Lifestyle > Train of Thought
The Hypocricy of the left.
7even:
voting for Ralph Nader is a plain waste of your vote.
not saying he sucks, but, hands straight, he wont win anyway. and you KNOW thiS!
ironically he might be the reason for bush (the exact opposite) to win! now fuck wit that!
cause EVERY person who votes for Nader, would rather want Kerry than Bush as the less of two evils.
therefore Nader is a dumbass for runnin for president, cause he knows he wont win shit but take a lot of potential Kerry-Votes. What a fag.
Javier:
--- Quote from: 7even the Harbinger on March 03, 2004, 11:20:11 PM ---voting for Ralph Nader is a plain waste of your vote.
not saying he sucks, but, hands straight, he wont win anyway. and you KNOW thiS!
ironically he might be the reason for bush (the exact opposite) to win! now fuck wit that!
cause EVERY person who votes for Nader, would rather want Kerry than Bush as the less of two evils.
therefore Nader is a dumbass for runnin for president, cause he knows he wont win shit but take a lot of potential Kerry-Votes. What a fag.
--- End quote ---
at least in 2000 he ran for the Green Party but this year as an Independent. Now as an Indy runner it will be hard for him to be on the ballot for each state
infinite59:
--- Quote from: I Just Wasn't Made For These Times on March 03, 2004, 03:12:29 PM ---I don't have any dirt on Nadar. He's a much more stand up man than Kerry, I just don't agree with his beliefs, WHICH I CAN RESPECT. I can respect somebody with different beliefs... someone who's a total fraud though, I can't stand.
--- End quote ---
I kind of feel what your saying. I wouldn't say that I like or respect Bill O'Riely but he does have some respectable qualities. Even though I disagree with him on the key issue's, he's a stand up guy and doesn't go back and forth pandering to one group or another. He let's his guests get on his show and present their conflicting viewpoints. Also, I love hip-hop, but in some ways I respect him for taking a stand against the part of hip-hop music which is very exploitative of it's community.
Trauma-san:
^ Yup. I'm glad you see it that way. He may be dead wrong, 100% wrong in his views... but you still have to appreciate that he's not a liar.
nibs:
--- Quote from: I Just Wasn't Made For These Times on March 01, 2004, 04:13:58 PM ---Mighta misspelled that. LOL
Anyways... When the U.N. passed 15 or whatever it was resolutions saying Iraq was in violation of the U.N.'s peace treaty with Iraq.... therefore ending the peace, lol.... America goes to war "uni-lateraly" (with 50 other nations) to attack Iraq.
--- End quote ---
stop spreading mis-information. no u.n. resolution ever ended the peace. what the u.n. resolution stated was that iraq was in violation of the previous resolutions and that the matter should be brought before the security council to be dealt with.
saying that the u.n. resolution ended the peace is either dishonest or ignorant.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
read sections 4, 11 and 12. section 12 clearly states that if iraq does anything else (violate 4 or 11) the matter gets kicked back to the security council. bush and the americans clearly skipped that step.
EVVVVVERY Democrat voted for it (the war)... but now that it's election time, and we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, EVVVVVVERY Democrat talks shit about the president going in.
the war was not about weapons of mass destruction. the same weekend that bush and blair went off for their romantic getaway in the mountains, the iraqi govt released a document detailing how they had destroyed the anthrax, and stated they would have a document ready by the end of the week detailing how the vx nerve agent had been destroyed.
bush & blair completely ignored this and later that nite issued their decry that saddam hussein must step down within 48 hours or whatever. the national media completely ignored the iraqi document once bush made his ultimatum because at that point it didn't matter.
now in 2004, with the power of hindsight, i don't see how anyone can honestly say this was a war about wmd when none have been found, and the american president completely ignored both the u.n.'s resolutions about wmd as well as the iraqi minister of informations report on how the wmd's that did exist had been destroyed.
Haiti. A corrupt leader placed in power by our former, Democratic, President, gets overthrown by his people. EVERY Democrat around (since this is an election year) is saying "I WOULD HAVE WENT IN, WE NEED TO GO TO HAITI, WE SHOULD BE THERE, IF I WAS PRESIDENT BLAH BLAH BLAH".... Now, explain that shit to me.
that is a silly analogy. haiti and iraq are different situations. do you treat every girlfriend you ever had exactly the same? no. do you treat everyone of your homeboys the same? no.
haiti is a problem america helped to create with a leader america propped up and put in power.
iraq was simply a nation america couldn't control that had been thumbing their nose at america for some time; and bush decided to do something about it.
america used force to destroy the stability in iraq, and withheld using force to help maintain stability in haiti (a nation whose leader america had propped up).
and that is the point kerry was making.
Kerry & Co. are criticizing Bush, for consulting the fucking UNITED NATIONS! I thought they were bitching In Iraq we acted Unilaterally and should have waited on the United Nations? Well, now that we've waited on the United Nations, Bush gets criticized for that, also.
hey, i don't argue with that. the u.n. should be more than consulted, u.n. should have completely handled both situations. however, what was the rush in iraq? it's clear that the u.n. has taken too long with haiti, and there was no rush in iraq. so if there were a time to act unilaterally, it would have been haiti and not iraq. the iraq situation wasn't going anywhere.
The truth is, the Democrats pander to the Black vote. They were behind the war in Iraq, every fucking one of them voted for it. Once they saw it as a chance to Attack Bush, they came up with "Oh, we should have used the U.N."...
i don't see how that is an instance of pandering to the black vote. bush has failed in iraq for the most part (fighting took too long, peace has taken too long, there isn't any sort of stability, body counts on the u.s. side are too high; and bush's main argument of wmd has been proven to be a sham), and the democrats sense that he is weak there. business as usual.
Now that the Haitian thing has came up, and Bush didn't go in without the United Nations, they see it as another chance to attack him.
your notion of consistency in policy is baseless here.
Now they're bitching that we DIDN'T go in, and waited to the United Nations. Why? Because the Haitians are black, and they think if they raise enough hell about this, they'll secure the Black Vote.
that's a stretch. were the democrats bitching about sending troops into liberia? no. and they are also black over there.
why do the democrats need to pander to the blacks when 92% of the blacks voted against bush in the last election. it doesn't make sense.
Also, interesting to note, they changed their tune, they all claim, about Iraq because we didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction. The logic they're exuding is that it was O.K. to go to Iraq unilaterally (which they voted for!) if it was over WMD's. Since there are no WMD's, Bush lied and cheated them.
at the state of the union address, bush stated that the reason invading iraq was necessary was that saddam might give terrorists weapons of mass destruction. however, bush later ignored the u.n. resolutions regarding wmd, and iraq's claims of having destroyed their wmd. it is now readily apparent that wmd->terrorists was completely wrong and possibly a lie.
However, they'll jump right into Haiti, or so they say (AFTER Bush has already made his decision public). Why? I thought WMD's were the stick by which you measured whether or not to act Unilaterally?
is that even a serious statement? you should be a politician yourself, trying to twist facts to confuse people. can you appreciate the concept that every situation is not identical? what does one have to do with the other?
WOULDN'T THE CONSISTANT THING, FOR AN HONEST PARTY, BE TO PLAY THE SAME SIDE OF THE CARD FOR EACH CRISIS?
no, that would be silly.
(before you call me a hypocrit, notice, before the rage and blindness consumes you, that I didn't defend Bush at all in this post... now go ahead and defend Kerry).
personally i deplore bush, kerry and american democracy in general, but that's another issue altogether.
and fuck bill o'reilly. he spreads misinformation. he trivializes political issues into moral issues of right and wrong, which they are not. bill o'reilly's message is tailored to deceive the lesser intelligent members of society.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version