Us presidential election 2004

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm havning an excellent day, and I mean every word I say. Tell me what you have a problem understanding:

1. Bush invaded Iraq, a country that was no threat whatsoever to America. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed for no reason.

Do you understand that? I'm sure you noticed the invasion, the civilian deaths and the lack of WMD or anything else that could pose a threat to America. Bush is responsible for the deaths of those people and you want him re-elected. Hence, you don't give a flying fuck about the deaths of the Iraqi civilians. You want to award Bush for a job well done by electing him again. What does that make you?

2. Bush's $87 billion bill for Iraq and Afghanistan did not in any way solve the shortages of body armor, vehicles, ammunition etc in Iraq. Plenty of big companies did very good business with "reconstruction". I'm using quotes because very little has actually been reconstructed, but that didn't stop various corporation  to cash in.

Bush won't provide the American troops the most elementary resources they need. How many US deaths could have been avoided were the troops properly equipped? Not only did Bush betray the American soldiers by putting them in harms way for no reason, but he won't even supply them the necessities they need to survive.

You are supporting Bush and want him elected. You want the man who wants to send Americans in harms way without proper equipment. What does that say about you?

This is very flawed...lets replace Bush with Kerry:

1. I'm sure you noticed the invasion, the civilian deaths and the lack of WMD or anything else that could pose a threat to America. Kerry is responsible for the deaths of those people because he would of still voted for the "authorizing" of the Iraq war still knowing what he knows. Furthermore, you want him elected. Hence, you don't give a flying fuck about the deaths of the Iraqi civilians. You want to award Kerry for a job well done by electing him. What does that make you?

2. Kerry won't help provide the American troops the most elementary resources they need. How many US deaths could have been avoided were the troops properly equipped? Not only did Kerry betray the American soldiers by putting them in harms way for no reason by voting "YES", but he won't even vote or form a bill that supply them the necessities they need to survive. Kerry is glad that he did vote "NO" on a bill that at least prevents many deaths that could happen from now on.

You are supporting Kerry and want him elected. You want the man who wants to send Americans in harms way without proper equipment. What does that say about you?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]1. I'm sure you noticed the invasion, the civilian deaths and the lack of WMD or anything else that could pose a threat to America. Kerry is responsible for the deaths of those people because he would of still voted for the "authorizing" of the Iraq war still knowing what he knows. Furthermore, you want him elected. Hence, you don't give a flying fuck about the deaths of the Iraqi civilians. You want to award Kerry for a job well done by electing him. What does that make you?

Did Kerry start the initiative ? Did he have all the funny briefings ? Or was he and all the senate ill-informed by Bush and his herd ?

You´re missing the real deal. And your argument is crap...

...we´re getting used to it...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but you who never served for a moment and have done nothing better than take care of your own personal needs feel no compunction whatsoever in criticizing those who have served and sacrificed.  Tell me, what gives you the right?

Who do you think you are that you can sit in judgment of anyone who's given more to this country than you probably ever will?

Where do you get the balls and the arrogance to doubt anyone when you yourself are nothing compared to them?

You think you have a right to judge the character of someone's combat experience or their morals for going or for trying to stop the war when you've never seen more combat than a playground fist fight?

I find people like you the lowest form of coward.

Is this personal insult day? Calling me a coward and talking negative about my character. I have a right, like everybody else, to doubt anything. Furthermore, I'm not the one bringing the charges about Kerry's time in Vietnam but veterans are. The swifts have poked a hole in Kerry's time in Vietnam (his christmas story). They exposed something that you do not want to admit has being false. Anyway, you do not have a right then to critize Bush's presidency because you have not been the president of the united states. Kerry runs to veterans organizations to get them to vote for him but, right after he came back from Vietnam, he said he did not want to "deal" with them. He hides his medals from public view (making the myth) for years until he runs for office. I'm not the one controlling the veterans who turns their backs to him when he speaks at veteran conventions/meetings.

I find people like you the lowest form of coward.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did Kerry start the initiative ? Did he have all the funny briefings ? Or was he and all the senate ill-informed by Bush and his herd ?

You´re missing the real deal. And your argument is crap...

...we´re getting used to it...

Your argument is crap. Again, in case you missed it, Kerry has stated he would still voted "YES" knowing what he knows now. You are missing the real deal.

[Balschoiw 0]

No I´m not....what do you think would the GOP do when Kerry said such ? Ha ? They would burn him in the air for being against america, sabotaging the war on terror and putting americans at risk. That´s what they would do. Now grow up and get a grip into reality.

[Bernadotte 0]

Kerry is responsible for the deaths of those people because he would of still voted for the "authorizing" of the Iraq war still knowing what he knows.

You've heard the expression, "speak softly but carry a big stick."  Well, that was yesteryear.  These days it's "speak loudly and with one voice so you might not have to use the big stick."  And that's exactly what Congress and the UN did in the face of Iraqi hesitation to comply with inspections.  The more powerful the threat, the less likely it would need to be carried out.  That's what was in the minds of Kerry and everyone else who spoke out with one loud unanimous voice.  Authorising war as a means of averting it to save the lives of Iraqi civilians and US servicemen is what was on their minds.

So before you go and simply put Kerry's name in place of Bush's, think about the difference between authorising action and actually taking action.  Kerry agreed with authorising action, but not taking action.  The difference is enormous and can be measured in human lives.  And anyone who truly cares about those lives has no problem understanding that important difference.  Sadly, you seem to be having great difficulty understanding it.

(And before you go and ask, I'm having a fine day too.  )

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did Kerry start the initiative ? Did he have all the funny briefings ? Or was he and all the senate ill-informed by Bush and his herd ?

You´re missing the real deal. And your argument is crap...

...we´re getting used to it...

Your argument is crap. Again, in case you missed it, Kerry has stated he would still voted "YES" knowing what he knows now. You are missing the real deal.

That makes Kerry a lot of things, but Kerry did not start the war. He supported it, but his vote was overall of little relevance. It was a Bush initative and he was the commander in chief.

On this point I'm not defending or supporting Kerry. Of the candidates only Dean had the courage to do and say the right thing. But Kerry did not start the war.

As for the second issue, you are truly missing the point. Kerry was voting against a bill that did not provide the necessary resources for the US soldiers in Iraq. It doesn't take more than the IQ of a coffee table to understand that Kerry did not vote "no" because he wanted US soldiers to fight in their underware. He voted "no" because the bill allocated the money in the wrong places, not giving the soldiers the resources they need in favour of Haliburton and other contractors. Kerry did the only responsible thing - voted against it so that it could be replaced or amended with something that focused on the soldiers, rather than the companies involved in the so called "reconstruction".

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]That makes Kerry a lot of things, but Kerry did not start the war. He supported it, but his vote was overall of little relevance. It was a Bush initative and he was the commander in chief.

On this point I'm not defending or supporting Kerry. Of the candidates only Dean had the courage to do and say the right thing. But Kerry did not start the war.

As for the second issue, you are truly missing the point. Kerry was voting against a bill that did not provide the necessary resources for the US soldiers in Iraq. It doesn't take more than the IQ of a coffee table to understand that Kerry did not vote "no" because he wanted US soldiers to fight in their underware. He voted "no" because the bill allocated the money in the wrong places, not giving the soldiers the resources they need in favour of Haliburton and other contractors. Kerry did the only responsible thing - voted against it so that it could be replaced or amended with something that focused on the soldiers, rather than the companies involved in the so called "reconstruction".

Is not "blood" on his hand?

http://www.boston.com/news...._troops

Quote[/b] ]

In addition, he rebutted a new Bush ad criticizing him for voting last fall against $87 billion in additional funding for US troops in Iraq -- a supplemental appropriation that included money for body armor -- by saying he would have supported it if it had been financed by repealing a portion of the tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration. Kerry made that proposal in an amendment he cosponsored; the Senate rejected the amendment before approving the $87 billion.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319.html

Quote[/b] ]

On the Sept. 14, 2003, edition of CBS's Face the Nation, Kerry spoke at length about an amendment he and Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., were offering which would have paid for the $87 billion by delaying some of the recent tax cuts.

Asked if he would vote against the $87 billion if his amendment did not pass, Kerry said, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

Quote[/b] ]

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said her boss' vote against the funding was a "protest vote."

Quote[/b] ]

Cutter went on to say the Bush White House had threatened to veto the entire $87 billion supplemental bill if the Kerry-Biden amendment had passed.

Quote[/b] ]

But Senate Democrats overwhelmingly took the other side of the issue. Biden, the co-sponsor of Kerry's amendment and the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted for the funding, saying, "the cost of failure in Iraq would far exceed the price of peace."

Quote[/b] ]

Conducting the interview on CBS, Los Angeles Times D.C. bureau chief Doyle McManus asked Kerry, if his amendment "does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?"

Kerry's full response is as follows: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to — to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running," he says. "That's irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now."

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]No I´m not....what do you think would the GOP do when Kerry said such ? Ha ? They would burn him in the air for being against america, sabotaging the war on terror and putting americans at risk. That´s what they would do. Now grow up and get a grip into reality.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....1201221

Quote[/b] ]

Cheney weighed in on Kerry's statement Monday that he still would have voted in 2002 to authorize military action in Iraq, even if he knew what he knows today about Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons capacity.

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but you who never served for a moment and have done nothing better than take care of your own personal needs feel no compunction whatsoever in criticizing those who have served and sacrificed.  Tell me, what gives you the right?

Who do you think you are that you can sit in judgment of anyone who's given more to this country than you probably ever will?

Where do you get the balls and the arrogance to doubt anyone when you yourself are nothing compared to them?

You think you have a right to judge the character of someone's combat experience or their morals for going or for trying to stop the war when you've never seen more combat than a playground fist fight?

I find people like you the lowest form of coward.

Is this personal insult day? Calling me a coward and talking negative about my character. I have a right, like everybody else, to doubt anything. Furthermore, I'm not the one bringing the charges about Kerry's time in Vietnam but veterans are. The swifts have poked a hole in Kerry's time in Vietnam (his christmas story). They exposed something that you do not want to admit has being false. Anyway, you do not have a right then to critize Bush's presidency because you have not been the president of the united states. Kerry runs to veterans organizations to get them to vote for him but, right after he came back from Vietnam, he said he did not want to "deal" with them. He hides his medals from public view (making the myth) for years until he runs for office. I'm not the one controlling the veterans who turns their backs to him when he speaks at veteran conventions/meetings.

I find people like you the lowest form of coward.

You can doubt whatever you want. We all can, it's called freedom of speech. I doubt your intelligence and your character and I don't mind saying so.

You do however in exercising your right to free speech by choosing to criticize the actions of a better man than yourself, betray some serious character flaws and reveal the generally anemic moral framework from which you operate. You have been all too happy to repeat and defend what has become obvious to all but the most radical of the right-wing zealotry to be out and out lies. I find it more than a bit humorous that you happily insist on supporting slanderous liars and eagerly refuse to consider the formidable weight of evidence that has come out against them. Anyone here with half an education can see that you are brainwashed.

I would readily admit to a position I took being false if it was indeed false. However, that not being the case, I see no need to debase myself by adopting an indefensible position. Nor will you see me cloaking myself in lies and slander and ideological extremism as you are wont to do almost every evening here.

I have every right to criticize the President of the United States. I am a citizen, a veteran and a registered voter. The President works for me. I think he's a shithead employee and he's fired. I'll hire someone more competent and less bigoted to represent me on November 2nd thank you.

Your analogy frankly lacks all semblance of a logical argument and is false on its face as well as in its structure.

You may not be the one controlling the veterans groups smearing Kerry, but it is fools like you who give them any semblance of credibility and who allow people like them to continue behaving immorally.

You call yourself a moral person, yet you stand by and do nothing, nay, you actively condone obvious slander and immorality. This makes you just as immoral and wretched as they are. You are no different than the man who stands idly by while another man beats his wife. You are no different than the silent majority who for years condoned racist commentary by keeping their mouths shut in the interest of not making waves. By not standing up against immorality when you see it, you are an accomplice to that immorality. You should be ashamed of the person you are.

I have at least been willing to argue with you and to follow up on my arguments. YOU have all to often cut and run when you can't find a response to my arguments. If you want the proof of this, I'll gladly provide it for you, but I think you'll be the only one here who needs it.

Who's the moral and intellectual coward now?

It sure as hell isn't me.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have every right to criticize the President of the United States.  I am a citizen, a veteran and a registered voter.  The President works for me.  I think he's a shithead employee and he's fired.  I'll hire someone more competent and less bigoted to represent me on November 2nd thank you.

I have a right has do any american to know if he (Kerry) lied about something during his time in Vietnam (i.e. christmas story). This can tell you about many things about him. If they got proof let them show it. I have not really talked about the swifts that much in long time. Hell, I even told people on this forum I will stop posting stuff from swifts with a very simple condition. Anyway, swift damage has been done (that may look cynical but it is not).

Quote[/b] ]I have every right to criticize the President of the United States.  I am a citizen, a veteran and a registered voter.  The President works for me.  I think he's a shithead employee and he's fired.  I'll hire someone more competent and less bigoted to represent me on November 2nd thank you.

Those people are veterans and were in the same "outfit" and have every right to critize him. If Kerry was bullshitting about something in Vietnam, let those folks point it out.

Quote[/b] ]You may not be the one controlling the veterans groups smearing Kerry, but it is fools like you who give them any semblance of credibility and who allow people like them to continue behaving immorally.

I did not donate money to them or will not. You guys are ones destroying their "credibility", and I just posted their stories. This is not the Kerry love thread.

Quote[/b] ]You are no different than the man who stands idly by while another man beats his wife.  You are no different than the silent majority who for years condoned racist commentary by keeping their mouths shut in the interest of not making waves.  By not standing up against immorality when you see it, you are an accomplice to that immorality.  You should be ashamed of the person you are.

I will just let you continue believing that....

Quote[/b] ]Who's the moral and intellectual coward now?

It sure as hell isn't me.

Good for you in doubting my intelligence and character. I will continue on trying to prevent this thread to be turned in to Kerry's election thread. I have said couple of times that Bush is not one the best president but average.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have a right has do any american to know if he (Kerry) lied about something during his time in Vietnam (i.e. christmas story). This can tell you about many things about him.

This is a very interesting comment by you.

Considering Kerry was definitly in Vietnam.

Bush on the other hand, jumped ahead on the list for NG fighter assignments despite his average skills (this can be verified by the Democrat who advanced his post...a page or two back). Bush did nothing more dangerous than possibly some questionable Mexican blow.

Oh yeah. And he got his teeth fixed.

Now I would say that says alot more about Bush.

But obviously you disagree for no good reason that you can produce.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is a very interesting comment by you.

Considering Kerry was definitly in Vietnam.

Bush on the other hand, jumped ahead on the list for NG fighter assignments despite his average skills (this can be verified by the Democrat who advanced his post...a page or two back). Bush did nothing more dangerous than possibly some questionable Mexican blow.

Oh yeah. And he got his teeth fixed.

Now I would say that says alot more about Bush.

But obviously you disagree for no good reason that you can produce.

I have said plenty of times Vietnam should not be injected in this election. Furthermore, Kerry is messing up his election campaign and the election could be his to win. Also, Bush would of been in a higher position of winning it if he did not go in to Iraq (I said it). It is very close to call right now.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have said plenty of times Vietnam should not be injected in this election.

Then why, pray tell, do you keep bringing up the SBVfT?

[billybob2002 0]

today show interview

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5866571/

Quote[/b] ]

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?â€

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.â€

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?â€

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaidaas we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.â€

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Then why, pray tell, do you keep bringing up the SBVfT?

It is a part of the news. Furthermore, I have cut back on SBVfT news. Why do people bring up that AWOL crap...

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]It is a part of the news.

As you stated. it shouldn't be brought in. So why keep bringing it in just because the "news" does??

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, I have cut back on SBVfT news

I'll give you that. It's mostly m21man. But it doesn't stop you from bringing it up...For example:

Quote[/b] ]I have a right has do any american to know if he (Kerry) lied about something during his time in Vietnam (i.e. christmas story).

So if its not important why do you need to know about it??

Quote[/b] ]Why do people bring up that AWOL crap...

Don't think anyone has brought that up in a long time....

EDIT: Speaking strictly forum wise...

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]As you stated. it shouldn't be brought in. So why keep bringing it in just because the "news" does??

because it was "the" news of the campaign.

Quote[/b] ]Don't think anyone has brought that up in a long time....

Come on...Walker...

Quote[/b] ]

So if its not important why do you need to know about it??

Learn something about his character. Kerry has made his Vietnam time a centerpeice and should of just made it a side piece. He knew he was going to run in to problems...

[sputnik monroe 102]

This thread should be retitled "Flashpoint dorks for kerry", Or made a sticky called " Place your I hate Bush Rants here".

   All I see in this thread is a bunch of Europeans and Kerry supporters cheerleading one another.Oh almost forgot and one Bush supporter who gets smeared and called a "piece of shit nazi murderer coward.".

    This isn't a very objective debate going on here. It's nothing but a clearing house for left wing retoric and propaganda. Dissenting right wingers or independents who are leaning towards Bush need not apply.

   Why any one would try to post anything here that could be taken as dissent against the left is beyond me. No one will listen to you, ,they just start at "I hate Bush" and work their way backwards from there.

   I've said too much. My name will be blacklisted and spit upon here for all time since I didn't whore for Kerry or blame Bush for something.

[Akira 0]

This thread should be retitled "Flashpoint dorks for kerry", Or made a sticky called " Place your I hate Bush Rants here".

All I see in this thread is a bunch of Europeans and Kerry supporters cheerleading one another.Oh almost forgot and one Bush supporter who gets smeared and called a "piece of shit nazi murderer coward.".

This isn't a very objective debate going on here. It's nothing but a clearing house for left wing retoric and propaganda. Dissenting right wingers or independents who are leaning towards Bush need not apply.

Why any one would try to post anything here that could be taken as dissent against the left is beyond me. No one will listen to you, ,they just start at "I hate Bush" and work their way backwards from there.

I've said too much. My name will be blacklisted and spit upon here for all time since I didn't whore for Kerry or blame Bush for something.

Ok..

As soon as you have something useful to interject....feel free to come back...

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok, 24 hour lock for this thread is needed IMO.

[ralphwiggum 6]

ok. hopefully people cooled down. otherwise i'm going to be one heck of a mean mofo sob.

[Akira 0]

ok. hopefully people cooled down. otherwise i'm going to be one heck of a mean mofo sob.

Ralphie is cranky cause he didn't get his sleep

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Who would win the 'duel'?

During a contentious interview on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball,’ Zell Miller told host Chris Matthews, ‘I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.’

Fresh from addressing the Republican National Convention, Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia appeared as a guest on the cable news program “Hardball†and was questioned by host Chris Matthews about the fairness of his attack on John Kerry.

Matthews was on an outdoor set a few blocks from New York’s Madison Square Garden, the site of Miller’s keynote speech. Matthews asked Miller whether his remarks mischaracterized Kerry’s voting record. Miller said they hadn’t.

MSNBC Video: Matthews and Miller square off.

Miller also challenged Matthews’ interviewing style, and accused him of “browbeating†a female guest during a recent program. The senator suggested that he was getting similar treatment, and added, “I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.â€

Totally Unimportant Information

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]This thread should be retitled "Flashpoint dorks for kerry", Or made a sticky called " Place your I hate Bush Rants here".

All I see in this thread is a bunch of Europeans and Kerry supporters cheerleading one another.Oh almost forgot and one Bush supporter who gets smeared and called a "piece of shit nazi murderer coward.".

This isn't a very objective debate going on here. It's nothing but a clearing house for left wing retoric and propaganda. Dissenting right wingers or independents who are leaning towards Bush need not apply.

Why any one would try to post anything here that could be taken as dissent against the left is beyond me. No one will listen to you, ,they just start at "I hate Bush" and work their way backwards from there.

I've said too much. My name will be blacklisted and spit upon here for all time since I didn't whore for Kerry or blame Bush for something.

I feel like Neo taking on all those Agent Smiths... I do not really care about those people on this forum who personally attack me (i.e. calling me a coward) because in the end I know that I'm not what they say about me. Furtheremore, they try to smear me but bitch when people doing the same thing to Kerry. I do not have problems with people on this forums if they disagree with my posts but personal attacks is crossing the line. Anyway, vote Bush or I will lose some of my post count!!!!!