Let's Just Roll Over like a good country - OK?

[bikeCOLORADO]

Let's Just Roll Over like a good country - OK?

Yes, roll over - just the way the Left would have us respond to terrorists...

Just the way so many countries of the world have already gone, Spain is already dead:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News pulled from FoxNews.com
"Spain's ruling conservatives crashed to defeat in elections overshadowed by anger over terrorist bombings, becoming the first government that backed the U.S.-led war in Iraq to be voted out of office."
Spain's incoming prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has pledged to bring home the 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq when their tour of duty ends in July.
The Islamic militant group that claimed responsibility for last week's Madrid train bombings has warned that its next targets could be the United States, Japan, Italy, Britain or Australia, an Arabic newspaper reported Thursday.
In its statement, Abu Hafs al-Masri said it was calling a truce in Spain to give the socialist government that was elected Sunday, three days after the train attacks, time to carry out its pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq.
The group appeared to boast it had the power to change governments.
"We change and destroy countries," the statement said. "We even influence the international economy, and this is God's blessing to us."
The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."
The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you even BEGIN to believe what has happened here?

And so it seems the tears have dried on the collective cheeks of the Left in America, asking us to roll over to terrorist...watch this and tell me WHY we would even entertain the idea of NOT taking solid, STRONG and decisive actions against terrorists worldwide...

http://www.raycharles.com/godblessamerica.swf

[N8]

Dim's, Europe and terrorists all want the US out of the Middle East.

All the more reason to stay.

[Westy]

Originally posted by N8
Dim's, Europe and terrorists all want the US out of the Middle East.

All the more reason to stay.

Great logic. Lets shape our foreign policy like a 12 year old girl who is mad at her parents.


How about we stay in the Middle East to finish what we started.

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by bikeCOLORADO
The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."
The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

Ooooooooo...reverse psychology...they're breaking out the big guns now. So what if Spain recalls their troops? Less potential "friendly fire" targets to hit, I say.

[rbx]

i stopped reading after i noticed its from "foxnews"

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Ooooooooo...reverse psychology...they're breaking out the big guns now.

LOL, exactly what I'm thinking... wow those islamic militant guys are really clever.

We should turn around and give it back to them... "we demand that you BOMB us ASAP" :rolleyes:

[bikeCOLORADO]

Alright Mr Liberal, Play the Partisan Game at all costs, "I'll only listen to my own sources"...this is factual information that's published for your disbelieving eyes all over the Internet...

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by rbx
i stopped reading after i noticed its from "foxnews" that's too bad you missed reading the Associated Press release.

howsa bout boston herald (http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=1228), or the nat'l post (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=dd828813-d165-40f4-bc91-667206215c3d), or perchance you'd rather read it in india's statesman (http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=8&theme=&usrsess=1&id=38560)

you don't know how press releases work, do you? Here's what you can rest easy knowing: most news coverage is by associated press or reuters, who have saturated the world w/ reporters. Then, a highly biased news company like foxnews has the audacity to report it verbatim (including the byline and two little letters in parentheses "A" followed by "B"), then make the outrageous claim to say "we report, you decide".

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by N8
Dim's, Europe and terrorists all want the US out of the Middle East.

All the more reason to stay.

So what you are saying is, it is like the rest of the world and half of America against the Republikans.

Time for the current administration to get a clue. They have succeeded very well in not only dividing the country, but also the world. :rolleyes:

[Silver]

Originally posted by Tenchiro

Time for the current administration to get a clue. They have succeeded very well in not only dividing the country, but also the world. :rolleyes:

Oh I don't know about that. Remember when Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider? He was right. He managed to take an amazing amount of goodwill, piss it away, and unite the opinion of most of the world to an anti-US stance.

See, a uniter.

[BurlyShirley]

I dont quite get what the hell you all are talking about. If someone can explain to me how John Kerry will more effectively deal with the War on Terror better than Mr. Bush is, i'd be very interested. Thus far, all Ive heard is, "get bush out" "kerry's the man."

What's the answer folks? Seriously.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont quite get what the hell you all are talking about. If someone can explain to me how John Kerry will more effectively deal with the War on Terror better than Mr. Bush is, i'd be very interested. Thus far, all Ive heard is, "get bush out" "kerry's the man."

What's the answer folks? Seriously.

More like just "Get Bush out", you were half right though. ;)

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
More like just "Get Bush out", you were half right though. ;)

If that's your mentality than what are you doing in "Political Debate"?
What is the improvement with John Kerry?
How will we stop terrorism....with appeasement or with action? What's John Kerry's stance and how does it differ from Bush's?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
More like just "Get Bush out", you were half right though. ;) what do you like about kerry, that you won't/can't get with bush?

[Tenchiro]

It isn't about Kerry though, I just dislike the way Bush has handled his almost 4 years.

First and foremost, it doesn't feel like he is a servant of the people. Second it is like Silver pointed out, he has only succeeded in uniting the world against us. Maybe he made his own case against himself when he said "There ought to be limits to freedom.", while discussing an anti-Bush website.

Personally, I don't think Kerry could do any worse. But I have no strong feelings for or against him.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
It isn't about Kerry though, I just dislike the way Bush has handled his almost 4 years.

First and foremost, it doesn't feel like he is a servant of the people. Second it is like Silver pointed out, he has only succeeded in uniting the world against us. Maybe he made his own case against himself when he said "There ought to be limits to freedom.", while discussing an anti-Bush website.

Personally, I don't think Kerry could do any worse. But I have no strong feelings for or against him.

So you dont know, but you're sure it must be better.
great plan.

How about all those guys fighting right now overseas? Any opinions? What's kerry's plan with them, or is it just you? What about terrorists or do you not care? How has Bush handled terrorism badly?
How will Kerry do it better.
Dont give me more rhetoric or random quotes. I want to know a viable stance on something before i go basing critical decisions..but thats just me.

[$tinkle]

kerry's got more positions that kama sutra

and he's french looking.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by $tinkle
kerry's got more positions that kama sutra

and he's french looking.

oh shux,

I was hoping to bate the man into giving me one of the many kerry stances so i could fire back with a direct quote saying the opposite:(

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
So you dont know, but you're sure it must be better.
great plan.

How about all those guys fighting right now overseas? Any opinions? What's kerry's plan with them, or is it just you? What about terrorists or do you not care? How has Bush handled terrorism badly?
How will Kerry do it better.
Dont give me more rhetoric or random quotes. I want to know a viable stance on something before i go basing critical decisions..but thats just me.

Your right neither I or anyone else know definitively if Kerry can do a better job, that is just the way it goes with any election. But I do know he can't do any worse of a job.

I also agree we must take a strong stand against anyone that attacks the US, and that we did good work in Afghanistan but we should have kept focus on Al-Quaeda and not gotten sidetracked in Iraq.

I am also not comfortable with his administrations erroding our freedoms, for any reason. He also brings far too much religion into office, and the American constitution should never be used to remove peoples rights in the name of religion.

Did I mention his administrations out of control spending habits?

[Silver]

Kerry sucks. Frankly, all the candidates sucked. I was really hoping that Edwards would have gotten the nomination just to see what the debates would have been like.

Bush just happens to suck a lot worse. From faith based charities, the Iraq invasion (which the Democrats did a glorious job of rolling over on, thanks guys), the proposed constitutional amendment (yeah, I know Clinton signed the DOMA. I think that sucked too), and the incredibly huge increase in discretionary spending, I've got more than enough reasons to not want Bush in office.

Hey, I didn't even get to the Medicare bill payoff yet either...

I used to think that much like Nader did, that the two parties were so close to each other that it didn't matter who you vote for.

Be that as it may, I'll take a secular plutocracy over a religious one anyday. Having a leader that reads the paper occasionly too and doesn't revel in his ignorance might be a nice thing as well.

Sad to say, I'd be proud to vote for a guy like John McCain, or Russ Feinstein. I don't agree with McCain on a lot of things, but I also don't think that he is lying to me every time his lips move. I don't have that much respect for any other politician these days.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Your right neither I or anyone else know definitively if Kerry can do a better job, that is just the way it goes with any election. But I do know he can't do any worse of a job.

I also agree we must take a strong stand against anyone that attacks the US, and that we did good work in Afghanistan but we should have kept focus on Al-Quaeda and not gotten sidetracked in Iraq.

I am also not comfortable with his administrations erroding our freedoms, for any reason. He also brings far too much religion into office, and the American constitution should never be used to remove peoples rights in the name of religion.

Did I mention his administrations out of control spending habits?


Do you have any idea of the size of the US military dude? Not even 1/2 of it was committed to Iraq. Not even 1/10 to Afghanistan. We were never sidetracked. The hunt is still on...beleive me.
Have you turned on the news today? Do it and tell me what the top story is. Or better yet, check any major news website.

The fact is, John Kerry is nothing but the anti-bush. Fine if you like that, but make sure your decision is based on facts and not rhetoric like it sounds.

[brenth]

Originally posted by BurlySurly

Have you turned on the news today? Do it and tell me what the top story is. Or better yet, check any major news website.


I didn't think the US military was involved in that?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by brenth
I didn't think the US military was involved in that?

US troops dont have free reign in Pakistan, however I heard they are lined up near the border of Afghanistan. Do you s'pose Al-Queda would be in Pakistan if it werent for the US forces pushing them that way:confused:

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
US troops dont have free reign in Pakistan, however I heard they are lined up near the border of Afghanistan. Do you s'pose Al-Queda would be in Pakistan if it werent for the US forces pushing them that way:confused:

Yes actually, seeing as how Pakistani ISI if full of people who love helping Bin Laden out.

Pakistan is one of our illustrious allies. With friends like these...

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
Yes actually, seeing as how Pakistani ISI if full of people who love helping Bin Laden out.

Pakistan is one of our illustrious allies. With friends like these...

If that were the case, why would we be in Afghanistan to begin with?

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Do you have any idea of the size of the US military dude? Not even 1/2 of it was committed to Iraq. Not even 1/10 to Afghanistan. We were never sidetracked. The hunt is still on...beleive me.
Have you turned on the news today? Do it and tell me what the top story is. Or better yet, check any major news website.

The fact is, John Kerry is nothing but the anti-bush. Fine if you like that, but make sure your decision is based on facts and not rhetoric like it sounds.

The biggest story I have seen is that Pakistan may have found a high ranking Al-Quaeda guy.

Your right, Kerry's biggest asset is that he isn't Bush. But I am basing my opinion, on how I feel Bush has (mis)handled the country. I have no special love for Kerry, but he is the guy that was picked to go against Bush. I don't know if I will vote for him, but I will certainly not be voting for Bush.

[N8]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
...Kerry's biggest asset is that he isn't Bush.

And that's it. It's all he has going for him.

It isn't going to be near enough to win the presidency of the US.

[Westy]

Originally posted by Silver
Yes actually, seeing as how Pakistani ISI if full of people who love helping Bin Laden out.

Pakistan is one of our illustrious allies. With friends like these...

Pakistan is only a problem because the Saudis have funded schools not just in Pakistan but in the whole Arab world that teach hatred toward western culture. There is a whole generation of people out there that hate the US and everything we represent thanks to the Saudis. And there is damn little we can do about it because the most likely alternative to the Royal Saudi family is the radical Islamist culture that the Royal Saudi family has funded. About the only thing we can do is stop buying Saudi oil, and I need Saudi oil to haul my bike to the trailhead.

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by N8
And that's it. It's all he has going for him.

It isn't going to be near enough to win the presidency of the US.

Well it's enough to lead him in some of the polls. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/08/elect04.prez.poll/)

But I guess we will have to wait and see.

[Silver]

Originally posted by Westy
Pakistan is only a problem because the Saudis have funded schools not just in Pakistan but in the whole Arab world that teach hatred toward western culture. There is a whole generation of people out there that hate the US and everything we represent thanks to the Saudis. And there is damn little we can do about it because the most likely alternative to the Royal Saudi family is the radical Islamist culture that the Royal Saudi family has funded. About the only thing we can do is stop buying Saudi oil, and I need Saudi oil to haul my bike to the trailhead.

Agreed...except for one thing.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And they continually teeter on the brink of a military coup or a nutso theocracy.

But still, our valuable allies in the war on terrorism...

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
Pakistan is only a problem because the Saudis have funded schools not just in Pakistan but in the whole Arab world that teach hatred toward western culture. There is a whole generation of people out there that hate the US and everything we represent thanks to the Saudis. And there is damn little we can do about it because the most likely alternative to the Royal Saudi family is the radical Islamist culture that the Royal Saudi family has funded. About the only thing we can do is stop buying Saudi oil, and I need Saudi oil to haul my bike to the trailhead. how do you stop buying saudi oil? Sure would be nice if gas stations would fly a flag for which country they get their oil. I'd pay $5/gallon for the guarantee of some norwegian sludge.

i'm not saying we deserve it, but we sure have no right to b!tch about chickens coming home to roost, eh?

[peter6061]

Originally posted by N8
And that's it. It's all he has going for him.

It isn't going to be near enough to win the presidency of the US.
I'm having this same debate in my head.... don't like Bush, but don't think Kerry is the man for the job either. Won't vote for Nader, cuz that's just a vote for Bush.

On the Kerry side, I did see video of him carving it up on a snowboard in Idaho this morning on the news. Bush doesn't have that credential.... so Kerry goes up a small notch on the scale.;)

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by bikeCOLORADO
Alright Mr Liberal, Play the Partisan Game at all costs, "I'll only listen to my own sources"...this is factual information that's published for your disbelieving eyes all over the Internet...

:confused: really annoying when you reply to someone without quoting them... makes thread hard to follow.

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I dont quite get what the hell you all are talking about. If someone can explain to me how John Kerry will more effectively deal with the War on Terror better than Mr. Bush is, i'd be very interested. Thus far, all Ive heard is, "get bush out" "kerry's the man."

What's the answer folks? Seriously.

Maybe Kerry will call it what it is instead of a war?

Calling our stepped up enforcement of international law on terrorism, "The War on Terror" is nothing but a publicity move to get the US people behind Bush. Bush knows that "War" has a history of doing 2-3 things, most of the time it improves the economy (especially in WW1 and 2), uniting the american people with a feeling of 'team', and no president has ever been beaten in an election during a war... so If bush can convince the US that we are at war then he stands a better chance of reelection. I'm sure he will desperately and exponentially play the war card during his election campaign... especially if he starts to lose his grip on the American public.

IMHO bush is a manipulitive sneaky professional politician, that uses the USA as a tool to satisfy his motives, to enforce his beliefs, and to cultivate his ideas… not those of the people.

[bikeCOLORADO]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
:confused: really annoying when you reply to someone without quoting them... makes thread hard to follow.

Exactly...sorry about that.

It was my response to RBX's statement "i stopped reading after i noticed its from foxnews".

[N8]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Maybe Kerry will call it what it is instead of a war?

Calling our stepped up enforcement of international law on terrorism, "The War on Terror" is nothing but a publicity move to get the US people behind Bush. Bush knows that "War" has a history of doing 2-3 things, most of the time it improves the economy (especially in WW1 and 2), uniting the american people with a feeling of 'team', and no president has ever been beaten in an election during a war... so If bush can convince the US that we are at war then he stands a better chance of reelection. I'm sure he will desperately and exponentially play the war card during his election campaign... especially if he starts to lose his grip on the American public.

IMHO bush is a manipulitive sneaky professional politician, that uses the USA as a tool to satisfy his motives, to enforce his beliefs, and to cultivate his ideas… not those of the people.



Tin Foil Hat ALERT!

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by N8
Tin Foil Hat ALERT!

WTF are you talking about? I assume the 'tin foil hat' thing is you putting me in some kind of alien conspiracy theorist catagory?

What I said is far from a conspiracy. Bush wants to get reelected, simple as that, and hes gonna play the 'were at war' card as much as possible... thats a FACT. You argue it as much as you want but anyone can listen to how much that man likes to say WAR and see what I am getting at.

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by N8
Tin Foil Hat ALERT!
Pom Pom ALERT!

:D

[ummbikes]

USA Patriot act.

Kerry is going to lessen it's blantantly fascist sections.

Bush would like to increase its powers.

N8 before you pop off, read all 300+ pages of HR 3162. I'll provide this link to help you find it.

Read all about it! (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)

When you are done we can talk about it and you can explain why this law is helpful and why it should be expanded.

[N8]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Pom Pom ALERT!

:D Holier-Than-Thou ALERT!



:devil:

[N8]

Originally posted by ummbikes
USA Patriot act.

Kerry is going to lessen it's blantantly fascist sections.

blah blah blah....zzzzzzzzz...



Would this be the very same Patriot Act that Sen. Kerry voted for but now opposes?

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
Would this be the very same Patriot Act that Sen. Kerry voted for but now opposes?

So he voted for it. Everyone did, some are now saying that they re-evaluated the law and find it too restrictive.

In your world is it not acceptable to admit a mistake was made and try and fix the problem?


At any rate I confirmed what I susupected. When faced with a real issue that requires thought you were as impotent as usual.

[N8]

Originally posted by ummbikes
So he voted for it. Everyone did, some are now saying that they re-evaluated the law and find it too restrictive.

In your world is it not acceptable to admit a mistake was made and try and fix the problem?


At any rate I confirmed what I susupected. When faced with a real issue that requires thought you were as impotent as usual.

There were 99 votes For... out of 100. How come he didn't oppose it at the time? Was it because it wasn't politically advantagous for him at the time?

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by N8
Would this be the very same Patriot Act that Sen. Kerry voted for but now opposes?

Nice, like a parrot you said exactly what the bush campaigh has taught you to say, speak boy speak :monkey:

The question in this election for me is who is lying the least... I think that Bush is a walking talking pile of lies so Im going for the lesser of the 2 :devil:s

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by N8
There were 99 votes For... out of 100. How come he didn't oppose it at the time? Was it because it wasn't politically advantagous for him at the time?


Yes, it was advantagous. It's politics.

Why does Bush still support it, even though it's a crappy law?

Did you read it yet?

Why do you support it?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by N8
There were 99 votes For... out of 100. How come he didn't oppose it at the time? Was it because it wasn't politically advantagous for him at the time?

He voted for it because it was what "needed" to be done, but now its "election time". Of course he's going to oppose it.

[N8]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
He voted for it because it was what "needed" to be done, but now its "election time". Of course he's going to oppose it.

Sweetness... that Kerry dude's a freekin' genius!!!


I'm like $tinkle... I'm waiting for a Kerry vs Kerry debate on TV...

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Yes, it was advantagous. It's politics.

Why does Bush still support it, even though it's a crappy law?

Did you read it yet?

Why do you support it?

Pfft, freedom is for pussies... Screw that hippy crap!

[Silver]

He voted for it because he caved in like 98 other senators did. So he's hardly in bad company there.

He's still a pussy. But I really don't think he can be as bad as Bush.

I noticed N8, that you haven't responded to my reasons why I don't want Bush re-elected...but you're on the Rush Limbaugh Kerry=Anti Bush platform pretty firmly, so I'm not that surprised.

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by N8
Sweetness... that Kerry dude's a freekin' genius!!!


I'm like $tinkle... I'm waiting for a Kerry vs Kerry debate on TV...

Please... take Bush's policy now and compare it to bush's policy 6-7 years ago... TOTAL OPPOSITE.

[Silver]

Originally posted by N8
Sweetness... that Kerry dude's a freekin' genius!!!


I'm like $tinkle... I'm waiting for a Kerry vs Kerry debate on TV...

It's already been done by the Daily Show...

Gov. Bush Debating President Bush (http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001279.php)

[Damn True]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
If that's your mentality than what are you doing in "Political Debate"?
What is the improvement with John Kerry?
How will we stop terrorism....with appeasement or with action? What's John Kerry's stance and how does it differ from Bush's?

He dosen't appear to have one. His primary platform consists of the following; "I'm not George Bush."

[kidwoo]

Originally posted by Damn True
His primary platform consists of the following; "I'm not George Bush."

That's good enough.

[Damn True]

Originally posted by kidwoo
That's good enough.

Not for me it isn't.

IMO, a candidate must prove to me why I SHOULD vote for him rather than just blathering on about why I shouldn't vote for his opponent.

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Silver
It's already been done by the Daily Show...

Gov. Bush Debating President Bush (http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/001279.php)

That was so frikkin hilarious... I fell out of my seat when they did that chit.

[llkoolkeg]

I frankly wish the Democrats had put forth a candidate who was not a completely useless pile of worm castings. I have voted Republican, Libertarian and Independent and would like the opportunity to vote for a qualified Democrat if they could ever offer one up. After this lummox Kerry, what shining star will they offer up in 2008...Hillary Rodham Clinton??? :rolleyes:

[kidwoo]

Originally posted by Damn True
Not for me it isn't.

IMO, a candidate must prove to me why I SHOULD vote for him rather than just blathering on about why I shouldn't vote for his opponent.


In a system of only 2 viable candidates/parties, and considering this particular president.............. not being that person is good enough.

If the K Rove posse hadn't done the same thing to McCain as they are now trying to do with Kerry, you would have a very good point. Tragically, Bush is no McCain.........and if he "wins" again, it will be on anything but true merit.

[N8]

McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.

[kidwoo]

Originally posted by N8
McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.

You're right, McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by kidwoo
You're right, McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.

Really, you're right, McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.


WHY?

Not that I even disagree. I'm just curious why you guys think so.

I think apples are the best fruit.

[Silver]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Really, you're right, McCain is a joke... he would make a really horrible president.


WHY?



You do realize you're talking to a guy who actually thinks Bush is a good thing...

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by Silver
You do realize you're talking to a guy who actually thinks Bush is a good thing...

I'm a glutton for punishment...

[kidwoo]

Originally posted by ummbikes
I'm just curious why you guys think so.



I don't. I'm just doing with N8 what N8 does with Fox news. Listen and repeat, listen and repeat........

[Changleen]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Maybe Kerry will call it what it is instead of a war?

Calling our stepped up enforcement of international law on terrorism, "The War on Terror" is nothing but a publicity move to get the US people behind Bush. Bush knows that "War" has a history of doing 2-3 things, most of the time it improves the economy (especially in WW1 and 2), uniting the american people with a feeling of 'team', and no president has ever been beaten in an election during a war... so If bush can convince the US that we are at war then he stands a better chance of reelection. I'm sure he will desperately and exponentially play the war card during his election campaign... especially if he starts to lose his grip on the American public.

IMHO bush is a manipulitive sneaky professional politician, that uses the USA as a tool to satisfy his motives, to enforce his beliefs, and to cultivate his ideas… not those of the people.

I totally agree. Unfortunatly for GW the economy is apparantly only growing on paper and his war on terror is widely perceived to be a war on Islam amongst Muslims. Not really hard to see why, especially when coupled with the unwavering support of the facist Sharon. The problem is, even for America, it's gonna be pretty hard to win a war against a whole religion. Especially one that the more damage you inflict on it, the more it turns against you and becomes more radical it's behaviour becomes.

In my opinion the w.o.t. could only ever be won by totally changing the way bush goes about it. Bush doesn't seem to have noticed than when ever he attacks a target in his w.o.t. the response gets stronger and worse each time (please don't let's pretent 9/11 was the unprovoked start) - maybe spreading a bit of peace might be helpful?

GW is clearly not about to stop killing and attacking, so voting him out of office is possibly one of the best ways to start winning this 'war'.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Changleen

GW is clearly not about to stop killing and attacking, so voting him out of office is possibly one of the best ways to start winning this 'war'.

:confused: So, by choosing to do nothing we're suddenly winning the war? WTF kind of logic is that? I see your disdain for Bush, and I can understand that in alot of cases, as he is a conservative and you obviously are not nor are alot of people, but at least have a f***ing idea of how something is going to work better. How, on earth, has appeasement (which is exactly what youre suggesting) ever gotten anyone in the long term?

[Changleen]

At what point did I suggest doing nothing?

How about:

a) Withdrawing support for Arial Sharon and his policies re: the Palestinians

b) Formulating a WORKABLE plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, allowing Iraqis to profit from it rather than just Halliburton.

c) Stopping supoort of the X dictatorial regeimes around the world just because they happen to be selling us cheap oil

d) REALLY supporting free trade, especially with developing nations

and, you'll like this one because people get hurt:

d) Commit more resources to Afghanistan to do the job of getting rid of the Taliban properly - currently pretty difficult due to the wealth of anti-US feelings in the region

I personally think that this would be far more constructive than the current state of affairs.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Changleen
At what point did I suggest doing nothing?

How about:

a) Withdrawing support for Arial Sharon and his policies re: the Palestinians

b) Formulating a WORKABLE plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, allowing Iraqis to profit from it rather than just Halliburton.

c) Stopping supoort of the X dictatorial regeimes around the world just because they happen to be selling us cheap oil

d) REALLY supporting free trade, especially with developing nations

and, you'll like this one because people get hurt:

d) Commit more resources to Afghanistan to do the job of getting rid of the Taliban properly - currently pretty difficult due to the wealth of anti-US feelings in the region

I personally think that this would be far more constructive than the current state of affairs.


You dont make any sense.

You first say
maybe spreading a bit of peace might be helpful?
Like that's what Kerry's plan is...even though he doesnt have one. But then you say..
At what point did I suggest doing nothing? and say something like

Commit more resources to Afghanistan to do the job of getting rid of the Taliban properly - currently pretty difficult due to the wealth of anti-US feelings in the region

Which is neither a Kerry stance, nor does it promote peace.

Nor is or does this

Stopping supoort of the X dictatorial regeimes around the world just because they happen to be selling us cheap oil

And this gem will surely bring peace to the middle east.
Withdrawing support for Arial Sharon and his policies re: the Palestinians

In short, WTF are you talking about?

[Changleen]

Here we go...

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Which is neither a Kerry stance, nor does it promote peace.


I don't care if it's Kerry agenda or not, it's what I think needs to be done.


And this gem will surely bring peace to the middle east.


Actually, a hell of a lot of people are in agreement that the end of the Israel/Palestine conflict is the only way to start sorting out the middle east. Bush idea of supporting Sharon kill them all isn't really helping, what ever happened to the road map?

In short, WTF are you talking about? [/B]

Getting rid of the Taliban WILL help promote peace. They are a highly devisive group, who don't just hate the west but also beleive in retribution and death for those (anyone) who don't agree with their uber strict interpretation of sharia law. If they remain in existance they are a threat to peace and human rights everywhere, especially moderate muslim countries in the short term.

Likewise stopping support for dictatorial regeimes. Are you really saying you like the world full of dictators supported by the US?

[BurlyShirley]

Ok, dont let this turn into a debate like yours' and Stinkle's did. Please stick to the point. This thread had turned to the topic of people voting for Kerry because he's not Bush. You said to Golgi's statements

I totally agree.

Now, youre saying I don't care if it's Kerry agenda or not, it's what I think needs to be done.

Well, that's just dandy, but who the f*** cares?

[Changleen]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
[B]Ok, dont let this turn into a debate like yours' and Stinkle's did.

I agree with that!


Please stick to the point. This thread had turned to the topic of people voting for Kerry because he's not Bush.

It started off with the US reaction to Spain's change of government - then it turned to people voting for Kerry because he's not Bush. Now it's changing again. All I did was suggest MY ideas for how we might progress. As you said:


What's the answer folks? Seriously.


I don't know what Kerry's answer will be. I hope it is a bit less belicose than Bush's. Those were my suggestions. Ignore them if you want. I think they'll work better than what Bush is doing at the moment. Is that OK with you? I'm totally happy to discuss them if you want.


Well, that's just dandy, but who the f*** cares?

If you don't care, don't reply.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Changleen

If you don't care, don't reply.

It's not that I dont care...but it seemed, as it was in the Stinkle argument, that you were skewing what were your arguments with what was fact.

EDIT: And by fact, I mean what were Kerry's stances.

[Changleen]

OK, Cool. I hope we've sorted that out then.

:)

[Changleen]

I'm gonna try and find out exactly what Kerry's stance is tommorow..

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Changleen
I'm gonna try and find out exactly what Kerry's stance is tommorow..

Good luck. We've been trying to find that out for a while. If you figure it out tomorrow, alert the media:)

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Good luck. We've been trying to find that out for a while. If you figure it out tomorrow, alert the media:)

AAHAHA!:D

Good one.

[Changleen]

Kerry's Manifesto

Ok, I had a bit of a google this morning on behalf of all you lazy :monkey:s. You can find a complete list of Kerry's election manifesto here, (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/) but you need to click through a couple of layers per issue (and there are a lot) to get to the meat of it.

However the big issues (as it were) I will post summaries of here (thanks MSN - did I just say that?):

1. Reduce U.S. reliance on non-renewable energy. In the Senate, Kerry has sponsored legislation to enforce strict fuel-efficiency standards on cars. As president, he would try again. He would give tax credits to companies that develop alternative automotive technology and to people who drive more advanced, fuel-efficient vehicles. Using incentives for innovation, he would aim to get 20 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

YAY! Worth voting for him just on that if you ask me!

2. Expand public and private health insurance. Kerry would automatically enroll any uninsured child with a household income up to 300 percent of the poverty level in the State Children's Health Insurance Program upon entering school. To help states afford this, the federal government would pick up the cost of all 20 million children covered by Medicaid. Kerry would let any company or individual buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He would add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare while loosening restrictions on making cheaper generic drugs. One distinctive feature of Kerry's plan is a "rebate pool" through which the federal government would reimburse each employee health plan for 75 percent of all costs that exceeded $50,000 for a single individual. This promise would sharply cut each insurer's risk and alleviate its need to raise premiums. Kerry estimates the plan's cost at $72 billion per year for the first five years. To pay for it, he would repeal some of the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts.

Seems like a good idea on the face of it. Could be expensive, but isn't it worth it for good healthcare?

3. Institute mandatory and voluntary national service. Kerry would provide four years' tuition at a public university to any American who performed at least two years of national service. He would make some sort of community service a prerequisite for graduation from any U.S. high school. The high-school programs would be state-designed but federally funded. Under Kerry's "Retired Not Tired" program, seniors who performed at least 10 hours of service a week could get $2,000 per year to spend on health-care expenses or educating a young family member. Kerry would use Homeland Security money to train volunteers in emergency skills to compliment professional first-responders. He estimates the cost of his national service initiatives at $3.2 billion.

Woo! Kick your kid's asses into line! Interestingly, Switzerland is one of the only other western countries that does national service, but they do it 'properly' still - 2 years, full on military training, no questions, obligatory for every male. From visiting Switzerland I gotta say it seems to impact on society very well. Low crime, high employment, high standards of living, and so very very clean! :)

An since it's what most of us have been talking about recently:

Foreign Policy

Have a look here (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/foreignpolicy/) for the whole story, but once again, what we were arguing about:

From his website - cut and pasted from a long speech...

Originally posted by John Kerry
First, if I am President I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. George Bush inherited the strongest military in the world – and he has weakened it. What George Bush and his armchair hawks have never understood is that our military is about more than moving pins on a map or buying expensive new weapons systems.
...
Second, if I am President I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.
...
Third, we must cut off the flow of terrorist funds. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Bush Administration has adopted a kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money. If I am President, we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.
...
Fourth, because finding and defeating terrorist groups is a long-term effort, we must act immediately to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. I propose to appoint a high-level Presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons. We must develop common standards to make sure dangerous materials and armaments are tracked, accounted for, and secured. Today, parts of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal are easy prey for those offering cash to scientists and security forces who too often are under-employed and under-paid. If I am President, I will expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy the loose nuclear materials of the former Soviet Union and to ensure that all of Russia’s nuclear weapons and materials are out of the reach of terrorists and off the black market.
...
Next, whatever we thought of the Bush Administration’s decisions and mistakes – especially in Iraq – we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror. Our forces in Iraq are paying the price everyday.
...
We must offer the UN the lead role in assisting Iraq with the development of new political institutions. And we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.
...
We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.


If you care to read the whole speech (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html), he goes into a bit more detail.

So, all this seems pretty sensible to me. I don't think I'd have much trouble voting for the guy. What about the rest of you
:monkey: s?