4,601 Forum Posts by "BeFell"
At 3/10/04 10:35 PM, Pueidist wrote:
So what, we gave him the weapons so that he could weaken the 2nd most powerful arab oil nation there, and then he goes and uses them on a United States backed rebellion that was not supported by Bush Sr. WHOOPIE!
Yeah he showed us he didn't mind using them what are you trying to counter with?
He's still a faggot who skipped out of Vietnam by bumping his name ahead of others in the PUSSY TEXAS PROTECTION FROM GOOKS IN VIETNAM AIR FORCE ULTRA K
Clinton was in Canada and John Kerry tried to get the military allow him to take a year off in France but they said no.
Do you have a real source?HERE YOU GO ^_^
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplo...2/mirra_theol/mirra_theol.html
http://www.iraqwarreader.com/archives/000100.html
Your own source admits it was a mistranslation thanks for helping me with my point.
Bush is using 9/11 in the same way that Kerry is using his Vietnam experience for political gain. IF BUSH SAYS "LOL 9/11 HAPPENED, PPL DIED, I WAS A LEADER", then he will say it in an attempt to gain favor with the public who obviously respect a leader who can defend them from some kind of invisible and vague boogeyman. Try to take notice that Bush has used either 9/11 or Terrorist in every single one of his speeches since the beginning of the Afghanistan War, it's a political tactic. It's not just something he's doing because he's a nice guy. Being a nice guy gets you no where in politics
3,000 Americans were killed and ever since then Al Quida has been trying for a repeat. I think it is an important issue that should be mentioned every single day.
Nice pointless responses, you basically responded to all of his points with "Oh ok." "Sources plz", "No, Bush did this...."
If they were pointless why did you respond to them?
Good luck in the future with the whole supporting the most un-conservative, corporate whoring politician in the entire history of the US
At least he doesn't screw his interns.
At 3/10/04 07:12 PM, meowmix_deliveryman wrote:
Actually, one study i saw said that america is more and more leaning towards the center, someone should google-it!
A shift to the center is a shift in to a more conservative direction. Look at the changes in mainstream media in the last few years. Fox news is now the number one cable news network and The Passion is set to make more money than The Matrix Reloaded.
At 3/10/04 06:15 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Nadar has no chance in hell because not enough poeple have confidence. I believe that in about 30 years, the Greens will present some kind of party (~10%) as America moves slightly more left with a new wave of students, as the world has always done, and they will act like the Lib Dems do in the UK Today.
Actually research shows that the United States is moving more twoards the right.
At 3/10/04 11:44 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:
That's a POUND SIGN - £
Sorry I thought the UK switched. How many dollars is a pound worth?
Also I think a more accurate comparison would involve the proportion of each deficit with the total ammount in each country's economy. clearify those ammounts for me then we will discuss that.Let's compare the richnewss of a country in another way. As a percentage, how many people in the UK live under the Poverty line? How many in the US? [Approximately 40 million of all adults able to work.] How many Unemployed in the UK [<2million of those able to work], as compared to the US?
Fill in the blanks for me.
12.7% in 2001. The GDP for the US in 2002 was 10.45 trillion for a deficit of about 4% of the GDP. http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ
At 3/10/04 02:38 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Define 'Over Taxed'. Corporations will NOT go bankrupt if we install a 1% 'Income' Tax for them, if you know what I mean. I think we'll agree on this. I dont think they'll go bankrupt with a 30% income tax on them.
Bumcheekcity's Quick comparisions: US and UK Defecit, related to corporation tax.
UK Defecit: 10bn
US Defecit: 447bn
I know that our Corporation Tax is somewhere around the 30% Mark. What's yours?
Are you comparing dollars to euros your UK source had an odd looking symbol. You have to help me out I am an ignorant American from Idaho. Also I think a more accurate comparison would involve the proportion of each deficit with the total ammount in each country's economy. clearify those ammounts for me then we will discuss that.
At 3/10/04 12:46 AM, Phoenix_Guitarist wrote: There are Several things that you have to do in order to Qualify for the Military.
bloodwork, eye&ear tests,background checks..etc. They also Drug test before consideration for Active duty.
Checking for all kinds of drugs. Cocaine, marijuana, LSD,pcp,
I'm talking about back in their Tents, after a hard days work of putting your life on the line for a country you only new existed after 9/11.
It is important for the soldiers to be able to perform their duty any time they may be needed especially in their camps in hostile territory. Also it is a volunteer military, they knew the rules when they signed up and agreed to them.
At 3/10/04 12:30 AM, Le-Reiper wrote:
The Goals of Sadaam and Bin Ladden are very different, and even finding the proof that Sadaam does not want Iraq to have anything to do with Al Queda and other foreigners on Sadaam himself kinda hurts the enemy of my enemy theory.
Then who are the people not of Iraqi origin currently attacking our troops.
At 3/10/04 12:18 AM, Le-Reiper wrote:
One reason that he may have kept it underwraps is that Iran still has a deep hatred for Iraq, as do the Kurds in Iraq. If Sadaam had showed that he no longer had WMDs to them then he was open for a possible invastion from Iran and a lot of help from the Kurds in retaliation of him using the WMDs against Iran and the Kurds in the past. Not saying that is what happened, but it is a definate possiblity since Iraq would have no allies at all if they were invaded, US wouldn't support them, Saudi Arabie and Kuwait wouldn't help out. And Europe probaly wouldn't have helped out either since they could have probaly worked out a deal with whoever took over Iraq for cheaper oil.
Possible but I don't buy it.
Also the Iraq/Al Queda ties are very weak at best. There have been documentation found telling the Iraqi public not to trust foreign fighters or Al Queda. Plus Sadaam and Bin Laden have two very different views and were more than likely very hostile towards each other in the first place.
As the saying goes the enemy of an enemy... it is not unreasonable to expect that Saddam would have been more than willing to supply weapons and money to terrorists targeting the US.
At 3/9/04 08:19 PM, philonous wrote:
I just thought I ought to correct this statement. A year ago, the UN certainly weren't sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - the inspectors had found no evidence for WMD, even a week before going to war, despite having carried out over 700 inspections.
As for France being sure, I doubt that - I'm inclined to believe that had they been sure that Iraq had WMD they would have offered more support.
-Philonous
The dispute wasn't whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction it was rather the question did Saddam pose an immenent threat. The reason France, Russia and Germany held back is because they had made deals with Saddam that would be messed up by the liberation of Iraq. Everyone had the same data on confirmed weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had never accounted for. If Iraq did destroy the weapons of mass destruction why would they do it in secret and leave it so open for doubt?
At 3/9/04 06:29 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
However, you dont have any money, because you keep giving them tax breaks. It doesn't matter if the corportations are making a bomb or not, what matters is if the Government gets the money. Taxing corporations is overall good for the country, becasus they'll never go bankrupt.
When corparotions are over taxed they have less money to pay workers and are sometimes forced to lay off workers. In many cases corporations seek relief from taxing by outsourcing to other countries thus denying American workers and the US government that money. Strong corporations make strong economies because there are more workers with more money and the tax revenue increases.
At 3/9/04 06:19 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
How mnay trillions of dollars in debt are you?
We can pay down the debt when the economy improves. We will never be able to pay the debt if we tax struggling corporations into bankruptcy.
At 3/9/04 09:45 AM, _ctrl_ wrote: I was thinking about last night after listening to some talk radio and hearing audio of John Kerry from about 7 years ago on a program supporting then President Bill Clinton on possible action against Iraq (I don't know the whole story on what clinton had planned, maybe some of you will know) and as I listened to this audio and thought about how indecisive and hypoctical John Kerry is now being in terms of Bush's role in Iraq as well as Afghanistan I thought to myself, 'When are we actually going to have someone running for president who is as clean as a whistle, who nobody can get any dirt on whatsoever'. this is not a support Bush thread at all, but if I was a registered voter (which I'm not) I couldn't even begin to decide who to vote for.
Most people are clean they just have people on the other side who make stuff up. For example that whole national guard b.s. about Bush and that intern crap about Kerry.
I don't like Bush at all domestically, but I have to admit that I've supported him internationally as far as the 2 wars went, although I feel now that we have overstayed our unwelcome in Iraq. And I don't like Kerry that much either, he's an indecisive man who doesn't know what he wants.
The economy is improving give it time.
Why isn't our country runned by intelligent men anymore?
Bush went to Yale but he speaks like he is from Texas so he appears stupid. Kerry is intelligent as wellI just don't like how he plays both sides of every issue.
At 3/9/04 12:48 AM, Fiend_Lore wrote: could someone please email me with the details on the election news. i dont have tv, and even when i watch it at a friends house, i dont see anything about it. i would really appreciate it
My sig pic is a link to Bush's official site. For Kerry, um I don't know I watch the news but I am sure someone will help you.
Good Luck
At 3/8/04 07:42 PM, K-Rizl wrote: Bush Commented on Kerry changing his position on things often. While Kerry laughed at Bush's promise to unite the country during the 2000's recount.
If the democrats would just agree to everything Bush said it wold have worked. Oh well two differing points of veiw is what keeps America democratic and strong.
Where do you guys stand on the "Hick" and the "Wrinkly Guy"?
"Wrinkly Guy" I am going to start using that.
Also it seems that Bush is getting support from the religious. And Kerry the Lefties. What do you guys think about that?
Well that is pretty much the difference between being conservative and liberal.
NOTE * Don't get me wrong, i'd do anything to keep Bush out of office, but i don't like Kerry at all either.
Vote Nader, YOU CAN DO IT.
At 3/8/04 07:17 PM, K-Rizl wrote:
I have debated a long time and "hippy?" Oh well better than nothing.
"Hippie" is correct, it's in the dictionary.
At 3/8/04 05:30 PM, K-Rizl wrote:
The way i see it (hey maybe i'm totally wrong) is that he was told to get rid of them and the inspectors can't find them. That makes me think he got rid of them.
Maybe he did nobody knows. What we do know is a year ago John Kerry, France, the UN and even Saddam were sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at its disposal.
Where the hell was i? and i have. go here http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=136822004 hey maybe their wrong!!! (I'm not being sarcastic either)
Since your source was written the whitehouse has released all of Bush's national gaurd records and witnesses have come forward to confirm his service.
No, sorry, but i know that someone said he did.
I am sure Bush may have said something about doing the right thing but I think it is very unlikely he said God told him to invade Iraq.
Through campaign ads?
Bush is telling the country that he hasn't forgotten September 11 and he is going to continue to work to prevent a similar occurence. A very relevent thing to but in a campain ad.
A lot of people, don't be affended, nice counter-points too.
Why thank-you, you are one of the most polite hippies I have ever debated.
He is a little too moderate for my tastes but he would definately make a better president than the likely 2008 Democratic canadate Hillary Clinton. Out of the current choices he would without a doubt be my choice for the first African American President. Unfortunately, his wife has asked him not to run so it is really a non issue. But on that same note maybe a guy who doesn't run for president because his wife told him not to would not be a very effective leader.
At 3/7/04 10:41 PM, K-Rizl wrote:
I just see it this way ( though a seemingly black and white statement ), If Bush went after Iraq instead of Korea (which has WMD's, a lot i hear ). then it seems he would be going after the weaker threat. I see a motive, i also see oil. And "evil goverment agent" your arguement supporting not-that a while back, would you not want to take out the stronger guy first? i don't see why not?
Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction before and had ties to Al Quaida. North Korea had them but they currently do not pose a threat.
and Bush went awol in Vietnam. And he claims to be patriotic. "Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty...can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said [Senator John] Kerry.
That has been discredited watch the news.
And i was reading somewhere (one this forum) that Bush claimed he went to war because God told him too? If you don't think that thats arragant or evil in any way shame on you. then again maybe that info is false.
Do you have a real source?
And a guy who benefits from the deaths of thousands of people (9-11) is not anyone i want in office. And also not the most intelligent guy. I suggest TO EVERYONE!!!! to be more open-minded, i listen to many a bush-supporters aguements, and have lost my share of arguements. But in whole they just listen to there parents all day bitching ( not to say anti-bushers dont bitch to their kids about stuff ) about damn Bin Ladin and crazy Hussein, hurting innocent people. And all i see from the media is a one sided story about the troops. Hell support 'em but they don't HAVE TO BE there.
Bush is not trying to benefit from their deaths he is just trying to point out that he is trying to prevent anything like that from happening again.
You ALL get very pissy about the slitest things. So i would appreciate a point-counterpoint thread.
How's this?
Kerry's forieghn policy seems to be whatever is popular at the time. Do you really want a president who won't stick to one clear set of principles?
A manned mission to Mars is at least a couple decades away and Bush is not really putting any effort into his intent to push for a mission to Mars. Rather he made the announcement to help NASA which has been really hurting since the Columbia disataster. Bush just basically said go ahead and work on it to let people know that NASA still has goals and a reason to exist.
At 3/5/04 07:02 PM, Fiend_Lore wrote: the masses do have power, as i DID state, but they still dont have the ability of what you say. they call for cenitors, and what not to speak out for them. cenitors or greedy and corrupt in majority. because of the governments and media controll
Dude SENATOR please, you are killing your credability with just that.
I think the child should go back to her real mother just because it would set a dangerous precedent in the court systems if she didn't. Kidnappers should not be rewarded just becuase they got away with it for a long time. I do agree that they should slowly work the child into the truth. She will already have enough emotional problems with her "mother" being taken away.
At 3/5/04 06:45 PM, Fiend_Lore wrote: I am not the smartest person
Where to begin? I am going to have to say I respectfully disagree with your assertion that people do not have control over the government. We have the ability to recall and impeach any officials we don't like just look at the examples of Clinton and Davis. I think the masses are a little bit more intelligent than you give them credit for.
At 3/5/04 02:26 AM, Le-Reiper wrote:
But thats just my opinion. Hopefully Bush doesnt' get elected, he's got to be the worst president in recent history if not ever. Took us from a surplus to a huge deficit, plus a lot of other damage.
A recision inherited from the Clinton administration in addition to a fall of the economy from the terrorist attacks of September 11 plus two neccesary wars to fight terrorism equals a deficet. How are any of those things Bush's fault?
At 3/5/04 12:19 AM, zeebo156 wrote:At 3/5/04 12:10 AM, BeFell wrote:Saddam was working with Al Quieda we have proofi want to see your source of information
I am working on it I heard it all in news reports so I am trying to find some conformation on the internet. I can tell you what the sources will be though. For ricen it is David Kay's report to the senate in January of this year. For the involvement of Al Quaida I am trying to find a news story on those intercepted letters. If somebody would like to help me find these things it would be helpful.
At 3/4/04 10:10 PM, -gOOie- wrote:At 3/4/04 10:04 PM, BeFell wrote: Bush is not using it so much to benifit from. After months of the democratic canadates hammering him on the war Bush is simply trying to remind Americans what has motivated his actions.... oil?
No I was actually reffering to the 3000 American civilians that were killed by the largest terrorist atack in United States history. Bush would like to make sure that never happens again.
At 3/4/04 11:39 PM, zeebo156 wrote:
::
how was the iraq war not started by america , iraq didnt do anything, and you had no proof saddam was going to do anything, infact saddam HATES osama iraq and afgan not allied the us invaded iraq and iraq defended themselves? tell me how it is not americas fault?
Saddam was working with Al Quieda we have proof and we found that Iraq was actively creating ricen which is a biological weapon. It is Osama's followers who are currently blowing up the citizens of Iraq and killing our troops.
Bush is not using it so much to benifit from. After months of the democratic canadates hammering him on the war Bush is simply trying to remind Americans what has motivated his actions.
At 3/4/04 01:49 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:At 3/3/04 10:36 PM, BeFell wrote:Examples...If by terrorists you mean innocent Iraqi civilians then yes.Examples?
How many of those are casualties of attacks by their own people?
Can you name a specific intance where US forces intentionaly attacked civilians?
At 3/4/04 02:52 AM, LadyGrace wrote:
Don't worry, Tanner scares everyone.
I already have a review ban I am just trying to be good.
