Printable View
1. Not about the war. Bush was arrested for drunk driving, and lied about it.
2. C' mon, lets think about this. How many presidents make up their own words? He is, after all, the "misunderestimated" man.
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?
Again, no pun intended.
EDIT: By the way, have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet? Just wondering...
Okay, Rip-Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 01:38
3. Oh... then why did he kill the children?
Take this one assertion and back it up, figuratively, literally, or any other way you think you can.
Please do not presume to offer Fahrenheit 9/11 as proof.
Also be aware that qualifiers such as "indirectly responsible" will not suffice either. ;)
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
Am I wrong? :huh:
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 03:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
Am I wrong? :huh: [/b][/quote]
Actually, never mind; it's very late, and I am very tired.
Just be advised you would do well to forego the use of such rhetoric for it's own sake; that alone would place you far above your cohort, although you might often find yourself with nothing to say, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Actually, never mind; it's very late, and I am very tired.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+11 July 2004 - 00:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 July 2004 - 00:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 03:17
<!--QuoteBegin-Rip The Jacker
Quote:
@11 July 2004 - 03:13
I'm just saying that I've seen very graphic photos/videos of killed Iraqi children, because of this war, and I never did find out why...
No, I think what you just said is that Bush "killed the children".
Am I wrong? :huh:
Just be advised you would do well to forego the use of such rhetoric for it's own sake; that alone would place you far above your cohort, although you might often find yourself with nothing to say, which it not necessarily a bad thing. [/b][/quote]
Man, its late, I'm sleepy, and those big words are not what I needed lol.
I think you are trying to say "You should shut up, for your sake."
I probibly should. Nevermind. I just wanted to know if it was possible to see who is winning so far.
Do you want to do your homework?Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 July 2004 - 02:41
In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.
Or rely on a Bush Advertisement?
SourceQuote:
Kerry did not, in fact, vote specifically against "13 weapons systems" as the ad claims. The bills shown on screen are actually Pentagon appropriations bills Kerry voted against in 1990 (H.R. 5803, S. 3189) and 1995 (H.R. 2126 ). Of course, voting against overall military spending bills does amount to voting against everything in them, but even so it isn't quite the same as voting to eliminate specific weapons. We've addressed similar attacks by the Bush campaign in earlier articles, Feb. 26, March 16 and April 26 .
PFA's ad also fails to mention that Kerry voted for Pentagon money bills in 16 of his 19 years in the Senate. By that measure, Kerry was much more a supporter of "weapons systems our troops depend on" than he was an opponent.
Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush.
1. All politicians are Liars, or at the least are economical with the Truth... its their Job. They cant help it any more than a Skunk can help its odour.Quote:
Originally posted by Rip The Jacker@11 July 2004 - 05:53
1. He is a liar.
2. He seems rather dumb, making grammatical errors and inventing his own words.
3. For bombing civilians and children for oil profits.
Try the link from the above post for anaysis of the crap coming out of both camps in this election for example...
You have to decide for yourself on each issue you feel strongly about, then see where the Parties stand on those issues. Do not follow any Party blindly, and only join one if your goning to try and change its policies to fit what you want.
Remember when you read Boards like this, that the people in them have already got their beliefs... dont let them hoodwink you with bullshit. Check everything out for yourself, and always remember to check your sources to find out what THEIR agenda is.
2. Yes, he is rather Dumb for a "World Leader". Dont let his grammer fool you though, he is actually of "Average Intelligence" going off IQ.
He is the 1st to tell you he was not much of a student, but he isnt as thick as everyone makes out either. He is no more stupid than the average person, just no more intelligent either. I do think he's easily lead though... as hes supposed to be the Boss, then that is a no no in my book.
3. Yes. Spot on. Despite what Hank says, every drop of profit from the Oil is controlled by the USA... even now, despite "Sovereignity". The US Oil companies profit by having more control over the "Price of Oil", and they make more money by having the Price high. The Oil revenues themselves pay for US companies to "Rebuild" what the coalition destroyed.
In effect, the US Taxpayer has paid for a war which has benefited and made huge profits for:
The Arms Industry (eg: Carlyle Group)
The Energy Industry (Oil Companies in particular)
The Construction Industry (Haliburton in particular)
Look at the companies that are the big winners, then look at who are the people involved with those companies over the last 10 years.
The whole thing is nothing more than revenge and a re-distribution of money from the US Taxpayer to the coffers of the friends and family of the current administration.
At the same time, "normal" investors have had to live with huge swings in the StockMarkets, as companies not involved with all of this take the flack for an unstable investment environment. Investment Money goes to the Companies making big profits, not those that just try and get by.
Answer 3 is, of course, my opinion. ;)
Well time zones give others a quicker chance to view and answer replies, it bloody 5 am. at the moment and i can't get back to sleep after my daughter woke me :angry:Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:41
I remember that thread and I wanted to comment on it but never got around to it with that being the 4 of July weekend and all. But that’s no excuse so here goes.
The beauty about Kerry is he’s been in the Senate for 20 years so he’s voted on lots of things. Most of the things that he’s “proposing” now he’s was voted against in the past. I’ll give an example. “I John Kerry served in Vietnam so I’m going be strong on national defense” (not an actual quote BTW). In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.
I’ve said a lot of things about Kerry but so far I haven’t hammered him on his voting record
i did see a similar worded republican campaign advert
It appears to have been answered by someone more awake than I.
Oh please.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@10 July 2004 - 19:41
In reality Kerry voted against all the major weapon systems that are helping us win the war on terror. For example he voted against: F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter), M1A1 Abraham’s Tank, also he voted against upgrading body armor for our troops.
Not only is The War on Terror a completely useless and stupid phrase (just like The War Against Drugs and The War on Crime, it defines nothing and is so beautifully amorphous that it can mean anything that is politically expedient), but by almost any standard you wish to apply, we can hardly be said to be "winning".
Since the terrorists that we can identify refuse to wage war in the manner that Patton would recognize, the fighter jets and tanks are of little use anyway.