Bush Or Kerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karragh

okay, fair enough, if you want to say CBS, NBC, and ABC are liberal, can you find me an example or two of them being praticularly so, then i will se if i can find examples of fox being praticularly conservative....

---

NBC (Browkaw) and ABC (Jennings) backing up Rather on his false documents. Whatever happened to journalistic rivalry?

Im not denying Fox has being conservative, but it is more moderate than most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fett aka hmm

NBC (Browkaw) and ABC (Jennings) backing up Rather on his false documents. Whatever happened to journalistic rivalry?

Im not denying Fox has being conservative, but it is more moderate than most.

---

oh few, glad about that last line, i was worried i'd actually have to go to the effort of research...

anyhow, that is individual people there, it is very hard for a reporter to not have some degree of editorialism, but you have to actually look at the network head to see the general beliefs of the network, or the kind of stories that are told...

ah, i just remembered something, whatever network it was the had the superbowl on it, refused to show an add that was anti-bush... that doesn't sound liberal.(just thought I'd throw an example of something i can remember without doing research)(I am aware it wasn't about fox, but oh well..)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gfx.

Call me uninformed, but what the fuck is so bad about being liberal? or moderate? or fucking communist, for that matter?

---

An even better question would be: what the fuck is so bad about being conservative?

I'm just trying to counter the overwhelming amount of arguments here against conservatism, Bush, and America. This site is frequented mostly by those that lean toward the Left. I just wanted to drop by and say my piece so that this place won't be shilling completely for Kerry.

I have nothing against moderates. I like Lieberman, McCain(I wanted him to be Prez in 2000 instead of Bush), and Schwarzennegar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reagan80

An even better question would be: what the fuck is so bad about being conservative?

I'm just trying to counter the overwhelming amount of arguments here against conservatism, Bush, and America.

---

heh, most "anti-america" posts you see, are actually anti to the countries actions, and therefor actually just anti bush, i don't think there many poeple here who are just plain anti america.





Edit: oh, and to that other persons post, "what is so wrong with communism?"..... we need to have a long talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karragh

ah, i just remembered something, whatever network it was the had the superbowl on it, refused to show an add that was anti-bush... that doesn't sound liberal.(just thought I'd throw an example of something i can remember without doing research)(I am aware it wasn't about fox, but oh well..)

---

With a little bit of research, I can say with a fair amount of confidence it was CBS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114703/

for anyone who cares.

Oh, and for the record, being liberal doesn't mean you are anti-America.

Edit: Grrr...will this rise again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaenn

Edit: Grrr...will this rise again?

---

was that in reference to

Quote:

---

Edit: oh, and to that other persons post, "what is so wrong with communism?"..... we need to have a long talk.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reagan80

An even better question would be: what the fuck is so bad about being conservative?

I'm just trying to counter the overwhelming amount of arguments here against conservatism, Bush, and America. This site is frequented mostly by those that lean toward the Left. I just wanted to drop by and say my piece so that this place won't be shilling completely for Kerry.

I have nothing against moderates. I like Lieberman, McCain(I wanted him to be Prez in 2000 instead of Bush), and Schwarzennegar.

---

That does not, in any way, answer my question. it doesn't even make an attempt at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gfx.

That does not, in any way, answer my question. it doesn't even make an attempt at it.

---

well, if you want an answer to the whats so bad about being communist part, read my posts in the commy guild, other then that, I agree with you, nothing wrong with liberalness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by karragh

well, if you want an answer to the whats so bad about being communist part, read my posts in the commy guild, other then that, I agree with you, nothing wrong with liberalness.

---

Will do. I've actualy did a bit of reading and I've come to the conclusion that in Communism, EVERYONE is middle class, or something like that. It's a failed system, but it was a nice theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soeru

Edit: Of course Americans were hated well before Bush was in office. Here is the problem: Bush hasn't done shit to improve international relationships. He's only enfuriated middle Easterns even further after invading Iraq.

More examples of international-relation fuck-ups:Take a look at Kim-Jung-Il, Vladimir Putin, and countless other governors from small countries you've probably never heard of.

---

I know that Kim-Jung-Il is wrong in the head, and you can't put Bush to blame for that. what's wrong with Putin? Also middle eastern countries that support terrorism sort of brought this upon themselves. Bush is keeping us safer than we were before Sept. 11. If you don't agree with that then answer me this, when was the last time we were attacked since 9/11?

Karragh: Yes

Quote:

---

Bush is keeping us safer than we were before Sept. 11. If you don't agree with that then answer me this, when was the last time we were attacked since 9/11?

---

You know that that is completely flawed logic. I'm not sure which fallacy but I'm sure someone else can point it out.

By that logic. On december 3rd, 2002, my father had a heart attack. Since then he has eated 32 pounds of whipped cream daily. He hasn't had a heart attack since...clearly whipped cream prevents heart attacks.

I'll let someone else tear that apart...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MusikFreak00

Right, not all people that came here first were because of religious freedom. Saying that would be stereotyping. What my point was is the definition of 'Separation of Church and State' is a different definition now that what it was when this country was founded. And like I said, I don't think our definition is bad, I just think it's ridiculous when someone pulls the separation of Church and State card whenever a leader (president, senator, representative, teacher, federal employee, judge, etc.) makes a comment about God. What's so offensive about it? It's not like just because the president's christian that he's only gonna take advice from the pope or other leaders of the Christian religion. If he did, abortions would be outlawed, there would be no death penalty, and no anything else that christianity is against.



I agree, I didn't say that I am against having gay marriage, I gave you the argument that a lot of people have in their minds. It's still Taboo to people who think marriage is a union between a man and a woman only. And that may never change. Civil Unions/gay marriage would not bother me at all. But I am not gonna actively go out and seek to legalize it. I just don't feel that strongly about it.

---

Well it look's like we agree then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaenn

Karragh: Yes



You know that that is completely flawed logic. I'm not sure which fallacy but I'm sure someone else can point it out.

By that logic. On december 3rd, 2002, my father had a heart attack. Since then he has eated 32 pounds of whipped cream daily. He hasn't had a heart attack since...clearly whipped cream prevents heart attacks.

I'll let someone else tear that apart...

---

Sorry about the double post, i do love flawed logic... P.S. Americans are getting attacked by Terrorist every day... It is an war after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

Bush is keeping us safer than we were before Sept. 11. If you don't agree with that then answer me this, when was the last time we were attacked since 9/11?

---

I don't know� practically every day? We've lost over a thousand troops in Iraq; I consider that to be a pretty colossal loss of life. That�s about a third as many people as we lost in the WTC attack. Not to mention we have troops and civilians getting kidnapped in Iraq regularly. Would either of these things happened if we hadn�t gone into Iraq? No. We didn�t have nearly this degree of trouble in Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

I don't know� practically every day? We've lost over a thousand troops in Iraq; I consider that to be a pretty colossal loss of life. That�s about a third as many people as we lost in the WTC attack. Not to mention we have troops and civilians getting kidnapped in Iraq regularly. Would either of these things happened if we hadn�t gone into Iraq? No. We didn�t have nearly this degree of trouble in Afghanistan.

---

Correct you are. I see that you are also opposed to the war in Iraq, eh? Or are you just opposing Bush? Either way, I am with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gfx.

Correct you are. I see that you are also opposed to the war in Iraq, eh? Or are you just opposing Bush? Either way, I am with you.

---

I'm definitely against Bush, I'll fully admit I'm biased in that regard.

Opposed to the war in Iraq? Well, that's kinda tricky. It was good to get Saddam out of power, he was a tyrant and deserved to be taken down. However, the way in which the US went about it was completely wrong. We shouldn't have gone in there alone like some kind of global police force. So, yeah. I have mixed feelings on the matter. It's one of those "do the ends justify the means?" type questions.

I believe I was asked that question previously, and I said that the ends did justify the means. However, I've since changed my mind. Mainly because the 'means' that we've used to achieve the 'ends' has brought about so many deaths. Both in Coalition and Iraqi citizens and troops.

Quote:

---

Because someone else was on their knees at the time giving Clinton a hummer........priorities.......priorities......

---

lmao! good one reagan. But I disagree:P hehe, have to rush now, will reply later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soeru

More examples of international-relation fuck-ups:Take a look at Kim-Jung-Il, Vladimir Putin, and countless other governors from small countries you've probably never heard of.

---

Hmmmm.........North Korea makes a deal with Clinton and Carter to voluntarily stop nuclear development in 1994. Bush makes Axis of Evil speech putting North Korea on notice on January 29, 2002. American intelligence community starts smelling whiffs of bullshit coming out of North Korea in October of 2002. North Korea admits to having nukes on April 24, 2003.

Are you saying that the North had a crash nuclear program that produced their first bomb in a little over a year after Bush started being mean to them? How about this possibility? The North Koreans lied to Clinton and Carter in '94, took their money and aid, and developed the bomb in secret while violating our non-proliferation agreement with them.
Are you still going to blame Bush for this or are you going to be reasonable and admit that maybe Chairman Kim fucked up that relationship? If you can't bring yourself to pardon Bush, well maybe this will put things in perspective......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/stor...794098,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in602415.shtml

About Putin..........Sure, Bush has had a rocky relationship with Vlad, but don't we all? Now, Putin is starting to come around to our way of thinking again after he had suffered with the Beslan school terrorist attack. Our relations with Russia are improving.........

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ussia.warning/


I've just about exhausted my welcome here. Keep the faith my fellow Bush believers. I can see where this is heading. I'm going to end up getting caught up in a never-ending spiral of arguing with my ideological opposites here, so I'm going to take a bow, moon you all, and exit the building before I become a fucking zombie.

Remember everybody that I doubt Bush's campaign will be victorious in November anyway, so we can all find out if Kerry is the messiah that he proclaims to be. If I'm lucky, my pessimistic prediction will be proven wrong.

On a last note, if Jimmy OneStroke tries to own me for saying............"Turn away from socialism and you can have your superpower with the added bonus of unemployment in the single digits." Here's my rebuttal........

Germany
France (They're not in the double digits yet, but they're asking for it)
Spain

I don't think I'll be back to check the responses, so I won't be able to know whether or not Jimmy pwnz me on some of my points. Jimmy, I hope I done made ya proud......... :cheers:

I agree with reagan80, tired of talking politics. It's not like we don't see the crap on tv everyday. So I too will stop after this comment. It may piss a bunch of people off, so pm me if you feel to insulted or outraged, I don't care.

War is probably the shittiest thing that Mankind has come up with ever. Everybody knows this. No one likes war. No one likes killings, (at least on average). No one likes any of this stuff. But that being said. War is unavoidable. We will always be at war with radical muslim terrorists because they see all non-believers as infidels that need to be destroyed. They won't quit no matter how much we plea for peace. Therefore, we need to take action. So far most people seem to agree with this.

Now, I can care less what the world wants america to do. I think we should go through every country and sift out all the terror that has been eating at the core of all that is peaceful. This means Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, wherever, even here. I am so sick of people being pussies because they are afraid people are gonna die in battle. I am here to say right now. I will fight for the worlds freedom of terror. I will put my life down to save my country from attack. I will do everything in my power to get what Bush started done. If the rest of the world doesn't want to jump on the band wagon, then fuckem. Even if we were to go through the UN or develope a international committee to unite and destroy terrorism. NOTHING would get done! Nothing! We see it over and over again all the political leaders of the world always wanna talk their way out of everything. Sometimes you just have to fight because that is what you enemy solely understands. So far, Bush has been the only person who has taken an aggressive approach in eradicating the world of terror. So I stand by him 100%. And don't even tell me Kerry wants to take an aggressive approach, because he will have sooo much pressure from the rest of the world to back down that he will, just so he doesn't go the same route as Bush. Then we'll all be back to where we were again. Staving off the terrorists, in OUR home country.

I'm outta here...

edit: Also, are allies have been aggressive as well, knowing the dangers if they werent. I stand behind them as well.

Looks like Kerry wins, then..


Oh, reagan80, in case you'd check back:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...s/sw.html#Econ

What now?

You guys really have the capacity to endlessly go on with politics. I'm proud to be a geek and not care about politics :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasJ

You guys really have the capacity to endlessly go on with politics. I'm proud to be a geek and not care about politics :P

---

It's because all the others are such damned extremists. I'm forced to keep arguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasJ

You guys really have the capacity to endlessly go on with politics. I'm proud to be a geek and not care about politics :P

---

Yeah!!!! WOOO!! MasJ for President. He gets my vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasJ

You guys really have the capacity to endlessly go on with politics. I'm proud to be a geek and not care about politics :P

---

I'm proud to be a geek who does care about politics ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

I'm proud to be a geek who does care about politics ;)

---

WOOO! yeah, Mason for president.

I'm proud to be a turncoat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

I'm proud to be a geek who does care about politics ;)

---

/me strips Mason of his geekhood and bans him from geekparadise

Pride is for losers, and/or gay people. I don't care about politics, I just don't have anything better to do.

...What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziegfried

Pride is for losers, and/or gay people. I don't care about politics, I just don't have anything better to do.

...What?

---

I'm Not gay but my boyfriend is. :WOW:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dingy

You sure do live in your little bubble, don't you? "We'll leave Iraq in a civil war...dahdahdah...Oh! and they'll hate us for it!" What do you expect, thankyou notes and invites to fancy parties?
If you leave Iraq in a civil war situation, it's your goddamn fault! Bush is a daft prick if he thought it's going to be a ride with Barney and his friends in La-La land when he first bombed Iraq on 13th April. You were meant to stabilize Iraq and leave ages ago...what is he waiting for? Another barrel of oil?
Where was all this kindness Uncle Sam is showing now, when all the world was begging at America's knees to fight Iraq when Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds and the Shi'as?
Bush is increasingly making America a global hate-target, but instead of realizing that and doing something about it, he's expecting kudos and praises for doing what he is.
Saddam lies about how bad America is, Bush proves he's right! He's got a way to correct it...leaving Iraq. Do you know how the common man of Iraq feels? He doesn't care! He's being opressed the same way he was under Saddam.
Does America even care to find out whether Iraq can govern itself or not? Let it at least function as an independant country if you really mean democracy.

---

Dude, dude, dude, YOU were the one who said we should pull out. Not me. When Saddam was mass-killing the Shi'as and Kurds, the UN wouldn't let us do a damn thing. We wouldn't go in without approval THEN. But Bush doesn't care for the UN. AND IT WILL function as a normal country when the elections are done in January. If not, it's because of Saddam loyalist who are disturbing the peace, much like they are now.

BTW, did you know France and Germany went against the oil-for-food program. They traded with Iraq AGAINST U.N. RESOULTIONS. If we suck because we didn't listen to the UN, whats France and Germany? Why do we need THEIR praise anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin_Hammer

BTW, did you know France and Germany went against the oil-for-food program. They traded with Iraq AGAINST U.N. RESOULTIONS. If we suck because we didn't listen to the UN, whats France and Germany? Why do we need THEIR praise anyway?

---

Yeah. Just nuke them until they stay quiet, I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziegfried

Yeah. Just nuke them until they stay quiet, I say.

---

:eek: holy crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin_Hammer

:eek: holy crap.

---

Go to www.dictionary.com and look up "sarcasm". Then get the hint.

If you were serious about the last bit of what I quoted... No comment necessary.

When someone is making up flawed arguments about their political agenda's, it's my role (and other's) to try my best and set them straight.

You know...as long as we are going on this huge international campaign to end terror, we might as well start at home and try to end crime....we'll just kill all the criminals and it'll be over.

All I can say is...that will never work. Keep on killing and killing, and you'll make yourself much worse than the terrorists. If your idea of peace is killing the enemy, then you might as well start a nuclear war and kill everyone. That's the only way you're going to have your peace this way.

It's impossible to have a defense strong enough to be impervious to the attacks of those who hate you. It's much less of a challenge to make the world not hate you...

Even if they both left, it needed to be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin_Hammer

AND IT WILL function as a normal country when the elections are done in January. If not, it's because of Saddam loyalist who are disturbing the peace, much like they are now.

---

Uh, no. It won't be functioning like a normal country in January. It won't be functioning like a normal country for many years to come. These people have been under the rule of Saddam for a couple of decades; they're not going to suddenly change their minds in less than a year just because elections are being held.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin_Hammer

BTW, did you know France and Germany went against the oil-for-food program. They traded with Iraq AGAINST U.N. RESOULTIONS. If we suck because we didn't listen to the UN, whats France and Germany? Why do we need THEIR praise anyway?

---

Actually as far as I know they were within the confines of the Oil-for-Food program, however many would agree that the program was corrupt. Anyway, (even assuming that they weren't abiding by the OFF program) there's a slight difference between trading with a country against UN resolutions and attacking a country against UN resolutions. And let's face it, that's exactly what the US did. We attacked Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziegfried

Go to www.dictionary.com and look up "sarcasm". Then get the hint.

If you were serious about the last bit of what I quoted... No comment necessary.

---

I know, I wasn't being serious either. Calm down, Calm down. You don't need to throw that site at me. (Every day I see that thing, on any forum.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Uh, no. It won't be functioning like a normal country in January. It won't be functioning like a normal country for many years to come. These people have been under the rule of Saddam for a couple of decades; they're not going to suddenly change their minds in less than a year just because elections are being held.



Actually as far as I know they were within the confines of the Oil-for-Food program, however many would agree that the program was corrupt. Anyway, (even assuming that they weren't abiding by the OFF program) there's a slight difference between trading with a country against UN resolutions and attacking a country against UN resolutions. And let's face it, that's exactly what the US did. We attacked Iraq.

---

First you are making it sound like the people of Iraq wanted Saddam to be in control. The US doesn't have to change the Iraqis minds about anything. Most of the Iraqis hated Saddam.

WE attacked Iraq because they didn't do what they were told. France and Germany traded with Iraq and that goes against UN policy. So that would make the French and Germans helping a terrorist. WE took out a terrorist, which is worse again? Taking out a terrorist or helping a terrorist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

First you are making it sound like the people of Iraq wanted Saddam to be in control. The US doesn't have to change the Iraqis minds about anything. Most of the Iraqis hated Saddam.

WE attacked Iraq because they didn't do what they were told. France and Germany traded with Iraq and that goes against UN policy. So that would make the French and Germans helping a terrorist. WE took out a terrorist, which is worse again? Taking out a terrorist or helping a terrorist?

---

Good job on twisting the guy's words.

/me gives leatherman a gold star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leatherman

First you are making it sound like the people of Iraq wanted Saddam to be in control. The US doesn't have to change the Iraqis minds about anything. Most of the Iraqis hated Saddam.

WE attacked Iraq because they didn't do what they were told. France and Germany traded with Iraq and that goes against UN policy. So that would make the French and Germans helping a terrorist. WE took out a terrorist, which is worse again? Taking out a terrorist or helping a terrorist?

---

Depends how you look at it. At least with Saddam things were stable. That country is anything but stable now.

Lots of countries don't do what they're told; we don't attack them. And actually it wasn't against UN policy to trade with Iraq, that's why the whole Oil-for-Food program was there. It wasn't just food, btw, it also included medical supplies and various other products. Although, exactly what all that list was supposed to include is debatable.

I'd also be careful with the word "terrorist." Saddam and his agents weren't the ones terrorizing the US, that was Osama. And there's not much of a link between the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaenn

It's impossible to have a defense strong enough to be impervious to the attacks of those who hate you. It's much less of a challenge to make the world not hate you...

---

Very well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Depends how you look at it. At least with Saddam things were stable. That country is anything but stable now.

Lots of countries don't do what they're told; we don't attack them. And actually it wasn't against UN policy to trade with Iraq, that's why the whole Oil-for-Food program was there. It wasn't just food, btw, it also included medical supplies and various other products. Although, exactly what all that list was supposed to include is debatable.

I'd also be careful with the word "terrorist." Saddam and his agents weren't the ones terrorizing the US, that was Osama. And there's not much of a link between the two.

---

Also very well said...

I wish i could convey my ideas as well as you two.

Thank you very much. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mason

Depends how you look at it. At least with Saddam things were stable. That country is anything but stable now.

Lots of countries don't do what they're told; we don't attack them. And actually it wasn't against UN policy to trade with Iraq, that's why the whole Oil-for-Food program was there. It wasn't just food, btw, it also included medical supplies and various other products. Although, exactly what all that list was supposed to include is debatable.

I'd also be careful with the word "terrorist." Saddam and his agents weren't the ones terrorizing the US, that was Osama. And there's not much of a link between the two.

---

Yeah the US could make Iraq stable if they used Saddam's tactics of enforcement and torture.

A lot of countries don't do what they are told, yeah i suppose thats true, and we didn't attack France and Germany for making tons of money off of the Oil for Food program.

A terrorist terrorizes anyone, so that would make saddam a terrorist.