NationStates Jolt Archive

...if you vote Democrat, bad things will happen.


That's the message the Bush campaign is sending out.


Does anyone else see in those words, a veiled threat?

...if you vote Democrat, bad things will happen.


That's the message the Bush campaign is sending out.


Does anyone else see in those words, a veiled threat?
Very thinly veiled.

Do you mean as in: "If we loose the election we are going to blow you up ourselves;" or, "If we loose the election the terrorist will blow you up because Kerry is an incompetent boob?"

Because I agree with you if it's the second option. But I find the first a little unlikely to be honest.

More like, if you elect people with September the 10th mindsets into office and democrats who don't have the stomach to stand up to international terrorism, then America is bound to be hit again.

Ah..so partison. Good Day Sir! :cool:

And so the gap between the reality-based community and the faith-based community becomes ever clearer. Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community--we know that Kerry won't singlehandedly protect us from every terrorist attack, but we know he's going to do the best he can, and that that will likely be good enough. Bush supporters have faith that Bush can protect them--based on absolutely no empirical evidence mind you, but they have faith, so who needs proof?

...if you vote Democrat, bad things will happen.


That's the message the Bush campaign is sending out.


Does anyone else see in those words, a veiled threat?

If, of course, you get to vote at all which, if you live in Florida and applied for a postal vote, isn't very likely ... bet there are a lot of Republican party workers getting writer's cramp at this very moment filling in some 58,000 postal vote papers. :D

I voted Democrat on my early ballot and nothing has happened to me. I am perfectly safe.

Guess it's just further proof that Bush is a liar.

Thought you might like this cartoon:
http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2004/10/28/

Also this one:
http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2004/10/26/

Anyone care to give me odds that we will not hear voting scandals? Anyone?

Here in my home state of NY, people could register to vote when renewing their driver's licenses. They have the receipts and paperwork to prove they registered, issued by the DMV.

A number of these people have just been informed by the Board of Elections that they are not registered; they do not appear in the computers and will not be able to vote.

We also have touch screen failures, touch screen voting booths which DO NOT provide a printed receipt, and, well, let's just say I'm interested in seeing what happens in Bubba Jeb's state THIS time.

Cheney Vows To Attack U.S. If Kerry Elected (http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4041.php)

Wasn't it some democrats that were threatening riots if Bush won?

Should we take that as a threat?

And so the gap between the reality-based community and the faith-based community becomes ever clearer. Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community--we know that Kerry won't singlehandedly protect us from every terrorist attack, but we know he's going to do the best he can, and that that will likely be good enough. Bush supporters have faith that Bush can protect them--based on absolutely no empirical evidence mind you, but they have faith, so who needs proof?
But how do you know that Kerry will do the best he can to protect us. All we really have is his word and no empirical evidence. Hmmm, perhaps it requires some faith to believe that Kerry will protect us.

It's quite possible that Kerry could do an even worse job than Bush, and since we have no way of seeing the future, we just have to trust that he'll do a good job.

Anytime you vote for someone because of what they promise to do, you're basically saying that 'I have faith in this person." And if you didn't have faith that that person would do as they promised, then you'd likely not vote for them.

So the next time you accuse people of voting because they have faith in a person, take a look in the mirror first.

But how do you know that Kerry will do the best he can to protect us. All we really have is his word and no empirical evidence. Hmmm, perhaps it requires some faith to believe that Kerry will protect us.

It's quite possible that Kerry could do an even worse job than Bush, and since we have no way of seeing the future, we just have to trust that he'll do a good job.

Anytime you vote for someone because of what they promise to do, you're basically saying that 'I have faith in this person." And if you didn't have faith that that person would do as they promised, then you'd likely not vote for them.

So the next time you accuse people of voting because they have faith in a person, take a look in the mirror first.

Oh boy, are you going to get flamed.

I've got bad news for you Kerry or Bush supporters:

Niether one can keep us 'safe'. We live in a free and open society, and there's no realistic way to remain free and to have the kind of security it would take to prevent every concievable act of terrorism. Niether candidate is especially reality based or faith based, both are more likely based on the special interest groups that funded thier respective campaigns.

I think a realistic approach would be to start working on the problems we have here at home, before we try to solve the problems of the rest of the earth.

By the way, there is no path to peace, the path IS peace. :D

...if you vote Democrat, bad things will happen.


That's the message the Bush campaign is sending out.


Does anyone else see in those words, a veiled threat?

Hang on, Australia's OK. We re-elected his mate Johnny Coward in Australia.

Until there is social justice in the world and a distribution of the world's wealth, things will never change. That's just reality. You can't cure cancer if you don't know what causes it. The only people who thinks the world is jealous of the United States are people who live in the United States. The wealth of the world is too concentrated. The divide between the halves and the have not's is certainly a problem. The west is greedy.. we live in a world were 80% of the people are starving to death. People wonder why these things happen? It's greed and a lack of social justice. At least that is what I truly believe.

Until there is social justice in the world and a distribution of the world's wealth, things will never change. That's just reality. You can't cure cancer if you don't know what causes it. The only people who thinks the world is jealous of the United States are people who live in the United States. The wealth of the world is too concentrated. The divide between the halves and the have not's is certainly a problem. The west is greedy.. we live in a world were 80% of the people are starving to death. People wonder why these things happen? It's greed and a lack of social justice. At least that is what I truly believe.

So we should give all the money away?

So we should give all the money away?

No, but perhaps leveling the playing field might be a start.

I'm as much socialist and liberal as anyone, Stephistan, but it is *not* poverty that causes terrorism, nor is it a lack of social justice. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are not protesting imperialism or predatory capitalism--they are protesting secularism. Terror is caused by willfully lunatic ignorance and a mad belief in some Supreme Being that so despises humanity that it makes infinite torture the punishment for not praising its mercy. In this kind of bloody-minded Bronze Age mentality, Bush and Osama have a lot in common. Throwing money at either of them isn't going to make a difference.

No, but perhaps leveling the playing field might be a start.

But its a catch 22. A lot of countries have problems with poverty not just because they targets of the predatory tactics of the west, but because they are run so damn badly - either through corruption, incompetence, ineptitude or whatever. So how do you level the playing field unless you get rid of their governments and give them new ones. But that causes resentment all kinds of troubles which usually lead to terrorism.

I'm not going to say that the west is always blameless, and I admit the west (quite often the US), has replaced "good" (or at least better) governments that are "disloyal", with "bad" that are "loyal." But there are a lot of places that just manage to manufacture their own hell-holes. Look at Burma (it is Burma again now right?), the government there is so terrible that even without oil companies exploiting them, its always going to be poor and full of human rights violations. Nor do I see it changing from within. So what do you do, just ignore it?

I'm no american, so this is more or less an "outsider opinion".

As long as there is a war (or a bloody conflict, call it as you wish) betwenn israel and the palestinians and the US support israel, there will be people in the middle east who want to strike against the US.

If this conflict isn't solved for good, all the other discussions are more or less worthless.

Total security isn't somthing someone can get by voting Bush or Kerry. As long as people are allowed to enter the US there is the possibility of striking against US citizens. And, as the FAS (Federation of American Scientists) prooved, they don't need to "import" weapons - they can get them there, thanks to the NRA and some fools who throw radioactive stuff into the trash (there's a nice article on www.fas.org about radiological weapons; you should read it).

From my point of view the choice between Bush & Kerry is a choice of "style of governing and talking", "economic programs" and "personel". But security is no issue, because both would persue more or less the same strategy in that field.

I'm as much socialist and liberal as anyone, Lacadaemon, but it is *not* poverty that causes terrorism, nor is it a lack of social justice. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are not protesting imperialism or predatory capitalism--they are protesting secularism. Terror is caused by willfully lunatic ignorance and a mad belief in some Supreme Being that so despises humanity that it makes infinite torture the punishment for not praising its mercy. In this kind of bloody-minded Bronze Age mentality, Bush and Osama have a lot in common. Throwing money at either of them isn't going to make a difference.

Actually Al Qaeda's specific beef with the United States was them being on their "holy land" and their unfair siding with Israel on every issue and them turning a blind eye to Israel's human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Al Qaeda, more pointed OBL issued the Fatwa based on US troops in Saudi Arabia and because of Palestine and in part the first Gulf war (that lead them to have American troops on Saudi soil) Had the Americans never interfered with the Middle East, Al Qaeda would of never cared one way or another about the United States, OBL made that rather clear in interviews done with him after 1996 when he issued the Fatwa.

Unfortunately, it's never as simple as the one or the other side would make it out to be.

I would say that it's a combo of all of the above. Religious extremism in BOTH sides. British Intellegence had a really interesting paper on the fundamentalist governments they viewed to be the most dangerous in the world, and the USA came up number four. The US definitely participates in government assisted predatory capitalism in the Middle East and those people are definitely poor.

I think that the people in the Middle East have four things going for them: 1. poverty, and lots of it. 2. Fervent religions 3. governmental policies that gauruntee a lack of opportunity for thier people to escape it and 4. no eduacation to speak of with the exception of religious. Add all those up, and you have a recipe for violence and wierdness.

My example comes from this country, rural West Virginia. Many of those people from deep, deep in the 'hollers' are desperately poor, generally have limited access to education or the outside world, which is why there are people who drink poison and handle snakes. And yes they still do.

In the ME, there are people to lash out at, unlike in WV. I've known a number of people who've gone to Saudi to work, and they've all come back with the same story: with the exception of the Princes, those people are dirt dirt poor. And the country, including the oil, military and police forces, are basically run by Americans.

It's a mess, and it would be less of a mess if we were doing business on the up and up. We're not. Until then, it will continue to be a mess. I would agree that social and economic justice will do more than a million soldiers ever could.

Yeh...it's a nice democracy you have 'ere...be a shame if anyfing were to ahh, 'happen' to it...

...if you vote Democrat, bad things will happen.


That's the message the Bush campaign is sending out.


Does anyone else see in those words, a veiled threat? :headbang:WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN THE OVAL OFFICE OF THIS COUNTRY. THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS A LONG TERM ACTIVITY THAT MORE THAN ONE(PRESIDENT) PERSON IS INVOLVED IN ENACTING. THE PRESIDENT IS JUST A REACHABLE SCAPEGOAT FOR ALL THE ANTAGONIST TO TARGET WITH ABUSE. :headbang:

Veiled threat? I'd say it's pure extortion!

And i would like to point out that while we may or may not be safe with Kerry, we KNOW that Bush let us down. Can you say 9/11?

There is too much evidence showing that Bush knew that 9/11 was happening and did nothing till after it was over. ( www.standdown.net ) Perfect excuse to push through their NeoCon agenda--the endless wars that will kill everyone's children but their own.

How safe are the american soldiers now occupying Iraq? with enough explosives looted to make 800.000 bombs the size of the one that took the Lockerbee flight down.

I believe that the world is LESS safe with Bush going around like a big bully, and driving more people into anti-american extremism.

THANK YOU FOR SHOUTING YOUR IGNORANCE IN CAPITAL LETTERS. The attitude of: "OH, democeracy is just a long term process that is never affected by the president of the people who elected him or anything else" is why the voter turn out in this countryb is at 31 percent. If you accept the wrong doing around you with this attitude nothing will be changed except for by fanatics. This is why the NRA is so powerful, they represent the oppinions of about a half of a percent of people, but they vote as a unified body at every election while other people just sit on their asses.

:headbang:WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHO IS IN THE OVAL OFFICE OF THIS COUNTRY. THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS A LONG TERM ACTIVITY THAT MORE THAN ONE(PRESIDENT) PERSON IS INVOLVED IN ENACTING. THE PRESIDENT IS JUST A REACHABLE SCAPEGOAT FOR ALL THE ANTAGONIST TO TARGET WITH ABUSE. :headbang:
Well sometimes he really deserves it. :p

Actually Al Qaeda's specific beef with the United States was them being on their "holy land" and their unfair siding with Israel on every issue and them turning a blind eye to Israel's human rights abuses against the Palestinians. Al Qaeda, more pointed OBL issued the Fatwa based on US troops in Saudi Arabia and because of Palestine and in part the first Gulf war (that lead them to have American troops on Saudi soil) Had the Americans never interfered with the Middle East, Al Qaeda would of never cared one way or another about the United States, OBL made that rather clear in interviews done with him after 1996 when he issued the Fatwa.
Yes, the fatwa mentions Israel most prominently, but although the radical Islamists have a point about the human rights violations committed by Israel upon Arabs, they themselves support any human rights violations that might be visited by Arabs upon Jews--a revolting, if typical, double-standard to which no-one that I am aware of is entirely immune. I mean, these guys in one breath claim that Holocaust is an invention of Zionist propaganda, and in the next claim that what Israel is doing to Palestine is as bad as what the Nazis did to the Jews. Sloppy thinking.
As for OBL's claims about not 'really' being concerned about the US except as a result of our projection of power, I've read those interviews, and I don't think he's being straight. The apocalyptic conflict between Western (including Soviet and Zionist) secularism and Islamic theocracy is the keystone of his entire worldview, and he would have found some excuse, sooner or later, to take his fight to us. One of the intellectual architects of the modern Islamist movement was Sayed Qutb, an Egyptian whose experience of Western imperialism was firsthand, and yet he wastes a lot more ink decrying examples of Western 'decadence,' like allowing our women to walk around wearing short skirts (in the '50s!), than advocating national liberation. Bin Laden is no Ho Chi Minh, and his philosophy is an aggressive, not a defensive one.
And remember, I'm not saying Bush is better. Fundamentalism in any form is an enemy of human life. That God guy is nothing but trouble.

Well, it's the same sentiment that a Kerry spokeswoman conveyed when addressing Sinclair boradcasting:

"They'd better hope we don't win"

hm....

And so the gap between the reality-based community and the faith-based community becomes ever clearer. Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community--we know that Kerry won't singlehandedly protect us from every terrorist attack, but we know he's going to do the best he can, and that that will likely be good enough.
:o Kerry = Superman :o .


Oh wait reality-based move along people move along

...if you vote Democrat, bad things will happen.


That's the message the Bush campaign is sending out.


Does anyone else see in those words, a veiled threat? :rolleyes:
If you vote Democrat, you will be healed. The crippled will walk, the blind will see. All people will have quality health care.

If you vote Republican, your social security will be taken away, the poor will not eat, old people will die. And blacks will be hit with fire hoses if they try to vote by republicans.


It goes both ways.

No, but perhaps leveling the playing field might be a start.

I think that's a matter of national preference. While I believe it in the mandate of all nations to provide for the poorest and to generate a basic social net, the extent to which this social welfare is extended (Sweden being one polarity and the United States--for lack of memory serving--being another) is entirely up to the nation and the nation's citizenry. Ideological contests such as this require civil, balanced "I think of it as this" discussions not harsh, truncated "I'm right and You're wrong" arguments

And so the gap between the reality-based community and the faith-based community becomes ever clearer. Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community--we know that Kerry won't singlehandedly protect us from every terrorist attack, but we know he's going to do the best he can, and that that will likely be good enough. Bush supporters have faith that Bush can protect them--based on absolutely no empirical evidence mind you, but they have faith, so who needs proof?
This is a more-than-slightly biased view of "reality", don't you think?

This is a more-than-slightly biased view of "reality", don't you think?
That is a warped view of reality, that has been smashed by several posters in this thread already.

Incertonia, Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

That is a warped view of reality, that has been smashed by several posters in this thread already.

Incertonia, Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
:)

That is a warped view of reality, that has been smashed by several posters in this thread already.

Incertonia, Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
No sense of decency? Care to explain yourself?

I'm as much socialist and liberal as anyone, Stephistan, but it is *not* poverty that causes terrorism, nor is it a lack of social justice. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are not protesting imperialism or predatory capitalism--they are protesting secularism. Terror is caused by willfully lunatic ignorance and a mad belief in some Supreme Being that so despises humanity that it makes infinite torture the punishment for not praising its mercy. In this kind of bloody-minded Bronze Age mentality, Bush and Osama have a lot in common. Throwing money at either of them isn't going to make a difference.
Let me explain. US imperialism, globalisation and the propping up of hated dictatorships makes Arabs angry enough to join al-Qaeda.

It's a fair point.

I bet far more American kids join the US Army because it will pay for their education, than because they are starry-eyed patriots.

Similarly, I bet a lot of the "terrorists" you see join those organisations, do so not because they agree with everything on their agenda, but because it will give them an opportunity to do more than just throw rocks and paint graffitti, in response to whatever crap has been done to them and their families.

You don't necessarily have to buy into the whole thing to take part, just whatever motivates you.

I'm not going to say that the west is always blameless, and I admit the west (quite often the US), has replaced "good" (or at least better) governments that are "disloyal", with "bad" that are "loyal." But there are a lot of places that just manage to manufacture their own hell-holes. Look at Burma (it is Burma again now right?), the government there is so terrible that even without oil companies exploiting them, its always going to be poor and full of human rights violations. Nor do I see it changing from within. So what do you do, just ignore it?
It's Myanmar according to the current military dictatorship. It holds its people in slave labour. Many multinational companies including Unocal, Ericsson, Daewoo and Nippon Oil work in, deal with, and prop up the oppressive regime.

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/

Here's the "Dirty list" of companies that help to prop up the junta

http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/dirty_list/dirty_list.html

It's a fair point.

I bet far more American kids join the US Army because it will pay for their education, than because they are starry-eyed patriots.

Similarly, I bet a lot of the "terrorists" you see join those organisations, do so not because they agree with everything on their agenda, but because it will give them an opportunity to do more than just throw rocks and paint graffitti, in response to whatever crap has been done to them and their families.

You don't necessarily have to buy into the whole thing to take part, just whatever motivates you.
As to the first point, I knew that long before Michael Moore ever drove the point home in F 9/11. Half of my fraternity was in the Guard or Reserves. I went so far as to take the physical, but I couldn't get into the MOS I wanted, and so decided against it. I'm glad too, because some of my fraternity brothers wound up in Kabul rebuilding the airport six months before their tours ended.

And the second point is valid as well. What would cause a person to be willing to kill themselves under any circumstances? Desperation. So take a horribly desperate situation, add in a touch of religious fanaticism, and you've got yourself a suicide bomber. Add a little less fanaticism, but include some financial incentive and you've got a guy willing to carry a gun and chance some danger.

It's a fair point.

I bet far more American kids join the US Army because it will pay for their education, than because they are starry-eyed patriots.

Similarly, I bet a lot of the "terrorists" you see join those organisations, do so not because they agree with everything on their agenda, but because it will give them an opportunity to do more than just throw rocks and paint graffitti, in response to whatever crap has been done to them and their families.

You don't necessarily have to buy into the whole thing to take part, just whatever motivates you.
That's right, but I imagine most al-Qaeda members are religious fundamentalists. They come from very religious, poor and conservative backgrounds. Furthermore, the other members of the organisation talk them into thinking that "Allah wants to kill all the infidels".

But yes, the primary motivation is to get back at the people who hurt them.

Anyone care to give me odds that we will not hear voting scandals? Anyone?

Here in my home state of NY, people could register to vote when renewing their driver's licenses. They have the receipts and paperwork to prove they registered, issued by the DMV.

A number of these people have just been informed by the Board of Elections that they are not registered; they do not appear in the computers and will not be able to vote.

We also have touch screen failures, touch screen voting booths which DO NOT provide a printed receipt, and, well, let's just say I'm interested in seeing what happens in Bubba Jeb's state THIS time.

Where are the Observers when you need them most?

And so the gap between the reality-based community and the faith-based community becomes ever clearer. Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community--we know that Kerry won't singlehandedly protect us from every terrorist attack, but we know he's going to do the best he can, and that that will likely be good enough. Bush supporters have faith that Bush can protect them--based on absolutely no empirical evidence mind you, but they have faith, so who needs proof?
I just heard a promo on NPR for "This American Life." They're interviewing someone who says he disagrees with Bush on just about every issue but will vote for him anyhow because "he has more integrity." WHAT?

I just heard a promo on NPR for "This American Life." They're interviewing someone who says he disagrees with Bush on just about every issue but will vote for him anyhow because "he has more integrity." WHAT?
It is pretty obvious what he means. Basically he is saying that he would prefer to vote for someone who is very sure of himself, than for someone who is right.

John Maynard Keynes once famously said "When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?"

This voter will go for the guy who does not change his mind.

Let me explain. US imperialism, globalisation and the propping up of hated dictatorships makes Arabs angry enough to join al-Qaeda.

Translates:

U.S = bad.

Arabs = good but oppressed.

Al-Qaeda = the solution of an oppressed Arab.

Thought you might like this cartoon:
http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2004/10/28/

Also this one:
http://www.ucomics.com/tomtoles/2004/10/26/

nice site
http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/

And so the gap between the reality-based community and the faith-based community becomes ever clearer. Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community--we know that Kerry won't singlehandedly protect us from every terrorist attack, but we know he's going to do the best he can, and that that will likely be good enough. Bush supporters have faith that Bush can protect them--based on absolutely no empirical evidence mind you, but they have faith, so who needs proof?

since spetember 11th there have been NO terrorist attack on American soil, So bush must have done something right in the department of protecting us(take the time to find accurate information before you just post garbage you stupid stupid liberal monkey....)

since spetember 11th there have been NO terrorist attack on American soil, So bush must have done something right in the department of protecting us(take the time to find accurate information before you just post garbage you stupid stupid liberal monkey....)

No there've just been a massive escalation of terrorist attacks worldwide.

You may not have noticed but there weren't exactly an abundance of terrorist attacks on U.S soil pre 9/11 either.

since spetember 11th there have been NO terrorist attack on American soil, So bush must have done something right in the department of protecting us(take the time to find accurate information before you just post garbage you stupid stupid liberal monkey....)
In a moment I will delete your nation.

But before I do so, may I ask, how many terrorist attacks conducted by foreign terrorist groups were there on American soil before Bush's presidency? Erm...one? So, he is one of only two presidents in US history to have had a terrorist attack happen on his watch. Sounds like he's a pretty incompetent buffon to me, LOL.

And now, to toast you...

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif

Ok, I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I will say I don't want Kerry in office. He has already said that no matter the results, his campaign will start litigating the outcome of the election until he wins. Is that the kind of man you want to have power over you?

According to Benjamin Franklin, "He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." I believe Bush will provide more security and more freedom, and therefore, my vote very definitely goes to Bush.

Ok, I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I will say I don't want Kerry in office. He has already said that no matter the results, his campaign will start litigating the outcome of the election until he wins. Is that the kind of man you want to have power over you?

According to Benjamin Franklin, "He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." I believe Bush will provide more security and more freedom, and therefore, my vote very definitely goes to Bush.



Maybe Bush will make America more secure but he'll make the rest of the world a more dangerous place.

Ok, I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I will say I don't want Kerry in office. He has already said that no matter the results, his campaign will start litigating the outcome of the election until he wins. Is that the kind of man you want to have power over you?

According to Benjamin Franklin, "He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." I believe Bush will provide more security and more freedom, and therefore, my vote very definitely goes to Bush.
i have not problem with you voting for whoever you think will do the best job but just WHEN did kerry say that? did you hear it from his own lips?

In a moment I will delete your nation.

But before I do so, may I ask, how many terrorist attacks conducted by foreign terrorist groups were there on American soil before Bush's presidency? Erm...one? So, he is one of only two presidents in US history to have had a terrorist attack happen on his watch. Sounds like he's a pretty incompetent buffon to me, LOL.

And now, to toast you...

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gifOuch. That's got to sting.

For the original question, The same thing has been said from the Kerry Champains. Vote for Kerry, he'll keep you safe.

Me, I'll vote for Bush for alot of reasons but one is that he should finish what he started. Then, when he's done, and the US Citizens are not satisfied... Impeach him.

since spetember 11th there have been NO terrorist attack on American soil, So bush must have done something right in the department of protecting us(take the time to find accurate information before you just post garbage you stupid stupid liberal monkey....)



Wow, there have been 2 terrorist attacks on US soil in their history. 1 of them was on Bush's watch, in other words, 50% have happened under him. At least Clinton was able to stop those ones on New Years of 2000.

well to get back to the real topic...i will probably be watching the daily show. it should be fun to watch comedy central and fox news battle it out for the title of champion of fake news.

well to get back to the real topic...i will probably be watching the daily show. it should be fun to watch comedy central and fox news battle it out for the title of champion of fake news.



I think your in the wrong thread buddy.

and ya clinton was a great president. don't pull the stupid conservative well he lied to us. i know he did, he admitted it. bush has lied is STILL sticking to his story. i am a clinton supporter not his wife.

also, why is it that the democrats are the only ones to get decent :fluffle: ?

also, why is it that the democrats are the only ones to get decent :fluffle: ?
Didn't some survey recently show that Republicans were more, ahem, satisfied?

Though I'm unkindly guessing that that's on account of their tendency to indulge in all the kinky stuff. Moral puritans, LOL, they're all the same.

Wow, there have been 2 terrorist attacks on US soil in their history. 1 of them was on Bush's watch, in other words, 50% have happened under him. At least Clinton was able to stop those ones on New Years of 2000. :rolleyes:
Delusion. Clinton stopped nothing. It was a lucky catch by a border guard. Don't attribute a lucky catch by an aware border guard to anything that Clinton did.

well since it's common knowledge that many republicans are necropheliacs, the occasional dead model might meet their standards.

:rolleyes:
Delusion. Clinton stopped nothing. It was a lucky catch by a border guard. Don't attribute a lucky catch by an aware border guard to anything that Clinton did.
I wonder, if the average border guard has had his real salary increase, or decrease, under Bush?

:rolleyes:
Delusion. Clinton stopped nothing. It was a lucky catch by a border guard. Don't attribute a lucky catch by an aware border guard to anything that Clinton did.

ahh yes, the days when our country had a sufficient amount of people protecting our borders. how i miss them...

I wonder, if the average border guard has had his real salary increase, or decrease, under Bush? :rolleyes:
I wonder what this has to do with anything?

Increased.

:rolleyes:
Delusion. Clinton stopped nothing. It was a lucky catch by a border guard. Don't attribute a lucky catch by an aware border guard to anything that Clinton did.




Lucky catch? Believe me, if you look remotely suspicious, they'll pull you over.

:rolleyes:
I wonder what this has to do with anything?

Increased.
Heh, because if it has been decreased, then maybe Bush is an ungrateful traitor? Heh, just a thought.

i really hate the fact that 9/11 has put bush out to be the hero that he really isn't just because he was president when it happened.

Lucky catch? Believe me, if you look remotely suspicious, they'll pull you over.
Funny, I cross the mexian-American border fairly frequently, and pass thru interstate checkpoints and never seem to have any problem.

Heh, because if it has been decreased, then maybe Bush is an ungrateful traitor? Heh, just a thought.
? :confused: ?

Whatever. And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Funny, I cross the mexian-American border fairly frequently, and pass thru interstate checkpoints and never seem to have any problem.




I got pulled over at the Canada-US border in North Dakota and they did a quick search of my car, well I was travelling with my family.

Funny, I cross the mexian-American border fairly frequently, and pass thru interstate checkpoints and never seem to have any problem.

but do you look remotely suspicious?

I got pulled over at the Canada-US border in North Dakota and they did a quick search of my car, well I was travelling with my family.
Random searches.

but do you look remotely suspicious?
Yup.

Funny, I cross the mexian-American border fairly frequently, and pass thru interstate checkpoints and never seem to have any problem.
I'm guessing then, that you're white. :p

so if you look remotely suspicious and you cross the border all the time with no hassle, the border guards must really be slacking under bush. in short: what in the hell is your point?

Random searches.


Yup.




They pulled ever car behind us over too, but I guess if they consider that random. Now our neighbour, who is from Pakistan, had a hell of a time getting in, even though he's lived most of his life in Canada, is a well known and respected doctor and was going down to San Francisco to take some test (can't remember the name off the top of my head).

I'm guessing then, that you're white. :p
I'm thinking your bigoted. :D

edit: I'm American of Mexican descent.

I'm thinking your bigoted. :D

well no that statement wouldn't show him as being bigoted but the guards as using stereotypes. i'm not saying all of them do it, but these "random searches" are really not all too random. and please don't just toss the word bigot around so lightly.

Mexico is a funny country, especially the bus drivers :D.

Ok, I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I will say I don't want Kerry in office. He has already said that no matter the results, his campaign will start litigating the outcome of the election until he wins. Is that the kind of man you want to have power over you?

According to Benjamin Franklin, "He who is willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither." I believe Bush will provide more security and more freedom, and therefore, my vote very definitely goes to Bush.


First, thanks for commenting without bothering to read the thread.

Secondly, I suppose you'd rather have in office the guy who stole the election. Yeah, much better choice.


-- Alena

very good point Alena.

i don't understand how anyone can even come to the conclusion that we will be more free under bush after the patriot act has been constructed.

also on the issue of security, the people in this world that are threatening who HAVE weapons (no one we've bothered with) have gotten more of them. (whoops)

- S N I P -

There is too much evidence showing that Bush knew that 9/11 was happening and did nothing till after it was over. ( www.standdown.net ) Perfect excuse . . .
-S N I P -.
Good gravy! You are citing the likes of standdown.net as a source? They can't even count!

Let me explain. US imperialism, globalisation and the propping up of hated dictatorships makes Arabs angry enough to join al-Qaeda.
It's not exactly doing wonders on the home front either.

I fail to see the debate. George Dubya cant even tie up his shoes without help, let alone lead you lot. Lets say 20% of americans watch fox news, and will vote republican. I leave it to the conscience of the rest of you. Remember, the world is bigger!

You do seem to like interfering with other country's problems. You have no shortage of things to sort out in your own country. Now I wont decry Iraq, as Hussein wasnt exactly savoury, but things like Clinton interfering with the northern ireland thing a few years ago. He could have just stopped americans paying for violence in Ulster. Terrorist funding....

Translates:

U.S = bad.

Arabs = good but oppressed.

Al-Qaeda = the solution of an oppressed Arab.
That is the propaganda environment that Bush has played into by needlessly invading Iraq. Just replace al Qaeda with resistance movement and you've nailed it.

since spetember 11th there have been NO terrorist attack on American soil, So bush must have done something right in the department of protecting us(take the time to find accurate information before you just post garbage you stupid stupid liberal monkey....)
Following February 26, 1993 there were no attacks on American soil until after Bush got into office. Clinton must have been doing something right, eh?

See? The logic doesn't hold up either way.

In a moment I will delete your nation.

But before I do so, may I ask, how many terrorist attacks conducted by foreign terrorist groups were there on American soil before Bush's presidency? Erm...one? So, he is one of only two presidents in US history to have had a terrorist attack happen on his watch. Sounds like he's a pretty incompetent buffon to me, LOL.

And now, to toast you...Ouch. That's got to sting.
meh . . . a perfect waste of a response on my part.

meh . . . a perfect waste of a response on my part.
i saw no point in the post.

What I do have to say however, is that bush will do a heck of a lot better job on terror than kerry can. after all, Bush is for swpending money on our safety, unlike his living corpse opponent, who has voted against spending for defense most of the time when he was a senator. Most Dems wish to silently ignore that.

so....yeah. I don't mind supporting Bush.

And....yes, it was a message the Reps were sending to people. after all, which politician doesn't do that?

I suppose you'd rather have in office the guy who stole the election.

WHAT? oh thats HILARIOUS!! how exactly did he "steal" the election? Hmm let's see...

who whined and moaned that there SHOULD be a recount? hmm the Democrats?

And who only wanted those recounts in HEAVILY democratic counties with DEMOCRATIC officials?

HMMMMM the Democrats?

The only reason the "recount" was stopped was because it was only taking place in 3 counties and because there weren't uniform standards.

People would probably complain that Bush stole the election if he would have wanted recounts in the Heavily Republican districts where the officials were Republican.

Now, on another note :D Whoever said the the democrats get better :fluffle: had to be smoking something lol they all look forced.

and on a third point...if the election were decided based on the Candidate's Daughters, the blonde Bush daughter would win :D cuz she SOOOO fine :D

i saw no point in the post.

What I do have to say however, is that bush will do a heck of a lot better job on terror than kerry can. after all, Bush is for swpending money on our safety, unlike his living corpse opponent, who has voted against spending for defense most of the time when he was a senator. Most Dems wish to silently ignore that.

so....yeah. I don't mind supporting Bush.

And....yes, it was a message the Reps were sending to people. after all, which politician doesn't do that?
First, I am neither a Democrat or a Liberal.

Second, Bush is for spending that goes to his corporate cronies. Since he uses the guise of protecting us tell me this, which is more at risk of attack: Nebraska or New York City?

The quick answer? Haliburton, etal

Rather than deal in childish characterizations, try some facts. They do a mind good.

WHAT? oh thats HILARIOUS!! how exactly did he "steal" the election? Hmm let's see...

who whined and moaned that there SHOULD be a recount? hmm the Democrats?

And who only wanted those recounts in HEAVILY democratic counties with DEMOCRATIC officials?

HMMMMM the Democrats?

The only reason the "recount" was stopped was because it was only taking place in 3 counties and because there weren't uniform standards.

People would probably complain that Bush stole the election if he would have wanted recounts in the Heavily Republican districts where the officials were Republican.

Now, on another note :D Whoever said the the democrats get better :fluffle: had to be smoking something lol they all look forced.

and on a third point...if the election were decided based on the Candidate's Daughters, the blonde Bush daughter would win :D cuz she SOOOO fine :D


Dont forget that they are cokeheads like their dad. But thats beside the point. The point with the stealing is a reference to Gore winning the popular vote. Whether or not thats stealing, I wont even begin to comment, but Im assuming thats what he meant.

Bush is clearly evil--look into his eyes. He has no soul. I dont even think hes truely human

i don't know why republicans can't come out and admit that bush is a lying stubborn idiot. i mean...how many excuses will you pull out of your asses before someone finally lets the truth be told?!

i don't know why republicans can't come out and admit that bush is a lying stubborn idiot. i mean...how many excuses will you pull out of your asses before someone finally lets the truth be told?!
:rolleyes:

No sense of decency? Care to explain yourself?
Sure. You toss about trash like this.
And so the gap between the reality-based community and the faith-based community becomes ever clearer. Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community--we know that Kerry won't singlehandedly protect us from every terrorist attack, but we know he's going to do the best he can, and that that will likely be good enough. Bush supporters have faith that Bush can protect them--based on absolutely no empirical evidence mind you, but they have faith, so who needs proof?
You have no idea what Bush supporteres believe, based on the fact that that toss about trash like that post. "Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community"? Give it a rest.

i don't know why republicans can't come out and admit that bush is a lying stubborn idiot. i mean...how many excuses will you pull out of your asses before someone finally lets the truth be told?!

I don't think anyone in this election is interested in truth.

But I bet quite a few of them are interested in a good "anus-pulling"! Woohoo! Party at my place!

You have no idea what Bush supporteres believe, based on the fact that that toss about trash like that post. "Kerry supporters live in the reality-based community"? Give it a rest.
Well, I was actually quoting an article by Ron Suskind where he quotes a White House staffer who refers to Kerry supporters as living in the reality-based world, while Bush supporters live in the faith based world. And I do have a fair idea of what Bush supporters believe--I read their ravings every day, and until last year, lived in one of the redder states, the buckle of the Bible belt, so to speak. I do know these people, because I grew up with them, went to church with them, went to school with them, married one of them. Until last year, my life was inundated with the people of whom I speak, so believe me when I tell you that I know exactly what the fuck I am talking about.

Anonymous sources are King. King I say! :p

And by staffer, it means janitor.

Anonymous sources are King. King I say! :p
Since I assume that's directed at me, here you go. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=)
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' ...

And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ''You think he's an idiot, don't you?'' I said, no, I didn't. ''No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community. Happy?

How do we know that guy's not just making it all up though?