Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't know much about Kerry, but it seems that a lot of people are mad at Bush. Granted, the war in Iraq was probably started not because of WMD, but because of oil or something, but Saddam was a bad person anyways. We just finished the job we started a while ago. I also think he handled all the bad luck he suffered (i.e. sept. 11) while in office fairly well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for him or anything, personally I wanted Wes Clark to win, but he dropped out :(

What about the Israeli settlements in Palestinian land? Would you go back to the '69 borders? What about the security fence?

Minor details would have to be negotiated w/ landowners for the UN only has so much power, but these negotiations will be monitered by UN forces as to not ensue a conflict

Time for me to stop exersicing my political views and go to slepp g'night (in EST)

I'm going to say George Bush because 99% of Americans are drooling morons.

I'm 1 percent!!!

At 4/10/04 10:56 AM, Cinghiale wrote: I'm going to say George Bush because 99% of Americans are drooling morons.

Brilliant statement you have right there.

I still think I should be president, and yet again, if I were old enough.

I would rather choose Bush. John Kerry keeps changing his position on every issue, missed over 60% of the Congressional votes last year and nearly 100% this year but still accepts the paychecks that he didn't earn, and has the most liberal voting record when he does bother to show up. He votes one way and then contradicts himself (voting yes to more outsourcing to China and now opposes the taking away of American jobs), and uses every underhanded trick the Democrats know of to make people hate Bush. At least we know where George W. stands on issues, and we can count on him to do the job.

At 4/12/04 07:39 PM, mr_trivia wrote: John Kerry keeps changing his position on every issue,

Every issue? Proof?

missed over 60% of the Congressional votes last year

That's not an abnormal amount, but still - proof?

and nearly 100% this year but still accepts the paychecks that he didn't earn

Somehow I don't believe that. Proof?

and has the most liberal voting record when he does bother to show up.

No he doesn't. He's as middle-of-the-line as Clinton.

He votes one way and then contradicts himself (voting yes to more outsourcing to China and now opposes the taking away of American jobs),

Wait - I thought you said he a liberal record? How could he contradict himself if he always votes liberal? You're contradicting yourself.

and uses every underhanded trick the Democrats know of to make people hate Bush.

I haven't seen an 'underhanded' trick yet from the Democrats.

Are they calling up southern voters and asking if "they would vote for Bush if he had a black love child"? No? Oh.

At least we know where George W. stands on issues, and we can count on him to do the job.

Yes, a job in direct contrast to what the majority of Americans want.

If you're a neocon - thank goodness! Bush is doing his job.

Bah. Not satisfying.

At 4/10/04 03:34 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:

At 4/10/04 10:56 AM, Cinghiale wrote: I'm going to say George Bush because 99% of Americans are drooling morons.

Brilliant statement you have right there.

I don't know... 3,800,000 is a lot of smart people.

People, KERRY. He wants to make us independant with our oil, and use different sources of power other than oil, sun, electricity. And he wants to ban automatic weapons, because they kill a lot of cops each year. Kerry's freakin great, theres more but I don't gotta type it all. If you want to live, vote KERRY DAMNIT! KERRY!

And, bush sends emails against Kerry, so Bush is relying on criticizing his running partner rather than facing him head on. And Bush refuses to debate Kerry, because Bush is scared.

What I don't understand is how Kerry was chosen on the basis of "electability."
I'm not sure how anyone could say that one of the most liberal senators is "electable" over a moderate. Heck, I would have probably voted for Edwards of Clark or maybe even Dean. (Granted, empirical evidence isn't evidence, but still.)
But it seems that all Kerry cares about is "rolling back" tax cuts, which is just weasel words for raising taxes; "jobs", which, unless the White House staff increases by over 2 million, he really doesn't have much control over; he is against how Bush is handling Iraq, but doesn't offer any alternatives other than copping out and sticking the UN to take the hits (all while surrendering America's military sovereignty to the UN). After all, we all know how great the UN is at building prosperous nations--
Bosnia, Albania, Somalia, etc...

Plus the fact that he's a butthole.

At 4/12/04 10:49 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: What I don't understand is how Kerry was chosen on the basis of "electability."

Military credentials basically. But he looks French.

I'm not sure how anyone could say that one of the most liberal senators is "electable" over a moderate.

I don't know how you get off saying he's one of the most liberal senators. And even if we assume that - that's not saying anything.

Heck, I would have probably voted for Edwards of Clark or maybe even Dean. (Granted, empirical evidence isn't evidence, but still.)

Well, you're right here. Dean, Clark and Edwards were all conservatives by any definition of the word.

But it seems that all Kerry cares about is "rolling back" tax cuts, which is just weasel words for raising taxes;

They were all talking about that, and I believe Kerry is saying to only roll back the tax cuts for the richer end of the spectrum.

"jobs", which, unless the White House staff increases by over 2 million, he really doesn't have much control over;

The president has a lot of control over the economy, regardless if it's direct or not.

he is against how Bush is handling Iraq, but doesn't offer any alternatives other than copping out and sticking the UN to take the hits (all while surrendering America's military sovereignty to the UN).

The people in Iraq want the UN. The only better solution is the UN. The US military is overstretched already. people are spending way too much time over there, without reprieve. With only the US there, it just inflames hostilities. The UN wouldn't be seen as quite the 'conquering force' as the US is.

After all, we all know how great the UN is at building prosperous nations--
Bosnia, Albania, Somalia, etc...

The UN wasn't given free reign in those places. They are always hamstrung by bullshit, that they can't get things done. This could change easily. It's not the UN forces' fault, it's red tape.

Plus the fact that he's a butthole.

So is Bush. And Edwards. And Dean. And Clark. And Gephardt. And Sharpton. And.. Fuck, the woman who was running. And Kucinich.

They are all assholes.

But Kerry looks especially French. That's going to do him in.

At 4/12/04 11:00 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:

They were all talking about that, and I believe Kerry is saying to only roll back the tax cuts for the richer end of the spectrum.

..which is weasel words for raising taxes on the wealthy.

"jobs", which, unless the White House staff increases by over 2 million, he really doesn't have much control over;

The president has a lot of control over the economy, regardless if it's direct or not.

Congress would have the same control, if not more, because they actually author and pass the legislation. You remember that topic I challenged you to find a piece of legislation that John Kerry had passed to curtail job losses, and you produced this long list of all of them? Why didn't they work?

The UN wasn't given free reign in those places. They are always hamstrung by bullshit, that they can't get things done.

And you think that would change in Iraq? It'd be much the same as it is now, only the U.S. would have to do their thing under a "multilateral" flag, and plus there would be French troops.
Despite what everyone says, we're not acting unilaterally, or even bilaterally, right now.

Plus the fact that he's a butthole.

So is Bush. And Edwards. And Dean. And Clark. And Gephardt. And Sharpton. And.. Fuck, the woman who was running. And Kucinich.

They are all assholes.

But Kerry is the asshole of Satan. }:-)

At 4/12/04 11:26 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: ..which is weasel words for raising taxes on the wealthy.

Whatever.

You remember that topic I challenged you to find a piece of legislation that John Kerry had passed to curtail job losses, and you produced this long list of all of them?

Those were the days...

Why didn't they work?

Because they didn't get passed?

Remember when Bush promised $15 billion to combat AIDS in Africa? And then (afterwards) Congress passed a bill doing exactly that? Nevermind that the money hasn't been appropriated year.. *cough*..

And you think that would change in Iraq?

One can wish. One major difference between the three places you mentioned, and Iraq, is the scope. We're rebuilding the entire country. Setting up an entirely new government. All new infrastructure. The US would still be a leading force. But it would have the legitimacy of the UN.

Despite what everyone says, we're not acting unilaterally, or even bilaterally, right now.

Naw. Britains there too. And... Uh... Yeah. Oh, Japan.

They are all assholes.

But Kerry is the asshole of Satan. }:-)

*shrug*

I think he should do more botox.

At 4/12/04 10:10 PM, Kaabi wrote: People, KERRY. He wants to make us independant with our oil, and use different sources of power other than oil, sun, electricity. And he wants to ban automatic weapons, because they kill a lot of cops each year. Kerry's freakin great, theres more but I don't gotta type it all. If you want to live, vote KERRY DAMNIT! KERRY!

I'm just wondering where you statistics that Automatic Weapons kill a lot of cops every year? You have any sources on this? I would really like to look at them seeins as its contradicted what I've read, maybe that has other referances than the others.

I'm all for having Automatic Weapons personally, but have very strict control over them. At least in the private security sector =)

At 4/8/04 01:21 AM, snozzberry_clock wrote: but because I believe that Bush lied to the face of each and every American citizen when he insisted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam did have WMD need proof? how about when he hit the kurds with scuds full of mustard gas how about all the women and children killed by it???? is a scud full of mustard gas not a WMD ??? any ways WMD or no WMD it is better with out him in iraq am i right?

O yea i also forgot to add the fact that Kerry says That Palastine and the hamas want him to be president and dont forget the taliban!

Bush 2004

At 4/13/04 01:53 AM, TuRbanNatoR wrote: Saddam did have WMD need proof? how about when he hit the kurds with scuds full of mustard gas how about all the women and children killed by it???? is a scud full of mustard gas not a WMD ??? any ways WMD or no WMD it is better with out him in iraq am i right?

Why can't we seem to find any more WMD then?

At 4/13/04 01:56 AM, TuRbanNatoR wrote: O yea i also forgot to add the fact that Kerry says That Palastine and the hamas want him to be president and dont forget the taliban!

That's bullshit, shutup.

-

And to the guy who asked about automatic weapons - they kill very little amounts of people each year, in the US. Go look it up yourself if you want proof, I already have.

At 4/13/04 01:53 AM, TuRbanNatoR wrote:

Saddam did have WMD need proof? how about when he hit the kurds with scuds full of mustard gas how about all the women and children killed by it???? is a scud full of mustard gas not a WMD ??? any ways WMD or no WMD it is better with out him in iraq am i right?

damn you are an idiot,
1) we gave him those weapons
2) we inspired the kurds to start a revolution then never backed them so we caused them to get massacred by iraq.
3) in 1995 there were reports that they were getting rid of all their wmd's and had successfully done that before the beginning of the war, thus no wmd's
4) it was a war of unethical economic-based politics, so shut up.

At 4/13/04 12:02 PM, Bob_Dylan wrote:

See? Bob Dylan gets it, I don't see why it's so hard to understand

At 4/13/04 01:56 AM, TuRbanNatoR wrote: O yea i also forgot to add the fact that Kerry says That Palastine and the hamas want him to be president and dont forget the taliban!

Bush 2004

you're right. the taliban has reformed, retaken afghanistan, and all of the sudden they are supporting someone who is liberal in the eyes of the united states, which is a country that they already consider to be too liberal under the rule of george bush.

anyway, if the taliban rebanded and wanted kerry to win, they would probably tell the world that they were behind bush.

I really want a cookie right now