O'reilly Vs. Moore

[clocker]

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&#39;s done.

That was a great thread. I think that it got lost in the big delete though. [/b][/quote]
No.

I think it was moved to Funny Stuff.

[Busyman]

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.

I too am not oblivious to voting Republican either.


It would have been better maybe if GW had Congressional experience.

[spinningfreemanny]

Sorry for the error vidcc; it was about 3 in the morning and I was watching Conan O&#39;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&#39;s point of view, but the simple truth is that I don&#39;t harbor perspectives of crazy dictators and terrorists.

Aaaaand, hitting the final point: I&#39;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.

[SuperJude™]

My turn then;

clocker- it is nobodies place to decide what I get mad at and what I don&#39;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, &#39;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&#39;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&#33; Rumsfel&#33; Halliburton&#33;?) 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&#39;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 (&#33 about the poor Iraqi&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s, and had we known things may have been different. Would that count as &#39;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™

[clocker]

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&#39;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?

[SuperJude™]

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&#39;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&#39;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™

[clocker]

SJ,
I honestly don&#39;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&#39;s the way we operate, seemingly.
Personally, I think the trend has grown more vicious since Bush became President...we&#39;re back to the glory days of "Love it or leave it" and "America-right or wrong&#33;"...nonsense I thought we had moved beyond.

[Busyman]

I myself rarely use the word liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Independent, Democrat, (Federalist, or Whig ).

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m off from my post but please oblige)

edit: Oh and btw I am not rich.

[SuperJude™]

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&#39; 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&#39;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™

[Rat Faced]

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&#39;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.