A vote for Bush? Please explain...

Just a short interjection to a post waaaaaayyyy back there:


Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, called perjury, not because he got a BJ.

And the lies of JFK far outweigh any 'percieved' lies of GWB

John Kerry, by his own admission, is a war criminal guilty of violating several treaties, not the least of which was the Geneva Convention. He is a traitor, he consorted and advised the enemy during active combat, he worked willingly with the enemy and even contributed to acts of sedition after his return to the US. He has taken every opportunity to destroy the US military, weaken it, and make it incapable of effecting victory in combat by his record in the Senate, yet now he says he'd be a strong CIC? BAH! I would not vote for the man If I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that all of my wildest dreams would come true if he were to be elected.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by everlastingnoitall]

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
It is hard for me to understand how this is supposed to make sense. Your reply to my post was largely dependent on the fallacy that our current policy in Iraq will have a better effect on our standing in the Arab world than the previous policy of containment. Because we wouldn't be bombing them on a regular basis.

www.globalissues.org...
As mentioned above, since the US and UK imposed a no-fly zone (not a UN-enforced one), Iraq has been bombed anything from almost daily to every three days.

well the fact is, no matter how hard you try to spin it no matter how you ignore it we were bombing them damn near daily for 12 years prior to the start of the war�.we flew many more combat missions and probably dropped more tonnage between the wars then we did in either conflict. So you can refuse to believe the truth all you want but that doesn�t make it true.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
Well, In addition to the killing of more than 10,000 Iraqis, we are still bombing them on a regular basis. Is that what you meant by a better policy? That's my point.

as I stated pretty clearly ANYTHING was better than containment I would have preferred that we not get involved�.but I know Clinton needed something to show how tough he was so let�s go bomb someone�chances are we won�t lose any one and we can always apologize.

Originally posted by oppodeldoc
I'm sure you think the bombing will end at some point in time. According to the CIA it's only going to get worse...

Yes I do and to think not is kind of silly. and so did they email you something.


[edit on 17-9-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by everlastingnoitall
Just a short interjection to a post waaaaaayyyy back there:


Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, called perjury, not because he got a BJ.

ever�actually;
Article 1 was for perjury to special counsel.
Article 3 was for obstruction of justice.

And of course no one ever serves time for obstruction of justice....cough (Martha)�.cough

I stand corrected! Let the record show I admit my mistake! lol

Thanks keholmes

I knew it wasn't because of a bj, anyway,

[edit on 17-9-2004 by everlastingnoitall]

Responding to quotes from "oppodeldoc" 6/9/04

[edit on 18-9-2004 by GessoI]

I really hoped this was giong to be an open minded discussion, based on mutual respect.

Instead it has turned into a lot of personal attacks, partisan snipings, and a lot of regurgetated talking points from both sides of the press.

To validate your points, many of you have provided links that are so biased, I don't consider the writers to understand the meaning of the word objective.

THIS is precisely what makes me ill at the political process in this country. IF you don't like what the left is saying, they are called unpatriotic. If you don't like what the right is saying, you call them Nazi's.

Each acts as if it is the only group with the good of the country at heart. When you all can learn to discuss this calmly, let me know.

The Spider

My oh my...

One must remember, though... a terrorist is the same as a contra rebel is the same as a freedom fighter.

To us, they're terrorists, but to themselves, they are freedom fighters. We use contra rebels in countries that would regard them as terrorists. What is the difference? The fact that "America is always right"?

Please.

Well, let me try to be as objective in stating my position as possible.

I am voting for Bush. Why?

I like the guy, I like the direction the country is moving, I like the backbone and self preservation (in regards to America) that he brings to the oval office, no matter his personal motivations. I think it is about time we got out from under the United Socialist Republic of Nations (UN) and did things we wanted, instead of listening to a bunch of international thugs trying to redistribute the power America has built for itself over the decades. I don't believe the economic naysayers, I don't think Halliburton won unfair contracts (name one other company with the resources and capabilities to do what they do), I don't think Dick Cheney is playing to them because he happens to be receiving the pension any working person would have had they put in that much time and energy into a company, and I don't think it's all some great conspiracy to get Iraqi oil or support the Zionist Israeli regime.

What is my biggest problem with John Kerry and the Democratic party in general? Two things:

1) I cannot really tell you were their candidate stands 100% on any issue other than he is not Bush.

2) I don't like Marxist Socialism, which is the direction many policies being floated about in the Democratic leadership would take us. They complain about lost freedoms under this presidency but refute the very policies sitting on their leaders' desk. Pure and simple. I may have given up a small peice of freedom that we really haven't had since the advent of political correctness, but under a long term Democratic Administration, we'd lose a heck of a lot more, IMHO.

There, in a nutshell, is why I am voting for GWB.

Don't bother arguing with me, it won't do any good. Honest, open minded question, sure. I'll attempt to answer. Attempt to interject rhetoric or subjective insulting/mudslinging, and you might as well talk to the wall. I won't respond. Plenty of other threads where we are all guilty of doing that (myself included).



Side note:

I really don't want anybody on the left thinking I hate them or have anything less than respect for their views. I don't. You are probably fine, upstanding individuals and have every right to your opinions. I just happen to think I am right, and you are wrong, and I will fight until my dying day defending what I think is right, as I am sure you will too.



After all, if I agreed with you, then we'd both be wrong! (J/K)

Spidergooch, Bravo.

The Bush Administration is out of control. I hope he loses, but if he wins legitimately, then this country deserves him.

We'll just see what condition this country is in in 1 year, let alone the end of his term.

This is not because of any conspiracy, it's the result of ineptitude and pathetic leadership.

Bush is the smart one, by the way...Cheney went to Yale but failed out, Bush barely passed...

America is in danger, and all you blind Bushies will learn it, but too late.
And even though the blind Bushies will allow him to continue his REIGN, all of America and the WORLD will pay the price.

But that doesn't bother you. He's a "strong leader."

A few rebuttals

1) The roman and macedonian empires fell.
Yes but each lasted at least 1000 years before they did.
2) The strategy I outlined sound like colonialism.
Maybe but then again so what, you may say colonialism failed I say look at India, can anyone deny that the British occupation of India is directly responsible for the fact that India today is the worlds largest democracy?
3) Violence in the middle east is not a legitimate political tool.
Really, look at how Saddam Hussein and other dictators gained and held on to power.
4) The west (specifically America) is exporting its culture in some form of "cultural imperialsm" Yes we are so what. Better that youths in tehran listen to brittney spears tapes than OBL's. No one ever went on a murder spree or became a suicide bomber because of pop music.
5) What right does America have to force other countries into democracy?
Simple, You can build a bomb in tehran and detonate it in New york. The more coca-cola they drink, levi's they wear and MTV they watch the less likely a young man in the middle east is to become a suicide bomber.

Originally posted by mwm1331
5) What right does America have to force other countries into democracy?
Simple, You can build a bomb in tehran and detonate it in New york. The more coca-cola they drink, levi's they wear and MTV they watch the less likely a young man in the middle east is to become a suicide bomber.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would beg to differ.

Originally posted by mwm1331
3) Violence in the middle east is not a legitimate political tool.
Really, look at how Saddam Hussein and other dictators gained and held on to power.

Well, the United States set it up so Saddam would gain power, and we've kept him in power with our weaponry and armaments. One of those "the enemy of our enemy" deals...

Originally posted by spidergooch
I really hoped this was giong to be an open minded discussion, based on mutual respect.

Instead it has turned into a lot of personal attacks, partisan snipings, and a lot of regurgetated talking points from both sides of the press.

Yeah, it's really a debate thread more than anything. Let's take this to Political Debate for those so inclined and give some more concrete issues in Politics & Scandals a chance for a while.