the end of the year or whatever?

Oh yeah thats right, that was a lie... Its more like 50,000 trained.

Oh shoot, I forgot poland... Nevermind, they're pullingout.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh shoot, I forgot poland... Nevermind, they're pullingout.

Source?

 

[CptStern]

Source?

here ya go ...old news btw

or if that link isnt "unbiased" enough for you ..here's what you would call a "credible" link

 

[Jakeic]

Great, so now your personifeing elements used against "Bush's" war, against someones family. Thats narrowminded. Half of those things cannot even be done by the common family.

I was referring to these those things having a drasticly negative effect on military families.

But I mean, it is your life, dying in the middle of some hell-hole desert on false pretenses, so a few people can get their oil money, more power to you.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

But thats not the point, half of these guys go into Combat zones with missions, not politics.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

CptStern

Oh, well from the header, it says Poland to pull out troops at the end of 2005. Which means, it will be on the eve of 2006. Thats nearly two years...

 

[seinfeldrules]

Then explain which countries Kerry will bring in. Again, France and Germany have already said they aren't coming in regardless of who is President. That leaves us with what major powers? Russia is stuck with its own problems. China is loving every American that dies over there. S. Korea and Japan may send a 1000 troops each. GB already is involved. And you wont get anywhere with our current allies by calling them "Bribed and coerced".

PS Poland isnt pulling out until Dec. 2005.

The final date (of our military presence in Iraq) should be that of the expiry of the UN Security Council resolution," the minister said Monday, referring to UN resolution 1546 endorsing the timetable for political transition in Iraq, which expires in December 2005.

 

[CptStern]

Oh, well from the header, it says Poland to pull out troops at the end of 2005. Which means, it will be on the eve of 2006. Thats nearly two years...

you cant count, it's 14 months away at the most; they're reducing the number of troops in january

btw:

the US promised Poland $3.8 billion in loans if they joined the coalition

"President George W. Bush backed Lockheed's effort to land the contract with a $3.8 billion finance package and several delegations of senior officials traveled to Warsaw to discuss the bid"

source

 

[seinfeldrules]

"Such action in international relations has long been the norm"

 

[Raziaar]

hmmm give us a bit more credit than that ...we do know how to string words together to make a coherent sentence without resorting to bashing an entire nation.

if bush wins so do the terrorists. Iraq is their biggest recruiting camp

What makes you think that stern? Terrorists want bush out of office so they'll have more free reign.

 

[CptStern]

"that's a big spicy meatball"


you're pretty single-minded when it comes to selectively sweeping facts under the carpet

 

[Pogrom]

Then explain which countries Kerry will bring in. Again, France and Germany have already said they aren't coming in regardless of who is President. That leaves us with what major powers? Russia is stuck with its own problems. China is loving every American that dies over there. S. Korea and Japan may send a 1000 troops each. GB already is involved. And you wont get anywhere with our current allies by calling them "Bribed and coerced".

PS Poland isnt pulling out until Dec. 2005.

The part I put in bold I thought was a needlessly inflammatory statement. China may not be overly fond of the US calling all the shots (not to mention punishing Chinese manufacturers for the overly-protective US economy) but that doesn't mean they sit back and applaud the death of anyone.

I would just like to put forward the possibility that if the US would modify its attitude, maybe those countries mentioned would change their mind. Never is a word that seldom has much meaning in politics.

Perhaps Brazil, or Argentina, or Turkey, or Indonesia (hey, they're Muslim too. The most populous Muslim country in the world no less), or Greece, or a coalition or NATO troops, or a UN peacekeeping force.

France and Germany may not want to overtly send troops in. But if it is part of an officially sanctioned UN mission, I would have to say it looks a lot more likely.

 

[Phisionary]

I hate to do this.... but I will anyway...

I'm two days late on this discussion. But I'm arrogant enough to think my opinion matters at all, though my better sense tells me it doesn't.

So, over the first eight pages, here are my responses to some comments that have long past been dealt with probably. Plus their out of context and will confuse you all! Just skip it if you want.. *sigh*

I spent too much time writing them to just delete it......


first off, all the death threats are dangerous. It is illegal to make death threats against a sitting president. You can be arrested for it.

Bush is predictable

yes. predictable. what a relief.
predictable like a man after a corinary failiure driving a 1967 buick leSabre through the crouds of a sidewalk cafe. In otherwords, a disaster without direction.

And it would make him a martyr and probably go down as one of the better Presidents in history.

Ha! I guess it depends on who writes the histories...

Bush 2004: Four More Wars! :thumbs:

while I'm thinking of it, I just watched a tape of the first debates two days ago. Makes me realize just how tenous an understanding Bush has on foreign events and his own damn policies. Wasn't a pretty site.

One of the reasons I firmly dislike Bush and his policies, it seems inescapable the way he bends everything he sees to become some justification for something he planned on doing anyway... For example, the evidence for WMD's in Iraq... I don't accept the arguments spouted everywhere about 'used the evidence that was given to him...' No matter what you think, considering the evidence we have now (i.e. THERE WERE NO WMD'S!), that evidence had to be pretty DAMNED slim, and you'ld have to be pretty DAMNED willing to believe and not find some convincing materials to contradict that. I think the 9/11 commission showed some of that....

I dont want to destroy the United States, just its old archaic government.

You, know, my patriotic sence for this country has been eroding slowly over the last decade. A lot of it is the direction this country is headed in. Some people say 'but look at what a great country it is' well, maybe great, maybe not. But it doesn't seem to be getting better very quickly. With all our economic success, it doesn't seem to be buying a better place to live, it doesn't seem to be buying any common sense. Just a continuing sense of superiority and disregard for every thing that happens that's not America. Some say the liberals will have America destroyed... Well, perhaps it would be so, but the alternative would not be my America any more...

I associate those evils with the ones who pull the triggers (Soldiers), or the ones who physically cut off the heads (Terrorists).

what a small minded view..

Yeah, I'd have much rather had Gore in office when they terrorists struck, we'd have really been in good hands then

In comparison, yes...

quote=Phoenix2001]Well, for example he destroyed america's credibility in the whole world by violating international laws.
Besides looking for inexisting weapons of mass destruction he makes up connections between al qaida and iraq. He destroyed the idea of global environmental protection by not signing the kyoto protocols...The list goes on and on....
Do you think still supporting this man ist very clever?[/quote]QFE.

Seriously, I'am getting very angry at being pissed on just because "I'm American".

Well, as an American, I certainly understand why some people do. Can't blame them. The _average_ American has made just as many and just as great a generalizations about other countries. IF we can even get strait what country we're talking about, you know how they're all the same...
Just because we're not used to being routinely pissed on doesn't mean we're above be pissed on...

If you have such a problem, just remember what president is at least partially responsible for giving America this reputaion, and remember that when you do vote.

Me, I've been vheminantly against Bush from the start. Gore wasn't exactly the dream candidate, but I knew where he stood, and it was a good place... I could trust the environmental issues to him at the very least.

While I'm thinking of it... I read that something like 60 percent of men were planning to vote for Bush, when the national average was more like 50. Now I hate my sex (male) as well as my leader. Doh...

Oh and Bush causes global warming. :|

Yea, I agree with that.

If he did'nt:

a. Pull the Trigger
b. Press the Button
c. Give the order,

then its not Bush's fault.

*sigh*

And, to a dispute which (as of page 7) I haven't seen cleared up, he did NOT say we would be out in six months. He said he would begin withdrawing some of the troops after six months, since many of them have been there far too long already.

4 More Years Of Bush!

Shut up, you ass! (self admitted, can't argue with me :lookup

He criticizes Pres. Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq, and then says he will pull out 'significant' numbers of troops in 6 months. Later he claims it will take 4 years. Which one is it? Nobody knows.

I fail to see these two statements as contradictory..

You know, It's interesting. If enough people say Kerry flip flops, some gullible people believe it no matter what, despite never seeing proof.

Personally, I've seen little proof of flip-flopping. Perhaps he wasn't the most clear on his positions in some instances, but I've seen (but will not produce, it's aleready faer past my bedtime) a long list of Buch's campaign promises renegged on. (I think I have spelled that wrong but my brain is fading here...)


Maybe I'll come back and address the last couple pages a few days late too...
betcha can't wait


Oh, and if you want to insult my spelling, logic, or lack of references, I'm dizzy and am going to go lay down...

 

[seinfeldrules]

I fail to see these two statements as contradictory..

They are inherently contradictory. "We dont have enough US troops in Iraq"... "We will be 'significantly' reducing US troop amounts in 6 months". Both are paraphrased so nobody jumps on my case.