Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fanpuck33_

Election 2004

Recommended Posts

It appears that Bush has won, but I am sure Kerry will sue his ass off trying to get more votes. I am proud to live in Ohio, that state that will decide the vote, and appears all but won by Bush.

Bush leads Ohio by 135,000 votes, and only some 250,000 provisonal ballots to be counted. In order to win Ohio, Kerry would need to win 77% of the remaining votes, which is an extremely unlikely outcome.

[Edited on 2004-12-30 by puck7x]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, you've elected a man who will continue to take away more of your personal freedoms (Patriot act) , and your country will be controlled by crazy right wing christian conservatives... (Gay marriage ban, etc) ... Just wait till Bush appoints some new supreme court judges.

I wish religion would just stay out of politics all together. It makes me sick. You cannot force your beliefs onto others. I've got nothing against religion, I just think church and state should be kept seperate.

Your not going to find much support for Bush here Fanpuck. I'm curious of your reasons for supporting Bush and the GOP fanpuck, is it because of economic reasons (cant be that, look at the deficit!)? social issues? The war/terror? I'd like to know what goes on inside the mind of a Bush supporter. Your an intelligent guy, I respect you... I'd like to know, plus your not a typical Bush voter, your young, your college educated. I've heard far too many Bush supporters say they prefer Bush because "Kerry's a fag" or something stupid.

Also, how do you feel that the rest of the World overwhelmingly supported Kerry? Is the rest of the world wrong? Are Americans to proud to listen to what the rest of the World thinks?

Another thing that I do not understand is.... That a majority of Bush voters said that their #1 reason for voting for Bush was "Terror" . This makes no sense to me, under Bush's 1st term the United States suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history! Bush hasnt even caught Bin Laden yet! (though he did destroy most of his organization) . Plus Bush invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq) , he invaded them based on a lie (where are the WMD's).

Yes Iraq deserved better then Hussien, and yes it is a good thing that he lost his power.... But I think the United States has more important problems then Iraq (North Korea for one... Bush's administration hasnt even talked to North Korea since they've been in office)

Why would you list terror as your #1 reason for voting for Bush when under Bush's watch the United States suffered its worst terrorist attack in history? Am I missing something here?

I wish for once the United States had a fiscally conservative AND socially liberal government.

You voted for this man?

bush_finger1.gif

(Oh yeah, sorry if I come across as an asshole in this post, not my intention.. I just want to understand your POV)

[Edited on 2004/11/4 by puck7x]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's unfortunate we're stuck with Bush for another 4 years. I read some main parts Kerry stood/stands for, and i liked it. In the health insurrance and health research. Just picked out 2 things i liked about him, i think he would be better for the US and the world (but it's also uncertain if he would do what he said, saying is 1 thing, making it work is 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Leafs Suck

When does the draft start?

Bush has repeatedly said he will not enact a draft because he wants an all volunteer military. There are liberals in Congress, however, who push a draft, not Bush and the Republicans.

Originally posted by puck7x

Congratulations, you've elected a man who will continue to take away more of your personal freedoms (Patriot act)

I am perfectly fine with giving up a little privacy so that my country will be safer. Sometimes you have to give up a little personal freedom for the better of the whole. If people were unwilling to give up any personal freedom, a social contract never would have occured and we would all be running around like savages. There is a line to be drawn, but I do not feel the Patriot Act crosses this line.

Your country will be controlled by crazy right wing christian conservatives... (Gay marriage ban, etc) ... Just wait till Bush appoints some new supreme court judges.

I also agree in separation of church and state, but I feel the liberals take this too far. Teachers are fired for wearing a cross. Monuments are taken down because they might offend someone. Well, doing these things offends me.

I'm curious of your reasons for supporting Bush and the GOP fanpuck, is it because of economic reasons (cant be that, look at the deficit!)? social issues?

The economy was on a downswing when Bush took office, so the recession cannot be blamed solely on Bush. Economies go up and down, and it happened that Bush took office near a downswing. The economy is improving and I believe we can overcome this recession. And I support consevative values over liberal values every day of the week.

Also, how do you feel that the rest of the World overwhelmingly supported Kerry? Is the rest of the world wrong? Are Americans to proud to listen to what the rest of the World thinks?

Terrorists are tops on the list of people who wanted Kerry to win. They know Bush will come after them, while they feel Kerry would pull back on the war on terror. And why does it matter that other countries supported Kerry? They aren't the ones who are directly affected, the American people are.

Another thing that I do not understand is.... That a majority of Bush voters said that their #1 reason for voting for Bush was "Terror" . This makes no sense to me, under Bush's 1st term the United States suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history! Bush hasnt even caught Bin Laden yet! (though he did destroy most of his organization) .

Blaming 9-11 on Bush is ludicrous. Intelligence was no different than the system used by Clinton, that had prevent any outside terrorist attacks since 1993. In fact, the head of the CIA during 9-11 was appointed by Clinton. This attack would have happened regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat was in office. President Bush has appointed a new head of the CIA and has pumped millions into intelligence to help prevent more attacks on the United States. Kerry, on the other hand, voted to decrease spending on intelligence after 9-11. How would that help prevent terrorism? And as you pointed out, we have indeed destroyed a great deal of the infrastructure of bin Laden's organization.

Plus Bush invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq) , he invaded them based on a lie (where are the WMD's).

Fighting the war on terror includes fighting those who harbor and support terrorists. Saddam clearly did this. It was well known many terrorist training camps were found in Iraq, and that Saddam paid the families of those who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. People focus on WMDs, even though that was just one reason we invaded. For years, Iraq broke the UN rules, but faced no consequences. We have not found any WMDs, but there are stockpiles of other weapons that Saddam was supposed to have dismantled, such as long range missiles. While not linked to 9-11, Saddam's regime clearly supported terrorism and obviously disliked the US, and was likely yo at some point help terrorists attack the United States.

Bush's administration hasnt even talked to North Korea since they've been in office)

The US has kept a close eye on this, and has been in close contact with South Korea, which is working vigorously to cool down the situation.

I could not support Kerry as president. He does not think for himself, and contradicts himself constantly. He now says the war in Iraq was the "wrong war at the wrong time" and that we should have only gone in with UN support. But when it came time for him to vote on the war, he voted for the bill that ok'ed uni-lateral action against Iraq, yet he voted against a bill that would have ok'ed invasion only with UN consent. He says he supports the troops and claims they are poorly prepared, yet he voted against money to get these supplies for the troops. He claimed he would increase intelligence, despite voting against intelligence reforms numerous times. How could we expect this man to stick to anything he says?

A very important domestic issue to me is abortion. While I doubt abortion as a whole will ever be banned, I feel it is very important and necessary to ban partial birth abortions. This type of abortion is brutal and gruesome, and the children have developed enough that they can feel pain. Bush is clearly against partial birth abortion, but this is the type of thing Kerry supports: http://www.savemychildrenministry.com/defe...lesspage10.html (Please do not visit this site if you have an uneasy stomach. The pictures are very graphic and are not for the faint of heart. Clicking on the links along the top of the page will show pictures of the results of numerous forms of partial birth abortion.

[Edited on 11-4-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush has repeatedly said he will not enact a draft because he wants an all volunteer military. There are liberals in Congress, however, who push a draft, not Bush and the Republicans.

Who? Let me here what pinko commi is bringing back the draft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Draft bill before congress was put up by Charlie Rangle, D-NY. Basically no Democrats support it. US congress is different from parliament in that the individual members are incredibly independant.

Rangle's reason for advancing the bill was to make a point - that blacks and the poor are overwhelmingly over-represented in the military and that if the entire country is fighting the war, the dying should be done equally throughout the society. I can see his point of view, even if I dont want the draft.

The reason why liberals say that Bush means draft has nothing to do with current legislation in congress. Basically, the fear is that A: Bush will be unable to secure forces from other countries to help out in Iraq , and/or B: Bush will open a new theatre of war. If either of these two things happen and troop levels are to stay relatively stable in iraq, afghanisthan, North Korean border, Columbia, and still be able to staff our bases around the world, a draft will be necessary.

Also, re-enlistment and recruitment are not currently meeting anything resembling their goals, therefore stop-loss, aka backdoor draft, aka not letting guys leave when their tours are done.... kinda cruel if you ask me.

[Edited on 11/4/2004 by simonus]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

I am perfectly fine with giving up a little privacy so that my country will be safer. Sometimes you have to give up a little personal freedom for the better of the whole. If people were unwilling to give up any personal freedom, a social contract never would have occured and we would all be running around like savages. There is a line to be drawn, but I do not feel the Patriot Act crosses this line.

Okay fair enough, though I happen to disagree... my line is drawn a bit closer then yours.

I also agree in separation of church and state, but I feel the liberals take this too far. Teachers are fired for wearing a cross. Monuments are taken down because they might offend someone. Well, doing these things offends me.

Good another answer I was looking for. And I agree with you when you say teachers should be allowed to wear Crosses, wearing a cross is a personal choice. On the other hand, children should not have to say the pledge of allegiance if they do not want to (conflict with beliefs, etc)

The economy was on a downswing when Bush took office, so the recession cannot be blamed solely on Bush. Economies go up and down, and it happened that Bush took office near a downswing. The economy is improving and I believe we can overcome this recession. And I support consevative values over liberal values every day of the week.

Well, the country is in a pretty big hole. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with this one.

Terrorists are tops on the list of people who wanted Kerry to win. They know Bush will come after them, while they feel Kerry would pull back on the war on terror. And why does it matter that other countries supported Kerry? They aren't the ones who are directly affected, the American people are.

I dont think the terrorists can account for all the Kerry supporters in other countries :) . Alot of very intelligent people around the World supported Kerry, thats all I'm saying, they must have had a good reason. Plus the US Election does directly affect the rest of the World, the US is the world superpower, basically everything the US does has an affect on the world.

Blaming 9-11 on Bush is ludicrous. Intelligence was no different than the system used by Clinton, that had prevent any outside terrorist attacks since 1993. In fact, the head of the CIA during 9-11 was appointed by Clinton. This attack would have happened regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat was in office. President Bush has appointed a new head of the CIA and has pumped millions into intelligence to help prevent more attacks on the United States. Kerry, on the other hand, voted to decrease spending on intelligence after 9-11. How would that help prevent terrorism? And as you pointed out, we have indeed destroyed a great deal of the infrastructure of bin Laden's organization.

I never blamed Bush, all I said was that the attacks happened on his watch. Obviously the terrorists wanted to attack a republican led United States. I just figured that if "terror" was such an important issue for the voters that they would vote for the party which the terrorists are less likely to attack.

Fighting the war on terror includes fighting those who harbor and support terrorists. Saddam clearly did this. It was well known many terrorist training camps were found in Iraq, and that Saddam paid the families of those who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. People focus on WMDs, even though that was just one reason we invaded. For years, Iraq broke the UN rules, but faced no consequences. We have not found any WMDs, but there are stockpiles of other weapons that Saddam was supposed to have dismantled, such as long range missiles. While not linked to 9-11, Saddam's regime clearly supported terrorism and obviously disliked the US, and was likely yo at some point help terrorists attack the United States.

Well, I still find all this hard to beleive because their are other countries in the World who break UN rules, and have terror training camps, but are they being liberated? Nope....

And what about those weapons stockpiles? How about the the missing stockpiles of weapons? What happened to those? Were the guards too busy protecting the Oil? Why not guard the base with the TONS of weapons?

The US has kept a close eye on this, and has been in close contact with South Korea, which is working vigorously to cool down the situation.

Still, I dont like this situation one bit. The Clinton administration had been making good progress with North Korea, but the second the Bush administration took over all ties were cut. And what about those mysteriously clouds we sometimes see overNorth Korea? That country is a ticking time bomb...

I could not support Kerry as president. He does not think for himself, and contradicts himself constantly. He now says the war in Iraq was the "wrong war at the wrong time" and that we should have only gone in with UN support. But when it came time for him to vote on the war, he voted for the bill that ok'ed uni-lateral action against Iraq, yet he voted against a bill that would have ok'ed invasion only with UN consent. He says he supports the troops and claims they are poorly prepared, yet he voted against money to get these supplies for the troops. He claimed he would increase intelligence, despite voting against intelligence reforms numerous times. How could we expect this man to stick to anything he says?

Yeah, you do have a point here , Kerry is very indecisive. He changes his mind all the time. But I feel he had good intentions, I honestly thought he would of made a decent president. But I guess we'll never know.

A very important domestic issue to me is abortion. While I doubt abortion as a whole will ever be banned, I feel it is very important and necessary to ban partial birth abortions. This type of abortion is brutal and gruesome, and the children have developed enough that they can feel pain. Bush is clearly against partial birth abortion, but this is the type of thing Kerry supports: http://www.savemychildrenministry.com/defe...lesspage10.html (Please do not visit this site if you have an uneasy stomach. The pictures are very graphic and are not for the faint of heart. Clicking on the links along the top of the page will show pictures of the results of numerous forms of partial birth abortion.

This is one place where I can agree with you. I am very pro-life (even though I hate that term) , call me soft, but I beleive in protecting the innocent, the rights of a fetus. Abortions (in most cases) are an "easy way out" for people who have made mistakes (except in the cases of rape etc.) . I beleive in accountability, if you get pregnant by accident and want to terminate it, TOUGH! I say, deleiver the baby and then put it up for adoption.

Hell, I'm one of the most socially liberal people out there, if I had it my way Marijuana and Prostitution would be legalized (plus the gov't is missing out on taxation!) ... but abortion is one issue which I am against.

(These views are probably going to be very unpopular, but whatever... :-^ )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you usually use the washington times as your source? It's a moonie paper! I mean, its run by an heretical messianic impersonator who runs a cult.

Anyways, going back to my previous post, Rangel acted alone, was outside the democratic fold on that bill.... cant really characterize it as a democrat party initiative. I dont use rick santorum's insanity as a main argument against republicans, although i think he's a lot more dangerous than rangel and has a hell of a lot more power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just pointing out that Republicans were not supporting a draft, that Dems were using it as a scare tactic. ANd that was just the first article I found about it, so I posted it. I forgot where I read it the first time.

PS: you must have posted your thing about Rangel while was trying to find my article, as I didn't notice somebody had already responded to Leaf's post.

[Edited on 11-4-04 by Fanpuck33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by puck7x

This is one place where I can agree with you. I am very pro-life (even though I hate that term) , call me soft, but I beleive in protecting the innocent, the rights of a fetus. Abortions (in most cases) are an "easy way out" for people who have made mistakes (except in the cases of rape etc.) . I beleive in accountability, if you get pregnant by accident and want to terminate it, TOUGH! I say, deleiver the baby and then put it up for adoption.

Hell, I'm one of the most socially liberal people out there, if I had it my way Marijuana and Prostitution would be legalized (plus the gov't is missing out on taxation!) ... but abortion is one issue which I am against.

(These views are probably going to be very unpopular, but whatever... :-^ )

while I am pro-choice, I can to a large degree undestand and appreciate many arguments against abortion. However there are two arguments that you use which disturb me. You basically say that you are against abortion in order to teach careless women a lesson. Thats a little harsh, but what about the baby that will be taught a lesson by being put in foster care? I guess an arguemtn could be made that the foster care is better than no life, but you're argument isnt really acknowledging the foetus as life.

You allow abortion in cases of rape. So, it's okay to kill a child when it was conceived in a bad way. I imagine you would allow abortion in cases of incest, too. What about statutory rape? If a girl can't give consent can she get an abortion (with her parents' approval of course)? What about if she was impregnated by an abusive lover whom she leaves. What about an abandoned women? She thought she was starting a family and instead gets a kid in a situation she had no way to prepare for.

Obviously my scenarios are increasingly borderline to ridiculous, but where do you draw the line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by puck7x

I dont think the terrorists can account for all the Kerry supporters in other countries :) . Alot of very intelligent people around the World supported Kerry, thats all I'm saying, they must have had a good reason. Plus the US Election does directly affect the rest of the World, the US is the world superpower, basically everything the US does has an affect on the world.

I know, I was just making a point. And while I would be foolish to think the election has no effect on the rest of the world, the effect on the American people is obviously greater, and they are closer to the situation.

I never blamed Bush, all I said was that the attacks happened on his watch. Obviously the terrorists wanted to attack a republican led United States. I just figured that if "terror" was such an important issue for the voters that they would vote for the party which the terrorists are less likely to attack.

How about the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? That was launched while a Democrat was in office. I don't see why you think terrorists would more likely attack while a Republican is in office.

Well, I still find all this hard to beleive because their are other countries in the World who break UN rules, and have terror training camps, but are they being liberated? Nope....

Well, the US felt that of these kinds of countries, Iraq posed the greatest danger. Other nations were next on the list, but afte what has happened in Iraq, I doubt Bush would be willing to go in with more support, like he did in Iraq. But if he does, I think he will listen to Colin Powell this time and have a much better exit plan.

Still, I dont like this situation one bit. The Clinton administration had been making good progress with North Korea, but the second the Bush administration took over all ties were cut. And what about those mysteriously clouds we sometimes see overNorth Korea? That country is a ticking time bomb...

I agree with you here, I wish Bush would do more on this issue. I can, however, understand why he choose to go after Iraq instead. Obviously Saddam harbored terrorists, and in taking down his regime and freeing the people of Iraq, the administration hopes to find a good ally in the heart of the Middle East, where most of the terrorists come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by simonus

while I am pro-choice, I can to a large degree undestand and appreciate many arguments against abortion. However there are two arguments that you use which disturb me. You basically say that you are against abortion in order to teach careless women a lesson. Thats a little harsh, but what about the baby that will be taught a lesson by being put in foster care? I guess an arguemtn could be made that the foster care is better than no life, but you're argument isnt really acknowledging the foetus as life.

Yes it is a little harsh, and you'd probably see lots of cases of newborns being put up for adoption (AT FIRST), but eventually women (and also men, who play a role in impregnating women obviously) would be less careless, and you would see a major decrease in unwanted pregnancies. Plus advances in birth control will make it harder and harder to have an unwanted pregnancy.

You allow abortion in cases of rape. So, it's okay to kill a child when it was conceived in a bad way. I imagine you would allow abortion in cases of incest, too. What about statutory rape? If a girl can't give consent can she get an abortion (with her parents' approval of course)? What about if she was impregnated by an abusive lover whom she leaves. What about an abandoned women? She thought she was starting a family and instead gets a kid in a situation she had no way to prepare for.

Obviously my scenarios are increasingly borderline to ridiculous, but where do you draw the line?

I know, I know. I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to this, where do you draw the line? Its tough to say, thats why its impossible to ban abortions across the line.

All I want is for people to be more responsible, I think if abortions are partially banned you will see alot less unwanted pregnacies, instead of a alot more adoptions. People will think twice before having unprotected sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Fanpuck33

How about the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993? That was launched while a Democrat was in office. I don't see why you think terrorists would more likely attack while a Republican is in office.

You make a good point here, I had forgot that Clinton was in office in 1993. But the democrats have never suffered an attack on the scale of 9/11. And with Bush invading Afghanistan and Iraq and pissing off many muslims in the prossess, they have got a big bullseye on their backs... and the public knows this.

Well, the US felt that of these kinds of countries, Iraq posed the greatest danger. Other nations were next on the list, but afte what has happened in Iraq, I doubt Bush would be willing to go in with more support, like he did in Iraq. But if he does, I think he will listen to Colin Powell this time and have a much better exit plan.

I would hope that before the US decided to invade/attack (whatever you want to call it) another country that they first get the backing of the UN (although that would probably take a very long time, UN member nations only think about themselves usually) . I agree about Powell, Bush needs to listen to him more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to jump in here because I think a number of things have been glossed over or are simply wrong.

1) Iraq paid the families of PALESTINIAN suicide bombers. While they may have harboured terrorists these were not likely the same groups attacking the US but were going after Israel. Is the US now in the business of wiping out ALL terrorism and not just the groups that threaten them? It's nice to say "rah rah we're the world police" but lets face it...there is a fine line in the world between terrorists, rebels and freedom fighters. I'm not saying Al Qaida is a group of freedom fighters but if the US is going after any group then it's a murky water indeed.

2) The reasoning for entering Iraq was NEVER about terrorism. It was about WMD's that supposedly threatened the US...despite the fact Iraq had no missle technology to fire them there. Those WMD's were never found and the reasoning about the war has changed NUMEROUS times. Bush lied bigtime to the American public and that alone is not a quality of a good leader...lies that have cost billions of dollars and many troops lives. Why? The conflicts of interest stated below are too hard to ignore.

3) There are so many conflicts of interest in his administration that the corruption is actually transparent. With Haliburton and Bush's oil buddies reaping the benefits...WHY ISN'T THIS A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE? BTW, the largest monetary supporter of terrorism in the mid-east is Saudi Arabia and MANY of them are counted among Bush's oil pals.

4) The Bush connections to the Bin Laden family is deeper then most seem aware. They were protected post 9-11 and flown out of the US. They are protected in Saudi Arabia. Bush has now actually flip flopped on the importance of catching Osama...and how the hell do they catch Saddam so quick but he can't be found? Hell, journalists have got to him easily enough. Does anyone else think it convinient that a "new Osama" tape resurfaced right before the election...which obviously plays to Bush's supposed "tough stance on terror". Why hasn't this been questioned further...you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see an obvious benefit to the republicans with this timing.

How about the evidence that US intelligence new about 9-11 being a possibility before it happened and the Bush administration not acting on it! Where was his "leadership" then? Oh right, it was on vacation...

5) The economy was entering a minor downswing when Bush took over but he has done NOTHING to help turn it around. He further alienated the US on the global market with his foreign policy and the US trade deficit has increased by a staggering amount. Bush needs to take a very large portion of the blame for the breadth of this economic downswing.

6) You will often see opposing candidates flip flop on issues as Kerry has for the simple reason that the gov't had all the facts and they didn't. If Kerry was privy to the information Bush had when he acted (information that came out AFTER Bush's actions) then we can only assume that he would have taken his current stance.

The end of the day is this IMO: Bush has proven he is NOT a good leader. Kerry has not proven anything because he never had a chance. Choosing the lesser of two evils is a cop out response for any voter who is simply voting on Bushes "morals" rather then his policies. It justifies voters to not have to educate themselves on the real issues. Kerry's biggest mistake was making too many grand promises with no real plan to back them...and I don't blame voters being turned off by this in the least btw.

The US has essentially voted for an all conservative gov't that is going to affect the country for well beyond Bush's final term. The thing that worries me about this is that Bush he is creating large policy/legal changes through incrementalism...you don't think the Patriot act crosses the line but when they continuously add and make "minor" changes it eventually will. Bush makes good use of the slippery slope when enacting policies. He patiently makes small changes a little at a time so that over his entire tenure(and beyond thanks the control now given to Republicans across the board) it'll be large. The almost entire Replican gov't in place will make sure it happens and you won't be able to stop it now...

Things like Rowe vs. Wade is going to get squashed. Things like the Patriot act will be expanded.

It's funny how most replican appointed judges have conservative verdicts about 60% of the time generally...and the democrat appointees have liberal verdicts about 60% of the time. Do you realise that the stats on Bush's appointees are conservative verdicts 80% of the time? That's a HUGE difference in legal governance.

I'd also like to point out that the "rest of the world" wanted Kerry in power only because of Bush's foreign policies. Using the "rest of the world" example in this way really shouldn't be something I think the American public should worry about...that's just opinions that are largely biased due to Bush's war in Iraq and have little to do with the rest of his policies. I just think Bush's policies and track record, as they directly relate to the US, were enough reason not to vote for him. I hope he proves me wrong though...

I'm actually fairly right wing as far as Canadian politics goes. I believe in less gov't, lower taxes, more efficient use of gov't money, etc...but I follow US and world politics a fair bit and my conservative heart just couldn't back Bush after all he, and his administration, has done.

[Edited on 2004/11/5 by Zowpeb]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Zowpeb

Iraq paid the families of PALESTINIAN suicide bombers. While they may have harboured some terrorists these were not likely the same groups attacking the US but were going after Israel. Is the US now in the business of wiping out ALL terrorism and not just the groups that threaten them?

My mistake, but he did increase the reward by $15,000 after the 9-11 attacks. And yes, the final goal of the war on terror is to wipe out ALL terrorism possible, not just groups directly threatening the US, but those obviously will be the first the US goes after.

The reasoning for entering Iraq was NEVER about terrorism. It was about WMD's that supposedly threatened the US...despite the fact Iraq had no missle technology to fire them there.

WMDs were just one of numerous reasons Bush gave in his original speech. Go look up the speech, and you will see that he links the Iraq invasion to terrorism, and not just suspected Al-Qaeda links, but the fact that Iraq was a known terrorist breeding ground. People who are against the war totally blow the WMD issue out of proportion, saying that was the only reason for the invasion. This is simply twisting the truth to support their argument. Aside from this, we have found many long range missiles that you claim they did not have access to.

With Haliburton and Bush's oil buddies reaping the benefits

Why the hell is it such a big deal that Haliburton got the job? Clinton gave Haliburton jobs without looking at other companies too. And isn't it better for the oil to be controlled by the Iraqi people? And don't give me any BS about the Oil for Food program, which both Saddam and at least one UN official were using to extort money at the expense of the Iraqi people.

Does anyone else think it convinient that a "new Osama" tape resurfaced right before the election...which obviously plays to Bush's "tough stance on terror".

If anything, I thought this would benefit Kerry. This new tape proved as a great reminder that Usama is still out there and capable of launching attacks.

Things like Rowe vs. Wade is going to get squashed.

Despite the fact that I would like to see this happen, I don't think even a conservative Supreme Court will do it. Traditionally, the Supreme Court is extremely unwilling to overturn verdicts that it has already made. I don't think this issue will be resolved unless somebody is ever able to prove when life begins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bush is so tough on terror that he admitted he isn't even looking for bin Laden and used all the military resources to attack iraq.

isn't it funny that the people in more favour of the war are the ones sitting home refusing to fight? if i believed in something that deeply and belived the world would be safier without saddam, i'd enlist and go fight.

but i guess it's hard to get people to enlist when the president, his VP and most of his cabinet are all a bunch of draft-dodging chickenhawks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Zowpeb
Things like Rowe vs. Wade is going to get squashed.

It should be scrapped! Roe vs Wade basically allows any woman in America to have an abortion at ANY stage in her pregnancy... Although the ruling was "a state has no right to restrict abortion in the first six months of pregnancy" , it also states that any woman can have an abortion in the last 3 months if the womans health is in jeopardy , BUT the term "health" is broad and can mean a number of things like mental health for instance.

Roe vs Wade should be scrapped and replaced with AT LEAST a ban on abortions after the 2nd trimester except when the mothers LIFE (not health) is at risk.

This is not about the rights of a woman and her body, I am sick of when people argue this (not you zowpeb). Its about the rights of the unborn child, simple as that, abortions are cruel and inhumane. Some people need to and realize that this is not an issue of taking away a womans rights and freedoms, how about the fathers rights? how about the rights of the unborn child? argh... :mad: pro-choice :mad:

<i>"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts--a child--as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. (Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable,"</i>

I like this quote... But I'll say again, I am not a religious nut... I am the FURTHEST person in the world from it. I just feel really strongly about this issue, always have.

[Edited on 2004-11-5 by puck7x]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subjective... Everyone is just biased with their own opinions, it's totally natural and there's nothing wrong with it...

Although it always cracks me up to see all the differents ''arguments'' people make based on their supposed ''objective view on things''.

You argue with facts that complement your ideal, in the end what you all are saying makes sense because we can all see your emotions dictating your reasonning...but when someone else starts going at it from his own perspective, it's like we're running around in circles...

The good thing about this argument is your calmness and ability to accept different views and facts.

But you guys, just like Supreme Court judges, are prone to think in a ''pre-determined way''; the values that you have since you were able to read/speak and that have been modifided by the different social contexts in which you've been in throughout your life are too strong to ignore.

So, here's my legal, objective, independant point of view on all this:

BUSH SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after Leafs Suck's last two posts, it's time for me to stop wasting my time on this thread. The elections over anyway, talking about it is useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fanpuck,

I don't see how the US can argue that it is fighting all terrorism in the world...even those not opposed to the US. It shouldn't even bother...the US is not the worlds police force, regardless of what popular opinion is.

Hussein paid Palestinian families of suicide bombers...while plainly an evil guy and an evil thing to do this has nothing to do with the US. Syria, Afgahnistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are all much greater breeding grounds for terrorist threats to the US. Going after Iraq and using terrorism as an excuse was plain wrong and capitalising on the emotions of people at the time. The WMD's were the PRIME reason for the war in Iraq because supposedly Hussein was going to use them against the US...possibly through supporting Al Qaida. This was stated despite the fact that all evidence pointed to no Al Qaida connection and there was no strong evidence that WMD's were even around.

Haliburton getting contracts like that is a HUGE deal...I'm disappointed you don't see it that way. It's a clear conflict of interest to give taxpayer money to them without a proper bid process. It may have cost the US billions of $$$ it didn't need to spend. The fact that the project money was limited to US companies is also clearly a corrupt practice. Anytime there is a major conflict of interest like this it should be the number 1 concern of taxpayers. The Canadian Adscam and sponsorship money scandals currently going on up here is another prime example.

The Osama tape definitely played into Bush's favour. The republicans went out of their way to paint Kerry as a guy who wouldn't stand up to terrorism whereas Bush has supposedly been fighting it all over. The tape comes out and people say "oh no, Osama is still going to get us...we want someone to stand up to him and it looks like Kerry can't/won't do it." Which, IMO, is BS. ANY president would've went after these guys...and I think they probably would've done a better job. The war in Iraq was a waste of resources that could've been better used. It was a poor foreign policy move that pitted the US against many of it's allies and likely only created an entirely new group of terrorist supporters in Iraq, and elsewhere in the mid-east.

Do you really think the oil in Iraq is being controlled by the Iraqi people? That's almost laughable. The US has ensured that THEY will rebuild Iraq and clearly the political pressure this allows them is the means for the US to essentially control much of that oil.

As for the Roe vs. Wade thing...I'm actually against abortions. My sister was born in the 5th month. Technology allows for children to be born earlier all the time. IMO, life begins at conception. However, I understand the pro-choice movement and believe the law should currently allow for this...having a gov't as totally conservative as this is NOT a balanced gov't that will reflect what a VERY large portion of the population want. My point on Roe vs. Wade was simply to point out that having such a conservative sweep in power is going to significantly affect about 50% of the US population adversely. Bush's right wing, religious beliefs do not reflect much of the population but that will be forced down their throats through more and more legislation that is secular in it's basis. I hope I'm wrong but he's already started down the slippery slope so I don't see him stopping now.

[Edited on 2004/11/6 by Zowpeb]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to resurect a topic, tell me if it annoys you....

I personally supported Kerry, but after awhile, it was just nauseating. I watched Jeopardy in the weekend, and literally, 90% of the commercials were partisan attacks/ads. People were all high strung about everything, every attempt at a relativly calm conversation turned into an accusation/newsbite quoting fest. Everybody even had armbands (a la Livestrong) for which candidate they supported! One of my better friends barely even wanted to talk to me because he heard I was a Kerry supporter.

It was actually kind of scary, kind of like a cult of personality thing around here. I wasn't happy that Bush won, but I'm very glad the election is over. 8 months of that crap was almost unbearable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...