POLL
- Thread starter Stangler
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
WaterPog
Founding Member
saleenster
Founding Member
WaterPog said:
A side note to that...have you seen the movie "Man on Fire"..or Proof of Life?
Some scary chit
BTW, congrads Big "E"
Every time I see a Kerry sticker it is usually someone who is ticking me off in traffic. That or they've had one too many joints and their clinging to a tree (ironic to cling to a tree while burning a plant). A good majority of the time the Kerry supporter has a NO on 36 sticker as well. Yeah, I'm a homophobe.
I'm not a very political guy, so as long as Kerry doesn't win I'll be happy.
I'm not a very political guy, so as long as Kerry doesn't win I'll be happy.
Rootus
Officially Addicted
I know, HC. Four more years and he'll get the entire world against us. His foreign policy debacle alone should result in his impeachment. I guess voters can tolerate sacrificing our people for imperial gain more than they can tolerate Clinton's affairs. As long as his actions are prefaced with "for freedom" and "to fight terrorism," people support him.
jordanvraptor
Founding Member
HairyCanary said:
Intelligence and opinion are two different things. I think you are intelligent Dave, I just have a different political opinion.
And that's okay in America. Oregon, I'm not so sure, given what the state govt did to Nader....
Oh, you forgot a "moving to Iraq or Afghanistan" option on the poll... I don't want to be left out.
One Woman One Man One Woman.....
ZeroCool
Active Member
jordanvraptor
Founding Member
ZeroCool said:
But, at Mexican dragstrips, when the light goes green, you run up to the car and pull the driver out, then take off down the strip....
ZeroCool
Active Member
jordanvraptor said:But, at Mexican dragstrips, when the light goes green, you run up to the car and pull the driver out, then take off down the strip....
hehe, something like that. At least they have a taco stand really close..
Juiced87Notch
Member
HairyCanary said:
So voting for someone that's changed his stance/point of view on several different things several different times is smart???
ZeroCool
Active Member
Rootus
Officially Addicted
Well, it certainly can't be any dumber than voting for someone who believes himself to be annointed by God to be POTUS, and therefore he can do no wrong. This attitude got us into Iraq, where we are still blowing resources we could have been using to hunt down and exterminate Bin Laden. We should congratulate W for ridding this world of a minor annoyance, in the process sacrificing many lives and wasting a huge amount of money. In the meantime, the terrorist who orchestrated an attack on American soil continues to be free ... and he is arguably a much greater threat to us than Saddam ever was...sn98gt said:So voting for someone that's changed his stance/point of view on several different things several different times is smart???
Juiced87Notch
Member
HairyCanary said:
true... but I'd rather have a leader that does what he says he's going to do, and sticks with it untill its done, than someone that changes his mind votes against things he says he doesnt support and vice versa... I dont like either, but with what kerrys done in the past and what he's done lately... I dont see any reason to vote for him.
jordanvraptor
Founding Member
lamrith
Founding Member
I am sorry the whole flip flop thing is blown way out of proportion and I can't believe Kerry has not squashed it yet. FAct is he looks at the whole picture rather than just the title and when he sees BS backdoor politics he just will not vote for something. EXAMPLE NOT FACT: Yeah maybe he did vote down to improve schools, but maybe it was because rather than giving it the full 120mil it needs, they were giving it 80mil and then the other 40mil was going to create a new and unneeded "Committee for nation scholastic testing in rural america" that was staffed by a bunch of stuffed shirts rather than real teachers etc..
GB still does not understand what he means by passing a global test?? How hard can it be to sit down and think about how the world will react to your actions and try to see if there is another way or a way to bring them onboard and barring that make damn sure they know and BELIEVE we want them with us and that we believe we are doing the right thing?
What really scares me about POTUS is that he gets far to physically and emotionally wound up about everything and makes what appear to be snap decisions, and then is mad at everyone for not feeling the same way. I had that feeling before and it was re-inforced in the debates when he would get all exsaserbated (SP?) that people are even paying attention to Kerry after GB said he did xyz in his carreer. You could see the hate in his eyes and that is one of the reason I wanted to see the split screen view of the debates to see BOTH candidates reactions to pointed attacks etc..
Also the inteligence/opinion posting, WELL PUT!! I have close friends I KNOW are intelligent that don't believe what I do, it comes down to upbringing (not improper just different), working class, lifestyle etc..
GB still does not understand what he means by passing a global test?? How hard can it be to sit down and think about how the world will react to your actions and try to see if there is another way or a way to bring them onboard and barring that make damn sure they know and BELIEVE we want them with us and that we believe we are doing the right thing?
What really scares me about POTUS is that he gets far to physically and emotionally wound up about everything and makes what appear to be snap decisions, and then is mad at everyone for not feeling the same way. I had that feeling before and it was re-inforced in the debates when he would get all exsaserbated (SP?) that people are even paying attention to Kerry after GB said he did xyz in his carreer. You could see the hate in his eyes and that is one of the reason I wanted to see the split screen view of the debates to see BOTH candidates reactions to pointed attacks etc..
Also the inteligence/opinion posting, WELL PUT!! I have close friends I KNOW are intelligent that don't believe what I do, it comes down to upbringing (not improper just different), working class, lifestyle etc..
Frankenstang65
Founding Member
HairyCanary said:
Well, now that's news. A Christian making the assumption that god has something to do with the success and outcome of his/her life. A LOT of people believe that a "greater power" has influence on their lives and the lives of others, and that what happens in this world is a reflection of the "will of god". You don't even have to be a Christian to entertain concepts of destiny, spiritual signs and omens, etc. Your statement is an exaggeration of a belief that both candidates share equally.
Senator Kerry himself obviously allows religion to affect his work when he said:
"My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead."
and (about the democrats):
"We've got to prove we're as God-fearing and churchgoing as everybody else."
--Quoted in Vogue, March 2003
HairyCanary said:
Approx 120 billion has been appropriated for use in the reconstruction of Iraq.
Approx 80 billion is headed to Afghanistan and the war on terror - to help capture Osama, aid in reconstruction and peacekeeping support, and to continue to aid other nations is combating terrorists on foreign soil, etc. 80 billion isn't enough to deal with Bin Laden??
HairyCanary said:
Tell the Kurds he was a “minor annoyance”. I can’t help but wonder if the families of those 300,000 dissidents and ethnic minorities Saddam buried in over 40 mass graves would agree with that kind of terminology. Or maybe tell Kuwait or the other Arab nations that Saddam has either threatened or outright attacked that he was just a little fly buzzing around. How many resolutions, human rights sanctions, cease-fire treaties, weapons treaties, and the like must one break before raising his status to say “problem” or perhaps “big problem”? The world, including your candidate who voted to authorize use of force and spoke many times regarding the threat, has recognized repeatedly the risk of Iraq to the stability of the Middle East, Iraq’s continued breach of international resolutions, and Iraq’s ties to a variety of terrorists including Abu Nidal, Zarkowi, and Al Qaida. This of course, notwithstanding the almost universally accepted belief that Saddam was likely deceiving the international community with regard to his illegal weapons programs.
Kerry himself said “I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable…” and later that “The world is better off without Saddam…”
HairyCanary said:
As a result of our actions in against the Taliban in Afghanistan, we have brought down one of his chief sources of protection, comfort, and funding. Let’s not mention the fact that 75% of his staff have been captured or killed, the lines of communication, command, and control have all been severely disrupted and that he has resorted to hiding his fragile sickly @ss in a cave somewhere dragging his dialysis machine in the dirt behind him. Osama has been marginalized to a great extent, and though he and his ilk still present a threat, his abilities to wage war on western values have been reduced to the point where he is now merely a part, and not the focus, of anti-terrorism actions that are underway all over the world. To keep harping on Bin Laden and the 9/11 connection is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is the war on terror is about - it is larger than one man or one organization.
Living in Bellingham, and doing research work with very liberal professors and graduate students, I speak with a lot of Kerry supporters. The funny thing is, I’ve not met one who could articulate with any degree of reliability why they are voting FOR John Kerry. Everyone on that side, it seems, is voting AGAINST Bush.
Regardless, I congratulate anyone who reads up, formulates an opinion, voices it in public or private, and then goes out and votes – no matter the party.
Rootus
Officially Addicted
What is important to me about GW's belief structure is the conviction that he cannot make mistakes, and that his way is the only Right Way. That's what I mean by "annointed by God". He is still human, but he seems to have lost sight of that fact. I still have not seen anything aside from GW's own statements that indicates Kerry has actually flip-flopped in any meaninful way on a major issue. To a fault, he responds very specifically to questions, and some republicans have used these statements against him, by misquoting him (funny how different a quote can be made to sound if you leave a few words off the beginning or end ... nobody will realize you've done it, and *technically* the quote is still correct).Frankenstang65 said:
Well, 80 billion is obviously not enough to deal with bin Laden, since we have not caught or killed him yet. It could be 200 billion if we didn't have to reconstruct Iraq -- keeping in mind that it only needs to be reconstructed because we destroyed it.
With all due respect to the Kurds, if it comes down to them or Americans, I will give priority to Americans -- it's our own citizens that were killed when the twin towers were destroyed.
Alright, tell me how many nations he has attacked while we had 2/3 of his country covered with a no-fly zone. We crippled his country with sanctions, and effectively castrated his ability to do *anything* threatening to other countries. He may have been a threat in the past, but for a number of years before we invaded Iraq a second time, he has been merely an annoyance.
As many as it takes. The world does not belong to us. If the UN never authorized force, then we should never have used any unless Saddam became a direct threat to the United States or one of her allies.
Saudi Arabia does more to support terrorists than Iraq. Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabia native. And have you taken a good look at the Saudi's human rights record? Why aren't we invading *them*??
And perhaps Saddam was deceiving the international community with regards to his illegal weapons programs -- he implied that he had them, by way of a tongue-in-cheek denial. Turns out he really didn't have them... at least not in any sufficient quantity, since we *still* haven't found any...
No offense, but I'd like to use this phrase as a demonstration of a problem I think faces our country -- we're declaring war on nouns, because other people are declaring war on nouns. Bin Laden is waging war on "western values"? That's what we tell ourself to make it all feel okay. And we're declaring war on "terrorism"?? Neither of these make any sense at all -- if we're going to declare war, it needs to have a goal. Saying that we're going to war on terrorism is like going to war on drugs -- it's a never ending war, it cannot be won, because there is no definition of winning. Watch carefully, and you will see that the real losers in this so-called war are ourselves.
Yep, I will not deny that, I am not voting for Kerry so much as I am voting against Bush. I do not think its too extreme to suggest that another four years with Bush will put us closer to nuclear confrontation than we have been in at least 30 years. I am that scared, yes. Not because he's a republican, but because he has a one-track-mind, and he believes himself infallible, and he believes he has been given a mission by God to liberate the world.
And on that we agree
.Let's get back to Mustangs, I don't really like talking politics ... too much like discussion religion, if you get my drift
.Dave
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
