Election

[youvegotjermz]

Who's it gonna be? Bush or Kerry? (or Nader)

[LiLbRo]

Bush

Bush has my vote 100%

to bad i cant vote

good thing i have two parents pro bush!

[ChemicalChild]

I aint American but i would love to vote for Bush, Canadian politics are a joke and we have an pathetic Liberal government that sucks us dry with their ridiculous social programs and lack of military spending has our guys dying due to lousy equipment at least American soldiers die in combat...


my thoughts

[GnomeWizardd]

Bush I cant vote for someone whom doesnt have a real stand point ( kerry ) He keeps saying he has a plan for this and that BUT he never tells us what it is. Atleaset with bush you know what he stands for

[primesuspect]

They're both oligarchs. However, I cannot stand to let Bush have thousands of innocent people killed because of a war that was started on a lie. Kerry reluctantly has my vote.

[youvegotjermz]

well... hate to disappoint you but last time i checked we have a volunteer army, and those of you who would say that bush sent or let people die in iraq demean those who actually joined the armed forces for that very cause...and what lie are you talking about, WMD's?, come on...kerry and everybody else voted for it looking at the exact same evidence. well sorry i rambled.

[primesuspect]

I've never met a person who joined the army "for that very cause" --- first of all, could you explain exactly what "cause" you're talking about?

[Zuntar]

IMO:
I'm not exactly thrilled w/ the war, i'm not happy at all about the WMD issue, and I think we need to back out as quickly and gracfuly as we can, but Kerry is a bumbling AS5!!!!
Edwards represents my home state and let me tell you, he hasn't done sh!t for us in NC except giving us one of the worst senate voting track records in history.

Edwards is slimmy....Kerry talks big, debates well enough, but has NO cahones!!

No way in hell man, can't vote those two idiots into the most powerful offices in the world.

[Hawk]

Just a few news quotes:
Iraq had weaponised the lethal VX nerve gas. Hussein had and used VX, Sarin, Mustard gas on the Kurds and on Iran, during the war with them. While 5,000 people died almost immediately in the attack on Halabja, as many as 10,000 were injured and continue to suffer paralysis, neurological difficulties, blindness, respiratory distress and pyschological trauma. In some cases, Saddam masked the scent of the gases with the aroma of apples so residents would not take measures to protect themselves and would continue to inhale the contaminants.
Thats only one of many attacks he committed with deadly nerve agents.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy. "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy."
Not to mention -- How many yrs did we play with Saddam through the UN, trying to get him to open his doors for inspections. Guaranteed, He buried stuff in his backyard, or moved his prize possesions to Syria or one of his buddy nations.
Iraq was a hotbed for terrorist training camps as was Afganistan.
Just a few things to think about.

[primesuspect]

Tell me what Saddam Hussein had to do with 9/11

Tell me why we invaded Iraq, and not Pakistan, who is a known nuclear power and harbors terrorsts.

Tell me why we invaded Iraq, and not North Korea. Tell me why we do absolutely nothing about Sudan. Tell me what threat Iraq, with their total incapability to deliver weapons to the homeland of our nation, posed to any US citizen before we put ourselves over there....

[Zuntar]

Tell me what Saddam Hussein had to do with 9/11
The answer to that is burried way to deep within gov. documents for ANYONE here to answer effectivly.

Tell me why we invaded Iraq, and not Pakistan, who is a known nuclear power and harbors terrorsts. Tell me why we invaded Iraq, and not North Korea. Tell me why we do absolutely nothing about Sudan. We had to start somewhere and he/they were about the cruelest of the pack twards their people.

Tell me what threat Iraq, with their total incapability to deliver weapons to the homeland of our nation, posed to any US citizen before we put ourselves over there.... What would you do if you saw a man beating his own child down the street. Not your kid why should you do anything about it.

[yagga]

ofcourse everyone here likes bush, they are all richlings who buy lots of computer hardware, hehe. Anyway, I'm not telling you who I may vote for, but it could* be nader, lol!

[Animal]

why would you vote bush LiLbro...?

[Animal]

What would you do if you saw a man beating his own child down the street. Not your kid why should you do anything about it.

IRAQ is not the only place that has poor human rights. bush just wanted a war he knew he could win... to show how strong America is.

don't really want to get into a huge debate so you don't have to respond :p

[LiLbRo]

why would you vote bush LiLbro...?
I think right now change in the pesidancy right now would be devistating, and I like what he is doing, yeah, mistakes every now and then, but at leas bush is stong on his opions. Kerry argues with himself durning a debate, he never votes the same way twice, and he is for things i am not, ex. gay marage..

bush is doing his job, and he is doing it well, there is no need to bring someone in that cannt even decide what he wants to do with taxes... btw kerry voted yes for funds for this war..


also, kerry has the worst voting record, when he does vote.

on top of that, he would bring our econamy down, even worse than it is..

bush is more for the rich guy, granted, but my family and me are not rich by any means, my dad makes around 25,000 a year... there are high school kids that make more...


the point i am trying to get at is, kerry is a liberal hippy that cannt make up his mind...

[primesuspect]

The answer to that is burried way to deep within gov. documents for ANYONE here to answer effectivly.

I love these kind of evasive answers. What you are really saying is, "I can't". Did it ever occur to you, that perhaps the answer is "nothing..."

Just think for one minute about the implications for the bush regime if the answer was, in fact, "nothing".

We had to start somewhere and he/they were about the cruelest of the pack twards their people.

Yes, of course, because we are somehow better than other people and we have the moral authority to decide when and how to enforce our version of "good" upon the ignorant rest of the world.... By what authority do "we have to start somewhere"? And the "cruelest of the pack" statement is just plain ignorant. What are you talking about? Are you not aware of the GENOCIDE that is going on in Sudan? Are you unfamiliar with what China did to Tibet? Or are you just regurgitating what you've read on the internet and heard on the mass media?

What would you do if you saw a man beating his own child down the street. Not your kid why should you do anything about it.

This is so pointless and so far from trying to accomplish anything other than to incite an argument, that I will not even answer this question.

[GnomeWizardd]

*coughs* KBJ guys I don't want to see it get nasty here

[drowd]

this is a really hard issue for me. i actually like nader a good bit. he is very minimalist and doesnt let material things run/ruin his life. he bought 20 pairs of combat boots when he was younger and has been wearing them his entire life and just getting out another pair when one goes out. he only owns one suit and i think that he has high character. but most importantly to me is the issue of the death penalty, and the fact that nader is the only one that wants it gone is very important. the only nations that still have the death penalty in effect are nations that the united states would very much not like to identify with. not to mention the number of innocent lives that have been put to death by state sanctioned executions. there was a study done that examined the amount of innocents executed before dna testing, and it was near 1 in 10. the fact that 70 percent of those on death row are african american alone is a staggering thought to me. should the lack of money and a lawyer condemn someone to die? that doesnt mean that dna testing hasnt helped tremendously, but one innocent is too many, and as long as a permenant resolution from an imperfect system is in place, i absolutely cannot enforce it. and dont even get me started on those who use the bible as defense for the death penalty. if you think god (if you are so inclined) directly communicates with any of the judges or juries that make these decisions, i suggest you examine the story of Achan and compare it with the system today.

HOWEVER, my personal opinions aside, more important than who IS in the white house is who is NOT in the white house. believe me, i am no kerry supporter. i dont like they guy one bit, and if the democrats wanted a chance in hell, they really should have picked a stronger candidate. however, the most important thing to me in regards to this election is that bush is NOT in the white house. therefore, kerry has my vote, because nader doesnt have a chance and voting for him only weakens the chance of getting bush out.

now, as far as wmd's, let me present two facts. when clinton was in the white house (not saying i am a clinton supporter mind you), every single proposal that clark put forward to go after osama bin laden (after the 93 attacks on the WTC), clinton approved it, no questions asked. there is plenty of documentation on the amount of pressure this placed on bin laden. if anything, the sheer fact that so many attempts on his life were made by the special forces, that kept our country a little bit safer. fact 2 is that those in bush's administration have said plenty of times that they had planned to go into iraq even before bush was in office. once he took office, one of the first things he did was pull clark off of bin laden and focusing on iraq. i am not saying that bush caused 9/11, but pulling that pressure off sure as f*ck didnt help.

as animal said, prewar iraq, that country was not even near the top of human rights violations. lets take a look at who got most favored nation status and who is near the top of the violations list. china is about as monstorous as they come, and yet we LOVE their business. and why did we not invade saudi arabia? did everyone already forget the ethnicity of all but one of the 9/11 high jackers?

i am not saying something didnt need to be done about iraq. i am not saying that saddam wasnt a "bad guy". i am saying that priorities were drastically confused as far as what the united states should do if they want to act as the "worlds police force".

ok, i am done ranting, but every time that guns and bombs have been used to place democracy in place, it has almost always failed. the people need to want it, and the only thing we have done is created 1000's of more bin laden's and saddam's.

how do you tell someone who is holding the torso of their 11 year old child, the only thing left of his family (last week on the news), that the air raids were for their own good . . .

[primesuspect]

Drowd, you just echoed my sentiments almost perfectly.

Look, if Nader had a chance in hell to win, I would give him my vote, 100%. But we all know it's not happening, so my goal now is to oust this oligarch that we did not elect, but was appointed to the white house by his rich and powerful friends and family.

Make no mistake about it folks, this country is not a democracy. This is an oligarchy. If you don't know what that means, I suggest you spend some time schooling yourself.

Hopefully Kerry wins. I can't really find anything to like about the guy myself, either. If he wins, we will be replacing Bush/Carlyle Group/Halliburton/Enron with Kerry/whatever corporations are in his wealthy pocket. It will be a whole new set of corruptions, and perhaps a different industry rather than oil or defense will be running the show. I don't care, we're screwed either way, and all we can do is try to perfect ourselves.

[Zuntar]

......i am not saying something didnt need to be done about iraq. i am not saying that saddam wasnt a "bad guy". i am saying that priorities were drastically confused as far as what the united states should do if they want to act as the "worlds police force".

ok, i am done ranting, but every time that guns and bombs have been used to place democracy in place, it has almost always failed. the people need to want it, and the only thing we have done is created 1000's of more bin laden's and saddam's.

how do you tell someone who is holding the torso of their 11 year old child, the only thing left of his family (last week on the news), that the air raids were for their own good . . .

AMEN BRUDA!!!!

Hey I'd love it if we could all hug and sing together, unfortunatly most people won't!!!

Prime.. easy man, I am just stirring the pot... see what shakes. Sorry!

I hate war. I think it was all a huge waste of time; has caused and will cause more problems then it solved (if any).

Peace out!

[primesuspect]

Prime.. easy man, I am just stirring the pot... see what shakes. Sorry!

Same here, I'm not trying to get personal here, this is all for the sake of debate, and comes only with good spirits :)

I hate war. I think it was all a huge waste of time; has caused and will cause more problems then it solved (if any).

Peace out!

On that, we agree 100%. War is awful, evil, and repulsive. Anyone who talks of war as some sort of patriotic thing or some sort of onerous duty "for the betterment of ...{fill in the blank}" has just no concept of what they are talking about, and has probably never seen an innocent person's guts hanging out of their bodies.

[GnomeWizardd]

War is bad but I hate to say it sometimes it is the only way to deal with something, Yes bush was lead to believe there were WMD's so was everyone else that saw the intel, And yes Saddam needed to be put in jail, daddys mess had to be cleaned up by someone and it was obvious Clinton wasn't going to do anything to help those people. Granted Bush isn't perfect but the questions I ask Am i better off now than i was? Yes small business owners have less taxes and less hassle now, And do I think Kerry will help more than bush? No i don't IF he laid out a plan that would be better for us then maybe id vote for him but him just SAYING " I have a plan" isn't enough.

[primesuspect]

War is bad but I hate to say it sometimes it is the only way to deal with something,

No it's not. It is never the only way to deal with something. We can sit here all day and talk about war, but the raw truth is that neither of us knows WTF we are talking about, secure from our priveledged, sheltered and ignorant lives here in the united states. Talk to someone who has been in actual combat (perhaps someone from your family who is a vietnam vet or has been to iraq) You go over to iraq and talk to a soldier right now, who has been in combat for far longer than they were told, and you ask them why they are fighting this war and risking their lives every day. I can pretty much guess that not one of them would say "this is the only way to deal with the problem"..... What exactly IS THE PROBLEM right now? Saddam is out, right? Mission accomplished, right? "We're victorious yippe yay!", right?

Why are we still there? How is this the "only way" to deal with "something"? Define the something, and then convince me that having tens of thousands of troops under fire every day is the "only way" to deal with it.....

[GnomeWizardd]

well since my grandfather was in WWII and in the 101st and made jumps into holland and normandy marched into bastogne and his answer basically this is the only way to stop what was going on.

[primesuspect]

Yes, we were invaded by the axis on our own soil. Please compare and contrast that with iraq. WW2 - we were defending ourselves.

[GnomeWizardd]

Talk to someone who has been in actual combat


But i did what u asked! :jelly:

[Zuntar]

*cough* Kerry and Edwards are boobs *cough*

[GnomeWizardd]

*cough* Kerry and Edwards are boobs *cough*


And a very ugly pair at that!

[Dream Weaver]

I hope Bush dies. He's a blight to the universe.

[yagga]

Gay marriage shouldn't be a factor in the presidency, I'm not saying I'm for gays, but come on, who really cares if the couple gay people can get their pride by getting married? Sure, they may be able to get certain benefits, but so what?

Kerry does not change his mind on things all the time, he simply disagrees with how a bill is written. Bills are incredibly complex things that take up pages upon pages upon hundreds of pages of writing, if certain parts are written poorly why whould you vote for it the way you want? You'd send it back to get fixed and then vote for it the way you believe!

George is the flip flop, he said he supported stem cell research 4 years ago, and now he doesn't.

I'm not going to say anything about Iraq, Kerry supporters who complain about Iraq don't really have an argument in my mind.

Kerry is a much better debater, Bush is not as good. Bush seems to copy what Kerry says later down the line. Also, in the debates, Bush just says how bad Kerry is, where Kerry actually tells the people what he is going to do. What is with all the slurs and eye blinking???

Bush is also evil and pushy, it even shows a bit in the debates.

Edwards is even better and a lot more people friendly. Cheney will probably die of a heart attack soon.

Oh, and I almost forgot, Bush never won the election to begin with, he pushed himself into office, and he had less than half the countries support, nice president, yeah.

[GnomeWizardd]

Gay marriage shouldn't be a factor in the presidency, I'm not saying I'm for gays, but come on, who really cares if the couple gay people can get their pride by getting married? Sure, they may be able to get certain benefits, but so what?

Kerry does not change his mind on things all the time, he simply disagrees with how a bill is written. Bills are incredibly complex things that take up pages upon pages upon hundreds of pages of writing, if certain parts are written poorly why whould you vote for it the way you want? You'd send it back to get fixed and then vote for it the way you believe!

George is the flip flop, he said he supported stem cell research 4 years ago, and now he doesn't.

I'm not going to say anything about Iraq, Kerry supporters who complain about Iraq don't really have an argument in my mind.

Kerry is a much better debater, Bush is not as good. Bush seems to copy what Kerry says later down the line. Also, in the debates, Bush just says how bad Kerry is, where Kerry actually tells the people what he is going to do. What is with all the slurs and eye blinking???

Bush is also evil and pushy, it even shows a bit in the debates.

Edwards is even better and a lot more people friendly. Cheney will probably die of a heart attack soon.

Oh, and I almost forgot, Bush never won the election to begin with, he pushed himself into office, and he had less than half the countries support, nice president, yeah.



I got one thing to say to that " LMFAO! Your political view is as far left as Mr Jackson is Wierd! "

[primesuspect]

He brought up valid points, gnome. Instead of dismissing him, could you care to explain why you believe he's far out left?

[GnomeWizardd]

George isnt the Flip Flop he stays put on most of the issues HE still support some stem cell research but not to the point of cloning a human. Kerry is a good debater but in the last debate he kept going around the issues and instead of answering the questions he kept attacking so therefore he didn;t help his case he just kept attacking instead of answering the damn questions. Edwards may be a people person but we don't need a people person we need someone with experience which he doesnt have, And Bush didn't push himself into the presidency he was elected and the whole Florida vote thing wouldn't have been an issue IF exit polling wasn't allowed. Exit polls aren't accurate and IF we waited till the votes were counted there would have been no mix up. And u can say well he didn't win the popular vote So what our government isnt based on popular vote its on the electoral college the way its been for a long time. Not to mention Gore was the one dragging it out he kept saying recount recount well everytime they did they found more Bush Votes

[youvegotjermz]

haha...wow guys, i like it. nothin like a little political debate to bring up the bloodpressure. i like you guys alot so far, so i hope this post doesn't offend anyone too bad. let me begin my rebutle to Primesuspect and drowd by illustrating a few things a little more clearly.

...because we are somehow better than other people and we have the moral authority to decide when and how to enforce our VERSION of "good" upon the ignorant rest of the world...

errr...how can i put this simply cause it delves into philosophy...primesuspect, when one talks of morally good and morally evil it is inevidible that you have to choose if there is an absolute moral law or not. Example: "Person A decides that having their neighbor over for dinner makes him feel good, while Person B decides that having their neighbor FOR dinner makes him feel good"

Who is right and who is wrong? A Relativist would say that they are both right(and probably get devoured), while someone who believes in Absolute truth would condem the cannibal. Are you a relativist, primesuspect?

This notion that, how dare we impose our freedom and liberty upon someone else, how dare we kill the Stalin's and Hinrich Himmler's of our day, how dare we even give the oppressed of Iraq the choice wether or not to like us. This country has liberated over 2 billion people in its existance, i don't know about some people but i'm kinda proud of that.

as animal said, prewar iraq, that country was not even near the top of human rights violations. lets take a look at who got most favored nation status and who is near the top of the violations list. china is about as monstorous as they come, and yet we LOVE their business. and why did we not invade saudi arabia? did everyone already forget the ethnicity of all but one of the 9/11 high jackers?

uhhh...nice point drowd, but i disagree with your first premise. the entry into Iraq was not due to human rights violations (althought, it certianly helped). it was due to the terrorist threat coming from Iraq. Saddam gave $30,000 to the family of any suicide bomber, he harbored and funded numourous terrorist organizations. We know now for a fact(The Duelfer Report), he was using the "Oil for food program" to pocket billions from the the good 'ole French, Germans and Russsians. which he was using for... ummmmmm yeah... that's right WMD programs so that he could sell them to the TERRORISTS!!

Drowd, osama was a minor kid in the saudi royal family growing up till he came across a few radical islamists that started the warping of his mind. after being humiliated by the saudi royal family when Russia went into Afgan. his sharp tounge got him and many of his saudi followers kicked out Saudi Arabia, thus accounting for many of Al Queda being of Saudi heritage.

Yes, we were invaded by the axis on our own soil. Please compare and contrast that with iraq. WW2 - we were defending ourselves.

hahahaha, man....did you guys like skip history class? NO, the USA was not invaded by the axis powers of WWII. lol! hahahaha, oh man! Seriously, if you do compare them more simularities come up than any lib would ever admit. Pearl Harbor was a strike to crush our spirit upon entering the war, 9/11 was a strike to weaken our reslove for freedom across the world. WWII: immediate deployment across the pacific, into europe, and across africa at 4 different foes. War on Terrorism: deployment into Afgan., Iraq along with military outposts set up all over the middle east. Not only that, we snuffed out the tyranny of 2 men that killed millions in their rain.

Alright last one!

Oh, and I almost forgot, Bush never won the election to begin with, he pushed himself into office, and he had less than half the countries support, nice president, yeah.

*big sigh*...look those of you who buy into these kook theories dissappoint me. bottom line is democrats ran the voting boths in those counties, and the always trust worthy cBS would never tell you that. if you're still not convinced about the 2000 election...i don't know...go back to civics class again is my only advice.

for those of you who were patient enough to get this far in the reading take heart that i won't post something this long again. hey drowd and primesuspect, i like this site and would like to stick around, no hard feelings, huh?

[primesuspect]

haha...wow guys, i like it. nothin like a little political debate to bring up the bloodpressure. i like you guys alot so far, so i hope this post doesn't offend anyone too bad. let me begin my rebutle to Primesuspect and drowd by illustrating a few things a little more clearly. Oh yeah, definitely nothing personal with this discussion, it's all in good spirits :)

errr...how can i put this simply cause it delves into philosophy...primesuspect, when one talks of morally good and morally evil it is inevidible that you have to choose if there is an absolute moral law or not. Example: "Person A decides that having their neighbor over for dinner makes him feel good, while Person B decides that having their neighbor FOR dinner makes him feel good"

Who is right and who is wrong? A Relativist would say that they are both right(and probably get devoured), while someone who believes in Absolute truth would condem the cannibal. Are you a relativist, primesuspect?

I'm a Buddhist, not a relativist ;)

I don't see how this vague philosophical prattle relates to the actual debate at hand.. Let's see, Zuntar's original statement was:

We had to start somewhere and he/they were about the cruelest of the pack twards their people.

to which I replied:

Yes, of course, because we are somehow better than other people and we have the moral authority to decide when and how to enforce our version of "good" upon the ignorant rest of the world.... By what authority do "we have to start somewhere"? ....

So instead of going off on a tangent that doesn't really provide application for your metaphor, perhaps you can back up Zuntar's statement and explain why we had to invade Iraq. Again, "By what authority"? And please don't waste your energy by telling me "moral" authority, because the morality of the United States government is totally relative ;). I'm not going to waste my time or yours regurgitating facts, pictures, stories, and statistics of all of the atrocities that have been committed by our great nation.

This notion that, how dare we impose our freedom and liberty upon someone else, how dare we kill the Stalin's and Hinrich Himmler's of our day, how dare we even give the oppressed of Iraq the choice wether or not to like us. This country has liberated over 2 billion people in its existance, i don't know about some people but i'm kinda proud of that.

We did not impose our freedom by killing anybody. First of all, Saddam Hussein is not dead. Secondly, are the people of Iraq any more free than they were before this invasion? Instead of being afraid to speak up against the tyrant, now they are afraid to go to the market for fear of getting caught up in violence. I think you need to call up your knowledge of relativity and for one second put yourself in the shoes of an average Iraqi citizen. Imagine for one second that you are an everyday working-class Iraqi. How free are you right now? They want us out. There's no mistake about that. You and I and everybody else here can only guess at what life is really like right now over there, and all we "know" is what we are spoon fed by the media and by Bush's propaganda machine. However, the facts that we CAN be sure of are the fact that every day the insurgency grows stronger, every day more US soldiers are killed. Why do you think that is? Do you think that it is because they are free and happy and peaceful now? Do you think it is because the average Iraqi citizen is grateful for their new "freedom"? Who do you think makes up the rank and file of the insurgency? Do you think it is the intelligentsia or the upper class citizen who benefited from Saddam's reign? No - the insurgency is made up of the lower class everyday citizen. So, if they are so free and happy now, and we are the great savior and liberator of their nation, why do the average citizens want us out so bad? This is what we can observe and witness without resorting to hearsay and rhetoric. Therefore, that is what I base my opinions on.

uhhh...nice point drowd, but i disagree with your first premise. the entry into Iraq was not due to human rights violations (althought, it certianly helped). it was due to the terrorist threat coming from Iraq. Saddam gave $30,000 to the family of any suicide bomber, he harbored and funded numourous terrorist organizations. We know now for a fact(The Duelfer Report), he was using the "Oil for food program" to pocket billions from the the good 'ole French, Germans and Russsians. which he was using for... ummmmmm yeah... that's right WMD programs so that he could sell them to the TERRORISTS!!

Okay, some of this may be true. However, why then did Bush choose Iraq to invade? Are there not nations, regimes, and leaders with even worse records in regards to terrorism and WMDs? WHY IRAQ? Why not PAKISTAN or IRAN? WHY WOULD WE INVADE ANY COUNTRY WHO DID NOT POSE A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Prove to me that Iraq posed a threat to America. Did you feel threatened by Saddam Hussein after 9/11? Think about that for a second. Put yourself back in time, mentally, three years. In October of 2001, was anybody even REMOTELY aware of Iraq, or Saddam Hussein? Were we huddled in fear that the big bad nation of Iraq had all their military might poised to unleash chemical and nuclear destruction on our great nation?

I wasn't... I was afraid of anthrax in the mail if I remember correctly....

And I LOVE the Duelfer report. Again the spin machine of the Bush regime has kicked into high gear to distract us from the issues. Remember that dude... what was his name... Oh yeah, Osama Bin Laden.. The dude that actually WAS responsible for the deaths of americans... Yeah, so, what ever happened to him? Boom! Hey America! Iraq is bad! WMDs! Saddam! ...

Okay, so $60 billion, a Brand Name War, and thousands of american soldiers' lives later...

Saddam is captured, Iraq is "free", presidential election time, Kerry and half of america bring up valid points criticizing the war, and the LIES that we were told about the reasons to go to war, and ... BOOM, what the hell do you know, another distraction. Suddenly, out of the collective ass of the Bush campaign team, comes this NEW distraction "OH WAIT! LOOK! SADDAM WAS USING OIL FOR FOOD TO DO BAAAAD THINGS OMG!"

hahahaha, man....did you guys like skip history class? NO, the USA was not invaded by the axis powers of WWII. lol! hahahaha, oh man! Seriously, if you do compare them more simularities come up than any lib would ever admit. Pearl Harbor was a strike to crush our spirit upon entering the war, 9/11 was a strike to weaken our reslove for freedom across the world. WWII: immediate deployment across the pacific, into europe, and across africa at 4 different foes. War on Terrorism: deployment into Afgan., Iraq along with military outposts set up all over the middle east. Not only that, we snuffed out the tyranny of 2 men that killed millions in their rain.

We were not invaded? Um, if I remember my history correctly, we were not in the war at that point... So why would they crush our spirit upon entering a war that we had not entered until they crushed said spirit?

WWII: Immediate deployment against the enemies of our allies, during a huge war that was already being waged in multiple theatres. It was already a world war at the point we entered, man! That is vastly different from the situation in March of 2003.....

... deployment into Afghanistan, which was knowingly harboring the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Then, a year or two of vague "oh he's in a cave somewhere" and then all of the sudden and all out war, with a $60 billion commitment and massive troop deployment to...... IRAQ? What in the hell?

That would be like if, after Pearl Harbor, we bombed Japan for a few months, and then waited until 1943 and all of the sudden started attacking.... Italy.

for those of you who were patient enough to get this far in the reading take heart that i won't post something this long again. hey drowd and primesuspect, i like this site and would like to stick around, no hard feelings, huh?

Definitely no hard feelings :)

[ChemicalChild]

you know it funny reading what you guys have to say about each prospective candidate unfortunately up here in Canada Bush is painted as an idiot, of all the provinces thought Alberta is probably the most Pro-America, for a couple of big reasons, Beef and Oil either way we are tied to the States. besides all that though i never hear a positive thing about Bush here its always Kerry this Kerry that. of course we have Liberal government here and since CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Government funded) paints a very rosy picture of Kerry and his fuck all war-record we never do really hear how our American cousins really feel about each Candidate.

sadly enough this past week Vietnam deserters/draft dodgers were saying they were going to have a festival to commerate them coming to Canada and not having to fight its being held in Nelson, British Columbia.

my 2 cents.

[youvegotjermz]

hey prime, hahaha i like you man! of couse, i can quote you and then make a rebutle of your views, but we would be typing far longer than i would like to or you would like to.

but anywho, here's the final point i'll make here. I'm always weary of decision making based on emotion. When i read about Bush/Cheney campaign offices being ransacked and the staff being shot at, when i see movies that just inspire distrust and hate in our leadership, when i hear of swastikas burned into the lawns of Bush supporters. i am reminded of the simple words of Joseph Gerbils (which i borrow from someone else), he said "the way to effectively use propaganda is to use emotion, not reason"

Frankly, all i see from the left is just that, emotion. (FYI: Joseph Gerbils was the Prime Minister of Propaganda under Hitler)

[kryyst]

you know it funny reading what you guys have to say about each prospective candidate unfortunately up here in Canada Bush is painted as an idiot, of all the provinces thought Alberta is probably the most Pro-America, for a couple of big reasons, Beef and Oil either way we are tied to the States. besides all that though i never hear a positive thing about Bush here its always Kerry this Kerry that. of course we have Liberal government here and since CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Government funded) paints a very rosy picture of Kerry and his fuck all war-record we never do really hear how our American cousins really feel about each Candidate.


Don't forget about BUSH fucking us over lumber as well.

I haven't spent a tonne of time in the states lately but I did spend a week in florida not so long ago and of that time there were a good several hours a day I was in my hotel room watching FOX news.

I think the big reason why Canada has a dislike of Bush is the way the news is slanted. Every newscast is biased one way or another but (and it's the canadian in me) I like to think that our Canadian news is a little less biased then the states. Or at least in particular FOX news. Man it was bad propoganda out the ass.

Now the news coverage at the time wasn't presidential related but given the ammount of hype they were pushing on the Huricannes I can only sympathize with anyone in the US trying to form a well rounded opinion on anything going on based souly from what they see on the TV. During the huricanne coverage every little big of destruction from it was tied directly back to a terrorist attack in some way. It was ridiculous. There hasn't been a terrorist attack in North America in 4 years and yet every other word was basically Terror, fear, destruction etc...

They then between showing some poor bastard reporting hugging a tree for dear life would cut in clips of what was going on in Iraq to try and show you the viewer what it *must* be like for the soliders over there.

Were I an american I'd vote for Kerry not because I particularily agree with him (though I do in part) but particularily because Bush is (and he's admited) a War Time President. He's done a good job of cleaning up the Mess that Sr. Bush started. The attack on Iraq was a financial descision the WMD issue was put in place to give the people something to get excited about. As is the whole Terror threat colour schema. It's a fabrication, keep the masses excited keep them on their seats and you can get them to do what you want. Bush may be painted as an idiot and a hick but he's anything but that. He graduated from one of the best Universities in the country and has been playing the political game for years. He gave the people what they wanted and continues to do that. When something goes wrong he blames some one else. The guy is a friggen genious.

The scandals such as Elron during the Bush administration have far surpassed the whole Clinton White papers thing in terms of $$$ and how far spread it is and it's almost been completely forgotten because of Bush and his War machine.

Kerry at best comes across as less of a warmonger and that can only be a good thing. Had he been in charge at the time of 9/11 he probably still would have gone to war as his advisors and public outcry would have pushed him in that direction anyway. But I think he would have been a little slower on the jump and perhaps gone after the right people first.

The whole Iraq issue asside is no one worried about the real madman and real serious threat that is going on in North Korea? They have the potential to Nuke the States and have proven that they have WMD's and aren't afriad to use them. I guess real threats though are a little too scarey for the mass's so it's best to actually show them something they can feel good about.

[primesuspect]

Not to mention all the anti-arab propaganda that we are fed every day. I swear, racism against muslims and arabs is almost encouraged by the media and the government. It's terrible.

[ChemicalChild]

Canadian News less biased?, you are kidding right our government financially supports our biggest media machine and that is CBC. Now you might be from Ontario so things may look a little different.(keep in mind that when Ontario is done voting thats when we know who Prime Minister is going to be thats the Canadian difference we have 5 year dictatorships.



Quote


"The scandals such as Elron during the Bush administration have far surpassed the whole Clinton White papers thing in terms of $$$ and how far spread it is and it's almost been completely forgotten because of Bush and his War machine."

every businessman knows its bad for business if you keep having recurring financial collapses at major corporations thats why they put it behind them and move on you want Investors to be happy and excited so they are willing to spend their coin, besides Bush is not 2 be blamed for a scandal at any company their not his businesses (if you were to read any financial magazine they still mention Enron on occasion).

[primesuspect]

Enron may not have been "Bush's company" as you say, but him and Ken Lay were best buds:

* Ken Lay personally provided $250,000 in soft contributions to the Bush '00 campaign

* January 1999, Enron ponied up $50,000 to throw Bush a party for winning texas governor re-election

* During the Bush '00 Campaign, Enron was the single largest corporate contributor to the campaign fund.

Among tons of other info I'm sure you could gather from various sources. Make no mistake about it - Bush and Enron were totally in bed together.

[Zuntar]

OMFG!! DRAMA!!!

*I personnaly think Elvis is running the whole show from a secret hidding place.

Martians maybe? :rolleyes:

[kryyst]

Canadian News less biased?, you are kidding right our government financially supports our biggest media machine and that is CBC. Now you might be from Ontario so things may look a little different.(keep in mind that when Ontario is done voting thats when we know who Prime Minister is going to be thats the Canadian difference we have 5 year dictatorships.

Canadian news is Less Biased. Go to the states and watch the major news streams such as FOX news for example it's so much further along with the propoganda machine then we are here. They glamourize and push anything that deals with death destruction and carnage and attribute it far more often to either Terrorism or link it as a comparrison to Terrorist attacks. You can also tell quite quickly which news channels in the states are back by their particular parties and any political insight is heavily slanted towards it. In canada the CBC is backed by the government but they also far more frequently report the bigger story with less of a one sided slant then american stations.

You are correct for the most part that Ontario Decides the Vote but that's of no real consequence to anything happening in the news. Besides better that Ontario decides then Quebec.



every businessman knows its bad for business if you keep having recurring financial collapses at major corporations thats why they put it behind them and move on you want Investors to be happy and excited so they are willing to spend their coin, besides Bush is not 2 be blamed for a scandal at any company their not his businesses (if you were to read any financial magazine they still mention Enron on occasion).

They put it behind them because they have the power to do so. They aren't putting it behind them for the benefit of the economy they are saving their own asses. Bush personally wasn't responsible for the scandal but to say he had nothing to do with the cover up is entirely negligent. He was involved with contract settlements and grants that allowed Ellron to get away with what they did for as long as they did until the end.

[youvegotjermz]

Bush personally wasn't responsible for the scandal but to say he had nothing to do with the cover up is entirely negligent. He was involved with contract settlements and grants that allowed Ellron to get away with what they did for as long as they did until the end.

what settlements, what grants? and don't say campaign contributions cause then you'll have to look at kerry and all his shading dealings. the short of it is they got caught because they ran their business like nutsacks. and bush was leading the charge in the investigation.

media does have bias, that i agree with. but fox news is a very new organization (about 10 years) and it's ratings are more that CNN and ABC combined. why? maybe people find that they can't trust the mainstream media and the monopoly they've had for the past 30 years. but don't base all your decisions on TV, read, listen to talk radio, the internet is full of privately owned news sites to check out.

[kryyst]

what settlements, what grants? and don't say campaign contributions cause then you'll have to look at kerry and all his shading dealings. the short of it is they got caught because they ran their business like nutsacks. and bush was leading the charge in the investigation.

Well there is this for starts to set the ties into place

One of the biggest contributors to Deer Park's pollution is a plant owned by Enron, Houston's wealthiest company. Enron and its executives are also the single largest contributors ($550,000 and counting) to the political ambitions of Texas Governor George W. Bush, Republican candidate for President of the United States. Kenneth Lay, the chief executive of Enron, has personally given at least $250,000 in soft money to Bush's political campaigns. He is also one of the "Pioneers"--a Bush supporter who has collected $100,000 in direct contributions of $1,000 or less.

So with that the gov't has overlooked and actually made provisions so that Enron could continue to be one of the worlds worst polutors.

Only 7 percent of the more than 3,500 tons of nitrogen oxide emitted by the Enron Methanol plant in 1997 would have been permitted had Enron not gotten away with this under the "grandfather clause" of the 1971 Texas Clean Air Act, which allows plants built before 1971 to continue their polluting practices. Bush extended this clause under the 1999 Clean Air Responsibility Enterprise (CARE) program that his office drew up in a series of secret meetings with representatives of the top polluters in the state, as Molly Ivins reported. CARE waives permit requirements for plants that volunteer to cut emissions.

Some more ties though not illegal do put the gov't and Enron hand in hand

On April 7, 2000, he played host to Bush and his father, the former President, at the Houston Astros' first home game of the season. The game was held in the baseball team's brand new stadium--Enron Field--which was built with the help of a $100 million donation from Enron. (The company got free advertising, a tax break, and a $200 million contract to supply power to the stadium in return.)

Oh then there is this

In 1997, Enron was anxious to break into Pennsylvania, one of America's biggest energy markets, with its huge consumers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The company was having difficulty, and Lay asked Bush (who liked to call him 'Kenny boy') tohelp.

Bush duly called the then state governor, Tom Ridge, to pitch for Enron, whose bid duly succeeded. 'I called George W to kind of tell him what was going on,' said Lay at the time, 'and I said it would be very helpful to Enron if he could just call the governor and tell him Enron is a serious company'. Ridge was made Secretary of Homeland Security - Bush's new White House office - after 11 September.


media does have bias, that i agree with. but fox news is a very new organization (about 10 years) and it's ratings are more that CNN and ABC combined. why? maybe people find that they can't trust the mainstream media and the monopoly they've had for the past 30 years. but don't base all your decisions on TV, read, listen to talk radio, the internet is full of privately owned news sites to check out.

Hey I agree, but I'm also informed. It's the mass public that will swing the vote and generally speaking people aren't informed. They watch the news and believe more or less what is been spoon fed down their throats. To assume FOX is true over CNN or ABC is ridiculous FOX news is probably the worst station for glamorizing and presenting what is interesting over what is true then any other news station ever. TV is all about ratings at the end of the day they gotta get paid and if they can stretch the truth to make something interesting or jade a side to get a story the believe me they'll do it.

[lordbean]

sorry to break into the middle of this, but I have to insert an opinion I have as to the whole gay marriage thing. I think that since it seems to be running quite heavily through society these days anyway, it should be allowed, with all the rights that heterosexual couples get. I am not saying this because I am gay... my reason is purely scientific. The human population on this planet is already exceeding the planet's real capacity, and due to the enormous advances in medical technology in the past century, our lifespans and multiplication rates have both increased. So, if gay couples want to be married, great! They can't reproduce!

I realize there is an exception in lesbians, who can be artificially impregnated by a sperm bank. However, it would seem to me that this could be easily fixed by adding a condition that same sex couples cannot draw from a sperm bank. Nature never intended for two females to be able to reproduce.

Again, apologies for breaking into the current debate.

[kryyst]

sorry to break into the middle of this, but I have to insert an opinion I have as to the whole gay marriage thing. I think that since it seems to be running quite heavily through society these days anyway, it should be allowed, with all the rights that heterosexual couples get. I am not saying this because I am gay... my reason is purely scientific. The human population on this planet is already exceeding the planet's real capacity, and due to the enormous advances in medical technology in the past century, our lifespans and multiplication rates have both increased. So, if gay couples want to be married, great! They can't reproduce!

I realize there is an exception in lesbians, who can be artificially impregnated by a sperm bank. However, it would seem to me that this could be easily fixed by adding a condition that same sex couples cannot draw from a sperm bank. Nature never intended for two females to be able to reproduce.

Again, apologies for breaking into the current debate.


Ummm just to play devils advocate, but just because it's common in society that doesn't mean it should necessarily be made a law. Drug abbuse and prostitution in society are common but that doesn't mean they should be made legal. So just becasue there are alot of gay couples wanting to get married it doesn't mean we should automatically pass a law based on that.

The argument about population control is irrelivant to this especially when you contridict your own argument. If you are saying that the people are living longer (though that often means living longer on medical support and increased drain on our health centres) and the population is expanding then the ban should be on anyone using sperm centres. The right to marry and the right to give have children are two seperate arguments.

If you say gay couples should be able to get married and have that right why should they be excluded from adopting (in the case of males) or using sperm banks in the case of females. They actually already have the right to do that though it's often more difficulty for them. Are you proposing to strip them of that right when they get married?

[lordbean]

Ummm just to play devils advocate, but just because it's common in society that doesn't mean it should necessarily be made a law. Drug abbuse and prostitution in society are common but that doesn't mean they should be made legal. So just becasue there are alot of gay couples wanting to get married it doesn't mean we should automatically pass a law based on that.

Being gay is in no way harmful to the person in question or the people around them. If two gay people hook up, that's great, there's no risk to them or anyone else. The only reason the laws have not already been changed to allow gay marriage is due simply to the fact that a lot of people are squeamish and don't like to think about two people of the same sex going at it.

The argument about population control is irrelivant to this especially when you contridict your own argument. If you are saying that the people are living longer (though that often means living longer on medical support and increased drain on our health centres) and the population is expanding then the ban should be on anyone using sperm centres. The right to marry and the right to give have children are two seperate arguments.

It's not irrelevant, and I didn't contradict my own argument. A lot of otherwise gay people have married into a normal family and mothered / fathered children because it was what society demanded of them. Had they been married to a gay partner, the odds of them having children would be a LOT less. As for the sperm banks, I agree a ban does seem a bit overkill, but such things as an obscene amount of almost-unnecessary paperwork could be added in to discourage their use...

If you say gay couples should be able to get married and have that right why should they be excluded from adopting (in the case of males) or using sperm banks in the case of females. They actually already have the right to do that though it's often more difficulty for them. Are you proposing to strip them of that right when they get married?

I never said they should be excluded from adoption rights. They can adopt all they want, although I believe the child should have at least some say in it, as well. As for sperm banks, I have changed my opinion slightly... I believe it should still be allowed, but that they should throw in what I wrote above.

[kryyst]

Being gay is in no way harmful to the person in question or the people around them. If two gay people hook up, that's great, there's no risk to them or anyone else. The only reason the laws have not already been changed to allow gay marriage is due simply to the fact that a lot of people are squeamish and don't like to think about two people of the same sex going at it.

Harm is not always the issue when it comes to making laws. The gay marriage thing is completely based on religious fundementalists who the politicians don't want to piss off. It's about money and the ability to stay in power. It has nothing to do for the good of the people. If it was about making life better and protecting people smoking would have been made illegal years ago.



It's not irrelevant, and I didn't contradict my own argument. A lot of otherwise gay people have married into a normal family and mothered / fathered children because it was what society demanded of them. Had they been married to a gay partner, the odds of them having children would be a LOT less. As for the sperm banks, I agree a ban does seem a bit overkill, but such things as an obscene amount of almost-unnecessary paperwork could be added in to discourage their use...

To what purpose would discouraging their use be? You can make them more expensive as a prohibitor but that will only cause people to go to other means and really only effect a small percentage of the population. If you want to help population control you can educate people thats the first step. You can also make contraceptives more easily obtained and less of a stigma to buy. You could also make it necessary to apply for a liscence to legal have children , proving that you a) financially can support a child and b) have taken a parenting course and are mentally/psychologically capable of caring for a child.

There is a whole avenue of things beyond making sperm banks hard to use that would be needed to do to help population control. So to relate gay marriage and population control together is quite pointless.



I never said they should be excluded from adoption rights. They can adopt all they want, although I believe the child should have at least some say in it, as well.

So the catch is here no babies could actually be adopted as they are incapable of having a say in the matter. That is the point of the adoption agency to determin if the parents (gay or straight) are capable of caring for the child. Generally the concensus more often then not is that gay parents are not capable (that is changing though and is no longer a legal excllusion). Now if you are adopting an older child from foster care or whatever then I agree to a point that they should have a say in the process regardless of the parent(s) trying to take them in. Plus generally I believe in most foster situations the child does get to meet the adopting parents and does get to at least voice his/her opinion on it. Which is then taken into consideration by the review board before the adoption is put through.