286 replies to this topic

[CrimsonCasio]

quite possibly, i only heard that we found some but that they were not nuclear in nature.

[Chani]

I believe you're right. Although in my opinion, any WMD is worth protecting ourselves and the innocent citizens of Iraq against. So anyone who believes that it wasn't a valid reason to invade should consider how they would feel if their government used tear gas against their own people.

[2072]

quite possibly, i only heard that we found some but that they were not nuclear in nature.

Not 'possible', real, but that must be also a lie from Kerry or democrats I presume...

All your answers were bad because every time we tell you something you reply that someone said the contrary without asking to yourself - could it be true? - but what prooves their answers are more likely to be trusted?

Bush represents money, power, war, destruction, corruption, deception, manipulation... I don't know for you but those are not my principles of life. If you vote for Bush them you are from the dark side . Dark side is easier...

You say with a smile that it was worth killing all those innocent Iraqi people and american soldiers just to take Hussein away? Well I'm not sure the families of the innocents share your point of view... Thousands of deads for 1 man who wasn't even a threat.

Interesting to read if you didn't yet: http://expage.com/notowar14f (maybe 3000 lives could have been spared)

After reading that you will probably 'link' me with some proof that Richard Clarke (former chief US counter-terrorism) is just another liar who don't like Bush for personal reasons...

to blame the crime on the victim is insane, its like saying that its a woman's fault she was raped because she was wearing suggestive cloths. if you have any sense at all and any respect for human life you'll recind that statement and appologise.

I'm sorry to have hurt you, but you didn't get what I meant, I'm just telling that the image your country is giving to the world is bad, so bad that some people want to destroy your country! And not only dumb people, dumb people couldn't have organized what happens on 9/11, could they?
Do you think that this is normal? Don't you think something must be done to change that? I know, violence is easier than understanding, let's kill all the terrorists, killing innocent civilians (just like you and me) arround the world. If we have a chance to eliminate just even one terrorist then innocent (non american) lives could be taken or even american 'innocent soldier' (although it's an oxymore).

The terrorists are hated because they kill innocent people... Your just doing the same in Irak (with god support said Bush), so for them YOU are the terrorists who raped their country, destroyed their buildings, insulted their culture (that is hundred times older than american one - imagine their fillings!). The children who lost their whole family are likely to become the next Osama[s].


If Bush is reelected, things will only go worse, he will continue to degrade your country, make it travel back through time, you'll probably suffer more terrorists attacks and the world will suffer from Bush Counter-attacks and the whole may end in a WW3 (with nuclear this time).

Terrorists cannot be defeated by terror, as evil cannot be defeated by evil but only by good...

You know all the poor iraqi civilians were human being like you, like me, they had the same right to exist than we do! What would you say if an all mighty great nation of freedom bomb your neighbour's house and in the process kill all your family, destroying your life? telling you, "well, we are deeply sorry but you know, your neighbour was a terrorist", I'm not sure you'll forgive them and 'love' that country...

For decades USA was meaning Freedom, Peace to the rest of the world, this is not true anymore, on a humor note, now it says Resistance is futile, man rights are irrelevent, inferior beings will be assimilited to our culture, we will prevail.

cause it seems you cant think while your talking. if you have any sense at all and any respect for human life you'll recind that statement and appologise.

On the contrary, I wanted to post this before some weeks ago, but I knew it would start a conflict so I decided not to do it (I hate conflicts)... But seeing this conversasion was endless and useless I decided to write what I am thinking in order to rise this "debate" to a higher point of view of the actual problem, what really makes me think that Bush shouldn't be re-elected.
The problem is that you are maybe too young to understand what I'm trying to say, maybe in a couple of years you'll see things differently.


Someone who also thinks that evil cannot be defeated by evil http://ethics.acusd....sm/Simpson.html
I didn't read the article intirely (it's quite long) because I'm agree with what he is saying I don't need to be convinced, but you should read it entirely.

To Bob: By "Crisis" I meant economical recession, the loss of power of america arround the world, internal conflicts etc... (I'm not as evil as you think )


So before thinking about a violent reply to this post, please consider what I've told here and ask yourself: "could he be right? Is that possible?".

[huhn_m]

nice try huhn, but read more carefully next time
if your talking about the vietnam war then of course bush wasnt in it.  he was in the national guard at the time (before the war even started). the controversy was that this guy said he got bush into the guard on his father's insistance (didnt happen, prooven) and then forged papers to show bush had been AWOL and hadn't done his duty in the guard (didnt happen, prooven).
heh, you expect the president to go to the front lines? thats like asking to be assinated. he doesnt even go out in public without an armored limo.  I doubt he was "pretending" to be in iraq, but whats wrong with that even if he was...
Damnit how blind can you possibly be?!??!?!

[CITE]Iraq HAS wapeons of mass destruction[/CITE]
[CITE]Saddam helped Osama Bin laden and is housing El Quaida[/CITE]
...

read that again and mabey you'll see what i meant

But this is not what I said. I said that HE did not protect your country while Kerry did. Although this is totally unimportant for me and my political reasoning it seems to be important for you since you your politicans mention it so often.

(not exact quotes but they did both say those things)
if you think that you obviously havent seen enough (or havent been paying attention).
ok... so you have objections to people being held without a trial and without proof and you object to murdering inocent people... yet you think we sould have let saddam stay in power? do i smell hipocracy? *swish*

but bush had a secret service behind him and I DO NOT belive him if he says he
was informed wrongly. I'm more likely to belive that the CIA director was victim
of an intrigue.

2) So fighting fire with fire is ok? If someone attacs you with a atomic bomb you'll
throw another, kill more inocents and cause the 3rd WW? THen may god save
the rest of the world from you.

does the world respect fools and hipocrits... personal experiance suggests yes, as there are an overwhelming amount of them.  in which case i dont mind not being respected by the world, i can have respect for myself and my judgement.

Yeah ... a lot of people think so ... this is the typical site of capitalism and THIS
is what causes terrorism! IGNORANCE!

hitler was also a great speaker. he influenced those that couldnt/wouldnt think for themselves.

Like bush does with you. It is the same. The germans did not know that they got
opinions made for them but thought it to be good opinions.

I believe you're right. Although in my opinion, any WMD is worth protecting ourselves and the innocent citizens of Iraq against.  So anyone who believes that it wasn't a valid reason to invade should consider how they would feel if their government used tear gas against their own people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you use the same excuses you used for the first gulf war? Thats poor ...
they did nothing new ... this incident was LONG before YOUR war.

except from that I totally agree with 2072.

You say with a smile that it was worth killing all those innocent Iraqi people and american soldiers just to take Hussein away? Well I'm not sure the families of the innocents share your point of view... Thousands of deads for 1 man who wasn't even a threat.

Terrorists may say that their deaths were worth the fact that you now know that
you can't do to the whole world what you want.

On a side note: I don't think germany is a lot better. We do also "abuse" workers
from china by buying cheap things and we are also selling weapons but we are,
IMO not as arrogant as your president and others.

Kerry might have blown into the horn of Bush but after all bush KNEW there were
no WMD in iraq while kerry might have not know (I'm not sure however).
There are proofs (notes from confernces of the cabinet) that proove this.

[huhn_m]

[TIP OF THE DAY]
http://www.awolbush.com/
[/TIP OF THE DAY]

[Marco]

Check THIS...

PS: I think it does not make so much sense discussing about either Bush or Kerry only, as they finally represent their parties only. Why do you not discuss about the parties itself?? It?s NOT one person only, who is responsible for all politocal issues.

By the way, I think that we, who are not US, can?t judge the Bush <--> Kerry issue objectievely, as we can see the extern - political aspect only - what Bush did in the world (what I, by the way, also do not agree with; I think he made the situation even worse, as under Saddam regime there where no terrorists, but now, there are and will be).

But politics of a country is more than extern politics only. It?s intern politics too, and what do we know / matter about this?

What I mean is: For the rest of the world (like also for me), Kerry clearly would be the better choice. But the rest of the world (like also me) does not matter about the US unemployment rate, for example.

[betoe]

@Marco: if i clic on your link i see an error page that says:

"These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed
The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate."

Edited:
i did F5 and worked .

What I mean is: For the rest of the world (like also for me), Kerry clearly would be the better choice. But the rest of the world (like also me) does not matter about the US unemployment rate, for example.

Totally true.

[Killer83Z]

Hitler wasn't a great speaker. His speeches were pain to the ears. I can't help but laugh about Bush when I see him making a speech. His facial expression...everything. And I will laugh about the USA if they re-elect him. But it will be a cynical and dissappointed laugh. Oh my, this thread makes me sick.

[huhn_m]

yeah ... I agree killer and @MARCO

the problem IS bush. I don't have anything against the republicans (except the right wing like cheney) and bush is their tool. He seems always with a smile on his face even in the worst situation I have the feelign he'd burst out in laughter.

I know at least a LITTLE bit about the situation in your state and I think
that bush is NOT good for your internal politics. See the votes Kerry did in congress for laws.
http://www.boston.co...erry/voting.htm
I think these were good choices. A president who considders semi-automatic guns a sport weapons must be insane.

Don't you realize that under Bush you made VERY hight debts in a quite good economic situatuion whereas under clinton you made a big plus.

You bush represents the interrests of the big companies and NOT of the workers. I only say EnRON forever!

But I think it is senseless to tell this to you. I'm not sure. Maybe you are not from the same social class like me and some others here on this forum that does ot swim in money and depends on some things the state gives. If you are a millionaire you should deffinately vote for bush since he is definately supporting the 100 richest n the US.

You might say that the money that goes to them floats right back into the other pocet but this is plainly wrong. If you do this you ignore all the aspects of the past that proved this wrong. If you say this you ignore your own history.

over & out huhn

btw. Iom gonna laugh with you killer ...

[genesis]

We're having an election too...

[huhn_m]

really ... seems nobody noticed by all the trouble arround the US ...

so how are the sympathies shared? Who do you prefere? How meny candidates are there? What do they want to do for your country.? What is bad 'bout them?

[casiokingdom]

lol, Genesis, Australia's election isn't important in other countries. it isn't even important to me, as i'm not voting.

[huhn_m]

because you can not or because you don't want to?

And anyways an election is important for EVERYONE (at least in the country where it is held)

[casiokingdom]

because you can not or because you don't want to?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually...both!
1) I'm 17 and the minimum voting age in Australia is 18. btw i still need to get my drivers license...still learning
2) I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and no JWs vote because of reasons related to our belief that we should only support God's Kingdom.

[genesis]

Interesting, I was just going to ask about the section on the electoral handbook regarding religious beliefs. And don't worry, I'm not voting yet! Although, I will start learning for my drivers license soon.

[Bob Vila]

ck, your 17 and you still dont have a drivers licence? whats the age for that over there?

[genesis]

actually, they're lowering the driving age and increasing the school leaving age

[casiokingdom]

we can get our license at 17, but we can start learning at 16. i was a bit slack so only started learning this year, and only drive once a fortnight.

[dscoshpe]

Marco was right, you have to look at the parties and away from the candidates. Any high profile politician is either a tool or a puppet, which, by the way, is not a bad thing as they are supposed to be tools and puppets, but of the people and not "interests". Now, the problem with being a democrat or republican is that there is no clear division. In order to establish a division you must categorize their positions in to the issues of the day. Im a torn voter, on one hand I would like to vote republican because a republican government is traditionally a "smaller" central government, meaning that they will do less to become intimately involved with daily life. Democrats tradionally tend towards a "larger" government, in modern issues thats things like national medication - which I consider in principle to be a poor goal for some very good reasons. Anyways, that being said, politics is still based on influencing the polis.

2072 is right, image is important to government and a positive view will result in good will, whether or not it is deserved. For instance, John Kennedy is considered a great president almost entirely because he looked good. A few choice moves, accelerating the space program, Cuban blockade/missile crisis, which had little intellectual merit. In reality he established very little that actually had an impact on the counrty, and he wasnt alive long enough to do anything else. He knew how to sit in his rowboat and look good not paddling. Yet he is still revered as great. Clinton was similar, he happened to be president when the internet boomed (which I can explain) and never signed any internet expansion bills or ever projected the tech industry crash (which I can also explain).

Now, knowing this, Kerry is the clear choice. But unfortunately image is a perception and perception is fickle. Personally, I say the US and its military stays in Iraq, we absorb the costs of the daily suicide bomber and we rebuild their country in whatever manner is fit to the extent we said we would, maybe more. Would this happen under Kerry? I have no damn idea, in fact I know more about his military career, background, and tendancies than any actual plans he would execute (he would be the executive after all). Thats what I want to know! It was my understanding, through all them al qaeda tapes, that the source of the bad will came from the US getting involved in mid-east affairs and never following through or finishing the job such as in Iran, Afghanistan (1980's), Iraq (1980's), Israel (of course), etc, etc. As it would seem now, a vote for Kerry is a vote for a rapid and accellerated departure resulting in more "meddle and pedle" behavior. This, in my opinion, would be a horrible error. I believe in responsibility, and for the sake of the memory of both dead soldiers and Iraqies something should be brought to fruition. This would improve image and accomplish something more important than simply improving an image for image's sake.

I have yet to see anything address what Ive talked about from either person. At this point I dislike them both, and i dont trust either one. I want neither that extra guy that always dies on Star Trek away teams (Bush) nor the smooth talking used car salesman. Perhaps I should chose Kerry if for no other reason we can put the unimportant (IMO) issues to bed and talk about something new, different, and maybe *gasp* insightful. I suppose I can swallow my pride for another 4 years, however, it is rather important to know what to expect when you vote for something in theory is it not?

By the way, I live in California, and I voted for Schwarzenegger. He's working out well, ironically, he's has much more intriguing ideas than any of the actual politicians - and hes executing! (Its important to deliver on promises!)

Hey, show me Kerry will not hastily leave Iraq, and I'll show you a vote. It's a chance for the international community to vote by proxy

- dscoshpe -

[2072]

I agree with you, to leave Iraq would be worse than attacking it again. The US government did an error, now it must assumes the consequences of it.

By the way, I live in California, and I voted for Schwarzenegger. He's working out well, ironically, he's has much more intriguing ideas than any of the actual politicians - and hes executing! (Its important to deliver on promises!)

Do you remember the movie "Demolition Man" with Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes and Sandra Bullock (1993) that takes place in future? It was quite funny and Schwarzenegger was the president of the USA, there was also some other "predictions" that seems to come true...

[Bob Vila]

Do you remember the movie "Demolition Man" with Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes and Sandra Bullock (1993) that takes place in future? It was quite funny and Schwarzenegger was the president of the USA, there was also some other "predictions" that seems to come true...

haha, havent seen that movie in a looong time dont remember arnold in it though (i saw the edited version, so he might have been left out).

anyone see the VP debate last night?

[2072]

He isn't in it, Sandra Bullock just tells that he is the president and that the constitution was changed to allow him to be elected since he was not born as an American...

[betoe]

As i remember in the movie, when sylvester gets free again (after some years in jail), someone told him some importants things, like arnold was the president (noooooo).

About arnold, thats bad he dont want illegal people with driver license, it would be a caoz for the other citizens who drive, dont know why he want that, he was an inmigrant too.

[dscoshpe]

There are a few reasons the particular bill he vetoed was vetoed:

1) It was made by the former governor as a tactic to attract more immigrant (hispanic) votes.
2) It would be a reward for *illegal* (undocumented) immigrants. Arnold himself was a legal immigrant.
3) The California Department of Motor Vehicles would be swamped taking care of business for people who were not citizens. What this means is that those who are legal, and paying taxes, will also be paying for these services in addition to those they would need. In essence, economically, this would mean the cost of operating the DMV would escalate. Don't forget, California is trying to recover from it's budget crisis. To issue licenses to illegal immigrants would be a poor decision. Maybe in the future.

Its funny to think of Arnold being president, but the needed amendment would never pass. Lets see how he does after his first term is over. You know, if the amendment did pass, it would open the door for you 2072!

- dscoshpe -

[CrimsonCasio]

never! *chuckles*
actually I would vote for any UCF (regular) member over either of the current candidates because I could at least know for sure they were good people and would try to do the right thing even if they didnt have the same views i did.

anyway, im in the process of acquiring f911 (left it going a few days ago, hopefully it will be done when i get back).

Edited by 2072, 07 October 2004 - 01:53 PM.

[huhn_m]

wow ... dscoshpe I really liked your long post ... and I think I agree with it.

About kerry drawing back from iraq ... I'm not sure but I thought he
corrected this some time ago and said you'd do this after the iraq is more stable. Not sure though ...

Of course leaving iraq NOW would be a mistake. Anyways I think by staying you don't win anything in the end but at least you could get your
pre-war acceptance if the world back if you could make it a stable state.

I think a problem with your country is that you do only have 2 parties.
In germany there are like 4-5 bigger parties in the parliament and 2
of them (till now) always needed to form a coallition in order to have
a majority. I think this is good since it has more control for the parliament itsself. I think if the right and left wings of each of your parties would split up making 4 parties of them this would be great for your country.

@crimson: Great! I'm gonna watch it in English with my school sometime
after the autumn hollidays in the cinema (or so I hope ).

btw: 2072 for president

and if I were arnold I'd not like to be president since there'll always be people who attac him because of not beeing a native American.

[CrimsonCasio]

2072: why did you edit my post (and what did you change )

huhn: i agree with you there, im an independant because I do not like the party system, while most of my views go along with republicans I wont call myself a republican because I do not agree with everything many republicans believe in and dont want to be lumped with them. I'd prefer it if there were no parties at all.

[2072]

I've changed one word in the last sentence

[CrimsonCasio]

ahh, i see it now

[dscoshpe]

@huhn:

We have many many parties, but only 2 are very large.

The idea behind the 2 party system is that you will generally end up with a "large majority" representative, which in theory is a good thing. Of course if you have more large parties you end up with representatives who are supported, for instance, by 35% of the voters. What we need is not more parties but parties which are defined in the abstract principles they favor, for instance, the right, middle, and left. In general the republican party in US is considered 'right' but it really isnt often enough to apply this label. In addition, we generally dont have a 'middle' stance, the closest we come is when a particular representative has preferences toward the middle. So the clear solution is to make a viable third party, but as yet this has not happened and may never given the American view of politics as being highly polarized (ex: wrong/right) so in my opinion it would better suit us if the nomination and preliminary campaigns were adjusted to yield us some better more well defined candidates.

Also, one of my problems is that Kerry has clarified his position on Iraq so many times Im not sure if he is making his one position clearer or changing to a new one. Ill see where it is sitting come election time.

- dscoshpe -

[huhn_m]

The idea behind the 2 party system is that you will generally end up with a "large majority" representative, which in theory is a good thing

but this only helps you if you like one of the parties. Why do only <50% of the americans vote? I thought it was because they didn'T like either of the candidates. -> More parties -> More opinions->more voters.

[CrimsonCasio]

because they dont think that a single vote can make a diffrence, or they dont care about politics...

personally I think we should have a law that people must show up at the voting booths, but at that point they could choose "I wave my right to vote this year", so if they were in protest over all candidates they could refuse to vote. As it is, not voting just comes down to lazyness.

[Bob Vila]

because they dont think that a single vote can make a diffrence, or they dont care about politics...

i think that it is mostly that they dont think they can make a difference, but i think more people will be voting this year.

btw, hannity is at UVSC today, moore will give his speel middle of next week sometime. so no actual debate.

[CrimsonCasio]

so i heard... im listening to hannity right now (he currently playing sound clips of kerry contradicting himself). appearently he is going to give a huge anti-moore speach tonight.

[Bob Vila]

heh, i thought it was pretty funny that moore was not even mentioned in his newest book. he does do some kerry bashing, thought it is mostly directed at the clintons

btw, does anyone get satelite radio? my dad has Sirius and Hannity is on that. but he wasnt on the right-wing talk as i would have expected him to be

so i heard... im listening to hannity right now (he currently playing sound clips of kerry contradicting himself). appearently he is going to give a huge anti-moore speach tonight.

i am going to try to call my sister to see if she can get it on the radio or something to tape it for me

Edited by Bob Vila, 11 October 2004 - 07:58 PM.

[huhn_m]

so i heard... im listening to hannity right now (he currently playing sound clips of kerry contradicting himself). appearently he is going to give a huge anti-moore speach tonight.

I think it would not be a problem to find similar snippets of bush

Personally I think we should have a law that people must show up at the voting booths, but at that point they could choose "I wave my right to vote this year", so if they were in protest over all candidates they could refuse to vote. As it is, not voting just comes down to lazyness.

Yeah I'd like to see this too in germany.
I think people who do not show up (unless they are phisically unable) should even be fined. If you don't want to cast a vote you could cross
out the paper where you have to choose or like you suggested a "I don't want to vote thing".

I get sick when I hear people say "THe wether is fine ... I don't want to vote" or "I don't have time". It takes no more than 10 Minutes to put
a cross in the checkbox ...

I helped at the last elecion here and in our part of the citie we were responsible for only about 460 out of 1200 that could voted ... I think
this is sad. I even heard someone say that he would not bother if he could
no vote at all. But I bet if there was a dictatorship they would all scream
"Why can't I vote". But now that they can they don't.

I especially have no respect for woman who do not vote. (Except like chani who has reasons in her religion) They fought for centuries that they could
vote and now that they can they don't want to.

Btw. Chani ... you don't vote because you think God is the only one to govern earth right? I respect this opinion but have you ever thought that
this causes eventualy to get the wrong people in power? If you voted you
could vote for someone who does believe in your religion and, though there is a seperation between state and church believes in you interrests.

By not voting you risc that someone who is against your church or stuff
gets in power? Ever thought of that

(Not meant as an attack!!!)

cu huhn

[CrimsonCasio]

I think it would not be a problem to find similar snippets of bush 

im sure, but you wont find them in great numbers (last nights ratio on "Hannity and Colmes" was about 10:3, and at least one wasnt a contradiction but mearly something Colmes didnt like... an interesting thing happend last night on that show too, Hannity wasn't there of course so Colmes pretty much did the show by himself (no debate), at one point this came up:

I will reduce the terror to nothing but a nuciance (not an exact quote but for this it doesnt matter)

(somebody repeats that quote to colmes:)

Kerry didnt say that, kerry said he would reduce terror to nothing but a nuciance (more exact, the point being that he said he didnt do it then said he did...)

me and the guy that said the quote are sitting there in a mental spasm trying to figgure out what that ment... colmes went on to viggerously defend the statement that kerry made by continuing to deny he had said it, all the while repeating it... it was insane... perhaps worse, is that I think the quote is being interperated incorectly anyway and if he had just said that he would have had a vaild point... it was really amasing, i still dont understand why he did that...

anyway, point being, i think this may be the same kind of thing happing here, just a refusal to see whats happening and even what your saying (still, ive never seen it that bad... )

[Bob Vila]

Btw. Chani ... you don't vote because you think God is the only one to govern earth right? I respect this opinion but have you ever thought that
this causes eventualy to get the wrong people in power? If you voted you
could vote for someone who does believe in your religion and, though there is a seperation between state and church believes in you interrests.

you kinda got the wrong person. i think you are thinking of ck??? our religion promotes voting and being politically active and aware (they want us to vote)

btw, i wasnt able to hear or see Hannity last night, but they did have a recap on the 10pm news. i guess it wasnt as much of a moore bashing as we thought it might be. he only took a few shots at him there was also only 20 protestors

[casiokingdom]

Btw. Chani ... you don't vote because you think God is the only one to govern earth right? I respect this opinion but have you ever thought that
this causes eventualy to get the wrong people in power? If you voted you
could vote for someone who does believe in your religion and, though there is a seperation between state and church believes in you interrests.

By not voting you risc that someone who is against your church or stuff
gets in power? Ever thought of that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if this statement is directed to me...
i see your point, huhn_m, but we don't care if the government doesn't support our religion, it's what we believe that matters. Our religion is banned in several countries, including France i think.
We support on God's kingdom and can't side with any govt even if they do support us. of course that would be great, and i hope it happens without our votes

btw: our elections finished last weekend and Australia's prime minister John Howard was re-elected again, for a 4th term i think.

[2072]

Are you (all of you) currently watching the Kerry - Bush dabate? It's quite interesting.