I <3 Torrid. ;)
Printable View
I <3 Torrid. ;)
That is a good picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktul
Tell me you don't believe everything you see on TV.. Considering "The History Channel" is in direct affiliation with NBC and ABC.. We all know what party they are rooting for =P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrid
Well personally I don't believe everything I see on tv, although I will say that I do believe the footage of bush saying one thing, and then when questioned about it denying he ever said it.
The people that defend Bush know he's lied. They just choose to ignore it. He misquotes and takes Kerry statements out of context to try and make people outraged, and people buy into it. He relies on his supporters to blindly believe him and not actually do research.
We all have our beliefs, and lets face it... Americans with few exceptions vote along party lines. If you are republican you will vote republican regardless of who the candidate is, the same goes with democrats.
A big portion of the rest of the world dislikes the US. It used to be due to arrogant travellers (unfortunately it doesn't matter that the majority of American travellers are great people, the few bad or stupid ones ruin it for everyone). Now its due to the arrogant belief of the current president that America is the world's policeman.
Originally before he was in power he was against that sort of behaviour, but he has quickly changed his tune. All it is accomplishing is creating a gulf of dislike that affects all Americans.
I can't say that Kerry will be any better, we can't really know unless he wins and we see. What we do know is how Bush will act (regardless of what he says).
Pretty well sums up the entire discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BurnemWizfyre
Since not playing EQ I have done some extensive reading. One book inparticular is notable not for the story, conspiracy, or propaganda it contains, but for the examples of how easily the masses can be manipulated by those in power. The book is The lluminati, by Larry Burkett. Not to be confused with many other books similar in title.
I believe that no matter what party holds the White House, the same people who hold real power and money will be putting the same pressures on any President. This would be hard to argue. I have always favored the Republican party. Due to Bush telling me Iraq was packed with WMD's and Al Qaeda cells, due to the knowledge that information to the contrary was ignored and pushed to the back, and the fact that it was all a lie by the President to the American people and to the world. I have to not vote for Bush. Kerry has not lied to me yet. Odds are he will prove just as disgusting as Bush, but for now I'll settle for someone with whom the entire world including myself does not already despise as a liar.
Hi btw.
Funny, I always considered the history channel to be more conservative than anything. Considering half their content is about war, glorifying America (not that I object), and another quarter about guns and weapons. Then there were the anti-saddam programs that all but justified the war. For the record I am glad that SOB is gone, but how it was done was wrong.
Can't really say war is a democratic or republican thing anyway, Torrid. Kennedy and Johnson (Vietnam) were democrats, as was FDR (WW2), while George H.W. Bush (Persian Gulf) was a republican. Its just that this time its the republicans.
I think its kind of funny how the republican party pretty much condemned what Clinton was doing in Kosovo and Iraq, and now take it about a million steps further.
Anyway, yeah, I'm not sure who to vote for (between Nader and Kerry). Kansas is going to Bush, so my vote's not likely going to count anyway, except in local elections.
Lothbath, the reason Clinton wasn't allowed to bomb Kosovo (or any of the other places he bombed) is because he got head from an intern. I thought this was common knowledge?
Here, let me simplify it: Head from intern + Military Action = Republican outcry.
Conversely: Terrorist Attack from Nation A + Military Action Against Nation B = He's resolute and steadfast.
This is pretty simple calculus here people!
ROFL Ktul that picture crakced me up :)
Bush's administration is the entire REASON 9/11 happened. They were given infromation from the CIA indicating that al queda was planning to hijack planes and use them as weapons. They were told that they had their people in the US learning how to fly the damn planes but they ignored the information.
While I think they did the right thing in Afghanistan, Iraq was wrong. They sent a lot of US soldiers to die in a war that wasn't even necessary. Colin Powell (spelling), shortly after bush won the election, stated on television that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not a threat. Then they just changed their minds?
Add in the fact that Bush uses the American constitution as his toilet paper and it baffles me than anyone would even consider voting for him a second time. He tries to enforce his own religious beliefs on the country, which in itself is unconstitutional.
Ignored? I don't know if you can say that. I believe there was a large invesitigation done that stated the administration and the CIA did everything reasonably possible to counter any of the threats they were perceiving at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilea
You cannot blame the newly instated Bush administration for 9/11. They didn't hijack the planes and fly them into the towers. If you're going to blame an administration you must blame the Clinton administration for their failings the previous four years which led up to the 9/11 attacks.
http://votergasm.com/pledgeheader5.jpg
the best idea ever
I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maegwin
Check some of the names at the bottom of the letters and the dates. They were just waiting for something to happen. Based on the letters, I think we were eventually going into Iraq with or without 9/11.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
"In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm
"U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place."
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!! Et tu Andy? Say you aren't voting for Bush! Say it isn't so!! :( :( :( :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Maegwin
I'm on the fence.
How many cabinet level meetings on terrorism did the Bush administration have in the 9 months prior to 9/11? Zero! This despite the fact Richard Clarke was practically begging to have one, and Clinton on his way out warned the administration that their biggest worry was going to be terrorism. I think saying that Bush and Co. are to blame for 9/11 is a little strong (I would think the people to blame are the ones who planned and carried out the attack), but they basically got into office and proceeded to slap their hands over their ears and scream 'NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA NYA" every time someone mentioned terrorism to them.
As far as saying it's Clinton's fault because the plans were hatched and put into place on his watch, that's unfair as well. What happened when Clinton authorized an attack on what were believed to be Al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan with cruise missiles? Every major media outlet and pundit screaming "WAG THE DOG, WAG THE DOG" and saying he was just trying to distract from the Lewinsky bullshit. Because the Republicans were so willing and eager to do anything to tar Clinton, they turned him into a lame duck President who couldn't do a damn thing about terrorism without the public perception being that he was doing it only for personal gain.
And that's kind of ironic, considering who is sitting in the VP's office now, isn't it?
I just think it sucks that "the lesser of two evils" needed to be used in this discussion...
><
LMAO, who was responsible for the tower bombings in 1993? UNDER CLINTON's admin!!! (ya same guys)Quote:
Bush's administration is the entire REASON 9/11 happened.
Lets face it, no matter who wins, people will hate the U.S.A. We will always have fucktards that want us to burn in hell. If ANY of you think that Kerry or any other canidate in the next 20-30 years will change that...well here is your wake-up call for you.
Ya Bush lied to get us in a war(but Saddam did kill his own ppl with WMD's)...Personally if Saddam tried to assasinate my dad, I'd be pissed & out for his head too. On top of that we have Oil interests there.
As for calling up reserve troops? ...Ya...thank Clinton, cause we had one hell of a military coming out of the cold war with Regan.
Economy being blamed on Bush? Are you kidding me? If us Americans could have went about our normal lives after 9/11 we wouldn't have seen any* downfalls to the economy during Bush's 4 years...but NO...we all stopped traveling, stopped spending, and WE...the consumers of the U.S. did it to ourselves.
I dunno, for a guy that has 3 purple hearts, you would think that the man would have voted to get our guys body armor...but he did not, and I think that says just about all we need to know about how this man will run our military and forieghn relations...without a backbone.
Bush is not the best man for the job, I will admit that, but Kerry is WAY too shady to be the MOST powerful man in the world.
The best thing we could do for the United States, if we ever want a good man/woman leading our country...is to put a salery cap on the presidency~
Yes, lets impeach Clinton for lying about sexual relations, but it's perfectly fine for Bush's lie to start a war that wouldn't have otherwise happened.
Frankly, the fact that so many people hate Bush makes him a bad leader. Someone should put a nice framed poster up in the oval office that reads: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Hussein used WMD's... in the Iran-Iraq war against civilian targets in Iran. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. However he chose the right enemy to fight at the right time, the US wanted a country to act as a buffer against Iran. In fact Reagan handpicked someone to go meet with Saddam Hussein, Donald Rumsfeld.
http://conscience.notfrisco2.com/arc...hake-thumb.jpg
Rumsfeld sure didn't care about those WMD's Saddam had then, but of course they were being used to murder Iranians then. President Reagan had Iraq removed from the list of countries supporting terrorism; even though Iraq continued to provided training facilities to the PLO, Hamas, and other Palestinian terrorists. This paved the way for better relations and weapon sales in the mid to late 80's. When Hussein gassed several Kurdish villages in norther Iraq in 1988 it was no small surprise, but it was basically business as usual with the Reagan administration. In fact Reagan said that
Of course this opinion all changed when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The US and it's allies of course won a resounding victory against Iraq and sanctions were put in place to contain them. However not everything was working quite so well. There was corruption in the oil for food program that allowed Hussein to launder millions of dollars and use that to keep his regime propped up. Many corporations were involved in this as well French, Russian, and.... American. Several subsidiaries of Hailburton profited greatly from this, including Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. which sold millions of dollars of equipment to Iraq through a French subsidiary. They would have sold more but several contracts were blocked by the Clinton administration because they violated sanctions put in place against Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Reagan
Meanwhile in the mid and late 80's the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was not going so well. The Soviet controlled the cities but outside of them it was difficult because US funded and supplied Mujaheddin would ambush Soviet troops at every opportunity and then melt away into the countryside. Coincidently enough one of the better Mujaheddin commanders on the US payroll was the son of a Saudi billionaire by the name of Osama Bin Ladin. Another group of US supported mujaheddin included a group calling themselves "The Taliban" which means students of Islamic knowledge. After the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan their puppet government collapsed and a civil war ensued. The Taliban ultimately prevailed, except for a few enclaves of resistant. It surprised noone when Osama Bin Ladin and his group of religious fanatics continued to operate out of Afghanistan.
The Bush administration is full of the dolts that gave us the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan; Rumsfeld and Cheney being the two worst of them. When confronted with proof of it they brush it off as if it's inconsequential or act as if they don't remember it. They took the worst thing that's happend to the US in the past 100 years and tout it as Bush's greatest success and how it "helped him find his voice". They tried to tie 9/11 to Iraq even though the CIA and Wesley Clarke were screaming that it was Al Qaeda. Then when they can't make the Iraq link stick they reluctantly invade Afghanistan by proxy, by funding and supporting warlords who are just as bad as the Taliban but less successful. Then they leave the job half finished after promising us justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George W. Bush
Then they start trying to build a case for a war in Iraq. Which isn't surprising since Rumsfeld and his cronies in the PNAC have been foaming at the mouth for a second war in Iraq for over a decade. They refused to share this damning evidence that proves Iraq has WMD's. No photo's, no testimony under oath, no samples, nothing. They were banking on going into Iraq and finding tons of Al Qaeda camps and WMD's all over the place. They found squat. Then it turns out we were buying information from the people we isntalled as the Iraqi governing council, Colin Powell lied to the UN (Where are those trucks Mr. Hussein... oh the photo's were taken 10 years apart...), and Bush lied to the American people about how much it would cost and how long it would take.Quote:
Originally Posted by George W. Bush
I can't see how anyone could vote for Bush. I don't like Kerry but Bush is the worst president we've had since Nixon.
That's your justification for sacrificing the lives of over 1000 US soldiers and counting, plus tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians??? Revenge because of daddy and oil??Quote:
Originally Posted by Azis
No, that would never justify a war. A tomahawk or 3 giftwrapped for Saddam, i could see, but not a war.
Imho, Saddam needed to be out, but I think that Bush was wrong for starting this.
I can't tell, is this in defense of or criticism of Bush, since a relatively minor attack occurred so early, and so many warnings were mentioned, but no action was taken?Quote:
Originally Posted by Azis
Have you read about why those countries hate us?Quote:
Lets face it, no matter who wins, people will hate the U.S.A. We will always have fucktards that want us to burn in hell. If ANY of you think that Kerry or any other canidate in the next 20-30 years will change that...well here is your wake-up call for you.
This is just embarassing.Quote:
Ya Bush lied to get us in a war(but Saddam did kill his own ppl with WMD's)...Personally if Saddam tried to assasinate my dad, I'd be pissed & out for his head too. On top of that we have Oil interests there.
And we certainly could sustain that military, right?Quote:
As for calling up reserve troops? ...Ya...thank Clinton, cause we had one hell of a military coming out of the cold war with Regan.
Now this is martydom. It's the American people's fault that our economy plummeted. Oh, those damn people! What about the economic policy of the current administration? What about rising oil costs, with oil being a metric for standard of living as well as quality of life? Consumer confidence is at an all time low, right?Quote:
Economy being blamed on Bush? Are you kidding me? If us Americans could have went about our normal lives after 9/11 we wouldn't have seen any* downfalls to the economy during Bush's 4 years...but NO...we all stopped traveling, stopped spending, and WE...the consumers of the U.S. did it to ourselves.
When you hear stuff on TV, do you research it to make an informed opinion, or do you shoot from the hip?Quote:
I dunno, for a guy that has 3 purple hearts, you would think that the man would have voted to get our guys body armor...but he did not, and I think that says just about all we need to know about how this man will run our military and forieghn relations...without a backbone.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=177.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=177.html
This is a matter of opinion, and I'll leave it at that, but tell me, what exactly makes Bush NOT shady?Quote:
Bush is not the best man for the job, I will admit that, but Kerry is WAY too shady to be the MOST powerful man in the world.
The President makes hardly any money from "salary". Book deals and private interest groups campaigning for "favors" brings in the majority of the income . In this case, power is money.Quote:
The best thing we could do for the United States, if we ever want a good man/woman leading our country...is to put a salery cap on the presidency~
You had me at Dicks fuck Assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilrith
America, fuck yeah!
I think you meant Richard Clarke, Thuggo. Point still stands!Quote:
Wesley Clarke
Wait wait, I know this one! Because they hate freedom!Quote:
Have you read about why those countries hate us?
This is funny. On one hand, Clinton apparently decimated the military. On the other hand, this same military only a year after Clinton left office waged an extremely successful war in a country where superpowers have gone to be embarassed for centuries, with an incredibly small force. Same goes with Iraq. Both military campaigns were actually extremely successful, the aftermaths much less so.Quote:
As for calling up reserve troops? ...Ya...thank Clinton, cause we had one hell of a military coming out of the cold war with Regan.
So which is it? Did Clinton destroy the military? If so, why then was it able to in the space of 18 months invade and decapitate two governments of two countries with casualties in the dozens or low hundreds? Make up your mind, already.
i didnt know choosing to fight in nam shows weakness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilrith
then after seeing it was a a fruitless war(maybe you think it wasnt?)--become vocal and speek up about it.
i think dodging things, so people you never meet take your place and die is much better.
4 more years!!!
4 more years!
Wow. Why invent your own opinion when people can feed you ready made terms that are far easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilrith
Why is Bush a dick? And why is Kerry a pussy? Wait, is it because he spoke up about vietnam? I suppose the kids at Kent state are pussies too. And what do you think of Vietnam anyway?
And why do you think people become "terrorists"? It's a desperate idiology that fights against military forces when in a conventional war it has no chance of winning. It's desperate, cruel, and the only way such people fight back.
But I suppose this is D&D and we should just call them chaotic evil and join forces and swing our righteous freedom bats and save the earth.
God, the fact that the Canadians here are more educated on our political situation than Americans is embarassing. (Not because you're Canadain of course, you get what I'm saying)
Why is it that I see all the Bush supporters with talking point generalities but I rarely see the Kerry supporters with such? Maybe I should just look harder, but seriously?
hmmm...
I don't live in Texas, so there will be no shooting from "The hip"Quote:
When you hear stuff on TV, do you research it to make an informed opinion, or do you shoot from the hip?
Kerry voted NO on S.1689. In this bill there was $300,000,000 for improved body armor for our troops. His own Democrats outvoted him and Edwards 37 to 11, the overall vote was 87 for to 12 against.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote =00400
S.1689 Summary
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@D&summ2=m&
S.1689 Detail
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1689:
Yes, I think we could. With 1.4million troops today, we are at 3.1% GDP. If we go back up to the numbers we had during the first gulf war, 2million, then we would be right around 4.1% GDP. Thats for abit over 600,000 troops. It may not sound like much, but we fought the first gulf war with just over 600,000 troops.Quote:
And we certainly could sustain that military, right?
http://www.va.gov/oaa/pocketcard/gulfwar_summary.asp
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...03-ff04se.html
I do think that Kerry is too shaddy to be Pres, or he would do something as simple as sign his Military Form 180, release of his military records to the public. But he hasn't. Did Kerry get booted from the military? Maybe...maybe not, but the people John Kerry served with are calling him out. His book doesn't match his statements over the years, and Military grunts to Rear Admerals are shouting BS.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdoc...0408201031.asp
Now I don't believe everything I read but, coming from the mouths of the men that served with him...seems like Kerry is hiding from his past. Here are some video's, I find the first purple heart story shocking to say the least.
http://www.swiftvetsandpows.com/
With so much of his run for pres being based on him being a war hero, I'd like to see his military records. People that have made it to the Oval Office before him have released thier records without batting an eye, but Kerry might just roll the dice and ride it out.
:rolleyes:
Azis, look at that link you posted about voting no to body armor. the only time armor is mentioned in the bill is in reference to armored vehicles, it doesn't mention body armor anywhere in the bill. and it doesnt give a specified amount to the armored vehicles, it just says that it calls for a reevaluation of armored vehicle needs by an army commander or whatever to be taken from an already existing iraqi freedom fund....
Tarrisa and Zappo (and anyone else for that matter), before you go crazy ninja ball-buster style all over Lilrith, go see Team America: World Police eh~ ;)
I don't understand why Bush even HAS supporters. The man has pretty much failed at everything he's ever done in life. His failed oil company, his failed presidential administration and so on.
The CIA told his people in NO uncertain terms that the al queda had operatives in the US learning to fly commercial planes so that they could be used as weapons, but they ignored it. It's not their fault that the attack was planned, but it's certainly their fault that it succeeded. Why do you have intelligence if you don't want to listen to what they tell you?
Bush's amazing ability to try to sound intelligent when he has to do his own speaking, yet failing spectacularly at every turn. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... .. can't.... can't fool me again!". I'm sure we've all heard that one. There are books out here in Canada that are nothing but quotes of Bush making himself sound like a fool.
The fact that he has such little regard for your constitution. He thinks he's above it, he thinks his own personal religious beliefs come before a constitution that the government is sworn to uphold. Hello?
He was nominated to lead his party based largely on his stance against gay union and marriage. Now he is supporting gay union because he knows he needs votes. When asked, "are you now going against the stance that won you your nomination?". Bush's reply was simply one word : "Yes". And then he turns around and calls Kerry someone who will say anything to get elected.
He lied about Iraq to go to war there. Over 1000 US soldiers are dead because of this. God knows how many innocent civilians within Iraq are dead because of this.
And yet, next Tuesday, some of you will still vote to put him back in office....
I'm reading "Unfit for Command" now actually. So far, I've read about 75% anecdotal evidence, so I felt like I was sitting around a campfire with a bunch of old men who didn't like a guy. They conveniently quote people when they say something bad about Kerry, but then fail to quote that same person when they say overwhelmingly positive things about him.
Perhaps I'm failing at my own attempt at pragmatism. Maybe I am simply a victim to whatever ingrained beliefs I have, just like the people I dislike who support Bush. But I sure think I'm resting my case on all of the evidence I was presented rather than my gut reaction on our so-called "War Against Terror".
This is what I base my decisions on. http://www.issues2000.org/John_Kerry.htm
Most people voting for Bush are pure-partisans or scared of Kerry it seems.Quote:
I don't understand why Bush even HAS supporters.
Seriously, wow. I mean really, wow. Do you still wear a diaper? Or have you finally graduated to whiping your ass? Because to me, someone so willing to hand over responsibility and just remain in blissful ignorace probably wouldn't mind just grabbing a fresh pampers every now and then. It's just easier that way.Quote:
First off: He knows whats up...I mean what is really up. Maybe They/He aren't telling us, but at least They/He really know.
"Hey Lilrith, you hear that 100,000 Iraqis are dead because of the war, the FBI is investigating the Pentagon for the sweetheart contract awarded to Cheney's former company to the tune of $2.5billion so far, and that because of the incompetence and lack of planning in Iraq it's a good bet that most of the Iraqi army's equipment is now in the hands of lunatics?"
"Don't worry man."
"What, why?"
"He knows."
"Who knows?"
"Bush"
"What the hell are you talking about."
"He knows man." *looks serious* "He knows."
Just fyi, a real Texan wouldn't shoot from the hip either....just the pretend ones do. And you know who is a pretend Texan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azis
<3 40! Actually I have lived in Texas b4 & its one of my fav places in the US.
As for Eomer...
Everyone will feel the way they feel, vote the way they will vote, could atleast be decent about it.
Not sure why the personal attacks.. but knock it off.
This isn't a flame forum. Be nice or this thread get's deleted.