NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it's sad. So much support for Kerry, so little justification.

I mean, come on! His story on the medal-tossing has changed four times!

John Kerry: The People's Candidate. Ah, YEA RIGHT! This coming from a guy worth half a billion! :roll:

"The Bush administration reacted too slowly and in the wrong way to the prisoner abuse"-well, what the **** would YOU have done differently?

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.

I'll most likely get DEATed for this, but I wanted to see how the mods react. They didn't say much in the topic this is based on, George F***ing Bush, brought to you by Weirdo Donkeys.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142586&highlight=

Note the only mod interference: "Easy on the profanity, Weirdo Donkeys." -Sirocco

From there the topic degrades into the local libs spouting their conspiracy theories for six whole pages.

I hope he gets ex-communicated

My opinion on this:

If your opinions are likely to offend others, keep them to yourself, end.

My opinion on this:

If your opinions are likely to offend others, keep them to yourself, end.Tell that to Wierdo Donkeys, The (Late) Red Arrow, Labrador etc.

I don't like Bush or Kerry. They both are money wasters that just want to waste the nations money on invading countries.

He already got yelled at by a mod, and well, I didn't notice his, just yours.

He ain't perfect, but anyone's better than the dancing monkey we have come to call Bush. In fact, I'd rather the USA was goverened by a toaster. Or even a broken toaster. Or any inanimate household appliance. Except blenders- you can't trust them. :p

I hope he gets ex-communicated

You do know what that means don't you?

I don't like Bush or Kerry. They both are money wasters that just want to waste the nations money on invading countries.
Yes, liberating countries and saving the population from an evil dictator is such a crime against humanity. And no i'm not from America, I'm from Norway

I hope he gets ex-communicated

You do know what that means don't you?

actually I'm a Catholic, which is part of why I'm so offended

I hope he gets ex-communicated

You do know what that means don't you?

actually I'm a Catholic, which is part of why I'm so offended

Alright, I was just wondering, because I have met some truly clueless people in my time. I wasn't sure if you meant kicked out of office or sent to hell.

Easy on the profanity, Holbrookia!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

P.S. Sorry, hehe couldn't help myself ;)

My opinion on this:

If your opinions are likely to offend others, keep them to yourself, end.

thats an unjust opinion since controversial opinions are the most important ones of all

My opinion on this:

If your opinions are likely to offend others, keep them to yourself, end.Tell that to Wierdo Donkeys, The (Late) Red Arrow, Labrador etc.

TRA and Labrador were both victims of mod abuses of power too

I think it's sad. So much support for Kerry, so little justification.

I mean, come on! His story on the medal-tossing has changed four times!
Actually, it hasn't. The way the media has spun it and the way the Republican party and their shills have attacked has changed, but the story has stayed the same.

John Kerry: The People's Candidate. Ah, YEA RIGHT! This coming from a guy worth half a billion! :roll:

First off, Kerry's net worth isn't half a billion. His wife's is, but that's not the same thing. And since when is Bush--child of privilege and wealth--any more of a common man? And most importantly, when did Kerry ever imply that he was of humble beginnings? I can tell you--never. He's always acknowledged that he was fortunate and felt a responsibility to give back as a result. It's called noblesse oblige and it's something Bush and company could use a dose of.

"The Bush administration reacted too slowly and in the wrong way to the prisoner abuse"-well, what the **** would YOU have done differently?
Ummm. Maybe not gone to war on the basis of lies and if war had been necessary, gone in with enough manpower and allied support so that kind of stuff would be less likely?

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.
Repeating Republican talking points does get boring--I think it's because it's always the same old crap. "Democrats are bad--don't look at the facts, just trust us on it. The facts are biased against us."

I'll most likely get DEATed for this, but I wanted to see how the mods react. They didn't say much in the topic this is based on, George F***ing Bush, brought to you by Weirdo Donkeys.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142586&highlight=

Note the only mod interference: "Easy on the profanity, Weirdo Donkeys." -Sirocco

From there the topic degrades into the local libs spouting their conspiracy theories for six whole pages.Haven't looked at the thread, but I imagine if you get DEATed, it'll be because you deserve it.

Hey, be nice to Dubbya. He's trying to make the best decisions, and I seriously doubt anyone else could do any better. He's good, as far as presidents go (I mean, look at the one before him). And he certainly didn't cause any of the problems the US is in now; those problems have been going on for quite a while.

Hey, be nice to Dubbya. He's trying to make the best decisions, and I seriously doubt anyone else could do any better. He's good, as far as presidents go (I mean, look at the one before him). And he certainly didn't cause any of the problems the US is in now; those problems have been going on for quite a while.

Hey, be nice to Dubbya. He's trying to make the best decisions, and I seriously doubt anyone else could do any better. He's good, as far as presidents go (I mean, look at the one before him). And he certainly didn't cause any of the problems the US is in now; those problems have been going on for quite a while.

I don't like Bush or Kerry. They both are money wasters that just want to waste the nations money on invading countries.
Yes, liberating countries and saving the population from an evil dictator is such a crime against humanity. And no i'm not from America, I'm from Norway

You must have a pretty wide definition of "saved". I'd call it out of the fire into the fryingpan.

Let's talk liberation once someone actually gets saved down there, shall we?

I think it's sad. So much support for Kerry, so little justification.

I mean, come on! His story on the medal-tossing has changed four times!
Actually, it hasn't. The way the media has spun it and the way the Republican party and their shills have attacked has changed, but the story has stayed the same.

John Kerry: The People's Candidate. Ah, YEA RIGHT! This coming from a guy worth half a billion! :roll:

First off, Kerry's net worth isn't half a billion. His wife's is, but that's not the same thing. And since when is Bush--child of privilege and wealth--any more of a common man? And most importantly, when did Kerry ever imply that he was of humble beginnings? I can tell you--never. He's always acknowledged that he was fortunate and felt a responsibility to give back as a result. It's called noblesse oblige and it's something Bush and company could use a dose of.

"The Bush administration reacted too slowly and in the wrong way to the prisoner abuse"-well, what the **** would YOU have done differently?
Ummm. Maybe not gone to war on the basis of lies and if war had been necessary, gone in with enough manpower and allied support so that kind of stuff would be less likely?

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.
Repeating Republican talking points does get boring--I think it's because it's always the same old crap. "Democrats are bad--don't look at the facts, just trust us on it. The facts are biased against us."

I'll most likely get DEATed for this, but I wanted to see how the mods react. They didn't say much in the topic this is based on, George F***ing Bush, brought to you by Weirdo Donkeys.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142586&highlight=

Note the only mod interference: "Easy on the profanity, Weirdo Donkeys." -Sirocco

From there the topic degrades into the local libs spouting their conspiracy theories for six whole pages.Haven't looked at the thread, but I imagine if you get DEATed, it'll be because you deserve it.

I agree with 99% of your post but your very last assumption is incorrect-theres a healthy % of deated people who didnt deserve it (but thats another issue)

I think it's sad. So much support for Kerry, so little justification.

I mean, come on! His story on the medal-tossing has changed four times!
Actually, it hasn't. The way the media has spun it and the way the Republican party and their shills have attacked has changed, but the story has stayed the same.

John Kerry: The People's Candidate. Ah, YEA RIGHT! This coming from a guy worth half a billion! :roll:

First off, Kerry's net worth isn't half a billion. His wife's is, but that's not the same thing. And since when is Bush--child of privilege and wealth--any more of a common man? And most importantly, when did Kerry ever imply that he was of humble beginnings? I can tell you--never. He's always acknowledged that he was fortunate and felt a responsibility to give back as a result. It's called noblesse oblige and it's something Bush and company could use a dose of.

"The Bush administration reacted too slowly and in the wrong way to the prisoner abuse"-well, what the **** would YOU have done differently?
Ummm. Maybe not gone to war on the basis of lies and if war had been necessary, gone in with enough manpower and allied support so that kind of stuff would be less likely?

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.
Repeating Republican talking points does get boring--I think it's because it's always the same old crap. "Democrats are bad--don't look at the facts, just trust us on it. The facts are biased against us."

I'll most likely get DEATed for this, but I wanted to see how the mods react. They didn't say much in the topic this is based on, George F***ing Bush, brought to you by Weirdo Donkeys.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142586&highlight=

Note the only mod interference: "Easy on the profanity, Weirdo Donkeys." -Sirocco

From there the topic degrades into the local libs spouting their conspiracy theories for six whole pages.Haven't looked at the thread, but I imagine if you get DEATed, it'll be because you deserve it.

Do you know how many times I've heard the same boring democratic responses? "Its only for the oil, blahblahblah." I could probably say the same thing to democrats for every single response they give.

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

Well too bad you feel that way, Kerry will be the next president of the United States.. I suggest you get use to the idea. The shift has already taken place. No president in history has come back to win an election with numbers as low as Bush has right now 6 months before an election. So unless you think he's going to break historical election norms.. better get use to "Yes Sir, Mr. President Kerry"

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

Actually, take some time and learn about candidates positions (well, I certainly opened a door there to those of you who've been paying attention). As a matter of fact, Kerry is not for the immediate withdrawl of US troops from Iraq. He is also pro some sort of manditory service (aka, a kinder, gentler "draft") and wants more money to go to actual military soliders rather than the higher ups.

But hey, any excuse to attack something that scares you.

You must have a pretty wide definition of "saved". I'd call it out of the fire into the fryingpan.

Let's talk liberation once someone actually gets saved down there, shall we?

its a hell of alot better than it was before, and in the end thats what matters

You must have a pretty wide definition of "saved". I'd call it out of the fire into the fryingpan.

Let's talk liberation once someone actually gets saved down there, shall we?

its a hell of alot better than it was before, and in the end thats what matters

Yeah it's better for who though?

Well too bad you feel that way, Kerry will be the next president of the United States.. I suggest you get use to the idea. The shift has already taken place. No president in history has come back to win an election with numbers as low as Bush has right now 6 months before an election. So unless you think he's going to break historical election norms.. better get use to "Yes Sir, Mr. President Kerry"

Every night, as I kneel by my bed and say my prayers, I tack this on. :D

You must have a pretty wide definition of "saved". I'd call it out of the fire into the fryingpan.

Let's talk liberation once someone actually gets saved down there, shall we?

its a hell of alot better than it was before, and in the end thats what matters

Yeah it's better for who though?

Moqtada Sadr

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.Ah--the "votes against the military" accusation again. Too bad it's complete bullshit. Too bad that those votes that the Republicans used as examples were also voted against by large numbers of Republican Senators. Too bad that Cheney was just as active in attempting to cut weapons systems both as a member of the House and as Secretary of Defense.

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

The terrorists want to kill us because we keep imposing ourselves on them.

My opinion on this:

If your opinions are likely to offend others, keep them to yourself, end.

Well, that opinion offends me, so don't say it.

My opinion on this:

If your opinions are likely to offend others, keep them to yourself, end.

Well, that opinion offends me, so don't say it.

Knock it off both of you.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I'd rather have Hitler running this country than Bush. At least Hitler knew how to run an economy...Why am I comparing Hitler to Kerry? No idea! All I know is anything is better than President George W. Bush (Yes...even a walrus in a tophat!). :D

I'd rather have Hitler running this country than Bush. At least Hitler knew how to run an economy...Why am I comparing Hitler to Kerry? No idea! All I know is anything is better than President George W. Bush (Yes...even a walrus in a tophat!). :D

http://www.gocollect.com/images/CRadko/200/99-128-0.jpg
The Newest President of the United States of America!

"Mr Walrus, we think we should have a press conferance.

Arf, arf!


"Mr Walrus, we're 18 votes down on the welfare bill"

Arf, arf!


"Mr Walrus, Canada has invaded Michegan"

Arf, arf!

Hmm, somehow I don't see his campaign getting off the ground.

i think bush should be president

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.
There is I think one thing in that that is true. I mean literally. Lemme just highlight the lies. Anything you've said thats actually true will be in bold.


Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

Yep. You have exactly one fact correct. Nuclear weapons can indeed kill people. And you correctly spelled the candidates name.

i think bush should be president

I think Warren Buffet should give me all his money, what's your point? :lol:

I don't like Bush or Kerry. They both are money wasters that just want to waste the nations money on invading countries.
Yes, liberating countries and saving the population from an evil dictator is such a crime against humanity. And no i'm not from America, I'm from Norway

You must have a pretty wide definition of "saved". I'd call it out of the fire into the fryingpan.

Let's talk liberation once someone actually gets saved down there, shall we?
How about the people of Iraq got saved from the gaschambers? Saddam and the bath party had been responsible for over 1 000 000 deaths, and I know that the civilian casualits under the coalition forces is from 750-5000 (depending on the source) but how many of them wouldn't have been killed by the Bath party?

And yes I'm alse 100% clear of that Iraq isn't as "good" now as before the liberation, but stuff like that can't happen overnight. Just look at Japan, they didn't become a economical superpower over night. Things takes time

You should now substantiate anything I've flagged as untrue, so I can demolish it further.

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

Kerry voted against less weapons systems then Cheney did when he was a congressman--and we SHOULD get out of Iraq. We never belonged there in the first place. The only people who weaknes the military is the Bush administration that overextends our troops fighting unjust wars for special interests

fighting unjust wars for special interests

Hail Sadam the king of justice?

fighting unjust wars for special interests

Hail Sadam the king of justice?

the war in iraq really had zero to do with Saddam in the larger scheame of things--the US has been in bed with far worse dictators then him thru the years

The US helped Sadam get into power they also gave him guns money and they very biological weapons that he used to gas his people to fight Iran with in the 70's. The war was unjust because it was saposed to be about WMD's not because sadam was a bad guy. The US also supported the Talaban when Russia was at war with them we gave them weapons and money too.

fighting unjust wars for special interests

Hail Sadam the king of justice?

You know... when the argument left is "well - we're better than Saddam!", I just think to myself... is that the new benchmark?

"Gosh - as long as we're better than him we're a-ok!"

If that is the new standard above which everything is hunky-dory - then that is avery sad state of affairs.

-Z-

fighting unjust wars for special interests

Hail Sadam the king of justice?

the war in iraq really had zero to do with Saddam in the larger scheame of things--the US has been in bed with far worse dictators then him thru the years
Indeed we have, does that excuse Saddam and make him an invalid target for the USA to take out? You act like it was a bad thing to do.

The US helped Sadam get into power they also gave him guns money and they very biological weapons that he used to gas his people to fight Iran with in the 70's. The war was unjust because it was saposed to be about WMD's not because sadam was a bad guy. The US also supported the Talaban when Russia was at war with them we gave them weapons and money too.
If by the USA giving Saddam weapons you mean France, W. Germany, and the Eastern Bloc, then yes. The USA gave Saddam samples of diseases that we give routinely to any friendly foreign government around the world.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

pretty much.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

pretty much. I would like to second the above.

My opinion on this:

If your opinions are likely to offend others, keep them to yourself, end.
I'm not just trying be bitchy or anything, but that really does offend me.
Seems pointless to voice your opinions if everyone else agrees with you.
EDIT: Sorry Steph, I just read the rest of the topic :oops:

otherwise, I don't think I can contribute to this topic- I mean, there's nothing really good to say about Kerry (and if someone comes back with- THERS NOTHING GODO TO SAY BOUT BUISH EITHER i PNZRE YUO!! I will cry)

What is the difference between Bush and Hitler? Hitler was democratically elected.

Bush is a goddam fool. In his policies and as a person. have you ever seen him speak next to Tony Blair? It's like a second grade cowboy (Bush) next to a college english major (Blair).

There is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, yet Bush would have us think so.
The countries of the Middle East have just as much right to develop a nuclear weapon as we do (if they can afford it, which they can't). We should fear the terrorists as much as we want them to fear us. We have no right to go trample all over them.
Even if they do get nukes, somehow, we have even more powerful weapons (Hydrogen bomb).

Massive deficit spending does not help the economy.

It is important to voice opinions, or we will turn into a totalitarian/ignorant society of our own accord (Fahrenheit 451, A Brave New World).

Bush is alienating the international community, he doesn't realize that the world is a very small place: what goes around comes around.

Kerry may not be the intelligent liberal that was Howard Dean, but he is the lesser of two evils. At least he would have acted with some sense.

Opinions are important and so is the right to express them freely, profanity and all. It's called the first amendment.


Just some random thoughts. Please respond.

There is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, yet Bush would have us think so.
Bush specifically stated that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq at some point. That dosen't mean that the American people will listen. Heck, tons of them believe that Bill Clinton pushed through Welfare Reform.

The countries of the Middle East have just as much right to develop a nuclear weapon as we do (if they can afford it, which they can't).
Ever hear of the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)? In that, which most Middle Eastern countries signed (Important exception : Israel), it basically takes away their "Right" to develop a nuclear weapon, at least without telling everyone first and withdrawing from the treaty. Some of those countries can afford it. The House of Saud is one of the richest in the world - with all those petrodollars coming in, they could easily afford to develop a nuclear weapon. Heck, North Korea could and they have nothing close to the amount of money being brought in by oil.

We should fear the terrorists as much as we want them to fear us. We have no right to go trample all over them.
Sure we do, they're killers who are perfectly willing to kill innocent Americans, such as 9/11 or the African embassy bombings.

Massive deficit spending does not help the economy.
Yes it does, especially when the government is small enough, as in the USA, so that your not expanding a government that is already waay to big - such as in Germany, although even Schroeder is thinking about going the Keynsian way.

I think it's sad. So much support for Kerry, so little justification.

I mean, come on! His story on the medal-tossing has changed four times!
Actually, it hasn't. The way the media has spun it and the way the Republican party and their shills have attacked has changed, but the story has stayed the same.
Take 1:

Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in an antiwar protest 33 years ago?

A. Yes. As The Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: 'I'm not doing this for any violent reasons but for peace and justice and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'"

• Take 2:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971, interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

• Take 3:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," The Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln (Mass.), at his request."

• Take 4:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 re-election campaign, he told the Globe that he threw only the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw, since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home (to New York) and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to two other veterans - the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."



John Kerry: The People's Candidate. Ah, YEA RIGHT! This coming from a guy worth half a billion! :roll:

First off, Kerry's net worth isn't half a billion. His wife's is, but that's not the same thing. And since when is Bush--child of privilege and wealth--any more of a common man? And most importantly, when did Kerry ever imply that he was of humble beginnings? I can tell you--never. He's always acknowledged that he was fortunate and felt a responsibility to give back as a result. It's called noblesse oblige and it's something Bush and company could use a dose of. I didn't say Bush fit the category, just I don't think Kerry should play himself as that when he has more money than any of us could hope to see in our lifetimes.

"The Bush administration reacted too slowly and in the wrong way to the prisoner abuse"-well, what the **** would YOU have done differently?Ummm. Maybe not gone to war on the basis of lies and if war had been necessary, gone in with enough manpower and allied support so that kind of stuff would be less likely?Wait... how does having more people from more countries spread throughout that country prevent Abu Ghraib?

I could go on, but I'm getting bored.
Repeating Republican talking points does get boring--I think it's because it's always the same old crap. "Democrats are bad--don't look at the facts, just trust us on it. The facts are biased against us."Yeah, same as the Dem points:
"No blood for O-I-L!"
"Where's Saddam? We went into Iraq to find him, so where is he?"
I could go on, but the server would probably crash :lol: okay, it wasn't that funny.

I'll most likely get DEATed for this, but I wanted to see how the mods react. They didn't say much in the topic this is based on, George F***ing Bush, brought to you by Weirdo Donkeys.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=142586&highlight=

Note the only mod interference: "Easy on the profanity, Weirdo Donkeys." -Sirocco

From there the topic degrades into the local libs spouting their conspiracy theories for six whole pages.Haven't looked at the thread, but I imagine if you get DEATed, it'll be because you deserve it.Okay, how does that work? Weirdo Donkeys is still around. Do you say he shouldn't be DEATed for doing the same thing? If you haven't noticed this part, read again:
I'll most likely get DEATed for this, but I wanted to see how the mods react. They didn't say much in the topic this is based on, George F***ing Bush, brought to you by Weirdo Donkeys.

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

Actually, take some time and learn about candidates positions (well, I certainly opened a door there to those of you who've been paying attention). As a matter of fact, Kerry is not for the immediate withdrawl of US troops from Iraq. He is also pro some sort of manditory service (aka, a kinder, gentler "draft") and wants more money to go to actual military soliders rather than the higher ups.

But hey, any excuse to attack something that scares you.What's there to learn? He voted for the war in Iraq, then he votes against funding it, now he's complaining about what's going on over there, trying to act like he never voted for Iraq.

What is the difference between Bush and Hitler? Hitler was democratically elected.Well, then there's the little matter of Bush not executing millions of people... though Labrador would be inclined to disagree...

Bush is a goddam fool. In his policies and as a person. have you ever seen him speak next to Tony Blair? It's like a second grade cowboy (Bush) next to a college english major (Blair).Cowboy=Texas
English=English
All is right with the world...

There is no connection between Iraq and 9/11, yet Bush would have us think so.
The countries of the Middle East have just as much right to develop a nuclear weapon as we do (if they can afford it, which they can't). We should fear the terrorists as much as we want them to fear us. We have no right to go trample all over them.
Even if they do get nukes, somehow, we have even more powerful weapons (Hydrogen bomb).Oh, sure... just wait for the terrorists to strike first... God help us if YOU get elected.

Massive deficit spending does not help the economy.Actually, if you knew jack about economics, you would know that the only possible ways the government can pump money into the economy to spur investment is by increasing spending and cutting taxes... both of which Bush has done...

It is important to voice opinions, or we will turn into a totalitarian/ignorant society of our own accord (Fahrenheit 451, A Brave New World).Hell, yes!

Bush is alienating the international community, he doesn't realize that the world is a very small place: what goes around comes around.oh dear... Last time I checked, the French, Germans and Russians bailed on us... not the other way around...
Face it. You don't have access to the intel Bush had. I don't either. I don't think we can applaud or condemn the war without seeing the whole picture. If 9-11 had been prevented, would you have believed it if their plans were publicized? Hell no. Most of the left would think it was a scam to boost Bush's ratings.

Kerry may not be the intelligent liberal that was Howard Dean, but he is the lesser of two evils. At least he would have acted with some sense.Voted for the war in Iraq... against funding it... now complaining about the current situation. More sense. Gotcha.

The "lesser of two evils" ploy isn't a good one. You don't put somebody in the oval office just to get someone else out.

Opinions are important and so is the right to express them freely, profanity and all. It's called the first amendment.Thank you, and good night.

I remember the good old days of polotics, when people wouldnt attack people on their birth, but on their issues, on the other hand I am not 200 years old, so not much memory.

What's there to learn? He voted for the war in Iraq, then he votes against funding it, now he's complaining about what's going on over there, trying to act like he never voted for Iraq.Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. You are, once again, tirelessly misrepresenting the facts.

Kerry's position: he supported the war because he believed what the government was telling him. Now he sees the scale of the lies that they've been telling and no longer supports the war, a position that many, many americans will be able to empathise with having been duped by the government themselves.

What's there to learn? He voted for the war in Iraq, then he votes against funding it, now he's complaining about what's going on over there, trying to act like he never voted for Iraq.Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. You are, once again, tirelessly misrepresenting the facts.

Kerry's position: he supported the war because he believed what the government was telling him. Now he sees the scale of the lies that they've been telling and no longer supports the war, a position that many, many americans will be able to empathise with having been duped by the government themselves.

Kinda like kerrys position on the veitnam war too that republicans love to distort

Well...its like the old saying goes.

Would you rather have the devil ya know, or the devil ya don't know?

I'm not very political myself.

What's there to learn? He voted for the war in Iraq, then he votes against funding it, now he's complaining about what's going on over there, trying to act like he never voted for Iraq.Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. You are, once again, tirelessly misrepresenting the facts.

Kerry's position: he supported the war because he believed what the government was telling him. Now he sees the scale of the lies that they've been telling and no longer supports the war, a position that many, many americans will be able to empathise with having been duped by the government themselves.

Kinda like kerrys position on the veitnam war too that republicans love to distortI say again:
Take 1:

Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in an antiwar protest 33 years ago?

A. Yes. As The Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: 'I'm not doing this for any violent reasons but for peace and justice and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.'"

• Take 2:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971, interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

• Take 3:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," The Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln (Mass.), at his request."

• Take 4:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 re-election campaign, he told the Globe that he threw only the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw, since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home (to New York) and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to two other veterans - the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

The terrorists want to kill us because we keep imposing ourselves on them.They didn't crash the planes into the buildings! The buildings ran into them! How stupid we were!
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

The terrorists want to kill us because we keep imposing ourselves on them.They didn't crash the planes into the buildings! The buildings ran into them! How stupid we were!
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Bush gave terrorists the green light to do it just like his daddy gave Saddam the green light to invade the useless Kuwait

Kerry all the way.

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

The terrorists want to kill us because we keep imposing ourselves on them.They didn't crash the planes into the buildings! The buildings ran into them! How stupid we were!
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Bush gave terrorists the green light to do it just like his daddy gave Saddam the green light to invade the useless Kuwait

I notice you don't provide links for that one.

Bush gave terrorists the green light to do it just like his daddy gave Saddam the green light to invade the useless Kuwait

I notice you don't provide links for that one.eh, he's just proiding a strawman argument for the Bush fans

Brits for Kerry!

DON'T DISS MY CANDIDATE. THAT GUY BETTER WIN, I'VE DONATED ENOUGH TO HIM TO PISS ME OFF IF HE LOSES.

Kerry is dishonest, stupid, and incredibly Liberal. He has a record of voting against weapons/vehicles that could improve our military. Also, he wants to get us out of Iraq. So, if he gets elected, he'll take us out of Iraq and weaken our military. For those Liberals out there, let me spell it out:

With our military weak, and our forces out of Iraq, it'll give those terrorists over there time to make Nuclear Weapons, which can kill us all.

The terrorists want to kill us because we keep imposing ourselves on them.They didn't crash the planes into the buildings! The buildings ran into them! How stupid we were!
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Bush gave terrorists the green light to do it just like his daddy gave Saddam the green light to invade the useless Kuwait

I notice you don't provide links for that one.

Its common knowledge

Sup TRA.

Bush gave terrorists the green light to do it just like his daddy gave Saddam the green light to invade the useless Kuwait

I notice you don't provide links for that one.eh, he's just proiding a strawman argument for the Bush fans
whats a strawman?

Bush gave terrorists the green light to do it just like his daddy gave Saddam the green light to invade the useless Kuwait

I notice you don't provide links for that one.eh, he's just proiding a strawman argument for the Bush fans
whats a strawman?

I think he means you're providing an easy target for pro-Bush posters.

Sup TRA. speak of the wolf and he shall come :D

Bush gave terrorists the green light to do it just like his daddy gave Saddam the green light to invade the useless Kuwait

I notice you don't provide links for that one.eh, he's just proiding a strawman argument for the Bush fans
whats a strawman?

I think he means you're providing an easy target for pro-Bush posters.

easy targets for easy prey

Bush has ruined:

The economy (We've gone from the biggest surplus to the biggest defficit)

Foreign relations and our international image (Right after 9/11, we had incredible support and sympathy. That's gone.)

The environment (I could go on and on about that one)



Anyone care to add to the list?

I would add women's rights and gay rights, but apparently for some, those need ruining.

Bush has ruined:

The economy (We've gone from the biggest surplus to the biggest defficit)


You're confusing the economy with the national debt/deficit

bump

The terrorists want to kill us because we keep imposing ourselves on them
They didn't crash the planes into the buildings! The buildings ran into them! How stupid we were!

Tell me, why DID they crash those planes into WTC?


The "lesser of two evils" ploy isn't a good one. You don't put somebody in the oval office just to get someone else out.


How else do you get someone out?

Tell me, why DID they crash those planes into WTC?
Because they hate Western lifestyle, they hate Christians, Shias, Jews, and anyone who isn't a Sunni, preferably a radicalist. If they *just* hated Israeli occupation, American forces in Saudi Arabia, or some other greivance, then they could have easily attacked that. Instead, they hit thousands of innocent civilians in New York, Washington, and tried to with a plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.


I would add women's rights and gay rights, but apparently for some, those need ruining.

Gay "rights" (as if marraige is a right that trumps that of majority choice) haven't been ruined. Quite the contrary. San Fransisco is issuing licenses left and right, Massachusettes has legalized Gay marraige, and Rhode Island and New York accept marraige licenses from MA, meaning that its just a quick drive over the border from those states. Even if you believe abortion is a "right", the only thing that has been limited, really, that was signed/sponsored by Bush is the partial birth abortions ban. Which even most abortion supporters would concede does not equal ruining of abortion (as it is only a very small portion of abortions) and is a horrific practice.

Gay "rights" (as if marraige is a right that trumps that of majority choice) haven't been ruined. Quite the contrary. San Fransisco is issuing licenses left and right, Massachusettes has legalized Gay marraige, and Rhode Island and New York accept marraige licenses from MA, meaning that its just a quick drive over the border from those states. Even if you believe abortion is a "right", the only thing that has been limited, really, that was signed/sponsored by Bush is the partial birth abortions ban. Which even most abortion supporters would concede does not equal ruining of abortion (as it is only a very small portion of abortions) and is a horrific practice.

Wipe your chin, there--people might think you're rabid. And you might try getting your facts straight for a change.

San Francisco hasn't been giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples for some time now, and won't restart until the case is decided in the state courts. And rights have often trumped majority choice--interracial marriage, restriction of voting rights for minorities, segregation, all of these were codified and supported by a majority of people in their community before the courts stepped in and said they were unconstitutional. The same thing has happened in Massachussetts, and will eventually spread to the rest of the US. Equal protection before the law is embedded deeply in our Constitution--get over it.

Bush has ruined:

The economy (We've gone from the biggest surplus to the biggest defficit)

Foreign relations and our international image (Right after 9/11, we had incredible support and sympathy. That's gone.)

The environment (I could go on and on about that one)



Anyone care to add to the list?

his regime has at least tried to ruin the objectivism of science by politicizing it more than it has ever been before and blatantly censoring it

San Francisco hasn't been giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples for some time now, and won't restart until the case is decided in the state courts. And rights have often trumped majority choice--interracial marriage, restriction of voting rights for minorities, segregation, all of these were codified and supported by a majority of people in their community before the courts stepped in and said they were unconstitutional. The same thing has happened in Massachussetts, and will eventually spread to the rest of the US. Equal protection before the law is embedded deeply in our Constitution--get over it
They were. Womens Suffrage, for example, was not decided by one major court decision, but rather the legislatures from state to state, and eventually a constitutional amendment - in fact, the equal protection before the law was put in by the legislatures from around the country. There's no denying that the courts have had some affect. Not even close to what the legislatures have had. Massachusettes' situation came out of an inability of the state legislature to compromise - although it did come to within a few votes of totally banning gay marriage via the state constitution. The court simply said that the legislature had to come up with a new law regarding the practice, and if it didn't, then gay marriages were legal.

He ain't perfect, but anyone's better than the dancing monkey we have come to call Bush. In fact, I'd rather the USA was goverened by a toaster. Or even a broken toaster. Or any inanimate household appliance. Except blenders- you can't trust them. :pWell be thankful that a hippy freak isn't in the White House.

Tell me, why DID they crash those planes into WTC?
Because they hate Western lifestyle, they hate Christians, Shias, Jews, and anyone who isn't a Sunni, preferably a radicalist.

They do? Just like that? Mercedes, McDonalds, film noir, rococo furniture, the lot?
Why is that, you think?

He ain't perfect, but anyone's better than the dancing monkey we have come to call Bush. In fact, I'd rather the USA was goverened by a toaster. Or even a broken toaster. Or any inanimate household appliance. Except blenders- you can't trust them. :pWell be thankful that a hippy freak isn't in the White House.

why? a hippie freak would be a vast improvment

why? a hippie freak would be a vast improvment

All a hippie would do is legalise pot and all the other drugs, give out free money (ok, not a bad thing fr us but that about the budget?) and weaken the military to a point where we get invaded by the Mexicans, who promptly execute the hippie and instate Kerry (if he wasn't the hippie in the first place) to be governer of their new province "Greater Mexico".

(BTW- that was a swipe at John Kerry, hippies and the democrats, not at the Mexicans. If I could, I would say something in Spanish now.)