Lifestyle > Train of Thought
New Bin Laden video released..
Ant:
--- Quote from: Woodrow on October 30, 2004, 12:10:40 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ant on October 29, 2004, 09:16:06 PM ---Englewood. Are you really serious? Your citing a random Op/Ed piece as your rational for why Bush needs to be re-elected? As it stands today over 35 newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000, "flip flopped" and decided to instead endorse Kerry. Kerry has recieved about 40% more newspaper endorsements than Bush.
The most impressive to date is the recent endorsement from The Economist. The well-regarded Economist typically leans slightly republican and enjoys a large republican readership.
Additionally, editors from the American Conservative have also endorsed Kerry.
If you want to post random quotes about Bush being good, and Kerry being bad I suggest you look for credible sources. I've already posted plenty of credible sources explaining why Bush is bad for America including well respected academics, newspapers, magazines, and even well-regarded members of the Republican Party. The reason you can't find any is simple: your side is wrong.
--- End quote ---
LOL @ YOU chastising ME for posting a random op-ed piece. Just because you haven't heard of the author, doesn't make her points any less valid or credible. It's funny that you're talking about ME being close minded, but you dismiss the article I posted simply because you aren't familiar with the author, Why don't you respond to my points about how our sworn enemies (their words) support John Kerry???
Just because more newspapers support Kerry than Bush, does that make him the better candidate? Does the fact that 35 newspapers changed their views 4 years down the road make John Kerry the better candidate?
If you think so...
--- End quote ---
I quoted Nobel Laureates, prominent Republicans, former members of the Bush Administration, and conservative magazines. You quoted a random op/ed piece. Jane Novak is a noname republican partisan and yes that does make her opinions less credible. If we valued everyone's opinion equally we would be overwhelmed by a swarm of idiots. If you want Op/Ed peices supporting Bush I can offer you a dream come true. It's called The National Review. At least they have some credibility.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
Go there, read, and enjoy.
Woodrow:
--- Quote from: Ant on October 30, 2004, 01:21:23 AM ---I quoted Nobel Laureates, prominent Republicans, former members of the Bush Administration, and conservative magazines.
--- End quote ---
So you're telling me all these people are non-partisan??!!!
LOL!
I subscribe to the print version of NR...
Trauma-san:
Let me explain something to yall, especially Ant's immature, childish mind.
George Bush, a supposed simpleton, after 9/11 invaded Afganistan, brought the taliban to their knees like a crippled little league softball team... a job Russia in all it's glory couldn't do. How did he do it? Mainly by enlisting the locals to fight the taliban, and then 3 years later, has turned Afganistan into a democratic nation, full of flaws and in a fledgeling state....... but still a democratic nation which had previously been in civil war for 20 years. George Bush did that.
It's one of the most resounding military successes of all time; and as I said, he did it with a minimal investment of troops on the ground, and he did it by enlisting the local tribes and warlords to help storm the caves and the towns that the American G.I.'s knew nothing about. That's excellent strategy, and it shows that Bush and of course the American Armed Forces are extremely efficient.
Now; John Kerry, since this is a political election year; has somehow turned that amazing victory, into a failure in his mind. Why? ... because we 'outsourced' the capture of Bin Ladin in the mountains of Tori Bori Kaka PeePee.
What is Kerry's fault with the Iraqi war, which we're currently engaged in? Not enough of a coalition.
So, I ask you. What is the difference in wanting a coalition in Iraq; and talking shit because Bush formed a coalition with the warlords in Afganistan? As usual, Kerry is on whatever side of the issue makes him sound better politically; have you noticed he agrees with not one fucking thing Bush did? That's the sign of someone disagreeing to disagree.
The man is for a coalition when we're in Iraq. He's against a coalition when we're in Afganistan. He calls the great nations that did choose to support our efforts in Iraq the coalition of the "coerced and bribed". What does that make Tony Blair and the good people of England, who are dying beside our own Soldiers in Iraq? Was Tony Blair bribed? Do you actually fucking believe the shit that comes out of his mouth? It's disgusting.
He says the United States shoulders 80 percent of the casualties in Iraq. No, Senator Kerry, your heartless political accusations fail to account the incredible work the strong people of Iraq have done for themselves. THEY have shouldered 50 percent of the casualties, and have suffered far greater losses to their country than America has invested in it. It's just like Kerry to ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people in this war; if it were up to him, Saddam would still be sitting on thousands and thousands of tons of weapons...... but he wasn't a threat, right? Kerry said two days ago that "That's why you have inspectors" and that Saddam was required to destroy these weapons by the inspectors. Senator Kerry, Saddam wasn't destroying these weapons. Any fool can see that Saddam had turned his country into a weapons cache, and wasn't doing a fucking thing the U.N. had resolved him to do.
Kerry says he wouldn't have went to war without 'the world understanding' why we were doing it. Guess what, Senator Kerry? The World DID Understand why we were doing it, some of the world didn't agree with it. That's the real crux of the issue; if the world didn't agree with it, Kerry wouldn't have done it. He says he would never let another country veto our right to go to war; what the hell do you call it when you put our lives in the hands of the United Nations? I'm supposed to let Libya, France, and Germany help decide if we can fight for something we believe in? The difference between Bush & Kerry on this matter is Bush tried to get a coalition, and tried to get people to support our cause. Whereas Kerry would have stopped when he received minimal support, Bush had the tenacity and the Balls frankly, to go ahead anyways, because it was a concept he believed in, and that Congress had already voted to go along with. The entire legislation was behind this war, not just Bush and his baddies.
Kerry wants to have us join the world criminal court, so our soldiers and elected officials can be brought to trial, disregarding the constitution of the united states which allows everyone the right to a fair trial. Bush is against joining this court, and would rather see the United States trial it's own citizens, instead of putting them at the mercy of some world body. I fully support him in this, there's no way in hell an American G.I. should be put to task by fucking Iranians or whoever has a political vendetta against our country at the time.
So; post all you want about Bush, but the truth is in Afganistan, we have a historically positive election going on, the same in Iraq, we've got two fledgling democracies on our hand in a region that hasn't known peace in forever. This isn't a failure, it's an amazing success... and I hope after Kerry loses tuesday, that you'll at least be able to function under the rule of an evil cowboy from texas for another 4 years.
It's just politics, some of yall sound like a 9th grader who just left their American History class.
acbaylove:
--- Quote from: Ant on October 29, 2004, 09:20:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: Antonio on October 29, 2004, 06:58:29 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ant on October 29, 2004, 03:28:27 PM ---If Bush "captured or killed" Usama Bin Laden as he promised the American people he would this tape never would have aired.
--- End quote ---
Is your sentence a joke i missed? Damn man, you are paranoid with Bush! If Clinton "captured or killed" Saddam Hussein as he promised the American people he would this war never would have fought. Ok? Lol.
--- End quote ---
I was quoting Bush, while you were making up a quotation from Clinton. I don't recall Clinton ever promising he would "capture or kill" Saddam Hussein.
--- End quote ---
Did you recall that's the main reason why USA failed in Iraq? Cause they didnt think about killing Saddam and cleaning the area. They just won the battle, saved Kuwait and left Iraq like that, with Saddam alive and with all the innocent people killed by Saddam's people as a revenge. Did you recall that? Did you recall Kerry wants to do the same now? I'm not talking about the war, but the after-war.
Ðøšïå:
damn 100,000 innocent dead? that sounds worse than saddam. Damn, bin laden mocking bush. maybe if bush didnt go to iraq bin laden would be dead. Hopefully we get a leader who can lead out country better then bush, and not sit in a room for 7 minutes full of children while we are under attack.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version