OMG!!! Kerry's people are getting desperate!

Dizzyoen you seem to forget that I LIVED through this, nothing you read on the internet will ever give you a clear picture of what a country is really like... that's my whole point. It's like saying the TV show "Friends" is an accurate description of America, where nobody is black and nobody is poor and everyone is happy.

If anything you can rest easy knowing that what I have said is all true because I have nothing to gain from saying this on the internet... if anything, I have a lot to lose.

The percentage was off because I didn't bother putting in the correct figure but the votes were false. Dead people can't vote can they? People aren't suppossed to vote more than once. Is it really that hard to believe that these people are corrupt and they just don't want to let go of power because they know that as soon as they do they will be tried and prosecuted? The voting was done on machines... primitive machines even a 5 year old could hack, I know because I have actually seen them and used them.

The point is Chavez trampled the rights of all the people who earned their living and took their money and property away and gave it to the criminals who votes for him. Did you know there are laws which basically say some random guy can just come into your house and live there even if it's your property? He took away the right of private property, does that seem fair to you? How would you feel if your president gave rapists and convicts all your money and property?
 
DizzyOne said:
the general acceptance of the pre-emptive strike is scary..
Click to expand...

It's scary by design... We watched as at least a few mideast countries turned away from terrorism or at least began cracking down on terrorism within their own borders.

Give them no safe house to plan, train, and execute.
 
dont kid me, international organizations including the american government recognized chavez's victory

the 59% is also confirmed

and since rico doesnt live there anymore he 'doesnt count'
im sure his family is reliable but they cant possibly know more then
'just a web wing of professional journalists'
 
yeah shellback you can suck my balls
next thing i know theres terrorists in the hague and you come to liberate holland :X
 
in other words: war is not an option until the very last
and theres world consensus 'iraq was illegal' i would say..
 
LOL - Your English is very good..

Americans don't want to wait for the terrorists to come here...
 
DizzyOne said:
my english is quite impeccable when i feel like it :)
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.

I wish I was bi-lingual but being from the very center of the US. Furtherest from and non-english speaking people... Not a lot of people around here learn another language.
 
Actually Dizzyone, my vote DOES count there as I am a registered voter and I signed the petition to recall Chavez. I am a Venezuelan citizen. The american government recognized what they wanted to recognize... falling oil prices.

Remember watching that on the news about a month ago? Falling oil prices? They didn't tell you why did they?

The OPEC is one of the most powerful organizations in the world, when they say dance America dances. The OPEC has major interests in Venezuela and a clueless peasant of a president is easier to fool than a good candidate. PDVZA (Petroleos de Venezuela) is controleld by Chaves who is in turn a puppet for the OPEC as far as oil is concerned.

Oh and what makes you think my family or me can't know more than a journalist? Did international journalists live there for 15 years? Did they have to fight gangs when they were 13 years old? Did they ever fear for their lives in traffic? Did they ever know what it's like to avoid dressing too well because it could get you mugged and killed just because some guy wants to steal your shoes? These are things the average Venezuelan has to keep in mind every minute of their life. Lock your doors, dress like a bum, never be alone, never walk down dark places and never stay in a mall past 7 PM (or anywhere for that matter).

Not to mention one of my uncles is in the national guard (which is why he's moving here... Chavez might be about to turn him into an "accident") and that my grandfather served in the military both here and there?

Does this all sound like I'm making it up to any of you? Either I'm the best damn fiction author in the world or I'm telling the truth. I know this might seem too shocking and strange for any of you to accept but there is a LOT more to things than you hear on the news or read on the net.
 
alright rico im reading a bit more about chavez
it might not be at all as good as it seems
its still good hes openly disapproving of certain american policies though, and while it may be bad, i still have to give him some credit for opressing higher classes instead of the low (which has never happened before and might not happen again)
 
it gets worse..
i didnt know all of that and it certainly changed my view
guess that illustrates the opportunistic policy of america tho
 
before ppl will say this is too offtopic
i think the fabrication was made by pro-bush people who wanted to make an obvious forgery to make kerry look bad
 
What makes you think oppressing anyone is good?

I have some good reading material you may be interested in, please go read this link, it may shed some light on the subject.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sumner1.html

Do not be fooled, when I say higher classes I mean medium and high class citizens who earned their money. While these people were slaving away educating themselves the lower class was stealing from them and murdering them. In a country where race and background is not important, what you are is based on your own sweat and tears, not how you were born into the world. These "poor" could have been rich had they chosen to be so, instead, they closely resemble what the link describes as the poor and the "weak".

Good reading for everyone here... not something you should fllow in every day life but definitely something to think about.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
DizzyOne said:
the general acceptance of the pre-emptive strike is scary..
Click to expand...

It's scary by design... We watched as at least a few mideast countries turned away from terrorism or at least began cracking down on terrorism within their own borders.
Click to expand...

Scary by design, eh? Almost an attack designed to inspire terror in other nations. Some sort of terrorism, almost. :O

Al-queda's reasoning behind thier attacks on the US was that "America was going to eventually wipe out their religion", and had to be given a warning.

Pre-emptive strikes are just not good, wherever they come from.

If Bush had gone to war in Iraq just to save the Iraqi people from Saddam, I would have been fine with it.
But attacking someone with the sole purpose of asserting dominance in order to counter a percieved threat is rather dodgy, morally.

And it only makes those you're trying to pre-empt even more angry. Just look at how pissed the US got after 9/11.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
Scary by design, eh? Almost an attack designed to inspire terror in other nations. Some sort of terrorism, almost. :O
Click to expand...

After what happened in New York anyone who supports terrorists should fear us.
Al-queda's reasoning behind thier attacks on the US was that "America was going to eventually wipe out their religion", and had to be given a warning.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know what their motives were... Irregardless of why they did it they, and those that support them, should be stopped.
Pre-emptive strikes are just not good, wherever they come from.

If Bush had gone to war in Iraq just to save the Iraqi people from Saddam, I would have been fine with it.
Click to expand...

Bush went to war with Iraq with Congress and the Senate approval, whoes job it is to represent the people. I personally supported that decsion to go to war not because of one reason but for all the reasons.

You can feel comfortable knowing that Saadam is gone in part for some of your reasons too.

But attacking someone with the sole purpose of asserting dominance in order to counter a percieved threat is rather dodgy, morally.
Click to expand...

The twin towers gone is not a percieved threat. It was an attack on America. We are at war. Not by our choice but because we were dragged into it.
And it only makes those you're trying to pre-empt even more angry. Just look at how pissed the US got after 9/11.
Click to expand...

Making terrorists and nations that support terrorists angry is not my concern. You can defend them all you want however.
 
I have one word for the people who keep whining abour Iraq: Blah.

You can't please everyone... but at least I'm glad about the possibility that more innocent lives have been saved than lost. I don't really care about the millions of teenagers who think they know how the world should be run, you have your opinions but don't go around thinking they're any better than anyone else's.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
After what happened in New York anyone who supports terrorists should fear us.
Click to expand...

so by that same token why does the US support terrorism? CIA trained Orlando Bosch mastermind of the October 6 1976 bombing of a cuban commercial airplane killing all 73 aboard including the cuban fencing team, was later pardoned by Bush sr, even though the Justice department had been trying to deport him to cuba to stand trial

Sgt_Shellback said:
I don't think you know what their motives were... Irregardless of why they did it they, and those that support them, should be stopped.
Click to expand...

you cant have it both ways, you condemn other countries for harbouring terrorists yet the US does the same ...who will come after them?

Sgt_Shellback said:
Bush went to war with Iraq with Congress and the Senate approval, whoes job it is to represent the people. I personally supported that decsion to go to war not because of one reason but for all the reasons.
Click to expand...

he manipulated the facts to support his invasion
 
CptStern said:
he manipulated the facts to support his invasion
Click to expand...

The facts on WMD were wrong... The UN can share the first round of blame there. They still show on their books tens of thousands of tons of chemicals that were not accounted for.

Some botched intel for sure... It almost looks like Saadam was running a policy similar to Israel in not confirming or denying he had WMD because even up to the moments before the land war started he would not accept the UN back in.

Remove that single reason for the war in Iraq and you're still left with many reasons for the war in Iraq. As he stated earlier. Mechagodzilla agrees with me here.

Back to the topic...

US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT 9/13/04- Dukakis was hurt because it was pointed out that for 11 years he supported weekend furloughs for prisoners sentenced to life without parole--a policy for which there is no rational argument. Kerry was hurt because at least some of the SBVT charges proved true. On August 11, his spokesman admitted that he was not on an illegal mission in Cambodia at Christmastime 1968--the memory of which, he said on the Senate floor in 1986, was "seared--seared--in me." His campaign left uncorroborated his frequent claims to have been on secret missions to Cambodia at other times. He has not authorized release of his military records. As this is written, Kerry has not taken questions from the press since August 1. Sometimes there is no good defense, and the only thing you can do is try to change the subject.

With his friends. The problem for Kerry is that when he tries to change the subject, he seems to change his position. This is partly out of the typical politician's temperament: "Some of my friends are for the bill, and some of my friends are against the bill, and I'm always with my friends." But it also arises because the Democratic constituency that Kerry must rally to vote on Election Day and before (voting starts in Iowa September 23) is deeply split on issues like Iraq (news - web sites). Many think we should leave now. Others think we should persevere. Kerry is with his friends.

In an August back-and-forth, Bush got Kerry to say that, knowing what he does today, he still would have voted for the Iraq war resolution. Then last week he said it was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" --though he had condemned a similar statement made by Howard Dean (news - web sites) last December. On August 1, he said he would consider redeploying troops from Germany and South Korea (news - web sites). When Bush announced such deployments on August 16, Kerry denounced them. His latest line is to say that the $200 billion spent or to be spent on the Iraq war should have been spent on domestic needs. As a Democratic consultant once told me when I asked about an opponent's moves, "I'm puzzled by his strategy."

Puzzling as well is the Democrats' notion that attacking Bush's National Guard service is going to break the campaign wide open. Haven't they been watching the $60 million worth of anti-Bush ads the Democratic 527s have been running since March? Bush withstood that onslaught and stands, apparently, a little ahead. There's no guarantee he'll still be there after the debates or on Election Day. But, for the first time since January, it wouldn't require a sharp shift in opinion.
Click to expand...

This is what the American public see's regarding Kerry....

(SBVT = Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)
 
and orlando bosch? He walks the streets of Miami a free man
 
Rico said:
I don't really care about the millions of teenagers who think they know how the world should be run, you have your opinions but don't go around thinking they're any better than anyone else's.
Click to expand...

Hmm... kind of like what you seem to be doing?

What I mean is you're constantly implying that everyone else here are "whiney teenagers" who don't know anything. So in effect your basically saying anyone who "whines" about Iraq doesn't have a valid opinion. Seems just a bit odd.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
I can't comment... I Don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


google Orlando Bosch, he's responsible for over 30 terrorist acts, some on american soil
 
Rico said:
Don't you think I'd have enough reason to hate Bush forever considering he passed the Patriot act and made immigration tougher (the reason I'm not a full citizen yet... been here 5 years now)? If anything I should be rooting for Kerry but you know what, I'd rather have Bush with his "flawed" decisions than Kerry "vote-for-me-because-im-not-bush". At least I know what I'm getting from Bush, can you name any important achievements from Kerry? Did you even HEAR about him before elections? Didn't think so.

A congressman for many years and not a single achievement... makes you wonder what he'd do as president.
Click to expand...

And what pray tell what were Bush's big accomplishments before he became president?

Rico said:
(I still haven't even heard him say anything about his policy... just Bush bashing.
Click to expand...

Have you actually listened to all his speeches and tried to research his policies? I've heard quite a bit about his policies myself.

Rico said:
At least Bush focuses more on his plans than Bashing on Kerry)
Click to expand...

I've heard just as much Kerry bashing from Bush as I've heard BUsh bashing from Kerry. Both candidate never miss a chance to critisize the other.

Rico said:
EDIT: Oh and yeah, this may not sound as good enough reason to not like a candidate to some but consider this fact: Kerry's campaign is VEYR VERY similar to what Chavez used to fuel his election... Hatred and fear. I have seen what these candidates can do to a country and I'm not about to stand idly while I watch a demagogue run for public office.
Click to expand...

What? And Bush's campaign is just about roses and good times? Come on, Bush's campaign is all about hatred and fear. Hatred of terrorists and fear of the same. They always bring it up constantly. One of their main tools is that they want people to think that they won't be safe unless Bush is reelected. How is that not about fear?
 
Am I the one saying the war in Iraq was unwarranted? I'm giving my opinion on the matter and giving specific reasons and examples why someone else's opinion may be more valid than others. I suppose I misworded my argument in that quote, but really, is that the best you can do? Attack me instead of my argument?

PS: I'm sure Kerry must have SOME position on the side of politics, but the fact that he campaigns on his military service and "not being Bush" is what makes him stand out as a bad candidate for me. Do you really think he cares about those issues or would you rather gander HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT REALLY BADLY? If he cared about those issues and he really wanted a chance to change things (which he could have done as a congressman, but he didn't, mind you) he would make that the cornerstone of his campaign.

Kerry is a man who just wants power, that's why he flip flops on every issue (including his past), because he wants to win no matter what. If one viewpoint is favored by the majority you can bet he will be for it. "I dont agree with the Vietnam war, I'm throwing out all my medals!!" "I just kept my ribbons because they're not medals" "I won 3 purple hearts!" But Mr. Kerry... I thought the Vietnam war was evil and wrong, why do you count your medals as something memorable? You said all vietnam veterans should be ashamed!

Then he goes ahead and critiques Bush for not having been in Vietnam... Oh and nice little fact for those who don't know: Bush did attempt to get an assignment to Vietnam as a fighter pilot but his superior denied his request because he wasn't trained in the new jets they were going to use in the war and he didn't have enough flight hours. I wonder though, why is all this emphasis placed on military service for the candidates?

Unless we're going to have the presidents of all nations duke it out in hand-to-hand combat to decide wars instead of sending soldiers I see absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of it.
 
Rico said:
Am I the one saying the war in Iraq was unwarranted? I'm giving my opinion on the matter and giving specific reasons and examples why someone else's opinion may be more valid than others. I suppose I misworded my argument in that quote, but really, is that the best you can do? Attack me instead of my argument?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the personal attack, I just didn't appreciate being called a "whiney teenager" just because my view happens to differ from yours. But sorry for any offense I may have given. It just irritated me a bit.
 
No offence taken, I didn't mean you either, I mean some teenagers in general... The ones who think it's cool to hate Bush and that all war is unnecessary no matter what.

Maybe we should send them off to WW2 and see how they like it?
 
My school is full of the whiney anti-bush(I shouldn't say anti-bush...more like BUSH ARE TEH DEVIL!! AHHH!!! HITLER) idiots, who don't know anything about politics. I am in a political science class...and it is just shameful...I didn't know people could know so little about politics.
 
Rico said:
I'm sure Kerry must have SOME position on the side of politics, but the fact that he campaigns on his military service and "not being Bush" is what makes him stand out as a bad candidate for me.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do in fact agree that he spent too much time talking about his military service during the DNC. However, that was partly due to the fact that he was trying to balance out all the personal attacks he had received.

But you act like he has no political positions. I just don't see how you can say that really.

Here's a good site to start at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

See, there's a list on the side that says:

Plan for America
National Security
Economy & Jobs
Health Care
Energy Independence
Homeland Security
Education
Environment
More Issues...
Click to expand...

And here's a couple links with policy comparisons between the candidates:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4448630/
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=6204768

And some non-partisan links with more info:

http://www.politics1.com/
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp

Rico said:
Do you really think he cares about those issues or would you rather gander HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT REALLY BADLY? If he cared about those issues and he really wanted a chance to change things (which he could have done as a congressman, but he didn't, mind you) he would make that the cornerstone of his campaign. Kerry is a man who just wants power, that's why he flip flops on every issue (including his past), because he wants to win no matter what. If one viewpoint is favored by the majority you can bet he will be for it. "I dont agree with the Vietnam war, I'm throwing out all my medals!!" "I just kept my ribbons because they're not medals" "I won 3 purple hearts!" But Mr. Kerry... I thought the Vietnam war was evil and wrong, why do you count your medals as something memorable? You said all vietnam veterans should be ashamed!
Click to expand...

Well, first you say "If one viewpoint is favored by the majority you can bet he will be for it." Since this is a democracy (majority rule) how is that exactly such an evil thing?

And if you want to bring up flip flopping we've been through this before. I don't want to post all the times Bush has flip flopped as it would take up too much space here, but I'll just give you the link. Bush has often been just as guilty of it as Kerry, so I really don't see how that's a deciding factor in the election.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

Rico said:
Then he goes ahead and critiques Bush for not having been in Vietnam... Oh and nice little fact for those who don't know: Bush did attempt to get an assignment to Vietnam as a fighter pilot but his superior denied his request because he wasn't trained in the new jets they were going to use in the war and he didn't have enough flight hours. I wonder though, why is all this emphasis placed on military service for the candidates?

Unless we're going to have the presidents of all nations duke it out in hand-to-hand combat to decide wars instead of sending soldiers I see absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of it.
Click to expand...

A lot of people happen to disagree with you on that. I think military service is very important for politicians. This is for serveral reasons including discipline and leadership abilities. But by far the most important reason that I see is that a candidate that is willing to go to war for their country has shown that they are willing to risk their own lives and place the welfare of the country before themselves. If that isn't a selfless act I don't know what is. To me it shows that a person willing to do that does indeed value their country and will hopefully take that selflessness into office with them. So, although it definitly shouldn't be the the only, or even major reason, one votes for a president it is still an important consideration to many.

Rico said:
No offence taken, I didn't mean you either, I mean some teenagers in general... The ones who think it's cool to hate Bush and that all war is unnecessary no matter what.

Maybe we should send them off to WW2 and see how they like it?
Click to expand...

Alright, good. Ya sorry, didn't mean to get so personal there.:)

And ya I do see what you mean. There are many people on both sides that have some very strong opinions without a lot of knowledge. It can be a dangerous thing.
 
Here's a good site to start at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/

See, there's a list on the side that says:
Click to expand...

See, the common voter wont visit his site to find out his policies. That is what the DNC and all the other rallies are for. Instead of promoting it there, he continues to single out his service. Why do this? He knows Bush will stomp him on the issues (the flip flop image and his Senate record has hurt this beyond repair). His only hope is to go with the military service approach and attack Bush over and over again. On the flip, Bush can win by continually exploiting Kerry's policies and leave the 511 groups to go after Kerry's strength, Vietnam. Now, it is ridiculous to claim that Bush had anything to do with this, because it is against Federal law to do such a thing. I dont think anyone cares enough about defeating Kerry to go to jail for 10 years. This election will be decided by whoever can attack the hardest.

A lot of people happen to disagree with you on that. I think military service is very important for politicians. This is for serveral reasons including discipline and leadership abilities. But by far the most important reason that I see is that a candidate that is willing to go to war for their country has shown that they are willing to risk their own lives and place the welfare of the country before themselves. If that isn't a selfless act I don't know what is. To me it shows that a person willing to do that does indeed value their country and will hopefully take that selflessness into office with them. So, although it definitly shouldn't be the the only, or even major reason, one votes for a president it is still an important consideration to many.
Click to expand...

Did you think Clinton was a great President?

Well, first you say "If one viewpoint is favored by the majority you can bet he will be for it." Since this is a democracy (majority rule) how is that exactly such an evil thing?
Click to expand...
We arent in a pure Democracy. If we were, we would be voting over every issue to ever happen. We elect a President to be decisive and follow his beliefs. If he gets way out of line, the House and Senate can step in.
 
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this is that there are a number of Dems who secretly don't want to see John win against GB and could be holding back their full fledged support if not undermining him directly...

Why?

Hillary can't run in 08 if John Boy gets elected.
 
Hillary can't run in 08 if John Boy gets elected.
Click to expand...

hahahah good call man ;) .

Rudi would stomp her anyways. Maybe Connie Rice or AHHNOLD (if they change that damn law).
 
seinfeldrules said:
hahahah good call man ;) .

Rudi would stomp her anyways. Maybe Connie Rice or AHHNOLD (if they change that damn law).
Click to expand...


HAHA! If people think this election is intense... Gawd! Could you imagine the brawls that would occur if Rudi & Hillary were dukeing it out... Oh man.
 
Could you imagine the brawls that would occur if Rudi & Hillary were dukeing it out... Oh man.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be incredible. No offense to Kerry and Bush, but Kerry couldnt excite a crowd if his life depended on it, and Bush cant speak for crap. Bring in two canidates who have mastered both, and you have one hell of a race.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Yeah, it would be incredible. No offense to Kerry and Bush, but Kerry couldnt excite a crowd if his life depended on it, and Bush cant speak for crap. Bring in two canidates who have mastered both, and you have one hell of a race.
Click to expand...

Werd... I couldn't have said it better. They'd really light a fire under voter apathy.
 
Sgt_Shellback said:
Werd... I couldn't have said it better. They'd really light a fire under voter apathy.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That would be a presidential election for the history books (for multiple reasons).

What would be interesting is that people wouldn't probably vote on party lines for that election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

seinfeldrules
CBS Proven Wrong, 4 Employees Fired
Replies
24
Views
2K
SunHawk
S
CptStern
Jack Thompson compares Doug Lowenstein to hitler
Replies
18
Views
2K
Sparta
Sparta
Back
Top