Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Watching the debates right now. Kerry just got done debating that our soldiers in Iraq do not have the proper equipment to fight the war on terror. And he complains that it's Bush's fault for that. It's like watching stand-up comedy.
Well, it kind of is Bush's fault for sending our troops to Iraq with insufficient armor. It's not like Kerry used his mind control devices to force the President to withhold body armor. That's not how it works.
If I'm not mistaken, Kerry voted against body armor for the soldiers.
Now, there's something wrong there, but it's irrelevent right here, and I don't feel like researching right now. Kerry's vote didn't automatically remove body armor for our troops, if he did in fact vote against body armor. President Bush was the President. His decision counts just a whee bit more than a Senator's.
He still voted against body armor for our soldiers. Congress clears the way for funding with this kind of thing. Kerry voted against it. Kerry is part of Congress. How can you rationalize that?
Again, there's something wrong with the body armor thing, but I don't feel like looking it up right now, as I'm much more content to simply eat my soup. I might post something up tomorrow. By the way, Bush did an OK job in the debate, but got his head handed to him in the end, especially when it came to nuclear proliferation.
My dad was Not even on the front lines and he had body armor the whole time. Everyone doing the fighting had the proper equipment. The only people that did not have body armor were the people not expected to be hit. Besides, body armor may stop some shrapnel and possibly some pistol rounds. But it won't stop a rifle round. But most soldiers are being killed by explosions. And body armor really doesn't help there.
AirCraftKiller If I'm not mistaken, Kerry voted against body armor for the soldiers. AirCraftKiller He still voted against body armor for our soldiers. Congress clears the way for funding with this kind of thing. Kerry voted against it. Kerry is part of Congress. How can you rationalize that? I do believe you are right sir, and as we all know the Congress passes such things, the president at this point can only give his opinion. SuperFlyingEngi President Bush was the President. His decision counts just a whee bit more than a Senator's. Not true, this isnt a tyranny SuperFlyingEngi, Congress makes Most of the descisions in the Government, and as we all know Senator John Kerry was a part of congress. Because he is after all, a Senator (duh)
Some notes I took: When they shook hands, Kerry looked a lot more comfortable than Bush. I may have missed it, but I don't think the words "flip" or "flop were ever explicitly used. Kudos to Bush! However, Bush sounded like a broken record, repeating the same phrases over and over again. Kerry did too, but not as badly. When asked if they thought there would be an increased risk of attack during the upcoming election, both COMPLETELY ignored the question and rambled on about Iraq. Bush seemed to have trouble keeping up with Kerry as far as rebuttles go.Both, at one point or another, mispoke and mixed up Saddam and bin Laden (they corrected themselves, though). Wow! It's almost as if, thanks to a certain president, people now associate the two, even though they are unrelated! Kerry finished his speeches VERY strongly. Bush either didn't use all of his time, or used too much and ended up going over the limit or speaking very quickly at the end. NBC seemlingly broke the rules the most. I've always agreed with Kerry's stances on Iraq, but I don't know enough of the logistics about Korea to know who to agree with. My verdict? I think Kerry won, but that may be because I've already decided that I'm voting for him. 71% of people on an NBC poll say Kerry won.
Quote: 71% of people on an NBC poll say Kerry won. That, of course, is coming from Liberal media. Those aren't very trustworty results.
Did Kerry Vote "No" on Body Armor for Troops? "Yes, along with $87 billion worth of other things. But Bush didn't send enough in the first place." "40,000 US troops were sent to Iraq without the best-grade body armor. Frontline troops had the new vests, containing ceramic plates that can stop assault-rifle bullets, while others had only older designs that offered protection mainly against shrapnel and lower-velocity projectiles." So your both right... either way its still messed up that kerry voted against something and yet uses it against bush in a debate... You should send them more equipment but I don't want to give you the money to do it. :rolleyes:
SEAL, how naive All media is liberal except FoX News, dont believe what you hear. Im a Republican and even I speculate on the information of FoX News. Also, dont base part of why you are choosing Kerry over Bush because of the way he shook hands, that my friend is ludacris. Also you agree with the way Kerry thought we should handle Iraq, ummmmm, i forgot, what was his stance on Iraq? O yea, he didnt have one because he was too busy changing his mind and voting against body armor for the Soldiers (one of the few votes he even showed up for I might add). Also remember 4 years ago? The media all thought Al Gore won the Debate, unfortunately that doesnt mean crap if you dont win the election.
bigejoe14 Watching the debates right now. Kerry just got done debating that our soldiers in Iraq do not have the proper equipment to fight the war on terror. And he complains that it's Bush's fault for that. It's like watching stand-up comedy. I had made a thread saying basicly that same exact thing last night lol, but mine wasn't quite that nice Kerry g0t 0wnt.
Yea he got ownt, but the liberal media wont let ppl know that, they all think he won.
Yeah...the "liberal media" KEPT us from knowing who won. Because none of us have any of our own opinions... :rolleyes: I would have posted the other percentages, but i couldnt find any from other networks. I agree that a similar poll from foxnews would probably be in the favor of Bush. Quote: dont base part of why you are choosing Kerry over Bush because of the way he shook hands When did I ever associate the two?
If you werent accosiating the two than why did you post that statement at all?
bigejoe14 Quote: 71% of people on an NBC poll say Kerry won. That, of course, is coming from Liberal media. Those aren't very trustworty results. How is NBC so liberal? Did the National Review tell you that? And Bush did get his head handed to him pretty badly last night.
SuperFlyingEngi bigejoe14 Quote: 71% of people on an NBC poll say Kerry won. That, of course, is coming from Liberal media. Those aren't very trustworty results. How is NBC so liberal? Did the National Review tell you that? And Bush did get his head handed to him pretty badly last night. How can you sit there and come up with that conclusion? Kerry contradicted himself every sentence. Kerry had no content. He said he would do all this shit, but never said how. Bush said we he was doing how it was helping and how it worked. Kerry somehow wants to triple the size of the military yet he is against a draft. He thinks Saddam was a threat and needed to be removed but he didn't support the war. He thinks we need to invade every country except Iraq, yes that even includes the US, and he has no problem telling the terrorists they have won.
You obviously didn't actually watch the debates... If you were indeed referencing the debates that came on last night, your points are too stupid for me to care. Seriously, I rarely say this, but with thoughts like that, you're not worth me wasting my time on you. Get a clue, man. I feel sad for you.
SuperFlyingEngi You obviously didn't actually watch the debates... If you were indeed referencing the debates that came on last night, your points are too stupid for me to care. Seriously, I rarely say this, but with thoughts like that, you're not worth me wasting my time on you. Get a clue, man. I feel sad for you. Well stay in your pool of ignorance. I watched and read the debates. And from Both views Bush won.
Quote: "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ." "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ." "We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ." "I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ." "I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ." "What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ." "I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ." "No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ." "I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ." Notice how everyone ends in but? He contradicts every statement he makes.
SEAL I may have missed it, but I don't think the words "flip" or "flop were ever explicitly used. Kudos to Bush! However, Bush sounded like a broken record, repeating the same phrases over and over again. Kerry did too, but not as badly. As usual. =[DT =gbull=[L]=]Yea he got ownt, but the liberal media wont let ppl know that, they all think he won. The American media influences your opinion these t hings. THEY DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL (let's call it the FOX News syndrome).
SuperFlyingEngi You obviously didn't actually watch the debates... If you were indeed referencing the debates that came on last night, your points are too stupid for me to care. Seriously, I rarely say this, but with thoughts like that, you're not worth me wasting my time on you. Get a clue, man. I feel sad for you. LOL. I was about to respond too... but Nodbugger is just too big of an idiot. Than he tries and make us look like idiots by saying shit like "sit in your pool of ignorance." What a fucking moron. Why don't you take your own advice, Nodbugger?
The debates started with Bush being really strong and bringing up good points, but sorta faltered at the end. I would agree with Rush Limbaugh that at a certain point he'd just felt like he'd said everything he needed to say and didn't want to be there any more. I watched the debate on CSPAN where the camera stayed on both men simultaneously, didn't show Lehrer once the debate started, and there was no commentary to mess with my opinions on the course of the debate. I made sure I watched it twice before I read or listened to other people's comments.
gbull Im a Republican and even I speculate on the information of FoX News. Aprime, did you listen to a word I said? You are picking apart my words when I went out and said I even speculate the Republican media. Typical liberal tactic, pick apart words while I went out and said what I mean throughout the whole text, not just parts of it.
I thought that the debate was pretty equal. Kerry, I thought, had the slight edge because form the begining he was on the offensive. Because of this Bush was on the deffensive the entie time and was stuttering the whole debate. Kerry described the reasons why he is agenst the war and I agree with him 100%.
Traingye Kerry described the reasons why he is agenst the war and I agree with him 100%. You know whats funny. He contradicted himself with this. He says: Saddam was a threat He needed to be removed Voted for the war Says it was the wrong war at the wrong time He says all these things. You simply can't say hey you are right he is a danger and needs to be gotten rid of, then say I'm against the war. Kerry has never been against the war and he still isn't. He basically wants to invade N Korea, Iran, Libya, all of Africa, and most of South American. He even wants to Nuke the US because we have nukes. He makes no sense what so ever. He is just saying things to get votes. I can guarantee you not as many people are voting for Kerry as they are voting against Bush.
Nodbugger He basically wants to invade N Korea, Iran, Libya, all of Africa, and most of South American. He even wants to Nuke the US because we have nukes. He makes no sense what so ever. He is just saying things to get votes. That's just bull. He has never said that he is going to invade anybody. South American wasn't even metionend in the debate. In North Korea he said they would have disscusions about there nuclear weapons and about dissarming. He NEVER said ANYTHING about invadeing another contry EVER.
Traingye Nodbugger He basically wants to invade N Korea, Iran, Libya, all of Africa, and most of South American. He even wants to Nuke the US because we have nukes. He makes no sense what so ever. He is just saying things to get votes. That's just bull. He has never said that he is going to invade anybody. South American wasn't even metionend in the debate. In North Korea he said they would have disscusions about there nuclear weapons and about dissarming. He NEVER said ANYTHING about invadeing another contry EVER. Yes he did. You obviously did not watch or pay attention to the entire thing. He said he wanted to invade every country except Iraq it is all right there in his words. Quote: And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. So what was wrong with attacking Iraq? Quote: And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. I thought there were no WMDs in Iraq? Quote: And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. What Nuclear materials that Saddam didn't have and he didn't give away? I think he is lying! Quote: The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. What Nuclear Facilities? Quote: We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders. What WMDs? Quote: I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. So why are you against the war? Quote: Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better. http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm We bit more than that. Try 51 more. Quote: But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Those are also your words! Quote: And we know that there were further diplomatic efforts under way. They just decided the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to war without planning for what happens afterwards. I don't think two years is a rush to war. Quote: We need to be smarter about now we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe havens. So why was it wrong to attack Iraq? Quote: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war So what was wrong with the invasion? Quote: I will never let those troops down, and will hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are. They were in Iraq. Quote: When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil." Maybe because 99% of Iraq's exports are oil? And I say again...what Nuclear Facilities? I only got about 2/3rds through the transcript. http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html
Doitle, don't support Nodbugger you n00b.
He's Correct. I printed out the entire debate transcript and went through and pointed out the exact same foibles. Even more that he didn't state. When you get time to think about it whilst reading it, instead of rapidly hearing it during the debate, you really realize just what a chunkmaster Kerry is.
Nodbugger He said he wanted to invade every country except Iraq it is all right there in his words. Quote: And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. So what was wrong with attacking Iraq? That there were no terrorists in Iraq, except maybe in the northern Kurdish parts? Nodbugger Quote: And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. I thought there were no WMDs in Iraq? He's talking about foreign people going into Iraq to blow stuff up. Nodbugger Quote: And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. What Nuclear materials that Saddam didn't have and he didn't give away? I think he is lying! Why do you assume he's talking about Iraq here? Nodbugger Quote: The only building that was guarded when the troops when into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. What Nuclear Facilities? Nukes =! nuclear facilities. Nodbugger Quote: We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders. What WMDs? The WMD's Bush believed to be there. Can't you see he's talking about a hypothetical situation here in which there were WMDs, as Bush said? Nodbugger Quote: I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. So why are you against the war? He's against how Bush handled it, I believe. Nodbugger Quote: Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better. http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm225.cfm We bit more than that. Try 51 more. Obviously the guy's not going to sum up 51 countries during a debate. The other 51 hardly contributed anything. As Kerry later pointed out, you can hardy call this a coalition. Nodbugger Quote: But what he has said is that, even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection with Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Those are also your words! ...he's quoting Bush here. Nodbugger Quote: And we know that there were further diplomatic efforts under way. They just decided the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to war without planning for what happens afterwards. I don't think two years is a rush to war. After diplomacy, they did rush to war. They did not really prepare for war for two years. Nodbugger Quote: We need to be smarter about now we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe havens. So why was it wrong to attack Iraq? Because there were no terrorists there. Try invading Saudi-Arabia if you want to find terrorists. Nodbugger Quote: I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the president decided to go to war So what was wrong with the invasion? The fact it was handled pretty bad. And Saddam was not a threat to the US (nor to anyone else really). Nodbugger Quote: I will never let those troops down, and will hunt and kill the terrorists wherever they are. They were in Iraq. Now they are, yes, thanks to Mr. Bush. Nodbugger Quote: When you guard the oil ministry, but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is maybe, "Wow, maybe they're interested in our oil." Maybe because 99% of Iraq's exports are oil? And I say again...what Nuclear Facilities? I pointed that out already. Besides, it shouldn't be that hard to guard both.
I would guess that the oil facilities were guarded because the last time we were in Iraq, they (Iraqis) set them on fire and anything else they could do to damage them. Iraqs oil exports are the bulk of their economy, so as we are liberating them, of course we would want to protect their valuable resources. Of course other people just assume that it means we want the oil for ourselves. :rolleyes:
Blazer that is somewhat true. Iraq's economy depends fully on oil. But, from an economical perspective, the U.S. and other nations have a vested interest in oil as well. I HIGHLY doubt it was the "real reason" to go to war over, but it is definately a factor that was calculated in. Disarming Iraq --> Saddam being owned --> coup d'etat --> new government --> oil contracts --> $ Again, that is simply an economic perspective.
NHJ BV That there were no terrorists in Iraq, except maybe in the northern Kurdish parts? LIE, there were many terrorist in Iraq, Saddam, people in Al-Queda, Hamas, they were all there. Quote: He's talking about foreign people going into Iraq to blow stuff up. But There were no WMD! How did they get these WMD? Quote: Why do you assume he's talking about Iraq here? Saddam had dealings with terrorists, he had plans to make Nuclear weapons and he could have gotten nuclear materials. Quote: Nukes =! nuclear facilities Iraq has no nuclear facilities! Israel destroyed the one FRANCE built for them! So he is either lying or saying there were WMD in Iraq. Quote: The WMD's Bush believed to be there. Can't you see he's talking about a hypothetical situation here in which there were WMDs, as Bush said? Does it really matter? He calls Bush a liar for there not possibly not being any. So why would he talk about a hypothetical situation? Quote: He's against how Bush handled it, I believe. There was no other way to handle it. Quote: Obviously the guy's not going to sum up 51 countries during a debate. The other 51 hardly contributed anything. As Kerry later pointed out, you can hardy call this a coalition. WTF are you smoking? no other country can contribute anything compared to what the US can give. There are no major military powers in the world we would want there besides the US. Everyone else has shit for a military or they are communists! WTF do you expect, did you want Bush to find some Alien race with super technology to help us? Quote: ...he's quoting Bush here. He also said that same exact thing, numb nuts. Quote: After diplomacy, they did rush to war. They did not really prepare for war for two years. !2 years of diplomacy and 2 years of asking about it is not a rush to war. Only an idiot would think that. Quote: Because there were no terrorists there. Try invading Saudi-Arabia if you want to find terrorists. Yes there were jackass. Quote: The fact it was handled pretty bad. And Saddam was not a threat to the US (nor to anyone else really). Then how come that article I posted not too long ago written by the lead Iraq nuclear scientist says Iraq could have started their Nuclear program up at any time. And how come Putin told Bush Saddam planned to attack within the US? Quote: Now they are, yes, thanks to Mr. Bush. They have always been there. To think they hopped the border to come and fights is stupid. They are there and we are killing them. They are not in the US killing civilians. Quote: I pointed that out already. Besides, it shouldn't be that hard to guard both. That is why you are not in charge of anything. Do ever listen to what anyone else has to say? This stuff has been proven for months now. Get with it and stop being a dumb ass.
Nodbugger just pwned all the Democrats in these forums
No he didn't. Every time I try and reply, I'm overwhelmed by the massive amount of idiocy I would have to correct. People are realizing that Nodbugger is not worth it, and if he wants to swim in his own idiocy, let him. I don't see why we should have to sit down for 20 minutes to point out where and how he is wrong.
There's no reason to debate on this forum. None of these Bushies are open minded at all. It's really funny to watch how they use the same exact canned responses Bush uses.
SEAL No he didn't. Every time I try and reply, I'm overwhelmed by the massive amount of idiocy I would have to correct. People are realizing that Nodbugger is not worth it, and if he wants to swim in his own idiocy, let him. I don't see why we should have to sit down for 20 minutes to point out where and how he is wrong. Why would it take 20 minutes? It should take 0 minutes since there is nothing that is wrong.
So point just a few out? I don't see any proof that hes wrong currently. I can confirm all his points. As I stated after the debate was over and the transcript was posted on CNN, I composed it into one document and am still going through it noting areas of interest and Kerry foibles. To be fair though I'm also noting Bush foibles, however his mostly are in the grammar and showmanship field, not major flaws in homeland security, international conduct, and basic knowledge of events as Kerry's are.
Panther There's no reason to debate on this forum. None of these Bushies are open minded at all. It's really funny to watch how they use the same exact canned responses Bush uses. Yep, we are the un open minded ones. You know because we all hate blacks and Jews and we hate gay people. And we are all red necks that carry shotguns and marry our cousins. Go fuck your self ya tea bagger.
I love how you preach that i'm not open minded, and that you are. I personally don't like any of the political parties, and I can be driven to absolutely abhor both, but I would vote for the democratic party. Why? Because it isn't driven by such.. idiotic hatred as it seems the Republican party is. Bush started slinging some insults and now everyone has turned this into some idiotic war. And.. nodbugger, here's a tip. Instead of saying un open minded, say closed minded.
Fine, I'll point out one...and conveniently it's the first thing he blurts out: Nodbugger LIE, there were many terrorist in Iraq, Saddam, people in Al-Queda, Hamas, they were all there. The vast majority of sources will tell you that there was no link between Al-Queda and Iraq...including the 9/11 commission report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html Of course, there are many more flaws to Nodbugger's post(s), but I don't have that kind of energy.
Panther There's no reason to debate on this forum. None of these Bushies are open minded at all. It's really funny to watch how they use the same exact canned responses Bush uses. Agreed, but I got nothing better to do Nodbugger if you hostly think that there were terrists in Iraq and Saddam had WMDs then you have the IQ of a mouse.
Panther I love how you preach that i'm not open minded, and that you are? I personally don't like any of the political parties, and I can be driven to absolutely abhor both, but I would vote for the democratic party. Why? Because it isn't driven by such.. idiotic hatred as it seems the Republican party is. Bush started slinging some insults and now everyone has turned this into some idiotic war. And.. nodbugger, here's a tip. Instead of saying un open minded, say closed minded. What idiotic hatred? This? Or this? What about this right here? I'm sure you can't mean these people! I found out who you are talking about right here
Traingye IQ of a mouse. Try "shoe."
SEAL Fine, I'll point out one...and conveniently it's the first thing he blurts out: Nodbugger LIE, there were many terrorist in Iraq, Saddam, people in Al-Queda, Hamas, they were all there. The vast majority of sources will tell you that there was no link between Al-Queda and Iraq...including the 9/11 commission report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html Of course, there are many more flaws to Nodbugger's post(s), but I don't have that kind of energy. Actually there is not a single flaw. It is all factual information. Just because there was not collaboration does not mean they were not there.
Traingye Panther There's no reason to debate on this forum. None of these Bushies are open minded at all. It's really funny to watch how they use the same exact canned responses Bush uses. Agreed, but I got nothing better to do Nodbugger if you hostly think that there were terrists in Iraq and Saddam had WMDs then you have the IQ of a mouse. But I'm still a genius compared to you.
LOL. Anyway that "intellegent" comment by Nodbugger there reminded me of something. Is it just me or do conservitive do more flameing overall? For example I was in the 5th hour class last week and the person asked me if I was a demecrate. I said yes and they he said "you basterd".
Traingye LOL. Anyway that "intellegent" comment by Nodbugger there reminded me of something. Is it just me or do conservitive do more flameing overall? For example I was in the 5th hour class last week and the person asked me if I was a demecrate. I said yes and they he said "you basterd". intellegent=intelligent conservitive=Conservative flameing=flaming demecrate=Democrat basterd=Bastard Looks like Democrats can't spell for shit.
I've noticed a trend that Republicans insult and "flame" more in general. I'm not going to venture to say that it's definite, because all i've seen are internet jockeys and tennesseans. Nodbugger Traingye LOL. Anyway that "intellegent" comment by Nodbugger there reminded me of something. Is it just me or do conservitive do more flameing overall? For example I was in the 5th hour class last week and the person asked me if I was a demecrate. I said yes and they he said "you basterd". intellegent=intelligent conservitive=Conservative flameing=flaming demecrate=Democrat basterd=Bastard Looks like Democrats can't spell for shit. Correction: it looks like traingye can't spell worth shit. Such crude generalizations coming from the "open minded" nodbugger...
Panther Nodbugger Traingye LOL. Anyway that "intellegent" comment by Nodbugger there reminded me of something. Is it just me or do conservitive do more flameing overall? For example I was in the 5th hour class last week and the person asked me if I was a demecrate. I said yes and they he said "you basterd". intellegent=intelligent conservitive=Conservative flameing=flaming demecrate=Democrat basterd=Bastard Looks like Democrats can't spell for shit. Correction: it looks like traingye can't spell worth shit. Such crude generalizations coming from the "open minded" nodbugger... Quote: Is it just me or do conservitive do more flameing overall? Quote: I've noticed a trend that Republicans insult and "flame" more in general. Open minded indeed. Nodbugger should be capitalized.
"un open minded" is not correct. Just for your information.
To Nodbugger: You've proven to me that you're too stupid to comprehend politics in its entirety. I refuse to continue a thread in this sort of a direction. To the moderators: I'm sorry for the petty argument, but Nodbugger seemed to be asking for it.
Nodbugger Nodbugger should be capitalized. Don't be an ACK.
... You were "Flamed" in real life? Did you post furiously back at him in your 5th hour class. lol...
Panther None of these Bushies are open minded at all. Don't claim to be "open-minded" when you're just as close-minded as everyone else, especially if you make a comment like that.
I don't see any reason why I'm even trying to argue with someone who's only insulting me in his replies (not to mention not backing his statements up, not as much in this as in other threads as well). Consider yourself ignored, Nodbugger (see? I capitalized!).
Both suck. The question is who sucks more? Anwser: Bush.
Democrats rely on class envy which is really close to hate and anger. But I will drive my minivan around getting 15 miles to the gallon and enjoy life and make as much money as I can, thank you very much. God forbid our president CUTS TAXES OMG... God forbid our President defends our homeland... I'm sorry that the views of a Republican are too much like the views of our founding fathers, those rotten, rotten bastards. They obviously didn't have a clue what they were talking about when they wrote the Constitution. I say we toss it in the trash can and become communists. Maybe that will make you lefties happy.
Hurrah for generalization and exaggeration! (and yes, that goes for the open-minded comment as well)
Crimson Democrats rely on class envy which is really close to hate and anger. But I will drive my minivan around getting 15 miles to the gallon and enjoy life and make as much money as I can, thank you very much. God forbid our president CUTS TAXES OMG... God forbid our President defends our homeland... I'm sorry that the views of a Republican are too much like the views of our founding fathers, those rotten, rotten bastards. They obviously didn't have a clue what they were talking about when they wrote the Constitution. I say we toss it in the trash can and become communists. Maybe that will make you lefties happy. Jesus Christ! The Respect-O-Meter is dropping from retarded comments from a usually intelligent person!
Sorry, but you lefties are especially aggravating this morning. But prove me wrong that you don't rely on class envy and prove to me that you don't believe that average American is intelligent enough to handle their own finances and I'll take it all back.
NHJ BV I don't see any reason why I'm even trying to argue with someone who's only insulting me in his replies (not to mention not backing his statements up, not as much in this as in other threads as well). Consider yourself ignored, Nodbugger (see? I capitalized!). Factual information sucks when it proves you wrong.
Crimson prove me wrong that you don't rely on class envy Crimson prove to me that you don't believe that average American is intelligent enough to handle their own finances and I'll take it all back I am a democrat. I don't rely on class envy; I think most people are smart enough to handle their own finances. What more can I say? Regardless of what may be true, there are always exceptions, and when you make generalizations, you simply look like a fool. Observe: All blacks are lazy and stupid. All asians have small penises. All women are awful drivers. All mexicans are stupid and can only get low-income jobs. You see how dumb I sound? And Nodbugger, stop thinking that because people are tired of arguing with your thick scull, that you are the messiah of truth. Wake up, idiot.
Crimson, I believe in defending America just as much as you do. The thing is that Iraq wasn't an threat to America. Saddam had no WMDs, was harbering no terrists, and was generally not a treat to America. As for taxes go, I admit that I really know nothing about that topic mainly because I don't pay any.
Traingye Crimson, I believe in defending America just as much as you do. The thing is that Iraq wasn't an threat to America. Saddam had no WMDs, was harbering no terrists, and was generally not a treat to America. As for taxes go, I admit that I really know nothing about that topic mainly because I don't pay any. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D15FF345D0C758EDDA00894DC404482 Wrong again fucker!
Even if he didnt have WMDs (which he had chemical capabilities, Dont forget the Kurds or whatever you call them in Northern Iraq) the war in Iraq Still made us safer. Cant you lefties see past tommorow, thats what got us in the whole 9/11 mess, waiting for the fight to come to us. Do you want to see something more catastrophic, Try saddams men in any populated city releasing chemical weapons. Dont think they could have gotten Saddam's men in the US?, Dont forget about 9/11, those terrorists got through easily. Sometimes I wonder if all patriotism is to lefties is a dying fad. You all wore your Flags proud after 9/11, but now most of America has forgotten, it disgusts me. Me, I wear my flag everyday in my posts (check the siggy), last year, the year before that, and the year before that on my football helmet, I fly the flag in front of my house, and whenever I do, I think of that day. I was in my classroom sophomore year of highschool staring at that flag when the second World Trade Tower went down and I was pissed as Hell. My question to you ppl, democrats and republicans is: If you were asked to serve your country and a draft was called in today for any war, could you go? I could, no doubt in my mind. To protect my family and country. lol sry I rambled there for a while.
SEAL Regardless of what may be true, there are always exceptions, and when you make generalizations, you simply look like a fool. Observe: All blacks are lazy and stupid. All mexicans are stupid and can only get low-income jobs. You see how dumb I sound? I hope you don't support affirmative action programs, SEAL, because that would make you a hypocrite almost the size of Bill Clinton.
=[DT =gbull=[L]=]Even if he didnt have WMDs (which he had chemical capabilities, Dont forget the Kurds or whatever you call them in Northern Iraq) the war in Iraq Still made us safer. Cant you lefties see past tommorow, thats what got us in the whole 9/11 mess, waiting for the fight to come to us. Do you want to see something more catastrophic, Try saddams men in any populated city releasing chemical weapons. Dont think they could have gotten Saddam's men in the US?, Dont forget about 9/11, those terrorists got through easily. Sometimes I wonder if all patriotism is to lefties is a dying fad. You all wore your Flags proud after 9/11, but now most of America has forgotten, it disgusts me. (...) lol sry I rambled there for a while. I see the words Iraq and 9/11 mixed way too often in that post. -Iraq did not have chemical weapons anymore. -Iraq did not have nuclear weapons -Iraq had no connection whatsoever to the 9/11 attacks -Iraq had no intention of attacking the US, because he damn well knew he would get his ass handed to him -Iraq did not have the capability of attacking the US, and probably not even the capability of successfully attacking any neighbouring country -Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the US. Ans yes, I am talking about the ~5 or so years before the invasion. We all know he gassed people in '93, that does not constitute a threat now.
Saddam DID have WMD If you think Iraq wasn't a threat, you've been watching too much Michael Moore. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that he had WMD before the war, and there are several clear, solid ties between Iraq/Saddam and known terrorist organizations. Who do you think the group is that's beheading people? You think those are just some mad Iraqis whose houses were bombed? The reason the terrorist groups are fighting us so hard in Iraq is because they know what the stakes are, they know what a free Iraq, a government that's not friendly to terrorists MEANS to the success of their "most holy" mission. If Iraq wasn't a home to terrorists, and the previous "government" wasn't helping them out financially and with locations to train, then why are they fighting us so hard? There are no ties found between Iraq/Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Problem is, the Bush Administration NEVER SAID THERE WAS. However, there are proven stated ties between known terrorists and Iraq. The reason that 9/11 is brought up is because most of us firmly believe that Saddam had the hatred for us, the money, and the influence to help MORE terrorists get their way to the US and attack us again. Just like 9/11. We mention 9/11 because it's the direct result of a failure to take the terrorist threat seriously, and the memory stands as a stark reminder why we can't stop until the terrorist organizations shrink drastically or vanish completely.
Crimson Just like 9/11. We mention 9/11 because it's the direct result of a failure to take the terrorist threat seriously, and the memory stands as a stark reminder why we can't stop until the terrorist organizations shrink drastically or vanish completely. I couldnt have said it better myself. In fact I tried to say it but Crimson's explaination is better.
hydra1945 I hope you don't support affirmative action programs, SEAL, because that would make you a hypocrite almost the size of Bill Clinton. I don't. And I fail to see how a program that tries to level the playing field for blacks is working under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid."
Crimson Saddam DID have WMD If you think Iraq wasn't a threat, you've been watching too much Michael Moore. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that he had WMD before the war, and there are several clear, solid ties between Iraq/Saddam and known terrorist organizations. Who do you think the group is that's beheading people? You think those are just some mad Iraqis whose houses were bombed? Well if he had any were the hell did they go? Crimson The reason the terrorist groups are fighting us so hard in Iraq is because they know what the stakes are, they know what a free Iraq, a government that's not friendly to terrorists MEANS to the success of their "most holy" mission. If Iraq wasn't a home to terrorists, and the previous "government" wasn't helping them out financially and with locations to train, then why are they fighting us so hard? The reason there fighting so hard is because they would rather have a government were Islam was the main drive behind all the decisions and the laws. Crimson There are no ties found between Iraq/Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Problem is, the Bush Administration NEVER SAID THERE WAS. However, there are proven stated ties between known terrorists and Iraq. The reason that 9/11 is brought up is because most of us firmly believe that Saddam had the hatred for us, the money, and the influence to help MORE terrorists get their way to the US and attack us again. Just like 9/11. We mention 9/11 because it's the direct result of a failure to take the terrorist threat seriously, and the memory stands as a stark reminder why we can't stop until the terrorist organizations shrink drastically or vanish completely. Yes they did. Bush used the "ties" between 9/11 and Iraq for an excuse to go to war.
WMDs were probably shipped to Syria or buried in the sand upon preparation to go to war. Islam will still be the main drive behind their government, Just because it has been liberated does not mean Iraq will be converted to Christianity. It will just be MORE based upon the Sunni form of Islam In that the leader will not be a descendent of Ali
NHJ BV -Iraq did not have chemical weapons anymore. -Iraq did not have nuclear weapons -Iraq had no connection whatsoever to the 9/11 attacks -Iraq had no intention of attacking the US, because he damn well knew he would get his ass handed to him -Iraq did not have the capability of attacking the US, and probably not even the capability of successfully attacking any neighbouring country -Iraq was no threat whatsoever to the US. -Tense conflict. That's also an untrue statement. -Iraq was trying to obtain nuclear weapons, though. -No one said it did. -Saddam hated the U.S. and hates it still; he's going to do everything in his power to hurt the U.S. -Yes, it DID have the capability of attacking both the U.S. and any neighboring country. -Wrong. It was a threat. Now it isn't since Saddam's regime has been toppled. SEAL And I fail to see how a program that tries to level the playing field for blacks is working under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid." Don't you see that the playing field was level to begin with? Last I checked, it's 2004, not 1954. Blacks are not discriminated against in today's day and age like they were fifty years ago. Yes, they do operate under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid." They assume that the black person applying for that job or applying to go to that college or what have you has not had the same education a white person applying for the same job/to the same college has had. Put simply, they think blacks are dumber than whites because of their color, so blacks should be given special treatment in the application process. Traingye Well if he had any were the hell did they go? We don't know. Saddam had more than five years to hide them or get them out of his country. He had even more time to destroy the evidence and cover his tracks before coalition forces moved in on Baghdad. Quote: Yes they did. Bush used the "ties" between 9/11 and Iraq for an excuse to go to war. No, he didn't. Since you seem to think he did, though, cite your source.
=[DT =gbull=[L]=]WMDs were probably shipped to Syria or buried in the sand upon preparation to go to war. Islam will still be the main drive behind their government, Just because it has been liberated does not mean Iraq will be converted to Christianity. It will just be MORE based upon the Sunni form of Islam In that the leader will not be a descendent of Ali If they were moved in any way we would have known it. In the time before the war a lot of intell was consentraded on Iraq. I'm not saying Iraq would be converted. I'm just saying they would rather have a Islam government then a secular one.
Traingye =[DT =gbull=[L]=]WMDs were probably shipped to Syria or buried in the sand upon preparation to go to war. Islam will still be the main drive behind their government, Just because it has been liberated does not mean Iraq will be converted to Christianity. It will just be MORE based upon the Sunni form of Islam In that the leader will not be a descendent of Ali If they were moved in any way we would have known it. In the time before the war a lot of intell was consentraded on Iraq. I'm not saying Iraq would be converted. I'm just saying they would rather have a Islam government then a secular one. Saddam ran a secular government, proves you wrong...yet again.
hydra1945 Don't you see that the playing field was level to begin with? Last I checked, it's 2004, not 1954. Blacks are not discriminated against in today's day and age like they were fifty years ago. Yes, they do operate under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid." They assume that the black person applying for that job or applying to go to that college or what have you has not had the same education a white person applying for the same job/to the same college has had. Put simply, they think blacks are dumber than whites because of their color, so blacks should be given special treatment in the application process. I thought I told you I don't agree with affirmative action. Oh well. Anyway, their theorey is that people from the 1950's etc definetly had a disadvantage in getting an equal education. This puts today's youths at a disadvantage because their parents couldnt help them with homework, or didnt have the money to send their kids to college.
Nodbugger Traingye =[DT =gbull=[L]=]WMDs were probably shipped to Syria or buried in the sand upon preparation to go to war. Islam will still be the main drive behind their government, Just because it has been liberated does not mean Iraq will be converted to Christianity. It will just be MORE based upon the Sunni form of Islam In that the leader will not be a descendent of Ali If they were moved in any way we would have known it. In the time before the war a lot of intell was consentraded on Iraq. I'm not saying Iraq would be converted. I'm just saying they would rather have a Islam government then a secular one. Saddam ran a secular government, proves you wrong...yet again. I'm not saying he didn't. I'm also not saying that they didn't want Saddam out. But just because they want him gone does not give us the athority to invade.
Traingye Nodbugger Traingye =[DT =gbull=[L]=]WMDs were probably shipped to Syria or buried in the sand upon preparation to go to war. Islam will still be the main drive behind their government, Just because it has been liberated does not mean Iraq will be converted to Christianity. It will just be MORE based upon the Sunni form of Islam In that the leader will not be a descendent of Ali If they were moved in any way we would have known it. In the time before the war a lot of intell was consentraded on Iraq. I'm not saying Iraq would be converted. I'm just saying they would rather have a Islam government then a secular one. Saddam ran a secular government, proves you wrong...yet again. I'm not saying he didn't. I'm also not saying that they didn't want Saddam out. But just because they want him gone does not give us the athority to invade. We give ourselves authority.
That's one of the many problems with this war.
There's quite a few more problems located between your keyboard and chair.
Nodbugger We give ourselves authority. I wonder why I frequent these forums sometimes...
The Bush Administration NEVER ONCE said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I have challenged several people to find a direct quote and you will find NOTHING. Iraq DOES have everything to do with 9/11 in that at the time we started the war, most people believed that Saddam and his weapons capabilities and his contacts in terrorist organizations and his loads of money and his wonderful California-sized haven for terrorists could, in fact, result in another attack as bad or worse than the one on 9/11 if we don't get him out of there. Remember that Iraq is the size of California, not the size of Chicago. He had all the time in the world to hide the weapons, and they may even in fact be in another country altogether. More evidence is found all the time of these weapons programs, and there are plenty of shells floating around with chemical-based warheads... however, just because a big pile hasn't been found doesn't really mean all that much yet. He's had plenty of time to hide them in at least the last 5 years.
Which is why we sent the weapons inspectors a notice to get out of Iraq 3 days before we started bombing it, as the inspectors were dismantling Al Samud missiles. And Saddam even said the UN could double the number of inspectors in Iraq instead of being attacked by the U.S. But we didn't care. Which is telling of how the Bush administration didn't care about WMDs as a reason for going to war. And regardless of what the Bush administration said, 67% or something of Republicans believe Saddam had a direct part to play in the September 11th attacks. Thanks, FOX!
Crimson Remember that Iraq is the size of California, not the size of Chicago. Even if it was the size of Chicago you can still hide a pretty decent amount of weapons there.
Chicago probably has more weapons than Iraq!
Panther Chicago probably has more weapons than Iraq! lol. I'm not saying that Bush said Saddam was responsible, I'm saying Bush said Iraq had ties with Alqeda (sp?). As for Aircraftkiller's comment, grow the hell up. :rolleyes:
I'm just pointing out that a lot of the problems in humanity lie in your idealogy and inherent stupidity, such as supporting Kerry... Or telling people to grow up who are probably a lot more "grown up" than you'll ever be.
Well, you have many problems yourself, you know. [and no, i'm not saying that I don't have my own problems either...]
...Like problems with your ego on mIRC...
Aircraftkiller I'm...pointing out that a lot of the problems in humanity lie in your...stupidity, such as supporting Kerry Go back to the mod forums where you belong. You are too childish and petty to discuss grown-up matters. Get lost.
AirCraftKiller and I have differences, but this time hes right. Too many weak minded people are giving in to Democratic propaganda, and before you say Im giving into Republican propaganda, Drop all political preference when you listen to Debates. If you did, you would realize that Democrats talk around questionsmost of the time, give vague answers and References, and twist the facts such as Edwards tried to do against Cheney in the VP, luckily Cheney came prepared and quickly informed the Country that Edward's informationwas outdated BY ONE FULL YEAR.
I love these debates. In the first Presidential debate, Kerry mentioned that the United States should first pass a "world test" in order to go to war with another country. Now tonight, on the Vice Presidential debates, Edwards completely denied that statement and said that Kerry said nothing like that. It's bad enough that Kerry is such a bad flip-flopper, but now Edwards isn't even on the same level as Kerry. it's so funny to see Liberals in action.
SEAL I thought I told you I don't agree with affirmative action. Oh well. Anyway, their theorey is that people from the 1950's etc definetly had a disadvantage in getting an equal education. This puts today's youths at a disadvantage because their parents couldnt help them with homework, or didnt have the money to send their kids to college. You did, and I understood you. You also said you didn't see how a program that "levels the playingfield" can be built under the assumption that "all blacks are stupid." I was merely clarifying that a) the playing field was level to begin with (you seemed to imply that it wasn't level) and b) the thought process behind "affirmative" action was indeed built upon the "stupid black man" idea. Traingye I'm not saying he didn't. I'm also not saying that they didn't want Saddam out. But just because they want him gone does not give us the athority to invade. We have the authority to defend ourselves when our national security is jeopardized. Iraq was putting our national security in jeopardy. Therefore, we had the authority. SuperFlyingEngi Which is why we sent the weapons inspectors a notice to get out of Iraq 3 days before we started bombing it, as the inspectors were dismantling Al Samud missiles. And Saddam even said the UN could double the number of inspectors in Iraq instead of being attacked by the U.S. But we didn't care. So, instead of attacking Saddam, we could have continued a policy that has failed for 12 years. Great idea!! :thumbsup:
hydra1945 So, instead of attacking Saddam, we could have continued a policy that has failed for 12 years. Great idea!! How were the inspections failing if the inspectors were currently dismantling missiles and going wherever they wanted to go three days before we started bombing Iraq?
Quote: We have the authority to defend ourselves when our national security is jeopardized. Iraq was putting our national security in jeopardy. Therefore, we had the authority The thing is that Saddam wasn't a threat. He had no WMDs and had no connection with Osama, which Bush and Cheny said they did. As far as I'm concered this whole "flip-flop" is Republican propaganda. Sence most of you apperntly didn't pay that much attention to what Kerry has said I will explain where kerry stands on this war: He supports takeing Saddam out but not in the manner that Bush did it.