Us presidential election 2004

[Acecombat 0]

Thats if you can think at all

Most of the motives people have behind voting bush are simply uncomprehandable.

[Bordoy 0]

Cant believe what i saw on CNN. Kerry saying that he was against diverting US forces to Iraq. But the thing is, he was one of the biggest supporters of the war so he is just contradicting himself of what he said last year.

Somebody said something about contradicting oneself?

Well. His first was a statement (We will win..........), his second was an opinion (I think that......). So thats not contradicting. But both of Kerry's were statements so that is contradicting.

Quote[/b] ]He was not one of the war's biggest supporters. Where did you get THAT information??

Ok maybe not the biggest but he still supported it in the first place, and now hes saying he never supported it. WTF.

[Supah 0]

Anyone else see the new Eminem video ? I get the impression he doesn't like bush much Wonder what impact this will have, think its a bit late. New voters would have to register first and I was under the impression that its now to late for that.

[Akira 0]

Ok maybe not the biggest but he still supported it in the first place, and now hes saying he never supported it. WTF.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but Kerry has said the same thing consistently from as far back as 2002 during the debates to give Bush the power to go to war. Do a search for his comments on the Senate floor.

In 2002, 2003, and 2004 he has always said his vote was for war as last resort, and stated such numrous times. He stated clearly, on the Senate floor, and in the media, that Bush still had better a)to all he can diplomatically, b)involve our allies (ie Europe), and c) involve the UN.

None of which we know Bush did.

Bush figures if he keeps repeating that Kerry supported the war and now doesn't, that enough people will believe it. I guess he was right.

[Bordoy 0]

Ok maybe not the biggest but he still supported it in the first place, and now hes saying he never supported it. WTF.

I'm not sure where you get your information, but Kerry has said the same thing consistently from as far back as 2002 during the debates to give Bush the power to go to war. Do a search for his comments on the Senate floor.

In 2002, 2003, and 2004 he has always said his vote was for war as last resort, and stated such numrous times. He stated clearly, on the Senate floor, and in the media, that Bush still had better a)to all he can diplomatically, b)involve our allies (ie Europe), and c) involve the UN.

None of which we know Bush did.

Bush figures if he keeps repeating that Kerry supported the war and now doesn't, that enough people will believe it. I guess he was right.

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

SEN. JOHN F. KERRY(D, MA),Jan.23. 2003

[Akira 0]

Where does that contridict anything I said? Everybody knows Saddam was a bad man. Everyone knows that Saddam needed to be disarmed. So whats the point of your half quote?

On the other hand:

Quote[/b] ]I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

Quote[/b] ]When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Quote[/b] ]In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Only some of the quote's for his October 9, 2002 Senate floor speech.

[dabitup 0]

Wait a minute halt everything , going back to that 11 yr old kid , how'd he buy an OFP CD anyway its got a rating of 15+  

Well, me and my dad are both big military buffs, and if you look at signs in game stores: "We will only sell M games to children 17+ and we will ONLY sell to children under age if accompanied by an adult"

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]By Ted Sampley

U.S. Veteran Dispatch

In spite of pleas from Vietnamese Americans, human rights activists and veteran's groups, Senator JOHN KERRY (D-MA) successfully sabotaged the Vietnam Human Rights Act (Senate Bill HR-2833). By doing so Kerry literally facilitated the communist Vietnamese efforts to exterminate the Christian hill tribe peoples living in the Central Highlands region of Vietnam.

The Bill was designed to sanction communist Vietnam for its calculated sterilization, terrorism and genocide of the hill tribe people commonly known to westerners as the MONTAGNARDS.

MONTAGNARD hill tribesmen are ethnically unrelated to the Vietnamese. The Central Highlands region has been the home of the MONTAGNARDS for at least a 1,000 years.

As late as 1970 there were an estimated 3,000,000 Montagnards in various tribes living in the Vietnam region. As a direct result of Vietnam's ongoing campaign of ethnic extermination, the total population of Montagnards is now BELOW 650,000. This unadulterated genocide has taken nearly two thirds of the Montagnards in only 34 years, including more than half the male population.

Internal Vietnamese government documents recently obtained by Human Rights Watch support eye witness testimony from Montagnards detailing long-standing incidents of torture and murder of Montagnard Christians which resulted in Vietnam's arbitrary confiscation of Montagnard lands.

In an ongoing terror campaign since 2001, Vietnamese authorities are forcing Montagnard Christians to stand in front of their entire village and renounce Christianity. The Christians are then forced to pledge to cease all contacts with outside groups.

To seal their loyalty, the Christians are forced to drink rice wine mixed with goat's blood.

"They asked us to drink goat's blood, but we never saw any goat," one traumatized young villager told Human Rights Watch. "We wondered where the blood was from. If we didn't drink it, they would beat us."

The villager suspected that Christians are being slowly poisoned. "We didn't know if it was from a chicken or a dog or what. I am afraid I will have health problems in the future."

Human Rights Watch described the excessive use of force by security forces in Plei Lao, Gia Lai province in March 2001, when several hundred troops surrounded and entered the village late at night to break up an all-night prayer meeting. In a confrontation with villagers, security forces fired into the crowd, killing one villager. They then burned down the village church.

One villager described what happened: "First the police ordered some Vietnamese civilians to ransack and destroy the church with axes. They used a cable tied to a vehicle to topple it and the soldiers used their gun butts. Then they forced the ethnic Jarai to burn it," he said. "Everyone was crying-for the dead and wounded, and for the church."

Representative Chris Smith, R-NJ, authored the bill, which linked US aid to Vietnam to "substantial progress" in Vietnam's human rights record. Smith's bill, the Vietnam Human Rights Act, passed the House by an overwhelming 410-1 vote in 2001. But it never got a hearing or a vote in the Senate, where it was blocked by the then-chairman of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee -- John Kerry.

Kerry, with the backing of Sen. John McCain, explained his opposition to the human rights act by insisting that the carrot of "engagement" will do more to nurture human rights in Vietnam than the stick of sanctions.

In July 2004, the House again passed Smith's bill, this time by 323 to 45. As in 2001, says Smith, the message of the bill is that "human rights are central -- they are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent."

With the Vietnam Human Rights Act stalled again by JOHN KERRY, the communist are free to continue its ethnic cleansing of the Montagnard Christians in the Central Highlands region in an attempt to wipe out all opposition to Vietnam's theft of Montagnard land and resources.

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/kerry_human_rights.htm

[ogre_h 0]

Quote[/b] ]Most of the motives people have behind voting bush are simply uncomprehandable.

These 50 reasons seem pretty easy to comprehend.

[Akira 0]

blah blah

I'm sorry. I don't see the concection between this and your orignal assertation that Kerry supported the war and now doesn't?

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Most of the motives people have behind voting bush are simply uncomprehandable.

These 50 reasons seem pretty easy to comprehend.

You better remove that link since A)It all a bunch of crap and more importantly there are B) IMAGES OF DEATH AND MUTILATIONS which is strictly forbidden here. Possibly could get banned.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]blah blah

I'm sorry. I don't see the concection between this and your orignal assertation that Kerry supported the war and now doesn't?

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

There isn't a link, but i can see what you mean. So he supported war if they had support from the UN, which they didn't.

Didn't more then half of the UN vote for the resolution then the French Germans and Russians used their veto.

[Akira 0]

Didn't more then half of the UN vote for the resolution then the French Germans and Russians used their veto.

Which resolution? The French, German, and Russians all said they would veto any resolution that did not allow the inspections to be finished. Bush never gave them anything like that, and constantly demanded that what he wanted went. That's not diplomacy.

[Bordoy 0]

Didn't more then half of the UN vote for the resolution then the French Germans and Russians used their veto.

Which resolution? The French, German, and Russians all said they would veto any resolution that did not allow the inspections to be finished. Bush never gave them anything like that, and constantly demanded that what he wanted went. That's not diplomacy.

I remember the result being something like 16-15, but veto's stopped that.

[Akira 0]

Didn't more then half of the UN vote for the resolution then the French Germans and Russians used their veto.

Which resolution? The French, German, and Russians all said they would veto any resolution that did not allow the inspections to be finished. Bush never gave them anything like that, and constantly demanded that what he wanted went. That's not diplomacy.

I remember the result being something like 16-15, but veto's stopped that.

Ummm....but the Security Council only has 15 members.

[Bordoy 0]

Didn't more then half of the UN vote for the resolution then the French Germans and Russians used their veto.

Which resolution? The French, German, and Russians all said they would veto any resolution that did not allow the inspections to be finished. Bush never gave them anything like that, and constantly demanded that what he wanted went. That's not diplomacy.

I remember the result being something like 16-15, but veto's stopped that.

Ummm....but the Security Council only has 15 members.

8-7 then. Which equals 15, thats how i got 16-15.

[Akira 0]

Actually the Bush Administration never put the resolution to vote.

Linky Goodness

[Bordoy 0]

Actually the Bush Administration never put the resolution to vote.

Linky Goodness

Oh, im probably thinking about something else. Any other resolutions to do with the situation in Iraq in the year 2003?

[ogre_h 0]

This site has a list of Resolutions regarding Iraq.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

And we know why France and Russia weren't so keen on tossing Hussein. Nothing Bush said to the UN would've mattered. Too many people had too much invested in Saddam staying.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common....00.html

[Akira 0]

Actually the Bush Administration never put the resolution to vote.

Linky Goodness

Oh, im probably thinking about something else. Any other resolutions to do with the situation in Iraq in the year 2003?

There was also a resolution about post-war contracts and US involvement in Iraq, again not brought to vote because the Bush Admin was afraid it would reduce their "leadership role" ie whos in charge.

[Bordoy 0]

Actually the Bush Administration never put the resolution to vote.

Linky Goodness

Oh, im probably thinking about something else. Any other resolutions to do with the situation in Iraq in the year 2003?

There was also a resolution about post-war contracts and US involvement in Iraq, again not brought to vote because the Bush Admin was afraid it would reduce their "leadership role" ie whos in charge.

Oh right. Seems i was wrong about that resolution so i can only apologise. sorry.

[billybob2002 0]

Boo!!!! Redskins got screwed at the end. Came back and then the illegal motion that took back the TD...

[Bernadotte 0]

Remind me, is the Redskin loss good for Kerry?  

Did the score of the game kinda fluctuate like this graph?

[ogre_h 0]

It should be, but the Sports gods are messing with us this year. How else do you explain the Red Sox? Does anyone seriously believe that someone as fiercely competitive as the Babe would allow his curse to fall to #2? (The Cubbies being the longest cursed team) The sports gods are flexing their muscles.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Remind me, is the Redskin loss good for Kerry?  

Did the score of the game kinda fluctuate like this graph?

If the Redskins wins, the party in office stays in office. If the Redskins loss, the party in office kicks kicked out.

Quote[/b] ]Did the score of the game kinda fluctuate like this graph?

Green Bay was kicking butt but the 'skins came back in the end. The 'skins came back but, in that last couple of mins (less than 3:00 or so), a TD that would of likely won the game was called back because of a illegal motion. Green Bay scores a TD plus the two point con. on the next drive and the skins lose....  

Green Bay  3 14 3 8 28   Final  

 

Washington 0 7 0 7 14

Quote[/b] ]It should be, but the Sports gods are messing with us this year. How else do you explain the Red Sox? Does anyone seriously believe that someone as fiercely competitive as the Babe would allow his curse to fall to #2? (The Cubbies being the longest cursed team) The sports gods are flexing their muscles.

Agree. My university football team, University of Maryland, beat Florida State and they never beat them before. Florida State always hammers the Terps...