Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-08 at 15:17:08
Funny you never quoted anything I said.
Anyways, Black-Death- saying that kerry never supported the war is wrong, he supported the war in the beginning, but as always, when it started turning sour to the public, he changed his mind..
What a surprise!
Both candidates do have their faults, but I'm willing to debate until my fingers are decayed all the way to the bone that President Bush has to re-win.
edit: I did some research and Kerry still does support the war.
source:http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257678&nav=3YeXQZ5H
Anyways, Black-Death- saying that kerry never supported the war is wrong, he supported the war in the beginning, but as always, when it started turning sour to the public, he changed his mind..
What a surprise!
Both candidates do have their faults, but I'm willing to debate until my fingers are decayed all the way to the bone that President Bush has to re-win.
edit: I did some research and Kerry still does support the war.
QUOTE
Kerry supports the war in Iraq, but wants to handle things differently. Foley says he won't be able to because he wants to spend too much money on healthcare and other social programs.
source:http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=2257678&nav=3YeXQZ5H
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-09-08 at 18:07:59
QUOTE
...nearly 60 percent of the money Bush received was in $1,000 donations, the maximum allowed then. He received 59,279 $1,000 donations, or $59.3 million of his $101 million total...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0714-05.htm
QUOTE
Bush's campaign into the most powerful fundraising machine in US history. They are dubbed Pioneers (for rustling up $100,000) and Rangers (getting $200,000)...Rangers able to generate another $250,000...Since 1998, Bush has raised at least $296 million (£175m) in campaign contributions
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1222706,00.html
as a note: I never said each time they die, he gets money. I said each time someone dies, he could use it because people will get mad and help him get what he wants, in this case, money via fundraisers.
-------------------
Kerry probably lies but if you're going to use that against me because Bush doesn't lie (LOL), then thats the worst arguement I've ever heard.
QUOTE
One sees buttons that read, "At least Clinton's lies didn't kill anyone." Harsh words. Yet the Iraq war is the result of deceptions in which the president and his administration have indulged and indeed continue to indulge. Planned before the attack on the World Trade Center, it is not part of the so-called war on terror. Iraq was not involved in the attack and was not seriously linked with al-Qaida. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There is little hope of a peaceful and democratic Iraq. The Iraqis hate us (as the Gallup Polls there indicate). There will not be a shift of the balance of power in the Middle East. The ouster of Saddam Hussein might cost eventually thousands of American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
Some defenders of the president argue that he did not deliberately deceive the American people. Yet he and the vice president and the neo-con intellectuals continue to repeat the falsehoods, modifying them ever so slightly so they will enjoy some superficial plausibility: We may still find the weapons of mass destruction, there were some "connections" between Iraq and al-Qaida.
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, some people will believe you. Never admit your mistakes, never assume responsibility for the consequences of these mistakes. Keep repeating the same old deceptions - often with a show of anger - and enough people will believe you to re-elect you. The war proves that you are a strong leader, a man who can make the tough decisions, a man not greatly concerned about "sensitivity."
If ever there were high crimes and misdemeanors, the lies about the war in Iraq fit that category. We are an odd people. We impeach a president because he lied about his private sex life, which killed no one and harmed no one beyond his family. Yet we support and may well re-elect a "strong" president whose lies are responsible for so many flag-draped caskets, so many poignant obituaries, and so much grief. How many women are sobbing in church these days because of Bush's lies?
[Chicago Sun-Times, 8/27/04]
Some defenders of the president argue that he did not deliberately deceive the American people. Yet he and the vice president and the neo-con intellectuals continue to repeat the falsehoods, modifying them ever so slightly so they will enjoy some superficial plausibility: We may still find the weapons of mass destruction, there were some "connections" between Iraq and al-Qaida.
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, some people will believe you. Never admit your mistakes, never assume responsibility for the consequences of these mistakes. Keep repeating the same old deceptions - often with a show of anger - and enough people will believe you to re-elect you. The war proves that you are a strong leader, a man who can make the tough decisions, a man not greatly concerned about "sensitivity."
If ever there were high crimes and misdemeanors, the lies about the war in Iraq fit that category. We are an odd people. We impeach a president because he lied about his private sex life, which killed no one and harmed no one beyond his family. Yet we support and may well re-elect a "strong" president whose lies are responsible for so many flag-draped caskets, so many poignant obituaries, and so much grief. How many women are sobbing in church these days because of Bush's lies?
[Chicago Sun-Times, 8/27/04]
http://bush-lies.blogspot.com/
Searched URLs:
http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00061.htm
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democr...aughtonfilm.htm
I don't misread things. I also try to see everything from EVERYONEs view. Republic, Democratic, Iraqi, everyone. Want to know how much I support Bush from all the views put together? None.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-09-08 at 20:03:18
QUOTE
Besides the fact that he killed millions of his own people...and he wouldn't let inspectors into his country. We didn't let our anger out on him, he was just another bad guy that needed to be taken out.
Since when was the US the cops of the world that invaded countries we think were bad? Sounds like we're the cruel ones. Keep in mind Iraq:
1. Never killed an American citizen
2. Never attacked America
3. Never threatened to attack America
Report, edit, etc...Posted by -black-death- on 2004-09-08 at 21:52:31
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Sep 8 2004, 07:03 PM)
Since when was the US the cops of the world that invaded countries we think were bad? Sounds like we're the cruel ones. Keep in mind Iraq:
1. Never killed an American citizen
2. Never attacked America
3. Never threatened to attack America
[right][snapback]69063[/snapback][/right]
1. Never killed an American citizen
2. Never attacked America
3. Never threatened to attack America
[right][snapback]69063[/snapback][/right]
Exactly. We had no business starting this war.
QUOTE(@:@ @ Sep 8 2004, 02:17 PM)
Funny you never quoted anything I said.
Anyways, Black-Death- saying that kerry never supported the war is wrong, he supported the war in the beginning, but as always, when it started turning sour to the public, he changed his mind..
Anyways, Black-Death- saying that kerry never supported the war is wrong, he supported the war in the beginning, but as always, when it started turning sour to the public, he changed his mind..
Where did I say that Kerry never supported the war?
All I said was that Kerry supported the war that Bush made it out to be, but it turned out to be something completely different. It turned out to be a lie. Kerry doesn't support the lie it has become, but I'm sure he'd still support the war if everything Bush had said prior to the war was true.
I probably would have quoted you too, but I had plenty of quotes and the bell to go to 4th period rung while I was working on that post
.b.d
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-09-08 at 21:55:45
QUOTE
All I said was that Kerry supported the war that Bush made it out to be, but it turned out to be something completely different. It turned out to be a lie. Kerry doesn't support the lie it has become, but I'm sure he'd still support the war if everything Bush had said prior to the war was true.
i didn't support it before, but that was only because it was obvious Bush was lying and I wasn't afrais of his stupud terror alerts.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-08 at 22:29:30
One of the reasons that America attacked Iraq is because they were harboring terorists and they had the possibility of owning nuclear missiles.
If people are crazy enough to fly planes into buildings, whats to stop them from setting off a nuclear bomb in the middle of Los Vegas?
Of course, like I said, all politicians bend the truth... they have to, but Kerry switches sides all the time.
Anyways, the fundraising that President Bush does is not from soldiers dying, and he never sees that money anyways, its for the republican party to help him campaign across America...(That requires money you know)
If people are crazy enough to fly planes into buildings, whats to stop them from setting off a nuclear bomb in the middle of Los Vegas?
QUOTE
Kerry probably lies but if you're going to use that against me because Bush doesn't lie (LOL), then thats the worst arguement I've ever heard.
Of course, like I said, all politicians bend the truth... they have to, but Kerry switches sides all the time.
Anyways, the fundraising that President Bush does is not from soldiers dying, and he never sees that money anyways, its for the republican party to help him campaign across America...(That requires money you know)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by .matrix//Merovingian on 2004-09-08 at 22:43:11
QUOTE(@:@ @ Sep 8 2004, 07:29 PM)
One of the reasons that America attacked Iraq is because they were harboring terorists and they had the possibility of owning nuclear missiles.
[right][snapback]69181[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]69181[/snapback][/right]
You said, "The POSSIBILITY of owning nuclear missiles." You can't just attack a country just because it has the POSSIBILITY of owning nukes. With that as a justification, we would have declared war with just about every other nation in the world that doesn't have nukes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-08 at 22:46:25
Well, better safe than sorry... We obviously paused on the clues of the fact that there was a possibilty some arabs were plannig something by taking flying lessons...
American is one of the most powerful countries in the world, if we feel threatened then we can do something about it.
American is one of the most powerful countries in the world, if we feel threatened then we can do something about it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-09-08 at 22:50:03
QUOTE(@:@ @ Sep 8 2004, 09:29 PM)
One of the reasons that America attacked Iraq is because they were harboring terorists and they had the possibility of owning nuclear missiles.
If people are crazy enough to fly planes into buildings, whats to stop them from setting off a nuclear bomb in the middle of Los Vegas?
Of course, like I said, all politicians bend the truth... they have to, but Kerry switches sides all the time.
Anyways, the fundraising that President Bush does is not from soldiers dying, and he never sees that money anyways, its for the republican party to help him campaign across America...(That requires money you know)
[right][snapback]69181[/snapback][/right]
If people are crazy enough to fly planes into buildings, whats to stop them from setting off a nuclear bomb in the middle of Los Vegas?
Of course, like I said, all politicians bend the truth... they have to, but Kerry switches sides all the time.
Anyways, the fundraising that President Bush does is not from soldiers dying, and he never sees that money anyways, its for the republican party to help him campaign across America...(That requires money you know)
[right][snapback]69181[/snapback][/right]
there is ZERO proof who did it. flying plane terriosts has nothing to do with iraq.
there were no WMD ever found
Bush doesn't bend the truth, he lies in a way so that we think it's the truth because it sounds right. example: *pretend we just got attacked like on 9/11* "We're going to war because they hit us.." that sounds right, but there is NOTHING supporting it. NOTHING.
the fundraisers were indeed for that but look at it like this: Bush has always gone to those fundraisers and asked people to donate and help the people of Irag (pfft). how many funerals has he gone to for those soldiers who gave their lives for a greedy mad man? NONE. zero. nothing.
Bush doens't care about the War. Bush doens't care about WMD. Bush cares about money. Bush cares about himself. Bush cares about Oil for ONLY him.
EDIT:
QUOTE
Well, better safe than sorry... We obviously paused on the clues of the fact that there was a possibilty some arabs were plannig something by taking flying lessons...
American is one of the most powerful countries in the world, if we feel threatened then we can do something about it.
American is one of the most powerful countries in the world, if we feel threatened then we can do something about it.
better safe than sorry? there is no such thing on earth. according to our laws, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. by those laws, THEY WERE INNOCENT, we have no proof of anything. arabs taking flying lessons OMG THEY KNOW HOW TO FLY A PLANE. THEY MUST BE ATTACKING US!~ seriously, just because a "lesser" country knows how to do something advanced is no reason to be so paranoid.
Being the a powerful country, and using the power for your own greed is the same thing is monarchy. I thought we all learned that it failed in history class right? yes! thank you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-09 at 00:02:00
LOL, cheeze its called the FBI and they investigate, one of the things they investigate is terrorist cells..
By saying that President Bush is only going for war for OIL and money... which he never sees anyways
IS A
LOAD FULL OF SPECULATION, THERE IS NOT ONE FACT IN IT.
If I recall, the american economy profits from oil not Bush, and since we spent so much money to get that country back on its feet, then we kind of deserve it...
and its not like we are taking a lot..
By saying that President Bush is only going for war for OIL and money... which he never sees anyways
IS A
LOAD FULL OF SPECULATION, THERE IS NOT ONE FACT IN IT.If I recall, the american economy profits from oil not Bush, and since we spent so much money to get that country back on its feet, then we kind of deserve it...
and its not like we are taking a lot..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-09-09 at 00:58:25
QUOTE
One of the reasons that America attacked Iraq is because they were harboring terorists and they had the possibility of owning nuclear missiles.
If people are crazy enough to fly planes into buildings, whats to stop them from setting off a nuclear bomb in the middle of Los Vegas?
If people are crazy enough to fly planes into buildings, whats to stop them from setting off a nuclear bomb in the middle of Los Vegas?
Yea so? And if Sddam had Nuclear weapons he would never use them on us. He isn't so stupid he doesn't know that the instant he tried to nuke us 5 or 6 ICBMs would be headed striaght for Iraq. Not to mention there never were and Bombs, nor was Iraq ever a threat to the US. And if we went into Iraq just because of the terrorists, why did we send in 115,000 troops but only 20,000 into Afghansitan?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-09-09 at 08:05:17
QUOTE(@:@ @ Sep 8 2004, 11:02 PM)
LOL, cheeze its called the FBI and they investigate, one of the things they investigate is terrorist cells..
By saying that President Bush is only going for war for OIL and money... which he never sees anyways
IS A LOAD FULL OF SPECULATION, THERE IS NOT ONE FACT IN IT.
If I recall, the american economy profits from oil not Bush, and since we spent so much money to get that country back on its feet, then we kind of deserve it...
[right][snapback]69242[/snapback][/right]
By saying that President Bush is only going for war for OIL and money... which he never sees anyways
IS A
LOAD FULL OF SPECULATION, THERE IS NOT ONE FACT IN IT.If I recall, the american economy profits from oil not Bush, and since we spent so much money to get that country back on its feet, then we kind of deserve it...
[right][snapback]69242[/snapback][/right]
completely untrue, the oil is in another country. we don't deserve something just because WE destroyed our economy and are trying to get back up.
FBI may investigate that stuff, but what Bush read for us to go to war was oudated, rumors from I think the CIA. seriously, would you be happy if you owned a poor country with lots of oil to gain (to get rich), then some ALREADY rich country came and took it? of course not. you know what this is called? monarchy, I already stated it. The rich take the poor so the rich wil always be rich and the poor will always be poor. We're all humans, we should all get a chance to do what our minds allow us to do. there are plenty of smart people in Iraq, do they get a chance to go to college, get a degree and earn a lot of money? nope.
QUOTE
and its not like we are taking a lot..
wtf, so what? its' still someone elses. what if someone 200 dollars from your bankaccount, it's not a lot by the totals, but whould you be happy? if you dont' care, then send me 200 dollars.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-09-09 at 10:19:39
Not to mention the Saudis that left the country when us Americans were grounded and stuck in airports. And all the Sauidi investors in the Bush oil companies.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by -black-death- on 2004-09-09 at 12:32:49
I've been trying to respond to posts in this thread since my last post and it says 'server error' every time.
Maybe it will work at school, and it might let me edit it when I get home.
So if your a mod looking at this pointless post, just know that there is a reason for it
.
(BTW it won't post in IE or Moz at home. I'd post the complete error, but I can't remember what it says exactly. It says 'Internal Server Error' and then a bunch of other stuff. It isn't a PHP error btw.)
But, yeah, I have a whole long post typed up at home.
b.d
Maybe it will work at school, and it might let me edit it when I get home.
So if your a mod looking at this pointless post, just know that there is a reason for it
.(BTW it won't post in IE or Moz at home. I'd post the complete error, but I can't remember what it says exactly. It says 'Internal Server Error' and then a bunch of other stuff. It isn't a PHP error btw.)
But, yeah, I have a whole long post typed up at home.
b.d
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-09 at 12:54:13
QUOTE
And if we went into Iraq just because of the terrorists, why did we send in 115,000 troops but only 20,000 into Afghansitan?
Why use excessive force, that risks more lives. Obvioulsy IRAQ was more powerful.
Cheeze, the economy wasn't ruined by Bush, (and the economy isn't ruined, even at its lowest point, it still one of the highest in the world) he has no control over the economy, The real test of the strength of the economy is how much unemployment there is, I read somewhere that unemployment is around 3% and the average is around 1.5%. our economy is not bad, it just wobbled when americans stopped investing their money for a little bit, which made everything wobble.
anothing thing, we arent taking their oil to get rich, just to help pay for the war effort.
if saddam had just let the inspectors into his country then he would still be dictator. and the war wouldnt of taken place.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Nozomu on 2004-09-09 at 13:33:34
QUOTE(Swap)
if saddam had just let the inspectors into his country then he would still be dictator. and the war wouldnt of taken place.
If Bush had never given the order to attack, the war would have never taken place.
I'm sorry if my lack of caring about human life pisses you off, but it's true. I care about the soldiers because they were people with families who loved them and had devoted at least 18 years worth of resources into their upbringing. Abortion is a whole different story. Fetuses don't have a personality and no resources have gone into their upbringing.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-09 at 15:18:37
Well, I'm sorry for them that they signed up for the army, this is democracy and they made a choice.
It was a world decision anyways, more of the world thought IRAQ as a threat then those that didn't.
It was a world decision anyways, more of the world thought IRAQ as a threat then those that didn't.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-09-09 at 15:53:29
QUOTE
Why use excessive force, that risks more lives.
If Bush care about lives, why go into Iraq at all. It isn't a threat to the US at all.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-09-09 at 16:12:01
QUOTE(@:@ @ Sep 9 2004, 02:18 PM)
It was a world decision anyways, more of the world thought IRAQ as a threat then those that didn't.
[right][snapback]69443[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]69443[/snapback][/right]
give me the source for this
the economy wasn't ruined by bush directly. it was ruined when he spent all his money going into war instead of using it to produce new jobs, give more money to education, etc.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2004-09-09 at 16:24:35
Hee hee, I want Kerry to win because his IQ is over 100. Other than that he's not a lying biatch that got out of his duty to serve his country (stupid Bush air force nasty idiot). And the "gunboat" adds or whatever can go to Hell. Kerry should be applauded for even driving the boat in Vietnam, but some old geezer says he didn't risk his life and another says he shot himself. The first is wrong, as he was in Vietnam in the first place and the second is just plain stupid. Like Kerry shot himself for a freaking medal... No, I got it. It's a conspiracy so more people will vote for Kerry! J/k. I think this whole debate is stupid. What has Bush done for the United States? I'll list a few: Lost countless jobs everywhere, put our country in a freaking huge debt by sending us off on at least one pointless and costly war (Afghanistan was bad enough, but Iraq was just plain idiotic), enabled the No Child Left Behind stuff, which is a load of bull$hit as far as I'm concerned, and to top it off, did NOT pick another running mate (Dlck Cheney you douche bag). Bush's arguement against Kerry? Some old geezer claims he didn't risk his life. Really, next Bush will be asking for an unlimited re-election possibility for the presidency. And we Americans will probably be dumb enough (if we re-elect him) to oblige him. Bush is stupid, Cheney is stupid, and the whole freaking White House is stupid. I mean, Cheney went as low as to say we would be attacked if Kerry were elected. Please make the right decision when you people who can vote go to the polls. We don't want to make the same mistake again do we?
*Edit* I skipped all of your posts because I have my own thoughts about this subject, thus I've probably heard what you've all said before and I don't really feel like listening to it again.
*Edit* I skipped all of your posts because I have my own thoughts about this subject, thus I've probably heard what you've all said before and I don't really feel like listening to it again.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2004-09-09 at 18:40:00
i heard bush is ahead in the polls? is that true?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by .matrix//Merovingian on 2004-09-09 at 19:30:17
QUOTE(devilesk @ Sep 9 2004, 03:40 PM)
i heard bush is ahead in the polls? is that true?
[right][snapback]69550[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]69550[/snapback][/right]
I'm sad to day this, devilesk, but it's true. At least that's what those numbers are telling me. Probably manipulated by the Republicans or something...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2004-09-09 at 19:32:30
the only republican i like is arnold. i liked his speech in the convention
for me it seems like the RNC was more publicized than the democratic one :\
watching it almost made me understand what bush was saying
for me it seems like the RNC was more publicized than the democratic one :\
watching it almost made me understand what bush was saying
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2004-09-09 at 19:35:09
QUOTE
i heard bush is ahead in the polls? is that true?
Yea but it's only 5% so it's not too bad.
QUOTE
the only republican i like is arnold. i liked his speech in the convention
Arnold isn't a jack
Repcublican. He's a moderate. Of course we like him. Dun forget hes married to a Kennedy.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2004-09-09 at 19:41:14
I heard the CNN polls showed 48% Bush - 47% Kerry.