Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/13/05 03:41 PM, Sweet_Revenge wrote: Well I mean were just as better off with bush then kerry....im not saying im for bush... all im saying is that mabye kerry was a little to conservative

Senator Kerry was actually fairly conservative, but he was much closer to the middle of the spectrum than President Bush who is way off in the right field.

---

At 1/13/05 10:04 AM, Izu wrote:

At 1/13/05 02:57 AM, BeFell wrote: So Izu are you saying I should have voted for the other guy who claimed there were WMDs in Iraq? Everybody fucked up how about attacking Bush for a mistake that everyone else didn't make? Of course jumping ship and pointing fingers is such an inspiring quality for a leader to have.

Wow, whatever happened to a leader accepting when he's made a mistake and correcting it for the well being of his people.

Yes that is exactly what I am asking. The democrats never appologized for making a mistake and voting for the war they shook off all the blame and claimed Bush lied to them even though they had seen the same intelligiance reports the president had.

Basically, what your saying is, if we start jamming our heads through a key hole, and realize we can't fit, we should still try to jam our heads through the key hole because that's what we started doing, and we need to show people we can make the tough decisions and stick to our guns, even if we wind up in a coma. No, the alternative would be jumping ship, being a side switcher like Kerry.

No I am saying that we didn't figure out that we made a boo boo until we had already toppled Saddam's regime. What the hell was Bush suppose to do, say sorry then leave the Iraqi people in anarchy?

Look, we told the U.N. to go fuck itself, destroyed a countries infrastructure, killed thousands of people, and left a nation is chaos. And then the reason we did it, turns out to be bullshit. It's like flipping out on everyone in your house for losing your keys and kicking the shit out of your kids, then realizing that they were in you jacket pocket. AKWARD!

Hmm... so it's kind of like telling your wife you think the kids took your keys and she agrees so you both kick the shit out of them then when you find them she starts yelling at you for doing what she agreed to do.

At 1/13/05 10:20 AM, Izu wrote:

At 1/13/05 03:14 AM, BeFell wrote:

It's a very good question to ask anyone who would ask the question Izu posed. They like to forget that unlike the go with the flow democrats Bush didn't have the luxury of being able change positions and leave everyone involved high and dry.

Yeah, so I guess, since he couldn't realize his mistake and change it before it grew exponentially worse, costing the lives of thousands. So I guess there should be know accountability for an action that was rash and unneccessarily destructive. I should write in pen on all my tests, so if I make a mistake, I can say "WEll, I couldn't erase." Bullshit, we're not held to the same personal accountability standards, why should he get away with such a collasal screw up in the most powerful office in the wordl ( which he stole)

If you want to hold Bush personaly accountable then why don't you feel the same way about all of the people that agreed with him and gave him the authorization to go to war? Why should everyone who supported him get to run away and leave him holding the bag?

Liberals would like history to believe that the bipartisan decision to go to war was some Bush cowboy conquest.

Bipartisan my ass. First you say liberals are terrorist lovers who didn't want to go to war, then you say we did. Bullshit. BTW I'm a liberal, not a Democrat. My political idealogies are not represented in our governement. I do not, nor ever did support the democratic party. So shove it.

Well aren't you special being non conformist and all. That doesn't change the fact that liberals still supported going to then changed their minds as the wind started shift.

Oh well, democrats will never get the presidency or any majorities as long as supporting murderous dictators and the oppression of millions is a key part of their platform.

You're such a tool. Do you honestly think the key part of their platform is supporting dictators, or are you just trying to rouse up more baseless hatred against people who don't believe in beating the shit out of gays and blowing up everyone who insults us at a dinner party. Well, not as much as the Republicans. Besides, I thought you said the Dems supported the invasion. right?

The democrats initially supported the invasion then changed their minds and now claim that removing Saddam was a bad thing to do. As I recall bitching about the fact we removed Saddam came up a lot during the campain. How can you not see it as part of the platform?

Yeah, good job, the Republicans used Clinton's army to invade a country, an invasion built upon a sheet of lies, killed tons of people, and finally tracked down their boogy man, Saddam. THe Republicans, as you'll remember, are the reason this guy was in power in the first goddamned place. Do not try to tell me your racist republicans invaded the country and captured Saddam to set the Iraqi's free, because they don't give a shit about the people in that country. Look at all the Uranium we dump on them.

And the civil war was fought to restore our economic infastructure. As any good liberal liberal can tell you Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves. Just because war is fought for one reason that doesn't mean that other good things won't come as consequence. The non existant WMDs were not a lie, they were a mistake. Everyone who opposed the war agreed Iraq had WMDs they were just to involved in their oil scandals to care. I for one feel that even though there were no weapons of mass destruction the removal of Saddam Huisaine will eventually create more than enough positive consequences to make it worth the sacrifice. I am sorry that you can't see far enough past your blind Bush hatred to realize this perhaps that is just a problem that time will have to solve.

---

At 1/13/05 03:47 PM, ReiperX wrote: Senator Kerry was actually fairly conservative, but he was much closer to the middle of the spectrum than President Bush who is way off in the right field.

His stances were anybody's guess. Afraid of offending anyone, he tried his best to be as vague as possible.

---

At 1/13/05 04:19 PM, BeFell wrote: The democrats initially supported the invasion then changed their minds and now claim that removing Saddam was a bad thing to do.

You're assuming Kerry's position is the position of the democrats as a whole. If I remember right, Kennedy and Dean were against the war from the beginning.

---

At 1/13/05 04:27 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 1/13/05 04:19 PM, BeFell wrote: The democrats initially supported the invasion then changed their minds and now claim that removing Saddam was a bad thing to do.

You're assuming Kerry's position is the position of the democrats as a whole. If I remember right, Kennedy and Dean were against the war from the beginning.

If Kerry's position wasn't the position of the democrats as a whole then why was he chosen to represent democrats as a whole?

---

At 1/13/05 04:30 PM, BeFell wrote: If Kerry's position wasn't the position of the democrats as a whole then why was he chosen to represent democrats as a whole?

Because the democrats were dipshits.

---

At 1/13/05 04:19 PM, BeFell wrote: If you want to hold Bush personaly accountable then why don't you feel the same way about all of the people that agreed with him and gave him the authorization to go to war? Why should everyone who supported him get to run away and leave him holding the bag?

It seems that is one of the functions of the presidency, national scapegoat. It's been like that for years, why should it change now? Hoover sure wasn't responsible for the depression, yet he got stuck with the blame. Shanty towns were named Hoovervilles in his honor. The reverse is also true, Clinton got a lot of credit for the good economy, yet most of the work was done by the Federal Reserve, which is not under the jurisdiction of the executive office. Basically, the president gets all the credit for everything that happens, under his control or not. It's only natural to blame the president for a mistake almost everybody made.

---

At 1/13/05 04:19 PM, BeFell wrote:

Hmm... so it's kind of like telling your wife you think the kids took your keys and she agrees so you both kick the shit out of them then when you find them she starts yelling at you for doing what she agreed to do.

I'm not say the FUCKING DEMS are off the hook! I'm asking how many feel that Bush screwed up, and asking if anyone's opinion of Bush would have been affected by the news during the election. I'm not a fucking Democratic supporter, and that's the last time I'm gonna say it. In fact, I fucking hate the democrats because they're part of the government and the entire government was responsible for all the fear mongering that led up to this mess.

At 1/13/05 10:20 AM, Izu wrote:

At 1/13/05 03:14 AM, BeFell wrote:

If you want to hold Bush personaly accountable then why don't you feel the same way about all of the people that agreed with him and gave him the authorization to go to war? Why should everyone who supported him get to run away and leave him holding the bag?

Where did I say that, sir? Highlight the exact text please. I already simplified what I was saying so that you can't twist it anymore.

Well aren't you special being non conformist and all. That doesn't change the fact that liberals still supported going to then changed their minds as the wind started shift.

No, liberals did not support the war. But the liberals aren't well represented in government. Maybe, because you're so far to the right, you think the Democrats are liberal, but they are not. They're not, look at their platform, they aren't the fucking green party. They are largely conservative, leaning centrist. Conservatives are the reason why we went to war, Democrats are part of that.

The democrats initially supported the invasion then changed their minds and now claim that removing Saddam was a bad thing to do. As I recall bitching about the fact we removed Saddam came up a lot during the campain. How can you not see it as part of the platform?

That's funny, because I thought the democrats were more pissed off at what a shitty job we did stableizing the country after the fact. Not much about Saddam.

And the civil war was fought to restore our economic infastructure. As any good liberal liberal can tell you Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves.

I think Licoln was a shitty president. He created one of the biggest, bloodiest wars in American history just to keep control over the burdensome south, who have slowed this country's progress ever since. THe confederate states wanted their own seperate government. Good, we'd be better off today.

Just because war is fought for one reason that doesn't mean that other good things won't come as consequence.

Other good things like what? People are a lot worse off in the almost-anarchy of Iraq now then they ever were under Saddam. Call me when they manage to stabilize and self govern. As long as the U.S. is flexing its muscles over there and being conspicuously present in the so called Iraqi Governing Council, there will be a lot of resistance, and a lot of death and chaos.

The non existant WMDs were not a lie, they were a mistake.

No they were a lie, that the administration may or may not have been 100% certain was a lie.

Everyone who opposed the war agreed Iraq had WMDs they were just to involved in their oil scandals to care. I for one feel that even though there were no weapons of mass destruction the removal of Saddam Huisaine will eventually create more than enough positive consequences to make it worth the sacrifice.

Saddam Hussein was not the Easter bunny. Everyone knows that. But be careful about your predictions. Just because Saddam is gone, doesn't mean the next leader isn't going to cause just as many problems. Every time one country interferes with the sovereignity of another nation people will get, eh, pissy. I think, judging by history, that we've sucked ourselves into a long cycle of destablization. It's just as likely we may have to depose another Iraqi leader. Either way, I don't give my trust to leaders whose obvious mistakes happen, by luck, to have positive long term outcomes.

I am sorry that you can't see far enough past your blind Bush hatred to realize this perhaps that is just a problem that time will have to solve.

My hatred is not blind. It's based of a deep moral repulsion to his actions and very character. My eyes are wide open.

---

At 1/13/05 04:53 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 1/13/05 04:19 PM, BeFell wrote: If you want to hold Bush personaly accountable then why don't you feel the same way about all of the people that agreed with him and gave him the authorization to go to war? Why should everyone who supported him get to run away and leave him holding the bag?

It seems that is one of the functions of the presidency, national scapegoat. It's been like that for years, why should it change now? Hoover sure wasn't responsible for the depression, yet he got stuck with the blame. Shanty towns were named Hoovervilles in his honor. The reverse is also true, Clinton got a lot of credit for the good economy, yet most of the work was done by the Federal Reserve, which is not under the jurisdiction of the executive office. Basically, the president gets all the credit for everything that happens, under his control or not. It's only natural to blame the president for a mistake almost everybody made.

Yes, but do you know who declared war on Iraq? I recall the congress didn't even vote on it. Iraq WAS chiefly his fault. He's the most powerful man in this country. When he does a good job, he gets all the glory. When he kicks the shit, it should land on him.

---

At 1/13/05 08:24 PM, Izu wrote:

At 1/13/05 04:19 PM, BeFell wrote:

Hmm... so it's kind of like telling your wife you think the kids took your keys and she agrees so you both kick the shit out of them then when you find them she starts yelling at you for doing what she agreed to do.

I'm not say the FUCKING DEMS are off the hook! I'm asking how many feel that Bush screwed up, and asking if anyone's opinion of Bush would have been affected by the news during the election. I'm not a fucking Democratic supporter, and that's the last time I'm gonna say it. In fact, I fucking hate the democrats because they're part of the government and the entire government was responsible for all the fear mongering that led up to this mess.

Your question was, if I had known there were no WMDs before the election would it have changed my vote. I am asking why would it, the other guy made the same mistake. As far as your theory on political orienation I am simply refering to people as liberals who identify themselves as liberals. I'm sorry that you are so far to the left that the average liberal isn't nutty enough for you.

At 1/13/05 10:20 AM, Izu wrote:

At 1/13/05 03:14 AM, BeFell wrote:

If you want to hold Bush personaly accountable then why don't you feel the same way about all of the people that agreed with him and gave him the authorization to go to war? Why should everyone who supported him get to run away and leave him holding the bag?

Where did I say that, sir? Highlight the exact text please. I already simplified what I was saying so that you can't twist it anymore.

You implied I shouldn't have voted for Bush. Everyone else save Nader and the Libertarian guy made the same mistake, thus it shouldn't have been a deciding factor when I was choosing to cast a vote that would matter.

Well aren't you special being non conformist and all. That doesn't change the fact that liberals still supported going to then changed their minds as the wind started shift.

No, liberals did not support the war. But the liberals aren't well represented in government. Maybe, because you're so far to the right, you think the Democrats are liberal, but they are not. They're not, look at their platform, they aren't the fucking green party. They are largely conservative, leaning centrist. Conservatives are the reason why we went to war, Democrats are part of that.

Yes yes they are all just republicans in disguise because they are not fighting to give us a communist form of government.

The democrats initially supported the invasion then changed their minds and now claim that removing Saddam was a bad thing to do. As I recall bitching about the fact we removed Saddam came up a lot during the campain. How can you not see it as part of the platform?

That's funny, because I thought the democrats were more pissed off at what a shitty job we did stableizing the country after the fact. Not much about Saddam.

The criticism I heard said they wanted no war no matter how tidy the clean up.

And the civil war was fought to restore our economic infastructure. As any good liberal liberal can tell you Lincoln didn't fight the war to free the slaves.

I think Licoln was a shitty president. He created one of the biggest, bloodiest wars in American history just to keep control over the burdensome south, who have slowed this country's progress ever since. THe confederate states wanted their own seperate government. Good, we'd be better off today.

Um... what about the fact that slavery would still exist?

Just because war is fought for one reason that doesn't mean that other good things won't come as consequence.

Other good things like what? People are a lot worse off in the almost-anarchy of Iraq now then they ever were under Saddam. Call me when they manage to stabilize and self govern. As long as the U.S. is flexing its muscles over there and being conspicuously present in the so called Iraqi Governing Council, there will be a lot of resistance, and a lot of death and chaos.

It takes time to build a stable government, how about giving it a chance? Perhaps you are so anxious to see Bush fail you are hoping the Iraqi people will end up worse off.

The non existant WMDs were not a lie, they were a mistake.

No they were a lie, that the administration may or may not have been 100% certain was a lie.

How can it be a lie when they thought it was true?

Everyone who opposed the war agreed Iraq had WMDs they were just to involved in their oil scandals to care. I for one feel that even though there were no weapons of mass destruction the removal of Saddam Huisaine will eventually create more than enough positive consequences to make it worth the sacrifice.

Saddam Hussein was not the Easter bunny. Everyone knows that. But be careful about your predictions. Just because Saddam is gone, doesn't mean the next leader isn't going to cause just as many problems. Every time one country interferes with the sovereignity of another nation people will get, eh, pissy. I think, judging by history, that we've sucked ourselves into a long cycle of destablization. It's just as likely we may have to depose another Iraqi leader. Either way, I don't give my trust to leaders whose obvious mistakes happen, by luck, to have positive long term outcomes.

I don't know it worked out well for Germany, Italy and Japan.

I am sorry that you can't see far enough past your blind Bush hatred to realize this perhaps that is just a problem that time will have to solve.

My hatred is not blind. It's based of a deep moral repulsion to his actions and very character. My eyes are wide open.

Senselessly attacking him because you don't like him is not indicative of "eyes wide open."

---

At 1/13/05 08:26 PM, Izu wrote: Yes, but do you know who declared war on Iraq? I recall the congress didn't even vote on it. Iraq WAS chiefly his fault. He's the most powerful man in this country. When he does a good job, he gets all the glory. When he kicks the shit, it should land on him.

Congress not only voted for it, they also voted to fund it in a second vote. Therefore, it was not his decision alone, the majority of Congress went with him, too. Therefore, he should not get all the blame, especially since most everyone thought there were WMDs in Iraq. John Kerry thought so, that's why he voted for the war.

---

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

---

At 1/13/05 03:47 PM, ReiperX wrote: Senator Kerry was actually fairly conservative, but he was much closer to the middle of the spectrum than President Bush who is way off in the right field.

Thats what everyone alwasy says about their boy. Its always nice to cast your candidate in a beter light than he really is, aint it? And I bet Bush's peeps would disagree in a big manner about that, even most Conservatives.

Fact is, the are both way out in the outfield.