Kerrry would win

Guidoo · Mar 9, 2004, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
So you don't have any comment about the fact that Kim Jong wants Kerry to win, but would rather change the subject. Interesting.

Aren't you stretching things a bit....favorable(glowing) mention on radio/tv is far from political endorsement.
Frankly I'd like to hear a literal translation of one of these broadcasts. Not some reporters interpretation.
Of course following the logic used already then David Kay called everyone in the Bush admin a liar.

Now Kay actually said no such thing....he stated that nothing had been found and that he doubted anything would. He then went on to discuss intel shortfalls etc etc.....he never mentioned/said anything about false or exagerated statements being made by the U.S. govt. Yet there are those who have somehow taken Kay's report and turned it into "Bush Lied"

So now you have a comment in regards to your Kim Jong/Kerry comment. Honestly I think people need to quite following the BS of the political pundits and think for themselves.

Guido

BWX · Mar 9, 2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guidoo
Aren't you stretching things a bit....favorable(glowing) mention on radio/tv is far from political endorsement.
Frankly I'd like to hear a literal translation of one of these broadcasts. Not some reporters interpretation.
Of course following the logic used already then David Kay called everyone in the Bush admin a liar.

Now Kay actually said no such thing....he stated that nothing had been found and that he doubted anything would. He then went on to discuss intel shortfalls etc etc.....he never mentioned/said anything about false or exagerated statements being made by the U.S. govt. Yet there are those who have somehow taken Kay's report and turned it into "Bush Lied"

So now you have a comment in regards to your Kim Jong/Kerry comment. Honestly I think people need to quite following the BS of the political pundits and think for themselves.

Guido

So ya think the whole thing is an exageration? You don't think Usama and Kim Jong or even Chirac would rather have Kerry than Bush? Ok, well, I think they would, if they are against one- then they are endorsing the other. I think they have good reason to feel that way too- because Bush doesn't back down and Kerry will and they know it.

Guidoo · Mar 9, 2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
So ya think the whole thing is an exageration? You don't think Usama and Kim Jong or even Chirac would rather have Kerry than Bush? Ok, well, I think they would, if they are against one- then they are endorsing the other. I think they have good reason to feel that way too- because Bush doesn't back down and Kerry will and they know it.

Oh.....it's not an exageration. It's GROSS EXAGERATION !!! How you could put those 3 people in the same group is beyond me. Usama is an out and out terrorist and will use any means to advance his cause. Kim Jong is a desperate facist little dictator and Chirac a democratically elected French govt official. BTW according to the liberal media Chirac and the French govt may have opposed invading Iraq because they were being bribed with oil money. So the US and Fr were fighting over the same thing...oil/money. The difference is the US is using legal channels. ( check out Halliburton)
Now lets look at the rest of your statement. Usama will only be happy when the US (the great satan) ceases to exist, and we have been his target for years, regardless of who has been in the White House. So I dont believe Usama really gives a crap about who is President. Al Qaeda has tried under several administrations to strike the US itself, they finally did on 9/11. Having George W. Bush as our President didnt stop them from trying. And if the Justice Dept is correct All Qaeda continues to try. So Usama has never mentioned that he favors Kerry....he's an equal oppurtunity terrorist.

Kim Jong, if as reported the national network in N. Korea has made favorable (glowing) statements with regards to any candidate it's probably an attempt to placate the citizens of N. Korea. "All of our problems with the US are due to ________(insert name), things will be better under ________(insert name)". If you wanted to influence the election why would you air this were there are no US voters. Think about that for a moment

Chirac is far from an enemy. France disagreed with us on Iraq....(see above regarding bribes) But then again so did Germany (an ally since the Nazi party was banished) and Russia, but disagreeing with an ally on an issue such as going to war is not one to sever relations over. Would you have our states declaring war on one another because of a political differance ??

BWX · Mar 9, 2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Guidoo
It's GROSS EXAGERATION !!! How you could put those 3 people in the same group is beyond me.

Simple, they all want Kerry to win, and would absolutely love it if Bush lost- their lives would be much easier if Kerry was in office.

bird chest · Mar 10, 2004, 05:29 AM

Why are you letting a terrorist effect your thought enough to make you wana vote a certain way. People should vote for who they want not cause we are affraid. I think kerry will protect the country just fine. That is not my problem with him.

BWX · Mar 10, 2004, 06:20 PM

Honestly, I don't "trust" any of them, I just trust some more than others- I think they are all liars just out for themselves and could care less about the country. But I think there are different levels of the sentiment.

bird chest · Mar 11, 2004, 05:49 AM

really it is like picking the best of two evils

ToshiroOC · Mar 12, 2004, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bird chest
really it is like picking the best of two evils

Is it ever any other way in 2-party politics?

bird chest · Mar 12, 2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
Is it ever any other way in 2-party politics?

I really don't care as much what party they are from I just want a president who is looking out for the country and not reelection. If presidents really cared about the country I don't think we would have this problem of the better of two evils. In other countries if I am not mistaken where it is more then one party the pres represents the parties values and not their own. I don't know if I am so in favor of that either.

C-Style · Mar 21, 2004, 01:15 PM

Bush is a mind-numbingly retarded individual. He must be removed from office ASAP.

Kerry is a crooked shade-ster (my own word), but if he's the only one who can replace that mad man, I'll be voting for him.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and he had my support all the way through Afghanistan. Then, out of nowhere, he decides that Iraq must IMMEDIATELY be taken over...and that's where he lost me.

It's painfully obvious that he would have went into Iraq whether 9/11 would have happened or not. It just gave him an excuse to use. I'm sure he would have came up with something else if he had to.

Bush's only goals:

1. Get Saddam and avenge my father. (mission accomplished...the only one he has)
2. Serve a second term, and make daddy proud by showing him a Bush can win twice. (let's pray he fails)
3. Hook my homies up with some sweet loot from the American taxpayers. (stop robbing us, you fuck)

Kerry's goals:

I don't think he has any, and he probably won't accomplish that much (who knows), but anything this monster would do won't be anywhere as bad, and plus, it would be nice to have Kerry for 4 years to balance out the havoc that Bush has wreaked on our country. Then we can all vote for Jesse Ventura in 2008 as an Independent (hahaha, why not).

ToshiroOC · Mar 21, 2004, 07:08 PM

The thing is, if Bush hadn't tried to set up a "WMD threat" as justification for attacking Iraq, but instead said that Saddam was a war criminal who had previously used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds, I think he would have had a lot more support for the war.

C-Style · Mar 21, 2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ToshiroOC
The thing is, if Bush hadn't tried to set up a "WMD threat" as justification for attacking Iraq, but instead said that Saddam was a war criminal who had previously used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds, I think he would have had a lot more support for the war.

If that were the case, maybe I'd still be on his side. But his destruction of domestic policy isn't really keeping me with him. He ran as a compassionate conservative, who wouldn't engage in nation building. That's what I voted for. I'm an independent, and he pushed towards the other side.

I like Howard Dean...too bad the media ate him alive 1 week before Iowa, and put him in a casket. I actually worked for Dean in Michigan.

Oh well, let's pray that Nader doesn't fuck this thing up and we can toss little Georgie back to his ranch.

bird chest · Mar 22, 2004, 12:31 AM

I think bush has one up on all previous takovers because he is staying and rebuilding. I think he is truly trying to make a stable government not just a american friendly gov. Not that they aren't trying to also have an american friendly gov.

Mar 10, 2004, 06:20 PM	#66
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,669 Rep Power: 110 System Specs	Honestly, I don't "trust" any of them, I just trust some more than others- I think they are all liars just out for themselves and could care less about the country. But I think there are different levels of the sentiment. __________________

Mar 21, 2004, 01:15 PM	#70
C-Style DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 34 Rep Power: 0	Bush is a mind-numbingly retarded individual. He must be removed from office ASAP. Kerry is a crooked shade-ster (my own word), but if he's the only one who can replace that mad man, I'll be voting for him. I voted for Bush in 2000, and he had my support all the way through Afghanistan. Then, out of nowhere, he decides that Iraq must IMMEDIATELY be taken over...and that's where he lost me. It's painfully obvious that he would have went into Iraq whether 9/11 would have happened or not. It just gave him an excuse to use. I'm sure he would have came up with something else if he had to. Bush's only goals: 1. Get Saddam and avenge my father. (mission accomplished...the only one he has) 2. Serve a second term, and make daddy proud by showing him a Bush can win twice. (let's pray he fails) 3. Hook my homies up with some sweet loot from the American taxpayers. (stop robbing us, you fuck) Kerry's goals: I don't think he has any, and he probably won't accomplish that much (who knows), but anything this monster would do won't be anywhere as bad, and plus, it would be nice to have Kerry for 4 years to balance out the havoc that Bush has wreaked on our country. Then we can all vote for Jesse Ventura in 2008 as an Independent (hahaha, why not). __________________ Pentium 4 3.0E /w XP-90 Asus P4C800-E Deluxe Corsair TWINX3200XLPT Rev. 1.2 (2x512) Maxtor 300GB w/16mb & 80GB w/8mb (2xSATA) Sapphire Radeon x800 Pro SB Audigy 2 Klipsch ProMedia Ultra 5.1 Lite-on 16x DVD-ROM Plextor PX-712SA DVD-RW Turbo-Cool 510 Deluxe Microsoft Wireless Optical Desktop Elite ThermalTake Xaser III V2000A

Mar 21, 2004, 07:08 PM	#71
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	The thing is, if Bush hadn't tried to set up a "WMD threat" as justification for attacking Iraq, but instead said that Saddam was a war criminal who had previously used chemical weapons to kill thousands of Kurds, I think he would have had a lot more support for the war. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Mar 10, 2004, 05:29 AM	#65
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	Why are you letting a terrorist effect your thought enough to make you wana vote a certain way. People should vote for who they want not cause we are affraid. I think kerry will protect the country just fine. That is not my problem with him.

Mar 11, 2004, 05:49 AM	#67
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	really it is like picking the best of two evils

Mar 22, 2004, 12:31 AM	#73
bird chest DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 454 Rep Power: 0	I think bush has one up on all previous takovers because he is staying and rebuilding. I think he is truly trying to make a stable government not just a american friendly gov. Not that they aren't trying to also have an american friendly gov.