Printable View
That was a great thread. I think that it got lost in the big delete though. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+3 August 2004 - 09:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 3 August 2004 - 09:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 05:29
I have a thread about Bush and the good he's done.
No.
I think it was moved to Funny Stuff.
I too am not oblivious to voting Republican either.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@3 August 2004 - 11:12
I would vote republican, but not Bush jnr. So they lost at least one vote by having him as the candidate.
It would have been better maybe if GW had Congressional experience.
Sorry for the error vidcc; it was about 3 in the morning and I was watching Conan O'brien while typing that response B) .
But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.
Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq's point of view, but the simple truth is that I don't harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.
Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I'm not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).
K, off the soapbax and done; ream me however you wish. :01:
My turn then;
clocker- it is nobodies place to decide what I get mad at and what I don't. The people who attacked us did so cause the wanted to, make no mistake about that. I am 34 and came up as a youth with Nixon, 'Nam and OPEC, so my take on the Presidency has always been that the regular guy gets screwed, even by somebody like Carter that I liked. It is what it is. I'm on lunch right now but later I will thread dig and find my statements about other possible reasons we are in Iraq.
Part of what bugs me is this: Supposedly the Republicans (or should I use the button words Cheney! Rumsfel! Halliburton!?) have this ultra secret agenda, and yet we all know about it? Not very secret you ask me, and it is with that arrogance that the liberals on the left have danced, which would cost Kerry the election if he stood by it.
Notice him change his tune? Now he is a middle of the road Democrat? Cause I did. So they are all full of it, and no I don't get angry at Bush. Rather over the last two years I think he is a lot less "evil" than many in the media, online and irl portray him. I think all Presidents withold info and are duplicitous, just like Kerry would be if he got elected. I simply need nobody else to tell me how to feel.
Or what I love is how some of you care so much (!) about the poor Iraqi's and their wonderful country that was soooo modern before.
When what I hear from the couple people I know over there is the Iraqi's rather expect to have a better infrastructure now. And the Iraq as middle class wondrland is bullshit because I myself did a little research and did ya know that Sadr City, which is in Baghdad, home to over a million people, has no running water in most of it, and did not before the war either?
It is called spin.
The spin I see personally is people viciously attacking a President and sometimes even our country when perhaps they should be grateful for what they have. Or would some of you rather Gore had been President these last 4 years........?
Lame Liberal At Jude's Job Story Of The Day- I could do one of these daily, seriously, but todays episode based on NY Times headlines is that the terror alerts and the reasons for them may be based on old intelligence (gotta love the liberal press. They started planning 9-11 in the mid 90's, and had we known things may have been different. Would that count as 'old intelligence?), so random middle aged liberal states that "any time the Democrats start getting any attention they (meaning the Republicans) raise the alert level to take attention away".
He really meant this like it was pure fact that if any Democrat gets any attention the Republicans raise the alert level. Educated looking guy, nice car, and he babbles crap like that.
It is no wonder that in the next couple months you will see Kerry emerge as middle of the road, since he no longers needs to cater to the liberal crowd as much. Bank on it.
-SJ™
Frankly, I would have preferred that Nader had been President the last 4 years but, failing that, yup...Gore would have better in my opinion.
About your "Lame Liberal" story du jour....
If in fact the intelligence dates back as early as four years ago, then why the hell has it gained so much urgency today?
Furthermore, why are these target sites still unsecured?
Haven't we been spending billions on "Homeland Security"?
What has Tom Ridge been doing the past few years if not analyzing potential threats and working to prevent their occurance?
If he is only now waking up to the fact that bloody Wall Street fer crissakes might be a potentially irresistable target to terrorists, then perhaps we could come up with someone a little brighter to head our national security.
But I guess that would just be Liberal opinion, eh?
Honestly I think the problems are bigger than partisan politics, and that is what I mean by the regular guys and gals getting screwed. We get played to think one side means one thing etc, when really the issues greatly outweigh Bush vs. Kerry. The billions the gave out for 9-11? You read how many people scammed them that they know about? Of course as you mentioned there still isn't sufficient security in the most vulnerable of spots (though I know people who have guarded the bridges and they say things are more locked down than you would think).
I see trouble in bigger swarms than what is fed to us, and thus I will not participate and Bush bash when I believe the man does care about this country in whatever manner he does, as does John Kerry.
I can only surmise since frankly unless one of us is in intelligence then we don't really know do we? After Madrid we would be fools to let our guard down. I would rather them raise the alerts than be wrong and not. I would rather them start patrolling places than not at all.
clocker if you are a liberal I hope you are a real liberal, not todays whiny, mean, closed minded pushy version that sell themselves as the liberal left.
-SJ™
SJ,
I honestly don't know what a liberal is.
You may be surprised to learn that when I visited j2 we got along like long lost buddies.
None of the (apparent) friction that we generate here on the forum.
Yet he is the (ultra-articulate) voice of conservatism here and I am anything but.
Go figure.
Apparently Liberals and Conservatives can co-exist just dandy when there is enough rum at hand.
The problems we face today are not helped at all by reducing people to nebulously defined labels, but there you have it...it's the way we operate, seemingly.
Personally, I think the trend has grown more vicious since Bush became President...we're back to the glory days of "Love it or leave it" and "America-right or wrong!"...nonsense I thought we had moved beyond.
I myself rarely use the word liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Independent, Democrat, (Federalist, or Whig :lol: ).
I support who closely supports my agenda.
Alot of times my list choices get narrower an narrower.
Bush or Kerry, I pick Kerry.
Some believe Kerry won't help secure this country and they will Bush.
An example: Some gay guy on Bill Maher said he would vote for Bush because of this issue even though Bush would like to make an ammendment to ban gay marraige.
Security was obviously more important to him but...
It seems the Patriot Act and the Iraq War is what defines Bush as hard nosed towards security. Everything else is rather "normal".
If that's what defines Bush in regards to security then I feel Kerry can about it in a different way, a better way.
Could anyone see Bush helping to negotiate a peace accord?
No
He ain't sharp enough, not even after his Presidency.
How about for hostages?
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I'm off from my post but please oblige) :D
edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
clocker well in chat, RF and I get along just swimmingly, and I only met him for a moment irl and he seemed like a great guy, but a message board is a different thought process, especially cause you can read something again and again. My use of the term liberal atm stems entirely from where I live and the fact that I deal with a decent cross cut of the public both local and from abroad. The disdainful tone I take online when I use the term "liberal" you must understand comes directly from who I deal with and what I read. I find many of these people to be 2 faced and closed minded, and irl have alienated a person like me, which I now see as a good thing, for since I also could never stand the conservatives I believe it has forced me to be more pragmatic than I have ever been capable about a thing such as politics.
busyman- Because Kerry is a billionaire and if you think he has our best interests in mind any more than any other billionaire, then you may be suprised at the results. Not saying I am voting for Bush, but you asked for a reason so there is one.
Israel- Bonus points to whomever can tell me what other country was created by the same people who created Israel, which also has nuclear arms and a history of violence, but which never gets treated in the same manner as the Pariah status Isreael has attained. I really believe there is still a lot of anti semitism out there waiting to rear its' head again. Israel builds a fence to finally say "we do not want to war with these people, we will keep them out", and a resolution is drawn up to dismanlte it immediatly by the UN to support a World Court (and who are they again...) decision. Israel, the only democratic country in the Middle East, treated again and again like the problem because they "occupy Palestine" when what about the other country carved out for a muslim population mentioned above? I am disturbed that much of that region thinks only the end of Israel, and indeed all jews (sound familiar?) will be the solution to their problems. Also seems to me that a lot of European countries let this shit go down.
Say what you want about America, but we do promote religious freedom. The defacing of a Mosque is investigated with the same work as that of a Temple or Church. That is the truth. I read people comparing America to germany, sure, it's lame, but I have also read people trying to make that correlation with Israel too.
Point? Perhaps there is a more fundamental problem in the Middle East and especially the entirety of the Muslim dominated countries that could stand some changing, because this irrational hatred of all things Jew and American will never improve their region. Maybe in the long run, the American presence there will affect this type of positive change.
-SJ™
Pakistan.
Do i win a cookie?
I have pointed out recently that Pakistan is also known to have given the technology to other countries, again pharia states... in this case Iran.
SJ,
If they built the wall on their own land, i dont think anyone would give a monkeys.
They havent, they've built it on Palestinian Land and stopped a lot of Palestinians being able to work their own land, as they live on the opposite side of the wall.
Liken it, if you will to Canada deciding to build a wall to keep Americans out... however instead of the Border, the wall cut New York State (and all the other States along the border) into two... for all practical purposes annexing them into Canada.
Im sure the USA wouldnt be too pleased with that.... although if they built a wall just inside their own border; there might be moans, but it would be acknowledged that it was their land, and they can do what they want on their own land.
They have also, after agreeing not to build any more on the occupied territories with Bush... just announced another 600 homes to be built on occupied land.
Well RF, if you hurry into the chat room I believe there is a last Oreo that the stoners in the "legalize Drugs" thread haven't discovered yet.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 August 2004 - 17:07
Pakistan.
Do i win a cookie?
not precisely the same thing, Pakistan and Palestine. the region that would become Pakistan was already predominantly Muslim at the time of that country's creation. a very small percentage of the people were Sikhs, and an even smaller percentage were Hindus. people can argue in circles about whether the Palestinians have a historical claim to Israel, and it shouldn't be too hard to find a pro-Israel organization which'll gladly tell you that there's really no such thing as a Palestinian so the Palestinians should all shove off to Jordan or Lebanon or wherever. imho, it's sorta like telling all Canadians to move to the U.S. or all New Zealanders to move to Australia 'cause they're all the same anyway... or pretty similar, at least.Quote:
Originally posted by SuperJude™@3 August 2004 - 14:45
Israel, the only democratic country in the Middle East, treated again and again like the problem because they "occupy Palestine" when what about the other country carved out for a muslim population mentioned above?
the creation of Pakistan was less controversial 'cause they didn't have to dissolve another nation and evict its people in order to do it. the people who live in Pakistan now are pretty much the same people who lived there before it was "carved out." some people did oppose it, though. if it lends any moral authority, it doesn't hurt to point out that Gandhi opposed the severing of Pakistan from India. but then again, he was also against the creation of a new Jewish state out of Palestine.
Times change but underlying results are similarQuote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 11:10
But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.
All i am trying to figure out is where you draw the line of acceptable, you appear to think that anything is acceptable as long as it agrees with American actions but the same standards do not apply in reverse.
I make this statement from the impression I get reading your posts.
How can you therefore be just if you are unable to accept any other view than your own on the basis of your pre defined criteria?Quote:
Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq's point of view, but the simple truth is that I don't harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.
Again you bring up terrorist, where is your hard evidence ( suspecting someone is not the same as that person being guilty by the way )
Remember as Americans we get to democratically elect our leaders. The people of the lands we invade have no say in who we elect so why do we feel that we have a say in their land?
I haven't suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes :DQuote:
Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I'm not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I'm off from my post but please oblige) :D
edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 12:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I'm off from my post but please oblige) :D
edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
kerry
bush
Read their manifestos and make up your our minds
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush? [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 14:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I'm off from my post but please oblige) :D
edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
Answering a question with a question? :blink:
Yes, yes, it's called Bush defending.Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@4 August 2004 - 13:08
I haven't suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes :DQuote:
Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I'm not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).
Times change but underlying results are similarQuote:
Originally posted by vidcc+4 August 2004 - 17:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 4 August 2004 - 17:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@3 August 2004 - 11:10
But, if you think that the current infadia is remotely akin to the mindset and methods of WW2, Then its you my friend that has to read a history book.
All i am trying to figure out is where you draw the line of acceptable, you appear to think that anything is acceptable as long as it agrees with American actions but the same standards do not apply in reverse.
I make this statement from the impression I get reading your posts.
How can you therefore be just if you are unable to accept any other view than your own on the basis of your pre defined criteria?Quote:
Yes, I know that your trying to give me perspective form Iraq's point of view, but the simple truth is that I don't harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.
Again you bring up terrorist, where is your hard evidence ( suspecting someone is not the same as that person being guilty by the way )
Remember as Americans we get to democratically elect our leaders. The people of the lands we invade have no say in who we elect so why do we feel that we have a say in their land?
I haven't suggested that you are defending Bush but you do seem to be quoting from the Bush book of excuses sometimes :D [/b][/quote]Quote:
Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I'm not a have it all out Bush defender; This is my arguement for the Iraqi war, not his. In fact I disagree with him on many issues (the ignoring of Sudan and the refusal of support to uproot the Hamas terrorists spring to mind, but thats another topic).
The political arena changed with 9-11; It was a huge wake up call to the U.S. that there was a call to action to be made against the United States' enemies;Thats why it saddens me that Spain does not act on the aggressor; instead vouching for hiding and ultimately giving their countries control to the influence of madmen. We should always have ours and our allies interests first.
I have neve made any pre defined criteria; In fact I've made it a point to specify that most situations are unique from each other. Where is your line though vidcc? Do American civilians have to die in order for action?
I'm convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.
Soon Iraq will be able to democratically elect their leaders too; whens the last time they were able to do that? maybe never.
Edit: pressed tab and enter...automatic post when you use internet explorer :smilie4:
Both true ( probably).Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:24
I'm convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.
However, did he have the means to do anything about his not-so-secret desires?
NOPE.
Answering a question with a question? :blink: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+4 August 2004 - 18:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 August 2004 - 18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 14:23
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
Quote:
@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I'm off from my post but please oblige) :D
edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?
Busy I know that you remember the thread that you made called Bush and the good he’s done, you even referenced it recently in a post. I pointed out a number of positive things that the President has done during his term. There’s no need for you and I to go over this again.
That brings me to my question. Why vote for Kerry?
Busy I know that you remember the thread that you made called Bush and the good he’s done, you even referenced it recently in a post. I pointed out a number of positive things that the President has done during his term. There’s no need for you and I to go over this again.Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 20:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 20:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@4 August 2004 - 18:04
Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 14:23
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
Quote:
Quote:
@3 August 2004 - 15:10
Someone tell me why I should vote for Bush, please?
(I know I'm off from my post but please oblige) :D
edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.
If I may let me turn this question around on you: why are you going to vote for Kerry? Just because he isn’t Bush? What do you see in him that makes you think that he will be a better leader than Bush?
Answering a question with a question? :blink:
That brings me to my question. Why vote for Kerry? [/b][/quote]
No, no, I recall no positives in that thread (besides a laugh).
Hmmmm....maybe you did mention that the economy was turning around on page 6 or something..Oh wait!!
The thread was deleted before the economy made the "leap" that we see today.
What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.
Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry?
Both true ( probably).Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+4 August 2004 - 23:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 August 2004 - 23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:24
I'm convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States; he had every reason to and no reason not to.
However, did he have the means to do anything about his not-so-secret desires?
NOPE. [/b][/quote]
How hard is it to drop a couple of million on a terrorist group?
What changed on 911 was the fact the the USA had to face upto facts and not be so arrogant as to think it was so powerful that it was invincable. What didn't change was the right to attack any country that "looked at us funny"Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 17:24
The political arena changed with 9-11; It was a huge wake up call to the U.S. that there was a call to action to be made against the United States' enemies;Thats why it saddens me that Spain does not act on the aggressor; instead vouching for hiding and ultimately giving their countries control to the influence of madmen. We should always have ours and our allies interests first.
Iraq wasn't the agressor...we were
Again i ask is it right that the cost of any mistakes made is worth the price as long as it's not the USA paying the price.
Your justification on iraq is based on the moved goalposts after the bad intelligence came to light.
yes you did..you said you pay no attention to "mad dictators or terrorists".... pray tell me why you feel the USA was a target, after all what could we have done to upset anyone?Quote:
I have neve made any pre defined criteria; In fact I've made it a point to specify that most situations are unique from each other. Where is your line though vidcc? Do American civilians have to die in order for action?
And no American civilians don't have to die, but you had better be sure of your facts before american soldiers kill foriegn civilians ( oops sorry that is colateral and it's not american civilians dying so it's a price worth paying )
Oh well if you had only told us this from the start...after all that is hard evidence indeed...i'm converted...better invade all the other countries that don't like us.Quote:
I'm convinced that Hussein would not pass an opportunity to hurt the United States;
and what would those reasons be then?. I ask this because you say he has every reason to attack usQuote:
he had every reason to and no reason not to.
do you feel that this will stabalise the ME or have we made things worse?Quote:
Soon Iraq will be able to democratically elect their leaders too; whens the last time they were able to do that? maybe never.
Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 20:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.
Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry? [/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04
Answering a question with a question? :blink: [/quote]
with thinking like this is it any wonder the USA is a target.Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@4 August 2004 - 18:40
How hard is it to drop a couple of million on a terrorist group?
[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+4 August 2004 - 19:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 August 2004 - 19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 20:39
What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.
Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry?
Answering a question with a question? :blink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: You can’t do it can you?
I did...i put links to both official websites so you can read their policiesQuote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 19:32
:lol: :lol: :lol: You can’t do it can you?
I found the Bush link to be funnier than anything I've seen on TV lately ( well..maybe not funnier than Reno 911, but they are trying to be humorous).
I guess it just exemplifies the folly of electing politicians based on what they say they will do.
Based on his professed policies, hell...I'd vote for Bush.
Based on what he's actually done to implement them...ha!
With Bush, I feel that things will only get worse.
So yes, this year I feel that ABB IS a completely viable and responsible atitude to have.
And see I am of the "disease was there and we only treated the symptoms" school of thought. Things got worse cause of what happened before Bush, and all I am saying is what does Mr. Kerry really represent?
I know what Bush represents and I know he loves this country, while I know Kerry loves this country but what exactly does he represent?
Mind you, his speech was......... I wish I had written it. Whomever the writer was, or if he wrote it himself, I was impressed.
Then again I get weepy when I read Gehrigs' farewell at the stadium speech, so point being I would feel better if it was not August and I still knew nothing about this guy.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, the people who have come to Presidency while I have been an adult, I knew who they were in August. Kerry is still a question mark and what he seems to be (sorry to rip you off BigBankHank) is Not Bush.
-SJ™
You are easily impressed. I thought that his speech was laughable and full of contradictions. More of the usual from John Kerry though.Quote:
Originally posted by SuperJude™@4 August 2004 - 22:35
Mind you, his speech was......... I wish I had written it. Whomever the writer was, or if he wrote it himself, I was impressed.
Hardly. Rather, I thought that considering Kerry seemed to have at that point been embracing a very liberal left group of constituants, he then went "mainstream" in his Convention speech, which is of course standard fare for any politician. It was a good speech, regardless of the mans own particular beliefs. Like it or not, it was.
;)
-SJ™
Kinda boring, but it didn't make me mad.
Kinda ironic though that he "reports for duty" for president but cannot support his Veit Nam buddies when he gets back from war...
SJ and Hank-
Kerry's speech, as a "stand-alone" piece, was a relatively inspiring piece, but only if you had your back to the TV screen and could imagine someone else saying the words.
As SJ says, it was certainly not evocative of John Effing Kerry.
As a representative "portrait", it was obviously painted with someone else's brush.
To be totally honest, I started giggling at "...reporting for duty..." and didn't stop for, oh...about 55 minutes. :lol:
Of course, that's just me.
I'm sure others found it inspiring.
Again; we are the only ones that were willing to pay the price; read up a couple pages ago; I already explained this.
Your "moved goalposts" arguement is only refusal to accept the reasons.
Because God will reward them if they attack America, thats why they hate us (I know you know this)
Its nice to know that you can handle dictators viewpoints, it shows me where your coming from (hopeless; I'm argueing against one who has sentaments of a terrorist or dictator) Really; you will never be able to justify the actions of a terrorist or dictator to me by saying "its your fault!"
Do you really need me to explain what the saying "he had every reason to"? (I can't believe I have to explain this) it means he will take any reason he can think of do to the simple fact that he hates us with a hatred that no one can comprehend.
We are to stablize Iraq; not the ME. Should we have kept them under a dictator because it made the ME stable?
It's apparent that you cannot grasp this reasoning and will take every random silly question or reason due to the fact that even if I made remote sensibility you could never admit it. For anymore questions; refer to previous posts.
Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+4 August 2004 - 21:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman+4 August 2004 - 19:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 4 August 2004 - 19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@4 August 2004 - 20:39
What I find amusing is that you can’t come up for a reason for voting for Kerry beside he isn’t George W. Bush, which is why you continue to attack him.
Lets try this for the third time. Why are going to vote for John Kerry?
[/b]Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04
Answering a question with a question? :blink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: You can’t do it can you? [/b]
...and you can't stop
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 21:32@Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@ 4 August 2004 - 19:04
Answering a question with a question? :blink:
:lol: :lol: :lol: You can’t[/quote]
.....stop doing
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank @ 4 August 2004 - 21:32
it can you? [/quote]
B-
Your original question was: why should I vote for Bush? Didn’t I already explain to you that we’ve been over this already? You had a 50 page thread where you and I went round and round on this issue.
What the hell does answering a question with a question have anything to do with the subject of discussion? You’re running away from the question because you don’t have an answer for it. So instead of trying to convince me to vote for Kerry, which is what I asked you to do, you’d rather play a silly little game of quoting quotes.
please quote as i can't find itQuote:
Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@5 August 2004 - 00:05
Again; we are the only ones that were willing to pay the price; read up a couple pages ago; I already explained this.
the reason to go to war was WMD...NOT the "moved goalposts", they came laterQuote:
Your "moved goalposts" arguement is only refusal to accept the reasons.
:blink: the question was WHY is America a target...let me rephraseQuote:
Because God will reward them if they attack America, thats why they hate us (I know you know this)
What did America do that put it into a position where it was a target?
Why would God reward them if they attack America?
you are a fucking idiot if you think i have a terrorists or dictators sentiments. If you are unable to try to understand something you dislike you are unable to understand the cause of any problem and therefore unable to solve it.Quote:
Its nice to know that you can handle dictators viewpoints, it shows me where your coming from (hopeless; I'm argueing against one who has sentaments of a terrorist or dictator) Really; you will never be able to justify the actions of a terrorist or dictator to me by saying "its your fault!"
Again i need to put it in a way you understand.Quote:
Do you really need me to explain what the saying "he had every reason to"? (I can't believe I have to explain this) it means he will take any reason he can think of do to the simple fact that he hates us with a hatred that no one can comprehend.
What are those reasons?
I understand the concept of him having reasons, i would just like you to tell me what you think those reasons are
So we won't interfere with Iran...good.. ok do you feel we have created a stable iraq, or made things worse?Quote:
We are to stablize Iraq; not the ME. Should we have kept them under a dictator because it made the ME stable?
I can grasp it and if you come up with anything that actually answer the questions i ask i will accept itQuote:
It's apparent that you cannot grasp this reasoning and will take every random silly question or reason due to the fact that even if I made remote sensibility you could never admit it. For anymore questions; refer to previous posts.
Ok, one Mo' Time, straight answers...
I stated something similer to - They are our soldiers dying in Iraq...That is a price America's paying besides other resourcesQuote:
please quote as i can't find it
Again; This is not President Bush's reasons for Iraq; There my reasons; There are no goalposts to move, just deal with them.Quote:
the reason to go to war was WMD...NOT the "moved goalposts", they came later
For whatever excuses they can come up with; but to me it seems that they hate our lifestyle and our judeo-christian roots. But as of right now, Why does it matter? is there anything possible that would make terrorists love us? Their hate has transformed into a warping of Religion; how do you dissuade someone who has been called by God to kill you?Quote:
Why would God reward them if they attack America?
Quote:
yes you did..you said you pay no attention to "mad dictators or terrorists".... pray tell me why you feel the USA was a target, after all what could we have done to upset anyone?
Not an exact quote from me, but nonetheless; From what I gleaned; if you cannot accept the ideology of me not having a POV of a dictator or terrorist, it's assumed that you believe that one should try to see it from their point of view.; in other words, sentiments.Quote:
you are a fucking idiot if you think i have a terrorists or dictators sentiments. If you are unable to try to understand something you dislike you are unable to understand the cause of any problem and therefore unable to solve it
Now I know that your not a dictator nor hold their beliefs but thats what your statements point to to me.
I really don't think that any sane individual will expect a complete stable Iraq in 2 years, But I am confident that a democratic Iraq will come into fruition. I just seen this little clip on the local news a couple of days ago about them creating a boys-girls soccer league. Tell me thats not cool. Do you really think that they had it or would have had it better under Saddam Hussein? And thats just in 2 years.Quote:
So we won't interfere with Iran...good.. ok do you feel we have created a stable iraq, or made things worse?
ok; rephrase: Saddam will give any excuse in order to attack the U.S., because he really does have the sentiments of terrorists. The American spy that clocker referenced to would do. I can see that all of your questions are leading to your point that the U.S. is at fault; Why can't you just state that? as I said before; There is no excuse or reason for the support and actions of terrorism.Quote:
What are those reasons?I understand the concept of him having reasons, i would just like you to tell me what you think those reasons are
Hopefully this will suffice, but somewhow I doubt it...
No you didn't actually. I don't remember of whole thread full of reasons to vote for Bush (and no one else does either). I do remember a whole lot of "Reasons to vote for someone other than Bush."Quote:
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@5 August 2004 - 11:04
B-
Your original question was: why should I vote for Bush? Didn’t I already explain to you that we’ve been over this already? You had a 50 page thread where you and I went round and round on this issue.
What the hell does answering a question with a question have anything to do with the subject of discussion? You’re running away from the question because you don’t have an answer for it. So instead of trying to convince me to vote for Kerry, which is what I asked you to do, you’d rather play a silly little game of quoting quotes.
If you read carefully the subject was O'Reilly vs. Moore.
Pay attention and check the title of the thread you are now posting in.
While you spout about running away from a question, you are doing it everytime you post. :lol: :lol: