NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, lets keep this thread flame free for as long as possible.

John kerry is campaigning on his Vietnam service alone. All we hear form him is about his purple hearts and that gets old.

So, he spent 19 years in the Senate......what did he do during this time? Did he do ANYTHING of note or did he just bide his time?

I have looked for any legislation that he has written, but I have been unable to find any. Also, he has not mentioned anything that he has done in the Senate either. Since there does not seem to be anything that he himself seems to want to campaign on except his 4 months in Vietnam, does anyone have ANY idea of what he has done in the past 19 years?

Since he seems to want to become the president should he not have SOME experience in running something? I mean even Bush was a governor and had THAT experience coming in. For the life of me, I cannot find anything that the man has actually done and it is scary to think that someone could become the most powerful man on earth with a 19 year gap in his resume. That gap placed there by Kerry since he is campaigning on Vietnam alone.

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/kerry_bills.cfm

Ok, a lot of bills that commend this or that group for some action...but nothing of substance.

S.J.RES.160 : A joint resolution designating the week beginning October 20, 1991, as "World Population Awareness Week".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/13/1991) Cosponsors: 53

Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Post Office and Civil Service

Latest Major Action: 10/30/1991 Signed by President.

Yeah...world population awareness week. That was important.

John Kerry after looking at all the bills has done a lot:Not all bills get passed because the majority party in a House or Senate agree with them.
So that maybe why you don't know of them because the Republicans didn't agree with them and were against it.

I think Kerry is going to have a very hard time since he is not eager to run on his record in the Senate...it will probably come back to bite him.

Ok, lets keep this thread flame free for as long as possible.

John kerry is campaigning on his Vietnam service alone. All we hear form him is about his purple hearts and that gets old.

So, he spent 19 years in the Senate......what did he do during this time? Did he do ANYTHING of note or did he just bide his time?

I have looked for any legislation that he has written, but I have been unable to find any. Also, he has not mentioned anything that he has done in the Senate either. Since there does not seem to be anything that he himself seems to want to campaign on except his 4 months in Vietnam, does anyone have ANY idea of what he has done in the past 19 years?

Since he seems to want to become the president should he not have SOME experience in running something? I mean even Bush was a governor and had THAT experience coming in. For the life of me, I cannot find anything that the man has actually done and it is scary to think that someone could become the most powerful man on earth with a 19 year gap in his resume. That gap placed there by Kerry since he is campaigning on Vietnam alone.

He says he will make a "stronger America", but he voted against every new weapon system to come along, including such staples as: M1 Abrams tank; M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, F15E Strike Eagle. And MANY more.

He also proposed bills cutting funding for intelligence services. The cuts totaled over $7 billion.

He also never saw a tax increase he didn't like or wouldn't vote for.

John Kerry after looking at all the bills has done a lot:Not all bills get passed because the majority party in a House or Senate agree with them.
So that maybe why you don't know of them because the Republicans didn't agree with them and were against it.

Read them....just read them. ALL of the bills on that site are bills proposed by Kerry, not others he voted for or against...but ones HE sponsored. Pretty fluffy...example...

S.1418 : A bill to designate the Federal building located at 78 Center Street in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, as the "Silvio O. Conte Federal Building", and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/27/1991) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Public Works and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 9/30/1991 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

He wanted to rename a building.....

1991 , he sure has been busy renaming buildings

Read them....just read them. ALL of the bills on that site are bills proposed by Kerry, not others he voted for or against...but ones HE sponsored. Pretty fluffy...example...

S.1418 : A bill to designate the Federal building located at 78 Center Street in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, as the "Silvio O. Conte Federal Building", and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/27/1991) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Public Works and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 9/30/1991 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

He wanted to rename a building.....

Do you honestly think that any other senator is better?

Besides, those are just sponsored bills, pull up the co-sponsors will we are at it, and you'd start seeing the defense bills...

He says he will make a "stronger America", but he voted against every new weapon system to come along, including such staples as: M1 Abrams tank; M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, F15E Strike Eagle. And MANY more.

He also proposed bills cutting funding for intelligence services. The cuts totaled over $7 billion.

He also never saw a tax increase he didn't like or wouldn't vote for.
Yep... yep... yep... yeep.

Ok. One thing in that post is true. John Kerry doesn indeed say he will make a stronger America. Everything is either a lie or a massive distortion of the truth.

He says he will make a "stronger America", but he voted against every new weapon system to come along, including such staples as: M1 Abrams tank; M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, F15E Strike Eagle. And MANY more.

He also proposed bills cutting funding for intelligence services. The cuts totaled over $7 billion.

He also never saw a tax increase he didn't like or wouldn't vote for.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Wrong.

The problem is, when you break it down, do any of these politicians really say or do anything of substance?

look at all of the important bills that affect our lives. none of them come from john kerry. always someone else

Read them....just read them. ALL of the bills on that site are bills proposed by Kerry, not others he voted for or against...but ones HE sponsored. Pretty fluffy...example...

S.1418 : A bill to designate the Federal building located at 78 Center Street in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, as the "Silvio O. Conte Federal Building", and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/27/1991) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Public Works and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 9/30/1991 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

He wanted to rename a building.....

Don't just go by the bills he sponsored either, look at his VOTING record. What there is of it. Kerry was also one of the biggest no-shows in the Senate over the last 20 years.

think about mccain fiengold campaign bill, the tax cuts, every detail of our spending in public morks, military appropriations. many senators do things of substance jus not the one we are writing about.

Don't just go by the bills he sponsored either, look at his VOTING record. What there is of it. Kerry was also one of the biggest no-shows in the Senate over the last 20 years.
If you want to get into no-showing, I remember a certain president going on vacation a lot during the first few years of his term.

how about the partial birth abortion ban that he didnt vote on. that was important

Damn rights im Canadiana nd the liberals here (your democrats) do the same thing to our military, they chop it up, ruin contracts and cost us money, all the while saying there making the military better and at the same time whining that the military is useless, as you can see from the state of affairs my countries military is in, we've been run by liberals for far too long, its consistent throughout north america, liberals or Democrats means higher taxes our taxes and user fees have gone through the roof and our spending is being misplaced everywehre same with in the states, also our military ahs gone through the bastille whever a liberal comes into power, this year vote Bush if you want to keep your military pwoer and respect. or the liberals might sneak up on you and gun down the military's effectiveness :mp5:

Do you honestly think that any other senator is better?

Besides, those are just sponsored bills, pull up the co-sponsors will we are at it, and you'd start seeing the defense bills...

Well, I was mainly interested in those things that Kerry himself sponsored, not jumped on after the fact. ANYONE can be a co-sponsor, some bills have 10-20 co-sponsors, but the sponsor does the majority of the work. I just wanted to see what Kerry actually did for 19 years and it really does not look like he did much at all.

No wonder he is only campaigning on the 4 months he was in Vietnam.

look at the how much time congress takes off per year. compare that to the president.....congress takes half the year off....

Read them....just read them. ALL of the bills on that site are bills proposed by Kerry, not others he voted for or against...but ones HE sponsored. Pretty fluffy...example...

S.1418 : A bill to designate the Federal building located at 78 Center Street in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, as the "Silvio O. Conte Federal Building", and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/27/1991) Cosponsors: 1

Committees: Senate Environment and Public Works; House Public Works and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 9/30/1991 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

He wanted to rename a building.....Just out of interest, did you bother to look up who Silvio O. Conte is? He was a congressman from Massachusets (Kerry's state) for 32 years, who fought for the environment, for education, for health and human services and denounced pork barrel spending.

He died in office. Kerry's bill to honour the man was put up 7 months after he passed away. Now maybe renaming a building isn't the most important thing that the US senate has ever voted on, but paying even a minor tribute to someone who served the people for 17 congressional terms is not a waste of time either. So don't be a jackass

He says he will make a "stronger America", but he voted against every new weapon system to come along, including such staples as: M1 Abrams tank; M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, F15E Strike Eagle. And MANY more.

He also proposed bills cutting funding for intelligence services. The cuts totaled over $7 billion.

He also never saw a tax increase he didn't like or wouldn't vote for.

Your stupid if you think a stronger America is what you need anyway. It's the yanks fault the whole world hates them, buying more weapons is just going the grow that hate. The way to keep themselves safe is to stop with the corrupt and paranoid foreign policy and try to regain the worlds trust. New F15E Strike Eagles aren't the answer.

Just out of interest, did you bother to look up who Silvio O. Conte is? He was a congressman from Massachusets (Kerry's state) for 32 years, who fought for the environment, for education, for health and human services and denounced pork barrel spending.

He died in office. Kerry's bill to honour the man was put up 7 months after he passed away. Now maybe renaming a building isn't the most important thing that the US senate has ever voted on, but paying even a minor tribute to someone who served the people for 17 congressional terms is not a waste of time either.

Thats all fine and dandy....and I have no problem with it, but it seems that Kerry mostly did things like this. No real strong legislation. I am just looking for something that the man who wants to be president has actually done for 19 years. Am I wrong for wanting to know?

See, this is the thing, really. The Democrats don't really care that they're running a hypocritical, flipflopping candidate who has all the substance of a cloud, and whose military and political records, upon examination, are barren at best and disgraceful at worst.

They don't care for one reason:

He's not Bush.

That's all they care about. The Democrats would nominate a chunk of used gum for president if they thought it would beat Bush. It's anyone but Bush... this is the reason for the overwhelmingly negative tone of the Dem campaign so far, and the reason why Kerry has yet to actually make any substantive statements about what the heck he's gonna do. As long as he's not Bush, he can sit in the oval office for four years and pick his nose, and the Democrats will be happy.

It's truly sad, especially at such a crucial time in American history.

Fortunately, Kerry simply isn't going to beat Bush. Think about it. Bush is coming off what is arguably the worst four-month period in his presidency, hitting setbacks ranging from Abu Ghraib to Fairytale 9/11 to assorted tell-all books. Yet Bush holds his ground, and after the Democratic convention, who got a bounce? Bush! The Democrats have 'misunderestimated' the American people - they've figured out Kerry is a nothing... there are two issues that matter to Americans right now, terrorism and the economy, and on both of them, George W. Bush is rock solid.

Mark my words, kids, short of an absolute society-shattering catastrophe, Bush wins big this fall.

look its a political ploy, kerry is the most liberal member of the senate and its painfuly obvious that liberls cant win presidential races so he has to go back to when he didnt act like a liberal ( early veitnam) to do anything with his campaign. also, he has had the weakest convention bounce since mcgovern ( who lost against nixon who was running for reelection in 1972) and the weakest post convention lead since mondale who lost even worse against incumbant reagan in 1984.......not good for kerry. he is trying despertly to not be taken for what his voting record shows. LIBERAL.

Kerry was an officer right? So yes he did run something and according to those he fought with, he did so in a courageous and intelligent manner. He risked his life for his commrades earning him a purple heart and other medals, so you can't say that he puts his own interests first.

Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, so he is obviously patriotic and cares about Americas best interests; if he will risk his own life for the good of America.

He also stands up for what he believes in. He saw attrocties commited during the vietnam war and he also recognized that the administration wasn't helping things by being disengenuous (sp?) about the Vietnam war, so he protested the war and spoke out against those things. That was courageous as this protesting didn't make him very popular with the Administration (or many of his fellow servicemen), even though he was pursuing a political career.

i am an american and i personaly am very happy that my president acted on the un resolutions that they failed to enforce. i am also happy we will spend 417 billion on our military next year. i am happy that 50 million middle eastern people are now free due to that military. i am sad that europe and canada have been warped by the partisan medias in those countries that obviously have contempt ( jealousy) for america and how strong we are financialy, militarily, and emotionaly.

mr kerry at least also would have invaded iraq

5. S.J.RES.285: A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Haiti falls under the definition of "major drug-transit country" as stated in section 481(i)(5) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and therefore should be subject to the certification process mandated by section 481(h) of that Act.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 04/18/88 Referred to House Committees on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; and Foreign Affairs.

1. S.CON.RES.26 : A concurrent resolution calling for the United States to support a new agreement among the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties which would provide comprehensive environmental protection of Antarctica and would prohibit indefinitely commercial mineral development and related activities in Antarctica.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/11/1991) Cosponsors: 14

Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

Latest Major Action: 5/29/1991 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.

5. S.RES.185 : An original resolution to provide for expenses and supplemental authority of the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/26/1991) Cosponsors: (none)

Committees: Senate POW/MIA Affairs; Senate Rules and Administration

Latest Major Action: 10/16/1991 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.

12. S.3389 : A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit certain transactions with respect to managed accounts.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 10/8/1992) Cosponsors: (none)

Committees: House Energy and Commerce

Latest Major Action: 12/22/1992 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.

4. S.1636 : A bill to authorize appropriations for the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 11/8/1993) Cosponsors: 2

Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Latest Major Action: 4/30/1994 Became Public Law No: 103-238.

1. S.791 : A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business center program.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/14/1999) Cosponsors: 30

Committees: Senate Small Business

Latest Major Action: 12/9/1999 Became Public Law No: 106-165.

2. S.918 : A bill to authorize the Small Business Administration to provide financial and business development assistance to military reservists' small businesses, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/29/1999) Cosponsors: 51

Committees: Senate Small Business; House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 7/29/1999 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.
8. S.174 : A bill to amend the Small Business Act with respect to the microloan program, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 1/24/2001) Cosponsors: 18

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship; House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 4/17/2002 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
9. S.295 : A bill to provide emergency relief to small businesses affected by significant increases in the prices of heating oil, natural gas, propane, and kerosene, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 2/8/2001) Cosponsors: 34

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship; House Small Business; House Agriculture

Latest Major Action: 5/17/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Rural Development and Research.
11. S.1499 : A bill to provide assistance to small business concerns adversely impacted by the terrorist attacks perpetrated against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 10/4/2001) Cosponsors: 63

Committees: House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 4/9/2002 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.
2. S.318 : A bill to provide emergency assistance to nonfarm-related small business concerns that have suffered substantial economic harm from drought.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 2/5/2003) Cosponsors: 19

Committees: Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship; House Small Business

Latest Major Action: 4/1/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.

Kerry was an officer right? So yes he did run something and according to those he fought with, he did so in a courageous and intelligent manner. He risked his life for his commrades earning him a purple heart and other medals, so you can't say that he puts his own interests first.

Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, so he is obviously patriotic and cares about Americas best interests; if he will risk his own life for the good of America.

He also stands up for what he believes in. He saw attrocties commited during the vietnam war and he also recognized that the administration wasn't helping things by being disengenuous (sp?) about the Vietnam war, so he protested the war and spoke out against those things. That was courageous as this protesting didn't make him very popular with the Administration (or many of his fellow servicemen), even though he was pursuing a political career.

Thats all fine and well...but for 19 years when he could have done SOMETHING of note and been a strong leader....there is really nothing of note. Not ONE piece of legislation that can be called important. Vietnam is one thing, but the record that REALLY matters is his Senate record and it is extemely weak.

how many million people has he set free?

He also stands up for what he believes in. He saw attrocties commited during the vietnam war and he also recognized that the administration wasn't helping things by being disengenuous (sp?) about the Vietnam war, so he protested the war and spoke out against those things. That was courageous as this protesting didn't make him very popular with the Administration (or many of his fellow servicemen), even though he was pursuing a political career.
Kerry doesn't stand up for shit. He admitted to committing atrocities himself in Vietnam, have you forgotten that? He burned villages, shot livestock, fired on civilians. If you want a real American war hero, take a look at General Tommy Franks... when he saw an entire squad of his fellow soldiers blown up by a mine, finding severed heads, severed arms with wedding rings, etc... his soldiers wanted to rough up a nearby village to find out who planted the mine, and he held them back. When it came time to choose between right and wrong, Franks made the right decision. Kerry did not, and he gave in to his urges to commit atrocities. He didn't even report it... until years later, before a Senate Committee, when talking about it would boost his political agenda. The man is a slime.

5. S.J.RES.285: A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress that Haiti falls under the definition of "major drug-transit country" as stated in section 481(i)(5) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and therefore should be subject to the certification process mandated by section 481(h) of that Act.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry .- LATEST ACTION: 04/18/88 Referred to House Committees on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; and Foreign Affairs.

1. S.CON.RES.26 : A concurrent resolution calling for the United States to support a new agreement among the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties which would provide comprehensive environmental protection of Antarctica and would prohibit indefinitely commercial mineral development and related activities in Antarctica.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 4/11/1991) Cosponsors: 14

Committees: Senate Foreign Relations

Latest Major Action: 5/29/1991 House preparation for floor. Status: Held at the desk.

5. S.RES.185 : An original resolution to provide for expenses and supplemental authority of the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs.

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 9/26/1991) Cosponsors: (none)

Committees: Senate POW/MIA Affairs; Senate Rules and Administration

Latest Major Action: 10/16/1991 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment by Voice Vote.

I read the site....it is quite weak actually....lots of renamed buildings, but not much else.

Thats all fine and dandy....and I have no problem with it, but it seems that Kerry mostly did things like this. No real strong legislation. I am just looking for something that the man who wants to be president has actually done for 19 years. Am I wrong for wanting to know?
No, that's fine. But citing a a bill dedicating a monument to important congressman that Kerry sponsored as a waste of time and money isn't exactly fair. Clearly this is something he felt strongly about, something that he wanted done for a reason. Congress passes plenty of bills every day for things far more useless than this one. What did this cost the taxpayer? A couple of photocopies, and a brass plaque on the door.


Incidently, Cheney, during his time in the senate: 2 bills. Go figure.

THANK GOD!!! More people who see Kerry for what he really is! He's a flip-flop in my eyes-things he was opposed to a few years ago he now supports. You can't please everyone Mr. Kerry. I know Bush has his faults, but lets point out a few of the fake ones shall we?
#1) the arguement EVERY DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE in history has used- Bush gave tax-cuts to the Wealthiest 1%. Doesn't anyone take civics anymore?!?!?! This is economic policies IN THEORY:
Republicans- Make the economy work by putting money at the top-Corporate heads get the money, use it to buy more enterprises, create more jobs, poor people take the jobs, make money.
Democrats- Put money on the bottom, the poor take the money, shop in stores, store managers make profit, enterprising corporate heads make profit.
(In reality Republicans give Corporate heads money, Malaysians get jobs. Democrats give the poor money, they blow it on booze and Velveeta. Sorry for the stereotypes)
#2) 'The economy is in a poor state' It's called a massive terrorist attack, homeland security, and a war. They're not free. Unless Kerry can start crapping Gold Bullion, I don't think he'll make a big difference
#3) 'Bush's record in the National Guard is shaky' At least he didn't get Purple Hearts for hangnails and toe-stubs so he could get out of Vietnam. Oh, and he didn't miss two thirds, TWO FREAKIN THIRDS, of all Senate votes. And thanks to whoever brought up the voting against the M1 Abrams, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and F-15E, It's interesting to know how much he loves to see our Infantry slaughtered so we can gain a few billion in our economy.
#4) 'Bush's intelligence on Iraq and Al-Qaeda were, and are, poor' Is Bush the head of the CIA? No, he funds it very well though. Go screw yourself.
Sorry, I was mad, I feel better now. I know I didn't cover everything so please, fill in if you want.

Oh, btw, to everyone who is wondering, there is one basic reason I support Bush and not Kerry:
There is a time for a Conservatie President, and a time for a Liberal President, I think I know who I'd rather have during the beginning of a war on terror. Bush is decisive, he doesn't pussy-foot around waiting for the red tape to clear, making sure all other countries and the UN still like us. Sorry, we've got to defend ourselves, and the rest of the world if it comes to this because apparently this is the only country (besides England, good people) that have the balls to stamp out evil wherever it pops up. I think this is a time for war, and we need a president who's willing to make the tough decisions.

kerry was for the iraq war. that was good. too bad he voted against funding it. too bad he voted against banning partail birth abortion. if only he had voted differently i might support him, but in my opinion, he is disgraceful for flip flopping on some issues and staying consistanly far left on others. nothing could be worse than those two. stupid buildings , i dont even care about what buildings he named

All right then... let's take a look at Kerry's time on the Intelligence Committee. How long... eight years, wasn't it? Forty-nine intelligence briefings... how many do you think Kerry was even present for?

Eleven. That's right, just eleven, out of forty-nine.

After the first WTC bombing, he wanted to cut intelligence budgets by $7 billion. Even Ted Kennedy couldn't support that.

And even now, during his campaign, he 'doesn't have time' to read the intelligence briefings that the Bush administration gracefully makes available to him.

Disgraceful.

Thats all fine and well...but for 19 years when he could have done SOMETHING of note and been a strong leader....there is really nothing of note. Not ONE piece of legislation that can be called important. Vietnam is one thing, but the record that REALLY matters is his Senate record and it is extemely weak.

Soooooooooooo, Bush's record is better?

Opted out of going to war in favour of getting preferential entrance to flight school, and then aparently dropping out of his military commitment.

And, as far as his leadership record:

Can't run an oil company successfully.
Can't run a baseball team very well.

And, surprise surprise,

Can't run a country all that well either!


Hey, I'm not a big Kerry fan, but he stacks up head and shoulders above Bush (the equally flip-flopper ) in every damn leadership category I can think of.

Republicans- Make the economy work by putting money at the top-Corporate heads get the money, use it to buy more enterprises, create more jobs, poor people take the jobs, make money.

And that's worked a charm right?

#2) 'The economy is in a poor state' It's called a massive terrorist attack, homeland security, and a war. They're not free. Unless Kerry can start crapping Gold Bullion, I don't think he'll make a big difference


damn straight my friend.

Well...most would not believe it, but I am a Libertarian (party member) and now that I have looked beyond Kerry's Vietnam record I am quite concerned. I found it odd that he was not running on his 19 year record as a Senator, but was focused on his 4 months in Vietnam some 34 years ago. Now I see why. I was more inclined to vote for Bush before, but this guy is quite scary really. He has only showed up for work one day this year....just one day. Other Senators usually resing to concentrate on their campaigns, but Kerry has decided not to. It is his right to do so of course, but it looks to me like he is unsure of winning and wants that precious seat to fall back on.

At any rate, the flaming has started and that was not what I wanted. If anyone can find anything of substance the man did in 19 years I would like to see it.

Kerry doesn't stand up for shit. He admitted to committing atrocities himself in Vietnam, have you forgotten that? He burned villages, shot livestock, fired on civilians. If you want a real American war hero, take a look at General Tommy Franks... when he saw an entire squad of his fellow soldiers blown up by a mine, finding severed heads, severed arms with wedding rings, etc... his soldiers wanted to rough up a nearby village to find out who planted the mine, and he held them back. When it came time to choose between right and wrong, Franks made the right decision. Kerry did not, and he gave in to his urges to commit atrocities. He didn't even report it... until years later, before a Senate Committee, when talking about it would boost his political agenda. The man is a slime.

he admitted what he did and he felt bad for it. Did he even have to admit it? no, but he did. At least we know that Kerry tries to do teh right thing and will even implicate himself if he feels he was wrong. Thats true courage. Bush hasn't done anythign close to this for the lies and attrocities he has commited.

And that's worked a charm right?

So far... yeah.

i got a nice big old tax cut from the president. that made me happy. somthing tells me with all this flip flopping kerry will pull a clinton and run on lowering middle class tax cuts and then as soon as hes in , raise them.....yeah, that will really improve the economy, which, by the way, is doing VERY VERY WELL

he admitted what he did and he felt bad for it. Did he even have to admit it? no, but he did. At least we know that Kerry tries to do teh right thing and will even implicate himself if he feels he was wrong. Thats true courage. Bush hasn't done anythign close to this for the lies and attrocities he has commited.
Oh? Has Bush burned any villages lately? Do, enlighten me. :D

No, that's fine. But citing a a bill dedicating a monument to important congressman that Kerry sponsored as a waste of time and money isn't exactly fair. Clearly this is something he felt strongly about, something that he wanted done for a reason. Congress passes plenty of bills every day for things far more useless than this one. What did this cost the taxpayer? A couple of photocopies, and a brass plaque on the door.


Incidently, Cheney, during his time in the senate: 2 bills. Go figure.

I did not say it was a waste of time or money...but it was not something that showed real leadership now was it?

Oh? Has Bush burned any villages lately? Do, enlighten me. :D
Iraq anyone?

bush has been part of several atrocities. like freeing iraq, afganistan, and disarming libya. wow, he sure is evil. i can only think of one worse thing. more than 1 million late term abortions since 1973...

Like those late-term abortions Kerry says he abhors... and then voted in favor of anyway?

Kerry doesn't stand up for shit. He admitted to committing atrocities himself in Vietnam, have you forgotten that? He burned villages, shot livestock, fired on civilians. If you want a real American war hero, take a look at General Tommy Franks... when he saw an entire squad of his fellow soldiers blown up by a mine, finding severed heads, severed arms with wedding rings, etc... his soldiers wanted to rough up a nearby village to find out who planted the mine, and he held them back. When it came time to choose between right and wrong, Franks made the right decision. Kerry did not, and he gave in to his urges to commit atrocities. He didn't even report it... until years later, before a Senate Committee, when talking about it would boost his political agenda. The man is a slime.
As atrocites go Menelmacar, 11-13,000 civillians killed in Iraq under General Tommy “We don’t do body counts" Franks sorta hits a highlight there. However, while we're sliming people, do you think that taking some kind reasonable spin on the facts is in order? Testifying to atrocites comitted isn't standing up "for shit"?

what are bush's atrocities?

Iraq anyone?
Hmmm. The Iraqi people don't seem to be complaining.

I read the site....it is quite weak actually....lots of renamed buildings, but not much else.


so you are given a record of a few things he sponsored which goes way beyond renaming a building and you choose to ignore it. So why continue debating?

Soooooooooooo, Bush's record is better?

Opted out of going to war in favour of getting preferential entrance to flight school, and then aparently dropping out of his military commitment.

And, as far as his leadership record:

Can't run an oil company successfully.
Can't run a baseball team very well.

And, surprise surprise,

Can't run a country all that well either!


Hey, I'm not a big Kerry fan, but he stacks up head and shoulders above Bush (the equally flip-flopper ) in every damn leadership category I can think of.

I was wondering when Canada...who has no vote would jump in. Ok, Bush is not perfect and he may not be a good businessman, but he WAS the Governor of Texas and knows how to govern. Kerry has no such experience and having seen his Senate record, he has not really done anything in 19 years. It does not look good for him and this record will come back to bite him before much longer.

I did not say it was a waste of time or money...but it was not something that showed real leadership now was it?
No, but its one bill, it takes no time, it costs no money. He honours a long-standing public servant from his state. Now how, oh how, can you actually use this to villify him?

As atrocites go Menelmacar, 11-13,000 civillians killed in Iraq under General Tommy “We don’t do body counts" Franks sorta hits a highlight there. However, while we're sliming people, do you think that taking some kind reasonable spin on the facts is in order? Testifying to atrocites comitted isn't standing up "for shit"?
So why didn't Kerry report it right away? Why'd he wait years to even bring it up? If he was so horrified, why did he keep it under wraps? Hell, why did he participate?

On Iraq, I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that you liberals complain that Saddam was deposed, when the coalition troops have found mass graves containing the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered under Saddam.

BTW, I wholeheartedly recommend Franks' book, American Soldier. A ripping good read.

Hmmm. The Iraqi people don't seem to be complaining.
12,000 of them can't anymore.

lets do some math. 24 million in a country like iraq. we take away there entire oppressive regime. we free all of them from tyranny giving them all civil rights. "12,000 civilians " are killed. hmm, thats a 99.995% survival rate on the civilians. and they now have freedom and all the oppurtunity they never had before.

see the flaw of your arguement now? 99.995% without a scratch in a total invasion and rebuilding effort....thats DAMN GOOD

12,000 of them can't anymore.
Ahhh.

I see.

Well, heck, let's put Saddam right back into power then. Since the hundreds of thousands of people he tortured, raped, gassed, and murdered can't complain anymore either. But liberals don't like to talk about those.

so you are given a record of a few things he sponsored which goes way beyond renaming a building and you choose to ignore it. So why continue debating?

Yes a few things, but nothing that was of any real substance...in 19 years, a man who thinks himself qualified to be the president should have something of note in his record.

See, this is the thing, really. The Democrats don't really care that they're running a hypocritical, flipflopping candidate who has all the substance of a cloud, and whose military and political records, upon examination, are barren at best and disgraceful at worst.

They don't care for one reason:

He's not Bush.

That's all they care about. The Democrats would nominate a chunk of used gum for president if they thought it would beat Bush. It's anyone but Bush... this is the reason for the overwhelmingly negative tone of the Dem campaign so far, and the reason why Kerry has yet to actually make any substantive statements about what the heck he's gonna do. As long as he's not Bush, he can sit in the oval office for four years and pick his nose, and the Democrats will be happy.

It's truly sad, especially at such a crucial time in American history.

Fortunately, Kerry simply isn't going to beat Bush. Think about it. Bush is coming off what is arguably the worst four-month period in his presidency, hitting setbacks ranging from Abu Ghraib to Fairytale 9/11 to assorted tell-all books. Yet Bush holds his ground, and after the Democratic convention, who got a bounce? Bush! The Democrats have 'misunderestimated' the American people - they've figured out Kerry is a nothing... there are two issues that matter to Americans right now, terrorism and the economy, and on both of them, George W. Bush is rock solid.

Mark my words, kids, short of an absolute society-shattering catastrophe, Bush wins big this fall.This year, I'd vote for a yellow dog if the Democrats were running it against Bush. That doesn't change the fact that I really do believe in Kerry, that I think he's a inspiring and man of vision and courage and that he'll put the country back on the right track. Now, what are the right reasons for voting for someone again?

Incidently (and cos this one is always fun), could you name one of Kerry's flip-flops please, so we can debunk it and then laugh?

God I love this thread!!!!!!!! I was worried the whole world went nuts.

lets see. saddam there, hundereds of thousands raped, shot, chopped up, put in masss graves, we remove him, we not only do that we set up a free democracy. and its an atrocity when we hurt o.oo5% of them. in the process jesus, u have a stange set of priorities.

Ahhh.

I see.

Well, heck, let's put Saddam right back into power then. Since the hundreds of thousands of people he tortured, raped, gassed, and murdered can't complain anymore either. But liberals don't like to talk about those.
Yeah, you're right. Bush is better than Saddam. He's only tortured and murdered dozens of people instead of thousands.

I really do think that its a sad day when Saddam Hussain is the benchmark for our judgement of evil

was john kerry for or against late term abortions?

um, yeah, u guys keep ignoring all the civil rights and freedom 24 million iraqis now have as a direct result of bush. see where that gets u

No, but its one bill, it takes no time, it costs no money. He honours a long-standing public servant from his state. Now how, oh how, can you actually use this to villify him?

I have kept my comments calm and fairly balanced. i did not say the bill was bad, wasteful, or anything else. However, renaming a building is hardly showing strong leadership now is it? I read all the bills Kerry has sponsored and not ONE was so important that it was even needed. 19 years is a long time to serve in the Senate and to have nothing of note to show for it is striking for a man who wants to be president.

kerry agrees with 55% of america when a few weeks ago in an interview with peter jennings he says he thinks that life starts at conception
but in the last 10 years he has voted repeatedly to allow partial birth abortion. is it not a flip flop to say that the baby is alive at that point when u have voted for it to be allowed to be aborted so amny times?

And that's worked a charm right?

I'd say so. The United States has the fattest poor people in the world. You see poor people in other countries and they look like poor people - dirty, ripped clothes, bare ribs and flies breakdancing on their eyeballs. In the US, poor people are fat, clothed and live on government subsidies. Can you say HUD?

Incidently (and cos this one is always fun), could you name one of Kerry's flip-flops please, so we can debunk it and then laugh?

Sure I can. They're not hard to find... he has more flipflops than the lost and found at the boardwalk.

Flipflop 1.

Before the $87 billion appropriation fund, Kerry went on Face the Nation to say that it would be "reckless" to deny the funding for troops he himself had voted to authorize Bush to put into harm's way, even if he didn't get his way on the source of the funding (i.e. he wanted the Iraqis rather than taxpayers to pay for it).

The first vote was to get the money out of Iraqi oil revenue. This, Kerry voted for.

The second vote was for the money to come out of US government funds. This, Kerry voted against. The very same vote he said it would be reckless to cast.

This is the story behind the oft-played soundbite, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Flipflop 2.

He also has gone on record stating that life begins at conception, but he voted against banning partial-birth abortions. I consider it pretty scary that he voted against banning something he's stated he considers to be murder.

Flipflop 3.

He proposed cutting intelligence budgets by $7 billion, after the first WTC bombing, by which point it was pretty damn clear we had a terrorist problem. Even Ted Kennedy couldn't support the idea. Now he's claiming to be tough on terror.

Flipflop 4.

He repeatedly stated before the Iraq war that Saddam had WMD's and to leave Saddam 'unfettered' was 'unacceptable'. Now he speaks out against the Iraq war.

Discredit away. Please provide supporting evidence.

I think Kerry is going to have a very hard time since he is not eager to run on his record in the Senate...it will probably come back to bite him.
What about Bush's job as Govenor of Texas?

http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/Bushfileeditorial.html

http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/00-03-10b.htm

http://www.topplebush.com/recordgovernor.shtml

http://www.bushkills.com/

Impressive!! Just kind of like he is doing right now, except on a much larger scale!!

was john kerry for or against late term abortions?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/01/late.term.abortion/

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee, released a statement saying he had voted to restrict late-term abortions "but only where there was a clear exception for life or health of women."

"George Bush pushed through a different piece of legislation that failed to protect the health of women, and that is what the court struck down today," Kerry's statement said

Oh? Has Bush burned any villages lately? Do, enlighten me. :D

No he burned an entire country. Bombed them back to teh stone age is more like it. He pushed for the intelligence commities to come up with spurious information so he could wage a war on Iraq. So he is a lying murderer.

And will you quit acting like a child? If you are goign to be against Kerry because he is a flipflopper then you should be as equally against Bush (check my signature)

So why didn't Kerry report it right away? Why'd he wait years to even bring it up? If he was so horrified, why did he keep it under wraps? Hell, why did he participate?

On Iraq, I'm somewhat disturbed by the fact that you liberals complain that Saddam was deposed, when the coalition troops have found mass graves containing the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered under Saddam.


Maybe he was disturbed by what he did and couldnt bare to face it until that point. He still admitted that he was wrong. Bush still hasnt, so Kerry is still teh better man on this argument.


And noone is angry Saddam is gone. Are you relaly that ignorant? Can you find me a lpost here where anyone is actually complaining Saddam is gone? Thought not (MKULTRA doesnt count)! People are angry they got lied to is causing tremendous grief to those families who are losing family members beause of those lies.

so u gonna disprove my flip flop example?
oh and the fat poor person is a growing segment of america.

hes flip flopping

\And noone is angry Saddam is gone. Are you relaly that ignorant? Can you find me a lpost here where anyone is actually complaining Saddam is gone? Thought not (MKULTRA doesnt count)! People are angry they got lied to is causing tremendous grief to those families who are losing family members beause of those lies.

By opposing the Iraq war you are indirectly complaining that Saddam was removed. Apparently you think it would have been a better idea to keep talking at the UN while Saddam killed more people. As for me, not only am I glad this war was fought, but I think it came twelve years too late.

Flipflop 4.

He repeatedly stated before the Iraq war that Saddam had WMD's and to leave Saddam 'unfettered' was 'unacceptable'. Now he speaks out against the Iraq war.
I'm gonna do these in order of preferance.

This he said because at the time, he believed inteligence on the Iraq war to be correct. So he voted to remove a potentially dangerous man from power. Now, in the end, as you well know, the inteligence did not turn out to be right, and it looks to some people very much like the Bush administration manipulated the inteligence community to produce a reason for going to war. Thus, in hindsight, it doesn't look like war was justified. This is not a flip-flop, this is changing your mind based on new information

What about Bush's job as Govenor of Texas?

http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/Bushfileeditorial.html

http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/00-03-10b.htm

http://www.topplebush.com/recordgovernor.shtml

http://www.bushkills.com/

Impressive!! Just kind of like he is doing right now, except on a much larger scale!!

Come-on...are you actually going to accept anything as true from a website named topplebush.com? I mean really....

Aha. Except the new information is flawed. The 9/11 commission report in fact conclusively proved that the intelligence was correct, including the much-discussed tidbit on African yellowcake uranium. It also proved conclusively that there was no pressure levelled on the intelligence community by the administration to produce a result suitable for an Iraq invasion.

nothing like extemist websights to get the truth

By opposing the Iraq war you are indirectly complaining that Saddam was removed. Apparently you think it would have been a better idea to keep talking at the UN while Saddam killed more people. As for me, not only am I glad this war was fought, but I think it came twelve years too late.
Well, thats where you're wrong. I think its a good thing that Saddam is out of power. At the very least, I don't want him back. However, I do not apreciate being lied to, which is what Bush did. That's why I think that the war in Iraq was wrong. There is little to suggest that as many people would have died under Saddam had he stayed in power a little longer than died under our invasion. And regieme change, while not always wrong, is a dangerous to have as a doctrine because of the effect it has on other rogue nations.

Come-on...are you actually going to accept anything as true from a website named topplebush.com? I mean really....
Read the others.

The 12 question one is excellent.

He was the king of executions, including one underage minor who was mentally handicapped....nice?

Aha. Except the new information is flawed. The 9/11 commission report in fact conclusively proved that the intelligence was correct, including the much-discussed tidbit on African yellowcake uranium. It also proved conclusively that there was no pressure levelled on the intelligence community by the administration to produce a result suitable for an Iraq invasion.
Really got a link? Or do you just think so...?

Well, this has broken down to a slugfest....I have seen and read Kerry's Senate record now and it is quite shocking really. Nothing of any substance in 19 years. That is one thing that cannot be disputed or spun. Not that I was going to vote for Kerry anyway, but after seeing this I am much more inclined to vote for Bush. Although my Libertarian candidate does not stand a chance, the thought of Kerry winning with this record will probably have me skipping out on my own party.

that websight called "bushkills" is about the death penalty. how he didnt pardon anyone. by the way, the president can pardon anyone on death row. i wonder how many fdr "killed" or carter "killed" or clinton "killed". the lack of a pardon for a muderer is not a form of murder fool.

Really got a link? Or do you just think so...?
I can do better than that, once I receive the copy of the report I have on order.

Aha. Except the new information is flawed. The 9/11 commission report in fact conclusively proved that the intelligence was correct, including the much-discussed tidbit on African yellowcake uranium. It also proved conclusively that there was no pressure levelled on the intelligence community by the administration to produce a result suitable for an Iraq invasion.
Well that's as maybe. But even so, I think you'll agree that new information having a bearing on an old decision is not a flip-flop, is it?

Read the others.

The 12 question one is excellent.

He was the king of executions, including one underage minor who was mentally handicapped....nice?

Actually I support the death penalty so that does not bother me at all. Good try though, but Kerry will have to answer to that record eventually...and you know how they will pounce on it.

governors can pardon. bush never did. but presidents can pardon all of those people also, why didnt bill clinton save all of those murderers when bush didnt? mayb because thats what they were....

Well that's as maybe. But even so, I think you'll agree that new information having a bearing on an old decision is not a flip-flop, is it?
I would, if the new information didn't confirm the old information. If you're right and it wasn't a flipflop (and yes, this is probably the least solid of the flipflops cited) the new information Kerry was acting on was spin, not actual fact. The 'discrediting' of the yellowcake tip, in fact, came from John Wilson, who has since been discredited himself.

how are those sites "extreemist"?

if you can discredit them go ahead, but obviously you just like spouting the same old rhetoric. As I see it, the anti-bushies are coming up with sources and the pro-bushies are grasping at straws, vomiting out republican talking points with no substance and no sources.

Discredit those "extreemist" sites, I dare you. Again... thought not.

um, yeah, u guys keep ignoring all the civil rights and freedom 24 million iraqis now have as a direct result of bush. see where that gets u
How many innocent Iraqis had to die, while Bush was giving Iraq "freedom"?

Like do you really care about civil rights in Iraq?

but he WAS the Governor of Texas and knows how to govern.

Ummm ... the Governor of Texas doesn't really have any power. The only reason Texas has a governor in the first place is because it was required for Statehood. Dubya did make some moves to increase gubernatorial power, but that's simply because he didn't like playing second fiddle to the State Senate. He used his increased power to ruin this State for everyone but upper-crust oil companies (but only the Christian owned ones).

As for Kerry not resigning his seat, Dubya didn't resign his gubernatorial seat during his first Presidential campaign either - he abandoned the State of Texas into the hands of the very inept Rick Perry (Governor now because Dubya left, but was not elected) who has torn this State apart through redistricting.

The most notable thing Dubya did as Governor of Texas was to have 152 people executed - including one woman who he mocked openly - and spent a lot of energy trying to claim that he's not the one who created Texas' archaic clemency laws, but at the same time openly *refused* to change them.

He vetoed legislation which would have provided funding for basic indigent defense - yeah, who needs that right to legal representation anyway - and called it a "threat to public safety".

Under the leadership of George W. Bush, Texas ranked dead last in virtually every social service area, yet first in executions. Texas has some of the poorest funded programs to help the mentally ill (who account for a good number of the prison population). Bush's response to this dead last ranking was to insist that the legislature pass a $5 billion tax cut.

Bush was steadfast in his refusal to recognize the significance of international treaty law, specifically the right of foreign nationals facing the death penalty to receive notification of their right to consular assistance. Texas has the second-largest death row population of foreign citizens in the USA (after California). None of these individuals were informed upon arrest of their right to consular assistance, as guaranteed under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Even a personal intervention by the US Secretary of State (in the Faulder case) was ignored by Bush, undermining the viability of international law, outraging nations allied to the USA and endangering the human rights of detained foreigners everywhere, including American citizens arrested abroad.

Want me to talk about what he did to the Education system in Texas?

Sorry ... but the man is a putz, always has been a putz, and always will be a putz.

12,000 of them can't anymore.

are u aware that in the little over the year weve been in Iraq less Iraqie civillians died then in a year with Saddam in there?

all of those people could have been saved from the death penalty by clinton if he wanted to. he didnt. they were murderers.ok, and i dont have to even reply to your thugish extremist websights of anarchy and hateful unsubstantiated rhetoric. i am way above that. you , need to learn the constitution and how it works and start getting your news from primary sources instead ofthese sights. i leave now, it is pointless to attemp to save a person drowning in ideology and hate.

How many innocent Iraqis had to die, while Bush was giving Iraq "freedom"?

Like do you really care about civil rights in Iraq?
Damn straight I do.

Let's just for argument's sake accept the leftist-inflated 12000-person body count, shall we?

Okay. Iraq has 24 million people, Afghanistan has 26 million people. Simple first-grade arithmetic would tell you that means that fifty million people have George W. Bush to thank for the freedoms they now enjoy. If saving 12000 lives is enough reason to leave fifty million in slavery and oppression, then I suppose WWII wasn't a just war either, was it? Would you have left Hitler in power to save the people firebombed in Dresden?

like, yes i do care . deeply, thats why if you run the numbers 99.995% of civilians escaped unharmed.

Actually I support the death penalty so that does not bother me at all. Good try though, but Kerry will have to answer to that record eventually...and you know how they will pounce on it.

whoa! you support the death penalty for mentally handicapped kids? Wow, thats pretty f'd up. Good for you, you are the Rightwings anster to MKULTRA.

would have used the same arguments of civilian casualties to let hitler stay in power. what did he do to us anyway? good lord. bush has saved more people in the middle east than even voted for him to begin with here...

that websight called "bushkills" is about the death penalty. how he didnt pardon anyone. by the way, the president can pardon anyone on death row. i wonder how many fdr "killed" or carter "killed" or clinton "killed". the lack of a pardon for a muderer is not a form of murder fool.
Clinton and FDR are not running for election, thus invalidating the gist of your question? Besides they are hypothetical and speculative questions at best?

whoa! you support the death penalty for mentally handicapped kids? Wow, thats pretty f'd up. Good for you, you are the Rightwings anster to MKULTRA.

just because someone is mentally handicapped does not make them less responsible for the crime they commit. Sorry, I just don't think that is an excuse.

Let's just for argument's sake accept the leftist-inflated 12000-person body count, shall we?
www.iraqbodycount.net

Well, thats where you're wrong. I think its a good thing that Saddam is out of power. At the very least, I don't want him back. However, I do not apreciate being lied to, which is what Bush did. That's why I think that the war in Iraq was wrong.

I'm rather sick of people saying that Bush lied about Iraq. Before I start raving, I would like to know, how did he lie? The intellegence said that there were WMDs. It was wrong, but we didn't know that then. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Saddam didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. It could just be me, but that's kind of strange for someone who isn't hiding anything.

Flipflop 2.

He also has gone on record stating that life begins at conception, but he voted against banning partial-birth abortions. I consider it pretty scary that he voted against banning something he's stated he considers to be murder.
There are a great number of people who believe that life begins at conception. That's not an unusal position. However, there are also a small number of those people who live in the real world. Kerry is one of them. I believe that he sees, like many others, that evangelising on abortion isn't correct. When abortions were illegal I'm sure that you know that many people had "backstreet abortions", which put a huge amount of danger on the mother. Allowing abortions is like teaching kids about contraceptives: you hope that they don't need them (that they don't have sex), but if they do, you want them to be safe. If you ban abortions (even late term abortions), people don't stop having abortions, they stop having abortions safely. Thus abortion moves from a moral position to a public safety issue. Its not a position that poses any real sort of contradiction

So, this is not a flip-flop, because its not a contradiction

just because someone is mentally handicapped does not make them less responsible for the crime they commit. Sorry, I just don't think that is an excuse.
Oh my god. A true example of lunacy. Being unable to control your actions does not make you less responsible for a crime that is comitted??

ok, lets simplify iraq by the power of 10,000. there is an evil man running an island. your nation invades the island because the evil man was violating un resolutions. the evil man killed a few dozen of his own people a few years ago.
there are 2,400 people on the island.using only 16 soldiers you destroy the evil man, and free his people. only 1 of the island people is killed. why arent you happy?

Eh... for one thing, the site is run by leftists. For god's sake, one of the webmasters was previously with humanshields.org. For another, the site is counting people killed by the insurgents as well.

So, as an analysis of coalition-caused casualties, to say it's flawed is an understatement of the highest order.

Oh my god. A true example of lunacy. Being unable to control your actions does not make you less responsible for a crime that is comitted??

We are looking at a crime from two different sides. You are looking at the poor criminal...and I am looking at the victim of the crime. Thats what I find so funny about liberals. They coddle criminals and pat them on the back and say it is because of their childhood or some other nonsense and not their fault.

I say it IS their fault. Period.

There are a great number of people who believe that life begins at conception. That's not an unusal position. However, there are also a small number of those people who live in the real world. Kerry is one of them. I believe that he sees, like many others, that evangelising on abortion isn't correct. When abortions were illegal I'm sure that you know that many people had "backstreet abortions", which put a huge amount of danger on the mother. Allowing abortions is like teaching kids about contraceptives: you hope that they don't need them (that they don't have sex), but if they do, you want them to be safe. If you ban abortions (even late term abortions), people don't stop having abortions, they stop having abortions safely. Thus abortion moves from a moral position to a public safety issue. Its not a position that poses any real sort of contradiction

So, this is not a flip-flop, because its not a contradiction
All right then. I'll give you benefit of the doubt. If that's the only reason Kerry voted in favor of partial birth abortions, then why did he also vote against Laci's Law, which would make the murder of a pregnant woman count double?

Eh... for one thing, the site is run by leftists. For god's sake, one of the webmasters was previously with humanshields.org. For another, the site is counting people killed by the insurgents as well.

So, as an analysis of coalition-caused casualties, to say it's flawed is an understatement of the highest order.
Wouldn't be many insurgents if we hadn't invaded Menelmacar (Oh wait, I'm supposed to be ignoring you in Solidarity with SeOCC. Oh well)

ok, lets simplify iraq by the power of 10,000. there is an evil man running an island. your nation invades the island because the evil man was violating un resolutions. the evil man killed a few dozen of his own people a few years ago.
there are 2,400 people on the island.using only 16 soldiers you destroy the evil man, and free his people. only 1 of the island people is killed. why arent you happy?

I'm rather sick of people saying that Bush lied about Iraq. Before I start raving, I would like to know, how did he lie? The intellegence said that there were WMDs. It was wrong, but we didn't know that then. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Saddam didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. It could just be me, but that's kind of strange for someone who isn't hiding anything.


well you are new here so I will give youthe benefit of the doubt.

you can argue if Bush lied or not on this thread:For Those Who Argue That Bush Didn't Lie - By Zepp (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345997)

Wouldn't be many insurgants if we hadn't invaded Menelmacar (Oh wait, I'm supposed to be ignoring you in Solidarity with SeOCC. Oh well)
I welcome any attempt to do so. My military needs target practice. Bring it, bitch. :D :sniper:

I'm rather sick of people saying that Bush lied about Iraq. Before I start raving, I would like to know, how did he lie? The intellegence said that there were WMDs. It was wrong, but we didn't know that then. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Saddam didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. It could just be me, but that's kind of strange for someone who isn't hiding anything.

So, let me get this straight ...

If John Kerry gains new information and data on a particular topic and then changes his stance on something due to the new data and information, he is a "flip-flopper", right?

If George W. Bush does the exact same thing, he's a hero worthy of praise?


Mind boggling.

I'm rather sick of people saying that Bush lied about Iraq. Before I start raving, I would like to know, how did he lie? The intellegence said that there were WMDs. It was wrong, but we didn't know that then. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Saddam didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. It could just be me, but that's kind of strange for someone who isn't hiding anything.
Its a rather large and complicated question, so much so that another thread has already been devoted to it.

Do you mind if I just direct you to that one rather than re-tread old ground?

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345997

I'm rather sick of people saying that Bush lied about Iraq. Before I start raving, I would like to know, how did he lie? The intellegence said that there were WMDs. It was wrong, but we didn't know that then. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Saddam didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. It could just be me, but that's kind of strange for someone who isn't hiding anything.
The UN inspectors WERE in Iraq before the invasion. Bush told the world that he was going to attack anyways, so the inspectors were withdrawn by the UN.

The UN inspectores WERE NOT finding any WMD. Bush got impatient and pulled the trigger!!

well you are new here so I will give youthe benefit of the doubt.

you can argue if Bush lied or not on this thread:For Those Who Argue That Bush Didn't Lie - By Zepp (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345997)
Ach, got there before me.

I welcome any attempt to do so. My military needs target practice. Bring it, bitch. :D :sniper:
Okay, IGNORED.

Notice how you didn't address any point made in my post...

ok, lets simplify iraq by the power of 10,000. there is an evil man running an island. your nation invades the island because the evil man was violating un resolutions. the evil man killed a few dozen of his own people a few years ago.
there are 2,400 people on the island.using only 16 soldiers you destroy the evil man, and free his people. only 1 of the island people is killed. why arent you happy?
Wouldn't that be by a factor of 10,000?

Eh... a flipflop is a contradiction. You're stating that an inconsistency in one's position on an issue isn't the same thing as, er, an inconsistency in one's position on an issue.

.....okay...

Not sure how that works, but whatever.
No, I'm saying that what you called a flip-flop is not a contradiction.

Okay, IGNORED.

Notice how you didn't address any point made in my post...
When you make an intelligible point, I'll address it.

No, I'm saying that what you called a flip-flop is not a contradiction.
My apologies, I misread your post. Please refer back to my post for edited argument.

Say, what's a fine nation of elves like you doing in a General forum like this?

Do you come to this place often?

Can I buy you a drink?

yes, the factor, whatever, see my point?

We are looking at a crime from two different sides. You are looking at the poor criminal...and I am looking at the victim of the crime. Thats what I find so funny about liberals. They coddle criminals and pat them on the back and say it is because of their childhood or some other nonsense and not their fault.

I say it IS their fault. Period.
I'm not saying this is anything to do with having a troubled childhood, I'm talking here about a person who is actually unable to comprehend their actions and the consequences of their actions. Someone with a disorder that means that they literally don't know what they're doing. That is the exact definition of being responsible for their actions. Its like... claiming that someone being killed by a lightning strike or a falling tree or a pack of wolves is murder. Its not murder, its a force of nature.

Say, what's a fine nation of elves like you doing in a General forum like this?

Do you come to this place often?

Can I buy you a drink?
No, I don't. Saw a thing on John Kerry in the top five sidebar on the game page, clicked it, and here I am.

Sure, I'll have a nice white wine. You pick the brand and year.

Ok, lets keep this thread flame free for as long as possible.

John kerry is campaigning on his Vietnam service alone. All we hear form him is about his purple hearts and that gets old.

So, he spent 19 years in the Senate......what did he do during this time? Did he do ANYTHING of note or did he just bide his time?

I have looked for any legislation that he has written, but I have been unable to find any. Also, he has not mentioned anything that he has done in the Senate either. Since there does not seem to be anything that he himself seems to want to campaign on except his 4 months in Vietnam, does anyone have ANY idea of what he has done in the past 19 years?

Since he seems to want to become the president should he not have SOME experience in running something? I mean even Bush was a governor and had THAT experience coming in. For the life of me, I cannot find anything that the man has actually done and it is scary to think that someone could become the most powerful man on earth with a 19 year gap in his resume. That gap placed there by Kerry since he is campaigning on Vietnam alone.

Yes, you could say that GWB's experience is unique. First president with criminal record. He has been very busy man..

Read from here:
http://winn-marden.org/warmongerer/resume.html

I don't know why there is people who are voting this criminal. But I guess he is good, not every day in democratic country president with less votes wins.

ok, lets simplify iraq by the power of 10,000. there is an evil man running an island. your nation invades the island because the evil man was violating un resolutions. the evil man killed a few dozen of his own people a few years ago.
there are 2,400 people on the island.using only 16 soldiers you destroy the evil man, and free his people. only 1 of the island people is killed. why arent you happy?
Okay, lets simplify the world by a factor of 10,000. There is an evil man running an island, and your nation invades because they were 'violating UN resolutions' (which he wasn't), but then there is this other island, with an even more evil man running it, who is supporting terror all around the world and is in violation of many UN resolutions, but you don't invade them. Why? Then you get more information telling you that there is this nation that supported the group attacking the United States and is violating UN resolutions too. Don't attack them either. Why?

Yes, you could say that GWB's experience is unique. First president with criminal record. He has been very busy man..

Read from here:
http://winn-marden.org/warmongerer/resume.html

I don't know why there is people who are voting this criminal. But I guess he is good, not every day in democratic country president with less votes wins.
By your logic, then one should certainly choose GWB over Kerry, who's confessed to war crimes.

Ok, a lot of bills that commend this or that group for some action...but nothing of substance.

S.J.RES.160 : A joint resolution designating the week beginning October 20, 1991, as "World Population Awareness Week".

Sponsor: Sen. Kerry, John F. [MA] (introduced 6/13/1991) Cosponsors: 53

Committees: Senate Judiciary; House Post Office and Civil Service

Latest Major Action: 10/30/1991 Signed by President.

Yeah...world population awareness week. That was important.

actually. taking note of the rising world populating is very important... you know it is supposed to double in like another 30 years? 12 billion people... that's crazy!

All right then. I'll give you benefit of the doubt. If that's the only reason Kerry voted in favor of partial birth abortions, then why did he also vote against Laci's Law, which would make the murder of a pregnant woman count double?
I can't respond to that, I've not ever heard of Laci's Law, the bill which contains it and I've never heard Senator Kerry speak on it.

I can't respond to that, I've not ever heard of Laci's Law, the bill which contains it and I've never heard Senator Kerry speak on it.
That's cool. Point for me.

Reference here. (http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/john-kerry-laci-peterson.htm)

John Kerry after looking at all the bills has done a lot:Not all bills get passed because the majority party in a House or Senate agree with them.
So that maybe why you don't know of them because the Republicans didn't agree with them and were against it.


The job of being a legistator is to get bills passed, it seems the problems with some of the more liberal politicians is that they want to get everything done their way. in example, the opposition to the recent medicare reforms. I think everyone agrees that they were not a perfect or a whole fix to the problems facing this issue, but they seemed to me to be step in the right direction, further progress can be attempted in the next legislative session. I am not trying to argue policy here, but it seems that some of the left fear actually helping people, because if the government actually helps someone better themselves, they might be more open to listen to views farther from the left. I come from MN and for all the talk of how great the late Sen. Wellstone was, i cannot name a single thing he acheived in the Senate.

Okay, lets simplify the world by a factor of 10,000. There is an evil man running an island, and your nation invades because they were 'violating UN resolutions' (which he wasn't), but then there is this other island, with an even more evil man running it, who is supporting terror all around the world and is in violation of many UN resolutions, but you don't invade them. Why? Then you get more information telling you that there is this nation that supported the group attacking the United States and is violating UN resolutions too. Don't attack them either. Why?
Because its too complicated and Halliburton can't make money off attacking them.

because you are a bullshit artist. iraq violated a lot of un resolutions if you care to actualy read them. missile ranges esp. um, hmmm, reason why we took action there first? they had been a problem the longest time. um, also, you are missing the point. very few civilians were killed is the point

By your logic, then one should certainly choose GWB over Kerry, who's confessed to war crimes.

So it's better that Bush is trying to hide everything? Like those "lost" documents from his military career. And suddenly those documents came back from place called X. And what you know, edited of course.

No, I don't. Saw a thing on John Kerry in the top five sidebar on the game page, clicked it, and here I am.

Sure, I'll have a nice white wine. You pick the brand and year.
Ah. I had been wondering actually why you were participating in a debate in a forum which you call "the cesspit of NationStates"

No, I don't. Saw a thing on John Kerry in the top five sidebar on the game page, clicked it, and here I am.

Sure, I'll have a nice white wine. You pick the brand and year.

White Zinfandel, 1998, same year I was born.

Or alternatively, there's always like vodka, out of the bottle, wrapped in the classic and classy brown paper bag.

You should come to General more often. Too many anticapitalists floating around here, they need discipline!

I can't respond to that, I've not ever heard of Laci's Law, the bill which contains it and I've never heard Senator Kerry speak on it.
Basically allows you to charge a person who kills a pregnant women with two counts of murder instead of one. The problem with this being that someone is going to arrest a doctor who preformed an abortion and charge them with murder...

Because its too complicated and Halliburton can't make money off attacking them.
I remain mystified as to why Halliburton still pops up. Cheney has no interest in the company. He hasn't worked for them in years, and he sold all his stock before running for VP specifically to avoid conflicts of interest.

But liberals don't like to mention that, either.

because you are a bullshit artist. iraq violated a lot of un resolutions if you care to actualy read them. missile ranges esp. um, hmmm, reason why we took action there first? they had been a problem the longest time. um, also, you are missing the point. very few civilians were killed is the point
The missle ranges are only in violation if the weapon is unloaded, not with a full payload...

Basically allows you to charge a person who kills a pregnant women with two counts of murder instead of one. The problem with this being that someone is going to arrest a doctor who preformed an abortion and charge them with murder...
A very disingenuous argument, since Roe v. Wade makes abortions legal.

because you are a bullshit artist. iraq violated a lot of un resolutions if you care to actualy read them. missile ranges esp. um, hmmm, reason why we took action there first? they had been a problem the longest time. um, also, you are missing the point. very few civilians were killed is the point
Okay, now its fine if you do like Menelmacar and say that the amount of civillians killed is justified by the amount saved, but you're gonna get whupped upside your head if you say that 12,000 is very few civillians. 3000 died on 9/11, and I consider that a HUGE amount. The damage in Iraq on a human scale is quite literally four times worse.

because you are a bullshit artist. iraq violated a lot of un resolutions if you care to actualy read them. missile ranges esp. um, hmmm, reason why we took action there first? they had been a problem the longest time. um, also, you are missing the point. very few civilians were killed is the point

Actually, US goverment funded/armed Iraq's army so they could invade Iran. Just like you guys funded/armed Osama Bin Laden...

Pretty useless to talk about Iraq's some minor violations of UN resolutions.

The missle ranges are only in violation if the weapon is unloaded, not with a full payload...
Sure... and let's ignore those shells full of sarin and mustard gas that were used in attacks on the troops by insurgents.

Unless you think these 'grassroots reformer freedom fighters' made them themselves. In which case you're still on the wrong side.

I remain mystified as to why Halliburton still pops up. Cheney has no interest in the company. He hasn't worked for them in years, and he sold all his stock before running for VP specifically to avoid conflicts of interest.

But liberals don't like to mention that, either.
Well, actually we do. And if he'd sold all his stock we'd agree. But the fact is, he still maintains stock options, and he's still taking deffered salary from Haliburton. As for having no interest... you don't think he stayed friends with the people he knew who worked there?

Okay, now its fine if you do like Menelmacar and say that the amount of civillians killed is justified by the amount saved, but you're gonna get whupped upside your head if you say that 12,000 is very few civillians. 3000 died on 9/11, and I consider that a HUGE amount. The damage in Iraq on a human scale is quite literally four times worse.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Never mind that I dispute the 12,000 figure to begin with, but that's still a number of casualties based on the invasion and effective conquest of an entire country, and the year of al-Qaida backed insurgency that followed. 9/11, on the other hand, was a single attack, carried out in the space of hours.

I remain mystified as to why Halliburton still pops up. Cheney has no interest in the company. He hasn't worked for them in years, and he sold all his stock before running for VP specifically to avoid conflicts of interest.

But liberals don't like to mention that, either.

Oh yes...those bad evil liberals. Now it's liberals fault when some conservative tries to steal/scam/lie...

look at the how much time congress takes off per year. compare that to the president.....congress takes half the year off....

does anyone beleive that any president has really gone on vacation? its not like the presidents job is like a factory job. his job is to make decisions, if he wants to make them while trying to relax a little on his ranch, good for him.

Well, actually we do. And if he'd sold all his stock we'd agree. But the fact is, he still maintains stock options, and he's still taking deffered salary from Haliburton. As for having no interest... you don't think he stayed friends with the people he knew who worked there?
So let me get this straight.

Your argument is that he has stock options that he hasn't exercised... if all this was a cash grab on Cheney's part, wouldn't he have cashed the options in after Halliburton got those fat contracts? Probably, yeah. Except he hasn't.

You also argue that.. um... Cheney arranged to cause a two-month war and a year-long occupation of a foreign country just to do a favor for his poker buddies? Damn. I wish I had a friend who'd go to those lengths for me. Wow.

Oh yes...those bad evil liberals. Now it's liberals fault when some conservative tries to steal/scam/lie...
Congratulations. You answered my post without addressing my point at all.

does anyone beleive that any president has really gone on vacation? its not like the presidents job is like a factory job. his job is to make decisions, if he wants to make them while trying to relax a little on his ranch, good for him.
I think that he was off...45% of the time before 9/11, or something around that. Quite a bit of time off for the most important person in the world.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Never mind that I dispute the 12,000 figure to begin with, but that's still a number of casualties based on the invasion and effective conquest of an entire country, and the year of al-Qaida backed insurgency that followed. 9/11, on the other hand, was a single attack, carried out in the space of hours.
www.iraqbodycount.net
Its independant and details the methodolgy of all the casualties counted.

I'm just saying, the changes wrought on America by 3000 people who were killed, you don't think theres going to be a similar or larger effect by having 12,000 people killed? Apples and oranges they may be, but the death of friends and family will still leave the same taste in your mouth.

I think that he was off...45% of the time before 9/11, or something around that. Quite a bit of time off for the most important person in the world.
This coming from the person who lashed out at me for not addresing a point.

does anyone beleive that any president has really gone on vacation? its not like the presidents job is like a factory job. his job is to make decisions, if he wants to make them while trying to relax a little on his ranch, good for him.

You are so naive that you think Bush is really making some decisions? alone?? AT RANCH??

Yeah right....

So let me get this straight.

Your argument is that he has stock options that he hasn't exercised... if all this was a cash grab on Cheney's part, wouldn't he have cashed the options in after Halliburton got those fat contracts? Probably, yeah. Except he hasn't.What, you don't think theres something in the pipeline (pardon the pun) that could be even better for Halliburton? If your stock has gone up but not peaked, you're not gonna want to sell it yet. I don't know if thats the case, I'm just saying your logic is far from watertight.


You also argue that.. um... Cheney arranged to cause a two-month war and a year-long occupation of a foreign country just to do a favor for his poker buddies? Damn. I wish I had a friend who'd go to those lengths for me. Wow.Well me too. Unfortunately high ranking conservatives in the Bush administration tend to be not quite my kind of people.

www.iraqbodycount.net
Its independant and details the methodolgy of all the casualties counted.

I'm just saying, the changes wrought on America by 3000 people who were killed, you don't think theres going to be a similar or larger effect by having 12,000 people killed? Apples and oranges they may be, but the death of friends and family will still leave the same taste in your mouth.
I've already discussed IBC. It's run by people who were overwhelmingly against the war to begin with, and the webmaster used to work for humanshields.org. Further, included in its counts are people killed by the al-Qaida-backed insurgency, which is somewhat disingenuous given the implication is that the United States killed all those people.

Now, here's the thing. Casualties are unavoidable in war. They're tragic, yes. But if you honestly believe that these casualties in the pursuit of a just cause - the liberation of twenty-four million people and the deposing of a heinous and evil man from power - are the moral equivalent of the 9/11 attacks, you have some serious soul-searching to do.

Soooooooooooo, Bush's record is better?

Opted out of going to war in favour of getting preferential entrance to flight school, and then aparently dropping out of his military commitment.

And, as far as his leadership record:

Can't run an oil company successfully.
Can't run a baseball team very well.

And, surprise surprise,

Can't run a country all that well either!


Hey, I'm not a big Kerry fan, but he stacks up head and shoulders above Bush (the equally flip-flopper ) in every damn leadership category I can think of.

can anyone tell me one instince of GWB flip-flopping?

What, you don't think theres something in the pipeline (pardon the pun) that could be even better for Halliburton? If your stock has gone up but not peaked, you're not gonna want to sell it yet. I don't know if thats the case, I'm just saying your logic is far from watertight.
A valid point. My hypothesis, however, is that he's holding onto the options until after leaving office in order to avoid a CoI. Unfortunately for this thread, we'll have to wait until at least January 2009 to find out. :D

Well me too. Unfortunately high ranking conservatives in the Bush administration tend to be not quite my kind of people.
My point, which you clearly missed, was that the gain achieved from such an action was not sufficient to justify the action itself. If making his friends happy was his motivation, he could have just bought them a nice bottle of wine.

I've already discussed IBC. It's run by people who were overwhelmingly against the war to begin with, and the webmaster used to work for humanshields.org. Further, included in its counts are people killed by the al-Qaida-backed insurgency, which is somewhat disingenuous given the implication is that the United States killed all those people.

Now, here's the thing. Casualties are unavoidable in war. They're tragic, yes. But if you honestly believe that these casualties in the pursuit of a just cause - the liberation of twenty-four million people and the deposing of a heinous and evil man from power - are the moral equivalent of the 9/11 attacks, you have some serious soul-searching to do.

I think UN is pretty reliable...

UN counted that US army killed over 500 000 children in Iraq from 1991 to this day.

can anyone tell me one instince of GWB flip-flopping?
"We don't do nationbuilding"

I think UN is pretty reliable...

UN counted that US army killed over 500 000 children in Iraq from 1991 to this day.
Explain how the US army would have killed half a million children in that period without any troop presence in Iraq at all between 1991 and 2003.

Furthermore, the UN you proudly trumpet also waxed dramatic about a massacre at Jenin which they were later forced to admit never actually occurred. Pardon me if I take their statements with a grain of salt.

I've already discussed IBC. It's run by people who were overwhelmingly against the war to begin with, and the webmaster used to work for humanshields.org. Further, included in its counts are people killed by the al-Qaida-backed insurgency, which is somewhat disingenuous given the implication is that the United States killed all those people.
Well, actually its talking about the human cost of the war. I don't believe that it says that all are killed by the US (or indeed, by the coaliton you are so proud of).

Explain how the US army would have killed half a million children in that period without any troop presence in Iraq at all between 1991 and 2003.

Furthermore, the UN you proudly trumpet also waxed dramatic about a massacre at Jenin which they were later forced to admit never actually occurred. Pardon me if I take their statements with a grain of salt.
I believe they're referring to sanctions.

You are so naive that you think Bush is really making some decisions? alone?? AT RANCH??

Yeah right....


Alone? you think he is ever far from his staff? the way i see it, most poloticians spend too much time in washington anyway.

Explain how the US army would have killed half a million children in that period without any troop presence in Iraq at all between 1991 and 2003.

Furthermore, the UN you proudly trumpet also waxed dramatic about a massacre at Jenin which they were later forced to admit never actually occurred. Pardon me if I take their statements with a grain of salt.

Any troop presence? Where you live? In closet? I thought US airforce is part of US military.

I'm not trumpeting UN but I'm not also sweeping everything under the carpet like you do. Everything doesn't go away when you close your eyes.

You funded these terrorists, you clean up the mess. Simple as that.

Well, actually its talking about the human cost of the war. I don't believe that it says that all are killed by the US (or indeed, by the coaliton you are so proud of).
You don't think that a big honkin' B-2 releasing a never-ending stream of dumbfire bombs as the background implies that the US is primarily responsible for innocents' deaths? Furthermore, take a look at the 'About Us' page. If you can find even one person on that list who supported this war, you're a better person than I. If not, I think their bias is made quite clear.

So, let me get this straight ...

If John Kerry gains new information and data on a particular topic and then changes his stance on something due to the new data and information, he is a "flip-flopper", right?

If George W. Bush does the exact same thing, he's a hero worthy of praise?


Mind boggling.

What?!!
I didn't say anything like that. To the best of my knowledge, Bush hadn't lied about anything. I've been proven wrong. I never said anything about flip-flopping, or for that matter, anything about John Kerry AT ALL. I'm sorry you're confused, but I just wanted to know what Bush lied about.

Any troop presence? Where you live? In closet? I thought US airforce is part of US military.

So... okay, was it those strike fighters, then, that were bombing half a million children?

You funded these terrorists, you clean up the mess. Simple as that.

Er... what the hell else do you think they're doing in Iraq to begin with?

Alone? you think he is ever far from his staff? the way i see it, most poloticians spend too much time in washington anyway.

So you are saying that USA needs politicians who spend half of the year in their ranch? No wonder USA is going down..

"We don't do nationbuilding"

I had to look this up, because all i was given to work with was a snippet.

the meaning i get out of this, is that the Afghan people must rebuild their own nation, with the aid of the world comminity. we cannot "build" a nation, its citizens must do it. Am i wrong here?


When asked about Afghanistan's future last week, President Bush said, "We don't do nation-building." But after he committed $320 million in emergency food, medicine and shelter to Afghan civilians, he added that "for the longer-term, I urge Congress to make funds available so that one day the United States can contribute, along with other friends of Afghanistan, to the reconstruction and development of that troubled nation."

To some, it seems clear Bush is dangling the prospect of future aid in front of disparate anti-Taliban forces as an incentive to put rivalries aside and commit to a peaceful post-Taliban future. And by dispatching State Department Policy Planning Office chief Richard Haass to Rome to speed the establishment of a post-Taliban coalition with exiled King Zahir Shah at its center seems to indicate awareness of the past mistake of simply walking away.

So you are saying that USA needs politicians who spend half of the year in their ranch? No wonder USA is going down..
I think he's saying that occasionally it's good for politicians to work from their home constituencies.

A valid point. My hypothesis, however, is that he's holding onto the options until after leaving office in order to avoid a CoI. Unfortunately for this thread, we'll have to wait until at least January 2009 to find out. :DThat's a shame. Can we agree though that there is at least some conflict of interest between holding shares in Haliburton and being the vice president?

My point, which you clearly missed, was that the gain achieved from such an action was not sufficient to justify the action itself. If making his friends happy was his motivation, he could have just bought them a nice bottle of wine.I didn't exactly miss the point, I just decided to make a joke about it. I'll do it again: It'd be a helluva bottle of wine to make them as happy as no-bid contracts on Iraqi oil!

No, seriously. I've never drunk the kool-aid about the war being all about oil, because even in my most cynical moments, I can't believe anyone could be that evil. All that I'm saying is that when you stack everything up, there appears to be something very dodgy about a pair of politicians who were in the oil buisness going to war with a country which, after the war is over, oil will be able to be drilled from, especially when they resist suggestions such as Blair made that the oil money to be placed in a trust fund to help benefit Iraqis with. I honestly don't believe they could have truly done it for that, but the pieces do fit.

So... okay, was it those strike fighters, then, that were bombing half a million children?



Er... what the hell else do you think they're doing in Iraq to begin with?

How about George asking: "whole world should join forces to fight against terrorism". Yep, terrorism that you funded...

So... okay, was it those strike fighters, then, that were bombing half a million children?


I don't remember the amount of money US army used on those bombs but I'll try to find out that. I do remember that it was more than couple hundred million $:s.

I think he's saying that occasionally it's good for politicians to work from their home constituencies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the president is in charge of the whole of the country right? Thats why his title isn't "President of Texas", right?

i for one would love to see what kerry has to offer but he hasn't showed america anything but purple hearts. he wasn't even badly injured. i bet if we did know a little about kerry then we wouldn't be impressed.

That's a shame. Can we agree though that there is at least some conflict of interest between holding shares in Haliburton and being the vice president?

I can agree that there is the potential for a CoI. I think Cheney is handling it acceptably, though.

I didn't exactly miss the point, I just decided to make a joke about it. I'll do it again: It'd be a helluva bottle of wine to make them as happy as no-bid contracts on Iraqi oil!

No, seriously. I've never drunk the kool-aid about the war being all about oil, because even in my most cynical moments, I can't believe anyone could be that evil. All that I'm saying is that when you stack everything up, there appears to be something very dodgy about a pair of politicians who were in the oil buisness going to war with a country which, after the war is over, oil will be able to be drilled from, especially when they resist suggestions such as Blair made that the oil money to be placed in a trust fund to help benefit Iraqis with. I honestly don't believe they could have truly done it for that, but the pieces do fit.
I'm glad to hear that. My respect for you increases accordingly then, if it's the truth.

In the meantime (while I'm not justifying the idea of war waged solely for profit), I think it's also difficult to deny that good things have come of the war in Iraq. 24 million people are free. Saddam is in jail and will likely die for his crimes. The WMD's are no longer an issue - either he never had them, or he can no longer use them. The war scared Libya into disarming their WMD programs. And the insurgency, while costly, is at least tying up al-Qaida resources... every bomber who goes after the troops (who volunteered to go into danger for their country, let's not forget) is one less bomber who can go after civilians in the West.

Personally, I agree that the war-for-oil theory is ridiculous. Aside from the moral compunctions involved, it also simply doesn't make any sense... if they wanted oil out of Iraq, they could have lifted the sanctions, and Saddam would have sold them as much as they could ever want.

So you are saying that USA needs politicians who spend half of the year in their ranch? No wonder USA is going down..


I think that my representitives should spend more time here in MN, that most of the consensus building can be done using modern comminications technologies, then, much as they do anyway, the final wrangling can be done in washington. As for the president, Crawford Texas is still in america, and GWB still has access to any information and advice he needs, he is still in communication with his cabinet, the joint cheifs, etc. what does it matter what location he is at?

Take a look at the 'About Us' page. If you can find even one person on that list who supported this war, you're a better person than I. If not, I think their bias is made quite clear.
Yeah, but if the methodology is followed through correctly (and everything on that site is independantly verifiable), does it really affect the total because they're anti-war?

i for one would love to see what kerry has to offer but he hasn't showed america anything but purple hearts. he wasn't even badly injured. i bet if we did know a little about kerry then we wouldn't be impressed.

Well George offers his criminal record. And couple scams....

I don't know how much you give value to medal but I think it beats criminal record. But of course, this is just my opinion.

How about George asking: "whole world should join forces to fight against terrorism". Yep, terrorism that you funded...
Thanks for backing up my point.

Saddam was a 'mess' (and a regrettable one, true, though it was a part of opposition to the Soviet Union, a much more clear and present threat) of the Reagan Administration. So were the Afghan mujahedeen that eventually became part of al-Qaida. Now we're cleaning up those messes.

So what's your problem?

can anyone tell me one instince of GWB flip-flopping?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

Knock yourself out....

Yeah, but if the methodology is followed through correctly (and everything on that site is independantly verifiable), does it really affect the total because they're anti-war?
If Dick Cheney being a previous employee of Halliburton affects his vice-presidency, then yes, I think it does. I think we can agree that there's at least potential for conflict of interest, yes?

Well George offers his criminal record. And couple scams....

I don't know how much you give value to medal but I think it beats criminal record. But of course, this is just my opinion.
The circumstances under which those medals were granted are questionable at best.

As for criminal records, let's not forget Kerry's confession to war crimes, ranging from arson to murder.

Thanks for backing up my point.

Saddam was a 'mess' (and a regrettable one, true, though it was a part of opposition to the Soviet Union, a much more clear and present threat) of the Reagan Administration. So were the Afghan mujahedeen that eventually became part of al-Qaida. Now we're cleaning up those messes.

So what's your problem?

I don't understand why you are asking others to help you? USA didn't want to share any Iraq's rebuilding operations but you would gladly accept all military help immediately. US goverment also suggested that UN countries should place more troops to Iraq.

WHY? You started all this..

I don't understand why big part of USA's foreign policy is to help dictators. Who is getting benefit from that? Terrorists and your weapon industry??

I can agree that there is the potential for a CoI. I think Cheney is handling it acceptably, though.Potential conflict of interest? Isn't that like being a little bit pregnant? Surely wording like "a small conflict of interest" would be more appropriate, no?

If you think Cheney has never acted to the oil companies side in that conflict of interest, then thats fine. But still the conflict exists, and still there is the potential for him to make decisions that are not in the interest of the country at large. My point is that before, you said the conflict did not exist.


I'm glad to hear that. My respect for you increases accordingly then, if it's the truth.That's a rather disrespectful way of according me respect :D


In the meantime (while I'm not justifying the idea of war waged solely for profit), I think it's also difficult to deny that good things have come of the war in Iraq. 24 million people are free. Saddam is in jail and will likely die for his crimes. The WMD's are no longer an issue - either he never had them, or he can no longer use them. The war scared Libya into disarming their WMD programs. And the insurgency, while costly, is at least tying up al-Qaida resources... every bomber who goes after the troops (who volunteered to go into danger for their country, let's not forget) is one less bomber who can go after civilians in the West.There's a case to be made that the war was justifiable, but its not the same case it was sold to the public on. Rather like selling someone a fishtank as a bath, then pointing out you can still use it for something else. Any positive outcomes seem to either be what was merely a secondary objective at the start (a free Iraq), or a totally unpredicted side effect (Lybia). However the ends, especially unpredicted ends, cannot be used as complete justification for the means.

Personally, I agree that the war-for-oil theory is ridiculous. Aside from the moral compunctions involved, it also simply doesn't make any sense... if they wanted oil out of Iraq, they could have lifted the sanctions, and Saddam would have sold them as much as they could ever want.Like I said, I don't believe the war for oil theory, but its like the moon landing conspiracy: you don't buy it, but you can see that its possible when the evidence is put to you.

I have not searched out this man's entire Senate history, as some of th conservatives who fear his election have most certainly done. All I can add is that I had to do a college thesis on the HealthCare platforms of both political candidates, and I will say this. Kaerry's plan was comprehensive, financially accounted for, detailed, and written in plain English. It was also 10 pages long and posted proudly on his website www.JohnKerry.com for all to see. He even directed people to this e-page during his campaign acceptance speech on network TV so that they could read his plan and have an intelligent debate on the issues. I also read George W. Bush's page. Not only HASN'T he sufficiently addressed the issue of HealthCare after 4 YEARS in office, but his plan consisted of three pages of purposefully confusing jargon, basically written to conceal the fact that he had nothing of importance to add to the status quo. In speaking of Kerry's votes against endorsing Bush's military spending bills, I feel that any act in opposition to the Dubya War Machine is a valid effort to make our country stronger and safer. Feel free to disagree...I welcome debate. After all, until the passage of The Patriot Act, this was indeed a free country.
With All Due Respect,
The Founder of Loving Balance

If Dick Cheney being a previous employee of Halliburton affects his vice-presidency, then yes, I think it does. I think we can agree that there's at least potential for conflict of interest, yes?
Absolutely. But when everything they do is as wide open as possible to public scrutiny and can be (and I'd imagine has been) checked completely, then don't you think that it can be trusted. For example, I have a good reason to lie on my taxes (keeping more money for myself). However, the fact that the IRS checks them means that even though I have a reason to lie, my figures are pretty darn likely to be correct.

(btw, just to remind you, we were arguing before about whether Cheney had a conflict of interest, not whether it had actually affected decisions)

The circumstances under which those medals were granted are questionable at best.

As for criminal records, let's not forget Kerry's confession to war crimes, ranging from arson to murder.

His war crimes during vietnam war? He made those decisions? There was no commanding officer?

I think the difference is that Bush is doing all that now and he is the last link in chain. He is now murdering/killing innocent Iraq people in the name of "freedom".

(btw, just to remind you, we were arguing before about whether Cheney had a conflict of interest, not whether it had actually affected decisions)
Ahhh, this is indeed an important distinction. It probably would be preferable if Cheney washed his hands of any decisions regarding the oil industry. But no, I don't think his past in the industry has affected his decisions thus far.

His war crimes during vietnam war? He made those decisions? There was no commanding officer?

I think the difference is that Bush is doing all that now and he is the last link in chain. He is now murdering/killing innocent Iraq people in the name of "freedom".
Ah-ha. Except that military officers are trained in terms of what constitutes a war crime. Furthermore, soldiers are under a moral obligation to refuse an illegal order. John Kerry, assuming he was simply doing as ordered, obviously did not refuse that order.

Little side note - after WW2, when the members of the SS were tried at Nuremberg, "I was just following orders" was not considered a valid defense.

John Kerry was a big boy. He knew better.

Ahhh, this is indeed an important distinction. It probably would be preferable if Cheney washed his hands of any decisions regarding the oil industry. But no, I don't think his past in the industry has affected his decisions thus far.
Well, I don't know every thought that goes through his head, and I have no way of proving anything either way, so I'm not going to make a big deal out it. Personally, I think that maybe there are areas where he has based decisions on improper motives, but like I say, I can't prove this so it'd be a rather pointless debate for me to get into.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

Knock yourself out....
on a whole, i will accept most of these statements, and i do agree that polititions will invaribly change their views in the light of new developments and out of necessity. one statement here bothered me a little

"He promised to work to end tarrifs and not erect new ones "...I’ll work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom. The fearful build walls. The confident demolish them. I am confident in American workers and farmers and producers. And I am confident that America’s best is the best in the world." Instead Bush added new tariffs on steel, textiles, and (Canadian) lumber and revoked Caribbean trade privileges. He signed agricultural subsidies bill. He signed the Medicare Bill providing huge subsidies to
rich pharmaceutical companies. He is pushing a huge subsidy-laden Energy Bill for energy companies. and then he flip-flopped again and removed the steel tarrifs."

Steel tariffs were implaced because many steel producing nations such as Brazil subsidize their steel industry and they can therefore sell the steel at below true market value. He removed the tarrifs because 1) global steel prices rose to levels nearer domestic prices and 2) US received an Unfavorable ruling from the WTO. The canadian Lumber tarrif was raised because while American lumber companies must pay market value for logs, Canadian loggers must only replant the deforested areas in exchange for the lumber. Agricultural subsidies are a two edged sword, with them, you drive up the consumer costs for food, but without them, many many thousands of small farms would fail,

The Energy bill has subsidies to promote a more diverse energy grid. one of these "Subsidies" is simply a loan gaurantee for a multi fuel energy plant.

Ah-ha. Except that military officers are trained in terms of what constitutes a war crime. Furthermore, soldiers are under a moral obligation to refuse an illegal order. John Kerry, assuming he was simply doing as ordered, obviously did not refuse that order.

Little side note - after WW2, when the members of the SS were tried at Nuremberg, "I was just following orders" was not considered a valid defense.

I'm not ignoring his war crimes. Of course there is always a chance to say no.
All I'm saying that Bush is doing something much worse.

Another flipflop by John Kerry:

He claims to be committed to energy independence for America....

...so why did he vote against ANWR drilling?

Another flipflop by John Kerry:

He claims to be committed to energy independence for America....

...so why did he vote against ANWR drilling?

well, because he is a lefty, and his wife told him to vote against it, or he wouldn't get any ketchup lovin' LOL

because you are a bullshit artist. iraq violated a lot of un resolutions if you care to actualy read them. missile ranges esp. um, hmmm, reason why we took action there first? they had been a problem the longest time. um, also, you are missing the point. very few civilians were killed is the point
If anyone is a BS artist, it would be you?

What missle ranges????

NO civilians had to die in the first place, nevermind that over 10,000 did die eventually.

Why you might ask? The simple answer is that the US stated quite clearly that they were going to attack Iraq NO MATTER WHAT!!!

Given that scenario, the UN inspectors, who BTW were NOT finding ANY WMD, had NO choice, but to leave Iraq!!

The US invasion of Iraq and the death of 10,000 innocent men, women, and children, is a travesty of justice and a stain on pages of history.

I'm not ignoring his war crimes. Of course there is always a chance to say no.
All I'm saying that Bush is doing something much worse.
You haven't established why it's worse to order a very cleanly-conducted (can't deny it was a clean operation, by any logical military standards.) invasion of a nation in order to put a stop to a heinous and terror-backing regime than personally setting fire to a village, firing on civilians, killing their livestock, that sort of thing?

Another flipflop by John Kerry:

He claims to be committed to energy independence for America....

...so why did he vote against ANWR drilling?
Because thats not what he, or anyone serious about energy independance, means by energy independance. Drilling ANWR will result in massive damage to the environment of a wilderness preserve and will probably not yeild that much oil.

By energy independance he means controlling our destiny through innovation, through examining alternative sources of energy that don't pollute and provide an energy source that won't run out in a couple of years.

If anyone is a BS artist, it would be you?

What missle ranges????

NO civilians had to die in the first place, nevermind that over 10,000 did die eventually.

Why you might ask? The simple answer is that the US stated quite clearly that they were going to attack Iraq NO MATTER WHAT!!!

Given that scenario, the UN inspectors, who BTW were NOT finding ANY WMD, had NO choice, but to leave Iraq!!

The US invasion of Iraq and the death of 10,000 innocent men, women, and children, is a travesty of justice and a stain on pages of history.
Actually, lots 'had to die', Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people during his reign, and more would be dying today under his reign if the invasion had not occurred. I'd argue that it's very likely less people have died in this war (even using the inflated IBC count) than were murdered in the typical year under Saddam.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316855

Knock yourself out....
Zep.....that is an awesome thread!! I have seen it before, but it deserves the occaisional encore for sure. Especially when so many Bushites think their man is immaculate and that the sun shines out his butt!!

well, because he is a lefty, and his wife told him to vote against it, or he wouldn't get any ketchup lovin' LOL
I've noticed that, on Kerry, Republicans seem to be rather unhealthally sex obsessed. I know that Menelmacar is a mod and will rule if this gets out of hand vis a vis forum rules, but I'd ask as someone who has to read this kind of stuff, could we keep it clean, please? Its not appropriate or acceptable debate tactic, its just vulgar.

Because thats not what he, or anyone serious about energy independance, means by energy independance. Drilling ANWR will result in massive damage to the environment of a wilderness preserve and will probably not yeild that much oil.

By energy independance he means controlling our destiny through innovation, through examining alternative sources of energy that don't pollute and provide an energy source that won't run out in a couple of years.
Well, let's be honest with ourselves.

Government intervention has never, ever, ever led to any big technological improvement. Ever. It has always been industrious and innovative people working on their own volition that has done so. This said, it's a bit fallacious to suggest that anything John Kerry can do in a term as president is going to put a hydrogen-fuelled car in your driveway. It's that simple. No government program is going to do it - necessity and her child invention will.

In actuality, the ANWR reserves are believed to be large, if not huge, one of the biggest finds in recent years, and the 'footprint' of land required for the operation to extract it is roughly equivalent to putting a postage stamp on your living room floor.

Actually, lots 'had to die', Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people during his reign, and more would be dying today under his reign if the invasion had not occurred. I'd argue that it's very likely less people have died in this war (even using the inflated IBC count) than were murdered in the typical year under Saddam.
When was the last time that Saddam was involved in mass murder in his country?

Besides, I question your assertion on hundreds of thousands....any links that prove that?

BTW Menelmacar, I notice the Swiftvets link in your sig, theres a thread that might interest you:

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345994&

Zep makes a rather clear and concise explaination of a couple of credibility flaws at the bottom of page 6, but the whole thread is worth reading really.

na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na Kerry Sucks! :gundge:

What has he done for the US besides getting purple hearts? (Why purple? Hmm...) I think I saw him in San Diego when I was there. He was leading the Gay Pride Parade! Seriously, Kerry probably a good guy but I'm republican when it comes to voting so thats one more vote for Bush!

When was the last time that Saddam was involved in mass murder in his country?

Besides, I question your assertion on hundreds of thousands....any links that prove that?
Plenty.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/massgraves.guest.html <-- Don't discount because of the URL. There's photos aplenty. Pages of them.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/031012
http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html
http://hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/
http://massgraves.info/

Mmmm.
That crow tastes good, doesn't it?
Want some Heinz ketchup for it?

In actuality, the ANWR reserves are believed to be large, if not huge, one of the biggest finds in recent years, and the 'footprint' of land required for the operation to extract it is roughly equivalent to putting a postage stamp on your living room floor.
We don't know what the ecological ramifications are. People disagree vastly on this, but many estimate that roads and pipelines could significantly disrupt the migratory patterns of caribou, and as I'm sure you know, in an ecosystem as delicate as ANWR, even something small can have vast consquences. If it can be demonstrated that there will be a negligible impact on the environment, then I'm all for it. But currently, we don't know, and pushing ahead now could forever damage such national treasures as ANWR

Also, we don't know how much oil is down there. To know how much there is, we'd need to start drilling.

na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na Kerry Sucks! :gundge:
An intelligent arguement.

When the going gets tough, the puppets and the first post wonders show up. LOL!!

BTW Menelmacar, I notice the Swiftvets link in your sig, theres a thread that might interest you:

http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=345994&

Zep makes a rather clear and concise explaination of a couple of credibility flaws at the bottom of page 6, but the whole thread is worth reading really.
Then why does only 1 person in that photo of Kerry with 23 other vets actually endorse him? Why did twenty-one different Congressional Medal of Honor recipients all sign an open letter denouncing Kerry? And why is Kerry's candidacy condemned by his entire chain of command, including every officer he ever served under in combat?

...I think I'm still leaning in these guys' direction. ;)

(Why purple? Hmm...)
http://www.purpleheart.org/whypurple.htm

History is replete with information concerning the value and scarcity of “purple silk.” Scarcity determines the value of any marketable product and so that has always been true with “purple silk.” Purple raiment was also worn by the “crowns” of Europe and thereby influenced the developing social structure of our Colonists. Purple is known as the color of royalty.

That General Washington chose purple silk for the fashioning of the three Badges of Military Merit which he awarded at his headquarters in Newburgh, New York. Since silk production started in the United States in 1810, the silk used in these three awards must have been imported. I believe it is entirely feasible that Mrs. Washington, because of her domestic skills, had a part in the development of these three Badges of Military Merit.

A concept of the Purple Heart design may originally have influenced the practice of making the best wooden stocks for flintlock muskets from the purple-colored heart of the trunk of the Purple Heart tree.

Elizabeth Will designed the original Purple Heart Medal which was announced on February 22, 1932.

We don't know what the ecological ramifications are. People disagree vastly on this, but many estimate that roads and pipelines could significantly disrupt the migratory patterns of caribou, and as I'm sure you know, in an ecosystem as delicate as ANWR, even something small can have vast consquences. If it can be demonstrated that there will be a negligible impact on the environment, then I'm all for it. But currently, we don't know, and pushing ahead now could forever damage such national treasures as ANWR

Also, we don't know how much oil is down there. To know how much there is, we'd need to start drilling.
Seems like a good reason for at least some exploratory wells, don't you think? Maybe if we knew how much oil was there, the debate on the subject would be a bit more intelligent.

Plenty.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/massgraves.guest.html <-- Don't discount because of the URL. There's photos aplenty. Pages of them.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/031012
http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html
http://hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/
http://massgraves.info/

Mmmm.
That crow tastes good, doesn't it?
Want some Heinz ketchup for it?

from your link:
Most of the graves discovered to date correspond to one of five major atrocities perpetrated by the regime.

- The 1983 attack against Kurdish citizens belonging to the Barzani tribe, 8,000 of whom were rounded up by the regime in northern Iraq and executed in deserts at great distances from their homes.

- The 1988 Anfal campaign, during which as many as 182,000 people disappeared. Most of the men were separated from their families and were executed in deserts in the west and southwest of Iraq. The remains of some of their wives and children have also been found in mass graves.

- Chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988, including the Halabja attack, when the Iraqi Air Force dropped sarin, VX and tabun chemical agents on the civilian population, killing 5,000 people immediately and causing long-term medical problems, related deaths, and birth defects among the progeny of thousands more.

- The 1991 massacre of Iraqi Shi’a Muslims after the Shi’a uprising at the end of the Gulf war, in which tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians in such regions as Basra and Al-Hillah were killed.

- The 1991 Kurdish massacre, which targeted civilians and soldiers who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war.

Okay so how about since the first gulf war? How many people did he massacre per year? granted these were all attrocities, but your argument is that he has been killing massive amounts of people like daily or yearly, so if the US hadn't gone in, then Saddam would have killed more innocent people than the US has. You haven't provided any evidence for this yet though.

Then why does only 1 person in that photo of Kerry with 23 other vets actually endorse him? Why did twenty-one different Congressional Medal of Honor recipients all sign an open letter denouncing Kerry? And why is Kerry's candidacy condemned by his entire chain of command, including every officer he ever served under in combat?

...I think I'm still leaning in these guys' direction. ;)
That first question is definately answered in the thread. I don't think the second one is, and I'm not sure about the second one, I'd have to check.

It doesn't surprise me that many soldiers wouldn't like a democratic candidate (I notice you don't say what he is denounced for, although I will assume that it had some military connection)

In response to a different criticism that you did not raise here, this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp) tackles a the medals unfairly awarded arguement.

from your link:


Okay so how about since the first gulf war? How many people did he massacre per year? granted these were all attrocities, but your argument is that he has been killing massive amounts of people like daily or yearly. You haven't provided any evidence for this yet though.
Let me put this in other terms.

Your argument boils down to 'Okay, so he killed several hundred thousand people... but that was a long time ago!' As if that makes it okay.

Those two bits at the bottom, btw, happened after the gulf war. And if you haven't seen, even on the leftist newsnets, interviews with Iraqi civilians who speak of entire families being dragged off, of prisoners being fed feet-first into woodchippers, of children being forced to watch as their mothers are raped, of Saddam ordering the mutilation of people who opposed him as a permanent mark of shame...

Then you're blind, hon. You're a liberal kool-aid drinker, and I can't help you. Nobody can.

That first question is definately answered in the thread. I don't think the second one is, and I'm not sure about the second one, I'd have to check.

It doesn't surprise me that many soldiers wouldn't like a democratic candidate (I notice you don't say what he is denounced for, although I will assume that it had some military connection)

In response to a different criticism that you did not raise here, this (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp) tackles a the medals unfairly awarded arguement.
Well, I'm generally going to accept the word of the man's actual commanders that he's not fit to serve. One would think that they'd know fairly well.

The man's combat injuries cost him roughly two days - total - of active duty time, and he hurried on home after only four months. Further, while you were typing that, I was listening to an interview on the radio with a guy who was there - an eyewitness to one of the Purple Heart incidents. He says it was a flesh wound to the ass. One of the guys in the Swift Vets ad was the medic who treated one of Kerry's Purple Heart injuries, and he calls it fishy.

Plenty.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/massgraves.guest.html <-- Don't discount because of the URL. There's photos aplenty. Pages of them.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/031012
http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html
http://hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/
http://massgraves.info/

Mmmm.
That crow tastes good, doesn't it?
Want some Heinz ketchup for it?
HOW many deaths in the past 10 years?

Earlier you had suggested that the invasion was saving thousands of lives, and I can't see that Saddam had been in the killing business in the past 10 years. So I am not ready for crow yet.

BTW, how many of the Kurdistan were deaths due to the fact that they were backing the Iranians during the 8 years of the Iran/Iraq War?

Seems like a good reason for at least some exploratory wells, don't you think? Maybe if we knew how much oil was there, the debate on the subject would be a bit more intelligent.
Exploring is what Magellen did. Exploratory wells are still drilling and I would agree that its a good idea, but there has been concern expressed as to whether even light drilling would cause damage. Personally, I don't think that even a fairly large amount of oil would offset major ecological damage, so for me anyway, calculating the damage accurately would come before drilling (or "exploring") for oil. For the time being, we can put the money into alternative energy projects, like ethanol, solar, wind and water plants.

HOW many deaths in the past 10 years?

Earlier you had suggested that the invasion was saving thousands of lives, and I can't see that Saddam had been in the killing business in the past 10 years. So I am not ready for crow yet.

BTW, how many of the Kurdistan were deaths due to the fact that they were backing the Iranians during the 8 years of the Iran/Iraq War?

yeah, why are you skipping over this now? hmmm, maybe because your point was completely trashed?

Exploring is what Magellen did. Exploratory wells are still drilling and I would agree that its a good idea, but there has been concern expressed as to whether even light drilling would cause damage. Personally, I don't think that even a fairly large amount of oil would offset major ecological damage, so for me anyway, calculating the damage accurately would come before drilling (or "exploring") for oil. For the time being, we can put the money into alternative energy projects, like ethanol, solar, wind and water plants.
There's a reason why ethanol, solar, wind, and water plants haven't sprouted all over the country. They're too expensive for the benefit, it's that simple. They're not economically feasible. And for that matter, with respect to windmills, nobody wants to live next to one, because they're ugly. Not even the Kennedys (who have otherwise pushed for their widescale adoption), who have joined a lawsuit to prevent an offshore farm within view of their Hyannesport compound in Massachusetts.

Let me put this in other terms.

Your argument boils down to 'Okay, so he killed several hundred thousand people... but that was a long time ago!' As if that makes it okay.

Those two bits at the bottom, btw, happened after the gulf war. And if you haven't seen, even on the leftist newsnets, interviews with Iraqi civilians who speak of entire families being dragged off, of prisoners being fed feet-first into woodchippers, of children being forced to watch as their mothers are raped, of Saddam ordering the mutilation of people who opposed him as a permanent mark of shame...

Then you're blind, hon. You're a liberal kool-aid drinker, and I can't help you. Nobody can.
It is not okay killing that many people. However, from what I understand, many of those occured due to the Kurds backing Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, which makes it a civil war against treasonist citizens?

How many innocent Camobodians and Laosins died due to US carpet bombing their countries during the Viet Nam War?

Exploring is what Magellen did. Exploratory wells are still drilling and I would agree that its a good idea, but there has been concern expressed as to whether even light drilling would cause damage. Personally, I don't think that even a fairly large amount of oil would offset major ecological damage, so for me anyway, calculating the damage accurately would come before drilling (or "exploring") for oil. For the time being, we can put the money into alternative energy projects, like ethanol, solar, wind and water plants.
There's a reason why ethanol, solar, wind, and water plants haven't sprouted all over the country. They're too expensive for the benefit, it's that simple. They're not economically feasible. And for that matter, with respect to windmills, nobody wants to live next to one, because they're ugly. Not even the Kennedys (who have otherwise pushed for their widescale adoption), who have joined a lawsuit to prevent an offshore farm within view of their Hyannesport compound in Massachusetts.

Generally speaking, the only people you'll find who are anxious to dump cash into money pits like current forms of 'alternative' energy, are governments.

Let me put this in other terms.

Your argument boils down to 'Okay, so he killed several hundred thousand people... but that was a long time ago!' As if that makes it okay.

Those two bits at the bottom, btw, happened after the gulf war. And if you haven't seen, even on the leftist newsnets, interviews with Iraqi civilians who speak of entire families being dragged off, of prisoners being fed feet-first into woodchippers, of children being forced to watch as their mothers are raped, of Saddam ordering the mutilation of people who opposed him as a permanent mark of shame...

Then you're blind, hon. You're a liberal kool-aid drinker, and I can't help you. Nobody can.
It is not okay killing that many people. However, from what I understand, many of those occured due to the Kurds backing Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, which makes it a civil war against treasonist citizens?

How many innocent Camobodians and Laotians died due to US carpet bombing their countries during the Viet Nam War?

It is not okay killing that many people. However, from what I understand, many of those occured due to the Kurds backing Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, which makes it a civil war against treasonist citizens?
So... it's okay to gas their villages, then, in your view. I'll quote you on that.

How many innocent Camobodians and Laotians died due to US carpet bombing their countries during the Viet Nam War?
Somewhat vastly less than were killed by their own governments. Especially in Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot massacred roughly a quarter of the population.

Note to the reader: Kids, this is what a liberal does when he's losing the argument. It's called 'Deflection' or 'Changing the subject'.

It is not okay killing that many people. However, from what I understand, many of those occured due to the Kurds backing Iran during the Iran/Iraq war, which makes it a civil war against treasonist citizens?

How many innocent Camobodians and Laotians died due to US carpet bombing their countries during the Viet Nam War?
The other thing is that often people say that if we hadn't got him out of power, MORE would have died than the 12,000 we killed. Which if all the abuses happened a two decades ago, isn't true. It's the immediacy of the action bit that's the point.

The other thing is that often people say that if we hadn't got him out of power, MORE would have died than the 12,000 we killed. Which if all the abuses happened a two decades ago, isn't true. It's the immediacy of the action bit that's the point.
I think you're missing the point, actually.

Saying it was wrong to depose Saddam because all the killing happened a long time ago (which I really doubt, but that's just me, and I'll play devil's advocate for this post) is roughly analagous to saying that a murderer should remain free because he hasn't killed anyone in a while. If Charles Manson didn't kill anyone for a period of time, does that make him any less accountable for the deaths of the people he did kill?

There's a reason why ethanol, solar, wind, and water plants haven't sprouted all over the country. They're too expensive for the benefit, it's that simple. They're not economically feasible. And for that matter, with respect to windmills, nobody wants to live next to one, because they're ugly. Not even the Kennedys (who have otherwise pushed for their widescale adoption), who have joined a lawsuit to prevent an offshore farm within view of their Hyannesport compound in Massachusetts.

Generally speaking, the only people you'll find who are anxious to dump cash into money pits like current forms of 'alternative' energy, are governments.
They're not economically viable at the moment, but at the rate that oil prices are rising and the rate our stocks of oil are depleting, alternative energy is gonna start looking a lot more attractive. Also, the pollution aspect, if we keep using oil and coal, we won't have much of an environment left. I suppose, once that happens, the ecological ramifications for not drilling ANWR will become bunk, but I'd rather not see that happen.

There is quite a bit of the country where no-one lives, you don't think we could have a windfarm there?

I think you're missing the point, actually.

Saying it was wrong to depose Saddam because all the killing happened a long time ago (which I really doubt, but that's just me, and I'll play devil's advocate for this post) is roughly analagous to saying that a murderer should remain free because he hasn't killed anyone in a while. If Charles Manson didn't kill anyone for a period of time, does that make him any less accountable for the deaths of the people he did kill?
Its more like the difference between shooting a murderer who killed someone 10 years ago through a window and shooting a murderer whos killing someone right now. In the case of the first, there are other options (in the analogy, arresting him) you can pursue when no-one is in immediate danger. I don't know if this was the case in Iraq, but I'd like to find out.

I think you're missing the point, actually.

Saying it was wrong to depose Saddam because all the killing happened a long time ago (which I really doubt, but that's just me, and I'll play devil's advocate for this post) is roughly analagous to saying that a murderer should remain free because he hasn't killed anyone in a while. If Charles Manson didn't kill anyone for a period of time, does that make him any less accountable for the deaths of the people he did kill?

we are saying its wrong to go to war based on lies. lies that Saddam is killing tens of thousands of iraqis a year currently. Lies that he was harboring WMD's and that we knew exactly where they were. lies that Saddam had a workign relationship with Al Queda. Everyone knew that Saddam HAD killed hundreds of thousands, but at the time the US was Saddams friend. WHy didn't we get rid of Saddam back then? We had the capability. Noone said Saddam shouldnt be punished. We are pissed that our family members were sent off to die over lies! LIES! get it?

They're not economically viable at the moment, but at the rate that oil prices are rising and the rate our stocks of oil are depleting, alternative energy is gonna start looking a lot more attractive. Also, the pollution aspect, if we keep using oil and coal, we won't have much of an environment left. I suppose, once that happens, the ecological ramifications for not drilling ANWR will become bunk, but I'd rather not see that happen.

There is quite a bit of the country where no-one lives, you don't think we could have a windfarm there?
Actually, raising the price of oil makes the vast oilsands deposits in Canada - bigger reserves than Saudi Arabia has total - economically feasible. Hundreds of billions of barrels there. They become profitable anywhere above $30 a barrel. Therefore, an oil price above thirty bucks actually extends the period for which we'll be dependent on oil.

On windfarms: Well, one could, but there's not much point. Windfarms as a 'primary' method of power generation are basically useless. For one thing, they're unpredictable in terms of production. For another, they simply don't put out enough, even at peak efficiency. To equal one nuclear power plant, you'd need hundreds of square miles of windmills. What they're good for is supplemental production, putting out power for a few hundred nearby homes to take a bit of pressure off the rest of the grid.

So... it's okay to gas their villages, then, in your view. I'll quote you on that.
The US and other western countries gave him the damn chemicals in the first place, and the US certainly didn't seem to mind Iraq using them against the Iranians, and they didn't even break off diplomatic ties with Iraq, while all this stuff was front and center in the news.


Somewhat vastly less than were killed by their own governments. Especially in Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot massacred roughly a quarter of the population.
Over 2 Million innocent Cambodians alone were killed. Then to make matters worse, the US backed the same despot that you just mentioned (pol Pot), AFTER that!!

Note to the reader: Kids, this is what a liberal does when he's losing the argument. It's called 'Deflection' or 'Changing the subject'.
NOTE to same readers: Saddam was a murderous thug that the US used to help get back at Iran, and even gave him the chemicals and WMD. Pol Pot was another murderous dictator that the US backed.

And all of a sudden, the US just had to rush into Iraq to save the world? Give me a break!! BTW, WHERE is Bin Laden??? I thought HE was the guy that attacked the US, NOT Saddam. Priorities are not number 1 in US thinking?

we are saying its wrong to go to war based on lies. lies that Saddam is killing tens of thousands of iraqis a year currently. Lies that he was harboring WMD's and that we knew exactly where they were. lies that Saddam had a workign relationship with Al Queda. Everyone knew that Saddam HAD killed hundreds of thousands, but at the time the US was Saddams friend. WHy didn't we get rid of Saddam back then? We had the capability. Noone said Saddam shouldnt be punished. We are pissed that our family members were sent off to die over lies! LIES! get it?
First of all, nobody was 'sent off to die' that didn't know what they were getting into. Part of joining a volunteer army is the understanding that you can and probably will be called upon to go off to some faraway place to fight and kill and possibly die in service to your country, no questions asked. Once you're in, you don't get to cherry-pick the wars that please you. Sorry, that's a fact.

Furthermore, while it's regrettable that Saddam was previously an ally of the United States does not make it wrong to stop him now. Period. In fact, I consider the idea that the US should leave Saddam where he was simply because they were involved in putting him there in the first place, to be morally and ethically bankrupt, and the fact you'd espouse such a view disgusts me to the core.

As for the alleged lies, perhaps I should point you to the 9/11 commission report. Read it carefully, it will educate you. I haven't received my copy yet, but when I do, you need only ask and I'll quote chapter and verse why it wasn't a lie at all.

Finally, the fact that the reason the war was 'pitched' was not the biggest gain in the end doesn't make the end result any less just. Nobody complains that WW2 was unjust; But oh look! The reason the US jumped in was because Pearl was attacked. Plain and simple. But the end result people remember most was the liberation of the Jews. Likewise, the reason history remembers this war will be the liberation of the Iraqis. Don't insult their plight by implying it was unjust to liberate them. Have you no decency, sir?

Actually, raising the price of oil makes the vast oilsands deposits in Canada - bigger reserves than Saudi Arabia has total - economically feasible. Hundreds of billions of barrels there. They become profitable anywhere above $30 a barrel. Therefore, an oil price above thirty bucks actually extends the period for which we'll be dependent on oil.

On windfarms: Well, one could, but there's not much point. Windfarms as a 'primary' method of power generation are basically useless. For one thing, they're unpredictable in terms of production. For another, they simply don't put out enough, even at peak efficiency. To equal one nuclear power plant, you'd need hundreds of square miles of windmills. What they're good for is supplemental production, putting out power for a few hundred nearby homes to take a bit of pressure off the rest of the grid.
No, I agree, windfarms aren't going to solve California's problems, but there's something to be looked into there. Its not the only option anyway, and for all that you rubbish it, oil ain't so great either.

Part of joining a volunteer army is the understanding that you can and probably will be called upon to go off to some faraway place to fight and kill and possibly die in service to your country, no questions asked.
Yeah, they tend to play that bit down in the commercials though.

Yeah, they tend to play that bit down in the commercials though.
Well, find me an ad that points out disadvantages of the product - aside from cigarettes or medicine ads - and you can have a cookie. :D

THANK GOD!!! More people who see Kerry for what he really is! He's a flip-flop in my eyes-things he was opposed to a few years ago he now supports.

#1) the arguement EVERY DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE in history has used- Bush gave tax-cuts to the Wealthiest 1%. Doesn't anyone take civics anymore?!?!?! This is economic policies IN THEORY:
Republicans- Make the economy work by putting money at the top-Corporate heads get the money, use it to buy more enterprises, create more jobs, poor people take the jobs, make money.
Democrats- Put money on the bottom, the poor take the money, shop in stores, store managers make profit, enterprising corporate heads make profit.
(In reality Republicans give Corporate heads money, Malaysians get jobs. Democrats give the poor money, they blow it on booze and Velveeta. Sorry for the stereotypes)
#2) 'The economy is in a poor state' It's called a massive terrorist attack, homeland security, and a war. They're not free. Unless Kerry can start crapping Gold Bullion, I don't think he'll make a big difference
#3) 'Bush's record in the National Guard is shaky' At least he didn't get Purple Hearts for hangnails and toe-stubs so he could get out of Vietnam. Oh, and he didn't miss two thirds, TWO FREAKIN THIRDS, of all Senate votes. And thanks to whoever brought up the voting against the M1 Abrams, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and F-15E, It's interesting to know how much he loves to see our Infantry slaughtered so we can gain a few billion in our economy.
#4) 'Bush's intelligence on Iraq and Al-Qaeda were, and are, poor' Is Bush the head of the CIA? No, he funds it very well though. Go screw yourself.
Sorry, I was mad, I feel better now. I know I didn't cover everything so please, fill in if you want.

Oh, btw, to everyone who is wondering, there is one basic reason I support Bush and not Kerry:
There is a time for a Conservatie President, and a time for a Liberal President, I think I know who I'd rather have during the beginning of a war on terror. Bush is decisive, he doesn't pussy-foot around waiting for the red tape to clear, making sure all other countries and the UN still like us. Sorry, we've got to defend ourselves, and the rest of the world if it comes to this because apparently this is the only country (besides England, good people) that have the balls to stamp out evil wherever it pops up. I think this is a time for war, and we need a president who's willing to make the tough decisions.
Changing your positions after a few years isn't flip-flopping, it's assessment. Kerry doesn't view the world in black and white.

1) I see you use the "rich people create more jobs" argument. Maybe they do, but nowadays, the new jobs are likely to be in Mexico or Haiti, not the USA. But at least you realise this in your "reublican reality", but your "Democrat reality" is totally wrong for about 90% of welfare recipients. I hate it that the conservatives assume that everyone on welfare abuses the system.

3) At least Kerry went to Vietname in the first place. How does refusing to waste money on tinpot "Star Wars" schemes cause infantry casualties. The money is better spent on education and healthcare.

4) Wars shouldn't be launched if intelligence is shaky.

International co-operation is of paramount importance for such an intelligence-based war as the war on terror. How is Britain your only ally? What about Poland? Pakistan?

First of all, nobody was 'sent off to die' that didn't know what they were getting into. Part of joining a volunteer army is the understanding that you can and probably will be called upon to go off to some faraway place to fight and kill and possibly die in service to your country, no questions asked. Once you're in, you don't get to cherry-pick the wars that please you. Sorry, that's a fact.

Furthermore, while it's regrettable that Saddam was previously an ally of the United States does not make it wrong to stop him now. Period. In fact, I consider the idea that the US should leave Saddam where he was simply because they were involved in putting him there in the first place, to be morally and ethically bankrupt, and the fact you'd espouse such a view disgusts me to the core.

As for the alleged lies, perhaps I should point you to the 9/11 commission report. Read it carefully, it will educate you. I haven't received my copy yet, but when I do, you need only ask and I'll quote chapter and verse why it wasn't a lie at all.

Finally, the fact that the reason the war was 'pitched' was not the biggest gain in the end doesn't make the end result any less just. Nobody complains that WW2 was unjust; But oh look! The reason the US jumped in was because Pearl was attacked. Plain and simple. But the end result people remember most was the liberation of the Jews. Likewise, the reason history remembers this war will be the liberation of the Iraqis. Don't insult their plight by implying it was unjust to liberate them. Have you no decency, sir?

First of all you are a Mod so should be above flaming/trolling with lines such as "have you no decency". We are both arguing our points for why we thing the war is good or bad. To call me indecent for thinkkign that the US is unjustly killing thousands of iraqis is goign a bit overboard. But I guess I could do the same, although I am above that.

although we have already gone over the 9/11 report a million times I can't wait for you to educate me. this outta be great.

When you send someone off to war you send them off to die. When you send them off for false pretenses, then you are basically slapping them and their families in the face and telling them that they are worthless to you and you could care less if underhanded tactics got them in an UNJUST war and subsequently killed or limbs blown off. Not to mention teh depleted uranium rounds. :rolleyes: Despite all the controversy from the first Gulf War about how it causes cancer and was the cause of Gulf War disease and a high rate of cancer and birth defects in iraq, the US military used it anyway. Thats another slap in the face of iraqis and US soldiers

I bet you still think they have WMD's and had a working relationship with Al Queda .

Changing your positions after a few years isn't flip-flopping, it's assessment. Kerry doesn't view the world in black and white.

1) I see you use the "rich people create more jobs" argument. Maybe they do, but nowadays, the new jobs are likely to be in Mexico or Haiti, not the USA. But at least you realise this in your "reublican reality", but your "Democrat reality" is totally wrong for about 90% of welfare recipients. I hate it that the conservatives assume that everyone on welfare abuses the system.

Gotten any jobs from a poor person lately? Give it a try, tell me how it goes.

Seriously, I should point out that Bush's 'tax cut for the rich' (in which, btw, every single American received benefits and a rebate) put the brakes on the recession and the US is now posting the best growth in 20 years, and 1.5 million new jobs over the last eight months. Net.

Looks a lot to me like rich people creating jobs.

3) At least Kerry went to Vietname in the first place. How does refusing to waste money on tinpot "Star Wars" schemes cause infantry casualties. The money is better spent on education and healthcare.

Well, I'm not going to address the numerous problems with Kerry's service record here. It's been done in this thread, to death. That "tin pot scheme" you so cavalierly deride, won the Cold War. It scared the living shit out of the Soviets, to the point they were willing to bargain away huge concessions just to get Reagan to scrap it. Do you want to know the real reason the Soviets wanted mutual nuclear disarmament? Because then they would have vast supremacy - in the terms of their then-larger conventional military... and the deterrence to a massive invasion of western Europe would have been gone. Star Wars was the reason there isn't a Russian ICBM pointed at you right now. Be a little more respectful to that particular 'tin pot scheme'.

4) Wars shouldn't be launched if intelligence is shaky.

Except, as I've stated, the intel isn't shaky. Three words: 9/11 commission report. Read it.

International co-operation is of paramount importance for such an intelligence-based war as the war on terror. How is Britain your only ally? What about Poland? Pakistan?

That statement would seem to support the war on terror rather than oppose it. Thanks.

John Kerry is......
http://www.budlight.com

I am a democrat and I would vote for anyone except bush even it is a republican.

I am a democrat and I would vote for anyone except bush even it is a republican.
What an intelligent argument. Here, have some Kool-Aid.

Anyway.... I'm done with this thread, as much as I love jousting with you folks. With the exception of maaaayyybe Spoffin, there's little hope for any of the leftist folks on this thread. But I do have other things I have to do tonight, and I've already invested four hours into this discussion.

Come on everyone knows anyone is better then Bush.

Come on everyone knows anyone is better then Bush.
Last post on this thread.

Anyway, yeah. Read the thread, hon, I've outlined at length why Bush pwnz0rz Kerry.

He says he will make a "stronger America", but he voted against every new weapon system to come along, including such staples as: M1 Abrams tank; M2 Bradley fighting vehicle, F15E Strike Eagle. And MANY more.

While he is on record for voting against three military appropriations bills, such bills are so general as to "cover the entire governmental expenditures for defense in a given fiscal year and encompass thousands of items totalling hundreds of billions of dollars — including everything from the cost of developing, testing, purchasing, and maintaining weapons and other equipment to personnel expenses (salaries, medical benefits, tuition assistance, reenlistment bonuses), medical research, hazardous waste cleanup, facilities maintenance, and a whole host of other disbursements.... Maintaining, as is the case here, that a Senator who voted "nay" on one year's defense appropriations bill therefore voted to "kill" a variety of specific weapons systems is like claiming that any Congressman who has ever voted against a defense appropriations bill has therefore also voted to abolish the U.S. military. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp)"

They're not economically viable at the moment, but at the rate that oil prices are rising and the rate our stocks of oil are depleting, alternative energy is gonna start looking a lot more attractive. Also, the pollution aspect, if we keep using oil and coal, we won't have much of an environment left. I suppose, once that happens, the ecological ramifications for not drilling ANWR will become bunk, but I'd rather not see that happen.

There is quite a bit of the country where no-one lives, you don't think we could have a windfarm there?

We could have a windfarm where no one lives, but that would do no good, because NO ONE LIVES THERE! Sheesh...Electricity attenuates as it travels down lines, and needs to be boosted by substations to make it to its destination with enough power left to be useful. THAT'S not economically viable either.

I notice you ignore the cleanest, most efficient power source available to mankind right now: nuclear. Why is that?

we are saying its wrong to go to war based on lies. lies that Saddam is killing tens of thousands of iraqis a year currently. Lies that he was harboring WMD's and that we knew exactly where they were. lies that Saddam had a workign relationship with Al Queda. Everyone knew that Saddam HAD killed hundreds of thousands, but at the time the US was Saddams friend. WHy didn't we get rid of Saddam back then? We had the capability. Noone said Saddam shouldnt be punished. We are pissed that our family members were sent off to die over lies! LIES! get it?

Saddam is VERY LONELY right now. Why don't you go pay your good buddy a visit?

Saddam is VERY LONELY right now. Why don't you go pay your good buddy a visit?


ok troll

don't worry I still love you no matter how trollish you can become.

good day