Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Steps to becoming a GOOD Democrat Virtually anyone can be a Democrat. Just simply quit thinking (about it) and vote that way. If you want to be a GOOD Democrat, however, there are some prerequisites you must have first. Compare them below and see how you rate... 1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding. 2. You have to believe that the same school system that can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow the best qualified to teach those same kids all about sex. 3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law abiding Americans, are more of a threat than US nuclear weapons technology, in the hands of Chinese communists. 4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding. 5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by Americans driving SUVs'! 6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural. 7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand. 8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity. 9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do. 10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it. 11. You have to believe that the US military starts wars--not evil tyrannical regimes. 12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the constitution. 13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high. 14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison. 15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not. 16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is all about "progress" and not power. She just wants to help us out of the archaic system of governing that we've been subjected to since our founding. 17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. 18. You have to believe Republicans telling the truth belong in jail, but a cheat, liar and sex offender belongs in the White House and you would vote him back in there in a New York minute (if you could). 19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag and transvestites should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal. 20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States. 21. You have to believe that the vociferous minorities who protest against prayer and saluting the flag in school, the 10 commandments in court, have far more rights than the majority who believe in God and country and want these values to be instilled in our young children. If you are locked in solidly to most of these beliefs - you're gonna be a big asset to John Kerry.
Crimson If you are locked in solidly to most of these beliefs - you're gonna be a big asset to John Kerry. John Kerry isn't Locked to anything.
Crimson's copying and pasting skills are superb. This is all retarded garbage.
SEAL Crimson's copying and pasting skills are superb. This is all retarded garbage. I know the truth hurts...
I can do that. President George W Bush is visiting an elementary school, and he visits one of the classes. They are in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings. The teacher asks the President if he would like to lead the class in the discussion of the word, "tragedy." So the illustrious leader asks the class for an example of a "tragedy." One little boy stands up and offers, "If my best friend, who lives next door, is playing in the street and a car comes along and runs him over, that would be a tragedy." "No," says Bush, "that would be an ACCIDENT." A little girl raises her hand: "If a school bus carrying 50 children drove off a cliff, killing everyone involved, that would be a tragedy." "I'm afraid not," explains Mr. President. "That's what we would call a GREAT LOSS." The room goes silent. No other children volunteer. President Bush searches the room. "Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?" Finally, way in the back of the room, a small boy raises his hand. In a quiet voice he says, "If Air Force One, carrying Mr. Bush, were struck by a missile and blown up to smithereens, by a terrorist like Osama bin Laden, that would be a tragedy." "Fantastic," exclaims Bush, "that's right. And can you tell me WHY that would be a TRAGEDY?" "Well," says the boy, "because it wouldn't be an accident, and it certainly wouldn't be a great loss."
NHJ I can do this...That was a load of crap
Crimson SEAL Crimson's copying and pasting skills are superb. This is all retarded garbage. I know the truth hurts... Funny, I'm a Democrat. All that stuff is such bullshit. "Truth hurts" my ass. What WILL hurt for you is when Bush is kicked out of office.
punkun21 NHJ I can do this...That was a load of crap So was Crimson's; that kind of was my point
Quote: 11. You have to believe that the US military starts wars--not evil tyrannical regimes. The one who throws the first preverbial punch is the one who starts the war. In terms of Iraq, it WAS America.
I don't like Bush or Kerry, but c'mon. This was a JOKE.
Especially When you have a Cash Cow Whore Wife, i.e. Teresa Heinz Kerry She was a Republican That Went Bad, Like Heinz Ketchup
Shut up, you imbusiile. The fact that you would so rudely attack someone who really is not such a bad person, like Teresa, shows you have little comprehension of anything. Go be stupid somewhere else.
Teresa Heinz Kerry is a Bitch Plain And Simple! As for Kerry He Isn't President Material, Hes a Flip Flop. Bush is More Straight Forth President You Know His Agenda. Bush is Better Than Kerry!
^ Looks like a European is trying to mock a Republican.
Pak Teresa Heinz Kerry is a Bitch Plain And Simple! Why? Pak As for Kerry He Isn't President Material, Hes a Flip Flop. Tell me, why do you think John Kerry is a flip-flopper? Which bills did he flip-flop on? Pak Bush is More Straight Forth President You Know His Agenda. Lower taxes and screw the economy? Pak Bush is Better Than Kerry! Kerry is Better Than Bush!
Pak I'm Canadian Eh? Close enough. SuperFlyingEngi, I told you once, and I'm going to tell you again. Buy "Whatever Happened to Justice" by Richard J. Maybury.
SuperFlyingEngi Tell me, why do you think John Kerry is a flip-flopper? Which bills did he flip-flop on? http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439 http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540/ Quote: Lower taxes and screw the economy? Lowering taxes screws the economy? There are loads of sources for you to look at to try to understand how economics works. Try looking at some of it before commenting on it, or you may make another incorrect statement about it like you just did here.
If you do it right, lowering taxes can indeed help the economy. If you do it right...
If you do it correctly, lowering taxes helps the economy, which is why George W. Bush lowered taxes correctly, which is why the economy is on the upswing.
Reagan lowered taxes too, but it screwed the economy rather badly, considering how his tax breaks went straight in to the national deficit. They say he made 3 trillion dollars of growth in the economy, but that's really a lie, because the deficit increased 3 trillion dollars. Thst's not a good tax cut. George Bush lowered taxes, but at what expense? Cutting tons of funding for after-school programs, medicare, just about everything that helps people got cut so people can have their tax cuts. So, when everyone but the rich thinks that they have gotten some more money in their pockets, they end up spending more money to care for their children and themselves than if they hadn't gotten their tax cut. Whereas, the rich get to sit high and mighty. Oh, and has everyone heard? The terror alert for the banking district was based on intelligence that was captured 3 years ago. 3 Years ago, they captured some drawings of the financial district, and sheets with time shifts on them from a suspected pakistani terrorist. So, they set off an alert a couple days ago. Doesn't make much sense to me, especially when each alert costs millions of dollars.
Oh you ARE a bright one, aren't you? I think you need to read up on that story a bit more. Even the media has retracted most of what they said about it. The information was 3 years old, then it was UPDATED recently, which is exactly the same thing that happened in the 9/11 attack. Apparently we captured someone with a LOT of knowledge about the communication methods of Al Qaeda and he's been quite a wealth of information for us.
Disclaimer: the following statement is extremely biased, inflammatory, politically incorrect, and based entirely on the author's own opinions, which hopefully are not in the least bit like anyone else's. Wow. I'm beginning to think that this country has almost completely outgrown its entire political system. It's time for a change- a really big one, and one that I'm sure will never be made because it would upset our precious status quo. The problem is not that either party is any worse than the other- it's that few people can see past their own rediculous party loyalty to actually sit down and think (yeah, that's right- a little logic, a little creativity, and some good old fashioned reason!) about what's actually best for America. That means (gasp!) looking at both sides of the issue- something which is rarer than a seaworthy russian submarine. Even worse are the retards who vote for a particular candidate simply because they aren't the other guy- nevermind that they don't know a fucking thing about who they just gave their vote to! That particular brand of stupidity is showing its ugly face in this election- does anyone realize that Kerry and Bush are really not all that different in their private opinions on various controversial issues? The only difference is that one has already shown his hand and has to play it out- the other can straddle the issues all he pleases. If their positions were reversed, I'm not so sure the same damn thing wouldn't be happening. I think I'll look for a third-party choice that actually supports the same things I do. Neither one of the major parties do that right now. And if such a candidate doesn't exist- well, there's always a write-in. The only way anything is ever going to change in this country is if people start voicing their own damn opinions, instead of someone else's. [/OPINION]
Such sense I haven't read in a while. I disagree with Bush on too many issues to consider voting for him, yet Kerry seems to me so vague I have no clue for what he stands. For those simple reasons I support Nader, if anyone, since he clearly communicates ideas I agree with. If people fear voting for third-party candidates and go with Kerry just to defeat Bush I don't feel they can stand for much of anything either.
It's too bad Ron Paul decided not to run for president. Well, at least I have Badnarik.
In other words, the two-party system needs to go. This will allow candidates to appeal to more specific groups of people instead of doing everything possible to get the middle votes.
That's right!
MrBob That's right! I want to vote for him
I, too, disagree with the two-party system, and I don't think ANY law, amendment, or policy should EVER make reference to party affiliation. So few people would actually fall completely in line with a party's stance. For example, I agree with Bush's stance on issues and except for a few youthful incidents, he's a stellar character. That's why I'm voting for him in November. I not only don't know where Kerry stands on the issues, but he's basing his entire campaign on the 4 months he spent in Vietnam, then gets all pissy and combative when confronted with what he did in those 4 months. I am not a Democrat. I do not believe in their ideals. I disagree with the Republicans on the gay marriage issue and I'm undecided on stem cell research, but everything else I can agree with.
The only thing I don't like about having more than two parties is that you will never get the majority. One candidate can get 18% of the vote and still win the election, even though 82% of people don't want you as president.
That's why you need a minimum number of signatures/votes/whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-you-need to get onto the presidential ballot in most states. We could have literally hundreds of presidential candidates if just anyone who stood up and shouted "I WANNA BE PRESIDENT!!111!" got onto the ballot.
hydra1945 That's why you need a minimum number of signatures/votes/whatever-the-hell-it-is-that-you-need to get onto the presidential ballot in most states. We could have literally hundreds of presidential candidates if just anyone who stood up and shouted "I WANNA BE PRESIDENT!!111!" got onto the ballot. Then why is there the blank for write ins?
So that anyone can be voted for (which is fair) but saves room on the actual ballot...
Crimson So that anyone can be voted for (which is fair) but saves room on the actual ballot... Exactly, so it doesn't matter if someone gets on the ballot or not. If enough people want them as president they will write in their name.
Maybe we should just have "Who do you want as president? __________" On the Ballots... Of course I'd imagine... it'd slow things down just a tad... Plus I mean We'd have scrolling on the bottom of the news: Districts Reporting in : 110 148 139 58 29 13 4 1 Totals so far : Bush 24% Kerry 11% Nader 1% Fat Albert 3% Rick James Ghost 7% George Washington 3% Kirby Peawauket 2% Dave Chapelle 17% Hillary Clinton 0% Jim Nabors -1% Larry the Cable Guy 23% Colonel Sanders 7% Ash Ketchum 4%
I wonder how many people will actually write "Me" on the ballot
Have any of you actually heard of the electoral college?
Yes. It creates a situation where one American's vote is worth more the another American's vote. It has the potential to create a situation where, nationally, more people will vote for President X, but President Y will win the election (ie. election 2000). Talk about fairness, eh? There have been several attempts to get rid of the electoral system, but they have obviously failed.
Doitle Larry the Cable Guy 23% Git-r-done!!!!!!! SEAL It creates a situation where one American's vote is worth more the another American's vote. It has the potential to create a situation where, nationally, more people will vote for President X, but President Y will win the election (ie. election 2000). Talk about fairness, eh? Tell me, would it be more fair to people living in Arkansas, Wyoming, and other "fly-over" states if the elections were controlled by only those living in high-population areas? Some cities have a higher population than entire states, so what candidate is going to care about what the "rural rednecks" think about politics if there aren't any votes in it for them? They'd all be going after the votes in the urban areas and pander to their interests while the people living in rural areas get the shaft. The electoral college gives the people living in low population areas a fair representation in the presidential election. Quote: There have been several attempts to get rid of the electoral system, but they have obviously failed. Thank god they did, too.
You have a point, but that seems to be the only real advantage--one that is outweighed by several disadantages. Besides, if all votes were equal, it would be in the candidates best interest to visit as many places as possible, and not just areas with high electoral points. My vote is worth less than someone living, for example, in California. I don't see how that is fair. Period. If a state wins by literally 1 vote, than every vote for the losing candidate is an absolute waste. It is because of this that we end up with presidents whom the majority of Americans did not vote for, but are in office anyway. A solution to both my side and your side of the argument would be to give electoral points proportionatly to what percent the candidate won by, for every state. For example, if Bush wins in state X, which has 10 electoral points, by getting 60% of the vote, he will only get 6 points (60% of 10). My 2 cents.
Pak As for Kerry He Isn't President Material, Hes a Flip Flop. Bush is More Straight Forth President You Know His Agenda. I love when uninformed people speak their mind, they look so comically foolish. Why do you think Kerry is a flop-flop? Because the media has used that exact same phrase so many times, you are unable to create your own opinions. You're like a mina-bird. "Kerry is a flip-flop. CAW" Bush is much more of a flip-flop than Kerry will ever be, Bush said he would impose Steel Tarriffs even though they were illegal. ~Bush repealed steel tarriffs because of Billions of dollars in sanctions leveled at the US. Bush said Gay Marriage was a "State Issue" and would never pass policy on it. ~Bush asks congress for a Constitutional Ammendment prohibiting gay marriage. Bush says that he will not create a Secretary of Homeland Security as Democrats request, because it is "unnecesary" ~Bush creates a Secretary of Homeland Security. Bush promised to do away with "Nation Building", saying we have no business in doing that. ~Bush asks for 150 Billion Dollars to rebuild Iraq. Bush says he will not endorse a 9/11 commission. ~Bush endorses the 9/11 commission. Bush says he will not appear before the 9/11 commission. ~Bush appears before the 9/11 commission. Bush runs for election on fiscal responsibility and his ability to unite the country. ~Bush establishes a RECORD HIGH national deficit from projected surplusses, and polarizes the country to Civil War levels. Bush imposes an Executive order titled "Preservation of Open Competition and Government Neutrality Towards Government Contractors' Labor Relations on Federal and Federally Funded Construction Projects " ~Bush awards no-bid contracts to his friends at Haliburton. Oh I could go on and on, but you wouldn't understand as you dont actually think or form opinions from "information" or "news", you just regurgitate the latest catch-phrase from the TV and pretend to have an original thought. If "flip-flopping" were really a problem for you, then you would be furious with GW Bush, but since you don't actually have a problem with "flip=flopping" you just want to attack Kerry, then nothing I say is going to make it through.
And where did you get this information from? The only one I know is true is when he said he did not like nation building. But we are not really nation building, we are nation molding.
Nodbugger But we are not really nation building, we are nation molding. ...:rolleyes: I can't make an educated statement on those "Bush flip flops" but I'm informed enough to know that's the stupidest sentence I've seen in a while.
There is a difference. We are giving them a leg up, not totally making them.
That argument got blasted on the pits, so it's gotta find new legs here I guess.
Flip flopping (Bush/Kerry?), or the electoral college?
Crimson That argument got blasted on the pits, so it's gotta find new legs here I guess. Well, if it was inherently wrong enough to be blasted bad on the Pitts, then why don't you post what those people said here? Oh, and did anyone see Bill O' Lielly get handed his head on Meet the Press by Paul Krugman? No, you won't be able to see the entire thing on Fox. I suggest reading the transcript, because whenever Krugman says something, Bill O' Dumbass starts screaming, and you often can't hear it.
Have you read what Krugman has said about OReilly? If someone called you a liar who and a terrorist every chance they got you'd be pissed at them to.. The Krugman guy is a lieing asshole.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/10/kerry_says_hed_still_vote_to_authorize_iraq_war/ I voted for the war, then I voted against the funding, then I campaigned on the premise that the war was unecessary and based on lies, then I said I would have voted for it anyway even if I knew there were no WMD stockpiles and the intelligence was faulty. C'mon Senator... what kind of idiots do you think we are??
I spearheaded the entire 'go to war with Iraq' campaign... "...even if I knew there were no WMD stockpiles and the intelligence was faulty." C'mon Mr. Bush... what kind of idiots do you think we are??
I don't understand what you're saying or trying to say. All I see is a pathetic attempt, even for you, to try and refute this.
Quote: I spearheaded the entire 'go to war with Iraq' campaign... "...even if I knew there were no WMD stockpiles and the intelligence was faulty." C'mon Mr. Bush... what kind of idiots do you think we are?? lol what? Were talking about Kerry not Bush.
Back to the electoral college. Can someone explain why this system does not favor high-population areas? States with more people do have more electoral college points, don't they? Furthermore I agree with Seal when he said Quote: A solution to both my side and your side of the argument would be to give electoral points proportionatly to what percent the candidate won by, for every state. For example, if Bush wins in state X, which has 10 electoral points, by getting 60% of the vote, he will only get 6 points (60% of 10).
You're right Crimson, that attempt was pretty pathetic. What I was trying to say, is why do you blame someone who voted to go to war when there was faulty intelligence, and at the same time support the man in charge of the entire operation? Many Senator's votes were based on what Bush said in his speeches. If they knew that they were lies, people may have voted differently.
Just for the record, and this is bi-partisen: Don't make judgements based on whether "Mr X voted against blah", find out WHY they didn't vote on a perticular issue, or why they did. Most people aren't as heartless as the media and those campaign commericals make them out to be.
Nodbugger Have you read what Krugman has said about OReilly? If someone called you a liar who and a terrorist every chance they got you'd be pissed at them to.. The Krugman guy is a lieing asshole. I take it you only watched the part of the interview on FOX where you can only hear O' Reilly putting words in Krugman's mouth? Read the transcript. Krugman isn't a lieing asshole, he's on the Nobel Prize short list, whereas O'Lielly spews bullcrap all day long on his show. Although it was weird, because I actually watched his show the other day, and he was attacking the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry. Well, I suppose this makes sense, because I don't think many groups lie more than Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry, considering how their entire story is completely made up, and none of them ever served on his boat.
He has said if you can prove he lied he will admit it, but no one can prove him yet. He is as objective as you will get on any show of this sort.
I hope you're not talking about O'Reilly. There couldn't be a less objective person.
First off, one of these guys was Kerry's commanding officer... so don't tell me that none of them served with him. Furthermore, the Senate doesn't just sit on their asses all day and vote on stuff. There are committees there who review intelligence and oversee... well, lots of things. They don't sit around and vote based on what the president says... there are lobbyists and action groups who also give their senators information, and the oversight committee has access to exactly the same intelligence information that Bush has access to, and they came to the same conclusion. Unfortunately for Bush and America, Dean hopped on this anti-war wagon and invited everyone to come aboard and re-write history and act like Bush acted unilaterally in this Iraq decision and lied to the Senate... when the Senate had the SAME intelligence data!
SuperFlyingEngi because I don't think many groups lie more than Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry, considering how their entire story is completely made up, and none of them ever served on his boat. If that's all you have to say about them, you can't be taken seriously anymore.
Crimson First off, one of these guys was Kerry's commanding officer... so don't tell me that none of them served with him. Furthermore, the Senate doesn't just sit on their asses all day and vote on stuff. There are committees there who review intelligence and oversee... well, lots of things. They don't sit around and vote based on what the president says... there are lobbyists and action groups who also give their senators information, and the oversight committee has access to exactly the same intelligence information that Bush has access to, and they came to the same conclusion. Unfortunately for Bush and America, Dean hopped on this anti-war wagon and invited everyone to come aboard and re-write history and act like Bush acted unilaterally in this Iraq decision and lied to the Senate... when the Senate had the SAME intelligence data! But don't you think that if the president says that he's sure Iraq has WMD's, the Senate will tend to believe him? Did they know they had all the exact same data? Furthermore I would appreciate if someone would answer my question about the electoral college system, I'm a bit confused about it.
NHJ: I personally don't understand how the electoral college works at all...But, for a simplified look at it, here's How Stuff Works... http://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm hydra1945 If that's all you have to say about them, you can't be taken seriously anymore. No, you have to in fact be an imbecile to believe what those people say...Yeah, one of them was his commanding officer, quite high up, however, so I doubt he actually served with him, and came out a couple days ago saying he didn't know what he was doing when he signed that petition, that he was making a big mistake, and that he's going to be in big trouble now...And then later that same day, like 6 hours later, he said, No, I was right all along, I should have signed this petition and I fully support Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry. Can you say large soft money donations from the Republican party? I know I can. And people making such a big deal about whether or not he actually earned his purple hearts... If you get an open wound, you get a purple heart. It's not so much an award for taking home an injury as it is an award for facing combat and being injured in the process. Blood = Purple heart. There should be no discussion of whether he actually earned it, especially since there was shrapnel in the wound for the one people seem most fixated on. Here's what I believe is the official description of the Purple heart: Awarded for wounds or death as result of an act of any opposing armed force, as a result of an international terrorist attack or as a result of military operaitons while serving as part of a peacekeeping force. It's also our first medal, established in 1782. The Bronze Star, For heroic or meritorious achievement of service, not involving aerial flight in connection with operations against an opposing armed force. A medal that shows particular valor or meritorious service. Ah, yes, the Silver Star: For distinguished gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States or while serving with friendly forces against an opposing enemy force. Third highest combat medal awarded by the U.S. Armed Force designed soley for heroism in combat. Winning this one is definitely a big deal. And to top that all of, numerous commendations from all of his commanders, except perhaps Mr. I-like-to-flip-flop-after-taking-large-soft-money-donations-from-the-Republican-party. Trying to attack his war record is a retarded idea. Except it just keeps going and going and going. It's not like Kerry is championing his exemplary record at every speech he makes, nay, he's talking about how he plans to fix America. But the media keeps coming out and saying that "No one knows how John Kerry is." Even though a lot of people do, they eat up fake opinions with a spoon. If you listened, you would know John Kerry's agenda.
Crimson http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/10/kerry_says_hed_still_vote_to_authorize_iraq_war/ I voted for the war, then I voted against the funding, then I campaigned on the premise that the war was unecessary and based on lies, then I said I would have voted for it anyway even if I knew there were no WMD stockpiles and the intelligence was faulty. C'mon Senator... what kind of idiots do you think we are?? Either you aren't reading the articlethat you yourself posted, you misunderstand the article, or you are misinterpreting it on purpose. The article you quoted above never says Kerry would authorize the war, Kerry never says it, nobody listens anymore, nobody thinks anymore. Kerry said the president should have the AUTHORITY to go to war. But that the authority was misused by Bush. In other words, he entrusted the president to have all options, and GW Bush fucked up. From YOUR article: Quote: Kerry said ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president. The article you posted actually CONTRADICTS your theory claim that Kerry would have done the same thing. CRIMMY- it isn't your fault that your opinions are based on lies and misinformation since you listen to Rush Limbaugh as a news source. Quote: YOU SAID: I voted for the war, then I voted against the funding, then I campaigned on the premise that the war was unecessary and based on lies, then I said I would have voted for it anyway even if I knew there were no WMD stockpiles and the intelligence was faulty. First lie: he didnt vote for the war. Second lie: he didn't vote against the funding, he voted FOR the bill with a condition that tax cuts be suspended to PAY for it, when that was defeated by republicans http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00373 he voted against the bill which was both fiscally responsible and remarkable insightful. Third lie: "Then I would have voted for it". I have explained above why this is not true. Anyone who actually reads the newspaper knows this isn't true. I am getting exhausted pointing out the flaws in your attacks on Kerry. You claim above that my arguments were ineffective in the PITS FORUMS, and again I think you are blinded by your own jingoistic vitriol. http://renegade.the-pitts.net/index.php?s=87448dc29695950cbcc2691685e9f64b&act=ST&f=26&t=8020&st=0 I think I made my point quite well in the Pits Forums, which is why maybe you came here to a forum board of younger, less informed folks to practice your propoganda on them. Kerry is no more a "Flip-Flop" than GW Bush. To claim so is to ignore the nature of politics and to ask your politicians to be inflexible. A stance only the most ignorant people will hold onto.
^ You know whats funny? Kerry would call you a liar.
That's not funny.
I didn't "come here". I own "here". Kerry is obviously just pulling semantics here. You vote to authorize a war, you shouldn't be surprised when you get a war. And it still doesn't matter what Bush said to the Senate. They are adults, not children. They can think for themselves. They have nothing to lose from not doing what the president wants. That's the beauty of checks and balances. If these Senators are just going to do what the president wants (which they obviously don't considering Michael Moore's claim that Bush "had trouble getting legislation passed" when he first came into office... then these senators need to be disbanded and either elect more that will stand up for their beliefs or just eliminate that branch of the government. But now we all know this can't possibly be the case, so don't make these senators out to be victims of these supposed "lies" when they were in a place to know what the intelligence said (the president knows nothing that the oversight committe doesn't know as far as that goes) and in a place to stop the war if it were so wrong. Furthermore, I do not listen to Rush as a news source. First off, I don't listen to him at all, I read transcripts. But he's not a news show. He provides editorials/commentaries on the day's news. I use CNN as a news source.
Crimson I didn't "come here". I own "here". You're right, sorry. See, I knew if we talked long enough we'd agree on something.
Crimson Kerry is obviously just pulling semantics here. You vote to authorize a war, you shouldn't be surprised when you get a war. It is actually YOU using semantics here. Since the Senate never authorized the war, it authorized the president to use the military if and how he deemed necessary. Never mind that the vote was driven by erroneous information and fear, that isn't the point. The point is that Kerry never cast a vote in favor of war in Iraq and you say he did.
Gizbotvas Crimson Kerry is obviously just pulling semantics here. You vote to authorize a war, you shouldn't be surprised when you get a war. It is actually YOU using semantics here. Since the Senate never authorized the war, it authorized the president to use the military if and how he deemed necessary. Never mind that the vote was driven by erroneous information and fear, that isn't the point. The point is that Kerry never cast a vote in favor of war in Iraq and you say he did. I don't think you are receiving the point here. Why would Kerry say, "You can use the military just don't use the military to fight" If they authorize the use of the military don't you think that going to war is part of that use?
Now's around the time when I step in and throw some more gas on the fire... Engi, are you aware that medals were thrown around rather freely in the Vietnam war? Whether Kerry 'earned' them or not is open to debate. For an example, there was one case of an officer getting a medal for knowing how to operate a radio(and in doing it, calling in an artillery strike on a friendly position)! Purple Hearts, in particular, were used as a way to get out of the war quickly, in much the same way as National Guard service served as a way to prevent being shipped overseas. Since neither you nor anyone else here was present when the events that got Kerry his medals took place, it is impossible to know exactly how deserving he was of them. "Because he got them" is not a good enough reason. A medal is only as good as the deeds that earned it. Don't mistake that as an argument for Bush, though- I'll bash him just as readily as anyone. However, I think that should Kerry get into office, his supporters will wind up just as disappointed as his opponents.
I just don't understand... Bush says "Hey, look at this intelligence we are looking at. Iraq needs to be taken down and Saddam needs to be taken out of power. I am going to use some of our military to do so, ok?" Congress says "We authorize you to use the military to deal with Iraq" a year later... "We authorized you to use the military but we didn't know you would actually re-open the Gulf War! How could we have ever guessed you would take Saddam out of power mere months after you did the same thing to the Taliban! It's unthinkable!" Give the Senate a little more credit, ok?
Javaxcx Just for the record, and this is bi-partisen: Don't make judgements based on whether "Mr X voted against blah", find out WHY they didn't vote on a perticular issue, or why they did. Most people aren't as heartless as the media and those campaign commericals make them out to be. And from what I understand about they way American politics works, bills are past almost in bulk. One can be attached to another, and if what it is attached to passes, so does the other. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
I'm sure it's been done, but I don't know enough about the American legislation to say for certain. Also: Both of you are using semantics. If what Kerry said is ambiguous, then everyone is going to be using semantics. Whee. I have no doubt in my mind that Kerry can be ambiguous when he talks. Bush is the exact same way.
Javaxcx I'm sure it's been done, but I don't know enough about the American legislation to say for certain. Also: Both of you are using semantics. If what Kerry said is ambiguous, then everyone is going to be using semantics. Whee. I have no doubt in my mind that Kerry can be ambiguous when he talks. Bush is the exact same way. Although, Kerry is ambiguous because he changes his statement halfway through the sentence. Bush is ambiguous because he says things like "unambuligoutysnesstry."
Well, I was refering to his speeches such as his '48 hour warning'. Simpletons like Nodbugger construe information out of those speeches. Generally, when Bush says something, Nodbugger and many others interpret it in a totally different way. It might just be because Nodbugger is an idiot, but he's definitely not the only one who thinks liberation was a 'reason' given on March 17th to go to war.
Javaxcx Well, I was refering to his speeches such as his '48 hour warning'. Simpletons like Nodbugger construe information out of those speeches. Generally, when Bush says something, Nodbugger and many others interpret it in a totally different way. It might just be because Nodbugger is an idiot, but he's definitely not the only one who thinks liberation was a 'reason' given on March 17th to go to war. Not this argument again. When did he mention it 10+ times if he did not intend to do it and it was was not an incentive for war. The result can lead to the reason.
Nope, and there is another thread regarding this argument. If you feel like you need to reply on this issue again, please do it in the appropriate thread.
Politics is the art of throwing big words into your speeches so that the general population won't know what the fuck you're really saying. Or maybe that was diplomacy? Thing is, there's no such thing as a politician who takes office solely for the common good. It would be a wet dream come true if such a creature ever existed, but don't hold your breath waiting for one. Want a working definition of an honest politician? Here you go: One that stays bought.
The senate gave President Bush the authorization to use military force if he needed it, and he invaded Iraq against the wishes of many senators including Kerry. I offer a metaphor: My daughter says she needs a cell phone in case of emergencies. I authorize it, I agree to pay for it. Later I get a phone bill showing she has made 300 local calls to her friends. What happened? Am I a "Flip-Flop" if I criticize her misuse of the authority I granted her? Is it my fault for trusting her with the phone, or is it her fault for misusing that trust? Can I not say that, given the chance to do it all over again, I would still give her the cell phone, but I wouldn't approve of the way she uses it? To criticize Kerry for giving the president all the tools is ridiculous, the criticism lays in the way the president USES those tools, and President Bush has clearly misused the power he has been given. The war was a mistake, and the apologies have not been forthcoming.
Gizbotvas The senate gave President Bush the authorization to use military force if he needed it, and he invaded Iraq against the wishes of many senators including Kerry. I offer a metaphor: My daughter says she needs a cell phone in case of emergencies. I authorize it, I agree to pay for it. Later I get a phone bill showing she has made 300 local calls to her friends. What happened? Am I a "Flip-Flop" if I criticize her misuse of the authority I granted her? Is it my fault for trusting her with the phone, or is it her fault for misusing that trust? Can I not say that, given the chance to do it all over again, I would still give her the cell phone, but I wouldn't approve of the way she uses it? To criticize Kerry for giving the president all the tools is ridiculous, the criticism lays in the way the president USES those tools, and President Bush has clearly misused the power he has been given. The war was a mistake, and the apologies have not been forthcoming. Fuck You
If you are going to make yourself look like an ass on a politcs issue, then leave. agreeing with javaxcx with this one. Nodbugger is making Bush look like he is on smokable crack. When bush gave his "48 hour" speech, he intended it to be a warning for Sadam Hussien to leave the country within "48 hours", not that we were going to war in 48 hours. In fact, Bush was lienyeint in his time and gave that dictator 56 hours before the first bomb fell on the country.
They voted saying if Bush wanted to, he could attack Iraq. For the months prior to this Bush was saying how he wanted to attack Iraq. Would it be unreasonable to assume Bush would use the ability given to him by congress? He in no way mis-used what congress said and they were in no way duped into thinking something different. Bush asked if he could go to war, congress said yes, Bush went to war.
I see that article is from October 2002.... and we started the war when? Oh yeah, March 2003... just about 6 months later. And yet he "rushed to war". LOL I am tearing up from laughter. Your analogy is horrid and doesn't fit, mostly because they agreed at the time that Iraq was an "emergency" and in fact Kerry along with several other senators urges Clinton to do the same thing back in his Administration.
Crimson Your analogy is horrid and doesn't fit, mostly because they agreed at the time that Iraq was an "emergency" and in fact Kerry along with several other senators urges Clinton to do the same thing back in his Administration. Quote: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
Nodbugger Fuck You Some of you little kids crack me up. You think you read the article, then you post it, and I read it, and see that your article actually makes my point for me. Quote: In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions We had weapons inpectors in Iraq saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. France, Germany, Russia, China, the United Nations, and people like me were urging the president to wait and see if there were actually weapons in Iraq before we used the military. The letter you posted from 1998 is hilarious. For one thing, we DID bomb targets in Iraq that we thought to be weapons facilities and the Republicans freaked out calling for Clinton's resignation. Now suddenly it is the talking point for a Republican agenda. LOL. For whatever it's worth, not that I expect you to understand, but that letter DID generate activity through the IAEC and got weapons inspectors back into Iraq.
Crimson and we started the war when? Oh yeah, March 2003... just about 6 months later. And yet he "rushed to war". LOL Your analogy is horrid and doesn't fit, mostly because they agreed at the time that Iraq was an "emergency" Interesting that you first say there was no rush to war, and in the next breath you say it was an "emergency". I think you are a Flip-Flop.
Gizbotvas Nodbugger Fuck You Some of you little kids crack me up. You think you read the article, then you post it, and I read it, and see that your article actually makes my point for me. If you thought that would crack you up. Read this thread. ALL of it.
Gizbotvas Nodbugger Fuck You Some of you little kids crack me up. You think you read the article, then you post it, and I read it, and see that your article actually makes my point for me. Quote: In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions We had weapons inpectors in Iraq saying there were no weapons of mass destruction. France, Germany, Russia, China, the United Nations, and people like me were urging the president to wait and see if there were actually weapons in Iraq before we used the military. The letter you posted from 1998 is hilarious. For one thing, we DID bomb targets in Iraq that we thought to be weapons facilities and the Republicans freaked out calling for Clinton's resignation. Now suddenly it is the talking point for a Republican agenda. LOL. For whatever it's worth, not that I expect you to understand, but that letter DID generate activity through the IAEC and got weapons inspectors back into Iraq. No it doesn't. They gave him authority to attack Iraq. End of story. He used it exactly how they wrote it and they have no excuse. And neither do you for defending them. There was nothing wrong with this war. No matter what you people attempt to come up with Saddam was someone who we do need in this world.
Javaxcx Gizbotvas Nodbugger Fuck You Some of you little kids crack me up. You think you read the article, then you post it, and I read it, and see that your article actually makes my point for me. If you thought that would crack you up. Read this thread. ALL of it. I was 100% correct in that thread. You never proved a single thing.
It was especially clever of you when you would quote a mile-long post and respond to one part of it. Nodbugger There was nothing wrong with this war. Error: Too Stupid.
Nodbugger I was 100% correct in that thread. You never proved a single thing. Except you couldn't prove anything relevant to your case, you didn't know the meanings of simple words, you think that law is a suggested guideline that can legally be bent or broken to suit your personal needs... need I go on? Oh, and guess what. Here's something funny for you: "The Security Council, holding its first debate on Iraq since hostilities began on 19 March, was called on to end the illegal aggression and demand the immediate withdrawal of invading forces, by an overwhelming majority of this afternoon’s 45 speakers." http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7705.doc.htm That link probably won't work. It's the March 28th Press Release. If you want, (even though you won't) you can read that and the actual meeting dialogue and the press release here: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2003.htm
still on about this <sigh> need to get Vince McMahon to promote this one
Who gave Bush the authority? Congress, or the UN?
I hate seeing people yak on and on about how the US defied the UN- they talk about the UN as if it had the authority to govern member nations. Nuh-uh. All member nations are still independent and free to make their own choices. The US constitution grants the authority to make war on the US government, not an outside organization (just because France or Russia doesn't want the US to go to war, the US can still go to war because the US government supercedes the authority of the UN). H O W E V E R . . . Member nations of the UN should at least try to work with each other, not against. If they feel the organization does not support their nation's best interests, they should withdraw from it. That goes for ALL member nations, not just one or two. At the beginning of the Iraq war, the simple fact is that nearly the entire security council was in violation of UN resolutions in one way or another. On that note, I feel that the UN has outlived its usefulness- it has neither the power to back up its resolutions nor the compliance of its member nations.
NukeIt15 I hate seeing people yak on and on about how the US defied the UN- they talk about the UN as if it had the authority to govern member nations. Nuh-uh. All member nations are still independent and free to make their own choices. The US constitution grants the authority to make war on the US government, not an outside organization (just because France or Russia doesn't want the US to go to war, the US can still go to war because the US government supercedes the authority of the UN). Not quite. You're right about the lack thereof to govern other nations, because nations are ASKED (or warned) not told to comply with resolutions. You're also right about being free to make your own choices. However, should those choices be in violation of the law agreed to by the Member States in 1945 and onward, then at the end of the day, the act was still illegal. Illegal, of course, in terms of the international law that Member AGREED to. In 1945, quite a few people said "yeah, we'll play by these rules". Those rules are the United Nations Charter. All of these rules can be found here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I trust you to have more sense then Nodbugger and read them before commenting on them. As for the United States government superceding the United Nations. Heh. I can't agree with that. Sure, you've got the biggest guns, but you've locked the ball'n'chain around yourselves when you signed that 'contract'. The fact of the matter is, Resolution 1441 was violated by both Iraq and the United States (and in essence, all nations in the Coalition of the Willing). If the U.S. is going to call Iraq's actions against resolutions illegal, then do the same thing, but claim it not to be illegal. Well, there is a problem there. So I'm going to ask you: Resolution 1441 says this: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States," That statement runs back all the way to Resolution 686 in 1990 in terms of Iraq. Was this commitment (you can find it in the Charter in article 2 I believe) at the end of the day upheld and implimented by the United States and the CoW as per their authority of Resolution 678? If not, then this war is illegal. If so, prove it. Quote: At the beginning of the Iraq war, the simple fact is that nearly the entire security council was in violation of UN resolutions in one way or another. You're absolutely right. I was aghast when I read that the Security Council didn't condemn this attack dispite its obvious violation of 1441 and previous resolutions. It's suspicious.
Gizbotvas Crimson and we started the war when? Oh yeah, March 2003... just about 6 months later. And yet he "rushed to war". LOL Your analogy is horrid and doesn't fit, mostly because they agreed at the time that Iraq was an "emergency" Interesting that you first say there was no rush to war, and in the next breath you say it was an "emergency". I think you are a Flip-Flop. I was using "emergency" in quotes to reference your cell phone analogy.
Javaxcx NukeIt15 I hate seeing people yak on and on about how the US defied the UN- they talk about the UN as if it had the authority to govern member nations. Nuh-uh. All member nations are still independent and free to make their own choices. The US constitution grants the authority to make war on the US government, not an outside organization (just because France or Russia doesn't want the US to go to war, the US can still go to war because the US government supercedes the authority of the UN). Not quite. You're right about the lack thereof to govern other nations, because nations are ASKED (or warned) not told to comply with resolutions. You're also right about being free to make your own choices. However, should those choices be in violation of the law agreed to by the Member States in 1945 and onward, then at the end of the day, the act was still illegal. Illegal, of course, in terms of the international law that Member AGREED to. In 1945, quite a few people said "yeah, we'll play by these rules". Those rules are the United Nations Charter. All of these rules can be found here: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ I trust you to have more sense then Nodbugger and read them before commenting on them. As for the United States government superceding the United Nations. Heh. I can't agree with that. Sure, you've got the biggest guns, but you've locked the ball'n'chain around yourselves when you signed that 'contract'. The fact of the matter is, Resolution 1441 was violated by both Iraq and the United States (and in essence, all nations in the Coalition of the Willing). If the U.S. is going to call Iraq's actions against resolutions illegal, then do the same thing, but claim it not to be illegal. Well, there is a problem there. So I'm going to ask you: Resolution 1441 says this: "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States," That statement runs back all the way to Resolution 686 in 1990 in terms of Iraq. Was this commitment (you can find it in the Charter in article 2 I believe) at the end of the day upheld and implimented by the United States and the CoW as per their authority of Resolution 678? If not, then this war is illegal. If so, prove it. Quote: At the beginning of the Iraq war, the simple fact is that nearly the entire security council was in violation of UN resolutions in one way or another. You're absolutely right. I was aghast when I read that the Security Council didn't condemn this attack dispite its obvious violation of 1441 and previous resolutions. It's suspicious. Shut the fuck up. Why do you all you fuckers keep trying to make America the bad guy! Are you really that fucking stupid? Saddam is the bad guy. Saddam is the one doing all the horrible shit. Stop protesting the US and go fucking protest Saddam. All you peace loving fuckers are a bunch of hypocrites. We did not do a single thing wrong. Saddam was the asshole killing people. We went there to stop that. If your stupid fucking head cannot agree with than sit down and shut the fuck up because we simply do not want to hear your stupid fucking logic. We do not fucking care. I also don't fucking care how childish I may sound. I don't give a fuck. I don't care, if you guys are going to stay fucking retarded do it in Canada or where ever the fuck you are from.
Quote: Shut the fuck up. Why do you all you fuckers keep trying to make America the bad guy! Sometimes we are the bad guy. Saddam Hussein was completely UNconnected to the 9/11 attacks. Al Queada attacked the US, a group formed in large part by the United States to combat Communists like me. The Bush Administration scared the American Public, using constant references to 9/11, Al Queada, and terrorists, to push a long-held agenda to invade Iraq against all international law and common sense. You can pretend America is correct all the time if you want to, but 3 Billion Muslims may disagree with you, and if you weren't so young and uninformed you would be forced to agree that some critical self-examination and policy review is warranted. Remember that it was Legal to hang a Black man for touching a White woman not even sixty years ago here. We are not always right, we are not always the good guys, the important thing is to learn from our mistakes and get rid of GW Bush before he causes any more damage.