Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11...

Status
Not open for further replies.
And again, sorry for the double post, but I wanted to point something out in a non-biased way.

How is Kerry really all that different from Bush?

You're saying President Bush has been such an awful thing for our country... and then you're saying people can make a difference by voting for Kerry? How, may I ask? Kerry doesn't even have a differing stance on foreign affairs other than "we'll get our allies more involved", and he doesn't explain how he'll do that.

(End non-bias)

What's the difference with Kerry? The Kerry camp realizes that anything that's negative for America (soldiers dying, people losing jobs) is great for them. They realize and deep down, HOPE, that Iraq won't turn out well. Because they know that if it does, Bush will be RE-elected.

He also has a terrible economic policy that doesn't work in a country our size, but that's neither here nor there.

DJ, you can blabber rhetoric all day...it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

~ RaNd0m
 
Last edited:
And with that last statement, you get this thread closed. Kudos to you, sir.

Kerry ISN'T that different from Bush. If you bothered to actually read the things I've said, you would see that. I don't support Kerry the person, I support Kerry the canditate, the most viable choice to unseat the incumbent. Yeah, I have a feeling he will go to the U. N. and try to get their help. They'll probably be more apt to help us since there's a more sincere appeal for their assistance, not the arrogance that Bush presents... Such as "We don't need anyone's permission."

If Iraq turns out to be great, I still doubt Bush will be legitimately elected. He's still screwed up homeland issues, not even counting Iraq.

And like I said, thanks for reducing this to name calling.
 
You're welcome.

Do you realize what you've essentially said? You're basically subscribing to the "anybody but bush" mantra that will essentially give Bush the election. You have no reason to vote for Kerry except that he's not Bush. Therefore you're not a Kerry supporter, but a Bush hater.

Way to get people energized... voting for a candidate when you don't even know where he truly stands on half the issues!

I'll edit my comment so it's not closed... but I believe I described your ideology pretty well.

~ RaNd0m
 
Funny. It's a good thing you've got me pegged. What inspires me to support Kerry is mainly that he is the best choice to get Bush out. That automatically means I have no idea about any of his views or policies?

So I take it you're voting for Bush?
 
Yes I am. You read my mind ;)

If you knew his supposed policies, you would see that he's a liberal. He's the most liberal senator in the senate. Yet to the media, he gives out completely different policies. My bad, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for someone who completely masks their identity to get elected.

At least Bush acts the way he ran...

~ RaNd0m
 
NoTime4LoveDrJ said:
Funny. It's a good thing you've got me pegged. What inspires me to support Kerry is mainly that he is the best choice to get Bush out. That automatically means I have no idea about any of his views or policies?

So I take it you're voting for Bush?
Click to expand...

Let's just hope that our people will stand up and vote. It's very sad of how many people will complain but yet they never take the time to stand up when the time is right. Regardless of who you support or hate, it's very seldom all of America agrees on who should be the president or support the current president in office.

Proud to say I've voted every time there was an election since I was legal to!! I challenge all the younger viewers to say the same thing. Don't be discouraged if who you vote for doesn't win, there is only 1 winner and usually 4 or more candidates. Do what you can to make it through and vote again in next election.
 
RaNd0m said:
If you knew his supposed policies, you would see that he's a liberal. He's the most liberal senator in the senate. Yet to the media, he gives out completely different policies. My bad, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for someone who completely masks their identity to get elected.

At least Bush acts the way he ran...

~ RaNd0m
Click to expand...

:lol:

I have to post more, otherwise this is spam. But seriously, are you kidding? Do you even remember the 2000 campaign?
 
Yeah. He ran as a "compassionate conservative"... and he's certainly been conservative socially and moderate fiscally... actually almost liberal fiscally... am I wrong? I'm sure you'll tell me I am :p
 
Pokemom... it's just a different definition of compassion between liberal and conservative.

We (and yes, I am a conservative *surprise*) see compassion as the amount of people who no longer need government help. Liberals see it as the amount of people receiving government help. A true conservative (which Mr. Bush is not) would not be creating more and more social programs to force people to be dependent on the government. I think Dr J could even agree with me that being dependent on a government can only lead to worse things...

*EDIT* Actually just thought of something. Bush did run opposed to "nation building" and that's exactly what we're doing right now. But that was all in a pre-9/11 world...

~ RaNd0m
 
Last edited:
Yep, compassion is demonizing a segment of the population and suggesting an ammendment to the Constitution to deny them equal rights...that's compassionate, all right..=/

'mom
 
In all honesty, and I mean no offense here, your apparent ignorance keeps me from getting into any real debate about politics.

Let me, instead, just say one thing. He's a Republican. You know, that party that likes to reduce the government's role in people's everyday lives? But yet it happened to be Republicans who came up with the PATRIOT Act? If that isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.
 
I don't agree with that. I think it's an idiotic idea to constitutionalize something that really has no place being in the constitution.

But I would derail your claim for "equal rights"... marriage isn't a right, it's a priviledge. Besides, ***s do have the same rights heterosexuals do... they can marry someone of the opposite gender. :rolleyes:

*EDIT* Oh boy DJ, you're back. It would seem that anyone who differs from your views is ignorant...

NEWSFLASH! The Patriot Act was in effect before the Clinton era already! It just wasn't legislated! It's not exactly something new...
 
Last edited:
NEWSFLASH!_(@#&+_)&! It just would've taken a national tragedy to get passed! And you wonder why you're called ignorant. Nobody in their right mind would pass that law under normal circumstances. But hey, they even bothered to make the acronym "Patriot"! It MUST be good for everyone!

No, a lot of people who disagree with my views are far from ignorant. You probably misinterpret what I mean by calling you ignorant. It's not a synonym for stupid.

Wow, not only ignorant, but intolerant! How is marriage a privelege? The fun just never ends.

I missed the post awhile ago, and I feel inclined to respond to it. Correct me if this vision of you is wrong, but I'm seeing... Suburbs! Yes, and, oh, what else... An SUV? Did your parents perhaps buy you one? Would that mean your family owns more than one car?

I agree that relying on the government in excess amounts can lead to no good, but you're probably just talking about people who live off of welfare and unemployment. You most likely don't know about anyone having to have Social Security to live, or Medicare to be able to afford the drugs they need to stay alive. As I said in the Reagan thread, we have plenty of problems here at home, that need to be solved before we go off imperializing.

I don't think it's right that most of the people in this country work more than 40 hours a week for very little in terms of pay. They do that to be able to barely afford to pay for a house or apartment that they're rarely in since they work so much. I think it is wrong that people have to work so much just to scrape by, not even to be comfortable. I don't think it's right that Bush wanted to cut overtime pay for emergency response workers... You know, the "heroes of 9/11"? Is that how we would repay them? Never mind all the things they inhaled at Ground Zero when the EPA said it was safe, they make even less money now? I don't know about you, but I would expect people who we rely on in emergencies to make top dollar, lest they lose motivation. It's wrong that we have to suffer so that a small fraction of our people can be disgustingly rich and not spend a penny of it, while there are homeless people wandering the streets looking for even a week old sandwich to eat. There's another side to this country that you probably can't even begin to imagine, and I think if you could, you might think a little differently. Or are the poor just lazy? I'm sure that's your opinion.

And by the way, how could the PATRIOT Act be in effect before being passed? Once again, I am led to believe that you have no idea of the things of which you speak.
 
Last edited:
[This post is written under the disclaimer that I may be wrong. And if you can prove me wrong, feel free to do so. :)]

99% of the Democrats still voted for the PATRIOT Act. Regardless of what era the PATRIOT Act was written or passed in, either everyone or no one is to "blame" for it being passed.

Which brings a good question... do you know anyone personally who was arrested due to a PATRIOT Act violation?

NoTime4LoveDrJ:
If the weapons were there, please tell me why David Kay did not find ANY after months of searching? Please tell me why the U. N. weapons inspectors had the same results before the war?

Given that Saddam has had 12 years to rebuild a weapons program and then hide it, I doubt a few months of inspection would have uncovered it. Saddam might have been a tyranical psychopath, but he wasn't stupid. Worse, the weapons could have been smuggled out into Syria.

Bear in mind, there's a lot of sand in Iraq, a nation the side of California. If they can hind a MIG fighter:
http://www.nick15.com/images/mig25a.jpg
http://www.nick15.com/images/mig25b.jpg
http://www.nick15.com/images/mig25d.jpg
Who else knows what's buried deep in there. (Correct me if I'm wrong about these MIG jets, but these were buried in Iraq somewhere.)


And finally, please tell me why they were not used when we were killing their civilians with our "smart bombs" that hit schools and mosques? Their numbers were up anyway, so to speak, right?

Maybe either they were already smuggled out or buried, or Saddam didn't want to expose himself. Again, Saddam wasn't dumb, I'm sure he'd try anything to make the US look bad to the rest of the world. If he used any form of chemical or biological bomb, then the whole WORLD would be against him and it would just have proven Bush right. Right now he's probably having the last laugh seeing the US crumble to desent towards the current adminstration, and maybe would like to see a less agressive person as President. Who knows?


Is there a logical explanation other than "they had no weapons"? I mean this as an honest question.

Other than what I've already mentioned... aliens? Maybe Russia took their weapons back and didn't tell anyone.


Wouldn't it change your mind about who to vote for if someone so important to you was risking everything he had on a daily basis for a false premise? I mean absolutely no offense here, but it's an important issue.

I can't see how the war was started on false premise, although I can understand why people would think as much. To me, the war in Iraq was started when we put Saddam in power and sold him weapons in the 80's. Although it seemed like a good idea at the time (Iran was the larger of two evils), it turned out to be a huge blunder. The biggest mistake since then was not taking Saddam out when we had a chance. Bush Sr had the oppurtunity to get rid of the jerk we put into power after the first Gulf War, but military generals like Powell said no.

There was no "rush to war" since Iraq had been a thorn in every US Administration since Reagan's. Bush Sr had a chance but gave up on it. Clinton tossed missiles on Iraq every once in a while, but didn't invade. Dubya decided to invade in 2003. A second war in Iraq wasn't a question of if, but when. As long as A Hussain was in power, the US was under an obligation to get rid of him somehow. If Dubya didn't take Saddam out, the next guy would have. Or the one after him. Eventually the Ba'ath Party would have fallen to the US.

I'm personally more interested in voting for someone who isn't afraid to say "we're Americans, don't screw with us" as opposed to "we're Americans, we'll give you whatever you want, just don't hurt us". I don't care about the "false premise", because to me there never was one. And if people are STILL volunteering for military service (including Robert Kennedy's son) even after this "false premise" was exposed, apparently they don't care either. And personally I would put the opinions of the soldiers involved higher than the opinions of their family or other armchair generals. Hell, a soldier's opinion of the war is more important than mine, on the sole basis that they has room to talk.
 
Last edited:
RaNd0m said:
But that was all in a pre-9/11 world...
Click to expand...

I'd like to steal a quote from Bill Maher here...

"It's Not a New World, We Just Joined It."

Basically, the only thing that changed because of 9/11 is that Americans stopped closing their eyes and ignoring these terrible attacks that go on pretty much every day - at least for a month or so.
 
UncleBob:
Basically, the only thing that changed because of 9/11 is that Americans stopped closing their eyes and ignoring these terrible attacks that go on pretty much every day - at least for a month or so.

If there's one thing I can trust the Americans at, it's that every once in a while they need a swift kick in the rear to get them to notice how small the world is. Pearl Harbor was one of them, September Eleventh was the other. These things were happening already, but Americans didn't decide to act upon it until they started rubbing elbows with everyone else.

But at least "the sleeping giant" that is America can wake up when it needs to. I feel/fear that it would take MORE than a mere kick in the rear to wake up the rest of the world to what's going on. Terrorists know no race, color, or religion.... but as long as they're JUST attacking the Americans, I guess it's OK, right?
 
Last edited:
Nick15 said:
[...] but as long as they're JUST attacking the Americans, I guess it's OK, right?
Click to expand...

That's the exact kind of additude that gets us hated on by many non-American people. The fact is "they" haven't just been attacking Americans for a long time.
 
That's the exact kind of additude that gets us hated on by many non-American people. The fact is "they" haven't just been attacking Americans for a long time.

Actually, now I'm sure what you're trying to get at here. I thought non-Americans hated the US because we have "Hitler" Bush in power who created a war for oil, and not because we're just the latest entry in an age old battle? I know "they" haven't been exclusively targeting American targets, but to me it seems like the world doesn't say peep about when sometihng happens to Americans (outside of September Eleventh). I mean didn't hear squat from world organizations when the four Americans were burned in Falluja, or when the Americans were beheaded recently... but when two insubordinate American soldiers humiliate (as in not kill) Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib, it turns one of the greatest political scandals of the war.

Now either someone's picking on the Americans, or somehow word doesn't get out that the world thinks less of the beheading than it did on stuff like Abu Ghraib.

Of course there's also the matter that popular opinion doesn't mean something is right or wrong. Popular opinion in America says Bush is a good guy... but does that mean he is?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top