Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Zell Miller is such a crazy redneck hillbilly retard. His speech at the Republican Convention was almost all lies. And then, he blew up on Hardball, challenging Chris Matthews to a duel for some inane reason, after calling his "spitballs" a "metafurr". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57835-2004Sep2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55738-2004Sep2.html
SuperFlyingEngi His speech at the Republican Convention was almost all lies. Quote the lie from his speech, and quote the fact that runs counter to that lie. Then, we might believe you. Quote: Zell Miller is such a crazy redneck hillbilly retard. "Hi, pot? This is kettle. You're black." Quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57835-2004Sep2.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55738-2004Sep2.html "Register now. It's free and it's required." No.
You're not going to register to read the thing? Damn. It takes like 2 minutes, and the quotes from those articles would fill up a ton of space on here. Those articles reference the first third of your post. If you can't be bothered to read what is there, then go away. And believe me, I don't look or act like Zell Miller.
Good idea to vote for the man that members of his own party support the man running against him. John Kerry is the ass, and I say that not by what is said about him, but what came from the fuckhead's own mouth.
Of course, everyone who disagrees with the liberals is always something bad. For preaching tolerance you sure don't seem to practice it. Or is it that you only tolerate what you like, and nothing more? You're a fucking hypocrite at best...
Riftgarde Good idea to vote for the man that members of his own party support the man running against him. Some people from one party will always back another candidate, Zell Miller is just the only real vocal Democrat for Bush. And I'm not going to pick my candidate one what some 9,000 year old senile crazy guy has to say. Especially when he presents himself like he did at the Republican Convention. ACK Of course, everyone who disagrees with the liberals is always something bad. For preaching tolerance you sure don't seem to practice it. Or is it that you only tolerate what you like, and nothing more? You're a fucking hypocrite at best... Not everyone who disagrees with liberals is bad in my book, in fact, I consider very few of them to be so. I only despise Zell Miller because of his ruthless lying attacks at the Convention. It's the most slanderous political speech I've ever heard in my life. Did you in fact even watch it? Zell Miller deserves no respect after what he said.
Riftgarde Good idea to vote for the man that members of his own party support the man running against him. To say "I'm going to vote for Bush/Kerry because he's a republican/democrat" is not usually a good reason. It's incredibly stupid to assume that all democrats vote democratic and all republicans vote republican, so by your logic we could say the EXACT same thing to you: Good idea to vote for the man that members of his own party support the man running against him. You're guilty of supporting someone who fits that description no matter who you support. :rolleyes:
First off, Zell Miller is a former marine who served in Korea. For that alone he deserves your respect, say anything negative about the man's character again and I'll find you and kick the crap outta you myself.* Second, behold -> http://miller.senate.gov/bio.htm The short version of Senator Miller's biography. He is a public servant, not a bloody career politican. Thirdly, Senator Miller is one of the few Democrats in D.C. with any sort of integrity left, the rest of shills for whatever special interest group tosses them a check. *Admins I would never actually do this as I know that Engi is a "empty head full of mush" that believes anything that comes out of the Kerry camp's collective mouths. I use it simply to make my point.
The funny part is superlfyingliberal probably did not even know who Zell miller was until someone started bashing him on democraticunderground.com
Liberator... What does his serving in Korea have to do with his speech? What does his biography have to do with his speech? No matter what you pull up, it won't negate his outrageous speech at the RNC. :rolleyes: And I could say the same thing about Kerry: Quote: First off, John Kerry is a former soldier who served in Vietnam. For that alone he deserves your respect, say anything negative about the man's character again and I'll find you and kick the crap outta you myself. But wait! Countless people on these forums don't respect Kerry at all, saying things that they have just heard over and over again like a broken record (i.e. "Flip-flopper"). Your veteran bullshit doesn't hold.
Nodbugger The funny part is superlfyingliberal probably did not even know who Zell miller was until someone started bashing him on democraticunderground.com Nodbugger, the first time I saw Zell Miller was on Hannity & Colmes when I was flipping through the news channels maybe a year or so ago. And I didn't think much of him back then, either. liberator Second, behold -> http://miller.senate.gov/bio.htm The short version of Senator Miller's biography. He is a public servant, not a bloody career politican. liberator, that bio was probably written by himself or one of his aides with the objective of making Zell look better. It's garbage. Zell Miller is so disliked in the Senate that he doesn't even go in the building any more. liberator Thirdly, Senator Miller is one of the few Democrats in D.C. with any sort of integrity left, the rest of shills for whatever special interest group tosses them a check. Uh...ok, am I just supposed to accept this for fact or something?
SuperFlyingEngi Uh...ok, am I just supposed to accept this for fact or something? Yea.. Just like we're supposed to take "all those lies at the RNC" as fact.. I think you've been asked like 3 times to list them and show why they are lies.. are we just avoiding the subject?
Did you read the Washington Post articles?
He isn't asking the Washington Post. He's asking you.
So he wants me to copy and paste a whole load of information from there to here? That would take up a ton of space, when I could not flood this thread and instead have 2 links. It's not that much to ask.
SuperFlyingEngi So he wants me to copy and paste a whole load of information from there to here? That would take up a ton of space, when I could not flood this thread and instead have 2 links. It's not that much to ask. So basically, you can't argue the points, or even summarize them.. I'm just supposed to go register on some liberal rag's Web site so I can read what you're upset about.. no thanks.. If you want to have a conversation here, bitch about someone or something, then I would at least expect you to be able to do that yourself.. I can search the news myself and formulate my own opinions.
msgtpain SuperFlyingEngi So he wants me to copy and paste a whole load of information from there to here? That would take up a ton of space, when I could not flood this thread and instead have 2 links. It's not that much to ask. So basically, you can't argue the points, or even summarize them.. I'm just supposed to go register on some liberal rag's Web site so I can read what you're upset about.. no thanks.. If you want to have a conversation here, bitch about someone or something, then I would at least expect you to be able to do that yourself.. I can search the news myself and formulate my own opinions.
msgtpain So basically, you can't argue the points, or even summarize them.. I'm just supposed to go register on some liberal rag's Web site so I can read what you're upset about.. no thanks.. If you want to have a conversation here, bitch about someone or something, then I would at least expect you to be able to do that yourself.. I can search the news myself and formulate my own opinions. You're calling the Washington Post a rag magazine? I'm this close to just not caring any more. I'm supposed to post factual information here instead of linking you to it? What the crap? Or am I supposed to be making things up? If you don't want to have the hardship of spending maybe a minute registering on a website, well, have fun living in ignorance. But I don't feel like paraphrasing anything here.
SuperFlyingEngi You're calling the Washington Post a rag magazine? Most definately. But since you're what.. 16? I wouldn't expect that you honestly have much historical perspective on what a "rag" magazine is. Do a little research and you'll find that it is indeed right up there in the top billing for national "rags".. It may have become a little softer in the last decade, but it has always been, and will most likely always remain a liberal soap box. SuperFlyingEngi I'm this close to just not caring any more. Suit yourself. Am I supposed to care that you are close to not caring? SuperFlyingEngi I'm supposed to post factual information here instead of linking you to it? No, you're supposed to formulate your own opinions, make your own arguments, research what you are touting as "fact" and let us know why you feel that what you believe is worth arguing about. Posting links which validate your beliefs typically helps as well. Any bonehead can post a link to an article and spout "Yea, What he said!" SuperFlyingEngi If you don't want to have the hardship of spending maybe a minute registering on a website, well, have fun living in ignorance. No, if I refuse to register for the site and read the article, I'm only living in YOUR ignorance, since you can't even relay to me what the article is about. If I were to register for the site and read the article, and simply dismiss everything it stated because "it's a liberal rag", then I would be living in my ignorance. SuperFlyingEngi But I don't feel like paraphrasing anything here. Which is why I don't feel like taking your argument very seriously.
msgtpain since you're what.. 16? 14. msgtpain Do a little research and you'll find that it is indeed right up there in the top billing for national "rags".. It may have become a little softer in the last decade, but it has always been, and will most likely always remain a liberal soap box. What would you call a better news source? msgtpain No, you're supposed to formulate your own opinions, make your own arguments, research what you are touting as "fact" and let us know why you feel that what you believe is worth arguing about. Posting links which validate your beliefs typically helps as well. Any bonehead can post a link to an article and spout "Yea, What he said!" Fine. Here you go. Zell Miller is a moron because: Well, first he is a flip-flopper, for real, not like John Kerry flip-flop. In 1992 during the Democratic National Convention he declared that "Republicans have dealt in cynicism and skepticism" and "mastered the art of division and diversion." Quite contrary to his views at the 2004 RNC. Also during his 1992 speech, he was much less harsh than his appearance on Wednesday. In fact, his RNC speech was probably one of the most hate-filled American political speeches of my lifetime. He was also just making stuff up when he declared that todays Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. Which Democratic leaders? I'm sure everyone saw him blow up in front of Chris Matthews, telling him to "get out of my face" and declaring that he wished to challenge the host of Hardball to a duel. Doesn't seem like a mentally stable person to me. When Zell Miller remarked that John Kerry has made it clear he would use military force only if it were approved by the U.N., where in fact John Kerry has stated, "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." And overall, his speech was just so insanely mean. All he did was go up on the podium, scowl, and ramble on and on about how all Democrats were treasonous baby killers. And people were cheering him. Politics isn't about shouting down the other side, as Bill O' Lielly would have you believe, but it's about wielding a better candidate than the other side, and having better plans than the other side. If someone like that came to a Democratic Convention, no matter their stance on the issues, I wouldn't be cheering. There's no room for mentally unstable rednecks in politics any more. There. Happy? I can get some more stuff if you want.
SuperFlyingEngi Fine. Here you go. Zell Miller is a moron because: Well, first he is a flip-flopper, for real, not like John Kerry flip-flop. In 1992 during the Democratic National Convention he declared that "Republicans have dealt in cynicism and skepticism" and "mastered the art of division and diversion." Quite contrary to his views at the 2004 RNC. He answered this statement in the opening 3 minutes of his speech. He stated very clearly that "A whole new generation of Miller's have been born since I stood in this same place over a decade ago." and then he further went on to state that "my family is more important than my party." Did he flip-flop? Maybe so. I'm not arguing that, but that doesn't make him a liar, his priorities have changed due to the change in his family and he now feels that GW Bush is the leader he feels most comfortable with protecting that family. SuperFlyingEngi Also during his 1992 speech, he was much less harsh than his appearance on Wednesday. In fact, Since I am most certain that you were not watching his last speech when you were 2, I can only assume that this is simply a direct quote from the source you quoted.. Have you actually watched internet footage of that speech? or read the transcripts? Like I said, your hatred with Zell Miller seems more of just a regurgitation of the propaganda that a liberal reporter spewed in their column; I have a hard time believeing that you "share" these opinions based on actual events which you were a part of or even have heard for yourself and evaluated. If I am wrong here, then I'm sure you'll be explaining how he was "much less harsh" in 1992. SuperFlyingEngi his RNC speech was probably one of the most hate-filled American political speeches of my lifetime. Please expound.. I'm having a hard time understanding this comment; unless you and I watched a completely different speech. Did he have a few harsh words? sure. But it was very clear that he was questioning "where the Democrats he used to know" have gone. I guess you could say he is "flip-flopping" again, as he is questioning the true colors of the party he grew up believing in and fighting for. SuperFlyingEngi He was also just making stuff up when he declared that todays Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. Which Democratic leaders? He did make this comment, and to be honest, I'm not sure what he was refering to, as I don't have any knowledge to the speech he is refering to, I will have to do some research on it. SuperFlyingEngi I'm sure everyone saw him blow up in front of Chris Matthews, telling him to "get out of my face" and declaring that he wished to challenge the host of Hardball to a duel. Doesn't seem like a mentally stable person to me. He seemed entirely stable to me. But you see, this is golden example of where our two beliefs most likely differ. I see Chris Matthews to be a pompous ass who typically uses the fact that it is "his show" to cut people off, drive them in to the ground, never give them the chance to respond, and simply cut them off when he thinks the interview isn't going his way. Zell knows this, and was prepared for it. Chris asked him a number of questions and NEVER even gave him the chance to respond. As soon as he started to speak, Chris totally cut him off and started baiting him again. After about the 5th time, Zell told him to knock it off or take a hike. If you watch the interview again, you'll notice the exact time in which Chris realizes that he has just been "told" and he was absolutely stunned. Watch the rest of the interview, and realize that after that moment, Chris Matthews acts like a kid that is in a meeting with his principle. he didn't make another baiting comment, he was respectful, and he even made a number of graceful compliments to Zell.. Chris is an asshole, he got owned, and it's as simple as that. SuperFlyingEngi When Zell Miller remarked that John Kerry has made it clear he would use military force only if it were approved by the U.N., where in fact John Kerry has stated, "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." This is one of those "I'm going to make a fenceline comment that can't get me in trouble either way." John Kerry has made it absolutely factual that the president abused the power that was given to him, then out of the other side of his mouth, he states that he would never expect the president to do anything but act in the way that they feel that they need to. It's a circular argument.. Either you believe that the President has and had the authority to do what he did, or you argue that he acted irresponsibly and abused his power. All I hear is that "I want the ability to make those decisions myself also if I'm president" .. so what's his beef with Bush. SuperFlyingEngi And overall, his speech was just so insanely mean. All he did was go up on the podium, scowl, and ramble on and on about how all Democrats were treasonous baby killers. And people were cheering him. I never heard him say this at all.. and to me, his speech seemed honest and from the heart.. He was pissed off that his brother Democrats are acting the way they are.. SuperFlyingEngi Politics isn't about shouting down the other side, as Bill O' Lielly would have you believe, but it's about wielding a better candidate than the other side, and having better plans than the other side. which is why he took the time out of his life to help the people at the RNC understand what his opinion was about "The other side".. He believes that the Republicans have a better candidate, and he gave 100 reasons why. SuperFlyingEngi If someone like that came to a Democratic Convention, no matter their stance on the issues, I wouldn't be cheering. There's no room for mentally unstable rednecks in politics any more. If someone came to a democratic convention and started spewing about how Bush and Cheny were a bunch of 'ol boys club Oil rednecks that think they can do whatever they want, and make their buddies richer, you wouldn't be standing up cheering? I find that laughable, actually.
Just a quick question: If Miller's so pissed off with the Democrats, then what the hell is he still doing in the Democratic party?!?
Wow. I'm sick and tired of people accusing people with different viewpoints of being "brainwashed" and watching "propoganda." Propaganda works best when the audience doesn't even question whether or not they are watching propoganda. For all you know, you are watching "propoganda" too. And trust me, if you've ever seen Fox News, you HAVE been watching it. Brainwashed or not, people still have the right to voice their opinion. And telling them they are brainwashed shouldn't be a valid excuse. Tell them where they are wrong, and if you can back it up with factual evidence, maybe they will realize that they are being "brainwashed". SuperFlyingEngi, I in no way mean to imply that you were brainwashed, etc. This applies for everyone on this forum. msgtpain I have a hard time believeing that you "share" these opinions based on actual events which you were a part of or even have heard for yourself and evaluated. If I am wrong here, then I'm sure you'll be explaining how he was "much less harsh" in 1992. So...you are defending him, saying that he might have always been this harsh? If he has, then how is this supposed to make him look better? Oh well, I guess it's all still a loss for the Republican party. Many undecided voters aren't attracted to the party that viciously attacks the other.
SEAL msgtpain I have a hard time believeing that you "share" these opinions based on actual events which you were a part of or even have heard for yourself and evaluated. If I am wrong here, then I'm sure you'll be explaining how he was "much less harsh" in 1992. So...you are defending him, saying that he might have always been this harsh? If he has, then how is this supposed to make him look better? Oh well, I guess it's all still a loss for the Republican party. Many undecided voters aren't attracted to the party that viciously attacks the other. No, I'm not defending him.. But if you read your entire beginning rant, then actually "read" what I wrote, you'll probably come to some brilliant revelation. I'm pretty confident in my assumption that SupahFly doesn't have a clue what was said at the 1992 convention, or in what tone. His comments regarding how he was "much less harsh" (and actually his opinions on this entire subject) are nothing more than a re-enactment of what he read in the WP article. I asked him to paraphrase the article to me and explain the "lies" etc, and I received parts of the article cut-and-pasted as a reply. So, what was that you were saying about being "Brainwashed"? I too believe that everyone should have and voice their own opinion, but that doesn't mean that we are not allowed to debate those opinions; which I believe is exactly how I responded, to each point in question. Quote: Brainwashed or not, people still have the right to voice their opinion. Tell them where they are wrong, and if you can back it up with factual evidence I'm thinking that just maybe, you should heed your own advice? Just looking at your signature, I can see that you don't even believe what you spew..
My signature has nothing to do with this. Nodbugger has called me a dumbass so many times that I see fit that I put that quote in my signature. I really don't see the relevance to "the right to voice an opinion" and "not calling people brainwashed". Just because I say "It's time to shut the fuck up," doesn't mean I'm denying Nodbugger's right to post on these forums... :rolleyes:
msgtpain He answered this statement in the opening 3 minutes of his speech. He stated very clearly that "A whole new generation of Miller's have been born since I stood in this same place over a decade ago." and then he further went on to state that "my family is more important than my party." Did he flip-flop? Maybe so. I'm not arguing that, but that doesn't make him a liar, his priorities have changed due to the change in his family and he now feels that GW Bush is the leader he feels most comfortable with protecting that family. He's also saying that because of his rascist record back in the day. Look at j_ball's uninformed poster - Miller was one of the Democrats who voted No for the Civil Rights Act. Although that was maybe 40 years or so ago, so whatever. Let's not live in the past. msgtpain Since I am most certain that you were not watching his last speech when you were 2, I can only assume that this is simply a direct quote from the source you quoted.. Have you actually watched internet footage of that speech? or read the transcripts? Like I said, your hatred with Zell Miller seems more of just a regurgitation of the propaganda that a liberal reporter spewed in their column; I have a hard time believeing that you "share" these opinions based on actual events which you were a part of or even have heard for yourself and evaluated. If I am wrong here, then I'm sure you'll be explaining how he was "much less harsh" in 1992. http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205981/posts It really is a lot nicer than his 2004 speech. msgtpain Please expound.. I'm having a hard time understanding this comment; unless you and I watched a completely different speech. Did he have a few harsh words? sure. But it was very clear that he was questioning "where the Democrats he used to know" have gone. I guess you could say he is "flip-flopping" again, as he is questioning the true colors of the party he grew up believing in and fighting for. A few harsh words is an understatement. He got up and scowled and started ranting about Kerry. Things like this: Zell Miller But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. ...what does this mean? Wouldn't Republicans be closer to this way of thinking, like when Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution? Oh well, it doesn't make any sense. Zell Miller They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. Yeah, and Bill Clinton didn't believe that when he told Richard Clarke to make a comprehensive plan for eliminating Al Qaeda. Zell Miller Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror. This right here is such a lie. When they say he voted against all those weapons systems, he didn't vote against individual ones. He voted against the Defense Appropriations bill, which is the cumulative armed forces spending bill. Several times, the bill has had to have been vetoed because it has so much pork on it, like the Robert Bird Community College, or some random bridge, or something. The biggest piece of pork in there at one point was a retroactive tax fix that affected one company. Guess which company it was? Enron. Retroactively, Enron would have gotten back 250 million dollars in taxes. Bills like those need to be vetoed, and sent back to a committe to be re-built. Now, there were some weapons systems that come up on individual bills, like when the F-15 became out-dated, and needed to be cut, it would come up on a bill, and everyone would vote to cut funding to the plane because it was no longer needed. In the case of the F-15, the Defense Secretary who put it on the chopping block was none other than Dick Cheney. And Senator Kerry has supported over 6.4 trillion in defense spending over the years, more than twice the amount of all other countries in the world combined. How weak on defense can he be? Zell Miller U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls? Meta-furr. Zell Miller John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. Blah blah blah. Zell Miller For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure. By golly, we never needed those 6.4 trillion in military spending over the years! Zell Miller As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military. No he didn't. He came back and tried to stop the war. John Kerry was blaming our reasons for being in the war, never the troops. Saying he blamed the military is such a despicable thing to say. Zell Miller From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends. Here he goes saying John Kerry's leadership would only encourage terrorist attacks. By the way, today Cheney came out and said that if John Kerry is elected, there will immediately be a massive terrorist attack. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html Zell Miller Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world. There, he's calling John Kerry a sissy. msgtpain He did make this comment, and to be honest, I'm not sure what he was refering to, as I don't have any knowledge to the speech he is refering to, I will have to do some research on it. Well, I'm not a great believer in Chris Matthews, because he rarely actually plays Hardball, but, I mean, who challenges someone to a duel? msgtpain This is one of those "I'm going to make a fenceline comment that can't get me in trouble either way." John Kerry has made it absolutely factual that the president abused the power that was given to him, then out of the other side of his mouth, he states that he would never expect the president to do anything but act in the way that they feel that they need to. It's a circular argument.. Either you believe that the President has and had the authority to do what he did, or you argue that he acted irresponsibly and abused his power. All I hear is that "I want the ability to make those decisions myself also if I'm president" .. so what's his beef with Bush. That Bush made bad decisions. John Kerry saying he will exert presidential power to make sure the country is safe doesn't mean that he can't say someone else wielded the aforementioned power irresponsibly. msgtpain I never heard him say this at all.. and to me, his speech seemed honest and from the heart.. He was pissed off that his brother Democrats are acting the way they are.. Alright, i exagerrated the baby killer part, but still, look at what he said about John Kerry's record on defense. It's all a lie. msgtpain which is why he took the time out of his life to help the people at the RNC understand what his opinion was about "The other side".. He believes that the Republicans have a better candidate, and he gave 100 reasons why. I count 6 reasons. All at the very end of his speech. Most of it was dedicated to attacking John Kerry. msgtpain If someone came to a democratic convention and started spewing about how Bush and Cheny were a bunch of 'ol boys club Oil rednecks that think they can do whatever they want, and make their buddies richer, you wouldn't be standing up cheering? I find that laughable, actually. Not if they were all scowly and slanderous, I wouldn't be cheering. Speeches to cheer for are ones like Al Sharpton's speech at the DNC this year. That was a great speech. EDIT: Grammatical Errors.
SuperFlyingEngi He's also saying that because of his rascist record back in the day. Look at j_ball's uninformed poster - Miller was one of the Democrats who voted No for the Civil Rights Act. Although that was maybe 40 years or so ago, so whatever. Let's not live in the past. My poster speaks the truth. For 150 years it's been like that. Deny it as you wish, but history defends my poster. SuperFlyingEngi Zell Miller Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world. There, he's calling John Kerry a sissy. Maybe not so much of a sissy as he is an idiot.
Yeah, that's funny... most Democrats voted against Civil Rights... now they walk around acting like they're the black man's only hope. :rolleyes: SuperFlyingLib Zell Miller But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. ...what does this mean? Wouldn't Republicans be closer to this way of thinking, like when Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution? Oh well, it doesn't make any sense. Have you, or have you not, said that we are the reason that the terrorists hate us? Because I can assure you that a lot of the world and most liberals believe it. You're trying to relate this very erroneously. Zell Miller is saying that the left believes that our problems with the terrorists are our own fault for being who we are. Reagan said that domestically, government was more of a problem than a solution. The right believes that government is too large and needs to be downsized. They believe the federal government needs to revert some of its authorities and oversight back to the states where it is Constitutionally mandated that the responsibilities lie. So, in conclusion, Zell Miller is speaking of foreign affairs, Reagan was speaking of domestic affairs. The federal government is, in fact, Constitutionally responsible for the common defense, so this IS their territory. SuperFlyingLib Yeah, and Bill Clinton didn't believe that when he told Richard Clarke to make a comprehensive plan for eliminating Al Qaeda. Talk is cheap. Where's the action? Clinton had 8 years and he didn't do much... if he had, September 11th, 2001 would have been just another happy Tuesday. SuperflyingLib Zell Miller John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security. Blah blah blah. Why did you even write this? It makes you look like an idiot because you couldn't bother to refute it. What he is succinctly referring to is the fact that Kerry would want the UN to approve any use of our military. SuperFlyingEngi Zell Miller As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military. No he didn't. He came back and tried to stop the war. John Kerry was blaming our reasons for being in the war, never the troops. Saying he blamed the military is such a despicable thing to say. Excuse me?! Have you not heard his testimony before Congress where he accused his fellow soldiers of dispicable acts against humanity in Vietnam? Electrodes on genitals? Ring a bell? You can hardly dispute that this testimony played a major part in how badly the veterans were treated when they returned from Vietnam. And by the way, we never declared war in Vietnam. It was a conflict. SuperFlyingEngi Zell Miller From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends. Here he goes saying John Kerry's leadership would only encourage terrorist attacks. By the way, today Cheney came out and said that if John Kerry is elected, there will immediately be a massive terrorist attack. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html Hello, kettle? This is pot. You are black. Kerry said, in his new ad, "George Bush's wrong choices have weakened us here at home." Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." I ask you, how is this accusation ANY different than what Cheney said? Kerry says "Bush made wrong choices that made us weak". Cheney says "If Kerry is elected, he will make wrong choices that will make us weak." I'm also wondering how we're weak? I mean... for the sake of argument... let's say Bush is making bad decisions to defend us. I mean, I can see your justification. These terrorists have been hitting us left and right. We've lost more planes... there have been chemical attacks in public buildings and at sporting events... Americans are living in fear just waiting for the next attack because they have been constant ever since we started the War on Terror. OK, now back to reality... we have people already saying "shut up about 9/11 already"... no one is scared any more. There hasn't been any attacks on our homeland since 9/11. If Bush's policies have made us weak, where is the evidence of this alleged weakness? I just can't understand it... SuperFlyingLib Zell Miller Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world. There, he's calling John Kerry a sissy. Awww... poor baby. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. SuperFlyingEngi He's also saying that because of his rascist record back in the day. Look at j_ball's uninformed poster - Miller was one of the Democrats who voted No for the Civil Rights Act. Although that was maybe 40 years or so ago, so whatever. Let's not live in the past. Yeah, and Vietnam was over 30 years ago... let's not live in the past. You had no problem with Clinton being a draft dodger, now you hail Kerry's glorious 4 months of service. It's OK if Clinton dodged the draft because that was so many decades ago, but we'd better attack Bush for allegedly missing part of his National Guard duty. Hypocrite?
Crimson Yeah, that's funny... most Democrats voted against Civil Rights... now they walk around acting like they're the black man's only hope. :rolleyes: That was back when there were a large amount of rascist Southern democrats. Learn your history. But here it goes. Okay, so, back in the day, Lincoln abolished slavery. So, in the South, after that, Lincoln was a Republican, right? So the people who opposed him joined up with the Democratic party in the South. These people were rascist. They started to vanish after the Civil Rights Act was passed. There, that's a super-brief history lesson, but it's a basic overview of what happened. Crimson Have you, or have you not, said that we are the reason that the terrorists hate us? Because I can assure you that a lot of the world and most liberals believe it. You're trying to relate this very erroneously. Zell Miller is saying that the left believes that our problems with the terrorists are our own fault for being who we are. Reagan said that domestically, government was more of a problem than a solution. The right believes that government is too large and needs to be downsized. They believe the federal government needs to revert some of its authorities and oversight back to the states where it is Constitutionally mandated that the responsibilities lie. So, in conclusion, Zell Miller is speaking of foreign affairs, Reagan was speaking of domestic affairs. The federal government is, in fact, Constitutionally responsible for the common defense, so this IS their territory. This isn't so simple as right and wrong. I'm not saying the terrorists hate us for who we are, but we have performed hostile actions ways back that we tend to forget about. Like, when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with one of our battleships during Israel's big fight with the Middle East after it was established. Well, a whole bunch of terrorists live in the Bekaa Valley, and they were pretty pissed when we killed their friends and family. And that's where a lot of terrorists come from. I don't hate America. But not hating America doesn't mean I have to always pretend our country has always done the right thing. Crimson Talk is cheap. Where's the action? Clinton had 8 years and he didn't do much... if he had, September 11th, 2001 would have been just another happy Tuesday. I've already posted this two seperate times in different threads, but apparently you have chosen to ignore it both times. I'll maybe post it again in here, but it's a lot of typing and I'm tired right now. Crimson Why did you even write this? It makes you look like an idiot because you couldn't bother to refute it. What he is succinctly referring to is the fact that Kerry would want the UN to approve any use of our military. But where does that come from? John Kerry doesn't want any 'ole country to decide the U.S.'s own fate, he wants the world to be behind us when we defeat various evil people, such as, but not limited to, terrorists. They're not the same thing. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Not imminent enough for us to dash in after blowing off the UN. Not nearly. Crimson Excuse me?! Have you not heard his testimony before Congress where he accused his fellow soldiers of dispicable acts against humanity in Vietnam? Electrodes on genitals? Ring a bell? You can hardly dispute that this testimony played a major part in how badly the veterans were treated when they returned from Vietnam. And by the way, we never declared war in Vietnam. It was a conflict. Yeah, I've seen his testimony, but what are you saying? That this didn't happen? Vietnam was an atrocities war. That's been common history for 35 years. Until Swift Boat Stupids have come out and challenged history, naval documents, yadda yadda. The Vietnam conflict. Whatever. Crimson Hello, kettle? This is pot. You are black. Kerry said, in his new ad, "George Bush's wrong choices have weakened us here at home." Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." I ask you, how is this accusation ANY different than what Cheney said? Kerry says "Bush made wrong choices that made us weak". Cheney says "If Kerry is elected, he will make wrong choices that will make us weak." I'm also wondering how we're weak? I mean... for the sake of argument... let's say Bush is making bad decisions to defend us. I mean, I can see your justification. These terrorists have been hitting us left and right. We've lost more planes... there have been chemical attacks in public buildings and at sporting events... Americans are living in fear just waiting for the next attack because they have been constant ever since we started the War on Terror. OK, now back to reality... we have people already saying "shut up about 9/11 already"... no one is scared any more. There hasn't been any attacks on our homeland since 9/11. If Bush's policies have made us weak, where is the evidence of this alleged weakness? I just can't understand it... Cheney said we will be attacked by terrorists, trying to scare people into voting Bush. Kerry said Bush is weak on defense. While somewhat the same, they aren't the same thing. So us not having been attacked in just 3 years is direct proof that George Bush is being a succesful terror president? How come he raises the terror alert so much? Crimson Awww... poor baby. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. Uh.... Crimson Yeah, and Vietnam was over 30 years ago... let's not live in the past. You had no problem with Clinton being a draft dodger, now you hail Kerry's glorious 4 months of service. It's OK if Clinton dodged the draft because that was so many decades ago, but we'd better attack Bush for allegedly missing part of his National Guard duty. Hypocrite? How do you know for certain that Kerry started trumpeting his war record first? Me, I believe it was Karl Rove, with his tactics of attacking his opponent's greatest strengths. Like Kerry's war record. And Clinton didn't actively dodge the draft, he just got lucky with them not calling him in for service with their crazy birthday system. Not like George Bush, who got daddy to send him to the National Guard, and then skipped out of the National Guard. The two aren't the same.
Don't down-play what those in the National Guard do for this country.
SuperFlyingEngi That was back when there were a large amount of rascist Southern democrats. Learn your history. But here it goes. Okay, so, back in the day, Lincoln abolished slavery. So, in the South, after that, Lincoln was a Republican, right? So the people who opposed him joined up with the Democratic party in the South. These people were rascist. They started to vanish after the Civil Rights Act was passed. There, that's a super-brief history lesson, but it's a basic overview of what happened. Where the heck do you come up with this? It appears to me that the Left is still racist. Why else would they keep giving them special consideration as if they're less capable than whites? Oh wait, these are the same people who don't trust us to spend our own money or manage our retirement funds. SuperFlyingEngi This isn't so simple as right and wrong. I'm not saying the terrorists hate us for who we are, but we have performed hostile actions ways back that we tend to forget about. Like, when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with one of our battleships during Israel's big fight with the Middle East after it was established. Well, a whole bunch of terrorists live in the Bekaa Valley, and they were pretty pissed when we killed their friends and family. And that's where a lot of terrorists come from. I don't hate America. But not hating America doesn't mean I have to always pretend our country has always done the right thing. Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in. If the IslamoFascists can't handle their problems maturely, then they will be beat down. Nothing excuses 9/11. SuperFlyingEngi I've already posted this two seperate times in different threads, but apparently you have chosen to ignore it both times. I'll maybe post it again in here, but it's a lot of typing and I'm tired right now. You're the one who brought it up. You failed to convince me back then, so don't waste your time cutting and pasting from ILoveClinton.org again. I have seen too much evidence to think of Clinton as anything but scum. SuperFlyingEngi But where does that come from? John Kerry doesn't want any 'ole country to decide the U.S.'s own fate, he wants the world to be behind us when we defeat various evil people, such as, but not limited to, terrorists. They're not the same thing. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Not imminent enough for us to dash in after blowing off the UN. Not nearly. Any ole country? As in, the United States? And another thing, even your boy Kerry knows the Iraq is part of the war on terror: Kerry Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. And I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss. SuperFlyingEngi Yeah, I've seen his testimony, but what are you saying? That this didn't happen? Vietnam was an atrocities war. That's been common history for 35 years. Until Swift Boat Stupids have come out and challenged history, naval documents, yadda yadda. The Vietnam conflict. Whatever. It's nice how you think so little of our armed forces. There are organizations around just to oppose Kerry for lying about them so many years ago. SuperFlyingEngi Cheney said we will be attacked by terrorists, trying to scare people into voting Bush. Kerry said Bush is weak on defense. While somewhat the same, they aren't the same thing. So us not having been attacked in just 3 years is direct proof that George Bush is being a succesful terror president? How come he raises the terror alert so much? I've thought the same thing myself. That's one of the reasons I've been such an activist is because I truly believe that our lives depend on not voting Democrat.
SuperFlyingEngi But where does that come from? John Kerry doesn't want any 'ole country to decide the U.S.'s own fate, he wants the world to be behind us when we defeat various evil people, such as, but not limited to, terrorists. They're not the same thing. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Not imminent enough for us to dash in after blowing off the UN. Not nearly. I dunno about that. It seems all he cares about is Vietnam. That's why I say he should go run for a position in Vietnam and leave the US alone. I want a president that says US US US! Not a president that says VIETNAM VIETNAM VIETNAM! I don't want him to like secretly overnight rename the country Vietnamica or something equally assinine. It seems to me he cares more about... The Vietnam war than the present. Sounds like SOMEBODY is living in the past... lol... Seeing as the Vietnam war occurred... Not right now.
The question is: who is the lesser of two evils? My understanding is that both are fairly bad choices.
Crimson Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in. If the IslamoFascists can't handle their problems maturely, then they will be beat down. Nothing excuses 9/11. That pretty much described what Bush did with Iraq. Besides, you can't ignore the reasons terrorism exists. Those hijackers didn't wake up one morning thinking "hey, let's fly a plane into a building", you know.
That doesn't excuse how they dealt with their problem.
Crimson Where the heck do you come up with this? It appears to me that the Left is still racist. Why else would they keep giving them special consideration as if they're less capable than whites? Oh wait, these are the same people who don't trust us to spend our own money or manage our retirement funds. I got that from my 8th grade history class, when we were going over the origins of both American political parties. And privatizing social security is still a terrible idea. Crimson Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in. If the IslamoFascists can't handle their problems maturely, then they will be beat down. Nothing excuses 9/11. So, us killing their families doesn't excuse them from killing our families? While I fully believe 9/11 was a depraved act orchestrated by crazy people, those crazy people were responding to what we had done to them. Crimson You're the one who brought it up. You failed to convince me back then, so don't waste your time cutting and pasting from ILoveClinton.org again. I have seen too much evidence to think of Clinton as anything but scum. Well, if you don't want to listen, I don't want to tell. Crimson Any ole country? As in, the United States? And another thing, even your boy Kerry knows the Iraq is part of the war on terror: Kerry Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. And I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss. He was just trying not be to controversial there. No one really knows why we're in Iraq any more, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda. Crimson It's nice how you think so little of our armed forces. There are organizations around just to oppose Kerry for lying about them so many years ago. I don't think little of our armed forces. I'm proud of the brave men and women who serve our country and keep me out of harm's way. But history has dictated for 30+ years that vietnam was an atrocities war. And John Kerry went and testified to try and get our soldiers out of an atrocities war. Crimson I've thought the same thing myself. That's one of the reasons I've been such an activist is because I truly believe that our lives depend on not voting Democrat. How do you know John Kerry would be incredibly weak on defending our country from outside attacks? Or is that just your force-fed opinion you got from FOX News? EDITS: Problems with quotes.
Crimson That doesn't excuse how they dealt with their problem. I wasn't saying that, but ignoring the history of those parts of the world isn't a very good idea either.
NHJ BV Crimson That doesn't excuse how they dealt with their problem. I wasn't saying that, but ignoring the history of those parts of the world isn't a very good idea either. http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/08_18_04.php
SuperFlyingEngi So, us killing their families doesn't excuse them from killing our families? While I fully believe 9/11 was a depraved act orchestrated by crazy people, those crazy people were responding to what we had done to them. I can't believe you justify the actions of these terrorists. They intentionally wanted to kill innocent Americans, while any death of innocents in the war on terror is NOT intentional and avoided as well as possible. Contrary to what you may believe, Americans on the whole are NOT depraved lunatics willing to kill themselves to 'squash the infidels'. SuperFlyingEngi He was just trying not be to controversial there. No one really knows why we're in Iraq any more, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda. It has everything to do with Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups who are in Iraq. And since when was Kerry not trying to be controversial? I think it's more of a Fruedian slip on his part... he forgot for a moment that the left is supposed to convince everyone is a separate war. SuperflyingEngi I don't think little of our armed forces. I'm proud of the brave men and women who serve our country and keep me out of harm's way. But history has dictated for 30+ years that vietnam was an atrocities war. And John Kerry went and testified to try and get our soldiers out of an atrocities war. History dictated this thanks to testimony from people like Kerry who used these lies as a reason to justify pulling troops from Vietnam. Just the same as the left tried to get Bush to pull troops out of Iraq because of the Abu Ghraib stuff. I mean, if Kerry had this little 8mm camera to shoot footage of himself in Vietnam, wouldn't he have taped these atrocities that the American troops were allegedly committing? They did in Iraq... SuperFlyingEngi How do you know John Kerry would be incredibly weak on defending our country from outside attacks? Or is that just your force-fed opinion you got from FOX News? I don't even WATCH Fox News! I read CNN for my news, and I watch and listen to nothing. I also read Limbaugh's commentary transcriptions each day. I honestly don't know what Kerry's positions are. I mean, even just as far as Iraq goes, he says he'll pull the troops in 6 months, then he says "within his first term"... what the hell? Every time I read on CNN a summary of a recent speech, I have to laugh. Plus, our most recent Democrat president showed himself to be extremely weak on defense as well. Overall, however, I strongly believe that there will be a terrorist attack on our nation shortly before the election in an attempt to sway the vote. I only hope that the country pulls their heads back out of their asses and votes for Bush if that happens. France is an excellent example of what happens when you appease terrorism... you don't get any sympathy from them. Your journalists will be taken hostage, too.
Crimson NHJ BV Crimson That doesn't excuse how they dealt with their problem. I wasn't saying that, but ignoring the history of those parts of the world isn't a very good idea either. http://www.protestwarrior.com/newsletters/08_18_04.php Apart from the "democrats are incarnations of satan" implications in that text, it didn't really go into any history earlier that ~1990.
You want an example of what happens when you negotiate? Try N.Ireland, it's worked over there, we have both cease-fires and dis-armament programs set-up. People are actually sat down sorting out the problems instead of bombing the fuck out of Manchester. Do you know what we tried before that? Bush's approach, come down hard on them, beat them into submission, we did that for 600 years and it failed, yet less than a decade of negotiations has worked. Think about it.
I'm thinking that Islamic Extremists (who have and will hate the United States for what we stand for) are going to be a little harder to negotiate with. I don't know, it's just a hunch. Seeing as if we get close to any of them, they'll just blow themselves up. That makes it just a little bit harder to negotiate when you have that as a danger. BTW, a dude called in and said that to the host, and when I heard that I laughed.
*goes up the list to find points to pick on* Damn, it's a whole stinkin' pile of it! Quote: Quote: In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. Wouldn't Republicans be closer to this way of thinking, like when Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution? America is not the government. The government REPRESENTS America, but is never to be used as a synonym for it. Quote: Now, there were some weapons systems that come up on individual bills, like when the F-15 became out-dated, and needed to be cut, it would come up on a bill, and everyone would vote to cut funding to the plane because it was no longer needed. In the case of the F-15, the Defense Secretary who put it on the chopping block was none other than Dick Cheney. Ooh, fun, a bit about my favorite plane... FYI, the F-15 has been in operational service since the mid-70's. It has gone through several variants, including the original F-15A(single-seat air superiority fighter), F-15B(two-seat trainer), F-15C(the upgraded and current single-seat air superiotity fighter), F-15D(two-seat upgrade), and F-15E(two seat strike fighter). It remains in service and is still one of the most capable aircraft in the world, and second only to the MiG-25 in raw speed. Its replacement, the F-22, has not yet entered service. You must be talking about either an earlier variant or a particular production run, because the F-15 is still alive and kicking ass, and very much up-to-date. Quote: Have you, or have you not, said that we are the reason that the terrorists hate us? Because I can assure you that a lot of the world and most liberals believe it. You're trying to relate this very erroneously. Danger! Danger Will Robinson! That's a statement that is an unproven assumption. I know quite a few of what you would define as "liberals," and I can assure you that none of them believe the US brought terrorist attacks on itself. Most of them want to plant a load of high explosives up bin Laden's ass just the same as most of the conservatives do. I have only heard a few people make the "it's our fault" assumption, and I have never met any of them face to face. I'm not saying that some idiots don't believe that crap, but you'd be making a pretty hefty assumption in believing that such stupidity is confined to only one side of the political spectrum. Quote: Yeah, and Vietnam was over 30 years ago... Yeah, I've finally come to that conclusion as well. In fact, the war ended over a decade before I was born, so it really has no effect on me. My final conclusion is that BOTH presidential candidates did something less than honorable/legal, just like millions of other people in that era. Whoop-dee-freakin' doo. Quote: Yeah, that's funny... most Democrats voted against Civil Rights... now they walk around acting like they're the black man's only hope. Quote: That was back when there were a large amount of rascist Southern democrats. Learn your history. But here it goes. Okay, so, back in the day, Lincoln abolished slavery. So, in the South, after that, Lincoln was a Republican, right? So the people who opposed him joined up with the Democratic party in the South. These people were rascist. They started to vanish after the Civil Rights Act was passed. WOW. This is moving beyond arguments about the honesty and integrity of political candidates. Now we're beginning to get into events that were set into motion before the candidates' FATHERS were born, and hardly even have any connection to the candidates themselves. Come on, people, will you really say ANYTHING to harp on the other side? Quote: I'm not saying the terrorists hate us for who we are, but we have performed hostile actions ways back that we tend to forget about. Like, when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with one of our battleships during Israel's big fight with the Middle East after it was established. Well, a whole bunch of terrorists live in the Bekaa Valley, and they were pretty pissed when we killed their friends and family. Yet they(al-Qaida and their cronies) provide no other reason for their attacks than to "kill the infidels." And they attacked CIVILIANS, not legitimate military targets. I could almost, ALMOST understand how you arrived at your conclusions if it were ONLY the Pentagon that was attacked, and if it had been done with an EMPTY airliner instead of one filled with innocents. Instead, they choose to kill people who had done absolutely nothing wrong besides going to work in the morning like they always did. Quote: Clinton had 8 years and he didn't do much... if he had, September 11th, 2001 would have been just another happy Tuesday. Quote: I've already posted this two seperate times in different threads, but apparently you have chosen to ignore it both times. The truth is that no one really thought that anyone would dare attack on US soil. The last attack of such scale on US turf was by Japan in 1941; 60 years is a long time for complacency to get itself embedded in the thoughts of both population and government. Quote: Not imminent enough for us to dash in after blowing off the UN. Not nearly. The UN still has no authority that supercedes the right of our government to declare war if they feel the country is at risk. Whether or not there was a threat, a threat was percieved, and it is FAR better to find out you were wrong after dealing with the possibility of said threat than to find out you were right after the schmuck kills American citizens. Quote: Yeah, I've seen his testimony, but what are you saying? That this didn't happen? Are YOU saying that you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it DID? Remember, Engi, it's innocent until proven guilty in this country, not the other way around. Quote: Cheney said we will be attacked by terrorists, trying to scare people into voting Bush. Kerry said Bush is weak on defense. While somewhat the same, they aren't the same thing. They're both accusing each other of the same damn thing. One is saying, basically, that the other sucks/will suck at keeping America safe. Where is the difference, except that one has not yet had the chance to suck? Quote: And Clinton didn't actively dodge the draft, he just got lucky with them not calling him in for service with their crazy birthday system. Actually, he DID actively avoid the draft. But, like I said, this all happened years before I was hatched. Quote: Not like George Bush, who got daddy to send him to the National Guard That would only really be draft dodging if his unit had been mobilized and he hadn't shown up. And then it would technically be desertion, since he WAS in the military. In case you didn't know, there was a chance that the National Guard could have been sent overseas as well; certain units of the Guard have been sent out to Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is a smaller chance of it happening than, say, joining the regular Air Force, the chance still existed, and Bush was closer to the war than Clinton(who never entered the military) was. Just to clear up how the Guard works. Now Bush may or may not have skipped out on some of his service, but it really makes no fucking difference for an election over 30 years later. Whether he served his time or not, I am not any more inclined to vote for or against him than I was yesterday. Quote: Where the heck do you come up with this? It appears to me that the Left is still racist. Why else would they keep giving them special consideration as if they're less capable than whites? Oh wait, these are the same people who don't trust us to spend our own money or manage our retirement funds. You didn't just attach two completely different topics together at random did you? Oh, wait, you did. Either way... Quote: Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in. A temper tantrum isn't at all comparable to the sick shit terrorists do. Temper tantroms don't slaughter children, terrorists do- and they deserve to die for it. Quote: I've thought the same thing myself. That's one of the reasons I've been such an activist is because I truly believe that our lives depend on not voting Democrat. I certainly would not go that far. But I also certainly will not vote Democrat. Or Republican, for that matter. Quote: I want a president that says US US US! Not a president that says VIETNAM VIETNAM VIETNAM! DAMN did that hit the bullseye dead on- even if you weren't aiming for the target you hit. It would rock if some candidate would stand up and do that, wouldn't it? Quote: The question is: who is the lesser of two evils? My understanding is that both are fairly bad choices. Then don't vote for either. If both, suck, stand up and say it by finding someone who does look like they'll do a better job. There's nothing more American than being an underdog. Quote: Those hijackers didn't wake up one morning thinking "hey, let's fly a plane into a building", you know. No, you're right. They woke up every morning and thought that. That's what they were thinking right up until they did exactly that. Quote: I got that from my 8th grade history class, when we were going over the origins of both American political parties. And privatizing social security is still a terrible idea. That's 8th grade history. Like it or not, and no matter what you may believe, those who are in or have graduated high school and college will be more knowledgeable on the same subjects. You simply have not reached the same level of education yet- not to say you're any less intelligent, just less informed. Quote: So, us killing their families doesn't excuse them from killing our families? While I fully believe 9/11 was a depraved act orchestrated by crazy people, those crazy people were responding to what we had done to them. Horse shit. I defy you to prove that any of the terrorists involved in planning or carrying out 9/11 had ANY close family killed in the events you mentioned. Please. And cousins of cousins' former roomates don't count here. Hell, they didn't even attack the families of the people that were involved in the strikes you mentioned! They just went after the most vulnerable, soft, ripe targets they could set their sick sights on. Quote: He was just trying not be to controversial there. No one really knows why we're in Iraq any more, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda. And you would know this...how? Proof? Logic? Little birdies chirping in your ear? You don't know the reasons we're still over there. No one does except the people who make such decisions, and the people who are ordered to see those decisions carried out. Quote: And John Kerry went and testified to try and get our soldiers out of an atrocities war. Honestly, what truly makes you believe that Kerry is any more likely to tell the truth than Bush? I still have yet to see a reason from either side why their candidate should be trusted, when both seem intent on proving that their opponents are skunks. Quote: Overall, however, I strongly believe that there will be a terrorist attack on our nation shortly before the election in an attempt to sway the vote. I only hope that the country pulls their heads back out of their asses and votes for Bush if that happens. As long as we're expecting it, there will be no attack. Or perhaps the fear of an attack is an attack in and of itself? Something to think about. Terrorism works best when the victims aren't expecting it- but its effects are felt even when it does not strike. Look at Israel, and tell me if you wouldn't be terrified every time you got on a bus...even if it isn't bombed, how do you know it won't be? No candidate will be able to fully erase, or even put a major dent in the effect terror has had on this country, or any other. The damage has already been done- or, more accurately, it is still being done. Quote: we did that for 600 years and it failed, yet less than a decade of negotiations has worked. Think about it. Quote: Seeing as if we get close to any of them, they'll just blow themselves up. That makes it just a little bit harder to negotiate when you have that as a danger. That, and the terrorists we are currently dealing with have no interest in negotiations. They want to annihilate us, not negotiate with us. BIG difference from Ireland. Those guys didn't intend to kill and maim every living person who didn't follow them.
You can try to play the easy game of "I'm not on either side"... but no one likes a fence-sitter. Of course I admit that Bush wasn't cast by the gods out of solid gold, but as far as what I need in a president and what I feel the country needs in a president, this man is the closest we have to fitting that bill. And because the Republican party says outright that they don't require everyone to fall 100% in line like sheep, I can be proud to BE a Republican and still disagree with some of their core principles (like gay marriage, as an example). Personally, I wouldn't want to ever be in combat, even though I love this country and am proud to be a citizen of it. I don't see it fit to fault someone for preferring to try and stay out of harm's way... especially in a such a horrible conflict such as Vietnam. Likewise I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for the ones who DID go out there and defend my right to my opinion, my right to vote, all the rights I have as an American citizen. But overall, leading an entire country, especially one with such a large influence over the world... to command an army as large as this one, requires more than 4 months, part of which was commanding a boat. Perhaps it does require one of the toughest MBA's in the country(world?) to get, the Harvard Masters in Business Administration. Commanding one of the highest, if not the highest position in the world requires more than 4 months in a boat... I need more than that. And what little I have heard of Kerry's stance doesn't reflect the ability to do what's best for everyone in the country. I can't hardly even get anyone to tell me why anyone should vote for Kerry without mentioning what they believe Bush has done wrong or isn't doing correctly in their opinions. One votes FOR a candidate, not AGAINST one. Furthermore, there is a difference between letting terrorism succeed, and being aware of the possibility of attacks. I do not get afraid when I enter a tall building or drive over a busy bridge. I do not watch the skies for low-flying airplanes. But I am conscious of the possibility of an attack and I understand why our president has to make tough decisions to get evil regimes out of power and spread liberty and democracy around the world. America didn't get where it is on pure luck. Our forefathers came up with a great system for our government. It's difficult to deny that, though asinine bills like the McCain-Feingold fair elections bullshit are certainly chinks in the armor.
Crimson One votes FOR a candidate, not AGAINST one. ...wha? I know a L O T of people who don't like Kerry but are voting for him anyway because they think he will make us less fucked than Bush will. The phrase "the lesser of two evils" comes to mind...
As I said in another post there is a serious lack of support for the greater of two evils. It's downright wrong. Since democrats are so nutz about affirmative action, and quotas, I say to dispell this anti-greater of two evils sentiment in the country, at least 50% of this years electoral votes should go to the Greater of the two evils. >: D MWAHAHAH How's that for proving our point.
What? Someone explain this one to me ^^
Vote for Nader or do not vote at all.
SEAL Crimson One votes FOR a candidate, not AGAINST one. ...wha? I know a L O T of people who don't like Kerry but are voting for him anyway because they think he will make us less fucked than Bush will. The phrase "the lesser of two evils" comes to mind... Kerry should not feel good about that. Have you ever seen the movie head of state? Why would you want to win because you were hated slightly less? I would tell people if you are going to vote against the other guy, then don't bother voting at all.
Well then tell people that. People have the right to vote for whatever reason(s) they choose, and the said reason is a perfectly valid one.
Quote: You can try to play the easy game of "I'm not on either side"... but no one likes a fence-sitter. Of course I admit that Bush wasn't cast by the gods out of solid gold, but as far as what I need in a president and what I feel the country needs in a president, this man is the closest we have to fitting that bill. And because the Republican party says outright that they don't require everyone to fall 100% in line like sheep, I can be proud to BE a Republican and still disagree with some of their core principles (like gay marriage, as an example). That's funny. Last time I checked, fence-sitting was when you support both parties, jumping on whichever side is most popular or most likely to win. It requires being indecisive- I can assure you, I've already made up my mind. I won't vote for Kerry or Bush; neither one of them is fit to lead this country. I will search for another candidate who identifies with my views, and vote for them instead. I do believe, at last count, over 70 people were running for president; there must be one out there who would be a better choice for me than Bush or Kerry. I lack the virtue of compromise, so I will not make one by voting for a candidate who sees only a few issues the same way I do.