PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Poll


K. Wilson Moose
10-22-2004, 04:12 PM
Somebody had to do it.

Frodo Baggins
10-22-2004, 04:28 PM
Nither I vote for the one an only my pet Moose :) you got my Vote..

tennisboy87
10-22-2004, 07:49 PM
Not old enough to vote this year, but if I could, definitely Bush.

Cruzer
10-23-2004, 11:30 AM
I will be voting early and often and voting correctly. I am a gun owning free market capitalist and I want less government involvement in just about everything to the point I would almost consider myself an anarchist. Government is bloated with too much inept bureauracy, taxes at all levels are too high and only serve to give the inept bureaucrats too money that they don't know how to properly spend. Unfortunately Attila the Hun is not running in this election. You can draw your own conclusion about who I am voting for.

perfmode
10-23-2004, 11:33 AM
Not old enough to vote this year, but if I could, definitely Bush.

What is it that you like about him? I'm just curious. How does he appeal to you?

tennisboy87
10-23-2004, 02:19 PM
First, my family is pretty strongly Republican, so I've always been more inclined to Republican candidates. If I didn't like either candidate much at all, I would probably just vote for the Republican one because of my family. Secondly, I like Bush's views and policies on different issues (our economy, war on terrorism, abortion, education, etc) better than Kerry's. I think President Bush is doing a good job running our country. Third, and I know this isn't that good of an argument, but I just don't like John Kerry at all. There's something about him that I just don't like. Finally, I am a Catholic, and I am totally against abortion, and there's no way I would vote for a candidate who supports abortion.

perfmode
10-23-2004, 02:28 PM
First, my family is pretty strongly Republican, so I've always been more inclined to Republican candidates. If I didn't like either candidate much at all, I would probably just vote for the Republican one because of my family. Secondly, I like Bush's views and policies on different issues (our economy, war on terrorism, abortion, education etc) better than Kerry's. I think President Bush is doing a good job running our country. Third, and I know this isn't that good of an argument, but I just don't like John Kerry at all. There's something about him that I just don't like. Finally, I am a Catholic, and I am totally against abortion, and there's no way I would vote for a candidate who supports abortion.

*sigh*

I don't even know how to respond to this but I'll try to be nice. I am not telling you to change your views and I am not telling you to vote Kerry. I just need to air this out.


1. Voting Republican simply because your parents vote Republican is fine. I have nothing against that. I just hope that you will actually evaluate both candidates and really think about why you want that person to be president in 2008.

2. I honestly don't see how people could say that Bush is doing a good job running the country. These are probably the same people who think that Saddam was responsible for the WTC attacks.

3. Voting for a candidate because of something as petty and meaningless as his stance on abortion is not very smart. There will be abortions whether or not it is legal. Also, it is irrelevant because it is legal and will remain legal for at least the next four years.

mlee2
10-23-2004, 02:59 PM
To play devil's advocate:

Bush appeals to many traditionalists who want to keep unnecessary laws out of the economy and keep strong 'moral' traditions alive.

Privatizing social security is probably the best way to save it. Whether it is smart to do it now or later is the question. Baby boomers (most of them) are ignorant on the basics of investing wisely. Therefore, we could see a lot of poverty when they turn old enough for social security if privatization were to happen. The current generation of high school kids are finally being taught in school on the importance of investing (at least in my area). So maybe when it's their turn to pay taxes, that would be the better time to privatize s.s.

Let's face it, the only way to save S.S is to raise taxes or privatize. Nobody's going to choose or vote for the first one.

Bush should be kissing Alan Greenspan's butt. His policies (not Bush's) have saved our economy from recession. However, I highly doubt Bush's (in)actions are the culprits to our economy. There would've been job losses for any President (including Clinton) in this time. It's a pretty big exaggeration to say Bush (and Bush alone) is the culprit for our bad economy.

One of the plusses of the last four years (and I mean that sincerely) is that Bush has indeed made the tax code, in general, more fair. Corporations were double-taxed in many of their operations. One of the more notable ones was the dividend tax. A dividend is a certain percentage of a comapny's profits. Overhead profits are already taxed so it is certainly unfair to tax them again. This is what hurts the smaller public companies the most from being attractive.

I don't agree with providing tax credits to mulitnational companies who operate offshores (outsourcing). The Republican rationale is that these companies already pay taxes in the host country; but that's not the case most of the time as some 3rd world countries don't have the resources to collect fairly on them.

To end this nonsensical rant, I'm still voting for Kerry as there is no mistake Bush's actions in Iraq were a huge and inexcusable mistake but I can't say 100% surely that the economy is his fault. Our economy is picking up as we speak.

There is a lot of b.s and huge exaggerations coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I'll lean towards liberal guys most of the time but I'll gladly vote for someone like John McCain over Kerry by a long shot.

mlee2
10-23-2004, 03:03 PM
Another rant:

What's wrong with voting based on character and stance?

Kerry is hard to predict and is indeed avoidant on many issues such as education and abortion. All he's done was criticize but offer no real different solutions of his own.

As some has stated earlier in different posts, Kerry might lose based on the fact his votes are really just votes against Bush.

perfmode
10-23-2004, 03:10 PM
To play devil's advocate:

Bush appeals to many traditionalists who want to keep unnecessary laws out of the economy and keep strong 'moral' traditions alive.

Privatizing social security is probably the best way to save it. Whether it is smart to do it now or later is the question. Baby boomers (most of them) are ignorant on the basics of investing wisely. Therefore, we could see a lot of poverty when they turn old enough for social security if privatization were to happen. The current generation of high school kids are finally being taught in school on the importance of investing (at least in my area). So maybe when it's their turn to pay taxes, that would be the better time to privatize s.s.

Let's face it, the only way to save S.S is to raise taxes or privatize. Nobody's going to choose or vote for the first one.

Bush should be kissing Alan Greenspan's butt. His policies (not Bush's) have saved our economy from recession. However, I highly doubt Bush's (in)actions are the culprits to our economy. There would've been job losses for any President (including Clinton) in this time. It's a pretty big exaggeration to say Bush (and Bush alone) is the culprit for our bad economy.

One of the plusses of the last four years (and I mean that sincerely) is that Bush has indeed made the tax code, in general, more fair. Corporations were double-taxed in many of their operations. One of the more notable ones was the dividend tax. A dividend is a certain percentage of a comapny's profits. Overhead profits are already taxed so it is certainly unfair to tax them again. This is what hurts the smaller public companies the most from being attractive.

I don't agree with providing tax credits to mulitnational companies who operate offshores (outsourcing). The Republican rationale is that these companies already pay taxes in the host country; but that's not the case most of the time as some 3rd world countries don't have the resources to collect fairly on them.

To end this nonsensical rant, I'm still voting for Kerry as there is no mistake Bush's actions in Iraq were a huge and inexcusable mistake but I can't say 100% surely that the economy is his fault. Our economy is picking up as we speak.

There is a lot of b.s and huge exaggerations coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I'll lean towards liberal guys most of the time but I'll gladly vote for someone like John McCain over Kerry by a long shot.

That is the most important issue this year and his supporters just seem to ignore it. I don't see how they can overlook that.


I know people who think Bush's war in Iraq was a big mistake completely unnecessary but will still vote for him because of his stance on gay marriage. It sickens me.

perfmode
10-23-2004, 03:14 PM
Another rant:

What's wrong with voting based on character and stance?

Kerry is hard to predict and is indeed avoidant on many issues such as education and abortion. All he's done was criticize but offer no real different solutions of his own.

As some has stated earlier in different posts, Kerry might lose based on the fact his votes are really just votes against Bush.

There's a lot wrong with it. If you are not affected by abortion and gay marriage, why should it be a factor when you are voting for a president? There are more important issues to worry about. I don't care if Tom and Harry are getting married or if Shirley is getting an abortion. I care about the real issues.

thejerk
10-23-2004, 07:20 PM
Real issues? If people are over hear blowing things up, there are no other real issues. If paying $25,000 dollars a blast isn't terrorism, I don't know what is. Let me guess, all of the world's intellegence services were wrong about Saddam. Al Queda is only one of the terror orgs, there are many. Kerry talks about only one, Al Queida. Kerry acts as if there is one terrorist, Bin Laden. Bin Laden is dead, how else would an ego maniac killer keep quiet for so long?
Where would you guys go to fight Islamic fascism? Do you think they hold 5-9 jobs? How do you think they feed and cloth themselves? Where do you think they get bombs and ammo? The money to make bombs and ammo? Governments support them, that is how. Saddam payed U.N. members off to the tune of billions right under our noses. Yet, you seem to believe that he would never pay off a terrorist. I get it, he was just misunderstood. Oh yea, why did his poor innocent sons have to die. Islamic fascism exists in a vacuum huh?
I've seen atleast two Afgani interviews and two or three Iraqi interviews, in which, the interviewed said they would name their children George Bush. The Taliban and Saddam are gone and people have begun voting in both of them countries. People can call that a mistake if they want. There are no democracies where there has been no war. Remember the old saying "evil only triumphs when good men do nothing."

perfmode
10-23-2004, 08:06 PM
Real issues? If people are over hear blowing things up, there are no other real issues. If paying $25,000 dollars a blast isn't terrorism, I don't know what is. Let me guess, all of the world's intellegence services were wrong about Saddam. Al Queda is only one of the terror orgs, there are many. Kerry talks about only one, Al Queida. Kerry acts as if there is one terrorist, Bin Laden. Bin Laden is dead, how else would an ego maniac killer keep quiet for so long?
Where would you guys go to fight Islamic fascism? Do you think they hold 5-9 jobs? How do you think they feed and cloth themselves? Where do you think they get bombs and ammo? The money to make bombs and ammo? Governments support them, that is how. Saddam payed U.N. members off to the tune of billions right under our noses. Yet, you seem to believe that he would never pay off a terrorist. I get it, he was just misunderstood. Oh yea, why did his poor innocent sons have to die. Islamic fascism exists in a vacuum huh?
I've seen atleast two Afgani interviews and two or three Iraqi interviews, in which, the interviewed said they would name their children George Bush. The Taliban and Saddam are gone and people have begun voting in both of them countries. People can call that a mistake if they want. There are no democracies where there has been no war. Remember the old saying "evil only triumphs when good men do nothing."

ROFL, silly rabbit.

Al Qaeda took responsiblity for the WTC attacks so we should be going after them. They should be our focus in this so-called "War against terrorism", not Iraq. Iraq was better off the way it was before we got there and they didn't even have slingshots over there.

Gatsby007
10-23-2004, 08:34 PM
Here is something to consider. I have already posted this as a response in the other thread, but it this your candidate?

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

-- John Kerry, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971

Jonas
10-23-2004, 08:40 PM
I told myself I was not going to get involved in the TW politics anymore, but that testimony by Kerry in '71 is/was disgracefull!
That is pathetic! How is he even considered fit to potentially run our country?

mlee2
10-23-2004, 09:25 PM
About half the country felt that way about the Vietnam War back then. It was a touchy subject then and still is now.

By your logic, should half of America in 1970 be deported simply because they felt this way too? Everybody has the right to express an opinion, including presidential candidates.

First, Kerry is accused of 'flip-flopping,' and now being bashed for taking a solid stance against warfare. Geez, hypocrisy doesn't being to describe that.

Jerk, lemme guess, you saw those interviews on Fox News, didn't you? I suppose three people speak up for the ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST, but hey I guess that's your logic. Try getting your info from somewhere credible like CNN International, at the very least. Here's a credible article on how much Iraq loves Bush: http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0002/20041022/1924647171.htm&photoid=20041021BAG116&floc=NW_1-T

There is absolutely no excuse for Iraq if a country like Saudi Arabia is STILL seen as our ally. Constant news from the CIA and FBI shows that there are PROVEN links between the Saudis and Al-Qaeda, not Iraq's 'maybe' links but PROVEN Saudi links. And yet Iraq gets bombed the hell out of. It isn't a terrorism issue, it's something else.

G.W could've sounded more legit if he just plainly said something like: Hussein's an *******, there's no (safety) benefit to America, and there's a huge number of bigger *******s out there but I just don't like him personally so I'm using up $50+? billions to settle a personal grudge.

Note that Bush has publically stated a plan to attack Hussein starting from Feb. 2000. Do a search in the NY Times. Again, 9/11 was the luckiest thing to ever happen to Bush, at the expense of America.

mlee2
10-23-2004, 10:16 PM
[quote=mlee2]
There's a lot wrong with it. If you are not affected by abortion and blah marriage, why should it be a factor when you are voting for a president? There are more important issues to worry about. I don't care if Tom and Harry are getting married or if Shirley is getting an abortion. I care about the real issues.

I could care less about abortion or 'g@y marriages either but someone else might.

An example: It's like if there are huge epidemics of mass murder across our continent, but nobody you know is affected. Does it make it right to care or not care?

My point is different people value different things, regardless if some of us 'enlightened ones' think it's illogical or isn't a 'real issue.'

Gatsby007
10-24-2004, 09:16 AM
Mlee,
I don't think people who opposed the Vietnam war should be deported, but people who admitted to committing war crimes should not be eligible to run for president. Would it be a non-issue to you if it were Bush's speech in '71?

Max G.
10-24-2004, 11:40 AM
Mlee,
I don't think people who opposed the Vietnam war should be deported, but people who admitted to committing war crimes should not be eligible to run for president. Would it be a non-issue to you if it were Bush's speech in '71?

Interestingly enough, this would basically disqualify anybody who served in Vietnam.

The soldiers there were ORDERED to commit those acts.

If someone followed orders, he is, according to you, not eligible for president.

If someone did NOT follow orders, he would be either court-martialed or would come off with a black stain on his reputation - someone with a dishonorable discharge from the army would just never get the support necessary to get anywhere in politics, where any challenger would immediately point out how he failed our country in a time of war. He would be labeled as unpatriotic, weak, cowardly, anti-american. Someone with that background would have a hell of a lot of trouble getting anywhere in a profession where his opponents will dig up anything from your past that could be used against him. He would simply never get far enough to ever run for president.

Who does that leave? Someone who dodged the draft and never even went to Vietnam? Someone who found an excuse to not actually go?

It's a lose-lose-lose situation for those who were born in that time period, really.

The people that made the right decision early - to not dodge the draft, to go serve for their country - are the ones that are worst off, since they end up as either war criminals or unpatriotic weaklings.

Gatsby007
10-24-2004, 11:50 AM
Max, you make very good points. That was a very tough time indeed, but the links that Kerry went to, to discresdit our troops and really our country by meeting with the Viet in paris was/is wrong. Not everyone that fought in the war was a war criminal.

thejerk
10-24-2004, 12:10 PM
Al Qaeda doesn't exist on its own, it is a conglomeration of orgs. For instance. the Abu Sayef in the Philippines. There ideology is the same as that which spread Islam throughout the known world in the past. They mention the Crusades quite a bit. In case school teachers don't teach about the Crusades, here it is in a nut shell. The Crusades were Christian Europe's reaction to Islamic expansion. They pushed the Muslims out of western Europe.
The terrorists didn't even need slingshots, they used box cutters. Didn't you see, hear, or read about the latest U.N. report? It said that the evidence pretty much shows that Saddam was waiting for sanctions to be lifted, he had the apparatus. men, and will to start building chem and bio weapons. I still believe he had wmd's. He still hadn't accounted for the ones that other countries gave him.
The Taliban didn't take responsibility either, they just gave sanction. Zarqawi was a guest in Iraq. He went there from Afganistan and was recieved by Saddam. Zarqawi isn't Al Qaeda only affiliated.
I don't know what you mean by the Iraqis aren't better off. If I had lived there with no hope, I would be naming my children George Bush. Havn't you heard any of them stories? Your sources must really suck. The overwhelming majority of Iraq is pacified.

Max G.
10-24-2004, 12:38 PM
Max, you make very good points. That was a very tough time indeed, but the links that Kerry went to, to discresdit our troops and really our country by meeting with the Viet in paris was/is wrong. Not everyone that fought in the war was a war criminal.

Maybe you're right. I don't know the details.

perfmode
10-24-2004, 12:44 PM
[quote=mlee2]
There's a lot wrong with it. If you are not affected by abortion and blah marriage, why should it be a factor when you are voting for a president? There are more important issues to worry about. I don't care if Tom and Harry are getting married or if Shirley is getting an abortion. I care about the real issues.

I could care less about abortion or 'g@y marriages either but someone else might.

An example: It's like if there are huge epidemics of mass murder across our continent, but nobody you know is affected. Does it make it right to care or not care?

My point is different people value different things, regardless if some of us 'enlightened ones' think it's illogical or isn't a 'real issue.'

That's completely different. There are thousands of Iraqis and americans being killed overseas and I DO CARE. That's what I think about everytime I think about the upcoming election. Thousands of people are dying so that the Bush family and a handful of wealthy American's can get their hands on Iraq's oil supply.

Abortion cannot be compared to the war in Iraq or mass murder(eg. Africa).

thejerk
10-24-2004, 01:17 PM
M2, I do watch cnn international. The name is misleading, cnn internationalist is more like it. The article you posted said that 62% were hopeful. How many said anything before? How many were critical of anything? The numbers are actually good. What do you think the same poles would show here if we had terrorists blowing up our police stations and school buses.
I do listen to Fox. What's the matter, Fox hasn't been caught cheating? CNN got caught in Iraq and Cuba hiding news. I suppose, CBS is your cup of tea.
When is the last time you heard your internationalist news org do a report on U.N. scandal or Saddam's $25,000 blast bounties. I guess blowing up jews and alies is ok. Internationalist is almost synonamous with anti-semitism. I happen to read New York Times. What a rag. I get news all day from everywhere. I have two t.v.'s, and three IE windows open right now.
The soldiers were not ordered to committ war crimes, more internationalist pap. Not only did Kerry lie and call soldiers baby killers then, he is doing it today. He calls the swift boat vets liars. Is he the only officer that didn't lie? Even you don't believe that. Was he in Cambodia, or did he lie again without your non-partisan news orgs reporting it. To say Fox isn't credible without offering a shred of evidence just isn't credible.

GrahamIsSuper
10-24-2004, 03:55 PM
Calling Kerry stupid or irresponsible or "an idiot" for speaking out against war criminals is like insulting your mother.

I can guarantee you that any participant in warfare, as long as he is sane, will have regrets and horrible memories from the war. The peer pressure from fellow soldiers is what keeps you going. Can anyone here POSSIBLY imagine how hard it was for Kerry to recal those memories and go against the popular culture and denounce some (he was not calling America a nation of criminals, he was calling the men who ordered lessers to shoot innocent people criminals, he was NOT, however, calling our veterans war criminals) of the actions taken by those men.

Would you rather Kerry just sit there and LIE about it like Clinton lied? Im not saying that Clinton was a bad president, in fact quite the opposite, in my opinion, Clinton was a great president. Unfortunately, he made a bad decision that completely ruined his entire term and blackened his career. I'd rather have an honest man that cares for humanity be president than somone who bombs cities killing many, many innocent people who had stayed behind. This is just my opinion.

perfmode
10-24-2004, 04:35 PM
Al Qaeda doesn't exist on its own, it is a conglomeration of orgs. For instance. the Abu Sayef in the Philippines. There ideology is the same as that which spread Islam throughout the known world in the past. They mention the Crusades quite a bit. In case school teachers don't teach about the Crusades, here it is in a nut shell. The Crusades were Christian Europe's reaction to Islamic expansion. They pushed the Muslims out of western Europe.
The terrorists didn't even need slingshots, they used box cutters. Didn't you see, hear, or read about the latest U.N. report? It said that the evidence pretty much shows that Saddam was waiting for sanctions to be lifted, he had the apparatus. men, and will to start building chem and bio weapons. I still believe he had wmd's. He still hadn't accounted for the ones that other countries gave him.
The Taliban didn't take responsibility either, they just gave sanction. Zarqawi was a guest in Iraq. He went there from Afganistan and was recieved by Saddam. Zarqawi isn't Al Qaeda only affiliated.
I don't know what you mean by the Iraqis aren't better off. If I had lived there with no hope, I would be naming my children George Bush. Havn't you heard any of them stories? Your sources must really suck. The overwhelming majority of Iraq is pacified.

Are you insane? Iraq is a chaotic hellhole and it much worse off than it was before we invaded it wrongfully.

david aames
10-24-2004, 04:42 PM
Gatsby007,

why don't you just go away, you bloody troll. All of your 15 posts have absolutely nothing to do with tennis. What's going on? You've been kicked out of the Yahoo's forums?

Gatsby007
10-24-2004, 07:21 PM
David,
No offense taken. I actually feel sorry for you, but i am still waiting on your response from 24 hours ago.
I'll check back later.

Rickson
10-24-2004, 07:41 PM
Gatsby007,

why don't you just go away, you bloody troll. All of your 15 posts have absolutely nothing to do with tennis. What's going on? You've been kicked out of the Yahoo's forums?
David, you hit the nail on the head.

ChrisNC
10-25-2004, 05:47 AM
[quote=mlee2]
There's a lot wrong with it. If you are not affected by abortion and blah marriage, why should it be a factor when you are voting for a president? There are more important issues to worry about. I don't care if Tom and Harry are getting married or if Shirley is getting an abortion. I care about the real issues.

I could care less about abortion or 'g@y marriages either but someone else might.

An example: It's like if there are huge epidemics of mass murder across our continent, but nobody you know is affected. Does it make it right to care or not care?

My point is different people value different things, regardless if some of us 'enlightened ones' think it's illogical or isn't a 'real issue.'

That's completely different. There are thousands of Iraqis and americans being killed overseas and I DO CARE. That's what I think about everytime I think about the upcoming election. Thousands of people are dying so that the Bush family and a handful of wealthy American's can get their hands on Iraq's oil supply.

Abortion cannot be compared to the war in Iraq or mass murder(eg. Africa).

You'd care a whole lot more if it were you whose mother decided to tear apart...literally.

Don't believe me? Take a look at these:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm
NOTE: very graphic pictures, but very worth a look. If you believe that fetuses are just "lumps of tissue", prepare to change your mind.

The only thing that evil needs to succeed, is for good men to do nothing. Abortion is the number one attrocity plaguing our world. I vote Pro-Life, no matter what.

Sacco
10-25-2004, 09:54 AM
I thought Kerry was Catholic. A pro-Choice Catholic. O no, help us, help us. :o

I think we should go back to the days when abortion was illegal... so more women can be butchered by unlicensed doctors, and fetuses can hang by the dozen on meat-hooks again. Make those women suffer and suffer again for their sins, or force them to have that r@pe baby... after all G-d would have wanted it that way. :evil:

I support Bush, he's an son of _ _ _-- and cluster bombs, buster bombs, smart bombs, mini-nuclear bombs are a much better way to deal with over-population. The morning-after pill is crime against G-d. Support war!!! GRRRR!@! :twisted:


"Humanity is a good thing. Perhaps we can arrange the murder of a sizeable number of people to save it."
--Kenneth Patchen

@wright
10-25-2004, 10:53 AM
Kerry is everything. If you put him in front of a Catholic congregation, he'd definitely be Catholic. He'd probably pretend to be Satanist for a few extra votes.

Gatsby007
10-25-2004, 11:48 AM
48hrs. and still no response from david about the kerry/vietnam quote! Still waiting....

Rickson, If not mistaken there was a poll a few weeks back debating if you were a complete ****** bag or not. If memory serves me right YES ganrnered 20-something votes to only 1 no. IT'S UNANIMOUS ON THE TW BOARDS!

david aames
10-25-2004, 02:20 PM
What is it? Your little puppet show needs an audience?

The man took a stance in the face of Congress after what he saw and was ordered to do in Vietnam and that's bothering you? The guy was SAFE from harm and decided to speak his mind. Good for him.

Let it go and just remember that the other guy was flying airplanes in the national guard at the same time and took off when he felt like it. If he had been in the sh*t, he might have thought twice about sending 1000 young americans to their death.

48hrs. and still no response from david about the kerry/vietnam quote! Still waiting....

david aames
10-25-2004, 02:25 PM
17 posts and you still haven't contributed to a single tennis thread...

48hrs. and still no response from david about the kerry/vietnam quote! Still waiting...

Gatsby007
10-25-2004, 02:29 PM
Davey,
You asked for a quote or link and I gave you one. What's the problem?? I've got faith in you!

Nosoupforyou
10-25-2004, 04:13 PM
[quote=mlee2]
There's a lot wrong with it. If you are not affected by abortion and blah marriage, why should it be a factor when you are voting for a president? There are more important issues to worry about. I don't care if Tom and Harry are getting married or if Shirley is getting an abortion. I care about the real issues.

I could care less about abortion or 'g@y marriages either but someone else might.

An example: It's like if there are huge epidemics of mass murder across our continent, but nobody you know is affected. Does it make it right to care or not care?

My point is different people value different things, regardless if some of us 'enlightened ones' think it's illogical or isn't a 'real issue.'

That's completely different. There are thousands of Iraqis and americans being killed overseas and I DO CARE. That's what I think about everytime I think about the upcoming election. Thousands of people are dying so that the Bush family and a handful of wealthy American's can get their hands on Iraq's oil supply.

Abortion cannot be compared to the war in Iraq or mass murder(eg. Africa).

Why do gas prices keep going up if we are stealing Iraq's oil?
The countries that were most against the war i.e. France and Russia etc depended on Iraq the most for their oil..

Brent Pederson
10-25-2004, 09:06 PM
Wow, since when is telling the truth disgraceful? Oh, I guess it is if you want to be a politician...

Camilio Pascual
10-26-2004, 03:50 AM
First, my family is pretty strongly Republican, so I've always been more inclined to Republican candidates. If I didn't like either candidate much at all, I would probably just vote for the Republican one because of my family. Secondly, I like Bush's views and policies on different issues (our economy, war on terrorism, abortion, education etc) better than Kerry's. I think President Bush is doing a good job running our country. Third, and I know this isn't that good of an argument, but I just don't like John Kerry at all. There's something about him that I just don't like. Finally, I am a Catholic, and I am totally against abortion, and there's no way I would vote for a candidate who supports abortion.
I think your first reason should become less important as you become an adult and is not a real good reason.
Your 2nd reason is sound. I disagree, but it's a matter of opinion.
Your 3rd reason is sound, too. Trust your feelings and instincts.
Fourthly, I can understand why you, as a Catholic, would feel that way and vote for Bush.
You have expressed yourself in a better reasoned way than most adults and have obviously put some thought into it. You will be a better than average voter as an adult. PS - I'm voting for Kerry.

Rabbit
10-26-2004, 04:49 AM
Were I to vote, it would be for Bush. The main reason? Teresa Heinz Kerry. The following:

To date, Heinz Kerry has declined to disclose her personal tax returns, citing family trusts and privacy. She is estimated to be worth in between 750 million and 1 billion dollars. According to her most recently released income tax of 2003, the Kerrys paid an effective federal income tax rate of 12%. Most of her income was derived from tax free municipal bonds, which explains the low rate.

Heinz Kerry was a registered Republican for most of her voting career, and her first husband, Senator Heinz, ran as a Republican.

Whatever works I suppose.

ChrisNC
10-26-2004, 05:07 AM
Make those women suffer and suffer again for their sins, or force them to have that r@pe baby... after all G-d would have wanted it that way.

A) If you have sex, even protected, you are accepting responsibility for your actions. If the birth control fails and you get pregnant, it's not the baby's fault.

B) Most abortions are not due to ****, incest or health.
These numbers are from a study of the reasons for abortions:
Percentage of abortions performed due to life or health threat to the mother: 1%
Percentage of abortions performed due to **** or incest: 2%
Percentage of abortions performed due to health of the baby: 4%

Percentage of abortions performed for social reasons: 93%

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish"
- Mother Teresa

Sacco
10-26-2004, 10:02 AM
"...accepting responsibility for your actions." So in fact you are putting your morality over someone elses, calling for a standard that is not in the law but one might claim is in your bible. Fine. I don't agree with you about the life of a fetus verses baby either. But fine. So what happens to sinners that don't confess? :!:

And what do you do with the 7% where abortion is possibly needed? Do they live in sin if they don't confess to your G-d? :!:

I agree with the quote. That is a type of poverty. Is it also a poverty to decide that a population must die so you can live as you wish? :!: :!:

How do you feel about the death penalty? How do you feel about mass bombings that kill wedding parties-- including children? :?:

Moreover, celibacy is no solution, not unless you can forever be more perfect then Adam/Eve and their mythological creator. :shock: or :wink:

Thanatos
10-26-2004, 10:25 AM
Kerry has done nothing in his 20 yrs. in the senate. He says he has a plan for Iraq, a plan for healthcare, a plan for the economy, plan this...plan that. Where was is plan when he was in the senate? He talks a good game, debates well, but when you look at his resume..it's crap. It's like someone criticising your tennis game, when they have never really swung a tennis racquet.

Kerry even stated that if our soliders dies without UN support then it would be un-honorable. Our soliders scarafice themseleves not for the UN, but to protect the interests of the United States. Trust me on this. I work for the Department of State and I know our policies. Please remember that we are not friends with other nations. We have interests that we must protect and if it's happens to falls in line with other nations that its' great.

Edwards has no foregn policy experience what so ever and he can't even carry his own state! Do you want someone like that to taken over the presidency if something bad ever happens to the President of the United States?

I don't agree with some of Bush's policy, but I know where he stands and what to expect. Sometimes the grass is not away greener on the other side.

ChrisNC
10-26-2004, 11:10 AM
"...accepting responsibility for your actions." So in fact you are putting your morality over someone elses, calling for a standard that is not in the law but one might claim is in your bible.
Unfortunately, until the world recognizes an unborn child as a human being, muder laws won't be applied. It's not "my" Bible. Besides, I'm not pro-life because I'm a Christian, although my stance on abortion is very supported by my faith. I'm pro-life because I can't stand the thought of innocent children dying so their mothers, the person most responsible for their wellbeing in this world, can't accept the results of her own actions.

Fine. I don't agree with you about the life of a fetus verses baby either. But fine. The heart starts beating around 22 days after conception. That's before most people even know they're pregnant.

So what happens to sinners that don't confess? :!:
I think you know the answer to this one.

And what do you do with the 7% where abortion is possibly needed?
Abotion is never "needed". Certainly there are times when it makes life more convenient. Even in the case of ****, did you know that the majority of **** victims choose not to abort. Two wrongs do not make a right.

If my wife became pregnant, and her life were at risk...I'd miss her every day of my life. We've had this conversation, and there is no question what we would do.

I agree with the quote. That is a type of poverty. Is it also a poverty to decide that a population must die so you can live as you wish?
And what population is it exactly that I'm deciding must die? Women who would go get a risky illegal abortion (assuming abortion outlawed)? If you break into someone's house with the intent of killing them and they shoot you first...good.

How do you feel about the death penalty? How do you feel about mass bombings that kill wedding parties-- including children?
I'm for the death penalty, as long as it is due justice. I have issues with the justice system and greatly fear that innocent people may lose their lives. But, that is a separate issue on whether I support the death penalty.

I'm never for the loss of innocent lives...precisely why I am pro-life.

Moreover, celibacy is no solution, not unless you can forever be more perfect then Adam/Eve and their mythological creator.
True celibacy certainly isn't a solution. We'd run out of people real quick. But, sexual integrity is THE solution, and that is abstinance when single and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage.

"mythological creator"
Everyone will believe one day. I pray that you find the truth before the truth finds you.

Thanatos
10-26-2004, 11:23 AM
"...accepting responsibility for your actions." So in fact you are putting your morality over someone elses, calling for a standard that is not in the law but one might claim is in your bible.
Unfortunately, until the world recognizes an unborn child as a human being, muder laws won't be applied. It's not "my" Bible. Besides, I'm not pro-life because I'm a Christian, although my stance on abortion is very supported by my faith. I'm pro-life because I can't stand the thought of innocent children dying so their mothers, the person most responsible for their wellbeing in this world, can't accept the results of her own actions.

Fine. I don't agree with you about the life of a fetus verses baby either. But fine. The heart starts beating around 22 days after conception. That's before most people even know they're pregnant.

So what happens to sinners that don't confess? :!:
I think you know the answer to this one.

And what do you do with the 7% where abortion is possibly needed?
Abotion is never "needed". Certainly there are times when it makes life more convenient. Even in the case of ****, did you know that the majority of **** victims choose not to abort. Two wrongs do not make a right.

If my wife became pregnant, and her life were at risk...I'd miss her every day of my life. We've had this conversation, and there is no question what we would do.

I agree with the quote. That is a type of poverty. Is it also a poverty to decide that a population must die so you can live as you wish?
And what population is it exactly that I'm deciding must die? Women who would go get a risky illegal abortion (assuming abortion outlawed)? If you break into someone's house with the intent of killing them and they shoot you first...good.

How do you feel about the death penalty? How do you feel about mass bombings that kill wedding parties-- including children?
I'm for the death penalty, as long as it is due justice. I have issues with the justice system and greatly fear that innocent people may lose their lives. But, that is a separate issue on whether I support the death penalty.

I'm never for the loss of innocent lives...precisely why I am pro-life.

Moreover, celibacy is no solution, not unless you can forever be more perfect then Adam/Eve and their mythological creator.
True celibacy certainly isn't a solution. We'd run out of people real quick. But, sexual integrity is THE solution, and that is abstinance when single and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage.

"mythological creator"
Everyone will believe one day. I pray that you find the truth before the truth finds you.

ChirsNC,
I find your views somewhat hypocritical, since your signature "Some people are like slinkies; not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs." suggest that you have minimal respect for different people.

ChrisNC
10-26-2004, 11:33 AM
The signature is all in good fun. Try not to read too much into it. It's just funny (when not read into a thread about politics and religion...nothing seems funny when people start talking about either subject). It has nothing to do with my respect for "different" people.

Phil
10-26-2004, 05:36 PM
The signature is all in good fun. Try not to read too much into it. It's just funny (when not read into a thread about politics and religion...nothing seems funny when people start talking about either subject). It has nothing to do with my respect for "different" people.


If you feel you have to make an entire post apologizing for your signature, then maybe you should choose another signature (or not use one at all). I DOUBT many people would "read too much into it" except for the fact that you brought attention to it with your strange post.

ChrisNC
10-26-2004, 06:00 PM
Phil,

Try reading the thread before you make an uninformed post.


My post was in reply to:
ChirsNC,
I find your views somewhat hypocritical, since your signature "Some people are like slinkies; not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs." suggest that you have minimal respect for different people.

Phil
10-26-2004, 06:22 PM
And why, ChrisNC, should I bother to read the thread? I've had enough of presidential election discussions on a TENNIS chat board. I responded to someone else on another thread, and I'm pretty much done with the subject here. But you're right-I read your post out of context. However, I do think that a lot of these "signatures", yours included, should be consigned to the garbage-not 'cause they're offensive, but because they sound stupid and/or pretentious.

Coda
10-26-2004, 09:17 PM
come on Phil, you've just posted on the Odds & Ends section of the Tennis Board...a place to talk about anything not related to tennis, you should be able to figure that one out. If you're really want to read about tennis, go to a different section of the boards. No one is forcing you to come here.

Coda
10-26-2004, 09:29 PM
And also, Bush. I'm a few months too young unfortunately. I believe that the least amount of government in every aspect of ou lives is best and the Republican ticket best accomplishes that. Further, even though we may have been mislead on the war, we still have to look at what the war is doing to that area. I will be the first to acknowledge that it's a mess over there, but democracy doesn't come cheap. Answer this question: "Are you happy that American patriots fought and won American independence?" The obvious answer is yes. If so, you would have been part of the minority during that time period. Look what that fighting has done. Within 200 and some odd years that the rogue band of colonies won their independence from the British Empire and has placed itself at the head of the pack. How can you be against this? How can you be against democracy for an oppressed people that for years and years was murdered, interrogated, tortured by an evil dictator? How can you say that the Iraqi people now are better off under Hussein, when democracy is within their grasp? On a side note, any leader like Hussein who has a real hatred for America and the power that he had should be removed from power regardless if he had weapons or not, why even take a chance on him obtaining a nuclear weapon?

Phil
10-26-2004, 11:28 PM
How you can compare the Revolutionary War-our war for Independence, with the sleazy and absolutely botched "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is beyond me-that is beyond ridiculous. Wait until you develop a real frame of reference and some experience until you vote-about 25 years or so.

ChrisNC
10-27-2004, 04:32 AM
And why, ChrisNC, should I bother to read the thread?
Maybe, just maybe, so you don't go popping off at the mouth and end up with your foot in it.


I've had enough of presidential election discussions on a TENNIS chat board. I responded to someone else on another thread, and I'm pretty much done with the subject here.
You will be greatly missed in our discussions on the subject[/sarcasm]

But you're right-I read your post out of context.
I like being right

However, I do think that a lot of these "signatures", yours included, should be consigned to the garbage-not 'cause they're offensive, but because they sound stupid and/or pretentious.
Too bad there isn't a way to turn them off. I'm sure some of the animated sigs kill dial-up users.

thejerk
10-27-2004, 12:18 PM
Kerry against the military again? The New York Times stumping for Kerry again? Kerry is siding with U.N. The weapons dump story is a fraud, yet, Kerry is saying Bush lost weapons. You would think that the weapons of mass destruction were found. These are the same exposives that were there when we got there. I say against the military again, because Bush is not micromanaging the war, therefore, it must be the troops on the ground that missed these weapons and let them be stolen. Not that any have actually been stolen since troops were there. These weapons were also supposed be disposed of but the U.N. didn't feel it would be necessary. That was before the war and it was there responsiblity. Looks like the messed up again.
For those of you that are so worried about people dying, wake up! Were you not the same people that said "These sanctions are killing a million children every year in Iraq." The entire war could not have filled up a tenth of just one mass grave in Iraq. Have any of you seen the reports of people buried alive in busses? If you had kids would you rather they live as slaves or die in a war of liberation. Is there nothing worth dying for?
Pacifism never saved anybody. For instance, in WWII Hitler took Chechoslovakia and Austria, yet Chamberlain was waving a peice of paper around exclaiming "peice in our time." The paper of course was a peice treaty with **** thugs. Not going to war with Hitler sooner surely caused great death counts. Are we to believe that Saddam would have led a peiceful Iraq into a golden age if left alone?
While we are on lies, let's say something about stem cell research. Bush is the only president to fund any stem cell research, including embryonic. He limited federal embryonic stem cell research funding to pre-existing lines. He didn't place a limit on adult or placintal/umbulical stem cells. He funded them. Now watch tv comercials and notice this slick lie. Even if Kerry Edwards promised me a free bowl of
Embryo Soup for Immortallity I wouldn't take it.
How about the draft? Kerry knows that only congress can institute the draft, yet he says Bush will bring in the draft. Charles Rangle(d) is the one that introduced draft into congress. He even voted against it. Only two people voted for it and guess who?

Coda
10-27-2004, 12:52 PM
Pacifism never saved anybody.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Phil, I will be the first to recognize Iraq is a mess. But Phil, do you actually believe that the Iraqi people are better off under Hussein than now? The Iraqi people finally have a chance for liberty, the same kind of liberty that you have. Why are you against this chance for democracy to an oppressed people? What is the difference between King of England in the 18th century and Hussein in power?

Ben42
10-27-2004, 01:20 PM
Kerry never said that “if our soldiers die without UN support then it would be un-honorable.” Rush Limbaugh said that Kerry said it, but Kerry never said it.

He did say, in the lead up to the Balkan action undertaken by Pres. Clinton, that if we went in alone, without International support, we would not succeed in the mission. Because we wouldn’t be successful those deaths would not be worth it.

How about this quote instead.

“I didn't want to blast my ear out with a shotgun or go to Canada, so I decided to better myself by learning to fly airplanes.”

That’s what GW Bush told the Houston Chronical when asked about going to Vietnam.

So we have someone who volunteerd to serve his country and fights honorably but is horrified at what he is ordered to do and what he sees others ordered to do. When he returns home he speaks out against it and tries to end the war and those practices.

The other guy admits he didn’t want to go. Uses family connections to enter a Nat.Guard unit that had no chance of seeing combat oversees and then fails to complete even that duty.

Who is the bad guy here? Who is the one that should be “ineligable” for the Presidency?

thejerk
10-27-2004, 03:02 PM
First off, Kerry must have been the only officer in his troop to be ordered to committ war crimes. I guess the swift boat vets must be liars because, the 17 of 23 officers serving with Kerry said that they were never ordered to committ them. When he volunteered for his post, that position wasn't supposed to see combat. He chose that on purpose. Benedict Arnold was a war hero to, but look what history has done to his name. Arnold lived out his life only because he served before becoming a traitor. If he were a hero, he wouldn't have committed the war crimes he alegedly committed.
What do you say to all the south vietnamese boat people or the more than 1 million murdered vietnamese who were cleansed. He helped cause that. In Vietnam, 50,000 U.S and 250,000 south vietnamese were killed in fighting. Clearly losing costed more lives than winning would have. Kerry has been on the wrong side of history always. He even takes credit for Reagan's arms build up to defeat the U.S.S.R when he was against Reagan the whole time.
On another subject, Kerry and the dems have said,"We want all votes to be counted." Well unless, you are voting for Nader. They have taken Nader to court driving him off of ballots.
Did you hear, Kerry is losing another backer, Arafat seems to be croaking. In case you didn't know it, Arafat did endorse Kerry. Hamas was also a big supporter of Moore's movie. I know, I know Hamas isn't part of the PLO.

Phil
10-27-2004, 05:25 PM
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Phil, I will be the first to recognize Iraq is a mess. But Phil, do you actually believe that the Iraqi people are better off under Hussein than now? The Iraqi people finally have a chance for liberty, the same kind of liberty that you have. Why are you against this chance for democracy to an oppressed people? What is the difference between King of England in the 18th century and Hussein in power?

Coda - I care more about the American people than the Iraqi people. Much more. Saddam was in power for 25 years. That's 25 years before we removed him. He wasn't killing any more people last year than he did previously. In fact, he killed a lot less then he did in '91 when he murdered over 300,000 Kurds and Shiites after Bush 1 reneged on his promise to help those people. Why didn't we "free" the Iraqi people then? We had many chances. The US didn't go into Iraq to "free" the Iraqi people-get your facts straight. WMD, then terrorism were the reasons, and when those were proven to be absolute FALSEHOODS-and the administration has finally admitted that-our President decided that the reason we went in was to "liberate" the Iraqis. Really, do Americans or anyone outside of Iraq give a crap about the Iraqi people? Does Europe? Could you even FIND Iraq on a map before OIF? There are a lot of people that need freeing, who are worse off-N. Korea, for example. If you think freeing the Iraqis is the actual reason we're there, than you're even dumber than I thought. But then again, you're not even old enough to vote, so what the hell am I talking about? You ARE naive and ignorant-part of the process we ALL go through-just do me a favor and don't STAY naive and ignorant.

perfmode
10-27-2004, 05:28 PM
Btw, Bush is the bigger flip-flopper.

A few days ago, he said in an interview that he thinks gays should be allowed to marry and that he disagrees with the republican stance than civil unions should be illegal. I guess it's all about getting votes, huh?

Jonas
10-27-2004, 06:39 PM
Dad Gummit Perfmode!
Didn't you get the instructions from the DNC or Tad Devine?
Rule #1: At all cost you are NOT supposed to admit that Kerry has ever "flip Flopped" on any issue at any time! We are less than a week from the election. What the Hell's the matter with you :)

As much as I hate to admit it, I am diggin' your "Perfmode Dance"!
Very Nice!!

thejerk
10-27-2004, 07:08 PM
Phil is naive. We went in there to rid Iraq of wmd. You don't know if they are there or not. We went in that is that. Bush 1 let the U.N. decide Saddam's fate.
Since we are there we might as well see that representative government is imposed. If not, Iran gets control. If a free Iraq isn't good for our national defense then I guess I'm naive.
People say we are less safe now. If you see someone getting raped and you do something to stop it, you are less safe at the moment, but safer in the long run.
None of the reasons we went into Iraq have proven to be falsehoods. Although we havn't found weapons yet doesn't mean that they weren't there. Even if there were never wmds we believed it based on all the evidence. Every single intel agency in the world believed they were there. How long did it take to find Saddam?
Another thing that strikes me as naive is the notion that more troops were needed. First off, according to Neopolean, an occupation is the most dangerous part of a war. People think more troops is better. Well, when you are fighting terrorists more troops = more targets. Convoys and supply lines are not very mobile. Mobility is one of our strengths. Sorry about that paragraph, just in response to another point someone made.
Perfmode, the republican stance is pro civil unions. The libs are the ones who want the government in the bedroom. Why else would they wish the government to recognize gay marriage. They say that consenting adults should be able to marry. Marriage is about children. Old men and women get married and it is non of the governments business rather or not they plan to or are capable of having children. The libs say let homosexuals marry because they love each other. Once again, libs also want to get into the bedroom of others. Why do they argue that consenting adults can only marry one person. If it is nobodies business why do they argue against sibblings marrying. If it is nobodies business, why do we have to recognize homosexual marriages in our tax policies?
Perfmode, should there be any restrictions on marriage, and why? Sibblings, polygamists, people and pets? Is "I love you" the only standard?

Phil
10-27-2004, 07:53 PM
Jerk - Again, you're all over the map-unable to stick to the topic at hand. When you learn how to discuss an issue, maybe you'll receive a response.

thejerk
10-27-2004, 08:56 PM
Phil, I am responding to other posts as well. For some, reason quick reply always messes up my paragraphs. For some reason, I feel like Cheney, in that, I just don't know where to start. There is just so much wrong with the liberal mind. For instance, a friend of mine says "we are not the best country." I reply, "then who is?" He has no answer. He then says "A good country is one that doesn't go to war." Funny thing to that is I can only think of Tibet. The Chinese have crushed them and are currently erasing there cultural identity. Or is that re-educating them.

Anyway, I'm thinking, he must be insane. Why else would he remain here? If there is a better place, go.

Phil
10-27-2004, 09:06 PM
A "reactionary" mind is just as limited as a so-called liberal one. More so, actually. Keep in mind, Jerk, that not all people who are disgusted with this administration's policies are "liberal". 51% of the country that voted against Bush in 2000 is not "liberal"; most Americans are right or left of center. It would be easy to simply demonize all of Bush's detractors-that is the way of Fox News and its many conservative drones or "dittoheads", but as with all of these complex issues, this is one of MANY areas where the reactionary or conservative mind falls very far short. Laziness and inability to face the facts...

Sacco
10-27-2004, 09:55 PM
What does Eminem say to BUSH--in 'Mosh'--

"Rebel with a rebel yell, raise hell we gonna let em know
Stomp, push up, mush, f**k Bush, until they bring our troops home come on just..." :)

"Let the President answer on high anarchy
Strap him with AK-47, let him go
Fight his own war, let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our soil" :)


Maybe Eminem troopers will 'mosh' up all the polling places on Nov. 2. :P

ChrisNC
10-28-2004, 04:42 AM
Btw, Bush is the bigger flip-flopper.

A few days ago, he said in an interview that he thinks gays should be allowed to marry and that he disagrees with the republican stance than civil unions should be illegal. I guess it's all about getting votes, huh?
I'd love to see a link to that quote. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to call bull*****.

bismark
10-28-2004, 04:47 AM
Eminem for President

Thanatos
10-28-2004, 04:51 AM
What does Eminem say to BUSH--in 'Mosh'--

"Rebel with a rebel yell, raise hell we gonna let em know
Stomp, push up, mush, f**k Bush, until they bring our troops home come on just..." :)

"Let the President answer on high anarchy
Strap him with AK-47, let him go
Fight his own war, let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our soil" :)


Maybe Eminem troopers will 'mosh' up all the polling places on Nov. 2. :P

Eminem is a a rapper that degrades women including his own mother. He doesn't have a college education and lives an elitist lifestyle. If you live by his lyrics without fully educating yourself with the reality of politics, then you are more of an idiot.

Thanatos
10-28-2004, 05:01 AM
GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

Again..Kerry opens his mouth before getting all the facts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm

Thanatos
10-28-2004, 05:04 AM
Documents Show Iraqis May Be Overstating Amount of Missing Material

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1

Ben42
10-28-2004, 05:53 AM
Bush's G a y Union Stance Irks Conservatives

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

Ben42
10-28-2004, 05:59 AM
You're right, Thantos. We don't know when that material was taken.

We don't know because we didn't think it was important enough to check.

To me it shows more of the poor planning that went into the war. It's just one more example of how we were not prepared for the looting and chaos we created and now we're paying the price for it.

atatu
10-28-2004, 06:56 AM
All I can say is that I hope the actual election is as close as the TW poll. I don't think there's any point in debating with people on these boards, we pretty much all have our minds made up. Let me just say one thing, when you become a parent, you'll start to think more carefully about the consequences of war. It's great to put on your Toby Keith record and say "kick *****" when you're sitting at your computer surfing the web, but it's a whole different deal when you're thinking about your five year old son getting sent to Irag or someplace else in the middle east in 15 years.

Thanatos
10-28-2004, 06:59 AM
You're right, Thantos. We don't know when that material was taken.

We don't know because we didn't think it was important enough to check.

To me it shows more of the poor planning that went into the war. It's just one more example of how we were not prepared for the looting and chaos we created and now we're paying the price for it.

Ben42, I do agree with you that the administration could have been better prepared. That's one of the things that I fault bush and rummsfield for. Like my previous posts, I know what to expect from the current administation, but there's something about Kerry\Edwards that makes me feel very uneasy.

ChrisNC
10-28-2004, 07:09 AM
Btw, Bush is the bigger flip-flopper.

A few days ago, he said in an interview that he thinks gays should be allowed to marry and that he disagrees with the republican stance than civil unions should be illegal. I guess it's all about getting votes, huh?
Bush's G a y Union Stance Irks Conservatives

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

You might want to re-read the article. He never said that he wants to allow ga y marriage.
“I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights,”

While civil unions vs marriage may seem like an issue of symantics to some; it is not. Many Christian leaders actually support civil unions (not just for ga y couples) which provide some rights currently given to married couples; generally these are financial in nature. Of course, others opose such unions, saying they'll be used as a stepping stone to allowing ga y marriage.

From a christianitytoday.com article:
Skillen agrees that it may be necessary to provide for such legal arrangements. However, he believes that making homosexuality the center of civil union legislation would discriminate against non-ga y, committed relationships. " [If] ga y people living together in bonded commitments should not be discriminated against, or kept from the privileges that marriage partners get … then it's not right to discriminate against me living with my mother and taking care of her," he said. A broadly worded civil union without regard to sexual practice can be a biblical way "to help people care for one another," Skillen said.

Personally, I would not oppose a definition of a civil union that did not restrict the type of relationship; as long as it was passed with an ammendment banning ga y marriage.

Ben42
10-28-2004, 07:33 AM
But the constitutional ammendment he's supported is worded to include banning civil unions.

And if he disagrees with the Replublican platform, isn't it kind of late in the game to be bringing it up? I mean as President, isn't he in a really good position to influence the platform?

But I guess that wouldn't have flown very well at the convention.

Talk about changing your stance to appeal to what an audience wants to hear.

Ben42
10-28-2004, 07:50 AM
GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

Again..Kerry opens his mouth before getting all the facts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm


Or not.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.
"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

Sacco
10-28-2004, 07:50 AM
Eminem is a a rapper that degrades women including his own mother. He doesn't have a college education and lives an elitist lifestyle. If you live by his lyrics without fully educating yourself with the reality of politics, then you are more of an idiot.
:lol:

Bush is a president who degrades his country through deceit, sending it into a war based on lies and killing countless saves in the process. He bought his college degree and lives a elitist lifestyle. If you live by his words and deeds without fully educating yourself with the realities of political terrori$m and manipulation, then you are more of an idiot... :P

Thanatos
10-28-2004, 08:38 AM
GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

Again..Kerry opens his mouth before getting all the facts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm


Or not.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.
"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

Ben42..you still don't get it. I'm sayng Kerry shouldn't make statements like that before the facts are determined.

Thanatos
10-28-2004, 08:43 AM
Eminem is a a rapper that degrades women including his own mother. He doesn't have a college education and lives an elitist lifestyle. If you live by his lyrics without fully educating yourself with the reality of politics, then you are more of an idiot.
:lol:

Bush is a president who degrades his country through deceit, sending it into a war based on lies and killing countless saves in the process. He bought his college degree and lives a elitist lifestyle. If you live by his words and deeds without fully educating yourself with the realities of political terrori$m and manipulation, then you are more of an idiot... :P

Sacco..you are so original. Please try to think for yourself instead of using quotes from a rapper or from someone else's post.

ChrisNC
10-28-2004, 08:44 AM
But the constitutional ammendment he's supported is worded to include banning civil unions.

And if he disagrees with the Replublican platform, isn't it kind of late in the game to be bringing it up? I mean as President, isn't he in a really good position to influence the platform?

But I guess that wouldn't have flown very well at the convention.

Talk about changing your stance to appeal to what an audience wants to hear.

Wrong again.

From February 2004:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

This is exactly what he talks about in the interview.

ChrisNC
10-28-2004, 08:52 AM
GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

Again..Kerry opens his mouth before getting all the facts.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-122637-6257r.htm


Or not.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared.

The missing explosives are now an issue in the presidential debate. Democratic candidate John Kerry is accusing President Bush of not securing the site they allegedly disappeared from. President Bush says no one knows if the ammunition was taken before or after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 when coalition troops moved in to the area.

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS determined our crew embedded with them may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where that ammunition disappeared. Our crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa. On April 18, 2003 they drove two or three miles north into what is believed to be that area.

During that trip, members of the 101st Airborne Division showed the 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives. Usually it took just the snap of a bolt cutter to get in and see the material identified by the 101st as detonation cords.
"We can stick it in those and make some good bombs." a soldier told our crew.

Sure...they saw some explosives, but not THE explosives in question. The explosives that everyone is so worried about is a specific type; higher grade if you will. Plus, the removal of 300 some-odd tons of explosives would take a convoy of trucks...a large convoy. Exactly how would one get such a group in and out with the US military even in the area.

Ben42
10-28-2004, 09:03 AM
"bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives" sounds like a lot of explosives to me.

It would take a convoy, or a lot of time. They had a lot of time between April and October, wouldn't you say.

The point is they are gone and nobody thought ithey were important enough to look after.

This administration was so busy cooking the intelligence to make the case for war that they didn't bother to plan for it.

ChrisNC
10-28-2004, 09:19 AM
"bunker after bunker of material labelled explosives" sounds like a lot of explosives to me.
Yes, there is probably a lot of explosives there. We're not talking about "a lot of explosives" still there. We're talking about specific explosives that are missing. Evidence has been presented that they were not there when the US invaded. There has been no evidence to the contrary.

Ben42
10-28-2004, 04:26 PM
Yes, there is probably a lot of explosives there. We're not talking about "a lot of explosives" still there. We're talking about specific explosives that are missing. Evidence has been presented that they were not there when the US invaded. There has been no evidence to the contrary.


Not evidence. Claims that they were not there. That's not evidence.

There is video footage of the stuff taken on April 18th. It shows the bunkers with the IAEC seals still intact. It shows the UN labels on the explosives which confirm that they are HMX high explosives.

The army unsealed the bunkers and then didn't guard them because they weren't told it was important.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=206847[/i]

perfmode
10-28-2004, 04:34 PM
Perfmode, should there be any restrictions on marriage, and why? Sibblings, polygamists, people and pets? Is "I love you" the only standard?

No, anyone should be able to marry. Contrary to popular belief, there is no God (sorry) and that man in the sky didn't say that "***s should burn in hell". Homosexuality is just a part of life and since the beginning of time there have been homosexuals. Even Alexander the Great used to ride the chocolate highway. It's just human nature I suppose. It is outrageous to say that they cannot marry. As far as polygamy goes, I think one woman is enough for one man. Three men shouldn't be able to marry either. Marriage is between two people, not three or four. If it is part of your religion, go for it but don't try to pimp the system.
I also believe that abortions are personal and the government should not get involved. Instead of whining about women "murdering their unborn children", we should worry about people killing people who are actually alive (ie. murder in the US, terrorism [*cough* us occupation of iraq*cough*] and war).
The views expressed within this post are just my opinions and I do not think that I am right; this is just how I see it.

ps. No, I am not gay.

Coda
10-28-2004, 05:29 PM
we should worry about people killing people who are actually alive

abortion does kill humans who are actually alive

Gatsby007
10-28-2004, 05:36 PM
"Contrary to popular belief, there is no God"
(YIKES) May God have mercy on your soul, and I am not trying to be cute or funny.

I would like to see what we are working with here. Ben and Chris have both made good arguments for both sides concerning the missing weapons issue.
Hopefully both of you (and all of us) can agree that there is no one who knows for sure. Snr. Advisor to the Kerry campaign Bob Woodward said that yesterday. Ben, do you think it was wise or right for Kerry to launch a television ad concerning this matter with blatant charges with- out a shred of evidence.
Forgeting about political views for a moment, is this right??

perfmode
10-28-2004, 05:41 PM
"Contrary to popular belief, there is no God"
(YIKES) May God have mercy on your soul, and I am not trying to be cute or funny.

I would like to see what we are working with here. Ben and Chris have both made good arguments for both sides concerning the missing weapons issue.
Hopefully both of you (and all of us) can agree that there is no one who knows for sure. Snr. Advisor to the Kerry campaign Bob Woodward said that yesterday. Ben, do you think it was wise or right for Kerry to launch a television ad concerning this matter with blatant charges with- out a shred of evidence.
Forgeting about political views for a moment, is this right??

Does that mean that all the Native Americans, Mayans and Incas who were never exposed to the Eurasian religion of Christianity went to Christian hell? Over time, it is human nature to question our existence and the meaning the life. They believed that the Gods controlled the rain and that it wouldn't rain if they didn't give up human sacrifices. We all know that isn't true. If their religion wasn't real, it means that every other one isn't real in my humble opinion. I think we will all have to agree to disagree here.

Gatsby007
10-28-2004, 06:37 PM
Hey Perf,
There are thousands of god's that have been worshiped throughout time, but only one true GOD. Respectfully, I could answer everyone of those questions raised in your last post emphaticaly with scripture, but being an athiest the Bible obviously would not mean much to you. Perf, When talking about a subject like this, suddenly the whole Bush/Kerry election in my mind becomes very un-important. I can and do respect everyone's opinion and don't thnik I am "Holier than Thou", but I just have a general care and concern about people's souls. You seem like a smart guy, and i enjoy reading your posts. I'm always here to talk!

thejerk
10-28-2004, 07:29 PM
Don't forget Ceasar. Homosexuality has always been around but not **** marriage. That is exactly my point. Marriage is for the specific purpose of society's recognition of the importance of families. I'm not sure but I believe even Alexander was married. Let's not forget that during Alexander's time, the persian caliphs loved little blonde slave boys. The greeks also practiced pedophilia. The spartans had institutional homosexuality for men and women. Even the spartans recognized that marriage is about children. Why is it homosexuals should marry but not polygamists? Aren't you being hypocritical. If two men can get married then a man should also be able to marry a man and a woman or vice versa.
Most homosexuals are really bi anyway. Why would homos want to enter into a white male patriarchal thing anyway, right?

There is a difference in targeting the innocent and targeting the guilty. For instance, you think the death penalty is wrong, yet who would you force to either guard murderers or share a room with them. Once again, your way actually ends up getting more people killed. You talk about the innocent in Iraq, well I can guarantee, that I would have considered the risk to my family worth their liberation or death. You think there is nothing worse than death.

Do you understand there are millions of people that want to kill you and destroy your civilization. Are you ready to go back to seven hundreds. Saddam was a definate threat to our country. I suppose he would have turned good. What about his sons? Do you think them devil children wouldn't have paid for or given too the terrorists money or weapons to harm the U.S. Look at Saudi Arabia, they actually pay a tribute to the terrorists to leave them alone. The U.N. told Saddam to disarm. Do you remember when the japanese walked out of the League of Nations? That was the end of them. Well the U.N. is even worse than them. Do you think the Iranians and North Koreans are going to take the U.N. seriously. It seems to me that aside from Tony Blair and Howard in Australia, along with all our other alies, Bush is one of the only world leaders that has any credibility. He said disarm or we're coming. Did the weapons cache in Iraq only become dangerous because Saddam doesn't have them anymore?

Did you actually mention Fox? Did you see that CBS was corroborating with NY Times on the weapons cache story. How about ABC, they held on to the terrorist threat tape for three days. They actually said it wasn't authenticated. It is now though. You know CBS had actually planned to aire the weapons cache story just 2 days before the election. Another fake document story. The Israeli intel services told the state department in 2003 that there were trucks at that compound taking things toward the Serian boarder.

You guys need to think with your heads first and your heart second. Are you saying we should have just kept up the no fly zone. If we'd done that you'd say, "a million kids a year are dying over there because of us." I bring that up because either way you will say "look at the innocent people we are killing. Atleast this way, less people die in the long run. Should we have lifted the 'no fly zone'? Then what? The U.N. could have handled him. Oh yea, they were all bribed. Besides, thay can't handle North Korea, Iran, or even the Sudan. Other than South Korea, can you name a single country that the U.N. has liberated? Even in South Korea, America did it. No matter what we do the rest of the world will hate us. Reagan had more people show up for anti-Amercan rallies than Bush. He liberated more countries than I will bother listing. The world will never be with us. Remember what Margueret Thatcher said, "Consensus is just the absense of a leader." I bring that up in case the "we went in alone" crowd strikes again.

Atatu, I have kids the same age. If we don't do something now,they will have to do it later. One rule of warfare is to hit your enemy while they are weak, if you can. The longer we would have waited the stronger they would have become. Remember, the terrorists are nothing without the countries to back them. Al Queda was just one of many. I don't know where you stand on this, but I am glad somebody is willing to die for the future of my kids. I hope my kids will be willing to do the same when they grow up.

thejerk
10-28-2004, 07:36 PM
Hey perf, without a Creator evolution must be real, right? Explain this to me. There are million upon millions of suns and planets and moons, yet, we are the only one that has created energy to comminicate with. If life evolved here, there would be life all over the place. We'd hear it. Some planets are billions of years older than ours and some younger, yet of them all we just happen to be the only ones sending signals out into space. Do you think all those planet have beings that communicate with magical telepathy? Don't you see the paradox here? If evolution was is real there would be life all around us. It would scream from almost every solar system. The communication signals might be years old but they would still reach us. They wouldn't have to be aimed at or made for us. All the evolved planets would know about other evolved planets. Life would be all around us. Anyway, that is what I consider proof that contradicts evolution.

Max G.
10-28-2004, 09:00 PM
Hey perf, without a Creator evolution must be real, right? Explain this to me. There are million upon millions of suns and planets and moons, yet, we are the only one that has created energy to comminicate with. If life evolved here, there would be life all over the place. We'd hear it. Some planets are billions of years older than ours and some younger, yet of them all we just happen to be the only ones sending signals out into space. Do you think all those planet have beings that communicate with magical telepathy? Don't you see the paradox here? If evolution was is real there would be life all around us. It would scream from almost every solar system. The communication signals might be years old but they would still reach us. They wouldn't have to be aimed at or made for us. All the evolved planets would know about other evolved planets. Life would be all around us. Anyway, that is what I consider proof that contradicts evolution.

Erm?

There are several holes in your argument...

"There are million upon millions of suns and planets and moons" - we don't know that. We don't yet have the resolving power of telescopes or other equipment to find earth-size planets. We can only find gas giants. Nothing remotely like earth yet found.

"If life evolved here, there would be life all over the place."

Evolution is a theory that deals with the development of life from primordial cells. How the first ones formed, we're not quite sure of the details yet, though the overall details are known.

For life as we know it to appear, there needed to be very specific conditions - water, the right chemicals, a temperature at which things wouldn't get burned up but wouldn't freeze solid, energy (probably in the form of lightning or hydrothermal vents, there are different theories).

Really, we don't know what the probability of life forming is. We don't know the exact conditions necessary. But they're clearly very specific, so that most planets would never get life. Maybe. We don't really know enough about the details. Heck, we don't even know whether there was ever primordial life on Mars.

"We'd hear it. Some planets are billions of years older than ours and some younger, yet of them all we just happen to be the only ones sending signals out into space. "

Well, the signals we're sending out right now are really not powerful enough to be detected unless someone looks RIGHT at us, happens to look at the right frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, happens to be able to distinguish them from just random noise. Which would be difficult, since we're not sending out anything synchronized in any particular direction.

So we're not actually sending out signals that would be detectable... we're looking for signals, (SETI), but we've covered only a miniscule portion of the sky. We haven't found anything yet, but that doesn't mean it's not there - we've barely started looking.

Besides - you assume that if "life" develops so does "intelligence." Which isn't necessarily true. To send out signals, you have to have not only life but intelligent life - and not only intelligent life, but intelligent life with the resources and the tools necessary to send out signals. Heck - if our planet hadn't been hit by a meteor that killed the dinosaurs, we might not be here. It's a long way from "evolution" to "sending out signals." At the moment, we have no clue what makes us "intelligent" and separates us from the rest of the animals, so we really can't speculate on what the chances are of it developing elsewhere.

Coda
10-28-2004, 09:19 PM
jerk, I usually agree with you on this kind of stuff, but I have to agree with the points that max g made. I went/go to a private school and my 8th grade religion teacher explained evolution like this: take a random junkyard, any junkyard. Then put all of the bolts, nuts, sheetmetal, glass, etc etc into a large container and mix it around until you get a Boeing 747. Sounds pretty impossible right? If you've ever taken biology you should know that strands of DNA, cells, multicellular organisms are infinately more complex and more delicate than a 747. In all fairness, perhaps the theory of evolution is right. But if this is the case, you would be betting on the smallest chances ever in a lottery.

Sacco
10-28-2004, 11:13 PM
Sacco..you are so original. Please try to think for yourself instead of using quotes from a rapper or from someone else's post.


Thanatos... I am not original, I am of the Thanatos. I saw her in CATS, she was great. I will quote someone else now that said "F**K BUSH!!" and yes, f**K KERRY too.

Oh Thanatos, supreme co*ksu**er, I worship you. Bl*w me!!!

Sacco
10-28-2004, 11:36 PM
2. No personal attacks or abusive language is allowed. If you have a problem with someone, take it off of Talk Tennis. Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. Debating issues and opinions is fine, but flaming and insulting won’t be tolerated.
:shock:

I hope T.W. kicks me off soon. :D

Sacco
10-28-2004, 11:44 PM
My goal is 33 posts! I've won this election! I will never post again. Good bye, cruel non-swearing board. Ado,adew, fu** you. I'm no larry hall. I will NEVER be back. To all my haters: I send my deepest love... for profanity. :(

Vote green, not greed. :wink:


XXXOOOOF**KUXXXOO :cry:

perfmode
10-29-2004, 09:02 AM
Hey perf, without a Creator evolution must be real, right? Explain this to me. There are million upon millions of suns and planets and moons, yet, we are the only one that has created energy to comminicate with. If life evolved here, there would be life all over the place. We'd hear it. Some planets are billions of years older than ours and some younger, yet of them all we just happen to be the only ones sending signals out into space. Do you think all those planet have beings that communicate with magical telepathy? Don't you see the paradox here? If evolution was is real there would be life all around us. It would scream from almost every solar system. The communication signals might be years old but they would still reach us. They wouldn't have to be aimed at or made for us. All the evolved planets would know about other evolved planets. Life would be all around us. Anyway, that is what I consider proof that contradicts evolution.

There IS other life in the universe but probably none in our galaxy. Conditions have to be almost perfect for anything to survive. As far as sending signals off into space go, we don't know how far beings have evolved on other planets and whether or not they are sending the same signals. There could be living beings that aren't as intelligent and haven't figured out how to use EM radiation.


NEWSFLASH: They just found the missing link.

perfmode
10-29-2004, 09:10 AM
Don't forget Ceasar. Homosexuality has always been around but not **** marriage. That is exactly my point. Marriage is for the specific purpose of society's recognition of the importance of families. I'm not sure but I believe even Alexander was married. Let's not forget that during Alexander's time, the persian caliphs loved little blonde slave boys. The greeks also practiced pedophilia. The spartans had institutional homosexuality for men and women. Even the spartans recognized that marriage is about children. Why is it homosexuals should marry but not polygamists? Aren't you being hypocritical. If two men can get married then a man should also be able to marry a man and a woman or vice versa.
Most homosexuals are really bi anyway. Why would homos want to enter into a white male patriarchal thing anyway, right?

There is a difference in targeting the innocent and targeting the guilty. For instance, you think the death penalty is wrong, yet who would you force to either guard murderers or share a room with them. Once again, your way actually ends up getting more people killed. You talk about the innocent in Iraq, well I can guarantee, that I would have considered the risk to my family worth their liberation or death. You think there is nothing worse than death.

Do you understand there are millions of people that want to kill you and destroy your civilization. Are you ready to go back to seven hundreds. Saddam was a definate threat to our country. I suppose he would have turned good. What about his sons? Do you think them devil children wouldn't have paid for or given too the terrorists money or weapons to harm the U.S. Look at Saudi Arabia, they actually pay a tribute to the terrorists to leave them alone. The U.N. told Saddam to disarm. Do you remember when the japanese walked out of the League of Nations? That was the end of them. Well the U.N. is even worse than them. Do you think the Iranians and North Koreans are going to take the U.N. seriously. It seems to me that aside from Tony Blair and Howard in Australia, along with all our other alies, Bush is one of the only world leaders that has any credibility. He said disarm or we're coming. Did the weapons cache in Iraq only become dangerous because Saddam doesn't have them anymore?

Did you actually mention Fox? Did you see that CBS was corroborating with NY Times on the weapons cache story. How about ABC, they held on to the terrorist threat tape for three days. They actually said it wasn't authenticated. It is now though. You know CBS had actually planned to aire the weapons cache story just 2 days before the election. Another fake document story. The Israeli intel services told the state department in 2003 that there were trucks at that compound taking things toward the Serian boarder.

You guys need to think with your heads first and your heart second. Are you saying we should have just kept up the no fly zone. If we'd done that you'd say, "a million kids a year are dying over there because of us." I bring that up because either way you will say "look at the innocent people we are killing. Atleast this way, less people die in the long run. Should we have lifted the 'no fly zone'? Then what? The U.N. could have handled him. Oh yea, they were all bribed. Besides, thay can't handle North Korea, Iran, or even the Sudan. Other than South Korea, can you name a single country that the U.N. has liberated? Even in South Korea, America did it. No matter what we do the rest of the world will hate us. Reagan had more people show up for anti-Amercan rallies than Bush. He liberated more countries than I will bother listing. The world will never be with us. Remember what Margueret Thatcher said, "Consensus is just the absense of a leader." I bring that up in case the "we went in alone" crowd strikes again.

Atatu, I have kids the same age. If we don't do something now,they will have to do it later. One rule of warfare is to hit your enemy while they are weak, if you can. The longer we would have waited the stronger they would have become. Remember, the terrorists are nothing without the countries to back them. Al Queda was just one of many. I don't know where you stand on this, but I am glad somebody is willing to die for the future of my kids. I hope my kids will be willing to do the same when they grow up.

Life is just like High School. the more people like you, the less they hate you. Pretty simple right? So if you do this to be popular with the rest of the world, they will like you and will have less reasons to hate you. If we invade a country and turn our backs on all of our allies, they will begin to dislike us. eventually they may even hate us like everyone else. I definitely do NOT feel safer than I did right after September 11th.


the death penalty is wrong. If you were put on trial because you fit a description and were in the wrong place at the wrong time, you could be given the death penalty is the crime was bad enough. how do you think it would feel to be killed for no reason? It is definitely not worth it.

You are self-centered and you only think of yourself and your family. I am sure they mean the world to you but there is something bigger than all of us going on right now. Wake up and think about the bigger picture. there are people all over the world suffering and dying for nothing.

perfmode
10-29-2004, 09:14 AM
Hey Perf,
There are thousands of god's that have been worshiped throughout time, but only one true GOD. Respectfully, I could answer everyone of those questions raised in your last post emphaticaly with scripture, but being an athiest the Bible obviously would not mean much to you. Perf, When talking about a subject like this, suddenly the whole Bush/Kerry election in my mind becomes very un-important. I can and do respect everyone's opinion and don't thnik I am "Holier than Thou", but I just have a general care and concern about people's souls. You seem like a smart guy, and i enjoy reading your posts. I'm always here to talk!

the Bible, just like the quran and whatever the crazy mayans wrote down, was written by MEN. God never wrote anything down. Men "interpreted" his messages to appease the citizens of their societies. There are so many things in the Bible that any point could be argued by reading a scripture.

eg. God said that we should only wear pants on Wednesday. Here's the scripture: *pulls out Bible*

Until God personally mails me a Bible (via Fedex) hand written by the holy one himself, I refuse to believe anything that the "Bible" says.

ChrisNC
10-29-2004, 10:15 AM
NEWSFLASH: They just found the missing link.

Everytime someone finds anything resembling a human ancestor, those who are searching for a reason not to believe in God jump on it as the proof they need to continue living the way they want. If you live like there's no God, you better be right.

BTW, I'd hardly call Flores Man the "missing link." While intersting; if anything, it simply proves the existance of Hobbits (kidding about the Hobbits, of course)

Gatsby007
10-29-2004, 10:33 AM
Perf,
I regretfully have to respect your opinion and move on. I will however continue to pray for you.

perfmode
10-29-2004, 11:44 AM
NEWSFLASH: They just found the missing link.

Everytime someone finds anything resembling a human ancestor, those who are searching for a reason not to believe in God jump on it as the proof they need to continue living the way they want. If you live like there's no God, you better be right.

BTW, I'd hardly call Flores Man the "missing link." While intersting; if anything, it simply proves the existance of Hobbits (kidding about the Hobbits, of course)

The Flores man sure looks like a chimp to me...

Gatsby007
10-29-2004, 02:57 PM
I just wanted to find out if the knew statements from Usama would possibly make any of you re-think your support for Kerry? For some reason Bin-Laden wants W. out of the White House, and it's not becuase he doesn't like Bush's health-care ideas. I believe Bin-Laden has actually just done the opposite of what he intended to do. That's the best campaign commercial by far in the whole election series.

thejerk
10-29-2004, 03:09 PM
Max, I didn't say I don't believe in evolution. I do think it is possible. However, as you noted, it is a theory. I realize that life on the Earth is only possible because of the elements of Earth.

Even if we have only found gas giants, we can only see something that big. If life evolved, it would have to evolve everywhere possible. Life did not begin because two rocks slammed together, that is absurd. Who said life could only evolve on earth type planets. Speaking of SETI even Sagan knew that pointing a reciever into any direction would pick up something if there is anything out there.

I do agree, somewhat agree with you, that life is likely not going to happen on many planets and many suns. The odds of it evolving once is greatly more than what I consider possible. They would be looking as hard as we. If we found one we would probably try sending a message, even if it took 1000 years to get there. The thrust of the whole matter is that there are just to many suns for evolution to not have spread life everywhere. If it was one in a million we would still be surrounded by noise. How loud does it have to be if you are looking?

Just a theory of mine, but, I think it is possible that all of the other suns may have been placed where they are the for quantum effects they have on the earth, over time, if you will.
I'm not saying a believe this to be fact, just a possibility, along with all the other countless possibilties.

It is just that no matter the likely hood of life being out there, if it is it would be everywhere. Sheer numbers. I am not disagreeing with you completely. I thought of many of the holes you did and more. All in all, even places where we have found gas giants doesn't preclude inhabitable planets by earth type beings. My point is inhabitable planets would be inhabited. Don't be a zenophobe.

Coda, the above is just a pet theory of mine. It is just for fun. If there are weaker signals than what we can create, there must also be stronger, say the odds. We are on the edge of Milkyway, just pointing a receiver toward the middle gives you how many possibilities. Pointing three ways, toward the middle, sides give alota possibilities.

Perf. Churchhill didn't mind being disliked. They called him an alarmist in the 30's. Many more lives would have been saved if everyone wasn't worried about "just getting along."

Coda
10-29-2004, 05:11 PM
Has anyone happened to have read the article "The Read Truth About Iraq" from the November 1st edition of US News? The author admits the fact that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Then he points out that the real issue is when, not if Saddam would put his weapons on track.

Paraphrasing now(all of these quotes are from the Duelfer Report): At this point in time, Saddam would probably be a diminishing threat, but he wanted to recreate Iraq's weapons programs, including nuclear. He was determined to develop ballistic missles and tactical chemical weapons. He also retained the industrial capacity to restart these programs and he also increased from 96-02 his military industrial spending 40 times over. The Duelfer report says "Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agents in a period of months and nerve agents in less than a year or two." He also retained his his scientists and his technicians "needed to restart a potential biological weapons program," and he "intended to reconstitute long-range delievery systems...potentially were for WMD." These conclusions were based on interviews with Saddam, his advisers and his weapons scientists. "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem." Saddam's cheif nuclear advisor Obeidi was even ordered to bury a huge barrel in his garden that contained components of an actual nuclear weapons centrifuge in addition to nuclear instructions. Obedi wrote in his book: "Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jump-start the nuclear weapons program. And there is no question we could have done so very quickly." The report makes it very clear that there were no weapons when troops marched into Iraq, but Saddam had the ability and was simply biding his time until the UN removed sanctions were ended or eroded. And on the side he was turning into the oil for food program into an 11 billion dollar fund. Zuckerman, the author also points out "What stopped Saddam was the will of a few strong-minded leaders who believed in a more forceful response than simply joining hands and singing Kumbaya." (End of paraphrasing)

Bush saved us from Saddam, there is no doubt about it. There weren't any weapons in Iraq, but that doesn't mean Saddam doesn't just stop being a threat. Unfortunately, we really will never know what would have happened if Saddam remained in power to build nuclear weapons or biological agents. Bush saved American lives and we should all be thankful.

Max G.
10-29-2004, 05:20 PM
"If life evolved, it would have to evolve everywhere possible."

Why? Evolution says absolutely nothing that would imply that.

Besides, whe don't even know what "possible" is. We know that the Earth has life. We don't know whether different sorts of life could be possible on not-earth-type-planets. We don't know whether life would be possible on earth-type-planets but under different conditions. We have no evidence for or against.

"However, as you noted, it is a theory"

In the scientific definition of the word theory... which isn't quite the same as the common usage of "theory" as "Something that we don't know is true."

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

perfmode
10-29-2004, 05:55 PM
I just wanted to find out if the knew statements from Usama would possibly make any of you re-think your support for Kerry? For some reason Bin-Laden wants W. out of the White House, and it's not becuase he doesn't like Bush's health-care ideas. I believe Bin-Laden has actually just done the opposite of what he intended to do. That's the best campaign commercial by far in the whole election series.

Yea, I wouldn't be surprised if that wins the election for Bush. I am kind of skeptical though. Bin Laden is NOT a stupid man. He knows about this kind of stuff. What if Bush was actually good for him and he wanted Bush to remain in power? This would be a cunning way to do it. We've seen the links between Bush's family and the Bin Ladens already.

Sacco
10-29-2004, 08:13 PM
[quote]Bush saved us from Saddam, there is no doubt about it. There weren't any weapons in Iraq, but that doesn't mean Saddam doesn't just stop being a threat. Unfortunately, we really will never know what would have happened if Saddam remained in power to build nuclear weapons or biological agents. Bush saved American lives and we should all be thankful.[quote]


At least Britian makes the pretense of attempting to impeach Blair; in America we reward cowardly, lieing, Bible-thumping, war-mongering, money first, fratboy, little Hitler selected presidents with thank yous.

O.K. Coda-- Thank you, Bush! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

And we always ask ourselves how people could have supported the Nazis-- well stop asking, we're making that history right here, right now, on this board and throughout the world.

Coda
10-29-2004, 09:05 PM
Do you think Bush is cowardly? He is risking his entire career and his reputation for something that he believes in and in the end will protect us. And we're suddenly ****'s? I don't see Bush lining up Muslims into a gas chamber do you? The common masses are not being brainwashed into supporting a war bent on racial domination and genocide. You cannot and should not attempt to even compare Bush to Hitler. We are fighting this war for American security. I think it's quite humorous really that you can only insult Bush rather than discuss the true facts. Saddam did not have weapons, but he certainly had the ability and with his hatred for the US you cannot tell me we would have been guaranteed that he wouldn't have started weapons programs again.

Max G.
10-29-2004, 10:58 PM
"Saddam did not have weapons, but he certainly had the ability" so do a whole boatload of other countries.

And guess what? With this war, we've dramatically increased the number of them that have a hatred of the US, hence INCREASING the danger to us.

Coda
10-30-2004, 06:51 AM
"Saddam did not have weapons, but he certainly had the ability" so do a whole boatload of other countries.

So you're saying what exactly? Don't stop this threat? Stop the other countries? I certianly agree with we need to go after N. Korea, but one country at a time.

And guess what? With this war, we've dramatically increased the number of them that have a hatred of the US, hence INCREASING the danger to us.

So you don't want this war because it will make people not like us? If that's your way of thinking, then you've already let the terrorists win. That's what they want us to do, put out tail between our legs and run away. We can't let the terrorists or any rogue nation win. And if your comments are taken together, you want the US to also take out other countries which would go against the second comment about them hating us. Further, the war shows we won't take crap from nobody. I think two of our buildings for two countries is good math. Although the war spreads American hatred it will make people think twice if they want to attack the US...that is unless Kerry is elected, but that is a completely different subject.

at least we can agree S&Ving is the way to go

perfmode
10-30-2004, 07:36 AM
"Saddam did not have weapons, but he certainly had the ability" so do a whole boatload of other countries.

So you're saying what exactly? Don't stop this threat? Stop the other countries? I certianly agree with we need to go after N. Korea, but one country at a time.

And guess what? With this war, we've dramatically increased the number of them that have a hatred of the US, hence INCREASING the danger to us.

So you don't want this war because it will make people not like us? If that's your way of thinking, then you've already let the terrorists win. That's what they want us to do, put out tail between our legs and run away. We can't let the terrorists or any rogue nation win. And if your comments are taken together, you want the US to also take out other countries which would go against the second comment about them hating us. Further, the war shows we won't take crap from nobody. I think two of our buildings for two countries is good math. Although the war spreads American hatred it will make people think twice if they want to attack the US...that is unless Kerry is elected, but that is a completely different subject.

at least we can agree S&Ving is the way to go

By trying to fight the terro's, we are just going to breed more hate. We need to mind our own ****ing business. That way, no one will have a reason to terrorize us. They hate us because of unjust things we do in foreign countries. If we could just mind our business, we wouldn't have to worry about them. It's not a matter of "letting them win". It's about being sensible and figuring out why we're in this shithole to begin with.

Jonas
10-30-2004, 07:40 AM
As stated earlier, every poll on security and who would handle the war on terror better has the President at huge leads. This election is about who will keep us safe. I hate to say it, but it looks like Bin-Laden to the rescue. The latest polls (time,newsweek) already have the President picking up a couple points since yesterday. I believe he will pick up a few more between now and Tuesday.
Perfmode, Are you suggesting that the President and UBL are working together to get the President re-elected???
I have seen Joe Lockhart interviewed a few times since and really kind of feel sorry for him. They (dnc) have ran a pretty close race untill now and cannot pin this UBL tape on the Republicans without tottaly throwing the elcetion. They have to just keep quiet about it and hope for the best. That's their only hope.

Sacco
10-30-2004, 07:46 AM
Coda. I'm sorry, but you present no logic or facts, only propaganda. Quotes are not facts, just opinions, even if they are in print. If I was to use YOUR logic system, any other country should attack the United States because they have the potential to be a present threat at a future date. I do not agree with this logic. But, using your rationale, any other country would have a point. We are the only country to use the nuclear bomb in war. We have proven we are dangerous too an extreme, and by YOUR RATIONLE, the United States as a possible future threat should be eliminated. Your logic leads to mass nuclear war, and if you believe in such things, Judgement Day (world without end ending for the not chosen).

I would guess, if you were having a good faith argument with me, there would ACTUALLY be more personal reasons of maintaining power and wealth in your motivation to make these obviously insane arguments.

Gatsby007
10-30-2004, 07:48 AM
Perf: If we left the terrorrists alone they would not be satisfied. They want to kill us because we are the infidells. It is because of thier extremist views if Islam that we do not share with them. Please remember the US is not the only country that has been terroized. WE don't need to mind our own business, we need to hunt them down and crush them. Hopefully that is a point that we all can agree on.

tennisboy87
10-30-2004, 10:21 AM
I think your first reason should become less important as you become an adult and is not a real good reason.
Your 2nd reason is sound. I disagree, but it's a matter of opinion.
Your 3rd reason is sound, too. Trust your feelings and instincts.
Fourthly, I can understand why you, as a Catholic, would feel that way and vote for Bush.
You have expressed yourself in a better reasoned way than most adults and have obviously put some thought into it. You will be a better than average voter as an adult. PS - I'm voting for Kerry.


Thanks for your opinions. I appreciate your comments.

tennisboy87
10-30-2004, 10:24 AM
I also believe that abortions are personal and the government should not get involved. Instead of whining about women "murdering their unborn children", we should worry about people killing people who are actually alive (ie. murder in the US, terrorism [*cough* us occupation of iraq*cough*] and war).


Abortion IS killing people who are actually alive.

Sacco
10-30-2004, 11:34 AM
And may I add, tennisboy87, war is killing people too (many who are civilians, senescent and innocent).

Do you believe violence begets violence?

To greatGatsby007,

we need to hunt them down and crush them.

G-d help some of us if this is your Solution Step. I do agree that ignoring a problem is foolish, but whether you belive life is sacred or not, this is no video game-- there are no resurrections, just consequences. And every person that kills another person will have to take their justifications and reasoning to the grave, and some believe beyond. When we are young-- "we feel immortal for a limited time", but this is not so. Reality is the rite of passage to adulthood, not age.

In tennis our bodies remember that drive to youth-- it's the microcosmic utopia I wish we could all strive for. Our times, like many, are so hard, but if we can accept others (not forgive or forget) that do us wrong and adapt to (not crucify or destroy) the others needs-- we can grow as a united world population. And yes, this sounds like hippie tennis talk, but it's our love/drive/desire that brings us to this board, not our hate (hopefully).

Maybe that last paragraph was bull*****, but I meant it anyway. :wink:

Gatsby007
10-30-2004, 12:08 PM
With all due respect Sacco, You just don't get it. Some people won't see the threat of terrorism untill they are beating on thier doors at home. I don't understand your video game analogy. No-one wants to kill innocent civilians. Do you think the terrorist groups are innocent and we are just being schoolyard bullies?? Hunting them down and crushing them is the action that has been taken by our current President and the plan preposed by the current challenger. That is one thing that both men agree on. I would like to hear what you think should be done to the terrorist organizations to better protect the US and the world.

Sacco
10-30-2004, 02:49 PM
First off, working with and involving in the decision making a majority of the world community; in the United Nations, for example, this would mean no Security Council of elites, but ALL votes by General Assembly.

The sanctions in Iraq are an example of the Security Council gone wrong and coerced to a degree. These sanctions enforced on Iraq by the United Nations (led by the United States through threats), starved and killed thousands upon thousands of Iraq's citizens. And since Saddam had all the power and was hording all the supplies, the poor working families starved. These are some of the same families that hated Saddam and his regime, and if they had NOT been so beaten down by Saddam and U.S. sponsored sanctions-- they would have possibly revolted, and with support they would have taken the country over themselves. The end of the Gulf War where senior Bush told the troops to pull out on the revolters and left them to hang is a prime example.

Next, the weapons inspections worked. Your selected president lied. Blix was doing a good job. They worked perfectly. This is proven by the facts, not the science fiction the Pentagon and current administration spewed and continue spewing to a lesser degree.

Those are very general points.

Which specific terrorist/ freedom fighting groups are you referring to? Each would have to be looked at on a case by case evaluation. And I, and you, can debate this on a layman level, but we, of course, are not as qualified as non-partisan, hopefully non-nationalist, experts from all countries coming together to actually make some more real world solutions... other and apart from all out slaughter and war.

As for the video game reference, your words "hunt them down and crush them"-- this sounds like your talking about INSECTS not people like you and me, working people with families, dreams, communities, etc. It's a way of distancing (through words) oneself from the reality that even the most hated among us is still a human being. This is the same distancing one does when one engages the fantasy element of a video game. And video games are great, fun, I love them too-- but that technology sometimes creates a disconnect in human interaction. Perhaps it amalgamates with all your fears and insecurities, blurring the logic between what is real and projected fantasy/imagination, and starts to rearrange our reality to absurdity.

Gatsby007
10-30-2004, 03:50 PM
Hey Sacco, I respect your views. I believe this is where you and i MAY(?) differ. I believe these terrorist groups (i.e. al-quaeda, Hama, UBL, Zarquawi, the Chechian Rebels from the School in Beslan Etc.) are not in fact humans. These are animals, monsters even that are hell bent on killing innocent civilians not just in the US. The school in Beslan where children where held hostage and were shot while trying to escape is just one example. I do believe these people should be eliminated (crushed). I am not talking about the innocent citizens of Iraq, or any civilains anywhere. I would like to ask one more question of you, if you don't mind.
Are there any Terrorist/freedom fighting groups that you think should be left alone and just given a free pass to continue the brutal killings of innocent people everywhere.
Very Interested:

thejerk
10-30-2004, 06:39 PM
Sacco, you have proven a point I made earlier, liberals have a mental desease. You wrote something about the U.N. that is absurd. Most of the countries in the U.N. are turd world dictatorships. They are small dictatorships. So each little dictator would get the same World Vote as we. Saddam, without the backing of his 25 million people, would have had an equal vote with our 350 million people. You would give each little dictator equal power with every freely elected country.

What do you mean the inspections worked. You know the weapons cache that just became famous was there in 1995 and the U.N. didn't feel like the weapons there needed to be eliminated.

In all actuality, I don't know where to begin. First off, we all know we are talking about terrorists. I see that you are trying to equate Islamo fascism with freedom. Where did you learn your moral relativism? Never mind, as Shaver would say, "Don't you talk about our schools Willis."

Even though your soul feels empty, don't try to fill the void with the U.N., the U.N. is not a god. Blind faith in the U.N. is insane. Did you vote for anyone on the general assembly?

We could put an electoral collage kind of vote in there where representation equals population, but that's too close to the system that saved us from mob rule in our election, for you, I'm sure. And besides, who wants Russia to have more power than us? Forget that last question, I think I know the answer to that one. You gave the answer in you last post.

Is your Utopia one in which there is no longer anything worth fighting for? Should consensus take the place of right and wrong? Can you be too radical in your defense of liberty?

I saw an interview with another natural Kerry voter. She said, "I'm voting for Kerry, because I'm sick of living pay check to pay ckeck."

perfmode
10-30-2004, 07:24 PM

thejerk
10-30-2004, 07:43 PM
Max, I like that article. Some of his examples of observable evolution sound more like adaptation to me. The insecticide example doesn't mean that the dna has changed. I don't know if I believe in evolution though, I don't think it is impossible or even highly unlikely.

In the context of my extra-terrestrial idea evolution still doesn't make sense to me. Did life begin with one life form and evolve from it? Did life spontaneously begin from many different life forms and evolve from there? Did it spontaneously begin at different times and places on earth and evolve from there? My biggest problem with evolution is that life had to begin. Life didn't exist from the beginning. Or did it?

If life began on earth in more than one place, one time, or one form, then the odds of it not being everywhere are almost non-existant. In my opinion.

Thanks for that site(sarcasm), now I will be stuck on that stuff for some time. I'm just glad it wasn't quantum mechanics. I would be stuck there forever. I still believe that if one in a billion planets had life, we would still here it coming from all directions. Even planets younger than ours could have had more advanced and powerful com systems. We have only been doing it for 1 hundred years, if that. I just can't see how life can exist, and not exist everywhere in the context of evolution. Keep them sites and ideas coming though.

Coda
10-30-2004, 08:01 PM
The quotes from an interview with an Iraqi nuclear scientist is suddenly propeganda? Sacco, you make me laugh...lol. You make it sound like the US is suddenly in the wrong because it is the only country to use a nuclear weapon. Do you know that using the nuclear bombs of WWII actuall saved thousands and thousands of American lives? It created a quick end to the world's bloodiest conflict that would have gone on and on and on with many more lives lost than what was lost from the bombs. The Japanese were hell bent on destroying us. And if you did use my logic then you would see that we in fact do need to go after terrorists. My logic doesn't lead to nuclear war it leads to a safer world. When has America been a threat or when will it be a threat to the world like Saddam had the potential of being? I don't see the US invading other countries for their oil, I don't see the US marching people into gas chambers, or **** rooms, or burying people alive in mass graves. I agree that we shouldn't be involved in other's business, but since we are we can't back out when a bunch of religious radicals (yes, religion does play a very important part in their choice to resort to terrorism) tells us to. If we did back out now, we would actually breed more terrorism because every person that would want anything from us would have to get a plane and throw it into a building and poof! the American people would suddenly bow down to the person's wishes. Also sacco, we cannot rely on the UN, specifically to protect this world...just take a look at what the Europeans did when Hitler ruled. They just kept giving and giving until it was to late. Also, the Iraqi people were not able to revolt against Saddam, he was too powerful with too many ways of putting down revolts. Think of people suddenly missing in the middle of the night, kidnapped by the Republican guard. Sacco, how can you say that we can't go out and squash these terrorists? You say they have families, hopes and communites. These terrorists certainly have lives and communities with other radical islamic extremists and they certianly have dreams to kill you and me and other Americans. Perf, Bush isn't do this for any personal reason except wanting to live in a safer country. You could say he is out for oil, wrong. Oil would only make his oil in texas less valuable, plus when was the last time we shipped oil out of Iraq when we went in there with troops? Never. Thanks Jerk and Gatsby it makes me feel better there are at least a few other people out there that still think straight.
We need to squash those terrorists like the bugs/animals they are!!

Sacco
10-30-2004, 08:35 PM
Jerk-off--

"""I saw an interview with another natural Kerry voter. She said, "I'm voting for Kerry, because I'm sick of living pay check to pay ckeck."""""

Actually I did vote early for Kerry, but only because Nader fu**ed with me by running with two vice presidents under different parties on the same ticket. That was stupid, his percentages won’t be counted properly that way. So I went in wanting to vote Nader; he ****ed me off; I contemplated voting green or socialist party, but they didn’t campaign or show any effort; so I voted for Kerry by default.

You imply an insult to the working class, to jab at me I assume, and I could respect that if you didn't come on like such an *****hole blue-blood.

""""We could put an electoral collage kind of vote in there where representation equals population,…"""""

Not a bad idea, but it wouldn’t quite work. As I stated, but you were too co**fu**ed at that moment to understand, that was only ONE example, the U.N. one example, and I said vote by General Assembly on a general level, never implying I had all the answers to making it work. A layman’s perspective c*mfrock.

Don’t forget I believe in the International Criminal Court too, a good laugh for a lonely little right **** hand-puppet like you looking for a hand-job lefty by yourself.

"""""What do you mean the inspections worked. You know the weapons cache that just became famous was there in 1995 and the U.N. didn't feel like the weapons there needed to be eliminated.""""

They didn't, f**kwad. The issue is weapons of mass destruction, not minor explosives of bad rhetoric for mass distraction.

Here's a link for you, try to actually read it, not gloss it poorly like you do everything else--

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/103104V.shtml

Overall, I'm worried about you-- stop tickling your own *****hole in the pool, and take a class or two on interpretation and reading skills. :P :twisted: :P

mlee2
10-30-2004, 08:41 PM
I see a lot of people comparing Hitler to Bush and I personally find that as the ultimate insult and horribly disgusting.

Hitler was a pretty smart guy, you know. ;-)

Max G.
10-30-2004, 08:44 PM
"My logic doesn't lead to nuclear war it leads to a safer world."

Your logic leads to a world in which we invade whoever we feel threatens us.

This will lead to all nations trying to get WMDs ASAP, so that they can threaten to use them if we invade.

Or, the other option, of course, is to be so economically valuable to us that we can't touch them. The current example of this is Saudi Arabia - their government is as corrupt and cruel as Saddam was, they had known links to al Qaeda, but they sell us large quantities of oil so we can't invade them.

mlee2
10-30-2004, 08:59 PM
Coda,

The UN was built for the exact reasons of preventing war, and it was originally an AMERICAN IDEA.

This talk about denigrating the UN is pretty silly. America still has the biggest influence there and carries a veto power in the Security Council: the only council that really matters in the UN. Our country has the financial clout to buy votes from other countries. I can say that last sentence with full certainty as I've worked as an intern with many UN operations.

How people can think Bush attacking Iraq for our safety is beyond me. There are PLENTY of other countries on the sh*t list that are bigger threats to us than Iraq. I mean, chrissakes, we should be attacking the Saudis before we attack Iraq. THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF AL-QAEDA IS FUNDED AND LOCATED!

America is the best country in the world. Our free-market ideas are the best aspect of this country and why we're still No. 1. I'm not your liberal 'America-hater' as jerk might label me and our country isn't close to **** facism, but there certainly are traces of it here and it's growing. If you can't see it, I envy your ignorance.

There will always be terrorist attacks (and people who hate America)no matter who wins this race but I will not see Bush ruin our good name and (as an issue for fighting terrorism) give terrorists a HUGE recruiting tool and an even bigger reason for Arabs to give up their lives to destroy America. You might not care that 75% of Europe hates us but again: that 75% are seen as possible recruits to terrorist camps.

mlee2
10-30-2004, 09:00 PM
Sorry, Max, didn't mean to repeat that Saudi comment.

perfmode
10-30-2004, 09:12 PM
http://www.ironcircus.com/natgeo1.jpg












































































http://www.ironcircus.com/natgeo2.jpg

Sacco
10-30-2004, 09:15 PM
Coda,

I would hope that this is just bravado or fantasy for you-- example: I like to swear, you like pretending to be a sociopath. That was wrong of me to say, I'm not here to judge.

I do have one question though, for you and all those like-minded individuals like yourself, the respectable :wink: ones that believe other human beings you don't like are insects/animals, whatever-- why aren't you enlisted and over in Iraq right now?

You are true believers, right? There seems only one logical course of action if you are. Right now, U.S. troops are depleted (inside and out), many have been there way too long, want to go home, and some only joined up for the college money or to help out their struggling families in this horrible economy.

I'm not here to judge, only listen. I know it's possible they didn't want you or you feel you're too old or young, but it's time to let it all out. Why not just join? You ALL are true believers, I am not and many of the current troops are not; don't you think it should be the ones who want crushing and killing the most, and believe, that should go out and show us non-believers the error of our ways?

I was raised as an officers son, an army-brat of sorts, but it still never quite worked for me, if I had been drafted I would of been a conscientious objector and gone to prison. See I confessed, it's easy. So, Coda (and the rest), why haven't you joined up yet????? Very curious.

Coda
10-30-2004, 09:45 PM
actually sacco, you can stop being so ignorant and stop assuming things before you know the truth of the matter. I am a HS senior and am applying to the Air Force Academy and to the Naval Academy. I hope to become a fighter pilot and drop bombs on those animals. By the way, I don't call people I don't like animals, I call people animals when they are a part of an organization to kill innocent American citizens. I think it's sad that you don't think we need to go after these criminals.

Max G.
10-30-2004, 10:00 PM
Max, I like that article. Some of his examples of observable evolution sound more like adaptation to me. The insecticide example doesn't mean that the dna has changed. I don't know if I believe in evolution though, I don't think it is impossible or even highly unlikely.

In the context of my extra-terrestrial idea evolution still doesn't make sense to me. Did life begin with one life form and evolve from it? Did life spontaneously begin from many different life forms and evolve from there? Did it spontaneously begin at different times and places on earth and evolve from there? My biggest problem with evolution is that life had to begin. Life didn't exist from the beginning. Or did it?

If life began on earth in more than one place, one time, or one form, then the odds of it not being everywhere are almost non-existant. In my opinion.

Thanks for that site(sarcasm), now I will be stuck on that stuff for some time. I'm just glad it wasn't quantum mechanics. I would be stuck there forever. I still believe that if one in a billion planets had life, we would still here it coming from all directions. Even planets younger than ours could have had more advanced and powerful com systems. We have only been doing it for 1 hundred years, if that. I just can't see how life can exist, and not exist everywhere in the context of evolution. Keep them sites and ideas coming though.

Well, I think you're misinterpreting what evolution says.

Evolution does not deal with how life appeared. At the moment, though there are hypotheses of abiogenesis, there's no general concensus among the scientific world, though there are some competing hypotheses.

How life appeared really doesn't affect the theory of evolution. We can trace fossils back to fairly primitive cells before the fossil record basically vanishes; the simplest cells didn't leave fossils, they couldn't fossilize.

We know that life appeared, somehow. The fact that we exist, the fact that fossils exist, prove that. We don't know how exactly it first appeared, what conditions were necessary. It might have happened only once, and then evolved from there; or it might have appeared in several places at once, which is possible since the conditions across the world were uniformly favorable.

I don't see how that affects whether the theory of evolution is true or not.

Evolution describes how populations change over time. It deals with what happened after the first self-replicating cell (or molecule) existed.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_abiogenesis.htm

Evolution does not say that life would appear millions of times on different planets.

[BTW, we currently don't even know whether other planets capable of supporting life even exist...]

Heck, even if life did appear on another planet, there is no reason to think that it would evolve and become intelligent. Life evolved for millions and millions of years before it got lucky and intelligence appeared - and technological progress took off from there. But we don't know what the probability of this happening again is. Heck, we probably wouldn't be here if that meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs hadn't hit the earth...

...actually, I don't know how to specifically disprove your argument - all of the literature that I'm finding deals with disproving the claim that biogenesis is so improbable it couldn't possibly happen, rather than saying that it'll happen everywhere if it were true.

But either way, you're mixing together evolution and abiogenesis and treating them as one theory, though evolution does not depend on how or why the first life-form appeared.

Coda
10-30-2004, 10:04 PM
max, it does seem that evolution is real. We just need to look at the Galapagos Islands for present day evidence. What are your thoughts on how life started? I think this is where the main argument lies.

Max G.
10-30-2004, 10:13 PM
max, it does seem that evolution is real. We just need to look at the Galapagos Islands for present day evidence. What are your thoughts on how life started? I think this is where the main argument lies.

Yes, that's where the main argument lies. That evolution happens is, among scientists, an accepted fact, and it's unfortunate that some people don't believe it because they lack the evidence.

I don't know how life started, and my opinion on the matter doesn't really matter...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life - that seems like a good description of the various theories.

Sacco
10-31-2004, 05:54 AM
Good move, Coda. I don't respect the act itself, but I do respect a person that stands up for his/her convictions. Hope to hear from you next year, don't go the college and training route (you can do that later, if there is a later), you might miss the whole conflict in Iraq, and you're so passionate-- get out there on the front-line boy. :)

One down. Any more takers? Joining the U.S. armed forces is the first step. :twisted: :D

I will be a poll monitor with Working Assets the next few days, so I won't have time to respond to further questions. There's an election on ladies and gentlebeings!!! :D :D

Coda might agree to field your questions on joining/recruiting until I am able to again. Ask him; he won't bite. :wink:

Coda
10-31-2004, 08:07 AM
I might miss the Iraq conflict, but I will be the first one to drop a few bombs in N. Korea in a few years!

thejerk
10-31-2004, 01:00 PM
I see somebody wants to imply that the Bush administration is ****. Well once again, where are your examples? I do agree with the statement about nazism/fascism/socialism creeping into our sysem. I on the other hand will give examples:
1) It is funny that Sacco the sheep votes for the party that has been systematically suing to get opposition parties off the ballot.
2) Democrats attempted to sue tv stations to stop the swift boat vets. Let me remind you, the leader of the swift boat vets was the captain of the same boat as Kerry. They were also the officers that served with him. The dems in effect were trying to stop unfavorable speach. And they sought to use the power of the state to do so.
3) The nazis were socialists. In case Sacco doesn't know, the socialists already have a candidate in this race. They aren't really trying to campaign. I have actually heard them endorsing Kerry.
4) They have actually introduced fraudulent documents. For example, Dan Blathers report which was given to him by a democrat opperative. CBS, and NY Times tried to pull off a fake story generated by international socialist and lefties in the CIA.
Where are your brave journalists in trying to seek the truth in these instances? Wasn't Sammy Burglar caught snaking documents. Isn't that another **** like tactic? Isn't he the second or third Clinton guy who was caught doing this? How about File Gate in which Clinton opposition members FBI files were found in Clinton office. What ever happened in that case? Where was the reporting? What party owns the media?
5) A prominant democrat tried to use legislation to get Limbaugh thrown off of armed forces radio. This is real censorship. It is government sponsored censorship. Limbaugh was chosen to be on there by the troops. The troops had to write him in because he wasn't among the choices. He actuallyi finished 5th. That was without his name even being on the choices.
6) Which party champions partial birth abortion. We are talking about viable babies. There is no life of the mother exception here because the child is born. The child would be alive if you guys hadn't marginalized them calling them sub-human. This to me is proof that nazism is alive and well in liberalism.
7) Which side loves the U.N.? If you look at votes in the U.N. you will find that they have consistantly voted against Israel. No matter what happens or what the vote, the U.N. finds the jews at fault and will vote accordingly. If anyone can find and exception to this, I will send you nice tennis racket.
8) Advocating creating human embryos for the sole exception of experimentation. Doesn't Mengela come to mind?
Who cares what you guys believe the intent of the U.N. was? Did you ever hear, "keep your friends close, but keep you enemies closer."? That was the intent of the U.N. The saving us from war was for naive sheep. Remember the League of Nations, it had the same charter. The League of Nations proved that without the real threat of violence, intent means squat.
Only Utopian dreamers can look at socialism and see success. You only see success because you completely deny all failures. Aethism in this century alone has killed more people than all the religions put together. Atheism is a religion. It places man at the penacle. I mention atheism and socialism in the same breath because they are one when speaking of the modern socialist movement. Let me name you a few atheists of note: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein etc... Remember this, the Bathist party of Saddam was socialist.

Gaines Hillix
10-31-2004, 04:35 PM
To play devil's advocate:

Bush appeals to many traditionalists who want to keep unnecessary laws out of the economy and keep strong 'moral' traditions alive.

Privatizing social security is probably the best way to save it. Whether it is smart to do it now or later is the question. Baby boomers (most of them) are ignorant on the basics of investing wisely. Therefore, we could see a lot of poverty when they turn old enough for social security if privatization were to happen. The current generation of high school kids are finally being taught in school on the importance of investing (at least in my area). So maybe when it's their turn to pay taxes, that would be the better time to privatize s.s.

Let's face it, the only way to save S.S is to raise taxes or privatize. Nobody's going to choose or vote for the first one.

Bush should be kissing Alan Greenspan's butt. His policies (not Bush's) have saved our economy from recession. However, I highly doubt Bush's (in)actions are the culprits to our economy. There would've been job losses for any President (including Clinton) in this time. It's a pretty big exaggeration to say Bush (and Bush alone) is the culprit for our bad economy.

One of the plusses of the last four years (and I mean that sincerely) is that Bush has indeed made the tax code, in general, more fair. Corporations were double-taxed in many of their operations. One of the more notable ones was the dividend tax. A dividend is a certain percentage of a comapny's profits. Overhead profits are already taxed so it is certainly unfair to tax them again. This is what hurts the smaller public companies the most from being attractive.

I don't agree with providing tax credits to mulitnational companies who operate offshores (outsourcing). The Republican rationale is that these companies already pay taxes in the host country; but that's not the case most of the time as some 3rd world countries don't have the resources to collect fairly on them.

To end this nonsensical rant, I'm still voting for Kerry as there is no mistake Bush's actions in Iraq were a huge and inexcusable mistake but I can't say 100% surely that the economy is his fault. Our economy is picking up as we speak.

There is a lot of b.s and huge exaggerations coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I'll lean towards liberal guys most of the time but I'll gladly vote for someone like John McCain over Kerry by a long shot.

Couldn't agree more. And, Bush Sr. missed our "best" opportunity to take Sadam and Co. out in the first gulf war after he'd attacked Kuwait so Bush Jr. is trying to make up for it. There was no question we'd win the battle of Iraq, but Bush Jr. couldn't see beyond the end of his nose and had no plan to win the war and still doesn't appear to. I agree, the sides are totally polarized. The "moral majority" has taken over the Republican party and you're out if you're not an evangelical. I don't blame Bush for the economy. Afterall, it's influenced by so many factors outside the U.S. But, taking a hands off position on off-shoring is inexcusable. If we aren't careful, any job that doesn't require you to touch the product or customer will be done outside the U.S.

Coda
10-31-2004, 04:36 PM
max- I think I was on that website for three hours. I went from evolution and three hours later I was on dark matter and wormholes and read everything in between!

Sacco
11-03-2004, 09:10 AM
It is funny that Sacco the sheep votes for the party that has been systematically suing to get opposition parties off the ballot.


I worked my a55 off for 3 days, taking time off of work (but of course you wouldn't know what work is) for a non-paid, non-partisan (501c3) effort in a state I don't live in, Ohio from New York, to insure to protection of the election for Republicans, Democrats, and all parties.

If you bothered to read a post I wrote in this thread, you would have seen I was not keen on Kerry, and am not a Democrat. But you are lazy little f**k who never leaves the computer, just assumes multiple idenities and posts, posts, etc. A sad life really.

Since you obviously don't vote, my following words will be a waste on you, but might be of passing interest to someone else.

I worked in Youngstown Ohio-- my polling place was the Youngstown Youth Academy. The people and their desire to vote and participate was the only thing that went right. Three electronic voting machines, one that broke down many times, created a over 3 hour wait at times. And average of 25 votes cast per hour, if one was not purged from rolls altogether and told to go away (not having the provisional ballots at ALL until two hours into the election) The polls didn't shut down until 11pm, closing time was 7:30.

The following was reported by at least 15 people exiting from voting at different times. The machines defaulted to Bush if no vote was cast for President and often changed the vote for President to Bush also, and the technology made one back page all the way to the beginning to change it. Technology at time slowest and most corrupt. Add to that Ohio law that only allows a voter at the polls for "5 minutes" if there is a line (from 6 AM on here), even if the voting went smoothly, it averaged 10 minutes.

Many were purged from the rolls who lived and voted here their whole life, having to vote "provisionally" after standing in line to vote form 1-31/2 hours. Now only to have those votes NOT counted even for show, if you believe that, by *****wipe loser Kerry and "committed to count every vote" liar working-class hero (in the John Lennon sense) Edwards!!!!

In past elections at this same polling place... 4-6 vote machines were present, in this election only 3 (2 working the whole time, the 1 broke completely before the night was out), even though EVERYONE knew from NEW registered voters alone, that this was going to be the largest turn-out ever. Explain how in any sense that was fair and honest?

Take all that and add to it (no paper trail or accountability in the law or system), we don't know what ACTUALLY recorded in the machine. Moreover, the number of actual votes cast seemed about half the people who went in.

There was so much more to. So horrible. I refuse to bless this unjust Republic for these unjust actions. And so many think it's reasonable to just NOT count the votes, that what the media saying is reasonable. Stand in line 31/2 hours to not even be counted. IF you think that is right in any circumstance, you are a fascist; (forget democracy) join the supreme court.

thejerk
11-03-2004, 12:17 PM
Why would it take someone 10 minutes to vote? If it was anything like the place I went, Move On was standing right there handing out sample ballots. Of course I sat there and watched them for about 2 hours and saw illegal actions take place no less than 20 times. More like 50 times but some were questionable. You should have seen them, every time a black person drove up, they actually ran to them to hand them sample ballots and little cards. The little cards they only handed to black people who had gone to the wrong precinct. They would proclaim, "If you felt intimidated call this number."
As I watched, they made no attempt to approach any white male much less hand them a sample ballot. Racists, they think you have to be white to know what the issues are. Besides, if you are going to vote, you should know what is on the ballot. I would submit that voting an uninformed vote is no virtue.

I am not sure what you mean by provisional. If it is one where you are registered and they have lost you in the system, then, you should be given a ballot. It's legality can then be confirmed. If it is a ballot they give you because you are not registered, then good, if you aren't registered in time you shouldn't vote. Who needs people so irresponsible voting on the future?

Why are you complaining about no paper trails? You are probably one of the same people that complained people are too stupid to be expected to tear off each chad. One place we agree is on the paper trail. Why did they need you to cross state lines to help in Ohio. Are people in red states to stupid to watch their own balloting place?

By the way, I don't post under other names or anything of that sort. I won't lie just to be you friend, just another trait of the right.

kevhen
11-03-2004, 12:19 PM
Voted for neither. Voted Libertarian. The death of this nation will not be by terrorists but will be brought on by our growing deficits that the Republicans make worse with tax cuts and the Democrats make worse with new spending bills.

PugArePeopleToo
11-03-2004, 12:31 PM
The following was reported by at least 15 people exiting from voting at different times. The machines defaulted to Bush if no vote was cast for President and often changed the vote for President to Bush also, and the technology made one back page all the way to the beginning to change it. Technology at time slowest and most corrupt. Add to that Ohio law that only allows a voter at the polls for "5 minutes" if there is a line (from 6 AM on here), even if the voting went smoothly, it averaged 10 minutes.

Many were purged from the rolls who lived and voted here their whole life, having to vote "provisionally" after standing in line to vote form 1-31/2 hours. Now only to have those votes NOT counted even for show, if you believe that, by *****wipe loser Kerry and "committed to count every vote" liar working-class hero (in the John Lennon sense) Edwards!!!!

In past elections at this same polling place... 4-6 vote machines were present, in this election only 3 (2 working the whole time, the 1 broke completely before the night was out), even though EVERYONE knew from NEW registered voters alone, that this was going to be the largest turn-out ever. Explain how in any sense that was fair and honest?

Take all that and add to it (no paper trail or accountability in the law or system), we don't know what ACTUALLY recorded in the machine. Moreover, the number of actual votes cast seemed about half the people who went in.

There was so much more to. So horrible. I refuse to bless this unjust Republic for these unjust actions. And so many think it's reasonable to just NOT count the votes, that what the media saying is reasonable. Stand in line 31/2 hours to not even be counted. IF you think that is right in any circumstance, you are a fascist; (forget democracy) join the supreme court.

Are you saying it was rigged? It's interesting you think Coda should follow his conviction and joint the army right now. Shouldn't you follow your conviction and leave the country right now?

perfmode
11-03-2004, 01:26 PM
Voted for neither. Voted Libertarian. The death of this nation will not be by terrorists but will be brought on by our growing deficits that the Republicans make worse with tax cuts and the Democrats make worse with new spending bills.

Here. Print this out and wear it to work tomorrow.

http://img11.exs.cx/img11/6654/badnarik.jpg

Sacco
11-03-2004, 06:27 PM
jerk,

Move On is a partisan group, not the same as what we were doing. We passed out a voting bill of rights to everyone who wanted to take one.

Provisional ballots came out of the HAVA act. Every state implemented this differently. In Ohio, if one is not on the rolls but from the county, in the wrong precinct (not able to get to the other), challenged for any reason, or the signature is subjectively deemed to not match the voter still has a right to vote on a provisional ballot. This will be checked late for validity, and processed accordingly. But I doubt that will be done now, no need to waste that effort counting every vote when no one is fighting for it.

Ten minutes. Complaints ranged from: the font was small and strange, the lighting was bad, no privacy, the machine didn't aline properly, it was slow, and if a mistake was made one scroll back each page to the problem to change and then scroll foward through each page to get back to the end. Since all the machines and voting is NOT universally the same, applying your experience to it would be an unsound comparison.

The people are smart, the machines and laws are stupid. I have family in the area (so a place to stay), and New York didn't have any calls out for help, Ohio did. And if one looks at the anomalies in voting in that state, and Ohio's stupid laws, one can see why they needed help.

Sacco
11-03-2004, 06:43 PM
pug,

Are you saying it was rigged? It's interesting you think Coda should follow his conviction and joint the army right now. Shouldn't you follow your conviction and leave the country right now?


Coda did follow his convictions; he's already signed up according to him. Don't you believe him? I do.

Why should I leave because you say so? Because I don't like to mix church and state? Because I am exercising MY CITIZENSHIP by questioning the government (remember the Bill of Rights)?

How can one change the system if one doesn't participate in it, criticize it at times, and speak out?

Are you even a citizen of the United States, pug? If you're not I could understand why you might be scared, but you shouldn't be.
Every government has mass corruption and problems, but not talking about them, taking no action, or trying to silence word and/or actions of another is an escape for cowards and weaklings.

NoBadMojo
11-03-2004, 06:50 PM
it is reported that the US voting system is one of the most dysfunctional ones in the world <which includes evolving countries>. it's inconsistent, not reliable, and lends itself to cheating. the process worked better with a piece of paper and something to blacken out boxes like in the good ole days. this is one case where newer is not better. it really isnt difficult.....go to a polling place....blacken out boxes and turn in the form and hopefully the form will be handled in a fair manner with a doubly redundent system.

PugArePeopleToo
11-04-2004, 11:40 AM
sacco, first off I would like to know if you are saying the Ohio balloting process was rigged. Second off, I didn't vote for Bush, however, I am willing to accept that more than enough people did not vote my way; just like my candidate have said, it's time for healing; and I might add it's not time for crying fault, especially when there was none. In case you don't know, the American way is the loser lose graciously. If you want to participate, fine, say something remotely constructive. Calling people fascist because they disagree with you hardly qualify you as an participant. Do us a favor, before you try to give lesson in civic responsibility, learn it first.

I am not saying you should leave because I say so, I am saying you should leave because you "refuse to bless this unjust Republic for these unjust actions". I thought the logic was perfectly simple, but I see I was being presumptuous.

Sacco
11-04-2004, 05:07 PM
I give no lessons only opinions, frustration, and observations from participation, not just parroting what the television tells me to.

I saw mass irregularities at one polling place, so I make the assumption that I am not alone, and there were many more irregularities. I believe this is cheating, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the corporate controlled media to say this, or ever ask the right questions. They will say healing, don't worry about the vote. I say, heal what? The lies, and all the lives that were lost because of those lies; I will not forgive or forgot that. I as a citizen blame myself the most. If you wish to not read my posts, fine, no one is forcing you-- block them out if they bother you.

I probably should go to another board, but I guess I love tennis, so in a weird way I feel at home here; writing posts no one loves to read maybe.

My American way is rugged individualism. Or maybe that's not it at all. But to say your American way is mine is just wrong. If you want to fit into a box of some pseudo-notion of Americanism go ahead, but I'm not buying it. Go sell crazy somewhere else.

This 'loser lose graciously' carp-- so are you saying Serena Williams isn't doing it the American way? How about Andy Roddick, is he always gracious? They do it there own way. America is just a state of mind.

Tennis Guy
11-04-2004, 05:25 PM
That's really close. 40 to 40.

PugArePeopleToo
11-04-2004, 08:32 PM
sacco, let me understand your thinking. Democrats was one state short of getting the hated Bush out of White House. Republican cheated in order to take Ohio, the corporate controlled media knew about it but covered it up, Kerry's camp knew about it but decided to do nothing. Even though this was the most divisive election in years, and the Democrats literally did everything to get Bush out, they came so close just to gave up without even investigate this fraud. Of course two of Ohio's newspapers that endorsed Kerry decided to help Bush and covered up this dirty trick. This is truly good stuff, I have always known conservative has no claim on moral high ground, now you have confirmed liberal has no claim on intellectual superiority. Now if you nut cases from both sides just go away, I firmly believe we would be better off.

And yes losing the Presidential election graciously is the American way.

@wright
11-05-2004, 07:30 AM
You call Bush hated, but what is sKerry? HATED. Was Clinton not HATED by many??? G.H.W. Bush was HATED by some also. Noticing a pattern here? I bet more people (in this country anyway) hate Kerry than Bush.

Sacco
11-05-2004, 08:34 AM
pug,

There is no set American way, how nuts are you?

Do you believe the U.S. government will deport you if you don't just keep repeating yourself as chest thumping conservative-democrat (if that is what you are)? If that is your situation, I could feel for you a little, but anything else is just prescriptive behaviour patterning on your part.

I personally don't like most in the Democratic party, and none of the Republican party. Really they are only one party now. Republican's strongly controlling the Congress are like the slave owners, and there slaves are the members of the Democratic party. The minority whip, whips him/herself and their own party down more every day.

It's funny you have an opinion about what went on in Ohio, but you were never there. Go figure. T.V. entertainment news trumps actual experience, for you, every time. That's sad. :(

Here’s an article for you by Greg Palast, talking about Ohio and New Mexico, called 'Kerry Won':
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110504V.shtml

PugArePeopleToo
11-05-2004, 03:27 PM
sacco, you were at one polling place and saw something you did not like, therefore that made you an election fraud expert and believed the entire process was rigged. I think that is a huge leap in logic. However, for the sake of arguement, let's just say the Republican cheated, and Kerry knew about it, logically speaking, if you can, please explain why Kerry did not fight for what is rightfully his presidency?

Historically speaking, name one candidate who lost the election and made a big stink.

T.V. news? Hmmm... I suppose reading crap from fece ridden web site is the way to go.

Like you, I don't like both parties. I think Republican is too far to the right and the Democrat is too far to the left. Where as you think Democrat is not left enough. I got news for you, the nation will never turn to the path you desired, but cheer up, the last workers paradise is 90 miles away. But do be haste before old Fidel kick the bucket.

wright, I used hated as how sacco would have used it. I don't hate Bush nor Kerry. I went with Kerry because to me he is the less of two evils. I am disappointed, but I respect the outcome, I just can't stand sore losers making baseless accusation. If he thinks our country is so corrupted, he should overthrow it or get the heck out.

Coda
11-05-2004, 07:32 PM
Sacco, you are an ignorant crybaby if there ever was one. I can usually respect people's opinions even if they go against my views taking into account they are sensible about it, ie Pugs' view. I don't agree with Kerry, but I respect Pugs' views. However by seeing one instance of cheating you assume everything is haywire and by citing one article from a lesser known source you assume suddenly Kerry is president. Why doesn't a VERY liberal network look at this story? CBS easily comes to mind in this case. Anyway, look at this: http://www.fairus.org/ImmigrationIssueCenters/ImmigrationIssueCenters.cfm?ID=2549&c=17
or this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10187
Voter fraud may spring from both parties, but here in California I actually know of many latinos who are illegal immigrants and have walked into the voting room and have been able to actually vote.
I've asked the officials there how they could have voted, turns out that they didn't have ID's but since they didn't understand English, the officials there gave them a break. A few hours later the same people come and vote again under a different name. Perhaps this sort of thing took California from Bush? And to use an article that calls Republicans KKK members is ridiculous. When Kerry concedes you should take a hint and quit too.

Sacco
11-09-2004, 08:14 AM
Was the Ohio Election Honest and Fair?

WASHINGTON -- November 4 --

Teresa Fedor, [via Greg Lestini, glestini@maild.sen.state.oh.us
Ohio State Senator Teresa Fedor said today: "There was trouble with our elections in Ohio at every stage. It's been a battle getting people registered to vote, getting to the ballot on voting day and getting that vote to count. There is a pattern of voter suppression; that's why I called for [Ohio Secretary of State] Blackwell's resignation more than a month ago. Blackwell, while claiming to run an unbiased elections process, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio. Additionally, he was the spokesperson for the anti-business, anti-family constitutional amendment 'Issue 1,' and a failed initiative to repeal a crucial sales-tax revenue source for the state. Blackwell learned his moves from the Katherine Harris playbook of Florida 2000, and we won't stand for it."


Bill Moss, bmoss@hbcuconnect.com, Executive vice president of HBCU Connect, which works to connect historically black colleges and universities, Moss said today: "I stayed in line two and a half hours. I've never seen anything like this in my life. There were fewer voting machines in the highly concentrated black areas, creating the long lines so as to frustrate the voters. But we knew the Republicans -- many of whom became Republicans because they opposed equal rights for blacks -- would try to drive down black turnout. ... [Ohio Secretary of State] Blackwell was confusing things by raising issues like the paper weight of cards."


Susan Truitt, susan.truitt@lexisnexis.com, www.caseohio.org
Co-founder of the Citizens Alliance for Secure Elections, Truitt said today: "Seven counties in Ohio have electronic voting machines and none of them have paper trails. That alone raises issues of accuracy and integrity as to how we can verify the count. A recount without a paper trail is meaningless; you just get a regurgitation of the data. Last year, Blackwell tried to get the entire state to buy new machines without a paper trail. The exit polls, virtually the only check we have against tampering with a vote without a paper trail, had shown Kerry with a lead. ... A poll worker told me this morning that there were no tapes of the results posted on some machines; on other machines the posted count was zero, which obviously shouldn't be the case."


Dan Wallach, dwallach@cs.rice.edu, www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach, www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR062104.htm
Wallach is an assistant professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston specializing in building secure and robust software systems for the Internet. Along with colleagues at Johns Hopkins, Wallach co-authored a groundbreaking study that revealed significant flaws in electronic voting systems. He appeared on an Institute for Public Accuracy news release in June entitled "Electronic Voting -- Danger for Democracy."


Bob Fitrakis, rfitraki@cscc.edu
An attorney who monitored the election with the Election Protection Coalition, Fitrakis said today: "There were far fewer machines in the inner-city districts than in the suburbs. I documented at least a dozen people leaving because the lines were so long in African-American areas. Blackwell did a great deal of suppressing before the election -- like attempting to refuse to process voter registration forms. The absentee ballots were misleading in Franklin County. Kerry was the third line down, but you had to punch number four to vote for him. Bush was getting both his votes as well as Kerry's."


Harvey Wasserman, windhw@aol.com, www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/810
Senior editor of FreePress.org, an Ohio-based web site, and co-author with Fitrakis of the recent article "Twelve Ways Bush is Now Stealing the Ohio Vote," Wasserman said today: "There was a huge fight around ensuring that the electronic voting machines had paper trails and there was resistance by the secretary of state, so there is no paper trail. There were some victories to ensure a paper trial -- by 2006. There were limited numbers of voting machines in African-American districts. Some people had to wait up to eight hours, far more than in predominantly white areas."

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT:

On November 9, 2003, the New York Times reported: "In mid-August, Walden W. O'Dell, the chief executive of Diebold Inc., sat down at his computer to compose a letter inviting 100 wealthy and politically inclined friends to a Republican Party fund-raiser, to be held at his home in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio. 'I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year,' wrote Mr. O'Dell, whose company is based in Canton, Ohio. That is hardly unusual for Mr. O'Dell. A longtime Republican, he is a member of President Bush's 'Rangers and Pioneers,' an elite group of loyalists who have raised at least $100,000 each for the 2004 race. But it is not the only way that Mr. O'Dell is involved in the election process. Through Diebold Election Systems, a subsidiary in McKinney, Tex., his company is among the country's biggest suppliers of paperless, touch-screen voting machines. Judging from Federal Election Commission data, at least 8 million people will cast their ballots using Diebold machines next November. ... Some people find Mr. O'Dell's pairing of interests -- as voting-machine magnate and devoted Republican fund-raiser -- troubling."
www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/business/yourmoney/09vote.html

On November 3, 2004, Reuters reported: "Voters across the United States reported problems with electronic touch-screen systems on Tuesday in what critics said could be a sign that the machines used by one-third of the population were prone to error.... "
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1103-03.htm

On October 24, 2004, the Palm Beach Post reported: "A federal judge on Monday rejected U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler's claim that paperless electronic voting violates the constitutional rights of Floridians...."
www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2004/10/26/c1a_wexler_1026.html
On November 3, 2004, Thomas Crampton wrote in the International Herald Tribune: "The global implications of the U.S. election are undeniable, but international monitors at a polling station in southern Florida said Tuesday that voting procedures being used in the extremely close contest fell short in many ways of the best global practices...."
www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/02/news/observe.html

thejerk
11-10-2004, 04:15 PM
Okay, okay sacco you got us. However, why would we want to enslave black people when we can hire mexicans for a dollar a day?

PugArePeopleToo
11-11-2004, 11:23 AM
Latest Conspiracy Theory -- Kerry Won -- Hits the Ether

By Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 11, 2004; Page A02

MIAMI, Nov. 10 -- The e-mail subject lines couldn't be any bigger and bolder: "Another Stolen Election," "Presidential election was hacked," "Ohio Fraud."

Even as Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign is steadfastly refusing to challenge the results of the presidential election, the bloggers and the mortally wounded party loyalists and the spreadsheet-wielding conspiracy theorists are filling the Internet with head-turning allegations. There is the one about more ballots cast than registered voters in the big Ohio county anchored by Cleveland. There are claims that a suspicious number of Florida counties ended up with Bush vote totals that were far larger than the number of registered Republican voters. And then there is the one that might be the most popular of all: the exit polls that showed Kerry winning big weren't wrong -- they were right.

Each of the claims is buoyed by enough statistics and analysis to sound plausible. In some instances, the theories are coming from respected sources -- college engineering professors fascinated by voting technology, Internet journalists, election reform activists. Ultimately, none of the most popular theories holds up to close scrutiny. And the people who most stand to benefit from the conspiracy theories -- the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- are not biting.

"At this point the number of irregularities brought to our attention is not going to change the outcome of the election," said DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera. "The simple fact of the matter is that Republicans received more votes than Democrats, and we're not contesting this election."

The Ohio vote-fraud theory appears to stem from the curious ways of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. During even-numbered years the county's canvassing board posts vote totals that include the results from outside the county from congressional districts that spill over Cuyahoga's borders. The quirk made it look as if the county had 90,000 more votes than voters.

The disparities were spotted, and urgent mass mailings began: "Ohio precincts report up to 1,586% turnout . . . 30 Precincts in Ohio's Cuyahoga County report 'over' 100% turnout!" Later, the county added a disclaimer to its Web site in an attempt to explain the numbers.

"It takes me about three times to explain" why the fraud allegation is untrue, said Kimberly Bartlett, community outreach specialist for the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. "You have to ask them why no top Democrat is making these charges."

There also have been reports of more votes counted than voters in some counties in Florida and North Carolina. Steve Ansolabehere of the Caltech-MIT Voting Technology Project said the preliminary results do not add up. "We'll see if there's anything dramatic or widespread once we see the full certifications come in," he said.

The Florida case is more nuanced than the Ohio voting battle. Numerous bloggers have noted that President Bush's vote totals in 47 Florida counties were larger -- in some cases much larger -- than the number of registered Republican voters in the same counties. A widely distributed piece on Consortiumnews.com said the results "are so statistically stunning that they border on the unbelievable."

The article's main numbers are correct. But the central premise -- that there is something suspicious about Bush getting more votes than the number of registered Republicans in rural counties, which use paper ballots -- may not be suspicious at all.

It is does not account for thousands of independents or for voters who do not list party affiliation. It is also common for Florida Democrats, particularly the "Dixiecrats" in the northern reaches of the state and the Panhandle, to vote for Republicans, a pattern that is repeated in much of the Deep South.

"Florida has always been the land of the Dixiecrats," said Walter R. Mebane Jr., a professor of government at Cornell University who specializes in voting issues. "In Florida, as you go north, you go south."

Despite its apparent flaws, the Florida theory raises some interesting questions. For instance, a further look at Florida voting patterns shows that the number of counties with more Bush votes than registered Republicans jumped from 32 in 2000 to 47 in 2004. Bush's improved performance might be explained by Al Gore, a southern moderate, having had more appeal to Dixiecrats four years ago than Kerry, who is from Massachusetts, did in this election.

The theories on exit polls are even more slippery. Because the early exit polls that were leaked and caused so much excitement among Democrats are not publicly distributed, the criticisms have not been based on statistics. Instead there are comments such as those from Zvi Drezner, a professor at the California State University at Fullerton business and economics school, who wrote that "the exit polls did not 'lie' " and described "a gut feeling that the machines did not report the correct count."

Many voting experts say the theory that the exit polls were correct is deeply flawed because the polls oversampled women. MIT political scientist Charles Stewart III also has said focusing solely on the early polls favoring Kerry in Ohio and Florida is the wrong approach because exit polls in some Democratic-leaning states tilted toward Bush, evening out the national picture.

The U.S. Justice Department, which handles complaints fielded by a bipartisan commission formed after the 2000 election chaos, said the allegations of vote buying and voter-registration fraud were no different than the pattern of previous elections. But other sources are documenting huge numbers of complaints. Verified Voting, a group formed by a Stanford University professor to assess electronic voting, has collected 31,000 reports of election fraud and other problems, but nothing that would overturn the Nov. 2 outcome.

Still, messages posted on the aptly named Quixotegroup discussion cluster -- which takes its name from the literary figure Don Quixote who used his lance to tilt against windmills -- urged members to send fraud evidence to the law firm of Kerry's brother, Cameron Kerry, to persuade the Democratic candidate to "unconcede."

A high-ranking Democrat, mindful of balancing respect for the complainers and a desire to move on, summed up the conspiracy theorists with a line from Alexander Pope: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."

Keating reported from Washington. Staff writers Paul Farhi and Susan Schmidt in Washington contributed to this report.


source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41106-2004Nov10.html

sacco, if you search the web hard enough, you can find GOP accusation of Kerry supporters cheated in Ohio.

thejerk
11-11-2004, 06:33 PM
You know sacco, I think the reason you scream so loud is because you have to listen to sirens and trains all day. Do ya have to use public transportation to qualify for enlightened status.