Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 haven't seen many political threads, but here goes. Who is the best candidate for our president Support your post with information, not hogwash.. Otherwise i will take revenge upon your soul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 John Kerry. reasons can be found in This thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Most likely John Kerry. While I don't agree with some oft he stuff he's said (Like how he told Nevada citizens that there will not be any High Level Nuclear wastes in the Yucca Mountains when in fact, that is the best place for them instead of having depleted nuclear fuel rods sitting in pools of water...), but compared to Bush... Kerry wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Michael Badnarik, reasons here: http://badnarik.org/ Or George Bush, because I don't like Badnarik's position on Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 peroutka, except for his stance on iraq... but because of the importance of that, VOTE BUSH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I'm just postin' here so y'all can read my sig. That be my stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I'm voting for Bush. Kerry is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Rogue15 I'm voting for Bush. Kerry is an idiot. They're BOTH idiots you dolt George Bush has done absolutely NOTHING to improve the situation in this country. Costs of college tuition have risen 35% during his four years and he's done nothing. His administration has lost a net 800,000 jobs or so, and the jobs they are getting now are paying less than the jobs that they lost. Overall, GW has accomplished nothing in his four years, and I see no reason to give him another four to make things worse. Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin Or George Bush, because I don't like Badnarik's position on Iraq. You dont like that he wants to save the lives of our troops in Iraq? Edit - after a look at all his policies, I really like Badnarak...and I might actually vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch Who is the best candidate for our president Shrek Why? Well he's better than the two you've got right now *licks Niner* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 ET, Bush has accomplished something. he turned a 5 trillion surplus into a freaking' 4 trillion debt. YaY Bush! And gave rich 1% or so of the US population more money! Hooray! \o/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior They're BOTH idiots you dolt George Bush has done absolutely NOTHIGN to improve the situation in this country. Costs of college tuition have risen 35% during his four years and he's done nothing. His administration has lost a net 800,000 jobs or so, and the jobs they are getting now are paying less than the jobs that they lost. Overall, GW has accomplished nothing in his four years, and I see no reason to give him another four to make things worse. You dont like that he wants to save the lives of our troops in Iraq? you don't think we whould be there? the troops signed upto be soldiers, they enter knowing they may not come out alive, they are willing to make that sacrifice to better the rest of the world's lives. Freedom comes at a price. You probably would have said"hey, we shouldn't be in Vietnam" or "hey, let's stay out of the gulf cost" or some stupid s*** like that. We need soldiers, there will be no peace in this world. We need freedom, and there will always be opression. Every living human has the moral obligation to save the welfare of someone else if it doesn't conflict with their own welfare. Our soldiers and other soldiers around the world are going the extra mile, they are giving there lives to save the lives of others. If you don't believe that, then you are just like the millions of stupid Americans who rejected our troops after they cam home from Vietnam, you don't appreciate what they have done for us. Don't be an *******, let our troops do what they signed up to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 let them die for a lie eh? Screw that. I'd rather our troops fight for a truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 It's not the troops we have the problem with, it's the people who send them out there that we hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith let them die for a lie eh? Screw that. I'd rather our troops fight for a truth. would you mnd backing up that statement by telling me what this "lie" is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch would you mnd backing up that statement by telling me what this "lie" is where are the WMD's that they knew were there, they said they knew exactly where those weapons were, but we have yet to find them. They claimed Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda ( they don't. Infact they're mortal enemies) If they told me, we're going there to remove Saddam from power and liberate the Iraqi's you bet your ass I'd support this war, but we went there too fast, without any real plan for a victory. We sent our troops without proper equipment (regardless of who's fault that is). If we waited longer, we could have tried to build more support from other nations, and have proper equipment for our troops, thus causing less casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith where are the WMD's that they knew were there, they said they knew exactly where those weapons were, but we have yet to find them. They claimed Iraq had ties with Al Qaeda ( they don't. Infact they're mortal enemies) If they told me, we're going there to remove Saddam from power and liberate the Iraqi's you bet your ass I'd support this war, but we went there too fast, without any real plan for a victory. We sent our troops without proper equipment (regardless of who's fault that is). If we waited longer, we could have tried to build more support from other nations, and have proper equipment for our troops, thus causing less casualties. it isn't bush's fault there were no WMDs, he was told by his advisors that there were, in a time like that, you act on what all your advisors are telling you. we can't place proper blame on the lack of equipment, so i won't discuss that but, acting on false information given to you by your advisors is no a lie. and we didn't necessarily have time to build support, and we don't need their support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 going there saying you have absolute proof, and falsified pictures sounds like a lie to me. And noone has yet to explain the whole, they support al qaeda, they attacked us already thing. Dick Cheney himself linked Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, that was a lie too. Now he's saying he never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 You dont support a justified war because the justification was not given to you. If you think it was the right decision to go to Iraq, then how can you not support it? As far as going in to fast, I can accept that, but it is hardly a deal breaker. As far as the lying, all politicians do it, everyone needs to accept that. I think using a claim to rally the people into a war that is necessary but unpopular, is an acceptable approach. (all though it never actually played out that way, that was the intention and i stand by it). As far as links to Al-Queda, I think we used the same thing to take out the Taliban. We offered an ultimatum that they could likely not do, and then we removed them from power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Bush is the President, he represents your government and is the leader of your nation. If anyone under him screws up, it is his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch we don't need their support it appears to me we do, and we did have time to build support, Saddam had no nuclear weapons or wmd's. He was not a threat to anyone but his own people and neighboring countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 AHAHAHAHAHAH @ "we don't need their support" that's exactly why a lot of people around the world do not like America... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin You dont support a justified war because the justification was not given to you. there was no justification, all fabrications and shrug offs. Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin As far as the lying, all politicians do it, everyone needs to accept that. there is a difference between lying about policy and stances and lying to go to WAR. Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin I think using a claim to rally the people into a war that is necessary but unpopular, is an acceptable approach. no it's not. Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin As far as links to Al-Queda, I think we used the same thing to take out the Taliban. the taliban were tied into Al Qaeda... and the taliban were terrorists that were helping Osama bin Laden, this was justified because it was actually for the war on terror, this war in Iraq is bull and taking away from the most dangerous man in the world. bin Laden attacked us, not Saddam. I disagree with the way we went to Iraq, and for the reason we were given for going to Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith there was no justification, all fabrications and shrug offs. there is a difference between lying about policy and stances and lying to go to WAR. no it's not. the taliban were tied into Al Qaeda... and the taliban were terrorists that were helping Osama bin Laden, this was justified because it was actually for the war on terror, this war in Iraq is bull and taking away from the most dangerous man in the world. bin Laden attacked us, not Saddam. I disagree with the way we went to Iraq, and for the reason we were given for going to Iraq. if we need to go for one reason or another, it doesn't matter what reason we are told, as long as we are there. you said you would support t if they had told us the "real" reason as you call it. It would be unpopular. The military advisors needed a reason to do X,Y, and Z in different countries, so they did what was necessary to get us into that war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch Every living human has the moral obligation to save the welfare of someone else if it doesn't conflict with their own welfare. I think killing OTHER human beings and dying for a government who sent you to do these things based on a lie and a hidden agenda SHOULD conflict with EVERYONE's welfare. I think it's astounding how in war it's so easy to think, well our soldiers are dying for our freedom and be happy that they're doing that for us. But hardly ever is there an uproar over the fact that they are also KILLING for our freedom. HOW many Iraqi soldiers and innocents are dead? tens of thousands? Why are we not mourning them? They are human beings. They had hopes and dreams, a family that loved them, maybe wives or mothers or daughters or brothers. I think it's sad that people can just accept killing and dying in war as something that just happens. War is retarded. Now don't get me wrong, I have immense repect for our troops, I really do, and if they were fighting against an actual THREAT to the United States I wouldn't say a thing. I dont think THEY are in the wrong in Iraq either. They're soldiers they do what they're told. It's the administration that SENT them there that's in the wrong. I will NOT stand by and say, "oh looky our soldiers are so brave I support what we're doing" no matter the situation. We WERE wrong when we went to Vietnam, and we were wrong to invade Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch if we need to go for one reason or another, it doesn't matter what reason we are told, as long as we are there. you said you would support t if they had told us the "real" reason as you call it. It would be unpopular. The military advisors needed a reason to do X,Y, and Z in different countries, so they did what was necessary to get us into that war So we NEEDED to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein? Everything else was a blatant lie? Interesting. Firstly interesting that you find it acceptable that our government will lie to us and it is okay to use fear and lies to rule our country. Secondly interesting that the only reason we invaded Iraq was because Saddam was a bad guy. I mean, I'll agree with everyone who says he's a bad guy, you can tell it just by looking at him. But there are a LOT of bad guys in the world. There are a TON of dictators down in Africa right now who are 10 times worse than Saddam was. And yet, there is no squabble in our government about AFRICA having WMD's.....or supporting terrorists....so what's the deal? Why was Iraq in so much need of our assistance but we cannot give it to other nations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.