A letter from Kerry

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:32 pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Talic wrote:It's true Iraq was killing off there peoples by the thousands because the government was corrupt and would always be corrupt if not for American's. The same goes with World War 2. The only difference between these wars is that iraq didn't attack france and france cry for our help (again) after they were defeated in under 1 month. However, the CIA had told president Bush that there were weapons of mass destruction so he acted. We find out later there were none but they had the technology to make some excuse me but everyone seems to blame bush for there not beong any. its not like bush travels over there in disguise and scouts shit out hes the president he HAS to or doesn't HAVE to take peoples words but he choose to take the CIA'S word and attack. We did know they had technology to make them so woudl you have rather of him jsut sat around and went ehh cia told me they have some and the country as a whole knows they can build them but i doubt they have them because there a llittle happy country. Everyone seems to bash BUSH but honestly hes a good president one thing hes doign wrong is we cannot win the iraq war and we took out the regeme we have no responibility to be over there anymore and SHOULD get out. Also septemmber 11th go lok shit up on it everyone and there mom said we will do anything just get revenge and bush did on taliban or whatever and there was also information that iraq was supporting them shrug why not hit 2 birds with one stone.
_________________
The Living Necroplasm
~Talic~


So funny.


That guy was kinda right. Yeah, we shouldn't blame Bush for a war he waged on bad intel, but I sure as hell can blame him for being a stubborn idiot. He has yet to give a solid statement that he made a mistake. He will not budge from a plan that has failed and will continue to fail. Also, have you seen any of that "intel"? I was reading "Time" magazine the other day and I saw some of this "intelligence". It was from some odd officer in Sadam's army that had said something along the lines of, 'From his current mood, I think he may want these weapons in the future.' This and a lot of other very speculative BS. It wasn't intel, it was a big guessing game. We also blame him for finding every reason under the sun to attack Iraq when there really was no iminent threat...none. He was never in cahoots with Al-Queda. The only WMD they found, or lack there of, where parts he had destroyed that he got form us. He had aluminum tubes...fucking tubes people. These have many many many more uses than enriching uranium...urianium he didn't have. Also, he had the technology to build them? Again, he had fucking tubes. I have aluminum tubes. Are you going to come kill my family and 11k+ of the surrounding citizens because of those tubes?

I don't get it. Bush and his administration and marketing team can call Kerry a 'flip-flopper' when that's all Bush did during the initial war-time. First it was that Sadam was working with Bin Laden. Then it was because he had WMD. Then it was because we are a peace loving nation with one of the highest crime rates, the most WMD, and agressive tendancies, and we then go blow up half of their capital city while only targeting a relatively small amount of people. Yeah, we sure love peace here, don't we. So, now what is his stance on all of this?

Of course, if Bush is going to be let off the hook because of speculative 'intel', can we speculate as well that he went to war with Iraq because of oil and a personal vendetta? Especially when the latter are from a much better source of information.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:07 am

Kifle wrote:The only thing I could add to Sarvis' reply to Dlur is this:

If you dislike NAFTA, why did you vote for Bush? In his term, has he ever once tried to do anything about this? Sure, Clinton signed it in, but I have yet to see the republicans try to take it away. Double standards just don't work, man. If you're gonna hate the liberals for one thing, you better make damn sure the republicans aren't doing the same thing...especially if you are going to claim that your vote was based on an educated decision and solid information.


I didn't vote for Bush. Never once did I say I voted for Bush. I didn't vote for Kerry either. I voted for Badnarik(Libertarian party). All I'm saying is if Badnarik wasn't on the ballot I would have either voted for Bush or left that ballot item blank, hard for me to say which. All I'm saying is that I'm glad that Kerry didn't win, and that I'd rather have 4 more years of Bush than 4 years of Kerry. I'd be even happier if neither of them won and we had someone like Badnarik in, or if it has to be someone from the "two party" system I'd rather have McCain as he tends towards being more centrist.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv
*~~~~~~~~~~*
"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:21 am

Kifle wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:You know, I'm not christian?


Then you shouldn't have voted, you aren't a citizen according to Bush I:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. " - George H. W. Bush


I doubt the apple has fallen too far from the tree on this one...


You know, I'm not an atheist.



You think it makes a difference to Bush?


Your point being?


Teflor, just stop posting man. You have an absolute inability to grasp even the simplest logic. I disagree with the Bush supporters in here, but they actually make sense when they post. You're an idiot. Go back to playing a useless ranger and stop trying to play with the big boys. You're making yourself look even worse here than you are on the mud...which is almost impossible.


Kifle, you are just an awful, awful, awful person. For your sake I hope you are nothing like this in real life. I said nothing poorly about you but you decided to drag the insults several posts ago, and now this,

well, bring it on.

Furthermore, this is a conversation between Sarvis and I. He says that my vote shouldn't count in Bush I's eyes because I'm an atheiest, where upon I merely replied that I wasn't an athiest, to which he asked if Bush II cared.

What he is saying is that George Bush doesn't care what religion I am.

Which would go to validate my assertion that he's not trying to oppress anyone or force the country to be christian.

I hope I've explained that as to your satisfaction for understanding.

Also, I've obviously oppressed you into silence huh.

Sarvis was cool, I'd be happy to have him as an American. You? Hurry up and go to Canada. Good Riddance.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:45 am, edited 6 times in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:22 am

Gurns wrote:Since I'd put Bush's performance in his first term in the bottom 5% of U.S. presidents, that'd be you.


You think I'm a US president?
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:25 am

Kifle wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Talic wrote:It's true Iraq was killing off there peoples by the thousands because the government was corrupt and would always be corrupt if not for American's. The same goes with World War 2. The only difference between these wars is that iraq didn't attack france and france cry for our help (again) after they were defeated in under 1 month. However, the CIA had told president Bush that there were weapons of mass destruction so he acted. We find out later there were none but they had the technology to make some excuse me but everyone seems to blame bush for there not beong any. its not like bush travels over there in disguise and scouts shit out hes the president he HAS to or doesn't HAVE to take peoples words but he choose to take the CIA'S word and attack. We did know they had technology to make them so woudl you have rather of him jsut sat around and went ehh cia told me they have some and the country as a whole knows they can build them but i doubt they have them because there a llittle happy country. Everyone seems to bash BUSH but honestly hes a good president one thing hes doign wrong is we cannot win the iraq war and we took out the regeme we have no responibility to be over there anymore and SHOULD get out. Also septemmber 11th go lok shit up on it everyone and there mom said we will do anything just get revenge and bush did on taliban or whatever and there was also information that iraq was supporting them shrug why not hit 2 birds with one stone.
_________________
The Living Necroplasm
~Talic~


So funny.


That guy was kinda right. Yeah, we shouldn't blame Bush for a war he waged on bad intel, but I sure as hell can blame him for being a stubborn idiot. He has yet to give a solid statement that he made a mistake. He will not budge from a plan that has failed and will continue to fail. Also, have you seen any of that "intel"? I was reading "Time" magazine the other day and I saw some of this "intelligence". It was from some odd officer in Sadam's army that had said something along the lines of, 'From his current mood, I think he may want these weapons in the future.' This and a lot of other very speculative BS. It wasn't intel, it was a big guessing game. We also blame him for finding every reason under the sun to attack Iraq when there really was no iminent threat...none. He was never in cahoots with Al-Queda. The only WMD they found, or lack there of, where parts he had destroyed that he got form us. He had aluminum tubes...fucking tubes people. These have many many many more uses than enriching uranium...urianium he didn't have. Also, he had the technology to build them? Again, he had fucking tubes. I have aluminum tubes. Are you going to come kill my family and 11k+ of the surrounding citizens because of those tubes?

I don't get it. Bush and his administration and marketing team can call Kerry a 'flip-flopper' when that's all Bush did during the initial war-time. First it was that Sadam was working with Bin Laden. Then it was because he had WMD. Then it was because we are a peace loving nation with one of the highest crime rates, the most WMD, and agressive tendancies, and we then go blow up half of their capital city while only targeting a relatively small amount of people. Yeah, we sure love peace here, don't we. So, now what is his stance on all of this?

Of course, if Bush is going to be let off the hook because of speculative 'intel', can we speculate as well that he went to war with Iraq because of oil and a personal vendetta? Especially when the latter are from a much better source of information.


Yup, so we're in Iraq now, regardless of the reasons. We aren't loosing the war despite the popular media's best efforts to make it seem so. We are loosing soldiers and civilians and the Iraqis are loosing people as well. While I mourn the loss of life in any circumstance, you gotta realize it's a war. War is hell. I mean, we could try to get them to fight with Nerf weapons, but I don't think its gonna work.

So the reality of the situation at hand is that we are currently at war. In two separate countries, and that we are loosing troops, albeit at a slow pace. Hell, I think there were more shootings in Detroit so far this year than in Iraq... Anyhow, now that we are in Iraq certain folks think we should drop everything, pull out all troops, and let it wash? I guarentee half of the people that voted for Kerry think that this is the right way to do it, to turn tail and run. I know from the outpouring of spam I get from a few music band mailing lists that this is the position the hollywood retards were pushing...to get Kerry elected so that we could bring the troops home.

Hell, even Kerry isn't dumb enough to just pull troops right away, and his plan even involves sending more troops (albeit probably with less funding considering he and Edwards voted against more body armor and pay for our troops on a technicality, my sister really loves him for that one). By some accounts I read Kerry would have had troops in Iraq even longer than Bush. And Kerry was actually in a war once and despite going home early and becomming a hippy protestor that turned his back on his fellow troops I'm sure he still knows that you can't just pull out of a country once you're this far in.

I actually know quite a few troops that are stationed in Iraq, on their way over to Iraq, or have been to Iraq...my sister being one of them. I know National Guard members, Regular Army, Navy, Air Force, and most of all Marines. I've talked to all of these people, many of them at length, and not a single one of them would want the US to pull out of Iraq now, or anytime within say the next 2 or 3 years. There's not a single one of these men and women that wouldn't rather be at home with their family, but once these guys start a job they want to finish it. Hell, I know one Marine who has volunteered to go back numerous times and was actually pissed when he got sent to Afghanistan instead of Iraq one of the tours. I'll also relay the message that these folks strongly believe in what they are doing in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and they strongly believe that they are helping the common people of Iraq and Afghanistan lead better lives. And they're also rebuilding infrastructure that has been in a constant state of decay over many years while Sadaam was pouring funds into the building of more palaces in addition to the rebuilding they're doing to repair war damage. The Iraqi people are also getting new infrastructure that was never possible before, and one of my buddies is one of the guys that's over there in an army green backhoe every day digging trenches for new sewer and water lines when he's not in a bulldozer building earth embankments around bases.

So anyways, I guess what I'm saying is that if you voted for Kerry on the premise that he would end the war in Iraq and get out troops home soon, I think you were relying on faulty intelligence.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:27 am

Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:28 am

STEP AWAY FROM THE LEDGE!

Ok, just wanted to kid the liberals a bit, but seriously, I just want to say how happy we all should be for the wisdom of our fellow Americans to repudiate the radical left and their communist agenda.

4 more years!
Then Rudy or McCain? Hrm...
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:51 am

Dlur wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Talic wrote:It's true Iraq was killing off there peoples by the thousands because the government was corrupt and would always be corrupt if not for American's. The same goes with World War 2. The only difference between these wars is that iraq didn't attack france and france cry for our help (again) after they were defeated in under 1 month. However, the CIA had told president Bush that there were weapons of mass destruction so he acted. We find out later there were none but they had the technology to make some excuse me but everyone seems to blame bush for there not beong any. its not like bush travels over there in disguise and scouts shit out hes the president he HAS to or doesn't HAVE to take peoples words but he choose to take the CIA'S word and attack. We did know they had technology to make them so woudl you have rather of him jsut sat around and went ehh cia told me they have some and the country as a whole knows they can build them but i doubt they have them because there a llittle happy country. Everyone seems to bash BUSH but honestly hes a good president one thing hes doign wrong is we cannot win the iraq war and we took out the regeme we have no responibility to be over there anymore and SHOULD get out. Also septemmber 11th go lok shit up on it everyone and there mom said we will do anything just get revenge and bush did on taliban or whatever and there was also information that iraq was supporting them shrug why not hit 2 birds with one stone.
_________________
The Living Necroplasm
~Talic~


So funny.


That guy was kinda right. Yeah, we shouldn't blame Bush for a war he waged on bad intel, but I sure as hell can blame him for being a stubborn idiot. He has yet to give a solid statement that he made a mistake. He will not budge from a plan that has failed and will continue to fail. Also, have you seen any of that "intel"? I was reading "Time" magazine the other day and I saw some of this "intelligence". It was from some odd officer in Sadam's army that had said something along the lines of, 'From his current mood, I think he may want these weapons in the future.' This and a lot of other very speculative BS. It wasn't intel, it was a big guessing game. We also blame him for finding every reason under the sun to attack Iraq when there really was no iminent threat...none. He was never in cahoots with Al-Queda. The only WMD they found, or lack there of, where parts he had destroyed that he got form us. He had aluminum tubes...fucking tubes people. These have many many many more uses than enriching uranium...urianium he didn't have. Also, he had the technology to build them? Again, he had fucking tubes. I have aluminum tubes. Are you going to come kill my family and 11k+ of the surrounding citizens because of those tubes?

I don't get it. Bush and his administration and marketing team can call Kerry a 'flip-flopper' when that's all Bush did during the initial war-time. First it was that Sadam was working with Bin Laden. Then it was because he had WMD. Then it was because we are a peace loving nation with one of the highest crime rates, the most WMD, and agressive tendancies, and we then go blow up half of their capital city while only targeting a relatively small amount of people. Yeah, we sure love peace here, don't we. So, now what is his stance on all of this?

Of course, if Bush is going to be let off the hook because of speculative 'intel', can we speculate as well that he went to war with Iraq because of oil and a personal vendetta? Especially when the latter are from a much better source of information.


Yup, so we're in Iraq now, regardless of the reasons. We aren't loosing the war despite the popular media's best efforts to make it seem so. We are loosing soldiers and civilians and the Iraqis are loosing people as well. While I mourn the loss of life in any circumstance, you gotta realize it's a war. War is hell. I mean, we could try to get them to fight with Nerf weapons, but I don't think its gonna work.

So the reality of the situation at hand is that we are currently at war. In two separate countries, and that we are loosing troops, albeit at a slow pace. Hell, I think there were more shootings in Detroit so far this year than in Iraq... Anyhow, now that we are in Iraq certain folks think we should drop everything, pull out all troops, and let it wash? I guarentee half of the people that voted for Kerry think that this is the right way to do it, to turn tail and run. I know from the outpouring of spam I get from a few music band mailing lists that this is the position the hollywood retards were pushing...to get Kerry elected so that we could bring the troops home.

Hell, even Kerry isn't dumb enough to just pull troops right away, and his plan even involves sending more troops (albeit probably with less funding considering he and Edwards voted against more body armor and pay for our troops on a technicality, my sister really loves him for that one). By some accounts I read Kerry would have had troops in Iraq even longer than Bush. And Kerry was actually in a war once and despite going home early and becomming a hippy protestor that turned his back on his fellow troops I'm sure he still knows that you can't just pull out of a country once you're this far in.

I actually know quite a few troops that are stationed in Iraq, on their way over to Iraq, or have been to Iraq...my sister being one of them. I know National Guard members, Regular Army, Navy, Air Force, and most of all Marines. I've talked to all of these people, many of them at length, and not a single one of them would want the US to pull out of Iraq now, or anytime within say the next 2 or 3 years. There's not a single one of these men and women that wouldn't rather be at home with their family, but once these guys start a job they want to finish it. Hell, I know one Marine who has volunteered to go back numerous times and was actually pissed when he got sent to Afghanistan instead of Iraq one of the tours. I'll also relay the message that these folks strongly believe in what they are doing in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and they strongly believe that they are helping the common people of Iraq and Afghanistan lead better lives. And they're also rebuilding infrastructure that has been in a constant state of decay over many years while Sadaam was pouring funds into the building of more palaces in addition to the rebuilding they're doing to repair war damage. The Iraqi people are also getting new infrastructure that was never possible before, and one of my buddies is one of the guys that's over there in an army green backhoe every day digging trenches for new sewer and water lines when he's not in a bulldozer building earth embankments around bases.

So anyways, I guess what I'm saying is that if you voted for Kerry on the premise that he would end the war in Iraq and get out troops home soon, I think you were relying on faulty intelligence.


I actually agree with virtually every thing you said here. It is just bad judgment to pull out the troops at this point. My main concern is that Bush can't admit when he made a mistake, and that could really cost us in the future. Having a man like that in the highest office in the world is just a bad idea. I voted for kerry because he at least has the intelligence to run the country and the ability to handle foriegn countries in a diplomatic manner. I don't like being hated by virtually every country in the world. I also don't like other country's citizen's assuming that we are all little G.W. Bush's. He is a disgrace to the nation and It is just a shame he was re-elected.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:52 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Gurns wrote:Since I'd put Bush's performance in his first term in the bottom 5% of U.S. presidents, that'd be you.


You think I'm a US president?


Like I stated earlier. You have no business in this thread. You don't have the intellect required to comprehend other people's posts and you continuously reply with assinine remarks. Just go away, man.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:55 am

Who cares if the French, Chinese and so on hate Bush or us? Hell, I think that helped Bush to get more votes. We're not France or any other country. Our country prizes our independence from Europe and other places.

Also, whether mistakes were made or not, Bush doesn't have the ability to say that. If you lead something, you can't create doubt in your ability to lead. This is even more important in an election where your opponent would then bash you over the head with this if you admitted you were wrong.

Do you see why Bush could not admit to mistakes if he wanted to?
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:02 am

Imis9 wrote:Who cares if the French, Chinese and so on hate Bush or us? Hell, I think that helped Bush to get more votes. We're not France or any other country. Our country prizes our independence from Europe and other places.

Also, whether mistakes were made or not, Bush doesn't have the ability to say that. If you lead something, you can't create doubt in your ability to lead. This is even more important in an election where your opponent would then bash you over the head with this if you admitted you were wrong.

Do you see why Bush could not admit to mistakes if he wanted to?


I think it matters very much if china, korea, russia, etc... hate us. It causes things like 9/11. But I guess some of us are unable to learn from past mistakes and unnecessary arrogance.

You are right though, Bush couldn't really admit he was wrong because he would have lost the election...well, he wouldn't, because he lost the debates by a rather large margin and still won, so I don't think it would have mattered...if the american public at large had more common sense and more intelligence, yeah, it would have made a huge difference.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:11 am

Well, to be simple, if you think the US was responsible for 9/11 and deserved it, someone like that would be a complete idiot who isn't worth bothering with. But don't worry, most people wanted Bush because they believe he can help protect our country from another 9/11 from happening. Someday the terrorists will hit us again and I guess you can just gleefully tell us we had it coming.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:31 am

Imis9 wrote:Well, to be simple, if you think the US was responsible for 9/11 and deserved it, someone like that would be a complete idiot who isn't worth bothering with. But don't worry, most people wanted Bush because they believe he can help protect our country from another 9/11 from happening. Someday the terrorists will hit us again and I guess you can just gleefully tell us we had it coming.


Did I say we deserved it? No. I said it is all but expected. Just as I expect you guys to retort to my opinions. If you don't believe that if you act arrogant all of the time and do what you want, and you wont get attacked in some way for it, good luck. That's not how the world works. If we keep doing what we're doing and acting as we are acting, I think it is inevitable that we get targeted by large scale terrorist attacks. If you think otherwise, I have some visine in my car that you can borrow if your eyes are a bit blurry.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:38 am

Most of France acts arrogant and they haven't been attacked, meanwhile Spain had the railroad bombings and they weren't being arrogant or pompus at all.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:51 am

Kifle wrote:Like I stated earlier. You have no business in this thread. You don't have the intellect required to comprehend other people's posts and you continuously reply with assinine remarks. Just go away, man.


Example of an asinine remark.

Interestingtly enough, also an example of someone who doesn't have the intellect to understand other people's posts.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:12 am

You idiots will never understand, will you?

I commend you on your stupidity.

Just stop posting man.

You have an absolute inability to grasp even the simplest logic.

They actually make sense when they post.

Go back to playing a useless ranger and stop trying to play with the big boys.

You have no business in this thread.

You don't have the intellect required to comprehend other people's posts and you continuously reply with assinine remarks.

The American people are not concerened about the education of their children.

The American people are willing to give up their freedoms for a false sense of security.

The American people are more than happy to get pissed on ("trickle down" economics).

Yeah, I guess idiots turned out in record numbers this year to give us four more years of 1984.

Why don't they get an education instead of drinking moonshine and humping their cousins?

The average American is poorly educated and cares little about other people.

Whatever the case, it's a very immature cry for help, and it shows only a lack of thinking on his part that he actually lets himself have these rediculously retarded outbursts twice or so a week.

I have some visine in my car that you can borrow if your eyes are a bit blurry.



Kifle: Wrong man, Wrong time, Wrong message.

I think it's apparant, that Kifle, like other people in this country, have no respect for their fellow countrymen or for America. They bitterly attack those they do not understand and care little to consider why things are said in the manner in which they are said. They also believe they have the right to shout above other people, demean, and insult them because they feel threatened.

If you want to talk about the arrogence of a nation, I suggest strongly that you take a deep look at the attitude you hold yourself.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:18 am

Terrorists attack us because we are free. They want to control us and thrust their lifestyle on us. Timothy McVeigh or Radical Islamists, it is all the same, they hate America because of who we are not as a result of something we did. Stop sympathizing with pyschopaths! They are wrong and we are right.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:25 am

Imis9 wrote:Terrorists attack us because we are free. They want to control us and thrust their lifestyle on us. Timothy McVeigh or Radical Islamists, it is all the same, they hate America because of who we are not as a result of something we did. Stop sympathizing with pyschopaths! They are wrong and we are right.


Again, not sympathizing. Just telling you how the world is man. That's it. Anyway, radical islamists don't hate us because of our shrinking list of freedoms, they hate us because of things like palestine, our bullying, and our hypocricy. Don't believe everything the bush administration tells you...
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:29 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Yet you still keep talking. Shut the hell up already. No one cares.

I am dissenting from what your idea of what free speech is.

Freedom of speech protects criticism of speech.

For that matter, criticism of the freedom of speech.

You are the one oppressing me by telling me that I can't tell you to shut the hell up.

So, in conclusion, shut the hell up.

Hey, I'm free to say that.


Good thing you're being a hypocrite, right? Right. But I guess your idea of respect for a fellow countryman is telling them to shut up, right? Exactly. Again, stop posting...you are an idiot. To quote teflor, "Hey, I'm free to say that."
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:32 am

Man Kifle, you call other people idiots pretty easily. I guess your answer is abandon our allies, Israel, in the Middle East. Don't try to spread freedom in the Middle East like we did against the Soviet Bloc. Hell, you would've been against fighting Germany in WW2 with that logic since Germany never attacked the US.

In terms of hypocricy, I have news for you. Everyone is a hypocrit because no one is perfect. Just look at your treatment of Teflor for proof of hypocrisy. Don't expect more of others that you can't do yourself.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:35 am

Kifle wrote:Again, not sympathizing. Just telling you how the world is man. That's it. Anyway, radical islamists don't hate us because of our shrinking list of freedoms, they hate us because of things like palestine, our bullying, and our hypocricy. Don't believe everything the bush administration tells you...


Terrorists have attacked every single nation in the world for a wide range of reasons, some of which were not true. It is the blatant disreguard for the sanctity of human life, and the rights of all men that drives terrorism. This is the breed of evil that must be stopped. There is no appeasing those who wish to purposefully commit violent harm to the innocent in order to obtain what they want.

This is not an Issue of Hatred. Even in hatred, those who commit such acts are criminal and have no place in any society of men. One who bombs a busload of children cannot claim hatred and humanity together.
Indeed there is no humanity in the slaughter of people. And terrorism is the hatred of humanity.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigiliance."
President Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:36 am

Kifle wrote:Good thing you're being a hypocrite, right? Right. But I guess your idea of respect for a fellow countryman is telling them to shut up, right? Exactly. Again, stop posting...you are an idiot. To quote teflor, "Hey, I'm free to say that."


I thought you wanted to be a canadian.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:52 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Democrats Are Going To Protect our Rights

Attacked By Mobs
http://www.local6.com/politics/3785861/detail.html

Fists are Apprantly Political Arguements
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 8537492390

When All Else Fails, Start Shooting
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsel ... tack_x.htm

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2 ... -1855r.htm

Bush Supporter is Pro-Grass
http://www.channel3000.com/politics/3776992/detail.html

Forget Watergate. There's a Welcome Mat
http://www.wisgop.org/view.phtml?func=ch&lg=&id=83


Teflor, just stop.

You KNOW, as we've covered this before, that we could match you story for story on Republicans doing that same crap.

Grow up, stop being such a sore winner and realize you've made a very bad choice in President.

Also remember that I am not a Democrat, nor a liberal. I've merely watched what has happened in the last four years and realized we should not let it happen again.

Still you fail to deal with Superfund budget cuts or the Medicaid bill thing. Keep pulling the wool over your own eyes there, because that will obviously make the next four years better for you.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:55 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
Dlur wrote:I strongly believe that the United Nations is a worthless figurehead body that is incapable of solving 90% of the world's problems and that it would rather sit around and discuss things and make resolution after resolution instead of acting. I believe the US should drop out of the UN and kick the UN out of the US.


SOMETHING needs to be mediating disputes between countries. I think your course of action would only anger the UN, which while nascent certainly has the power to act if it wishes... I somehow don't think sanctions on the US would be fun for anybody. But considering the very justifications we gave for war in Iraq could be used against us, we probably don't want to follow your course of action...


You know, the success of the UN in Congo, Somolia, Angola, Kosovo, Korea, Vietnam, Israel, and Iraq?

If the UN were looking for work in the US, it's butt would be unemployeed. Who want's to hire from the bottom 5% anyway?


Yes, Iraq... where because of those sanctions Saddam wasn't able to build those WMD Bush claimed he had.

Funny how they actually WERE succesful, but you choose to ignore that because that would mean Bush is wrong and Bush just <i>can't</i> be wrong because all his actions are a Mandate from the Heavens.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:02 am

Dlur wrote:
Yup, so we're in Iraq now, regardless of the reasons. We aren't loosing the war despite the popular media's best efforts to make it seem so.



Does Rumsfeld count as popular media? Becuase he's the one who said we probably won't be able to hold country-wide elections in January. You think the Iraqis who don't get to vote are going to consider the election valid and just settled down like children? No, it's just going to fuel MORE insurgency as people come to think, valid or not, that the US has decided their government for them.

Hell, even Kerry isn't dumb enough to just pull troops right away, and his plan even involves sending more troops (albeit probably with less funding considering he and Edwards voted against more body armor and pay for our troops on a technicality, my sister really loves him for that one).


Ugh... another victim of Bush propaganda. Kerry tried to get a bill that actually paid for the funding passed, so that we wouldn't be borrowing the cash for that equipment from commie bastards like China. (You guys hate "commies" right?) Yes, he voted against it in protest because he KNEW his vote wouldn't stop the bill.

He spoke his conscience with that vote, knowing it couldn't cause any harm. The very worst that could happen is they'd have to rewrite the bill with taxes to pay for it and THEN pass it. It was NOT a vote to avoid funding our troops, it was a vote to PAY for that funding somehow.

He spoke his conscience, and got labled a flip-flopper for standing up to the republicans.



I gotta head to work... see you guys in the morning.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:08 am

Sarvis wrote:Yes, Iraq... where because of those sanctions Saddam wasn't able to build those WMD Bush claimed he had.

Funny how they actually WERE succesful, but you choose to ignore that because that would mean Bush is wrong and Bush just <i>can't</i> be wrong because all his actions are a Mandate from the Heavens.


They weren't very succesful for the Kurds he slaughtered to keep them from revolting, the marshlands he dried up in the south in order to kill off a miniority religious group that lived there, or for the hundreds of thousands he buried in mass graves.

The United Nations has a charter that defines the basic human rights.

It has been extraordinarily unsuccessful guaranteeing those rights for anyone in the world for more than 50 years.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:10 am

Sarvis wrote:Teflor, just stop.

You KNOW, as we've covered this before, that we could match you story for story on Republicans doing that same crap.

Grow up, stop being such a sore winner and realize you've made a very bad choice in President.

Also remember that I am not a Democrat, nor a liberal. I've merely watched what has happened in the last four years and realized we should not let it happen again.

Still you fail to deal with Superfund budget cuts or the Medicaid bill thing. Keep pulling the wool over your own eyes there, because that will obviously make the next four years better for you.


I'm not bringing up those subjects because they are not that important. I could list subjects I've brought up that you have not answered as well.

If you want to discuss them, pick a topic, write some stuff, then maybe you'll get a response.

FURTHERMORE was this post addressed to you? No. It's just something I came across that was amusing, and I felt it went with the theme everyone keeps telling me about how oppresive the conservatives are.

You would also be much more effective telling me that what i'm saying is moot, if you could present some facts, cite some sources, and make an arguement. The only wool I see is yours, for not presenting any information.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:17 am

Sarvis, let's talk about a couple of the things you mentioned.

First, Superfund. Do you really understand what this monstrous program is? Basically, radical environmentalists claim some perceived damage to the environment with bad or no scientific proof against corporations under this law. To make matters worse, companies have no ability to fight the EPA when it issues a Superfund order. They either have to do what the agency orders or else. If you don't do what they say, you pay triple damages and daily fines. Companies do not get due process with this law. It is pay now and maybe in a few decades we'll listen to what you have to say. This is unfair and un-American. If you want to read a good example of the real story of Superfund read Chapter 18 of Jack Welch's book "Straight from the Gut." Maybe you'll see why Superfund was cut.

Second, sanctions were successful in Iraq? You mean the oil for food program which was abused by Saddam and the UN folks? You mean the secret deals Saddam had with the French, Germans, and Russians?? And, how come the UN doesn't get rid of their higher-ups that sexual harrass and abuse women that work for them??? These are the people that the American people should give our authority to? I think not!
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:25 am

And, how come the UN doesn't get rid of their higher-ups that sexual harrass and abuse women that work for them??? These are the people that the American people should give our authority to? I think not![/quote]


I have thought for the last several years that the United States needs to stop hosting the UN. Let them find another country to sponge off of.

As for the rest? Its getting vicious. I'm sweeping up body parts, and this is only supposed to be a discussion.

Would you please keep it to the facts and knock-off the name calling and personal attacks?

I appreciate it.

Lilira
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:14 am

Now, now, our hosting of the UN is a show of our dedication to the creation of a world body that can handle the disputes of nations and promote the ideals of human rights throughout the world.

Just because they're not quite doing their jobs right now doesn't mean that they aren't trying.
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:48 am

Kifle wrote:I actually agree with virtually every thing you said here. It is just bad judgment to pull out the troops at this point. My main concern is that Bush can't admit when he made a mistake, and that could really cost us in the future. Having a man like that in the highest office in the world is just a bad idea. I voted for kerry because he at least has the intelligence to run the country and the ability to handle foriegn countries in a diplomatic manner. I don't like being hated by virtually every country in the world. I also don't like other country's citizen's assuming that we are all little G.W. Bush's. He is a disgrace to the nation and It is just a shame he was re-elected.


Actually, from a military standpoint it is doctrine that a commanding officer does not admit a mistake. Commanding officers do not make mistakes, just ask any of them. Militarily speaking, making a mistake is a show of weakness, and no commanding officer can afford to have his troops wavering under his/her command. Any soldier that thinks their commanding officer may have made a mistake might hesitate, and soldiers that hesitate die.

And now, of course, you will say "Aha!" and you'd be partly right in doing so, but you must also remember that whether you like the reasons or not, as we discussed earlier we are at war. And the entire population of the US realizes that we are at war. The troops certainly realize this. Now, consider that the president of the United States IS the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Our troops, trained in military doctrine, expect the Commander in Chief to be strong, show no weakness, and certainly make no mistakes. The people of the US(the majority anyways) want a Commander in Chief who is strong, shows no weakness, and makes no mistakes.

War is not a diplomatic matter. War is won through strength, character, commitment, hardship, and pain. War is not won by talking, being diplomatic, or working it out over a couple of pints. While diplomacy is great in times of "peace" it is only a showing of weakness in times of war. Considering the adversaries we now face, whether in Afghanistan, Iraqi insurgents, or other terrorists abroad we can afford to show no weakness, especially since the vast majority of the enemies we fight do not adhere to the "rules" of war, nor do they hail from any specific country where we may come to the table in talks anyways. The adversary we fight is a loosely knight organization with very few ties to any formal country or home, and surely is not any government-sponsored army or fighting force.

Also, I find it hard to believe that the alienation of the US with other countries happened suddenly in the past 4 years of GWB. Our alienation with the world happened as far back as World War I, the first time we stuck our nose in other people's business and was solidified during the post-WWI era when we sponsored an Israeli state and saw the rise of comunism and thusly a build-up of armarments and saw a rise to Super-Power status in the world. Islamic militants have been trying to kill and terrorize Americans for many, many years. Look back 25 years to the Iran hostage crisis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3978523.stm, or remember the US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, the First World Trade Center bombing back in 1993. Hell, even your beloved Bill Clinton got us involved in the Somolian quagmire in Mogadishu and subsequently didn't have the balls to finish the job.

Now then, if the US hadn't risen to super-power status during the WWII era during the subsequent rise of comunism in the world then I would gather that a lot less people in the world would hate the US. Hell, if it weren't for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, with the diplomatic and somewhat isolationist stance we were taking at the time most of the world would be speaking either German or Japanese by now most likely. But, we stepped up to the plate, grabbed our sack of balls and got the job done, and due to the actions we had to take during the aftermath of the most bloody war we've ever fought in order to protect our interests and the interests of our allies we are now despised by the rest of the world. To place that blame souly on the shoulders of George W Bush is not only assinine, but also uneducated.

Nearly every single president since the times of WWII has only succeeded in further alienating some other country or faction in one way or another. And even though some presidents have done great work in repairing ties with one country or another, it only serves to piss off someone else. There is simply no way to make everyone happy, especially since the simple act of making everyone happy will show weakness, and it is that weakness that feeds some of our enemy's hatred of us.

So, you say you voted Kerry because of his intelligence and his diplomacy. You have said that to you and to many of the people that voted for Kerry his plans, doctrines, and ideas were crystal clear and made perfect sense. I say Kerry did a horrible job of conveying his thoughts, ideas, and doctrines to the American people as a whole, for surely if his ideas were so good, and he is so diplomatic in conveying those ideas then surely more people would have voted for him? But, alas, they did not vote for him and 51% of the people and some change voted for who they thought was strong, showed no weakness, had a clear plan, and who they thought would stay the course and finish the job. Hell, this time around more people in the popular vote voted for Bush than back when Regan was first elected and that in and of itself is an absolutely amazing show of support.

Now me personally, I think they're both idiots and that both mainstream political parties, with all their members should have been able to find someone better to put on the ballot other than these two f*#$tards, but hey, what do I know I'm just a Centrist leaning towards libritarian that voted like a retard to "throw my vote away" along with the other less than 1% of the population that voted my way. I'm just trying to make you die-hard Kerry fans understand why he sucks a little bit worse than GWB sucks.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:34 pm

Imis9 wrote:Terrorists attack us because we are free.


Nope.


They want to control us and thrust their lifestyle on us.


You mean like how we are currently thrusting our lifestyle on them?

Timothy McVeigh or Radical Islamists, it is all the same, they hate America because of who we are not as a result of something we did. Stop sympathizing with pyschopaths! They are wrong and we are right.


Yeah, I'm sure no one over there would be angry about us putting Saddam in power...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:12 pm

Teflor

He says that my vote shouldn't count in Bush I's eyes because I'm an atheiest, where upon I merely replied that I wasn't an athiest, to which he asked if Bush II cared.
What he is saying is that George Bush doesn't care what religion I am.


That's not what I meant.

I actually meant "Do you think he cares" in exactly the opposite way. In other words, unless you are Christian you are not likely to matter to him.

Let's try some word replacement to illustrate:

"No, I don't know that Moslems should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. "

"No, I don't know that Buddhists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. "

"No, I don't know that Wiccans should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. "

Sarvis was cool, I'd be happy to have him as an American.


Thanks for the compliment. :)

If I've insulted you at any point I apologize, you do seem generally intelligent and well meaning... except for the whole supporting Bush thing of course. ;)


Imis9:

Well, to be simple, if you think the US was responsible for 9/11 and deserved it, someone like that would be a complete idiot who isn't worth bothering with. But don't worry, most people wanted Bush because they believe he can help protect our country from another 9/11 from happening. Someday the terrorists will hit us again and I guess you can just gleefully tell us we had it coming.


I won't be gleeful.

You also need to watch an episode of the simpsons where Lisa explains specious reasoning to Homer, because you are currently very guilty of it.

teflor

They weren't very succesful for the Kurds he slaughtered to keep them from revolting,


Which was before the sanctions wasn't it?

the marshlands he dried up in the south in order to kill off a miniority religious group that lived there,


Yes, I know. The Marsh Arabs whose civilization had been pretty much unchanged since biblical times. It was the chief reason I supported going to war in Iraq last March.

I just don't like being lied to about it, nor how it has been handled since.

or for the hundreds of thousands he buried in mass graves.


Yes, but he killed them without WMD. The specific point I made was that the sanctions prevented him from making WMD, not that it prevented him from torturing people or commiting genocide.

The United Nations has a charter that defines the basic human rights.
It has been extraordinarily unsuccessful guaranteeing those rights for anyone in the world for more than 50 years.


Yeah, well what are they going to do when the US is propping up the dictators violating all those human rights?

I'm not bringing up those subjects because they are not that important. I could list subjects I've brought up that you have not answered as well.


Bush outright lying isn't important? It's not important to you when the leader of your own country, and your OWN Commander-in-Chief lies blatantly?

Toxic waste in your drinking water isn't important? You LIKE the thought of your children being born with down syndrome and other birth defects?

What exactly IS important to you man!?!

And what issues have I missed?

FURTHERMORE was this post addressed to you? No. It's just something I came across that was amusing, and I felt it went with the theme everyone keeps telling me about how oppresive the conservatives are.


I can't respond to something just because it isn't directed at me?

You would also be much more effective telling me that what i'm saying is moot, if you could present some facts, cite some sources, and make an arguement. The only wool I see is yours, for not presenting any information.


Ok, but didn't we go through this a couple pages ago? I seem to remember posting some links about that kind of stuff when we were talking about the Bush rally.

Ok, guess not... must of been some other person I was arguing with. Here ya go:

http://www.komotv.com/stories/32534.htm
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda ... 561730.htm
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw1 ... 040901.htm
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=25735


Imis9

First, Superfund. Do you really understand what this monstrous program is? Basically, radical environmentalists claim some perceived damage to the environment with bad or no scientific proof against corporations under this law. To make matters worse, companies have no ability to fight the EPA when it issues a Superfund order. They either have to do what the agency orders or else. If you don't do what they say, you pay triple damages and daily fines. Companies do not get due process with this law. It is pay now and maybe in a few decades we'll listen to what you have to say. This is unfair and un-American. If you want to read a good example of the real story of Superfund read Chapter 18 of Jack Welch's book "Straight from the Gut." Maybe you'll see why Superfund was cut.


I never said Superfund didn't have problems, I said cutting the budget for it so much that one quarter of all Americans are being exposed to toxic waste is negligent and dangerous.

He cut the budget in anticipation of funding it by some other means, in fact. Why not find the other means of funding first, so that no one is being harmed?

Second, sanctions were successful in Iraq? You mean the oil for food program which was abused by Saddam and the UN folks? You mean the secret deals Saddam had with the French, Germans, and Russians??


1) <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7053.htm">You forgot Cheney!</a>

2) Yes, thought Saddam was abusing that one program he was unable to build WMD. Had he been able to build them, Bush would have been right.


And, how come the UN doesn't get rid of their higher-ups that sexual harrass and abuse women that work for them??? These are the people that the American people should give our authority to? I think not!


Hey, we voted Clinton in twice... we can hardly hold sexual harrasmant against the UN! ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:16 pm

You know reading that topic I was struck by one odd thing.
1. As your republican president and many millitary officials keep saying you are waging a war in Iraq to "help" iraqi ppl.
2.On this war you spend uhm 1 billion dollars weekly? That is cash from 'hard working people' like Corth
3.Yet you republicans refuse to really help american people that were less fortunate than yourself. Help them at your own backyard.

Inconsequent? or you republican enjoy being stuffed with lies?
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:29 pm

Sarvis wrote:
They weren't very succesful for the Kurds he slaughtered to keep them from revolting,


Which was before the sanctions wasn't it?

the marshlands he dried up in the south in order to kill off a miniority religious group that lived there,


Yes, I know. The Marsh Arabs whose civilization had been pretty much unchanged since biblical times. It was the chief reason I supported going to war in Iraq last March.

I just don't like being lied to about it, nor how it has been handled since.

or for the hundreds of thousands he buried in mass graves.


Yes, but he killed them without WMD. The specific point I made was that the sanctions prevented him from making WMD, not that it prevented him from torturing people or commiting genocide.

The United Nations has a charter that defines the basic human rights.
It has been extraordinarily unsuccessful guaranteeing those rights for anyone in the world for more than 50 years.


Yeah, well what are they going to do when the US is propping up the dictators violating all those human rights?

I'm not bringing up those subjects because they are not that important. I could list subjects I've brought up that you have not answered as well.


Bush outright lying isn't important? It's not important to you when the leader of your own country, and your OWN Commander-in-Chief lies blatantly?

Toxic waste in your drinking water isn't important? You LIKE the thought of your children being born with down syndrome and other birth defects?

What exactly IS important to you man!?!

And what issues have I missed?

FURTHERMORE was this post addressed to you? No. It's just something I came across that was amusing, and I felt it went with the theme everyone keeps telling me about how oppresive the conservatives are.


I can't respond to something just because it isn't directed at me?

You would also be much more effective telling me that what i'm saying is moot, if you could present some facts, cite some sources, and make an arguement. The only wool I see is yours, for not presenting any information.


Ok, but didn't we go through this a couple pages ago? I seem to remember posting some links about that kind of stuff when we were talking about the Bush rally.

Ok, guess not... must of been some other person I was arguing with. Here ya go:

http://www.komotv.com/stories/32534.htm
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda ... 561730.htm
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw1 ... 040901.htm
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=25735


Imis9

First, Superfund. Do you really understand what this monstrous program is? Basically, radical environmentalists claim some perceived damage to the environment with bad or no scientific proof against corporations under this law. To make matters worse, companies have no ability to fight the EPA when it issues a Superfund order. They either have to do what the agency orders or else. If you don't do what they say, you pay triple damages and daily fines. Companies do not get due process with this law. It is pay now and maybe in a few decades we'll listen to what you have to say. This is unfair and un-American. If you want to read a good example of the real story of Superfund read Chapter 18 of Jack Welch's book "Straight from the Gut." Maybe you'll see why Superfund was cut.


I never said Superfund didn't have problems, I said cutting the budget for it so much that one quarter of all Americans are being exposed to toxic waste is negligent and dangerous.

He cut the budget in anticipation of funding it by some other means, in fact. Why not find the other means of funding first, so that no one is being harmed?

Second, sanctions were successful in Iraq? You mean the oil for food program which was abused by Saddam and the UN folks? You mean the secret deals Saddam had with the French, Germans, and Russians??


1) <a href="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7053.htm">You forgot Cheney!</a>

2) Yes, thought Saddam was abusing that one program he was unable to build WMD. Had he been able to build them, Bush would have been right.


And, how come the UN doesn't get rid of their higher-ups that sexual harrass and abuse women that work for them??? These are the people that the American people should give our authority to? I think not!


Hey, we voted Clinton in twice... we can hardly hold sexual harrasmant against the UN! ;)




Ok. I promise you that I will touch superfund, but I need to take the time to go into it, and right now I'm filling out a dissertation on US Tax Code, which if you are interested, I can foot at you when I'm done.

Responding to a limited number of your points:

Kurds were slaughtered both before and after sanctions. When we ended the first gulf war, the kurds rose in rebellion and were promptly squished.

How does killing 300,000 people without using a WMD make any difference? Or are the killers the WMD?

Your response to my musings at democrats protecting our rights was a blatant flame. I mean, even you have to find Kerry supporters shooting up bush-cheney campaign headquarters amusing.

Ok. I'll get into superfund in depth as soon as I can. We can go at it from there ;)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:40 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Ok. I promise you that I will touch superfund, but I need to take the time to go into it, and right now I'm filling out a dissertation on US Tax Code, which if you are interested, I can foot at you when I'm done.


Sure, why not... though my current understanding of the tax code is probably terrible. Never filled out anything more complicated than 1040EZ... heh.

Responding to a limited number of your points:

Kurds were slaughtered both before and after sanctions. When we ended the first gulf war, the kurds rose in rebellion and were promptly squished.


Yes, but I thought we were talking about WMD. After the first Guld War is when Saddam used mustard gas right? But since then the sanctions have kept him from getting more...

Yes, at this point I should admit that my understanding of everything going on in the 80's and early 90's is nearly nonexistant. Like I said, Bush is the first President that got me interested in politics...


How does killing 300,000 people without using a WMD make any difference? Or are the killers the WMD?


IT makes a difference ONLY in that our justification for the war was WMD. Sure, he was still a brutal murderer who needed to be removed, but Bush should have said THAT rather than his WMD mantra...

Your response to my musings at democrats protecting our rights was a blatant flame. I mean, even you have to find Kerry supporters shooting up bush-cheney campaign headquarters amusing.


No it wasn't a flame. The closest it came to flaming you was when I said grow up, which was more a response to your general attitude towards Kifle and the election than that specific post.

And no, I don't find that amusing. I find it sad, but some Republicans have done the same crap, so don't go trying to say Republicans are superior because of something like that.

Ok. I'll get into superfund in depth as soon as I can. We can go at it from there ;)


If you wish, I'm curious as to how you will justify exposing so many Americans to toxic waste.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:44 pm

Actually, I'd have to say that no Kerry campaign offices were shot at.

I would like to point out that WMD was never the sole reason for invading Iraq.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:49 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:Actually, I'd have to say that no Kerry campaign offices were shot at.


Man, I'm tired... don't make me go searching!


I would like to point out that WMD was never the sole reason for invading Iraq.


That's odd, I don't remember hearing anything else before the war from Bush. <i>I</i> was making the case based on humanitarian reasons, and you can check out the thread we had about this last march on that if you must, but not Bush.

I've also made that point many times to Republicans, and none have even tried to disprove it...

But I suppose it's possible I just missed it, and that many Republicans are just too rabid and incoherant to properly dispute my claims...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:09 pm

"The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people."

"No regard for conventions of war or rules of morality."

300,000 in Mass Graves
WMD -used- on his own People, And enemies in Iran.
Pro-Democracy Supporters Jailed and Hands Cut Off
Placing Anti-Aircraft Equipment Next to Children's Playgrounds and Elementary Schools

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. "

"Wars of Aggression"

"Execution of dissidents."

"Torture chambers and rape rooms."

Ultimately, President Bush did give Saddam the option of peace, to leave Iraq. Other nations also offered him sanctuary.

He did not leave.


Your claim has already been disputed by the president. I felt there was no need to go back and repost his speeches.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:21 pm

oteb wrote:You know reading that topic I was struck by one odd thing.
1. As your republican president and many millitary officials keep saying you are waging a war in Iraq to "help" iraqi ppl.
2.On this war you spend uhm 1 billion dollars weekly? That is cash from 'hard working people' like Corth
3.Yet you republicans refuse to really help american people that were less fortunate than yourself. Help them at your own backyard.

Inconsequent? or you republican enjoy being stuffed with lies?


The problem with your logic, Oteb, is that you assume we are in Iraq to help the people there. We aren't. The US is in Iraq to carry out its own security interests. If it were about helping people, we would be spread all throughout Africa by now.

The wonderful thing about the US, Oteb, is that notwithstanding what Sarvis says, there are plenty of opportunities for people to work hard and make something of themselves. While I am not against helping fellow citizens who truly need it, I believe a European style welfare state takes it a bit too far. By taxing people to the point that more than half their salary goes to the government, you destroy the incentive to be productive. I'm sure your government offices are not much different than ours. Slow workers who couldn't give a rats ass about providing good service. Contrast that with private industry, which actually needs to compete with others for valuable customers, and its a world of difference. We like our health care privatized. We don't want our opportunity erroded by people, like Sarvis, looking for handouts. Get off your ass and work. Honestly, I keep hearing boo hoo stories from Sarvis about not being able to find a job. I think hes full of shit. Probably mudding too much to actually get off his ass and find something. Either that or he is just plain incompetent, or needs to give up already on finding something in IT and choose a profession that is in demand.

Contrast the unemployment rates in Europe with that of the US. Or for that matter, historical GNP of European states and the US. We are the richest country in the world, and even our poorest enjoy a decent quality of life relative to those in many socialist countries. Nowhere will you make everyone happy and comfortable. But its a hell of a lot better over here in the land of the free and the home of opportunity, then it is in Europe where innovation and productivity have been missing for a very long time. That is all.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:49 pm

Corth,

We're all very impressed that you were able to start a law business on your own.

If you think I'm full of shit for not being able to find a job in my field, then you need to talk to some other computer programmers. I've worked with some as a security guard, I worked with a tech recruiter at toys 'R us, ANYONE can tell you it is damn hard to find a job in the field these days.

Will I find one eventually? Probably, but the opportunity is less than it was four years ago. If you cannot see this, you are either blind or willfully ignorant.

I'm not looking for handouts, in any way. I've never claimed to be, nor have I ever asked for any. I'm just capable of seeing beyond my own self interest five steps and worrying about the guy down the street who, unlike me, has no skills and nothing special at this point in his life to offer society. Unlike you, I don't want to see him and his family starve to death.

You make the mistake of thinking my arguments are about myself, when I only use myself as an example. I'm a GOOD example too, because I should be capable of achieving so much more than many people I meet yet am bordering on poverty.

Hell, if it wasn't for my complete ineptness with women I might be trying to raise children at this point like some of my friends are. Friends who, for instance, had a job at Intel until a couple years ago and ended up working at a department store before recently getting a tech support job. Probably not unlike the one I thought I had at the beginning of this year, before it got outsourced...

You say to contrast the unemployment rates in Europe with those here? That came up far earlier in this thread, and the rates were not so very different with a couple European countries having a <i>lower</i> rate than we did.

In true lawyer fashion all you have done is proven that you are callous to the plight of everyone around you and too shortsighted to see past your next paycheck. I expect you'll be chasing ambulances soon, creating the problems with healthcare Bush likes to claim he wants to fix...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:06 pm

Not to help Iraqis? Well my english is not perfect but I really do think thats what i heard on CNN Bush and Rumsfeld saying.
OK Corth care to explain how Iraq violated your security interests?
No ABC weapons were found. The rockets that Iraq had could at very best hit southern Italy, if lucky. Means to produce WMD weapon as Bush recently said? I thought it was more like a joke. Since ANY country in the world has means to produce chemical weapons, most have means to produce biolgical weapons. And somehow US doesnt touch with a ten foot pole countries that have atomic weapons. Unless by security interest you mean what this war was really about..oil. But if so why your leader keeps lying over and over again?
As for second paragraph. Yeah US is richest country in the world and? I think its trivial to say money dont give hapiness. If you care to investigate what are happiest nations in the world you might find that top is occupied by (by your standards) socialist states. Iceland Denamrk and Netherlands. IIRC for 2004 US was ranked uhm 13th. Unless you strongly belive that life is not about being happy. Or maybe you dont feel a part of community and only your personal happiness is what counts.
Last edited by oteb on Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:22 pm

Oh and another thing. In one of the threads you claimed Bush has a good grasp on war on terror. I mean common. After 2 wars and thounsands of ppl killed he cant find one man? And that man shows up on TV laughing in yer face telling you who to vote for? In 1940 when Stalin wanted to kill Trocky he found him in mexico, and killed him with Trocky's own bodyguard. 1940 no satelites, without being able to overhear any phonecall made in the world.
For me this administration is pathetic
Or maybe Osama and Zarkawi alive are kept alive to keep this war going?
You know those 1 billion dollars weekly are spent on companies that financialy helped Bush..That is just speculation/provocation but also something to think about.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:20 pm

oteb wrote:In one of the threads you claimed Bush has a good grasp on war on terror. I mean common. After 2 wars and thounsands of ppl killed he cant find one man?


Theres a good reason they call it 'the war on terror' and not 'the war on bin laden'. Actually, Bin Laden is more or less insignificant. If he were captured it would be nice, but there would still be much work to do.

As for 'helping iraq', you are right that the politicians tend to mention it a bit. If they were to give the real reason we are there, namely, to take control of a strategic location in the middle east in order to put pressure on Iran and Syria, it would hurt our strategic interests. Like I said before, the logic doesn't work. If the goal was to help iraqis, shouldn't we also be in Sudan? And for that matter, all the other countries in Africa where people are starving or dying off en masse because of AIDS or civil war? Obviously, we are not there to help the Iraqis, though improving their quality of life is a nice side effect.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:21 pm

Dlur wrote:
Kifle wrote:I actually agree with virtually every thing you said here. It is just bad judgment to pull out the troops at this point. My main concern is that Bush can't admit when he made a mistake, and that could really cost us in the future. Having a man like that in the highest office in the world is just a bad idea. I voted for kerry because he at least has the intelligence to run the country and the ability to handle foriegn countries in a diplomatic manner. I don't like being hated by virtually every country in the world. I also don't like other country's citizen's assuming that we are all little G.W. Bush's. He is a disgrace to the nation and It is just a shame he was re-elected.


Actually, from a military standpoint it is doctrine that a commanding officer does not admit a mistake. Commanding officers do not make mistakes, just ask any of them. Militarily speaking, making a mistake is a show of weakness, and no commanding officer can afford to have his troops wavering under his/her command. Any soldier that thinks their commanding officer may have made a mistake might hesitate, and soldiers that hesitate die.



And now, of course, you will say "Aha!" and you'd be partly right in doing so, but you must also remember that whether you like the reasons or not, as we discussed earlier we are at war. And the entire population of the US realizes that we are at war. The troops certainly realize this. Now, consider that the president of the United States IS the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Our troops, trained in military doctrine, expect the Commander in Chief to be strong, show no weakness, and certainly make no mistakes. The people of the US(the majority anyways) want a Commander in Chief who is strong, shows no weakness, and makes no mistakes.[/quote]

As true as that is, the soldiers don't take commands from the president. I can understand how a general would follow this principle, or a platoon leader, or even a squad leader. They all have direct command and are directly responsible for the lives of the soldiers while in the battle field. The president is different in this case. Commander in Chief is little more than a title like the queen of england. Yes, he can wage war if he deems it worthy, he can order nukes, etc... but to your average soldier on the battlefield, he means little...or should anyway.


Dlur wrote:War is not a diplomatic matter. War is won through strength, character, commitment, hardship, and pain. War is not won by talking, being diplomatic, or working it out over a couple of pints. While diplomacy is great in times of "peace" it is only a showing of weakness in times of war. Considering the adversaries we now face, whether in Afghanistan, Iraqi insurgents, or other terrorists abroad we can afford to show no weakness, especially since the vast majority of the enemies we fight do not adhere to the "rules" of war, nor do they hail from any specific country where we may come to the table in talks anyways. The adversary we fight is a loosely knight organization with very few ties to any formal country or home, and surely is not any government-sponsored army or fighting force.


Anybody who has read the Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", which includes virtually ever commanding officer in the United States, knows that your last paragraph is complete rubbish, no offense. It is one of the most repeated and highlighted principles in that book. Diplomacy is better than war. A great general wins a war without ever having to step on the battlefield.

Dlur wrote:Also, I find it hard to believe that the alienation of the US with other countries happened suddenly in the past 4 years of GWB. Our alienation with the world happened as far back as World War I, the first time we stuck our nose in other people's business and was solidified during the post-WWI era when we sponsored an Israeli state and saw the rise of comunism and thusly a build-up of armarments and saw a rise to Super-Power status in the world. Islamic militants have been trying to kill and terrorize Americans for many, many years. Look back 25 years to the Iran hostage crisis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3978523.stm, or remember the US embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, the First World Trade Center bombing back in 1993. Hell, even your beloved Bill Clinton got us involved in the Somolian quagmire in Mogadishu and subsequently didn't have the balls to finish the job.


You're absolutely right. But to continue this sort of behavior is ignoring the mistakes of the past. I was angry with Bill Clinton because a lot of things he did during his 8yrs in office. I think war should be the last resort possible. To sacrifice the lives and safty of your countrymen is a decision that should never be rushed no matter what your agenda is. There is never one solution to a problem. I am angry and Bush, and thus disbelieve he has the credentials to run our country, because of his ignoring this fact.

Dlur wrote:Now then, if the US hadn't risen to super-power status during the WWII era during the subsequent rise of comunism in the world then I would gather that a lot less people in the world would hate the US. Hell, if it weren't for Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, with the diplomatic and somewhat isolationist stance we were taking at the time most of the world would be speaking either German or Japanese by now most likely. But, we stepped up to the plate, grabbed our sack of balls and got the job done, and due to the actions we had to take during the aftermath of the most bloody war we've ever fought in order to protect our interests and the interests of our allies we are now despised by the rest of the world. To place that blame souly on the shoulders of George W Bush is not only assinine, but also uneducated.


Again, I wont argue that fact. I'm not blaming Bush for all of our problems, I'm blaming him for not fixing them. I'm blaming his blatent disregard of our past mistakes. Speaking of WWII. Why do American's get so upset that France has not helped us with troops and the such? If I recall correctly, we did nothing to stop Germany from invading France. It wasn't until after France was widely occupied that we stepped in. And we might not have even stepped in unless Japan did not attack us. Until France gets attacked by Iraq directly and brought into this war against their own will, I will continue to call those who knock France because of their stance on the war complete idiots. We weren't there to help them, we where there to help ourselves...they are just doing the same. The French government has an obligation first to it's countrymen and the world second and this should never change.

Dlur wrote:Nearly every single president since the times of WWII has only succeeded in further alienating some other country or faction in one way or another. And even though some presidents have done great work in repairing ties with one country or another, it only serves to piss off someone else. There is simply no way to make everyone happy, especially since the simple act of making everyone happy will show weakness, and it is that weakness that feeds some of our enemy's hatred of us.


It isn't the weakness that feeds our enemies, it is our arrogance and our "cowboy" attitude. It is often times our mercy that angers them. It is our set of morals that causes us to help one side of a fight. The latter I can't blame on any president. Again, what I am angered at is the complete lack of diplomacy being shown by this administration. They have broken ties that where mended previously. They have continued to lose the support of the rest of the world. This is not the smart way of building a safe country. This is how you create an unsafe country. Of course we will always have enemies that are jealous of our status in the world, but it is best to minimize our enemies with diplomacy than to give up because you can't please everybody. This is what the current administration has failed to do and only shows signs of continuing this failure.

Dlur wrote:So, you say you voted Kerry because of his intelligence and his diplomacy. You have said that to you and to many of the people that voted for Kerry his plans, doctrines, and ideas were crystal clear and made perfect sense. I say Kerry did a horrible job of conveying his thoughts, ideas, and doctrines to the American people as a whole, for surely if his ideas were so good, and he is so diplomatic in conveying those ideas then surely more people would have voted for him?


No, most of this is an assumption. Yes, I voted for Kerry. I voted for him because he is more intelligent than Bush, but I know there are better choices out there...unfortunately none of them had a chance in hell to contend -- so my hands where tied. If you listened, he did convey his plans as well as he could given the complexity of most of them and the alloted time during the debates and commercial spots. You can't explain a complex economic solution in 2 minutes...most people will have a hard time grasping most of the concepts within a semester in college. Even still, he did a way better job at this than Bush. From Bush I saw a lot of question dodging, name calling, label manipulation, and studdering. So, even if Kerry didn't do all he could, he was just that much better than Bush. As for that last question. No. Unfortunately good ideas are not a prerequisite for winning an election. Propaganda and fear have been shown throughout the ages to play a much bigger part in elections and opinions than good ideas. Kerry lost because his marketing team wasn't as good and he was under the impression that the American people could see past the propaganda and other underhanded tactics the Bush administration used.

Dlur wrote:But, alas, they did not vote for him and 51% of the people and some change voted for who they thought was strong, showed no weakness, had a clear plan, and who they thought would stay the course and finish the job. Hell, this time around more people in the popular vote voted for Bush than back when Regan was first elected and that in and of itself is an absolutely amazing show of support.


This is not a good logical assumption. You are clearly ignoring the power of fear. The American people have been lead to believe we are in a very great danger...exponentially worse than years before. The fact of the matter is, we really aren't. They voted for a man that conned thim into voting for him. They voted for a man based on this, propaganda and moral issues. It is not Kerry's fault that 51% of American's are scared or uncomfortable of homosexuals. It is not Kerry's fault that 51% of the American people don't mind giving up portions of their 1st and 4th amendment rights. It is also not Kerry's fault that 51% of American's would rather have Christian religious doctrine become law rather than be exactly what it is...opinion. None of this is Kerry's fault, and this is a much better assumption of why the vote turned out the way it did rather than to say Bush is a good leader.

Dlur wrote:Now me personally, I think they're both idiots and that both mainstream political parties, with all their members should have been able to find someone better to put on the ballot other than these two f*#$tards, but hey, what do I know I'm just a Centrist leaning towards libritarian that voted like a retard to "throw my vote away" along with the other less than 1% of the population that voted my way. I'm just trying to make you die-hard Kerry fans understand why he sucks a little bit worse than GWB sucks.


Me, I am a moderate...even if my opinions in this thread do not show it, that is what I am. I am not one of the liberals that does not understand the need for some form of capitalism, or the need for some pollution, etc... You sometimes have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, and I'm sure most of the people who voted for Kerry think much the same. We have been labeled wrongly because we would rather strive towards a better world than be content with what we have been given. As far as being die-hard Kerry...I doubt many people who voted for him are -- on these boards and across the country. He wasn't a good candidate. He has just as many flaws as Bush. Namely the outsourcing of the Heinz corperation. What we understand, though, is that Bush, in every venture he has ever been a part of, has failed. This is what he does. He had is education bought, he has had life given to him on a silver platter, and can only communicate with the average american public because he is an idiot...that is his charisma. He's one of those dogs you feel sorry for because they continually run into walls because they think there's a door there...it's a sad form of cute. It's just a shame that so many people can connect with that rather than an intelligent candidate.

Dlur, my views and your views are not very far apart. Sure, we disagree on quite a few things, but given the actual opportunity to talk, I'm sure we would easily see each other's side of things and come to some sort of compromise.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:26 pm

Corth wrote:
oteb wrote:In one of the threads you claimed Bush has a good grasp on war on terror. I mean common. After 2 wars and thounsands of ppl killed he cant find one man?


Theres a good reason they call it 'the war on terror' and not 'the war on bin laden'. Actually, Bin Laden is more or less insignificant. If he were captured it would be nice, but there would still be much work to do.

As for 'helping iraq', you are right that the politicians tend to mention it a bit. If they were to give the real reason we are there, namely, to take control of a strategic location in the middle east in order to put pressure on Iran and Syria, it would hurt our strategic interests. Like I said before, the logic doesn't work. If the goal was to help iraqis, shouldn't we also be in Sudan? And for that matter, all the other countries in Africa where people are starving or dying off en masse because of AIDS or civil war? Obviously, we are not there to help the Iraqis, though improving their quality of life is a nice side effect.

Corth


I'm pretty sure oteb understands the war on terror. The thing is, we where after one group at the time, and one man in specific. It has been said a bajillion times by this administration that they WILL capture Osama and WILL bring justice to the American people. So far they have turned up nothing but another war which has nothing to do with the first. I find it very hard to believe that people can not see that this is just an excuse for the Bush administration because they can't find him...or maybe don't want to like Oteb had speculated. You can't say you are going to catch somebody one day and then say they aren't important anymore. Shit, after 9/11 Osama was THE man to find, now he is insignificant? Suuuure, buddy. I'll buy that for a dollar!

So, are you meaning to tell me that catching suspected murderer's is just as important, and more relevant, than catching a known murderer or a serial killer? He did the crime, and he has yet to do the time. This is nothing but an excuse and a waste of taxpayer's money. The war on terror can not be won. It's just another marketing ploy just like the war on drugs. Give me a break already.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:34 pm

Corth wrote:
oteb wrote:In one of the threads you claimed Bush has a good grasp on war on terror. I mean common. After 2 wars and thounsands of ppl killed he cant find one man?


Theres a good reason they call it 'the war on terror' and not 'the war on bin laden'. Actually, Bin Laden is more or less insignificant. If he were captured it would be nice, but there would still be much work to do.

As for 'helping iraq', you are right that the politicians tend to mention it a bit. If they were to give the real reason we are there, namely, to take control of a strategic location in the middle east in order to put pressure on Iran and Syria, it would hurt our strategic interests. Like I said before, the logic doesn't work. If the goal was to help iraqis, shouldn't we also be in Sudan? And for that matter, all the other countries in Africa where people are starving or dying off en masse because of AIDS or civil war? Obviously, we are not there to help the Iraqis, though improving their quality of life is a nice side effect.

Corth


Corth with all due respect you are contradicting yourself.
Once you saying it is a war on terror in next paragraph you saying war was waged to enusre preasure on Iran and Syria.
How was Iraq involved with terror? Not a proof of it was found. Moreover more proof have been found of Saudi Arabia founding terrorists. And yet US didnt attack it. Probably of conflict of interest.
Maybe you should just agree that president you eleceted MURDRERS ppl to ensure 'strategic interests' of your country are protected. According to the lancet 100k civilians right now(plus a whole bunch more military). You know these people have been someones brother sister child parent..Sure they dont share your lifestyle, beliefs, faith but does that make them any less human? All these so you can have cheap gasoline and blessed ecomic growth?
And even you agree that your administration is LYING bout reason of war. You know I grown up in comunist state and I quite well remember this propaganda.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:10 pm

Oteb

1. Both Syria and Iran harbor terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

2. Thus, Syria and Iran are state sponsors of terrorism.

3. Putting pressure on states that sponsor terrorism is a means of fighting terror.

If you cannot understand that, or disagree with any one of my premises, I don't think we have very much to speak about.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:26 pm

Corth
1. yep
2. yep
3. yep
4. Yer troops are apparently killing wrong ppl in wrong country then.

If you dont get that we realy have not much to talk about

Maybe because both Syria and Iran have less oil?
Maybe because your leader is incompetent power obssesed lunatic?
Maybe no matter where you wage the war copanies that manfacture weaponary will earn and iraq was ez target due to already defeated army?
How much more blood do US need? ~3k civilians killed in WTC 100k+ in Iraq. And why? Because they were nearby? Because they shared faith/race with those psychopats that attacked NY? Becasue they were easy target? Or maybe because of black gold burried under their villages?
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:28 pm

Notice I did not say that invading Iraq was justifiable to carry out the goal of putting pressure on Syria and Iran. Thats debateable. I happen to think it is:

First, there was very good reason to believe at the time that Saddam was developing chemical, biological, and perhaps even nuclear weapons. The world believed that, not just the Americans.

Second, This has to be seen within the context of the first Iraq war. Saddam invaded a neighboring country, and was forced to withdraw due to UN sanctioned force. Consequentially, there were specific Security Counsel resolutions in place demanding, among other things, that inspections take place upon Iraq military installations by the UN. Saddam was not in compliance with these resolutions. The only conclusion that a reasonable person could have, given such circumstances, was that he had something to hide.

Third, it is essential that democracy be brought to the Middle East. That section of the world has to join the rest of civilization. If need be, democracy must be imposed. Its debateable whether thats even possible. But if we're going to attempt to impose democracy upon a country, then it may as well be Iraq.

Now you say that our president is lying about the reason we invaded Iraq. You are correct. And many people have died. But you know what? Many more people will die if some islamofascist detonates a nuke above, say, London. Or NYC, or Prauge or whatever. Many innocent civilians died because we fought the Nazis in WWII, and guess what, most of us are glad that we're not speaking German. Its horrible when civilians die. I hate the term 'collateral damage.' But I'm not about to give up on the world either. If people die as a result of the 'war on terror', and yes, Iraq was an integral part of said war (see above), then so be it. What needs to be done, needs to be done.



Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests