If you could Vote again - Bush or Kerry?

[100%]

For the sake of the world.














.

[mbucari1]

I wasn't old enough to vote for either election, but if it was up to me it would have been Gore to begin with.

[lynx]

I wasn't old enough to vote for either election, but if it was up to me it would have been Gore to begin with.
Well, there's plenty of gore now.

[MagicNakor]

:drummer:

:shuriken:

[mbucari1]

I'd love to know who would STILL vote bush. Come out and show yourself :angry:

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

Great poll, which member of the Bush family would you vote for, Bush or Kerry?

Which member of the Skull and Bones group would you vote for, Bush or Kerry?

I think a better poll would have been did you know there were other people running for office besides Bush or Kerry.

[Busyman™]

I'd love to know who would STILL vote bush. Come out and show yourself :angry:

Hardline Repugs would argue that Kerry wouldn't have done much better.

I say that Kerry would have done better simply due to the fact that all he'd have to do is make one or two good decisions, ya know, and loike veto one spending bill.:1eye:

Shit poll.

Really. Hardline party followers will never admit when their Presidential pick was bad.

That's Repug and Dem.

I remember this guy I worked with (Repug chubby white guy, always wore a suit to a telemarketing job....no harm there) thought the world go to hell in a handbasket when Clinton got elected the first time. He was all depressed and everything.

He'd probably thinks this current Prez is doing a bang up job. Yet if this Prez was Democrat he'd think he was shit and that....the world is going to hell in a handbasket.:dry:

One has to observe how the human mind works and how sheepish behavior sets in. A person can share just a few of another's core beliefs and they'd go along with the rest of their beliefs or decisions to their own detriment.

People have skewed outlooks on what is to their detriment. For instance, a person might like a President that is Christian and that would be enough to follow him to the depths of idiocy. Another might like a Prez that is for big business but he corrupt as fuck but so what, he is for big business.

I don't think there is a possible way to not say that Bush is the shittiest President of my lifetime. I am a patriot, and can give way for some bad decisions. One can't be right all the fucking time.

However, I can't support a consistent incompetance, idiocy, and disregard for anything logical.

[clocker]

I'd still vote for Nader.

[Busyman™]

I'd still vote for Nader.

I wanted to vote for Nader.

However, based on what was at stake, I couldn't vote for Nader.

If I did vote for Nader, in hindsight, hell yes I would've changed my vote to Kerry although I think Nader played spoiler moreso in the 2000 election.

Without a Nader then, there'd most likely be no Bush now.

Nader may have lacked the tact and statesmanship that many fake politicians had but he was logical as all get-out.

I wish he'd run on a Democratic ticket.

[jimbo12345]

i don't know much about US political rules. Could Al Gore not run for President again? I truely think he'd get in.

[Busyman™]

i don't know much about US political rules. Could Al Gore not run for President again? I truely think he'd get in.

Yes and yes.

Hopefully people are tired of having a Republican President although I'm not too optimistic for the other parties either.

[jimbo12345]

has he said he may run again? I think with his documentary, he genuinely came across as a good guy, with the right attitudes needed for the superpower nation to set us all one hell of a good example to follow.

Don't know what his other policies are though, might not like them...

[Dead Ghost]

voted for kerry

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

has he said he may run again? I think with his documentary, he genuinely came across as a good guy, with the right attitudes needed for the superpower nation to set us all one hell of a good example to follow.

Don't know what his other policies are though, might not like them...

Because he obviously set such a good example as vice president....

oh, but he made a documentary tho! why don't you check out his example as vice president and compare it to his "documentary...

little things like trying to end government regulatory laws that were set up to protect the environment....

remember when he argued against raising fuel efficiency standards for u.s. autos?

"The [Democrats] talked about putting people first. Well, they put people first unless you happen to be a spotted owl or a giant garter snake or some other endangered species and then that seems to have priority. Obviously, you take the bald eagle and things of that sort, of course you're going to make sure that they are saved and that they can live and you're going to take every precaution that you can. But others -- we just need a little flexibility."
so it's ok for some species to go extinct?

oh, and wasn't there this little war thing happening on his watch? bet that was good for the environment....

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

voted for kerry

How?

[RPerry]

voted for kerry

How?

ya really :huh:

[j2k4]

i don't know much about US political rules. Could Al Gore not run for President again? I truely think he'd get in.


Yes and yes.

Right and wrong, actually; or yes and no, if you prefer.

He could run.

There is not a chance on Earth he would be elected.

Keeping in mind, of course, that you are entitled to your opinion.


Hopefully people are tired of having a Republican President although I'm not too optimistic for the other parties either.

So...you aren't really independent-minded after all?

Don't hate only Bush?

Well, then.

Watch yourself, Busyman............fresh paint. :whistling

[ahctlucabbuS]

It's rumoured that no other than Steve Jobs tried to persuade Al Gore to run for a second term, but Al lost interest apparently....

Go figure.

Chomsky for US president!

[vidcc]

Hopefully people are tired of having a Republican President

I would rephrase that slightly:

Hopefully people are tired of having a Republican President like Bush

There are all kinds of republicans. What we don't want is a carbon copy of jnr. but with a different surname. Unfortunately looking at and listening to the line up so far it seems that is all that's on offer. They all try to distance themselves from Bush (and are flip flopping all over the place to appeal to the far right) but basically they all seem to be more of the same.:ermm:

[Busyman™]

Yes and yes.

Right and wrong, actually; or yes and no, if you prefer.

He could run.

There is not a chance on Earth he would be elected.

Keeping in mind, of course, that you are entitled to your opinion.

Duly noted. It's no and yes then.

He can run and he has a chance of being elected. Both are facts.



Hopefully people are tired of having a Republican President although I'm not too optimistic for the other parties either.

So...you aren't really independent-minded after all?

Don't hate only Bush?

Well, then.

Watch yourself, Busyman............fresh paint. :whistling

Did you read the rest after....President? Apparently not although you quoted it.

[jimbo12345]

excuse my naivety on the ins and outs of US politics...i was just trying to get a better understanding. Interesting to read your little debate.

SO...my question from this, if i wanted to vote for one of the guys i saw on the 2 election debates (with the 10 candidates), and i wanted that person to strive for better environmental policies whilst still grasping economic gains and better foreign policies, who's my man or woman?

[thewizeard]

It would be Blair, I think.

[jimbo12345]

i'd go for him.

He's had a lot of American in him recently

[Busyman™]

i'd go for him.

He's had a lot of American in him recently

Bush Phallis?

[Hairbautt]

...it would have been Gore to begin with.
Ditto.

Therefore I won't vote in this poll.

:) Peace and respect.

[LaPistola]

Hardline Repugs would argue that Kerry wouldn't have done much better.

I say that Kerry would have done better simply due to the fact that all he'd have to do is make one or two good decisions, ya know, and loike veto one spending bill.:1eye:

Shit poll.

Really. Hardline party followers will never admit when their Presidential pick was bad.

That's Repug and Dem.

I remember this guy I worked with (Repug chubby white guy, always wore a suit to a telemarketing job....no harm there) thought the world go to hell in a handbasket when Clinton got elected the first time. He was all depressed and everything.

He'd probably thinks this current Prez is doing a bang up job. Yet if this Prez was Democrat he'd think he was shit and that....the world is going to hell in a handbasket.:dry:

One has to observe how the human mind works and how sheepish behavior sets in. A person can share just a few of another's core beliefs and they'd go along with the rest of their beliefs or decisions to their own detriment.

People have skewed outlooks on what is to their detriment. For instance, a person might like a President that is Christian and that would be enough to follow him to the depths of idiocy. Another might like a Prez that is for big business but he corrupt as fuck but so what, he is for big business.

I don't think there is a possible way to not say that Bush is the shittiest President of my lifetime. I am a patriot, and can give way for some bad decisions. One can't be right all the fucking time.

However, I can't support a consistent incompetance, idiocy, and disregard for anything logical.

http://members.shaw.ca/wenpigsfly/smileys/clap.gifhttp://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/style_emoticons/default/sm.png

[jimbo12345]

i'd go for him.

He's had a lot of American in him recently

Bush Phallis?


Yep. And he loved it, the slag. Then again, i think Kerry ws too weak a competitor.

[SpiderPig]

Even though I hate Bush with a PASSION, I'd vote for neither and go for the Ralph Nader because Kerry is such a tool, pushover, and flipflop that I'd never vote for someone like that as a leader (of a nation, for Christ sake!)

[Busyman™]

Even though I hate Bush with a PASSION, I'd vote for neither and go for the Ralph Nader because Kerry is such a tool, pushover, and flipflop that I'd never vote for someone like that as a leader (of a nation, for Christ sake!)

So even in hindsight, you'd still rather put Bush in office.:ermm:

Regarding flip-flopping, I'd rather have a Prez that when seeing something wrong, changes his mind rather than push forward in the face of stupidity.

Kerry was not a great candidate otherwise though. He was the best the Dems could come up with and unfortunately they were the biggest party to oppose Bush.

I wish everyone would get out of the two party mentality. Choices can get narrowed down to only two idiots in people's minds.

I did get pissed off that of all elections, a lot (but not enough) of people picked this one to vote "their hearts" (Ralph Nader).

The Republican Party loved you.

[Fibo]

Sorry guys gotta go with Bush.

To tell you the truth dont know to much about Kerry, but Im happy with Bush.

I was for Gore, but let me tell you somthin, after 9/11 I said thank god Bush won, because I dont think Gore has any power/balls to do anything about it. People just liked him because of Bill(Who if ran today would vote again for). I dont think he would have done $hit after the towers went down.

And Bush, well hes just finishing what he started,
plus I hate to say it but I really dont think Bush thought that they had WMD, he just couldnt let places like those get to much power. Here in Israel you really understand that point.

Now we(as an American) have them on check, and let me tell you, trust you wouldn't want it the other way.

[Busyman™]

Sorry guys gotta go with Bush.

To tell you the truth dont know to much about Kerry, but Im happy with Bush.

I was for Gore, but let me tell you somthin, after 9/11 I said thank god Bush won, because I dont think Gore has any power/balls to do anything about it. People just liked him because of Bill(Who if ran today would vote again for). I dont think he would have done $hit after the towers went down.

And Bush, well hes just finishing what he started,
plus I hate to say it but I really dont think Bush thought that they had WMD, he just couldnt let places like those get to much power. Here in Israel you really understand that point.

Now we(as an American) have them on check, and let me tell you, trust you wouldn't want it the other way.

I gotcha. You like Bush cuz he did something. Unfortunately, if you do something and do the wrong thing, it is worse than nothing.

I mean you are basically saying that Bush had the balls to attack........IRAQ.

wtf!?

Also Al Gore wouldn't have been able to do nothing. The public outcry would have been too overwelming for him to go into Afghanistan and beef up intelligence on terror suspects.

Plus are you an American citizen? Bush has done nary anything good in office. It's like an 8-year waste.

Oh man, my bad. He must doing a great job since there no more colored alerts.:dry:

[Fibo]

Also Al Gore wouldn't have been able to do nothing. The public outcry would have been too overwelming for him to go into Afghanistan and beef up intelligence on terror suspects.



Outcry, C'mon is that really what you want your Pres. to do? Wait till the people beg him to go retaliate. I don't think so.
You want someone to step up and say, "You know what I got this".

And then after Afghanistan to say, well while were here might as well go pay a visit to Saddam, who by the way wasn't a Democrat or a Republican, he was a full on Tyrant. Maybe he wasn't that much of the threat, but people that are real close to him are.

IRAN - I think it was publicly said "Im gonna wipe Israel off the map" by Achmedinijad. Now thats a threat.
YOU DO NOT WANT THAT KIND OF PERSON IN POWER.
Some people can see this now so there taking action, others wouldn't see it unless it was too late(Ex. WW-II). But lets see him try and get out of hand now. We had to build our selfs a strategy, and the people standing in the way were a part of the problem.

I think Im starting to float off topic so Ill just say this:

Im not saying that what he did was right. What Im saying is that it was the lesser of two evils. No matter which choice he would have chosen people would been upset.

What would you have done???

This is Chess, Its not Checkers.

[vidcc]

The notion that Gore (or any president) would have done nothing after an attack like 9/11 is probably the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while.
Gore would have done things differently, but he wouldn't have done nothing.
No doubt some would think what he did was the wrong thing just as (what appears to be most people) think Bush has done the wrong things.

Gore would have gone after (or at least sent the troops after) those that attacked us. I doubt Gore would have invaded Iraq (the wrong country). This alone IMO would have made us more able to win the real "war on terror"

[Elvenmunky]

OMG why did Bush get re-elected what are the U.S seeing?..either that or it's rigged :P

[Busyman™]

Also Al Gore wouldn't have been able to do nothing. The public outcry would have been too overwelming for him to go into Afghanistan and beef up intelligence on terror suspects.



Outcry, C'mon is that really what you want your Pres. to do? Wait till the people beg him to go retaliate. I don't think so.
You want someone to step up and say, "You know what I got this".

And then after Afghanistan to say, well while were here might as well go pay a visit to Saddam, who by the way wasn't a Democrat or a Republican, he was a full on Tyrant. Maybe he wasn't that much of the threat, but people that are real close to him are.

IRAN - I think it was publicly said "Im gonna wipe Israel off the map" by Achmedinijad. Now thats a threat.
YOU DO NOT WANT THAT KIND OF PERSON IN POWER.
Some people can see this now so there taking action, others wouldn't see it unless it was too late(Ex. WW-II). But lets see him try and get out of hand now. We had to build our selfs a strategy, and the people standing in the way were a part of the problem.

I think Im starting to float off topic so Ill just say this:

Im not saying that what he did was right. What Im saying is that it was the lesser of two evils. No matter which choice he would have chosen people would been upset.

What would you have done???

This is Chess, Its not Checkers.

I know a lot of people like yourself. They have this notion that Bush is a kick ass take names guy. They think "cuz he jumped and did something" that it was soooo tough. Those people are clueless.

As many have said before, Bush had the entire world on his (besides terrorists and sympathizers) after 9/11. We went into Afghanistan. Still the world on his side.

Then....fucking Iraq....then goes WTF!?

Ohhhh...Saddam's a tyrant. So the fuck what? He wasn't the first.

And what do you mean "Maybe he wasn't that much of the threat, but people that are real close to him are."?

What people? You mean the Al Qaeda? The common ground was that they were both Sunni.

How is it also you can say it was the lesser of two evils? Wtf are you talking about? Do you mean in hindsight you still would have invaded Iraq?:blink:

Again I ask, are you an American citizen?

[Busyman™]

OMG why did Bush get re-elected what are the U.S seeing?..either that or it's rigged :P

I thought the election was rigged.

I couldn't believe that sane logical thinking people would vote him in again. I believe that computer voting turned the tide. When I hear folks like Fibo talk though, it makes me wonder.

There was too much controversy surrounding Diebold Election Systems.

1) Security vulnerabilities were easily exploited in tests. In some instances thousands votes were made to disappear with no record.

2) The CEO are was an ardent supporter of Bush "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." He also faced another problem with insider trading or something.

3) On a lesser but interesting note, I remember a former exec being convicted of putting back doors in software to steal or hide money.

[Brenya]

I believe Fibo is from Israel.
Fibo, thanks for the laughs.

People who support war are so unenlightened it is hardly funny.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for defending yourself, but in Iraq America is waging an offensive war.

The Americans are fighting against cultural nationalism that cannot be defeated until the Islam culture dies, along with the Muslims.

[Busyman™]

I believe Fibo is from Israel.
Fibo, thanks for the laughs.

People who support war are so unenlightened it is hardly funny.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for defending yourself, but in Iraq America is waging an offensive war.

The Americans are fighting against cultural nationalism that cannot be defeated until the Islam culture dies, along with the Muslims.

Yeah I thought he was in Israel but he could have still been a US citizen.

I've interviews with common Israelis. They like anyone that is all about supporting Israel and against Muslims.

In the last election, I saw street interviews of American Jews and they all supported Bush cuz he seemed to support the most.

[j2k4]

I thought the election was rigged.


1) Security vulnerabilities were easily exploited in tests. In some instances thousands votes were made to disappear with no record.

Really.

I'd heard it was billions.

For whom were these votes cast?

Question:

If a vote disappears "with no record", how would you know?


2) The CEO are was an ardent supporter of Bush "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Do you recall who won in Ohio at all (at all).

Here's a hint:

Not Bush.


3) On a lesser but interesting note, I remember a former exec being convicted of putting back doors in software to steal or hide money.

You're right - that's terribly interesting, and much, much lesser, into the bargain.

How, precisely, does/did it bear on the election?


People who support war are so unenlightened it is hardly funny.

Most people who use any form of the word enlightened (un- or otherwise) in reference to others have never suffered a significant thought in their lives.

Truth.

[vidcc]

1) Security vulnerabilities were easily exploited in tests. In some instances thousands votes were made to disappear with no record.

Really.

I'd heard it was billions.

For whom were these votes cast?

Question:

If a vote disappears "with no record", how would you know?



As it was in tests what would it matter which "test candidate" they were for?-----it was a test.

The point was they were able to make large numbers of votes disappear in tests. They would know this because they would know how many votes they entered and compared this to the number of votes counted.:ermm:

Now if these vulnerabilities were exploited in the actual election is a completely different question. However IMO no voting machine should be used that doesn't keep a copy for records and give the voter a receipt in the same way walmarts give you an itemized receipt for your shopping and keep one for the store records.

[j2k4]

Really.

I'd heard it was billions.

For whom were these votes cast?

Question:

If a vote disappears "with no record", how would you know?



As it was in tests what would it matter which "test candidate" they were for?-----it was a test.

The point was they were able to make large numbers of votes disappear in tests. They would know this because they would know how many votes they entered and compared this to the number of votes counted.:ermm:

Now if these vulnerabilities were exploited in the actual election is a completely different question. However IMO no voting machine should be used that doesn't keep a copy for records and give the voter a receipt in the same way walmarts give you an itemized receipt for your shopping and keep one for the store records.

Oh, please forgive me.

I didn't realize Busyman's intent was so pure and guileless. :dry:

BTW-on a much less-interesting note, I hear the Dems are soon going to reveal their.............ENERGY PLAN! :lol:

[Busyman™]

1) Security vulnerabilities were easily exploited in tests. In some instances thousands votes were made to disappear with no record.

Really.

I'd heard it was billions.

For whom were these votes cast?

Question:

If a vote disappears "with no record", how would you know?

Are you hard of reading at all (at all)? Now after you figure it out, your last sentence gets to the heart of my point.


2) The CEO are was an ardent supporter of Bush "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

Do you recall who won in Ohio at all (at all).

Here's a hint:

Not Bush.

Are you hard of reading at all (at all)? You missed the point (see below). Also I wouldn't be surprised if it was to bring attention to Ohio while tampering with another state. All in all it smells of shit. I rather deal with hanging chads than compterized voting.


3) On a lesser but interesting note, I remember a former exec being convicted of putting back doors in software to steal or hide money.

You're right - that's terribly interesting, and much, much lesser, into the bargain.

How, precisely, does/did it bear on the election?

Hell I'm saying it smells of shit. I CaptainObviously can't prove it, 221 Baker Streetsmith.


People who support war are so unenlightened it is hardly funny.

Most people who use any form of the word enlightened (un- or otherwise) in reference to others have never suffered a significant thought in their lives.

Truth.

I love when you think you are being profound. I'm surprised you didn't italicize more words.

Now lets take all 3 of my examples together and you can see why I think EDS smelled of shit.

The CEO of a company that had some history with putting illegal back doors in software made voting systems with proven security vulnerabilities for a projected close election and was committed to delivering votes to the President. :dog:Run-On:dog:

Smells of shit.

[Brenya]

Most people who use any form of the word enlightened (un- or otherwise) in reference to others have never suffered a significant thought in their lives.

I'm going to pretend that wasn't a personal attack on my intelligence.

Name one enlightened person today who advocates violence. Name one in history.
The truth is, war and violence is primitive. George Bush is supporting an offensive war. I'd rather take my chances with Kerry; I'd rather support a 'pussy' (as some like to call Kerry without any support..) than a war-monger (yeah, Big Bush the Devout Christian).

You cannot justify violence or war; but it is arguable whether it is right to use violence when you are defending for your life (NOT what we are doing in Iraq). Ghandi might disagree with you, however. Two wrongs don't make a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don%27t_make_a_right).

How can you honestly justify that to be enlightened is to advocate war?

[j2k4]

Most people who use any form of the word enlightened (un- or otherwise) in reference to others have never suffered a significant thought in their lives.

I'm going to pretend that wasn't a personal attack on my intelligence.

Name one enlightened person today who advocates violence. Name one in history.


Somehow you quoted the wrong person.

In any case, I would appreciate your naming even one person (in history, if you like) to whom you would apply the term "enlightened".

Also:

Whom among the current/recent crop of American presidential candidates would you refer to as "enlightened"?

Whom among other world leaders?

Busyman-

Who are you to blame anyone for having failed to read the postage?

As one who regularly accesses the catalogue of election conspiracy rhetoric, why do you now default to these weasel-word anecdotes instead of the usual bald accusations?

Just curious.

[Busyman™]

Most people who use any form of the word enlightened (un- or otherwise) in reference to others have never suffered a significant thought in their lives.

I'm going to pretend that wasn't a personal attack on my intelligence.

Name one enlightened person today who advocates violence. Name one in history.
The truth is, war and violence is primitive. George Bush is supporting an offensive war. I'd rather take my chances with Kerry; I'd rather support a 'pussy' (as some like to call Kerry without any support..) than a war-monger (yeah, Big Bush the Devout Christian).

You cannot justify violence or war; but it is arguable whether it is right to use violence when you are defending for your life (NOT what we are doing in Iraq). Ghandi might disagree with you, however. Two wrongs don't make a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don%27t_make_a_right).

How can you honestly justify that to be enlightened is to advocate war?

You got your quotes mixed up.

Anyway I actually disagree anyway. When we attacked Saddam the first time, he was fucking with Kuwait. We were not defending ourselves. If we attacked North Korea that could even be justified if they got nukes.

I would not want a pussy POTUS but I don't want an idiot one either. They both are fucking dangerous. One is shooting everyone that blinks pissing everyone that survives off and the other sits backs and does nothing when agressors are threatening us.

Passive attitudes won't keep you safe. People are to fuck with you and you don't want them gaining strength before doing it.

[j2k4]

Passive attitudes won't keep you safe. People are to fuck with you and you don't want them gaining strength before doing it.

Fixed properly, this sentence could have fallen out of Churchill's mouth back in the '30s, when referring to A. Hitler.

Funny old world, ain't it. :whistling

[Busyman™]

Passive attitudes won't keep you safe. People are to fuck with you and you don't want them gaining strength before doing it.

Fixed properly, this sentence could have fallen out of Churchill's mouth back in the '30s, when referring to A. Hitler.

Funny old world, ain't it. :whistling

Fixed properly...mmk I left out "going".

What's weird is that we have a real threat in Iran and we are fuck all tied up with Iraq in a wasted effort.

Iran has basically said, "Yeah we are getting nukes. So what and fuck off".

Talk about attacking the wronnnnng country.:no:

SDRAWKCABSSA

[j2k4]

Fixed properly, this sentence could have fallen out of Churchill's mouth back in the '30s, when referring to A. Hitler.

Funny old world, ain't it. :whistling

Fixed properly...mmk I left out "going".

What's weird is that we have a real threat in Iran and we are fuck all tied up with Iraq in a wasted effort.

Iran has basically said, "Yeah we are getting nukes. So what and fuck off".

Talk about attacking the wronnnnng country.:no:

SDRAWKCABSSA

I wish, then, to ask the obvious question.......Captain.

[Busyman™]

Fixed properly...mmk I left out "going".

What's weird is that we have a real threat in Iran and we are fuck all tied up with Iraq in a wasted effort.

Iran has basically said, "Yeah we are getting nukes. So what and fuck off".

Talk about attacking the wronnnnng country.:no:

SDRAWKCABSSA

I wish, then, to ask the obvious question.......Captain.

It's funny that we are not attacking and we are using diplomacy in a situation where the threat is much more pronounced. Iran isn't even denying it (besides saying that it will used solely for power...bullshit**cough**cough) and has threatened Israel.

Wow I say. Wow.

Whatever card we had, it was played for something higher up the alphabet.

[j2k4]

I wish, then, to ask the obvious question.......Captain.

It's funny that we are not attacking and we are using diplomacy in a situation where the threat is much more pronounced. Iran isn't even denying it (besides saying that it will used solely for power...bullshit**cough**cough) and has threatened Israel.

Wow I say. Wow.

Whatever card we had, it was played for something higher up the alphabet.

Then your answer would be...what, precisely?

How's about we redeploy immediately to Iran?

Good idea?

[Busyman™]

It's funny that we are not attacking and we are using diplomacy in a situation where the threat is much more pronounced. Iran isn't even denying it (besides saying that it will used solely for power...bullshit**cough**cough) and has threatened Israel.

Wow I say. Wow.

Whatever card we had, it was played for something higher up the alphabet.

Then your answer would be...what, precisely?

How's about we redeploy immediately to Iran?

Good idea?

Can't. Haven't used up diplomacy yet. I would like to know when is the cut-off point though.

While we are bantering back and forth and threatening, Iran is surely continue their work. I think all these "talks" are subterfuge much like a person that smiles and says, "I love you like a brother" but then goes fucks all of your sisters.

[j2k4]

Then your answer would be...what, precisely?

How's about we redeploy immediately to Iran?

Good idea?

Can't. Haven't used up diplomacy yet. I would like to know when is the cut-off point though.

While we are bantering back and forth and threatening, Iran is surely continue their work. I think all these "talks" are subterfuge much like a person that smiles and says, "I love you like a brother" but then goes fucks all of your sisters.

How dare you refer to diplomacy as subterfuge.

Did we not view the lagging action/diplomacy vis a vis Iraq as, um...subterfuge-like?

How's your memory.

[Busyman™]

Can't. Haven't used up diplomacy yet. I would like to know when is the cut-off point though.

While we are bantering back and forth and threatening, Iran is surely continue their work. I think all these "talks" are subterfuge much like a person that smiles and says, "I love you like a brother" but then goes fucks all of your sisters.

How dare you refer to diplomacy as subterfuge.

Did we not view the lagging action/diplomacy vis a vis Iraq as, um...subterfuge-like?

How's your memory.

Great. I also remember Saddam denying he had the weapons.

Can't really deny building a nuke plant though and Iran hasn't.

[j2k4]

How dare you refer to diplomacy as subterfuge.

Did we not view the lagging action/diplomacy vis a vis Iraq as, um...subterfuge-like?

How's your memory.

Great. I also remember Saddam denying he had the weapons.


Great.

Do you also remember his manifold attempts to obfuscate and foil the inspectors?

Dick Cheney and Karl Rove denied any wrongdoing in the matter of Ms.Plame.

Do you take them at their word.

[Busyman™]

Great. I also remember Saddam denying he had the weapons.


Great.

Do you also remember his manifold attempts to obfuscate and foil the inspectors?

Dick Cheney and Karl Rove denied any wrongdoing in the matter of Ms.Plame.

Do you take them at their word.

No.

[j2k4]

Great.

Do you also remember his manifold attempts to obfuscate and foil the inspectors?

Dick Cheney and Karl Rove denied any wrongdoing in the matter of Ms.Plame.

Do you take them at their word.

No.

Well, then.

[vidcc]

Dick Cheney and Karl Rove denied any wrongdoing in the matter of Ms.Plame.


To be fair Rove said he did it but he didn't think he was wrong to, and cheney said he's the vp and as such exempt from all laws.:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Dick Cheney and Karl Rove denied any wrongdoing in the matter of Ms.Plame.


To be fair Rove said he did it but he didn't think he was wrong to, and cheney said he's the vp and as such exempt from all laws.:rolleyes:

Do you contend that the bottom line is different.