A letter from Kerry

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:44 pm

Kifle wrote:
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.


Nope, probably are pretty close as my political compass reads dead center when you go on the Liberal-Conservative axis and just a hair towards Libritarian instead of Authoritarian on that axis. I'm liberal when it comes to the "War on Drugs" and that's about it, and I'm conservative from a fiscal standpoint and that I believe the Constitution should be upheld. I'm libertarian from a standpoint that I believe in individual rights and freedoms, but not so much on a few of their free market ideas. I'm not very authoritarian at all as I hate "the man" as much as the next guy.

Now, if you could get me a candidate on the ballot that sat in generally the same area of the political compass I'd vote for them in a second, and I think a large portion of the US population would feel the same way, IF they knew that candidate had a chance to win.

Unfortunately you're not going to see a valid 3rd party candidate that is going to be able to pull that many votes for many years unless it is a person of celebrity status (such as Ahhrnold having the constitution modified so he can run), and even then he's not going to be a Centrist (although more-so than most republicans might be).

What needs to happen is that people need to continue to consider 3rd party candidates. The 3rd parties need private funding to get ads running in all states, not just battleground states. We need to get _some_ 3rd party to get 5% so that even though they loose, they still win by getting federal funding and a spot in the debates the next election.

Unfortunately, everyone and their mom has tunnel-vision and is unable to see past the two parties. So, year after year, election after election, we are going to continue to see two utterly crappy candidates from two utterly crappy political parties. 3nj0y.
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
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:58 pm

OK. So now we agreed that invading Iraq and killing 100k+ppl was NOT justifiable part of war on terror.

Kim Dzong Il is not alleged but IS developing chemical biological and nuclear weapons. Point is he has 4th biggest army in the world. Well and doesnt sit on oil. If you want to stretch it i bet my left nut Russia China and US are devpoing ABC weapons. US did jack when Pakistan India and isreal got A weapon. If they got A you can be pretty sure they have BC. But well they dont have oil. Lucky them.

First you pull UN resulutions to justify war. Let me remind you that second attack was NOT sanctioned by UN. So pick one either dismiss UN right to judge in those matters or dont bring that as an argument. Again Korae is not compling with resolutions either. Go get their oil. Wait they dont have it. Lucky bastards.

Why is it essential to bring democracy to middle east? What makes you think yer system is better than other. Why this sentinet human beings didnt pick this system over any other? Maybe there is something like cultural difference and not everyone has views of average american?
Besides you once said that this war was not to help iraqi ppl. Now you bringing giving them the glorious democracy as reason for. Pick one.

Ya many people will die if some "islamofascist" will detonate a bomb. So now we kill all muslim so there wont be to do so? Or do you smart bombs differentiate between "islamofascist" and nursing mother?
And please stop pulling Iraq to war on terror. Its like invading a neighbour of Ted Budny killing their familiy just to keep Ted Bundy at bay.
Because of bad neighbourhood?
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'
A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:53 am

Dlur wrote:
Kifle wrote:
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.


Nope, probably are pretty close as my political compass reads dead center when you go on the Liberal-Conservative axis and just a hair towards Libritarian instead of Authoritarian on that axis. I'm liberal when it comes to the "War on Drugs" and that's about it, and I'm conservative from a fiscal standpoint and that I believe the Constitution should be upheld. I'm libertarian from a standpoint that I believe in individual rights and freedoms, but not so much on a few of their free market ideas. I'm not very authoritarian at all as I hate "the man" as much as the next guy.

Now, if you could get me a candidate on the ballot that sat in generally the same area of the political compass I'd vote for them in a second, and I think a large portion of the US population would feel the same way, IF they knew that candidate had a chance to win.

Unfortunately you're not going to see a valid 3rd party candidate that is going to be able to pull that many votes for many years unless it is a person of celebrity status (such as Ahhrnold having the constitution modified so he can run), and even then he's not going to be a Centrist (although more-so than most republicans might be).

What needs to happen is that people need to continue to consider 3rd party candidates. The 3rd parties need private funding to get ads running in all states, not just battleground states. We need to get _some_ 3rd party to get 5% so that even though they loose, they still win by getting federal funding and a spot in the debates the next election.

Unfortunately, everyone and their mom has tunnel-vision and is unable to see past the two parties. So, year after year, election after election, we are going to continue to see two utterly crappy candidates from two utterly crappy political parties. 3nj0y.


Eh, if John McCain would run again, I'm pretty sure he'd do really well in office. The 3rd party candidates have actually had an increase in votes for some time now. True, it is just a drop in the bucket compared to the two major parties, but lets not forget Ross Perot. If this country would practice what it preaches (democracy) then we would be ok. If the 3rd party candidates where given a spot at the debates, I'm sure things would turn swiftly. Unfortunately, the American public are too ignorant of real politics and will never even bother to do much about the problems.
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!!"
Ambar
Sojourner
Posts: 2872
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Our House in Va.
Contact:

Postby Ambar » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:13 am

we going for the longest thread here?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:17 am

Ambar wrote:we going for the longest thread here?


Bah, this is nothing! Wasn't the guns thread from a while back like 15 pages?
<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 » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:26 am

Corth wrote: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:


Even if it were justified, tht goal has _failed_ because Iran is not at all scared of us. In fact, they know they can continue their nukes program out in the open because our military is currently too overextended to do anything about it!

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.


Not the world Corth, 30 some countries out of over a hundred. Several larger countries wanted more inspections to find out for sure.

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.


True, and I believe I said so at some point back then...

I still get the impression in retrospect that Bush was lying to us and rushing the war effort.

And either way it's _still_ infuriating that he's refused the help of other countries over there when that help would speed things up vastly and actually do something to make us safer rather than make Iraq a great place for terrorists to recruit!

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.


Why not Iran?

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.


Yes, and because we are stuck in Iraq now we can't deal with Iran <i>planning to do exactly that!</i>

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


Nope, not a justifiable part of the war on terror. Iraq had less to do with terrorism than pretty much any other country in the region, and the possible goal of using Iraq to put pressure on Iran and Syria is not necessarily enough to justify it... but to make matters worse <i>that didn't even happen!</i> Iran is now just getting more blatantly vicious towards us...
<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
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:42 am

My recommendation, let sarvis just babble and feel free to be intolerate of other people's opinion. Boy, he is quick though in calling folks names, eh?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:44 am

oteb wrote:First you pull UN resulutions to justify war. Let me remind you that second attack was NOT sanctioned by UN. So pick one either dismiss UN right to judge in those matters or dont bring that as an argument.


Sorry to say, the UN went soft. However, the resolution authorizing use of force was still in place from over 10 years prior where Saddam refused to comply.

Why is it essential to bring democracy to middle east? What makes you think yer system is better than other. Why this sentinet human beings didnt pick this system over any other? Maybe there is something like cultural difference and not everyone has views of average american?
Besides you once said that this war was not to help iraqi ppl. Now you bringing giving them the glorious democracy as reason for. pick one


We're not trying to install a democracy to help them. Like I said earlier, I could give a rats ass about the life of an Iraqi. We're doing it to help us. Democracy encourages freedom, opportunity, and wealth. The region is strife with dictators and despots who bring their people extreme poverty, and make them susceptible to the rantings of a madman. I have no regard for the culture of hate and fear that the islamofacists thrive in. We are trying to change their culture for the good of mankind. So they stop blowing themselves up around other people.

Ya many people will die if some "islamofascist" will detonate a bomb. So now we kill all muslim so there wont be to do so? Or do you smart bombs differentiate between "islamofascist" and nursing mother?


We will root out the militants and kill them. Unfortunately, some others will die as well, though remarkably it has happened in minimal numbers. I would imagine a great number of the 100k you quote that have died have actually been fighters. Thats not collateral damage. Thats jackpot!

Look, I'm not going to argue against you on this point. I'll be the first to admit that Bush hasn't done a very good job in handling Iraq. What has happened so far in Iraq is unacceptable. But the actual decision to go there was completely justified.

And please stop pulling Iraq to war on terror. Its like invading a neighbour of Ted Budny killing their familiy just to keep Ted Bundy at bay.
Because of bad neighbourhood?


Shrug, your certainly entitled to your opinion. But if executing the war on terror means that we need to put pressure on state sponsors of terrorism (Iran and Syra are neighbors, Iraq itself provided financial incentives to the familes of palestineans who blew themselves up), kill millitants (thousands killed in Iraq, aluhah ackbar!), and establish democracy in the middle east (free elections scheduled), and invading Iraq carried out those goals, then I fail to see how you can conclude that invading Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

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

Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:52 am

Sarvis,

Good point about Iran. And notice, however, that this time the Europeans are putting a hell of a lot of pressure on Iran to halt their nuclear programs. Meanwhile, with Iraq, they were more than happy to make toothless resolution after toothless resolution. Maybe I should amend my previous statements to add that invading Iraq helped promote the goals of the war on terror by putting pressure on our European 'friends' as well. :)

In any event, if need be, its a lot easier to invade Iran from next door than have to beg the French to let us use their airspace. They certainly know that we're close

Also, you failed to mention Libya's reaction. They -voluntarily- agreed to dismantle their WMD program. I don't think this happens unless the US turns up the heat in the region. Khadaffi had problems in the past with the Americans. Maybe he got scared it would happen again.

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 » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:54 am

Imis9 wrote:My recommendation, let sarvis just babble and feel free to be intolerate of other people's opinion. Boy, he is quick though in calling folks names, eh?


Actually, no I'm not. It was probably several pages before I started anything like that... but at this point you have all earned it.

Have fun with your total lack of interest in actual discussion, you are obviously right simply because you claim you are!
<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 » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:57 am

Corth wrote:Sarvis,

Good point about Iran. And notice, however, that this time the Europeans are putting a hell of a lot of pressure on Iran to halt their nuclear programs. Meanwhile, with Iraq, they were more than happy to make toothless resolution after toothless resolution. Maybe I should amend my previous statements to add that invading Iraq helped promote the goals of the war on terror by putting pressure on our European 'friends' as well. :)

In any event, if need be, its a lot easier to invade Iran from next door than have to beg the French to let us use their airspace. They certainly know that we're close

Also, you failed to mention Libya's reaction. They -voluntarily- agreed to dismantle their WMD program. I don't think this happens unless the US turns up the heat in the region. Khadaffi had problems in the past with the Americans. Maybe he got scared it would happen again.

Corth


What you say here makes a bit of sense. However I would say that the open threat of nukes did more to galvanize the Europeans than anything we did.

Admitted nukes programs are a LOT scarier than possible WMD programs...
<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
Shar
FORGER ADMIN
Posts: 791
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Shar » Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:34 am

Sarvis wrote:
Imis9 wrote:My recommendation, let sarvis just babble and feel free to be intolerate of other people's opinion. Boy, he is quick though in calling folks names, eh?


Actually, no I'm not. It was probably several pages before I started anything like that... but at this point you have all earned it.

Have fun with your total lack of interest in actual discussion, you are obviously right simply because you claim you are!


K! Let's either wrap up the heated arguments *now* or we'll lose this entire thread like we've lost others. Most of us are adults, lets act like it.

Sarvis, to be fair, your opinions count. They matter. They even matter to me in specific. Everyone has an equal voice on this BBS, but yours has started to stick out as someone starting arguments instead of discussing topics. We've had several requests to remove your posts. I have declined every one of these requests. Please don't take this any farther.

This is not just directed at one person. Nobody will continue to call names or flame for someone elses thoughts on these subjects. Remember, we are dealing with fundamental issues which is the very fiber of who a person is and how they live their lives. Nobody has the right to force you to change your beliefs, at least not on TorilMUD.

So far, this has been a "my mind is open, yours is closed" conversation. How about realizing that your mind (you in general, not specific YOU) may be closed to how their mind functions. Food for thought on that one I suppose.

If we continue to have name calling and pointless bickering, I'll edit posts, send out warnings and lock the threads that contain them. Please, let us not devolve into that business.
Shar - Forger Administrator, TorilMUD

Brandobaris : (51) [ would a forgotten realms zombie be interested in brains? ]

Shevarash tells you 'Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down..... groan'
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:52 am

Corth wrote:We're not trying to install a democracy to help them. Like I said earlier, I could give a rats ass about the life of an Iraqi. We're doing it to help us. Democracy encourages freedom, opportunity, and wealth. The region is strife with dictators and despots who bring their people extreme poverty, and make them susceptible to the rantings of a madman. I have no regard for the culture of hate and fear that the islamofacists thrive in. We are trying to change their culture for the good of mankind. So they stop blowing themselves up around other people.


Firstly. What gives you right to forcefuly change their culture? Will you shoot their buffalos to make them starve? Last regime that wanted to change culture and yeah exactly for 'good of mankind' was Stalinism. I envy yer certainty that your life style and your beliefs are better than anyones else. Takin responisbilty to change culture that is uhm 7 times older than your country's history requires a lot of faith in your moral rights or a lot of stupidty. And if you think that every muslim is "islamofacist" yer nuts. Its margin. Just as milita groups in US are a margin. And yet i dont see you opting for bombing Idaho. Recently I spent holidays in muslim country and was quite fascinted by how welcome, caring and helpful those people are. Much unlike any place I have been before.
Secondly. I dont seem to recall ANY news bout iraqis blowing themself up till US invasion. Now I see that daily. Good job!


Corth wrote:We will root out the militants and kill them. Unfortunately, some others will die as well, though remarkably it has happened in minimal numbers. I would imagine a great number of the 100k you quote that have died have actually been fighters. Thats not collateral damage. Thats jackpot!


Actually 100k is civilan deaths. If you want to learn more you can read first post in this thread:
http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14607
Quite a jackbot huh?
I bet number of fighters killed would be larger unless your bombs are as smart as your president. And i fail how even them are the jackpot. They were soldiers defending their country. Like any soldier in any country would do (except France of course)


Corth wrote:Look, I'm not going to argue against you on this point. I'll be the first to admit that Bush hasn't done a very good job in handling Iraq. What has happened so far in Iraq is unacceptable. But the actual decision to go there was completely justified.


You are saying that what happened in Iraq so far is unacceptable and yet you still support decision of going there? Isnt this aburd? If the facts contradict a theory, blame the facts?

Corth wrote:Shrug, your certainly entitled to your opinion. But if executing the war on terror means that we need to put pressure on state sponsors of terrorism (Iran and Syra are neighbors, Iraq itself provided financial incentives to the familes of palestineans who blew themselves up), kill millitants (thousands killed in Iraq, aluhah ackbar!), and establish democracy in the middle east (free elections scheduled), and invading Iraq carried out those goals, then I fail to see how you can conclude that invading Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.


War increased the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq. They happen daily.
Maybe the whole idea of fighting terror with terror is wrong(not sure about it myself). The thing that would root out the terror much more efficently would be cuting their funding, not training camps, not people.
And killing 100k civilians just makes probably like 500k people pissed at agressor. Many of them young and foolish. Schoolfish for Al queda.
You group-say 'who is da red shape?'

A red shape group-says 'I'm a shape'
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:54 am

Shar wrote:Everyone has an equal voice on this BBS, but yours has started to stick out as someone starting arguments instead of discussing topics. We've had several requests to remove your posts. I have declined every one of these requests. Please don't take this any farther.


Which ones? Seriously, I don't remember getting _that_ bad even in this thread...
<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
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:23 am

2004 Presidential Election Results by County
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/usa_election_map.jpg">

I like this map. :)
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:04 pm

Hey Corth, don't let that map out, it might give the terrorists places to target. Remember Osama only said he would go after those that didn't vote to change our government. :roll:
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:05 pm

rylan wrote:Hey Corth, don't let that map out, it might give the terrorists places to target. Remember Osama only said he would go after those that didn't vote to change our government. :roll:


You mean like NYC (Kerry/Gore)
The Pentagon (District of Columbia, Kerry/Gore)
A field in PA (Kerry)
and potentially Seattle (Kerry/Gore)
and San Fransisco (Kerry/Gore)

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

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:10 pm

Dlur wrote: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.


Furthermore, Men will only follow leaders that understand that the lives of his men lie in victory, not in retreat or second guessing. Leaders are those whom men will follow due to the constitution of the leader. This is something that Kerry/Edwards did not understand and thus failed find true followers.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:15 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Imis9 wrote:Terrorists attack us because we are free.


Nope.


Actually, terrorists will attack anybody for just about any reason. Specifically concerning Muslim terrorists, they have no problem bombing anyone from Americans to Spaniards, to Iraq and Iran, Mosques, Churches, Libararies, Cars, and hell just about anything.

American terrorists have bombed Federal buildings, the olympics (attempted)...

Spanish terrorists (ETA) would bomb just about anything if they felt it would help their amorphous causes.

Chechnyan terrorists will slaughter children for no apparant reason.

European terrorists will kill muslims (kosovo).

Chinese terrorists have attacked American Embassies.

Japanese terorrists like to work underground (with nerve gas and subways)

Best just to kill all terrorists, really.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:23 am

teflor the ranger wrote:You mean like NYC (Kerry/Gore)
The Pentagon (District of Columbia, Kerry/Gore)
A field in PA (Kerry)
and potentially Seattle (Kerry/Gore)
and San Fransisco (Kerry/Gore)

?


Yeah, I was just being sarcastic about the Bin Laden tape and his 'promise'.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:51 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Dlur wrote: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.


Furthermore, Men will only follow leaders that understand that the lives of his men lie in victory, not in retreat or second guessing. Leaders are those whom men will follow due to the constitution of the leader. This is something that Kerry/Edwards did not understand and thus failed find true followers.



Yes, because Kerry couldn't possibly learn the value of his men's lives while actually serving in Vietnam and saving their lives, not to mention earning medals for charging into gunfire and such! Of course, Bush had people tell you that was all fantasy and his National Guard service was more heroic... so it must be so!

Actually, terrorists will attack anybody for just about any reason. Specifically concerning Muslim terrorists, they have no problem bombing anyone from Americans to Spaniards, to Iraq and Iran, Mosques, Churches, Libararies, Cars, and hell just about anything.


True, so very true. They _still_ will too, and have been despite the Republican claims that all the terrorists are tied up in Iraq right now.

There's as much chance we haven't been hit again because the terrorists just haven't felt like it yet as there is becuase Bush is stopping them... :(
<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 » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:19 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Furthermore, Men will only follow leaders that understand that the lives of his men lie in victory, not in retreat or second guessing. Leaders are those whom men will follow due to the constitution of the leader. This is something that Kerry/Edwards did not understand and thus failed find true followers.



Yes, because Kerry couldn't possibly learn the value of his men's lives while actually serving in Vietnam and saving their lives, not to mention earning medals for charging into gunfire and such! Of course, Bush had people tell you that was all fantasy and his National Guard service was more heroic... so it must be so!


Well, actually, many of the men that served in Vietnam on Swift Boats agreed with me. Hence the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Furthermore, I did not say that he did know the value of his men's lives, but that he did not understand what they meant.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:37 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Furthermore, Men will only follow leaders that understand that the lives of his men lie in victory, not in retreat or second guessing. Leaders are those whom men will follow due to the constitution of the leader. This is something that Kerry/Edwards did not understand and thus failed find true followers.



Yes, because Kerry couldn't possibly learn the value of his men's lives while actually serving in Vietnam and saving their lives, not to mention earning medals for charging into gunfire and such! Of course, Bush had people tell you that was all fantasy and his National Guard service was more heroic... so it must be so!


Well, actually, many of the men that served in Vietnam on Swift Boats agreed with me. Hence the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Furthermore, I did not say that he did know the value of his men's lives, but that he did not understand what they meant.


THE SWIFT BOAT VETS!?!

Ok, almost got myself in trouble with Shar again...

Look, MOST of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth did not serve in Kerry's unit. They don't have a clue what he was like in Nam, they were just paid off to speak in the commercial.

Moreover, George Elliot is one of the SBVT that actually DID serve with Kerry. This is very important because as late as <b>September 2003</b> Mr. Elliot was <i>advocating</i> Kerry, even saying that his medals were "well deserved." This man helped Kerry win his senate seat. He also happens to be the guy who originally recommended Kerry for his Silver Star!

Then he appears in the Swift Boat Ads calling Kerry's medals into question. Can you say "paid off?"
<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 » Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:53 am

Sarvis wrote:THE SWIFT BOAT VETS!?!

Ok, almost got myself in trouble with Shar again...

Look, MOST of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth did not serve in Kerry's unit. They don't have a clue what he was like in Nam, they were just paid off to speak in the commercial.

Moreover, George Elliot is one of the SBVT that actually DID serve with Kerry. This is very important because as late as <b>September 2003</b> Mr. Elliot was <i>advocating</i> Kerry, even saying that his medals were "well deserved." This man helped Kerry win his senate seat. He also happens to be the guy who originally recommended Kerry for his Silver Star!

Then he appears in the Swift Boat Ads calling Kerry's medals into question. Can you say "paid off?"


Heh heh heh. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Kerry doesn't have true supporters. He just doesn't have the leadership qualities to attract loyalty.

For Bush supporters, they were for bush. Four more years.

For Kerry supporters, they were just... Anybody but Bush.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:00 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:THE SWIFT BOAT VETS!?!

Ok, almost got myself in trouble with Shar again...

Look, MOST of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth did not serve in Kerry's unit. They don't have a clue what he was like in Nam, they were just paid off to speak in the commercial.

Moreover, George Elliot is one of the SBVT that actually DID serve with Kerry. This is very important because as late as <b>September 2003</b> Mr. Elliot was <i>advocating</i> Kerry, even saying that his medals were "well deserved." This man helped Kerry win his senate seat. He also happens to be the guy who originally recommended Kerry for his Silver Star!

Then he appears in the Swift Boat Ads calling Kerry's medals into question. Can you say "paid off?"


Heh heh heh. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Kerry doesn't have true supporters. He just doesn't have the leadership qualities to attract loyalty.

For Bush supporters, they were for bush. Four more years.

For Kerry supporters, they were just... Anybody but Bush.


Oh ok, he didn't attract followers. Elliot just followed and supported Kerry for what? 30 years?

But because someone pays him off... you know what, screw it. You are obviously more concerned with keeping your eyes shut than with the truth...

And no, many Bush supporters were against Kerry. Let me restate, many Bush supporters were against the charicature of Kerry that Bush painted.

By the way: How many people have fled the Bush administration so far because they disagreed with his policies? Inspires loyalty... HAH!
<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 » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:04 am

Sarvis wrote:Oh ok, he didn't attract followers. Elliot just followed and supported Kerry for what? 30 years?

But because someone pays him off... you know what, screw it. You are obviously more concerned with keeping your eyes shut than with the truth...

And no, many Bush supporters were against Kerry. Let me restate, many Bush supporters were against the charicature of Kerry that Bush painted.

By the way: How many people have fled the Bush administration so far because they disagreed with his policies? Inspires loyalty... HAH!


That's not exactly loyalty when you get 'paid off' if that's even true.
(if you want to talk about keeping your eyes shut)

Also, the loyalty Bush inspired was apparant at the voting booths.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:39 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Oh ok, he didn't attract followers. Elliot just followed and supported Kerry for what? 30 years?

But because someone pays him off... you know what, screw it. You are obviously more concerned with keeping your eyes shut than with the truth...

And no, many Bush supporters were against Kerry. Let me restate, many Bush supporters were against the charicature of Kerry that Bush painted.

By the way: How many people have fled the Bush administration so far because they disagreed with his policies? Inspires loyalty... HAH!


That's not exactly loyalty when you get 'paid off' if that's even true.
(if you want to talk about keeping your eyes shut)

Also, the loyalty Bush inspired was apparant at the voting booths.


I didn't say Elliot was paid off to support Kerry, I said he supported Kerry until he was paid off.

Is it true? Who knows...

But it's suspicious to support someone for <i>thirty years</i> and then suddenly appear in a commercial bashing the guy a few months after you last spoke for him! A commercial financed by a billionare who made as many donations as he could directly to the GOP, and which primarily stars people who never served with Kerry.
<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 » Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:46 am

Sarvis wrote:But it's suspicious to support someone for <i>thirty years</i> and then suddenly appear in a commercial bashing the guy a few months after you last spoke for him!


Like I had said, this isn't exaclty loyalty, is it?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:50 am

Every man has his price.
<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
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:35 am

Actually, there's an awful lot more than just the "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" that absolutely abhor John Kerry. I haven't met a single Vietnam Veteran yet that actually does like him, my father included. This is not to say that there aren't some Vets out there that do like John Kerry, but from my sampling I have yet to find a single one. My dad usually swings more towards the Democrat side of things unless there is a candidate that is very pro-gun control. But he wouldn't touch "Hanoi" John Kerry with a ten foot pole regardless of his terrible gun-control voting record(from a gun owner standpoint). My dad, and many many other Vietnam era veterans absolutely hate John Kerry for what he did when he got back from Vietnam, moreso than what he did or didn't do while he was there.
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 » Sun Nov 07, 2004 8:41 am

Dlur wrote:Actually, there's an awful lot more than just the "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" that absolutely abhor John Kerry. I haven't met a single Vietnam Veteran yet that actually does like him, my father included. This is not to say that there aren't some Vets out there that do like John Kerry, but from my sampling I have yet to find a single one. My dad usually swings more towards the Democrat side of things unless there is a candidate that is very pro-gun control. But he wouldn't touch "Hanoi" John Kerry with a ten foot pole regardless of his terrible gun-control voting record(from a gun owner standpoint). My dad, and many many other Vietnam era veterans absolutely hate John Kerry for what he did when he got back from Vietnam, moreso than what he did or didn't do while he was there.


Did he hate John Kerry _before_ this election?

If he actually did hate Kerry back in the 70's for attempting to get the war finished sooner, does that mean your dad wanted to stay over there longer?
<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
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:45 pm

Heaven forbid somebody actually speak out for something they believe in in this country. I mean, I can understand how shooting commies all day and watching your best friends get their extremities blown off by granades would be fun, but maybe he just didn't believe in this war...much like a large portion of the country. Yeah, I guess that IS a good reason to hate somebody. You've definately opened my eyes. I think I'll go sign up for the army now, because wars are fun...and stuff.
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 » Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:57 pm

Sarvis wrote:
Dlur wrote:Actually, there's an awful lot more than just the "Swift Boat Vets for Truth" that absolutely abhor John Kerry. I haven't met a single Vietnam Veteran yet that actually does like him, my father included. This is not to say that there aren't some Vets out there that do like John Kerry, but from my sampling I have yet to find a single one. My dad usually swings more towards the Democrat side of things unless there is a candidate that is very pro-gun control. But he wouldn't touch "Hanoi" John Kerry with a ten foot pole regardless of his terrible gun-control voting record(from a gun owner standpoint). My dad, and many many other Vietnam era veterans absolutely hate John Kerry for what he did when he got back from Vietnam, moreso than what he did or didn't do while he was there.


Did he hate John Kerry _before_ this election?

If he actually did hate Kerry back in the 70's for attempting to get the war finished sooner, does that mean your dad wanted to stay over there longer?


Yes, he's had great disdain for John Kerry ever since Kerry testified before congress and started hanging around with the likes of Jane Fonda.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of troops that were over in Vietnam didn't like peace protestors, especially ones like Jane Fonda that actually helped North Vietnam and ones like John Kerry who testified before Congress that our soldiers were heathens that enjoyed nothing more than raping small children.

Just like today, in our current war almost every soldier over there would rather be at home with their families and friends, but not at the cost of not finishing the job. Our troops have an intense pride in what they do, and in a job well done. No soldier wants to be a quitter now, and neither did they want to be a quitter back in Vietnam.

The words and actions of people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda also served as propaganda for the Viet Cong that was used against our P.O.W.s quite effectively. The VC used to play John Kerry's congressional testimony over and over to our POWs saying that if Kerry said all of our troops were war criminals then surely our POWs were also, so the POWs should just admit to being war criminals, and by doing so open themselves up to a whole new world of torture.

Instead of thinking like a hippy and being assured that you are right in that John Kerry did the right thing back in the 70s, why not go find yourself a couple of Vietnam Veterans...hell, even better go find yourself a couple of Vietnam POWs, and ask them what they think of radical peace protesters in time of war, and especially how they feel about John Kerry.
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
Kazaromoc
Sojourner
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 4:56 am
Location: Tyler, TX
Contact:

Postby Kazaromoc » Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:02 pm

Bush is back .... with more power than ever.


I am truly afraid.


God keep the Justices alive.

:cry:
-Kaz-
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:29 pm

Here's an interesting listen, RealPlayer required unfortunately...

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/media/110104.ram

Explains why we might be having so many problems in Iraq right now...

EDIT:

Not to mention THIS country if they actually think like that... :(
<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 » Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:48 pm

Kifle wrote:Heaven forbid somebody actually speak out for something they believe in in this country.


No one would care if it was done respectfully, unoffensively, and honorably.

I mean, to call those nations who sent their troops to fight with us and die with us, 'a coalition of the bribed and coerced,' is just wrong not only in it's presentation, but just wrong period.

It's called eloquence. Something that many are lacking.
oteb
Sojourner
Posts: 432
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 5:01 am
Location: poland

Postby oteb » Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:16 pm

Dunno bout Australia and GB but poland sent troops to get a good deal on F16 we were buying.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:15 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:Heaven forbid somebody actually speak out for something they believe in in this country.


No one would care if it was done respectfully, unoffensively, and honorably.

I mean, to call those nations who sent their troops to fight with us and die with us, 'a coalition of the bribed and coerced,' is just wrong not only in it's presentation, but just wrong period.

It's called eloquence. Something that many are lacking.


Are you actually trying to claim Bush is more eloquent than Kerry? Or anyone else in the world for tht matter? :?
<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 » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:00 pm

oteb wrote:Dunno bout Australia and GB but poland sent troops to get a good deal on F16 we were buying.


They had already agreed to purchase them years ago, as a snub towards the other European countries and the fighters that they produce (Eurofighter, Rafale, Tornado).
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:51 pm

Personally I think its hillarious how so many liberals are having a hissy fit and knashing their teeth over Bush winning. They're blaming everybody else for Kerry's loss except their own policies, and turning against their own constituants and supports to place the blame. Its like political cannibalism.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:10 am

rylan wrote:Personally I think its hillarious how so many liberals are having a hissy fit and knashing their teeth over Bush winning. They're blaming everybody else for Kerry's loss except their own policies, and turning against their own constituants and supports to place the blame. Its like political cannibalism.


Same would have happend if Bush would have lost...stop pointing the finger when you know damn well you'd be guilty of the same things if the tables where turned.
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!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:53 am

rylan wrote:Personally I think its hillarious how so many liberals are having a hissy fit and knashing their teeth over Bush winning. They're blaming everybody else for Kerry's loss except their own policies, and turning against their own constituants and supports to place the blame. Its like political cannibalism.


I think it's hillarious how the conservatives seem to feel some need to gloat every few hours or so.

Congrats, your terrible leader guy won. We're all very proud of you.

I take it there were no takers on that speech I posted?
<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 » Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:02 am

Heh. Which page was that on?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:40 am

This page, about 8 posts ago... heh.
<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 » Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:46 am

That speech does not deserve my response. If I were to give a speech in jest about the events surrounding Iraq, it would sound very much like that, and I would have people rolling in laughter.
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:58 pm

Kifle wrote:Same would have happend if Bush would have lost...stop pointing the finger when you know damn well you'd be guilty of the same things if the tables where turned.


Actually if Bush lost I would've said that he was a terrible candidate and that he probably deserved it. I wouldn't still be going on about it and saying I'm going to leave the country over it.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:17 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:That speech does not deserve my response. If I were to give a speech in jest about the events surrounding Iraq, it would sound very much like that, and I would have people rolling in laughter.


Right... what a well reasoned reply to something I merely thought was interesting. That good old Republican/Christian (I know you aren't Christian) tactic of saying "It's wrong, and I can't be bothered to say why!" shines forth again!
<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 » Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:57 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Heh heh heh. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Kerry doesn't have true supporters. He just doesn't have the leadership qualities to attract loyalty.



Yes... loyalty... by the way, <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20041109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_cabinet">Ashcroft is retiring</a> all of a sudden...
<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
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:00 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Heh heh heh. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that Kerry doesn't have true supporters. He just doesn't have the leadership qualities to attract loyalty.



Yes... loyalty... by the way, <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20041109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_cabinet">Ashcroft is retiring</a> all of a sudden...


It's pretty common for cabinet members to turn over after a re-election. I don't think this shows any signs of disloyalty at all. In fact the other guy that resigned is one of Bush's closest friends, but he just wants to go home to see his family and live his life after 4 years of stress. Pretty sure Ashcroft has just recently had health problems as well and was out of commision for 2 months not so long ago.

Also, let's face it: Ashcroft is one of the least liked persons in power in the US. I personally don't have too many problems with Bush or the Bush Administration, but I absolutely HATE John Ashcroft. I couldn't be more tickled pink to see him leaving. Nobody as conservative as Ashcroft should have ever been approved by the Senate even. This guy not only doesn't drink or smoke, he doesn't DANCE (and not because he's a white guy with no rythym, he's a strict religious nutjob) or use anything with caffeine in it. I think Ashcroft leaving is one of the best things that could have happened with this country. But I don't think he left due to any loyalty issues at all, and actually he tenured his resignation to Bush before the election results were in and was leaving whether Bush won or lost effective as soon as they find a replacement(which they did already).
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
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Nov 11, 2004 7:34 am

rylan wrote:
Kifle wrote:Same would have happend if Bush would have lost...stop pointing the finger when you know damn well you'd be guilty of the same things if the tables where turned.


Actually if Bush lost I would've said that he was a terrible candidate and that he probably deserved it. I wouldn't still be going on about it and saying I'm going to leave the country over it.


Rylan swallows!!!
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!!"

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests