NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm starting to get tired of hearing all of the people on hear complaining about how Kerry lost and America is just full of a bunch of idiots. That's what makes some of you assholes. By believing either party is superior to the other is just dividing the country more. Just because your beliefs are not shared by everyone does not make you an intellectual elite. Here are some suggestions to each party:

Liberal/ Democrats: Get over it. Bush won fair and square and the people who voted for him are not stupid scum. The democratic party put up a crappy candidate this time and paid dearly for it. John Kerry didn't win because he consulted polls before he made up his mind about an issue. You can't please everyone, so just stand firm in the issues that you believe in. Also, people like Michael Moore and Puff Daddy/ P Diddy, or what ever the hell he goes by now, are not helping your party. More than half of the people I have talked to will take anything that Michael Moore says as a factual statement. They don't take the time to research the issue and see if it is actually true or not.

Conservatives/ Republicans: You also need to get over it. Your win may have been by 3 million votes, but that is still no mandate from America. 55 million Americans still don't like you. When you know that your candidate will win by a wide margin a week before election day, then you are allowed to gloat and say whatever you want. You also need to stop this "we need to protect you from yourself" shit. Even though I have not heard of any case of someone being taken from home at night, I still think the Patriot Act need to be repealed to insure that it doesn't lead to something more that could jeapordize our rights as Americans.

Nader: Go find something better to do.

I'm starting to get tired of hearing all of the people on hear complaining about how Kerry lost and America is just full of a bunch of idiots. That's what makes some of you assholes. By believing either party is superior to the other is just dividing the country more. Just because your beliefs are not shared by everyone does not make you an intellectual elite. Here are some suggestions to each party:

Liberal/ Democrats: Get over it. Bush won fair and square and the people who voted for him are not stupid scum. The democratic party put up a crappy candidate this time and paid dearly for it. John Kerry didn't win because he consulted polls before he made up his mind about an issue. You can't please everyone, so just stand firm in the issues that you believe in. Also, people like Michael Moore and Puff Daddy/ P Diddy, or what ever the hell he goes by now, are not helping your party. More than half of the people I have talked to will take anything that Michael Moore says as a factual statement. They don't take the time to research the issue and see if it is actually true or not.

Conservatives/ Republicans: You also need to get over it. Your win may have been by 3 million votes, but that is still no mandate from America. 55 million Americans still don't like you. When you know that your candidate will win by a wide margin a week before election day, then you are allowed to gloat and say whatever you want. You also need to stop this "we need to protect you from yourself" shit. Even though I have not heard of any case of someone being taken from home at night, I still think the Patriot Act need to be repealed to insure that it doesn't lead to something more that could jeapordize our rights as Americans.

Nader: Go find something better to do.

Oh God.

Nothing personal but this thread will go from zero to suck in less than a page.

:D Because nobody likes the truth

Thank you, finally someone says something thats not hate-filled or senseless.

I'd get over it really quickly if I could afford to flee to Amsterdam (or maybe Stockholm).

As it is, this 19-year old is too nervous about the draft necessary to fight 4 more wars to "get over it."

Think about this: why not dictatorship? Rome had it and kicked ass.

Clinton hasn't been in office for four years and conservatives still haven't gotten over him. So, no. I'm not going to just roll over because the election didn't go my way. I didn't like Bush before and just because he convinced 3 million more people that Kerry was going to enforce aborted baby gay marriages on everyone and surrender to the Vietnamese doesn't mean that I'm suddenly going to let him off the hook.

Not only that, but the democrats (which I am technically not, as I have never registered as a democrat-for a while as Green, but now undeclared) have every right in the world to look at how it is they lost and examine what happened and can be perfectly excused not to take the conservatives word for it on why. Yes, it is cute that they think they'd like to lend thier 'advice,' but if they thought you had good advice they'd be conservatives. So again, no-I think they will go on rejecting your notion of why they lost and examine it on their own. But thanks.

So no, I don't think I'll just 'get over it' while Bush continues to make bad decisions. Unless immigration to Canada gets a whole lot easier.

I'd get over it really quickly if I could afford to flee to Amsterdam (or maybe Stockholm).

As it is, this 19-year old is too nervous about the draft necessary to fight 4 more wars to "get over it."
This 18 year old male is certain that there won't be a draft. Why? For either party a draft is POLITICAL SUICIDE. If either party were to be seen as complicit in the creation of a draft, you can say goodbye to that party forever. As in more complete than the decimation of the dems after the civil war. As in "There will never be another republican/democrat candidate ever again." Think the Federalist or Whig parties here.

I'd get over it really quickly if I could afford to flee to Amsterdam (or maybe Stockholm).Yeah, running away like a 12 year-old girl will solve a lot.

Funny you should mention a draft. Democrat Charlie Rangel presented a bill to reinstitute the draft a couple of months ago.

If you run away to a different country you're a god damn pussy. Just because things don't go your way doesn't mean you can flee the country. They will probably not reinstitute the draft unless we are in World War III.

I speak as a conservative and I say thanks...
I have not and will not gloat over the win of Pres. Bush and so many other conservative candidates. We need to,as a country,come together and work to make this nation a better place for the next 200 hundred years or so...
And by the way there is no danger of a draft...This is not meant to flame but it is true...In 2004 there have been 48 or more resolutions to reinstate the draft and every one of them was bright by a Democrat...Not a hype just fact...
Thanx everyone have a good day...

This 18 year old male is certain that there won't be a draft. Why? For either party a draft is POLITICAL SUICIDE. If either party were to be seen as complicit in the creation of a draft, you can say goodbye to that party forever. As in more complete than the decimation of the dems after the civil war. As in "There will never be another republican/democrat candidate ever again." Think the Federalist or Whip parties here.

There will not be a draft under present circumstances; I'll give you that. But the moment there's another terrorist attack, all Bush needs to do is say "I need the draft to continue the war on terra in Iran." As the republican party's approval rating goes back to 70%, and the entire country resumes flag-waving jingoism, the "political suicide" consideration will be significantly deemphasized. Not to mention that Bu$h is now a lame-duck president.

Think about this: why not dictatorship? Rome had it and kicked ass.
Why not Totalitarian Pseudo-Communist Stalinism?

The USSR had it for more than 30 years and they were beating America in the Cold War for awhile. :D

I speak as a conservative and I say thanks...
I have not and will not gloat over the win of Pres. Bush and so many other conservative candidates. We need to,as a country,come together and work to make this nation a better place for the next 200 hundred years or so...
And by the way there is no danger of a draft...This is not meant to flame but it is true...In 2004 there have been 48 or more resolutions to reinstate the draft and every one of them was bright by a Democrat...Not a hype just fact...
Thanx everyone have a good day...

Yeah, then the Democrats voted against their own bills. They were introduced only to force a public debate about the possible consequences of Bu$h's ubermilitaristic policies. The 'librul media' that Republicans always like to talk about buried the issue.

Yeah, running away like a 12 year-old girl will solve a lot.

There are precisely two presidents, out of forty-three, in the history of the United States that I would refuse to serve under. Bush II is one, Nixon the other.

There will not be a draft under present circumstances; I'll give you that. But the moment there's another terrorist attack, all Bush needs to do is say "I need the draft to continue the war on terra in Iran." As the republican party's approval rating goes back to 70%, and the entire country resumes flag-waving jingoism, the "political suicide" consideration will be significantly deemphasized. Not to mention that Bu$h is now a lame-duck president.
It would take one hell of a terrorist attack, something that we dare not even think about, to make the environment sufficient for a draft. It would have to be several levels of magnitude greater than the September 11 attacks. The ONLY situation I could see a draft is if nuclear bombs were detonated in multiple US cities.

Would it even need to be multiple cities? I think one would be enough to justify an ass-kicking

Funny you should mention a draft. Democrat Charlie Rangel presented a bill to reinstitute the draft a couple of months ago.

If you run away to a different country you're a god damn pussy. Just because things don't go your way doesn't mean you can flee the country. They will probably not reinstitute the draft unless we are in World War III.

Can I venture a guess about your view on immigrants to the US?

55 million Americans voted against Bush, not for Kerry. If he runs in 2008, he wont make it out of the primaries, and if he does, he wont get 30 million votes.

Would it even need to be multiple cities? I think one would be enough to justify an ass-kicking
It might take only one, but I'm not totally sure about that.
We really don't like that draft.

There are precisely two presidents, out of forty-three, in the history of the United States that I would refuse to serve under. Bush II is one, Nixon the other.


If John Kerry had been elected would you have served in the military?I for some reason doubt it. I served 5 years in the 82nd airborne division under Bill Clinton and can tell you that the military is much better served with a Conservative in office. See the Dems. try to slash the defense budget but increase defense commitements around the world. (I would name the ones I was involved in but we would be here all day.)The miltary was nearly 89% behind the current adminstration.So you can say that you would not serve as you sit back and watch the news and talk about how horrible the current admin. is but that is easy for you to do ,due to the fact that the men and women who keep us safe from the terrorists threat are very busy doing the work you can not seem to bring yourself to find the courage to do.I am not trying to be angry but this crap drives me nuts.Spoiled little whiners more concerned about themselves then their nation as a whole.Did you get upset when my buddies got mowed down in MOgidishu Somalia because Pres. Clinton tied their hands with over restrictive rules of engagement?(see BlackHawk down) Oh and by the by Osama Bin LAden was the master mind behind that attack as well...
Thanx guys have a good day....

55 million Americans voted against Bush, not for Kerry.
And the award for most baseless assertion goes to...

If John Kerry had been elected would you have served in the military?I for some reason doubt it. I served 5 years in the 82nd airborne division under Bill Clinton and can tell you that the military is much better served with a Conservative in office. See the Dems. try to slash the defense budget but increase defense commitements around the world. (I would name the ones I was involved in but we would be here all day.)The miltary was nearly 89% behind the current adminstration.So you can say that you would not serve as you sit back and watch the news and talk about how horrible the current admin. is but that is easy for you to do ,due to the fact that the men and women who keep us safe from the terrorists threat are very busy doing the work you can not seem to bring yourself to find the courage to do.I am not trying to be angry but this crap drives me nuts.Spoiled little whiners more concerned about themselves then their nation as a whole.Did you get upset when my buddies got mowed down in MOgidishu Somalia because Pres. Clinton tied their hands with over restrictive rules of engagement?(see BlackHawk down) Oh and by the by Osama Bin LAden was the master mind behind that attack as well...
Thanx guys have a good day....

Yes, I actually would serve under Kerry. However, I will under no circumstance serve under Bush. Suicide would be a preferable alternative.

The difference between Kerry and Bu$h: Bu$h will $ell out the United $tates military to the highest bidder. I don't want to be one of hi$ toy $oldiers.

I wasn't old enough to get upset over when your buddies got mowed down in Mogadishu, as I was eight at the time and had no idea what was going on.

Edit: When did 19 Iraqis fly planes into the World Trade Center? Oh yeah, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. :rolleyes:

It might take only one, but I'm not totally sure about that.
We really don't like that draft.
Well, young men are very against the draft. Older people are more receptive to a draft (possibly because they would not be at risk, lol).

The guy who started this thread (can't be bothered cheking his name) is right. the exact same thing happened in the Australian Federal election in October, everyone thought that the opposition would win because of all these loud-mouthed anti-war tree huggging greenies but alas, they got their asses handed to them. There is such thing as a silent majority.
The empty can rattles the most guys just because you whine doesn't mean you'll win.

If there's a draft you can expect to see me as the first protestor.

This 18 year old male is certain that there won't be a draft. Why? For either party a draft is POLITICAL SUICIDE. If either party were to be seen as complicit in the creation of a draft, you can say goodbye to that party forever. As in more complete than the decimation of the dems after the civil war. As in "There will never be another republican/democrat candidate ever again." Think the Federalist or Whig parties here.

Yeah. the last person to introduce that bill to the House and Senate was Representative Charles Rangel who's a Democrat from New York. If Bush reinstates the draft, I will literally go into shock.

Yeah. the last person to introduce that bill to the House and Senate was Representative Charles Rangel who's a Democrat from New York. If Bush reinstates the draft, I will literally go into shock.

Yeah, and like I said earlier, he voted against his own freaking bill. See my earlier post on the issue.

Yeah. the last person to introduce that bill to the House and Senate was Representative Charles Rangel who's a Democrat from New York. If Bush reinstates the draft, I will literally go into shock.
And he was being his usual sarcastic-annoying self.

http://img30.exs.cx/img30/6237/sealofapproval.jpg

I'm starting to get tired of hearing all of the people on hear complaining about how Kerry lost and America is just full of a bunch of idiots. That's what makes some of you assholes. By believing either party is superior to the other is just dividing the country more. Just because your beliefs are not shared by everyone does not make you an intellectual elite. Here are some suggestions to each party:

Liberal/ Democrats: Get over it. Bush won fair and square and the people who voted for him are not stupid scum. The democratic party put up a crappy candidate this time and paid dearly for it. John Kerry didn't win because he consulted polls before he made up his mind about an issue. You can't please everyone, so just stand firm in the issues that you believe in. Also, people like Michael Moore and Puff Daddy/ P Diddy, or what ever the hell he goes by now, are not helping your party. More than half of the people I have talked to will take anything that Michael Moore says as a factual statement. They don't take the time to research the issue and see if it is actually true or not.

Conservatives/ Republicans: You also need to get over it. Your win may have been by 3 million votes, but that is still no mandate from America. 55 million Americans still don't like you. When you know that your candidate will win by a wide margin a week before election day, then you are allowed to gloat and say whatever you want. You also need to stop this "we need to protect you from yourself" shit. Even though I have not heard of any case of someone being taken from home at night, I still think the Patriot Act need to be repealed to insure that it doesn't lead to something more that could jeapordize our rights as Americans.

Nader: Go find something better to do.
Good job. Good luck avoiding becoming a target of flaming, but it needed to be said.

If there's a draft you can expect to see me as the first protestor.
And I'll be the second.

And I'll be the second.

I think I have already made clear my opposition to the draft, but count me in as the third protester. :D

And I'll be the second.

I'm always running late, so I will probably be like 230th, but I will be there. :)

whining hippy kids...


move to France

It would take one hell of a terrorist attack, something that we dare not even think about, to make the environment sufficient for a draft. It would have to be several levels of magnitude greater than the September 11 attacks. The ONLY situation I could see a draft is if nuclear bombs were detonated in multiple US cities.

The Republican party is very good at scapegoating. If there is a new terrorist attack, the scapegoat will probably go along, and if the election is any clue, Bush will have the support of at least 51% of the population in creating his new police state.

whining hippy kids...


move to France

Unfortunately, moving to France costs money that I don't have. If you're willing to pay to deport one hippie to France, I'd be more than glad to move. I'd prefer Sweden though; the Netherlands probably are easier to get into.:D

Unfortunately, moving to France costs money that I don't have. If you're willing to pay to deport one hippie to France, I'd be more than glad to move. I'd prefer Sweden though; the Netherlands probably are easier to get into.:D
I think this has legs. A friend suggested an ex-pat non-profit where pissy conservatives could put their money where their mouths are. We don't have the money it takes to immigrate, it's a costly process even for the well off (you need at least @$9,000 in savings to immigrate to Canada on top of everything else it's going to cost you). If they are really so sick of hearing us they can donate to the charity to help us ex-patriat-then they can turn the country into whatever kind of inbred theocracy they want.

Well, young men are very against the draft. Older people are more receptive to a draft (possibly because they would not be at risk, lol).

I am definitely against having the draft reinstated. I'm 61. That old enough for you?

There are precisely two presidents, out of forty-three, in the history of the United States that I would refuse to serve under. Bush II is one, Nixon the other.

Good thought, since no president has ever abused the armed forces more thoroughly than Dumbya.

Good thought, since no president has ever abused the armed forces more thoroughly than Dumbya.
Where do you get your facts ?I mean this honestly...Have you sreved are you a miltary analyst? PLEASE Enlighten....

I am definitely against having the draft reinstated. I'm 61. That old enough for you?
I was generalizing.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/elec04.rock.vote.poll/

"88 percent of [18-29 year olds] don't want a draft compared with slightly less than 80 percent of older ones who are against such a move."

If you break it down even further, the trend is obvious. I'm trying to find the in-depth numbers, but if I remember correctly some 40% of 60+ year olds would favor a draft.

Won "fair and square" in spite of allegations of widespread fraud and assorted electoral misconduct?

"Fair and square" has yet to be determined. The legal process has but started.

Why not Totalitarian Pseudo-Communist Stalinism?

The USSR had it for more than 30 years and they were beating America in the Cold War for awhile. :D


they were beating america how often? and for another at what expense was it to their country, they are in economic ruins, the country is run by the mafia practically, no communism is not the answer to anything, no matter how good it looks in a book, it will never work with real living breathing people

Won "fair and square" in spite of allegations of widespread fraud and assorted electoral misconduct?

"Fair and square" has yet to be determined. The legal process has but started.

why do we want to courts to decide who the president is, that is not how it works, then to me at least that throws all of the citizens rights out the window, what was the point of an election anyway if the court has to decide

they were beating america how often? and for another at what expense was it to their country, they are in economic ruins, the country is run by the mafia practically, no communism is not the answer to anything, no matter how good it looks in a book, it will never work with real living breathing people
I was joking obviously. They beat us in the space race until we finally got on the moon. And for a long period of time America was very afraid of the Soviets.

But totalitarian Stalinism is obviously a bad idea. :p

I'm always running late, so I will probably be like 230th, but I will be there. :)


all i have to say to you people, is that you have no idea what kind of sacrifice is needed to maintain this GREAT COUNTRY, i myself am 17 years old and i would gladly serve my country if there was a need. The problem with most of the "young men" in this country has to do with a yellow streak down their back, i am proud of my country, lets face it all you war hating pansys do not understand how our country was founded, this is not India, we had to fight for this freedom we have, we have had to fight numerous times to maintain our freedom, and this current war we are involed in is the exact same thing, those terrorists over there are trin to take away our freedoms little by little, and if we do not stand up to them we lose the respect that so many men have fought to preserve, spain for example lost many freedoms when they back out of iraq, they gave into the terrorist scum, that cannot happen other wise we will never be truly free again... think about it

I think this has legs. A friend suggested an ex-pat non-profit where pissy conservatives could put their money where their mouths are. We don't have the money it takes to immigrate, it's a costly process even for the well off (you need at least @$9,000 in savings to immigrate to Canada on top of everything else it's going to cost you). If they are really so sick of hearing us they can donate to the charity to help us ex-patriat-then they can turn the country into whatever kind of inbred theocracy they want.

if you are so eager to leave, i can probably raise the money to get your sorry ass out of here

I was joking obviously. They beat us in the space race until we finally got on the moon. And for a long period of time America was very afraid of the Soviets.

But totalitarian Stalinism is obviously a bad idea. :p


very good, but there are plenty of morons out there that do not understand that, and we were afraid because we were taught to be afraid , in all truth they were more afraid than us, think of the cuban missle crisis, plus we were the only ones to actually use a nucular divice in times of war

all i have to say to you people, is that you have no idea what kind of sacrifice is needed to maintain this GREAT COUNTRY, i myself am 17 years old and i would gladly serve my country if there was a need. The problem with most of the "young men" in this country has to do with a yellow streak down their back, i am proud of my country, lets face it all you war hating pansys do not understand how our country was founded, this is not India, we had to fight for this freedom we have, we have had to fight numerous times to maintain our freedom, and this current war we are involed in is the exact same thing, those terrorists over there are trin to take away our freedoms little by little, and if we do not stand up to them we lose the respect that so many men have fought to preserve, spain for example lost many freedoms when they back out of iraq, they gave into the terrorist scum, that cannot happen other wise we will never be truly free again... think about it

First off, I don't like being told how to maintain my freedom by a 17 year old. Secondly, if it were my freedom I was protecting I would fight right along side you. But if you want to stick your neck out to free people across the globe from a dictator, you can go die in the desert without me.
Finally, the terrorists are not trying to take away our freedom. They are trying to protect their own freedom. Our government is the one trying to limit our freedom. I'm pretty sure that Osama Bin Laden didn't draw up the Patriot Act, although I bet he has a good chuckle over it every once in a while.

First off, I don't like being told how to maintain my freedom by a 17 year old. Secondly, if it were my freedom I was protecting I would fight right along side you. But if you want to stick your neck out to free people across the globe from a dictator, you can go die in the desert without me.
Finally, the terrorists are not trying to take away our freedom. They are trying to protect their own freedom. Our government is the one trying to limit our freedom. I'm pretty sure that Osama Bin Laden didn't draw up the Patriot Act, although I bet he has a good chuckle over it every once in a while.

maybe you should listen to me one, two why do you think they attacked us in the first place, we weren't doin jack to them before which was a mistake, but they initiated the first blow, and you should be concerned for opressed people all across the globe, you would expect as much from a world power if you were in their situation, well maybe you would be the opressor and would prefer anyone messin with your affairs, terrorism is all about taking freedom, that is your porblem right there, you have to recognize that, and yes i will agree with you on the patriot act, that is total shit, and is unconstitutional, but the fact remains we have a responisibility to not only maintain our freedom actively and participate in our government, but to help others best we can

maybe you should listen to me one, two why do you think they attacked us in the first place, we weren't doin jack to them before which was a mistake, but they initiated the first blow, and you should be concerned for opressed people all across the globe, you would expect as much from a world power if you were in their situation, well maybe you would be the opressor and would prefer anyone messin with your affairs, terrorism is all about taking freedom, that is your porblem right there, you have to recognize that, and yes i will agree with you on the patriot act, that is total shit, and is unconstitutional, but the fact remains we have a responisibility to not only maintain our freedom actively and participate in our government, but to help others best we can

I was willing to listen to you until you made this comment:
"you have no idea what kind of sacrifice is needed to maintain this GREAT COUNTRY"
My bullshit radar goes off whenever a 17 year old makes a comment like that.

America has a long history of appointing dictators, arming dictators, and pitting nations against each other in the Middle East. Look at Iraq and Iran, we spent much of the 70's and 80's arming both of them and keeping them at war against each other just so neither would gain any regional power. Who felt the brunt of that? The people of those nations.

We can't help other nations by beginning wars. We can help other nations end them.

Terrorism is all about fighting when you don't have an army to fight with. No Middle Eastern nation could possible attack us, so some of the people of the Middle Eastern nations have taken up arms out of uniform.

I was willing to listen to you until you made this comment:
"you have no idea what kind of sacrifice is needed to maintain this GREAT COUNTRY"
My bullshit radar goes off whenever a 17 year old makes a comment like that.

America has a long history of appointing dictators, arming dictators, and pitting nations against each other in the Middle East. Look at Iraq and Iran, we spent much of the 70's and 80's arming both of them and keeping them at war against each other just so neither would gain any regional power. Who felt the brunt of that? The people of those nations.

We can't help other nations by beginning wars. We can help other nations end them.

Terrorism is all about fighting when you don't have an army to fight with. No Middle Eastern nation could possible attack us, so some of the people of the Middle Eastern nations have taken up arms out of uniform.

well better fix your radar, and you have to put my comment in context, i was refering to a genrally ignorant youth that have never learned or recognized what was put into this country, fine we armed them both, what we are doin now is trin to end it, the problem is that most people of those countries don't know what it means to be free, and terrorism is about terror hence the name, terror is meant to scare people into doin what they want them to do, which takes away freedom does it not? but that doesn't make what they do to people right, and i for one will not stand for being idle while there is much to be done, i can't do much now in the ways of makin a big difference but i will do what i can

well better fix your radar, and you have to put my comment in context, i was refering to a genrally ignorant youth that have never learned or recognized what was put into this country, fine we armed them both, what we are doin now is trin to end it, the problem is that most people of those countries don't know what it means to be free, and terrorism is about terror hence the name, terror is meant to scare people into doin what they want them to do, which takes away freedom does it not? but that doesn't make what they do to people right, and i for one will not stand for being idle while there is much to be done, i can't do much now in the ways of makin a big difference but i will do what i can

If that is the definition of terror, then the US is just as guilty if not more. The mass daylight bombing in Germany, firebombing in Japan, carpet bombing and napalm in Vietnam, all were meant to frighten the civilians and break their will. I think I remember a phrase in this past war, "shock and awe", how does that not fit into your definition of terrorism?

If that is the definition of terror, then the US is just as guilty if not more. The mass daylight bombing in Germany, firebombing in Japan, carpet bombing and napalm in Vietnam, all were meant to frighten the civilians and break their will. I think I remember a phrase in this past war, "shock and awe", how does that not fit into your definition of terrorism?


civilians are not our target, we do not purposely target the innocent to present a point of view

we also do not take civilians prisoner and murder them in a very barbaric fashion,

I love the irony.

People whining because they don't want to be drafted, but whining because Bush won.

When it was Bush who was opposed to the draft, and Kerry who said he was probably going to look into starting one.

Think about this: why not dictatorship? Rome had it and kicked ass.

Because raw dictatorships are complete idiocies. While I would support a benevolent dictatorship, it doesn't happen. At the moment, we have the closest thing to a Roman government that society would allow. Give the President more Emperor-like power, and suddenly people whine and complain calling totalitarianism.

America works "fine" as it is, I've always felt that democracy needs a "buck-stops-here" person. But it should probably be pointed out that for a bit more than half of Rome's existence it had no emperor.

I won't even comment on the "American tactics since WW II are terrorism" BS. Even the person who presented it doesn't actually buy that.

we also do not take civilians prisoner and murder them in a very barbaric fashion,
no, we take them prisoner and hook jumper cables up to their nuts until they give us the information that we want... or just finish them off quickly with a bombing raid and avoid the whole prison/torture mess.

I love the irony.

People whining because they don't want to be drafted, but whining because Bush won.

When it was Bush who was opposed to the draft, and Kerry who said he was probably going to look into starting one.

Well, it's not like Bu$h is well known for keeping his campaign promises... :rolleyes:

The logical leaps people are willing to go through just to take jabs at someone for not agreeing with them politically is pretty amazing.

civilians are not our target, we do not purposely target the innocent to present a point of view

Dresden, German City renowned for its culture and architecture, very limited industry, virtually worthless to the Nazi Germany war machine.
Bombed Feb 13-14, 1945 : 35,000 - 135,000 civilians killed

Tokyo, Japanese Capital
Bombed March 9-10, 1945: 16 square miles destroyed, over 100,000 civilians killed

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japan
Atomic bombs killed over 100,000 civilians

Cambodia
Approximately 600,000 civilians were killed by American bombing runs in Cambodia during the Vietnam War

Thats nearly a million killed by American actions that fit your definition of terrorism

Now compare these in reference to other nations' bombings in similar time periods.

Let's compare your 35k to Stalingrad and see what happens.

But then, only America is forced to come under the moral spectrum of godliness right? I mean, if America accidentally hits a SINGLE civilian, suddenly they're the most atrocious beings in the history of the world, but we can easily ignore people who intentionally target them.

Now compare these in reference to other nations' bombings in similar time periods.

Let's compare your 35k to Stalingrad and see what happens.

But then, only America is forced to come under the moral spectrum of godliness right? I mean, if America accidentally hits a SINGLE civilian, suddenly they're the most atrocious beings in the history of the world, but we can easily ignore people who intentionally target them.
if it were one civilian, it wouldn't be much of an issue... but when tens of thousands are recklessly killed in a war where the people in charge can't even give us a consistent answer of why we're there, that's plenty of reason to complain. A human life is a human life; don't fall into the "one death is a tragedy, 10,000 deaths is a statistic" mindset.

Aha now you're bouncing around the issue.

First you want to pull up World War II/Vietnam to try to make America look bad, and then you want to try to intertwine those with Iraq in an attempt to distort it and meld the facts into one huge grey jumble.

How about fuck you. Pick a topic and remain consistent.

Now compare these in reference to other nations' bombings in similar time periods.

Let's compare your 35k to Stalingrad and see what happens.

But then, only America is forced to come under the moral spectrum of godliness right? I mean, if America accidentally hits a SINGLE civilian, suddenly they're the most atrocious beings in the history of the world, but we can easily ignore people who intentionally target them.

Those were examples of where American attacks were solely intended to target civilians to break the willpower of the populace. Dresden, especially, as it was a city without much industry. Therefore, it was spared for most of the war and was thought of as a safe place by the German people. The gigantic number of refugees who thought they were safe there was the main target of the bombings.

I do hold America to a higher standard because it is my country.

How can we be the greatest country on Earth, when we purposefully killed 600,000 civilians in a nation that we weren't at war with (Cambodia).

If we want to claim the moral high ground we had better live up to it.

Aha now you're bouncing around the issue.

First you want to pull up World War II/Vietnam to try to make America look bad, and then you want to try to intertwine those with Iraq in an attempt to distort it and meld the facts into one huge grey jumble.

How about fuck you. Pick a topic and remain consistent.

I was the one who brought up WW2/Vietnam not Ostrich.

I backed my argument, I never mentioned Iraq.

So how about you answer ME before you get banned.

if you are so eager to leave, i can probably raise the money to get your sorry ass out of here
Pony up then, champ. When you reach $20 grand I'll start packin'.

Ban me? For not answering a fucking question? Cute.

Before I answer your "question", let me ask you one:

Do you see a siege as terrorism?

Ban me? For not answering a fucking question? Cute.

Before I answer your "question", let me ask you one:

Do you see a siege as terrorism?

No, they should ban you for "How about fuck you"

No, I don't see a siege as terrorism, why?

Aha now you're bouncing around the issue.

First you want to pull up World War II/Vietnam to try to make America look bad, and then you want to try to intertwine those with Iraq in an attempt to distort it and meld the facts into one huge grey jumble.

How about fuck you. Pick a topic and remain consistent.
read, comprehend, THEN post. I never mentioned WWII or Vietnam. If I had, comparing those incidents to something worse still wouldn't make them okay.

no, we take them prisoner and hook jumper cables up to their nuts until they give us the information that we want... or just finish them off quickly with a bombing raid and avoid the whole prison/torture mess.


that is extremely rare, but we do not stand by what these few people did, that is the difference, and who cares if we blow away someone that has intentions of killing our troops, or more innocent people

Dresden, German City renowned for its culture and architecture, very limited industry, virtually worthless to the Nazi Germany war machine.
Bombed Feb 13-14, 1945 : 35,000 - 135,000 civilians killed

Tokyo, Japanese Capital
Bombed March 9-10, 1945: 16 square miles destroyed, over 100,000 civilians killed

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japan
Atomic bombs killed over 100,000 civilians

Cambodia
Approximately 600,000 civilians were killed by American bombing runs in Cambodia during the Vietnam War

Thats nearly a million killed by American actions that fit your definition of terrorism

you should compare how many civilians were killed by the germans, the japanese, and the dictator of cambodia, besides how many were actual civilians in cambodia answer me that

besides our unofficial affiliation with cambodia during veitnam never had that great of an effect not even close to 600,000.... have you ever heard kemhor rouge, not sure on the exact spelling, but they killed millions of people in cambodia

you should compare how many civilians were killed by the germans, the japanese, and the dictator of cambodia, besides how many were actual civilians in cambodia answer me that

The Germans and Japanese also had tactics of targeting civilian populations, so I guess you mean to say that our tactics are justified because two of the most dispicable regimes in history also used them? I might point out the logical fallacy of that, but even we took civilian targeting farther than that. We killed 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night.

besides our unofficial affiliation with cambodia during veitnam never had that great of an effect not even close to 600,000.... have you ever heard kemhor rouge, not sure on the exact spelling, but they killed millions of people in cambodia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Cambodia

Scroll down to casualties.

Dresden was a retaliatory bombing, for the varied German strikes against British cities (esp. Coventry). It was actually started by the British at night, with Lancaster bombers, and the US carried out day bombing action (If I remember what I read correctly).

Tokyo was a move designed to break the Japanese. Try to get the Emperor to surrender. As were the nuclear strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I know it sounds odd to call such behaviors "casualty minimization effforts" but that's what they were. If the allies had invaded Japan that November Civilian casualties would have been much higher. And the northern portion of Japan might have wound up under Soviet control.

Everything about Vietnam is problematic. We shouldn't have been involved there.

The Germans and Japanese also had tactics of targeting civilian populations, so I guess you mean to say that our tactics are justified because two of the most dispicable regimes in history also used them? I might point out the logical fallacy of that, but even we took civilian targeting farther than that. We killed 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Cambodia

Scroll down to casualties.

no i mean to say, that targeting was not nearly as sophisticated so it could be said that many if not most civilian casualties were accidents due to the poor intelegence and equally poor weapon targeting msystems of the time, but as for the japanese are concerned it was a necessary evil, there was even a secret coup that was goin to take place with in the japans government and if it hadn't been for the dropping of those weapons the populace may not have been so eager to stop the fighting, but the point remains that if it had not happened they may have had the peoples backing to carry on the fight for however long they could

To those democrats that keep name calling
other persons who voted for Bush, if they
keep thinking and talking like that they will
loose more elections, they will loose the moderates
and others. that is the point of this thread.

Their candidates would never
campaign like that or they would loose.

To those democrats that keep name calling
other persons who voted for Bush, if they
keep thinking and talking like that they will
loose more elections, they will loose the moderates
and others. that is the point of this thread.

Their candidates would never
campaign like that or they would loose.
Just pointing out, moderates chose Kerry over Bush by 9%.

Just pointing out, moderates chose Kerry over Bush by 9%.
You wouldn't happen to have something in the mode of verifiable sources?

Didn't think so.

You wouldn't happen to have something in the mode of verifiable sources?

Didn't think so.
You speak too soon. :D

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY IDEOLOGY

Liberals (21% of all voters) Bush 13%, Kerry 85%, Nader 1%.
Moderates (45% of all voters) Bush 45%, Kerry 54%.
Conservatives (34% of all voters) Bush 84%, Kerry 15%.

You wouldn't happen to have something in the mode of verifiable sources?

Didn't think so.

My favorite part of your post is when you told him he didn't have any sources after not giving him a chance to show them. Ignorance like that must be very hard to cultivate: good job!

You speak too soon.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY IDEOLOGY

Liberals (21% of all voters) Bush-13%, Kerry-85%, Nader-1%.
Moderates (45% of all voters) Bush 45%, Kerry-54%.
Conservatives (34% of all voters) Bush 84%, Kerry 15%.
A CNN poll? What, couldn't find a quote from Michael Moore calling himself an independent? Self-described "moderates"?? Gimme a break!!

FYI, Hillary Clinton calls herself a moderate, and we all know what a load of BS that is.

A CNN poll? What, couldn't find a quote from Michael Moore calling himself an independent? Self-described "moderates"?? Gimme a break!!

FYI, Hillary Clinton calls herself a moderate, and we all know what a load of BS that is.

"give me proof-OH YOU CAN'T!"
"Yeah, I can." **gives proof**
"Well...HILLARY CLINTON ISN'T A MODERATE HAHAHA WHAT NOW?!?!"

A CNN poll? What, couldn't find a quote from Michael Moore calling himself an independent? Self-described "moderates"?? Gimme a break!!

FYI, Hillary Clinton calls herself a moderate, and we all know what a load of BS that is.
It's called an exit poll, taken on voting day.

I provide the proof, then you insist that the moderates who filled out the exit polls are actually liberals.

Maybe you have a skewed definition of what a moderate is. In any case, 45% of America describes itself as moderate, whether or not YOU describe them as moderate.

And they voted for Kerry over Bush by 9%. :)

Oh, and the poll wasn't even conducted by CNN. It was done by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International: http://www.exit-poll.net/, who were hired by all the major news organizations, ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, NBC, and yes, even Fox News. :)

oh well kerry still lost and that is a very good thing

oh well kerry still lost
Yeah, so why did Panhandlia go batshit when I posted that moderates preferred Kerry? Obviously the conservatives outnumbered the liberals. It's a simple statistic.

Still waiting for his smart response.

Maybe Fox News is in on the "liberal conspiracy" to slander Bush. :p

no i mean to say, that targeting was not nearly as sophisticated so it could be said that many if not most civilian casualties were accidents due to the poor intelegence and equally poor weapon targeting msystems of the time, but as for the japanese are concerned it was a necessary evil, there was even a secret coup that was goin to take place with in the japans government and if it hadn't been for the dropping of those weapons the populace may not have been so eager to stop the fighting, but the point remains that if it had not happened they may have had the peoples backing to carry on the fight for however long they could

First off, we used incendiary bombs on Tokyo with the sole purpose of igniting a firestorm to destroy the mostly wooden residential area of the city.

The industrial sector in northern Dresden was largely unharmed, while the cultural and residential center of the city was obliterated.

My point wasn't to degrade our own tactics in the wars. I don't know the reasoning for fullscale war on the citizenry of Japan. What I do know is that the government's definition of terrorism and the one you spouted so well falls very much in line with tactics we have embraced fully in the past. We have made marvelous advances in smart weaponry that we can control, but the respect of civilians has never been quite been there.

There have been heinous attacks by fundamentalist muslims, but they let us know full well that they considered themselves to be at war with America long before 9/11 occurred. If you consider 9/11 a wartime act like the "terrorists" did, the 3500 who died in that attack is small potatoes to the 100,000 that died in the attack on Tokyo.

I know they are the enemy, and I would like to see them dead. But this "terrorism" nonsense was cooked by the government in order to rally the populace of this nation.

It is much easier to support a war against psychotic mass murderers than it is to support a war against an organized force who believe that they are oppressed and manipulated by us.

oh well kerry still lost and that is a very good thing

Why is that a good thing?

I'm not going to say having Kerry elected would be a good thing, but what possible information could you have that would imply that a Kerry presidency would have been a bad thing?

Why is that a good thing?

I'm not going to say having Kerry elected would be a good thing, but what possible information could you have that would imply that a Kerry presidency would have been a bad thing?


well the way i see it, i do not want a man that can not make up his mind on anything to lead this country anywhere, the reason i like bush so much is i know exactly where he stands on issues and most of them i agree with, but goin with someone that doesn't have ability to lead is not a good thing, and a good example is when he adressed congress on the veitnam war, he stabbed his fellow service men in the back, i must agree there were bad things that happend over there but not nearly as often as he made it out to be, and i can say this because i have met many vets and have talked to them about this very thing

First off, we used incendiary bombs on Tokyo with the sole purpose of igniting a firestorm to destroy the mostly wooden residential area of the city.

The industrial sector in northern Dresden was largely unharmed, while the cultural and residential center of the city was obliterated.

My point wasn't to degrade our own tactics in the wars. I don't know the reasoning for fullscale war on the citizenry of Japan. What I do know is that the government's definition of terrorism and the one you spouted so well falls very much in line with tactics we have embraced fully in the past. We have made marvelous advances in smart weaponry that we can control, but the respect of civilians has never been quite been there.

There have been heinous attacks by fundamentalist muslims, but they let us know full well that they considered themselves to be at war with America long before 9/11 occurred. If you consider 9/11 a wartime act like the "terrorists" did, the 3500 who died in that attack is small potatoes to the 100,000 that died in the attack on Tokyo.

I know they are the enemy, and I would like to see them dead. But this "terrorism" nonsense was cooked by the government in order to rally the populace of this nation.

It is much easier to support a war against psychotic mass murderers than it is to support a war against an organized force who believe that they are oppressed and manipulated by us.

in this current conflict we have been very very carefull about the civilian population, there haven't been half as many civilian casualites that have occured in wars past, and i don't care what you call them terrorists or not the fact of the matter is they need to be destroyed, i am not saying that muslims need to be destroyed i am sayin the few that have no regard for human life need to be eliminated, but what would you call them , to me they are terrorists, and not all believe they are oppressed by us, i dunno what to tell you but i believe that what we are doin now is a good thing, i have no remorse in goin to war with "terrorists" or and "organized force" but i am convinced that it was the right thing to do, too often we have backed down from terrorists acts which is exactly the wrong thing to do, how are we supposed to remain a world power if we allow ourselves to be pushed around by a rouge force?

Yeah, so why did Panhandlia go batshit when I posted that moderates preferred Kerry? Obviously the conservatives outnumbered the liberals. It's a simple statistic.

Still waiting for his smart response.

Maybe Fox News is in on the "liberal conspiracy" to slander Bush. :p
I can see what Panhandlia's talking about...

What he's saying is that the number of self-described moderates is higher than the number of real moderates who would really consider voting for either person. But unless he can bring up something else there really is no way to measure how (his) moderates voted.

You speak too soon. :D

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

VOTE BY IDEOLOGY

Liberals (21% of all voters) Bush 13%, Kerry 85%, Nader 1%.
Moderates (45% of all voters) Bush 45%, Kerry 54%.
Conservatives (34% of all voters) Bush 84%, Kerry 15%.

What kind of dumbass relies on an exit poll for accurate statistics? Exit polls are very unreliable when it comes to showing which candidate had a majority of the moderate vote. just wait until official polls come out in a month or two that show of moderate votes for Bush and Kerry.

What kind of dumbass relies on an exit poll for accurate statistics? Exit polls are very unreliable when it comes to showing which candidate had a majority of the moderate vote. just wait until official polls come out in a month or two that show of moderate votes for Bush and Kerry.
Fine, plug your ears and shoot the messenger. Every poll that has been done over the years has shown conservatives outnumber liberals, with liberal support hanging around 18%, and conservative support moving around 32-38%. The rest describe themselves as moderates, whether or not YOU personally believe they are moderate. So for any close election, assuming liberals vote for the Democrat in the same ratio to conservatives voting for the Republican, it makes sense that moderates favor the Democrat.

Unless you have any express reason for believing moderates in general voted for Bush...?

What he's saying is that the number of self-described moderates is higher than the number of real moderates who would really consider voting for either person.
I'm not going to tell someone they're actually a liberal or a conservative if they claim to be a moderate. If moderates in general move towards the Democrat, maybe it indicates that the percent of liberals and conservatives in America is closer, but the word "liberal" itself has a negative connotation.

However, the term "moderate" does not instantly mean you will consider voting for either person. Heck, some 15% of self-described liberals and conservatives voted against their own candidate.

Not to mention that Bu$h is now a lame-duck president.
Incorrect terminology. A "lame-duck" president is one who tried for re-election, lost, and is now waiting for January. Bush, however, won, and is waiting for 2008. Therefore he can do whatever the hell he wants for the next for years, while a "lame-duck" prez would only have a few months.

However, the term "moderate" does not instantly mean you will consider voting for either person. Heck, some 15% of self-described liberals and conservatives voted against their own candidate.
Using self-defined terms, yes. If Panhandlia different definition of moderate (and provided he has something to back up his claim) its equally as valid, IMO, as the exit polls. After all, 19% of Americans describe themselves as being in the top 1% of wage earners.

What kind of dumbass relies on an exit poll for accurate statistics? Exit polls are very unreliable when it comes to showing which candidate had a majority of the moderate vote. just wait until official polls come out in a month or two that show of moderate votes for Bush and Kerry.
Case in point: all the exit polls that indicated Kerry was ahead on Election Day. By now we all know what happened. Exit polls...meh.

Self-described "moderates," "undecideds" and "independents"...meh.

In my personal dictionary, "moderate", "undecided" and "independent," all share the same meaning: chicken-<bleep>.

well the way i see it, i do not want a man that can not make up his mind on anything to lead this country anywhere, the reason i like bush so much is i know exactly where he stands on issues and most of them i agree with, but goin with someone that doesn't have ability to lead is not a good thing, and a good example is when he adressed congress on the veitnam war, he stabbed his fellow service men in the back, i must agree there were bad things that happend over there but not nearly as often as he made it out to be, and i can say this because i have met many vets and have talked to them about this very thing

I may not agree with your reasons for supporting Bush, but at least you have some I guess.

As for Kerry, saying that the man can't lead is just crap. He has lead people HIS ENTIRE LIFE. All throughout school, he recieved numerous citations for his leadership during the war, and he lead one of the biggest political movements in history after the war. Disagree with his politics if you will, but don't make up shit about his personality.

*cue the "I know more about his war service than those who served with him and the officer who gave him medals, and I know he didn't deserve them*

I may not agree with your reasons for supporting Bush, but at least you have some I guess.

As for Kerry, saying that the man can't lead is just crap. He has lead people HIS ENTIRE LIFE. All throughout school, he recieved numerous citations for his leadership during the war, and he lead one of the biggest political movements in history after the war. Disagree with his politics if you will, but don't make up shit about his personality.

*cue the "I know more about his war service than those who served with him and the officer who gave him medals, and I know he didn't deserve them*

well thats good to know, but how do you know? just curious, but anyway, leading and being the head of somthin and leading are two very different things, leading is a quality many people in a position of power do not have, for example, when i played football sure you have the captians, the people that were supposed to lead the team, but more often than not it was not a captain that lead, it was just a plain old lineman, that would rise to the occasion and take control of a situation and lineing out the people who were supposed to be "leading" the team, i liken kerry to my captains, cannot make a decision without consulting the coaches even in the simplest of things, now i don't know who kerrys coaches are, maybe they are polls or somthin but that is not a way to lead, you have to do things that some may look bad on but that to me is a sign of a good leader someone that is brave enough to stand up for what they think and know is right, before, during and after, unless they are wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt and can admit it, but changing your stance on somthin every time a new situation rises is not a sign of a good leader, the popular thing is not always the correct thing