ID:187653
 Nov 3 2004, 11:42 am
|
|
Bush won! Im very happy about this. Im safe for another 4 years.
| |
Okay, do not make this another huge thread about the same thing as the "other" huge threat. Take this to "Vote or Die!"
| |
Goz wrote:
Zlegend2 wrote: Democrats liberal? Bush was anything but conservative spending-wise. Besides, there's just the right, and the further right. | |
If it was Kerey in office when 9-11 struck, the US would be in ruins and panic. Please don't tell me Kerey would be "safe". He's rich, arrogant, and just a corrupted as any would-be president could be.
| |
Zlegend2 wrote:
If it was Kerey in office when 9-11 struck, the US would be in ruins Bull. No matter who the president was, the US doesn't fall into ruins that easily. It's still the world's most powerful nation, remember. Sorry to tell you this, but you've completely swallowed the Republican party's propaganda. I hope that one day you'll learn to think for yourself. (I'm being sincere here, not sarcastic.) and panic. Most of the US population is panicking anyway. Bush is FURTHERING the panic. Remember all that orange/red/etc. alert rubbish? Maybe US spies were detecting more extreme anti-U.S. sentiment (which is hardly surprising, with all the people Bush has been bombing lately), but the reality is that those "terror alerts" were stirring up panic (whether intentionally or not), and the more fearful a population is, the more likely they are to vote the current government back in. This was demonstrated in Australia in the election before last (we just had one too); Our Unfortunately-Prime-Minister, John Howard, stirred up fear by provoking racist anti-refugee sentiments, using falsified photos*. It only lasted about a week, but by the time it was revealed as a complete hoax it was too late; Johnny had been re-elected. And by this election, everyone had forgotten that he had brazenly LIED; and if they remembered, then they didn't care (this was borne out by a poll; I don't remember the exact figures, but more than 50% of people surveyed believed that John Howard had lied, but didn't care). *The photos were genuine, but they showed refugees jumping off their rapidly-sinking boat to escape being drowned, not evil heartless "illegal" immigrants drowning their children in order to lighten the load as "Honest John" claimed. Please don't tell me Kerey would be "safe". He's rich, arrogant, and just a corrupted as any would-be president could be. Everything you just said in those two sentences applies equally, if not more so, to Bush. Kerry isn't the perfect U.S. president. But he's at least the lesser of two evils. I mean, Bush is a friggin' evangelical fundamentalist! A religious nutjob is the last person you want running the U.S. | |
Yeah, a devastating terrorist attack could never happen while Bush was in office. If Bush had been in office on September 11th, 2001 instead of... wait... Bush was in office.
Well, at least Bush went after the biggest Al-Qaeda bases of support in Pakistan, Egypt, and... no... wait. He didn't go after them. He just gave them more money and equipment. Okay, well, at least Bush didn't take a stable but despicable country and turn it into an unstable hotbed of terrorism where the new insurgent leaders have pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden. Oh... wait. He did do that. You want to know, besides you, who is happiest that Bush got re-elected? Look at the timing of Osama bin Laden's latest tape, which was completely different from all his others. Do you really think this Western-educated mastermind of the world's most dangerous terrorist group really thought he would scare people out of voting for Bush? He knew threatening the U.S. right before the election would give Dubya a boost, and he was right. Osama's pick for president got elected. | |
Yay! Four more years of spiking oil, misguided fiscal policy, and illegitimate wars! But at least we're safe because Bush ferverently hunts down terrorists and their leaders and hasn't provided an ideal environment for increased recruiting and growing anti-American sentiment. But wait, maybe you too can fight terror! We do need more troops and enlistment rates are down, so maybe we'll just volunteer you, because we know that's what you wanted to do for freedom because you're a patriot!
Man, my Haliburton stock is looking sweet right now! Thanks guys! | |
Im sad with the outcome of the election. Not only because Bush is back in office, but becuase of 11 states voting yes on that damn marriage thing.
The world is becoming a very sad place to live. Marriage IMO was designed to show the entire world you love one another. Now we are telling certian people, they are not allowed to do this. This is complete and utter crap. I really think, this is being racist on a sexual term. I didnt think so many people were so thick headed, but I guess I was wrong. If Kerry runs again in another 4 years, I bet he wins that time. :P I hope Im dead by then. | |
I mean, Bush is a friggin' evangelical fundamentalist! A religious nutjob is the last person you want running the U.S. Dude, he's a United Methodist, not a snake-handler. I'll let you in on a secret: at the end of Bush's second term, abortion and bad art and good reefer and all the other pleasures that are always on the verge of being stamped out by "religious nutjobs" will still be cheap and widely available. Bank on it. | |
Bull. No matter who the president was, the US doesn't fall into ruins that easily. It's still the world's most powerful nation, remember. Yeah the US survived after Clinton was in office for 8 years so it is quite evident that 8 years isn't enough time for a president to completely thrash the US. Sorry to tell you this, but you've completely swallowed the Republican party's propaganda. I love in politics how if you believe something someone else disagrees with its not thinking for yourself whereas agreeing with that same person is intelectual thought. Most of the US population is panicking anyway. Bush is FURTHERING the panic. Well I guess it would be scary either way since I know I'm atleast somewhat relieved the Bush is still in office. As Kerry said himself he is going to do anything about terrorists until they've nailed us yet again and even then I'd doubt he do more than make empty threats. Remember all that orange/red/etc. alert rubbish? Maybe US spies were detecting more extreme anti-U.S. sentiment (which is hardly surprising, with all the people Bush has been bombing lately), but the reality is that those "terror alerts" were stirring up panic (whether intentionally or not), and the more fearful a population is, the more likely they are to vote the current government back in. Heh so causing artificial fear gets you re-elected? Of course terrorists aren't really threats as 9/11 and the embassy bombings are quite artificial! Let me quote Kerry's solution "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain responce." which means he wasn't planning to do anything until we had another incident and even if it did I'm doubtful anything he would do would be meaningful toward preventing it in the future. Everything you just said in those two sentences applies equally, if not more so, to Bush. Heh even if it isn't true Bush certainly does better impression of one of the people than Kerry :). Kerry isn't the perfect U.S. president. But he's at least the lesser of two evils. I mean, Bush is a friggin' evangelical fundamentalist! A religious nutjob is the last person you want running the U.S. Of course you're not going to acknolege any of this becasuse evidently I'm just another poor brainwashed person and you're thinking independantly because you believe that democratic liberal crap. | |
Kerry wont get to run again. Racism, as has been pointed out recently by I don't remember who on this forum, is a form of prejudice. Gays aren't a race, therefore its impossible for racism to be pointed at them specifically.
| |
And Kerry would have???
_______________ Exactly. Nothing. I have a plan! I'll just never tell you what it is... Seriously, you'd have to be stupid if you think by not killing terrorists we'll stop them from attacking us. Common sence tells us that by killing those who want to kill us we live in a safer world, not a more dangerous one. If a terrorist ever attempted to take me hostage I'd go down fighting. That's the way of things, you can let someone beat up you, your family, or your country or you can say enough is enough and do something about it. Kerry's ill founded idea that he could bring allies to the table simply isn't plausible. Especially when the U.N. is covered in scandals and blood money from Saddam himself. France has no backbone, they will not strike at terrorists until they are the last (socialistic) democracy on earth. Only a few frenchmen had the qualities necessary to defend their country from Hitler and the germans(In the form of resistance, [the churchhill gang - merely a group of boys]) What makes you think the french government would do anything to help us now? The Germans and the French are waylaid with corrupt politicians, and only recently is their ally Russia even interested in fighting terrorism (though Vladimir Putin is using it as a cover to pull the country back to his KGB roots). Iraq was a tactical move, both politically and militarily. We had enough cause to get even the weak hearted liberals on our side to invade it, and in doing so we destroyed countless terrorists, and have made it dangerous for any to exist in Iraq. We have secured our country from his possible WMD's (though there turned out to be none, even though he had the means to produce it, and had produced it and used it against the kurds and his own people). In taking Iraq, look at it as a game of risk, Iraq geographically gives us a stronghold in the midst of terrorist havens. Why do you think so many terrorists from the surrounding nations have made their attacks in Iraq? No neighbor of Iraq is friendly to democracy. Every surrounding nation is ruled totalarianly, and views Iraq as a threat. When the forces of evil are so desperate to undo what we have accomplished it only serves to signal that we have done the right thing. Look at the millions who live free now, look at all the reconstuction, look at how much better they are living. When we occupied Germany many thought it was a "failed occupation", but not so... And then lets look at Afghanistan. We've done exceedingly well, capturing or killing countless top Al-Quaida members (even the second in command, and according to Newsweek we narrowly missed Osama himself) and slaughtering many Taliban in the process. Women are allowed to walk around with out fear of men, and without veils covering everything but their eyes. Equal rights, though it will take time are taking the country by storm. Children play soccer with the soldiers, there is no fear of the United States. Afghanistan's election also went off with out a hitch, where is Al-Quaida? We dominate and destroy them, their numbers dwindle and their recourses grow limited. Only the weak in our country keep us from invading other countries to insure our protection. The liberals ask why we havn't done it, and the answer is simple. We're already involved in two nations, a third isn't plausible and the best reason of all, the moment we invade another country all the liberals will cry and moan. I am a patriot, my family has quite the military history. My best friend is in the army, and my family is in the air force and army, currently. And trust me, if I didn't have a girlfriend who I thought I'm going to marry, I'd be the first one signing up. | |
Let me list some of the religous "nut jobs" that have ran our country succesfully. When times get hard everyone hopes that their leader is one of these supposed nut jobs.
George Washington James Madison James Monroe William Henry Harrison John Tyler Zachary Taylor Franklin Pierce Chester A. Arthur Theodore Roosevelt * Franklin Delano Roosevelt Gerald Ford George H. W. Bush Andrew Jackson James Knox Polk * Ulysses S Grant * James Buchanan Grover Cleveland Benjamin Harrison Woodrow Wilson Dwight D. Eisenhower Ronald Reagan James Knox Polk * Ulysses S Grant * Rutherford B. Hayes William McKinley George W. Bush Warren G. Harding Harry S. Truman Jimmy Carter John Adams John Quincy Adams Millard Fillmore William Howard Taft ---------------------and the list continues---------------- In all 43 of all our presidents have been "religous nutjobs", some more so than others. "In God we Trust", ring any bells? "One nation under God?" Need I go on? I'm a Christian...so deal with it. Click here for a list of all the religous nut jobs! | |
So much propaganda, so little time to refute it... I've read a lot in the past few days about how Bush offered a clear, black and white view of the world. I think that's a nice way of saying what a joke e-mail forward said: stupid people like Bush.
Bush appeals to shallow, unthinking people who are not inclined to actually think about right and wrong... people who want their morality in sound bytes. If you really want to go after the terrorists that attack and threaten us, you should be furious with Bush's "leadership." Bush has done nothing but attack phantoms and fragments. He did nothing until we were attacked and now you take Kerry quotes out of context to make it seem like he would do the same thing Bush already did. Kerry has a plan. Why didn't he go over it in detail? He's not in office. It would be a mistake to go over the plan in detail when the details would likely change by the time he got to put it into effect. Of course, Bushies don't understand that, because they think altering a plan in response to new information is a sign of weakness. They think the best leader is the one who crashes the car into the wall instead of going around it 'cause God forbid you admit you weren't headed in the exact right direction out of the gate. And you think Bush has a plan? Yeah, like his plan in Iraq. Who did he have writing that, the Underpants Gnomes? "Step one: Invade Iraq. Step two: ? Step three: Peace and stability." His only plan was "Get rid of Saddam." He came into office knowing he wanted to get rid of Saddam, he took us to war knowing he wanted to get rid of Saddam, he got rid of Saddam. How do people look at this singlemindedness and mistake it for strength of character? He has doomed Afghanistan to decades more of turmoil by diverting attention, troops, and resources before anything meaningful was put into place there to replace what we removed... and has turned Iraq into a bigger SNAFU... just to accomplish a goal that I would wager not even he is fully certain why it was important. You can say "Well he said he would do it and he did it," but what are you really bragging about? Hey, we won Iraq... and now we're stuck with it. Iraq isn't a stronghold for us. It's the complete opposite of one. It's a weak hold. It will never be a strong hold for us because the people don't want us there. Those "insurgents" you hear about on the news? They aren't all from Iran and other nearby countries. Quite a few of them are "insurging" from just down the street. We have lost 1,000 lives and gained nothing. NOTHING. We have propped up a phony democracy that won't outlast our presence there. We have Saddam in custody, yes. One big bad scary man. Whoo, go team. Likewise with all the terrorist leaders we've captured... the Bush administration has built each one up into a brand name so that you will be convinced they've accomplished something when they flash their names and pictures on the news. It's not any more "dangerous" for terrorists now than it is for everybody else. It's become a breeding ground for them. It wasn't a great place before, but it wasn't a three dimensional Al-Qaeda recruitment poster before, either, and now it is. You want to be a patriot? Well, it's two days late for that. | |
SAFE?! SAFE!? Safe from what? Bush hipped up terriost attacks. There is nothing to be afraid of or to be saved from. God damn republicans! Long live the liberal democrats!
--Goz