NationStates Jolt Archive

I love liberals who want it both ways. They are funny.

On one hand they say "Just because everyone said there were WMDs in Iraq does not make it correct"
Then they say "Because everyone (meaning them ) disagrees Bush he must be incorrect'

Or they say "Saddam was the problem of Iraq - respect their sovereignty" but then say "W is our problem and we'll dictate how you shall vote".

So many flip-flops! Now I understand why they like Kerry!

one of Bush's flip-flops:

Bush before the 2000 elections: "America should not be involved in the business of nation building."

Bush before the war in Iraq said that we needed to do it because Iraq had WMDs and therefor posed an imminent threat to our national security.

Bush after it was clear that WMDs were not there to be found, through Rumsfeld, IIRC, said that WMDs were never the primary reason for going to war, and that freeing the iraqi people from tyranny was.

one of Kerry's flip-flops:

Kerry voted in favour of certain items being included in the budget.

Kerry voted against the final deficit heavy budget.

Ah yes trying to save Southeast Asia from Communism is such a bad thing.

1. Commieparanoia

2. You DO know that both the americans and Northnam did horrible things? I can agree that Nam was worse than US, but the napalm destroyed the echological system of a large part of the land, and they (South Vietnam are still suffering from the consequences of Americas actions.

Ah yes trying to save Southeast Asia from Communism is such a bad thing.

Didn't we go in there to relieve the... now who was that? wait... it's on the tip of my tongue... oh, yes... the French? :D :headbang: :cool: :)

1. Commieparanoia

No, the Communists that eventually resulted in Southeast Asia were horrible dictators who ended up slaughtering huge amounts of their own people. Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, not very nice people. Yeah, I know the US tacitly supported Pol Pot for a while. We never would've have to if the whole area didn't fall like dominoes.

2. You DO know that both the americans and Northnam did horrible things? I can agree that Nam was worse than US, but the napalm destroyed the echological system of a large part of the land, and they (South Vietnam are still suffering from the consequences of Americas actions.
Yes I know we did things like spray mass amounts of Agent Orange and burn down villages, but I'd do that in order to save the area from Communism...

Didn't we go in there to relieve the... now who was that? wait... it's on the tip of my tongue... oh, yes... the French? :D :headbang: :cool: :)
Sort of, the French were fighting a war but eventually they got screwed, then we came in, the first was a war of independence vs the French, the second phase was a civil war (where we came in), after the North planned to violate its agreements...

Ok, the commies were horrible dictators, but:
Yes I know we did things like spray mass amounts of Agent Orange and burn down villages, but I'd do that in order to save the area from Communism...

:Bangsheadonwalltryingtocomprehendthecompletestupidityofthatstatement:
(or bangs head on wall trying to comprehend the complete stupidity of that statement)

You wouldn't? Vietnam was a tough war, a lot of the militants were forcing us to do stuff such as use large amounts of napalm or agent oragne by their tactics. Yeah, guerilla warfare isn't pretty...

I just think that 'palming them out was a bad tactic, but don't ask me to come up with alternatives, cause im tired :P

I see the emnimity between the US and Europe as age-old. I saw a National Geographic from 1986, where protestors were burning American flags in the Netherlands. This has always been an issue, and it probably dates back all the way to the Spanish-American war. After all, we did something no European country dared to do: go to war with a European power to gain colonies. Ever since then, we've always saw ourselves as having different thinking.

I admit I was wrong about the troops in Bosnia. I like the date though. It proves my other point that Bush wasn't responsible: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 Published at 17:42 GMT

I felt like an idiot for a split-second there...

I wasn't talking about Bush, but about US policy in general. Sorry for the confusion.

I see the emnimity between the US and Europe as age-old. I saw a National Geographic from 1986, where protestors were burning American flags in the Netherlands. This has always been an issue, and it probably dates back all the way to the Spanish-American war. After all, we did something no European country dared to do: go to war with a European power to gain colonies. Ever since then, we've always saw ourselves as having different thinking.

I think that except for a few extremists, we get along just fine. Like the way we hate Maryland.

It have nothing to do with us Europeans telling you Americans what to do. I am only trying to make you understand what will bring back the support and love for USA back to us Europeans and the rest of the world. Right now USA and specially Bush have absolutly no respect and more and more people overhere is beginning not only to dislike Americans, but even to hate Americans. I do not like to see that happen and I do not like to see Bush and his regime making more and more conflicts in the world. You have to start making one important question to you selves. Why is even our normaly friends now turning the back on us ? You can say that you do not care how the rest of the world sees you and how important your image and goodwill is in EU. But I really do hope that you care about it.


Yes, you can vote who ever you prefer. But it will never change the fact that the rest of the world see Kerry as the best candidat to save USA and much more important: the whole world. That is it the bottom line. We will not dictate how you vote. This is only a plea. We will just cross our fingers that you make the right choice for youselves and the rest of us.

Please : Vote Kerry

In any case more intelligent then the shadow of your bacterial Rep. lifeform. :mp5:

Well arn't we being petty because someone does not agree with your views :rolleyes:

To bad I am going to vote Bush.

To bad I am going to vote Bush.
Any reason why?
I mean, what is your reason to vote for Bush? I hope it's not just because some foreigner ask you to vote for Kerry.

His senate record is horrible they proved he lied about being in Cambodia he cant make choices for himself. An people around the world do not have the right to tell us who should be are president.

His senate record is horrible they proved he lied about being in Cambodia he cant make choices for himself. An people around the world do not have the right to tell us who should be are president.

This I agree with!

Thanks Corneliu

Your welcome Eldarana

... An people around the world do not have the right to tell us who should be are president.

US have grown into one of the, if not the most influental country in the world, we do have a right to tell you who should be president.
Nukes anyone?

His senate record is horrible they proved he lied about being in Cambodia he cant make choices for himself. An people around the world do not have the right to tell us who should be are president.
So basically, what you're saying is "The other guy will be worse". I can understand that even if I disagree.

I'm not aware of Cambodia so I'll tackle your other point:
He can make choices for himself and listening to advice from competent sources is a quality in a good head of state.

Also, a knee-jerk reaction like "I'm going to vote for Bush because Europe told me not to." is rather childish. If most of the world says to you tah t Bush is bad, maybee you should stop and consider why they all say it. If you can dismiss their arguments, then, by all means, vote for him. You shouldn't vote for someone just because someone told you to (or not to). You should vote for who you believe will be the best to lead your country.

Then don tell us who we should vote for you are not a American and so your opinion has no value in debate because what news Europe tells about Bush is very biased. I mayed up my mind long before you posted this thread.

So basically, what you're saying is "The other guy will be worse". I can understand that even if I disagree.

I'm not aware of Cambodia so I'll tackle your other point:
He can make choices for himself and listening to advice from competent sources is a quality in a good head of state.

Also, a knee-jerk reaction like "I'm going to vote for Bush because Europe told me not to." is rather childish. If most of the world says to you tah t Bush is bad, maybee you should stop and consider why they all say it. If you can dismiss their arguments, then, by all means, vote for him. You shouldn't vote for someone just because someone told you to (or not to). You should vote for who you believe will be the best to lead your country.

Kerry has claimed that he was 50 miles inside Cambodia on Christmas day 1968 listening to Nixon tell the American people that there were no troops in Cambodia. He said this many times and publicly on the Senate floor in 1986. The problem? Firstly, he was never there and secondly...Nixon did not become president until 3 weeks AFTER this was supposed to have happened. Kerry has another credibility problem on his hands....

Then don tell us who we should vote for you are not a American and so your opinion has no value in debate because what news Europe tells about Bush is very biased. I mayed up my mind long before you posted this thread.

No, you are wrong....EVERYONE has a voice and should be heard....whether you agree with them or not.

Also, a knee-jerk reaction like "I'm going to vote for Bush because Europe told me not to." is rather childish. If most of the world says to you tah t Bush is bad, maybee you should stop and consider why they all say it. If you can dismiss their arguments, then, by all means, vote for him. You shouldn't vote for someone just because someone told you to (or not to). You should vote for who you believe will be the best to lead your country.

Yet there are those who will vote for Bush precisely for this reason. Ah yes, the Law of Unintended Consequences rears its ugly head. Maybe it would be wise to pay more respect to this Law...

Then don tell us who we should vote for you are not a American and so your opinion has no value in debate because what news Europe tells about Bush is very biased.To explain to you why we have a vested interest in who the next president of the US will be (especially in Canada) I will put you in a hypothetical situation:

You're living near a river. You take all your water for cleaning, drinking, etc. from the river. There's a big city a few miles upstream who use the river too and decided recently to dump all it's waste in said river. Your water is becoming increasingly bad and is close to being un-drinkable. They are having elections in the city. When you try to talk to city folks about this, they say: you're not from the city and you should have nothing to say in how we use the river. If you talk to city folks about which candidate will force you to move with his planned policy of dumping even more waste in the river, you get a "shut up. You can't tell us what to vote."

This is what is happening. The US is the city who tells it's neighbour to shut up. In the meantime, Canada knows that Bush slashed enviromental policy to help the various industries. We get the polluted water for the sake of a few bucks.

If all you have against Bush is the enviroment then start another thread about that. Other then that I am feeling you hate him because he is a conservative.

Then don tell us who we should vote for you are not a American and so your opinion has no value in debate because what news Europe tells about Bush is very biased. I mayed up my mind long before you posted this thread.

Do you ever listen ?
Many the actions of US often affects the whole world, and the goverment is the ones doing the actions!

(That, this, and the previous post by TWI was by Tewron...)

If all you have against Bush is the enviroment then start another thread about that. Other then that I am feeling you hate him because he is a conservative.
That is besides the point. I was trying to show you how the rest of the world have a vested interest in who gets elected president.

For the record, my main reasons for disliking bush are:
1. Slashed environment policies
2. Put illegal tariffs on lumber, grain and stell.
3. The whole war on Iraq (wich I fell was done under dubious reasons).
4. The patriot act
5. His advisors (Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.) wich looks like buisnessmen who look for their interest first and the country's second.

Yes I do listen. In Europe belief about Bush are founded on left wing biased media wich exsists in Europe. And what the world needs is not all the time what it whats.

Yes I do listen. In Europe belief about Bush are founded on left wing biased media wich exsists in Europe. And what the world needs is not all the time what it whats.

Vote for who you want...if you are old enough. That the media in other countries is biased is no surprise, it is here too. The New York Times lost its objectivity a LONG time ago.

That our Canadian friends have a liberal bent should be no surprise, theirs is just about the most liberal government in the world. Europe? Same thing. Liberal peoples will want the US to have a liberal government as well. Somehow they see Bush as a dragon and Kerry as a dragonslayer. The problem they don't see for Kerry is that he has a HUGE credibility problem that just keeps getting bigger every day. These will be brought out before the election and then more people will see Kerry for what he is.

I just hope many people will see bush for what HE is...

Vote for who you want...if you are old enough. That the media in other countries is biased is no surprise, it is here too. The New York Times lost its objectivity a LONG time ago.

That our Canadian friends have a liberal bent should be no surprise, theirs is just about the most liberal government in the world. Europe? Same thing. Liberal peoples will want the US to have a liberal government as well. Somehow they see Bush as a dragon and Kerry as a dragonslayer. The problem they don't see for Kerry is that he has a HUGE credibility problem that just keeps getting bigger every day. These will be brought out before the election and then more people will see Kerry for what he is.
No doubt Canadians are liberals (although there's plenty of conservative in the west). We don't see kerry as a dragonslayer, however. We see him a lesser of two dragons and one who will listen before spouting fire on us.

And if you talk lack of credibility, I ask you: how can you say that Bush is more credible?

No doubt Canadians are liberals (although there's plenty of conservative in the west). We don't see kerry as a dragonslayer, however. We see him a lesser of two dragons and one who will listen before spouting fire on us.

And if you talk lack of credibility, I ask you: how can you say that Bush is more credible?

I can't....but it seems that every day Kerry is caught out in another lie...the latest being his claims of being in Cambodia in 1968.

WHY he is running on his Vietnam service is beyond me....I honestly think he was a TERRIBLE choice for the Democrats. Not like I would EVER vote for them anyway, although I do like Lieberman.

I can't....but it seems that every day Kerry is caught out in another lie...the latest being his claims of being in Cambodia in 1968.

WHY he is running on his Vietnam service is beyond me....I honestly think he was a TERRIBLE choice for the Democrats. Not like I would EVER vote for them anyway, although I do like Lieberman.

I liked lieberman too. At least he stood by his record whereas Kerry isn't!

I can't....but it seems that every day Kerry is caught out in another lie...the latest being his claims of being in Cambodia in 1968.

WHY he is running on his Vietnam service is beyond me....I honestly think he was a TERRIBLE choice for the Democrats. Not like I would EVER vote for them anyway, although I do like Lieberman.
Why did he run on his vietnam service? Because the republicans were running a campaign of being tough on terrorism and being pro-military. Kerry did mention he was pro-military and that he did not fear going to 'nam. It served him good untill recently when his service record is being watched more closely.

It was a good political move back then. Right now, I agree with you that he should focus more on issues. Problem is: people come back to his military record. So he has to speak about it. Also, he wasn't my choice for democrat representative either...

I liked lieberman too. At least he stood by his record whereas Kerry isn't!

I think Leiberman would beat Bush hands down...but Kerry? That guy is just too scary for me to even consider.

I think Leiberman would beat Bush hands down...but Kerry? That guy is just too scary for me to even consider.

I've said it before! If it was Lieberman, I wouldn't give Bush a 2-1 shot of winning re-election. With Kerry, the race is alot closer and I do feel that Bush will wind up winning in the end.

Why did he run on his vietnam service? Because the republicans were running a campaign of being tough on terrorism and being pro-military. Kerry did mention he was pro-military and that he did not fear going to 'nam. It served him good untill recently when his service record is being watched more closely.

It was a good political move back then. Right now, I agree with you that he should focus more on issues. Problem is: people come back to his military record. So he has to speak about it. Also, he wasn't my choice for democrat representative either...

Well...do you not find it odd that he would run on something that happened 36 years ago and only lasted 4 months? That is just weird.

Plus all the complaints about the scrutiny? What did he expect? You cannot make all these claims and broadcast your achievements without thinking that SOMEONE might want to look into it.

Having been in the military I can assure you that Democrats are NOT pro military. They are anything BUT, so for Kerry to say he is is just disingenuous. Especially since his voting record regards military payraises will bear that out. So lets watch the Republicans chew this guy up to. He really opened himself up on this one....

Well...do you not find it odd that he would run on something that happened 36 years ago and only lasted 4 months? That is just weird.
Well, it did put him in favorable light against Bush's record of going AWOL. The current election seems to be all about mudslinging and putting down the other candidate.

Plus all the complaints about the scrutiny? What did he expect? You cannot make all these claims and broadcast your achievements without thinking that SOMEONE might want to look into it.
True

Having been in the military I can assure you that Democrats are NOT pro military. They are anything BUT, so for Kerry to say he is is just disingenuous. Especially since his voting record regards military payraises will bear that out. So lets watch the Republicans chew this guy up to. He really opened himself up on this one....
Never having been on the military, I am inclined to ask why the military needed the same amount of money after the cold war. Also, you have to ask what kind of clauses and riders were attached to these bills. I know I would vote down a bill if there's a rider that I strongly disagree with even if I agree on the main bill.

Plus, Kerry wanted to look like NOT a democrat on the eyes of conservative voters. That's why he brought up his military carrer. It's all about getting votes.

I think Leiberman would beat Bush hands down...but Kerry? That guy is just too scary for me to even consider.

Lieberman has more honesty and integrity than the other 8 Democratic candidates combined. He is a good guy.

Lieberman has more honesty and integrity than the other 8 Democratic candidates combined. He is a good guy.

This I will agree with. He is actually someone that I could vote for.

Well, it did put him in favorable light against Bush's record of going AWOL. The current election seems to be all about mudslinging and putting down the other candidate.

AWOL? That has been brought up again and again...but it just isn't so...nor is it relevant today.


Never having been on the military, I am inclined to ask why the military needed the same amount of money after the cold war. Also, you have to ask what kind of clauses and riders were attached to these bills. I know I would vote down a bill if there's a rider that I strongly disagree with even if I agree on the main bill.

Modernizing the forces is a constant expense. Plus payraises and other benefits. Clinton vetoed EVERY payraise propsed during his years EXCEPT the one in 2000. He then claimed he and Gore were "taking care of the military." Yeah, they tried to. There was a LOT of talk in those days of getting rid of Clinton, we hated that man with a passion. He deployed the military more than any other president except FDR and refused to allow a payraise for 7 years.

Plus, Kerry wanted to look like NOT a democrat on the eyes of conservative voters. That's why he brought up his military carrer. It's all about getting votes.

Yeah, and he is failing.

Yeah i could have voted Liebermenn too

I would have voted Lieberman. He is a middle of the road guy, not a limp pancake like Kerry or a straight unbending arrow like Bush. However, i would take that straight arrow over a floopy any day.

Yeah if Lieberman was running instead of Kerry i think the race would be exremely tighter if not favoring Lieberman.

Yeah if Lieberman was running instead of Kerry i think the race would be exremely tighter if not favoring Lieberman.

I think it wouldn't be a contest. I do believe that Liberman would've won in a landslide.

I think it wouldn't be a contest. I do believe that Liberman would've won in a landslide.

I think so too....but the Dems went with that limp noodle Kerry instead. Simply amazing to me....

It is very simple, the people who are playing second fiddle in both parties are often preferable to those who are in charge. Everyone would rather vote for Lieberman, everyone would also rather vote for Colin Powell. There are these hidden gems in each party who would win a general election by a landslide, but the party ideolouges don't like them, so they get shoved down(Lieberman), or they just don't want to deal with it(Powell).