Bush or Kerry

[Bubba1]

I would also suggest that our Republican moderators and Bush backing NICOnauts consider checking out Farenheit 9/11. Might offer an interesting perspective on our commander in Chiefs performance as President.

[Nathan]

Bubba, are you aware there is over a 3 year wait with some adoption agencies? When my parents adopted me back in 83' they waited almost 4 years. The situation has not changed, there are still more parents who want to adopt through good reputable agencies than their are children going into those agencies. Furthermore, in response to your rape scenario: two wrongs do not make a right, I would hope that the thought of killing an innocent life would be worse to the impregnated woman than living with the painful memories brought about by carrying the child. If she ended that babies innocent life just because of the mental anguish it brought on herself, she is no better than the rapist imo, possibly worse. I dont give two ****s if not having sex or using protection is "simplistic", its RIGHT. Your right that they will always get pregnant despite rules etc, but by their actions they would have made the choice to see that baby through to birth and either keep it or give it to a family that wants it. In our day and age there is very rarely (less than 1% of the time I would guess) an accidental pregnancy, there are just too many effective forms of birth control out there. And as Greg said, abstinance is the best one. If you cant control your sex drive, then your no better than an animal and deserve no rights.

[Nathan]

I would also suggest that our Republican moderators and Bush backing NICOnauts consider checking out Farenheit 9/11. Might offer an interesting perspective on our commander in Chiefs performance as President.

Apparently Bubba has missed out on all the valid Moore bashing in the earlier posts

[AZhitman]

To the anti abortion guys. Might want to think a bit more about your stance. If your daughter. mother or wife was violently gang raped for example, (god forbid), and got pregnant as a result. In an anti-abortion society, the poor victim will be forced to carry and bear that child. There are other scenario's just as ugly. Trust me, your view would change drastically if the issue hit you close to home.

And we all know how often THAT happens in our society.... Please don't fall for PP's "pet scenario" routine. If I showed you figures on the ratio of pregnancies resulting from rape to pregnancies resulting from carelessness, you'd feel silly trotting that out.

You'd ALSO be surprised at the number of pregnant rape victims who CHOOSE to carry the child - It's more than you'd think.

Besides, this ain't 1960. Women who are raped and fertile are given the opportunity to take RU, thereby precluding pregnancy. Really, Bubba, I thought you were sharper than that.

It also astonishes me that any woman would give up such a choice and endorse such a program.

There's no God-fearing women in your neck o' the woods, Bubba? Maybe you should take a straw poll - Women are more opposed to Roe v. Wade than men are. Interesting, huh?

And if you're going to eliminate abortions, you better figure out what you're going to do with ALL those unwanted children. There aren't people lining up to adopt the available adoptable children now.

Wrong-O-Matic (yet again). Have you ever looked into adopting, Bubba? (please don't). The waiting list is a MILE long, and the problem lies in the bureaucratic bull**** people have to go through to adopt. Private adoptions, arranged through a private agancy are the only way to avoid much of the nonsense, and even then it's a crapload of hassle.

There are always going to be women and teen girls that get pregnant at the wrong time regardless of rules you set up.

Well, darn. There we have those doggone "consequences for our actions" again. Of course, it's very much like a Democratic supporters to shirk one's personal responsibilities and encourage others to do the same...

Lots of propaganda in your pro-choice argument, but you really should look at who is churning that out. Miss O'Hare would be proud of you for carrying the torch in her absence.

Lest you think I'm a grinch, Bubba, your last point (about Palestine / Israel) is right on the money. Proof positive that even the blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion (kidding, chill:)).

[AZhitman]

If you cant control your sex drive, then your no better than an animal and deserve no rights.

...even if you ARE the President of the United States.

[UncleBen]

:owned

[VimyJ]

I will most definitely be voting for George Herbert Walker Bush this election. I am voting for him for the following reasons:

1) Foreign Policy - I like the fact that he is not afraid to tell the UN to ***** off when they refuse to come to the aid of a country oppressed and abused by a dictatorial regime. The worst mistake Clinton ever made was being a ***** about foreign policy and acquiescing to the UN's wishes. Don't believe me? Do some research on the Rwandan genocide in 1994. I also like the fact that Bush is a staunch supporter of globalism.

2) Iraq War - Bush made the right decision to fight the war in Iraq, he just did it at the wrong time. Our military is not a big as many people might think. They didn't really have the capacity to go over to Iraq and keep current operations in Afghanistan and other countries afloat and still keep our own country defended. I think Bush should have waited to go to war, but what's done is done. Saddam is gone and I am happy for it. I believe that Kerry threatens to destroy the efforts of our military in Iraq by pulling our troops...which is the WORST thing that could be done at this point. We need to see this through to whatever end.

3) Economy - Bush is doing an awesome job on the economy. He has "purged" our country of the large corporations lying to stockbrokers, our government and investors alike to inflate their stock prices. We no longer have a bull market, but I would rather not have one than have a bull market based on lies. He has also done what every President should do in a recession: cut taxes and increase federal spending. My main concern with Bush on the economy though, is whether he'll have the balls to raise taxes and decrease spending in 2005 when the economy recovers. The rich should get bigger tax cuts because they drive the economy. The guy making $40,000 a year doesn't do anything for our economy when he gets a tax cut. He pays his bills, provides for his children, which is honorable and right. He is not in a position to be able to invest that money into the economy the way a wealthy businessman can. The poor get enough already IMO.

4) Social Programs - Bush does not support increasing aid to programs such as Social Security and welfare. I agree with this. He does, however, support getting prescription drugs to the people that need them. Good stance on the issue IMO. Healthcare is for everyone, wealth is not.

5) John Kerry - I can't stand the man. He does not seem authentic. I can't get a read on what he really stands for. He is trying too much to be a centrist, like Clinton was, but when Bush is taking strong stances he can't just sit there and flip-flop, like he's doing.

Nick

p.s. a word on Michael Moore: as long as you realize that the movie Farenheit 9/11 has the SAME ACCURACY as Finding Nemo and The Matrix, then enjoy the movie. What irks me the most about that piece of trash person is that he presents his movie like it's true, like everything he says is accurate. What he doesn't tell you is that the only reason he's not being sued is because he has never made a documentary, he makes movies. He's not different from Steven Spielberg, Todd Phillips and Peter Jackson. He is not presenting to you a piece of news. He's entertaining you. For lying about who he is and what he's making, I detest him.

1. bush didn't tell the UN off. bush broke the UN Charter by illegally invading in a war of aggression a nonthreatening sovreign state based upon falses pretences. The Gingrich congress didn't give a crap about Ruwanda. No one did because it served no one's interests to go there. A major conflagration affected there affected no one outside the immediate region. A major conflagration in the ME affects oil and therefore affects everyone. bush is now begging the world community to come to his aid so he can say, "look I have international support so I must be right." They're telling him to go suck an egg.

bush lied to congress and the nation about the reasons for war. No WMD and no AQ and he trys to misdirect the attention of the gullible by claiming it was a war for liberation of the Iraqi people. Like that would have ever gotten past congress or the people as the reason the get 100s of Americans killed, 1000s wounded and 100s of billions wasted.

2. bush has seriously overextended the military on a fool's mission that he completely "misunderestimated' because he is an uncultured goof.

Kerry has never ever never never ever said he would pull the troops out of Iraq. He knows as well as you that bush got us stupidly mired in Iraq for years to come.

3. The "rich" as you call them gain the most from society and have their needs met first. Therefore, the profits they derive from the society must be taxed according to the benefits they derive from the said society. Who stands to lose more capital if the the ME (more probably Saudi) goes up in smoke the wage slave or the fat cat? Now the deficit will never be paid down. bush just pooh poohed the deficit and the debt. What does he care? He won't be around to deal with it (to paraphase the last bush quote in Woodward's book).

4. Silver spooned bush doesn't have a clue about rank and file life in the US. The guy has had everything handed to him his entire life. The pharmacuetical co.s lobbied bush to maintain their huge profit margins and are attempting to prevent people from buying their drugs where ever they want.

Proposing and getting passed programs and then not funding them. What's up with bush on that?

5. Kerry is just fine. Silver Star recipient. Faced death and meted out death for his country and performed above and beyond the call of duty.

Most costly flip flop of all time? "I will not use the military for nation building." bush, 2000 presidential campaign.

Michael Moore has balls and calls them like he sees them. You obviously love Rush Limburger. I prefer Moore because he seems to have more facts and evidence working for him.

[AZhitman]

4. Kerry wasn't silver spooned? News flash for ya!

5. Not quite sure why we approve of JK's behavior in 'Nam if we're so concerned about our current involvement in ME... Time has a way of rewriting history.

Michael Moore will be revealed for what he is and relegated to the back burner in short order. OR, he can go write "thrilling exposes" for the Enquirer. He doesn't know the meaning of the word FACT. He has as much insight into the inner workings as you and I do.

Why's someone gotta be a Limbaugh fan all of a sudden? Mike, your skills are slipping.

Oh, and again, just to toss you a bone, Mike - You missed Nicky's faux pas on our Commander in Chief's name. Dad was GHWB, son is GWB.

[EZcheese15]

I would also suggest that our Republican moderators and Bush backing NICOnauts consider checking out Farenheit 9/11. Might offer an interesting perspective on our commander in Chiefs performance as President.

Why would I waste my money? I think I could put this movie in that thread "worst movies of all time". And I haven't even seen it!

[90Q45blue]

Oh, and again, just to toss you a bone, Mike - You missed Nicky's faux pas on our Commander in Chief's name. Dad was GHWB, son is GWB.

I hate you.

Nick

[AZhitman]

LOL - You just say that so none of the left-leaners will think you're gay.

Wanna go drink beer, shoot guns and pick up chicks?

[The Mic]

and ppl wonder how Bush Jr. got elected governor :rolleyes

[90Q45blue]

VimyJ,

My first biggest problem is that you never gave me a reason to vote for Kerry or answered my attack on him. You said 2 things in response: a) he's got a medal and b) bush lied. How are those 2 things relevant when talking about the authenticity of an entirely different candidate?

I'm scared. I'm very worried that too many people are overlooking the qualities of John Kerry and ignoring his positions on the issues simply out of their spite for Bush. Too many that I have talked to have said they're going to vote for Kerry because "he's better than Bush"

This is going to be long so please read slowly:

1a) Bush v. UN - You say that Bush "broke the UN Charter by illegally invading in a war of aggression a nonthreatening sovreign state based upon falses pretences". There are many problems with your statement. It was Iraq who broke the UN Charter by not complying with weapons inspectors. They broke resolution after resolution and treaty after treaty and still the UN allowed them to avoid military action. Why did the UN do this? 2 reasons: 1) they did not want to pony up the financial and military support the takeover would necessitate and 2) they were too focused on PRD-13 and taking multilateral efforts to make peace with Saddam. Did Saddam have WMD's when we attacked? I say probably not. Did Saddam have WMD's before then? It's possible, but for sake of argument I will say that he didn't. So why do we go into Iraq? To stop the oppression by a dictator. Bush is so bad because he wanted to stop Saddam. Jesus guys, Clinton did the same thing with Adid in Mogadishu. Clinton's problem was he was inconsistent, which leads me to point 1b.

1b) The RWANDAN genocide of 1994. You says Gingrich and the Congress didn't support going in there? Are you serious? The reason why we didn't go in there is because Bill Clinton had his staff lie about the problem and deny that genocide was actually happening. One of the most notorious liars of the time? Liberal's hero on 9/11 problem: Richard Clarke. I encourage you to read up on this massacre. It's appauling but important to read.http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/

P.S. about soldiers getting killed...did you know that 380 soldiers were killed in the first 10 days in the Gulf War in 1992. I spoke with a Lt. Col. in the army yesterday (he's in a class of mine) about how many soldiers are being killed over there and he said he was surprised how few were being killed. The losses are not that high when compared with other wars. That being said, the loss of even one soldier is tragic and a loss for our nation.

2) I think I answered it above, but I do want to say that Kerry wants to lessen the burden on the US and place it more in the hands of the UN. This is a bad idea as the UN has not the time or the means to devote a plan of action to democratizing Iraq. UN countries are just going to advocate leaving Iraq ASAP and Kerry doesn't have the stones to go against them. Bush does. I like Bush

3) I didn't really see a coherent argument here, just that the rich should pay more in taxes because they gain more from society. Obviously the rich are going to pay more dollars because they make more dollars and taxes are percentage-based, but to increase the percentage simply because they make a lot of money is stupid. It's called trickle-down economics. If you increase taxes on the rich, wealthy spending will decrease which means business spending will decrease which means jobs will be cut which means you'll be *****ing about where Bush sent your jobs to.

4) Give me a break. Greg answered this question already. Do some reading on your candidate please and don't just vote out of spite for Bush.

0) Michael Moore - Come on now. I can't argue with you on this, there's no use. Go back to Jesda's links and read please. Then we discuss.

Nick

P.S. I love all you guys

[ceniack]

another thing i would like to add about people griping that bush is giving the contracts to companys that helped him get elected.

well.. duh, that is kinda what happens, they scratch his back and he scratches theirs.

also, i think it is a good thing that there are alot of contracts going to private sectors in the US. that is billions of dollars being force fed into our economy. nothing like a good war to get us out of a recession (part of what got us out of the great depression was WWII, it created jobs)

[Jesda]

Ugh, I keep getting sucked in.

Halliburton is the company most are griping about. They overcharged the federal government $60 mill but had to pay it all back. And for completely building oil infrastructure beginning to end, top to bottom, they are one of the only companies on the PLANET (and possibly the only one in the US) that can do it at this level of complexity.

Some say there should have been bidding for the contract... but logic tells us that open bidding would give us just one bidder.

Bush and Cheney's investments are also restricted during their term, so they cant really profit from all of this.

Now, back to pondering whether to vote for Bush or Badnarik... and how good my Q would look with chrome piepan wheels.

-Jesda

[VimyJ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 90Q45blue "]VimyJ,

My first biggest problem is that you never gave me a reason to vote for Kerry or answered my attack on him. You said 2 things in response: a) he's got a medal and b) bush lied. How are those 2 things relevant when talking about the authenticity of an entirely different candidate?

Kerry is a man who faced death and bush is a silver spooned putz who had everything in his life handed to him. No wonder the guy thinks God wants him to be president.

I'm scared. I'm very worried that too many people are overlooking the qualities of John Kerry and ignoring his positions on the issues simply out of their spite for Bush. Too many that I have talked to have said they're going to vote for Kerry because "he's better than Bush"

Kerry is better than bush. Smarter. Braver. Cultured.

This is going to be long so please read slowly:

1a) Bush v. UN - You say that Bush "broke the UN Charter by illegally invading in a war of aggression a nonthreatening sovreign state based upon falses pretences". There are many problems with your statement. It was Iraq who broke the UN Charter by not complying with weapons inspectors.

Wrong. It was bush who kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq prior to the invasion.

They broke resolution after resolution and treaty after treaty and still the UN allowed them to avoid military action.

You are refering to UN resolutions not US rsolutions.

Why did the UN do this? 2 reasons: 1) they did not want to pony up the financial and military support the takeover would necessitate and 2) they were too focused on PRD-13 and taking multilateral efforts to make peace with Saddam.

You say that like it's a negative thing. There was no evidence to back up the very things bush claimed were the justifiable reasons for war namely WMD and AQ neither of which were true. bush was lead down the garden path by a bunch of liars led by a convicted embezler and a bunch of unrealistic chickenhawk ideologues.

Did Saddam have WMD's when we attacked? I say probably not. Did Saddam have WMD's before then? It's possible, but for sake of argument I will say that he didn't. So why do we go into Iraq? To stop the oppression by a dictator. Bush is so bad because he wanted to stop Saddam.

The reasons given to congress were 1. WMD and 2. AQ. No other official reasons were ever given. No freeing Iraq. No removing SH. The official reasons were 1. & 2. That is what congress voted on and those were the only points bush was officially allowed by congress to invade Iraq. Those very two points turned out to be completely erroneous. Therefore, call a spade a spade, bush lied about the reason for the war.

Jesus guys, Clinton did the same thing with Adid in Mogadishu. Clinton's problem was he was inconsistent, which leads me to point 1b.

Bush Sr. got us into Somolia. Don't forget about inconvenient facts.

1b) The RWANDAN genocide of 1994. You says Gingrich and the Congress didn't support going in there? Are you serious? The reason why we didn't go in there is because Bill Clinton had his staff lie about the problem and deny that genocide was actually happening. One of the most notorious liars of the time? Liberal's hero on 9/11 problem: Richard Clarke. I encourage you to read up on this massacre. It's appauling but important to read.http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/

I followed the Rwandan situation quite closely because a Canadian general on the seen was pleading for armed Western intervention. Gingrich would never get the ball rolling on a project like that especially as it came hard on the heals of Somolia. Don't kid yourself. No one cared what happened there. Too bad so sad.

Simply because someone pokes holes in the sanctity of bush's WH doesn't make him a hero. It is interesting that all those telling tales tell the same tale. Iraq was the goal and 9/11 was the pathetic excuse. bush exploited that tragedy for his own gain.

. about soldiers getting killed...did you know that 380 soldiers were killed in the first 10 days in the Gulf War in 1992. I spoke with a Lt. Col. in the army yesterday (he's in a class of mine) about how many soldiers are being killed over there and he said he was surprised how few were being killed. The losses are not that high when compared with other wars. That being said, the loss of even one soldier is tragic and a loss for our nation.

This is a theme consistant with all bush apologists: "Hardly anyone is dead" with a segue n the next breath to "Even one life lost is a national tragedy". All those hundreds of lives lost and maimed for a lie. That is a true national tragedy.

I think I answered it above, but I do want to say that Kerry wants to lessen the burden on the US and place it more in the hands of the UN. This is a bad idea as the UN has not the time or the means to devote a plan of action to democratizing Iraq. UN countries are just going to advocate leaving Iraq ASAP and Kerry doesn't have the stones to go against them. Bush does. I like Bush

Kerry isn't going to put the US into the hands of the US. That is just pure poppy **** right wing disinformation. Kerry, like any sensible person understands that we are stronger in the West if we present a united front. bush is a detrement to any reforging of traditional ties and trust. No one outside the US trusts bush. Not even Israel.

The UN knows the US is trapped in Iraq and none of the traditional allies want to get stuck in the mess bush made in Iraq. Why should they? Their people are dead set against it and it will all end up being good money thrown after bad.

3) I didn't really see a coherent argument here, just that the rich should pay more in taxes because they gain more from society. Obviously the rich are going to pay more dollars because they make more dollars and taxes are percentage-based, but to increase the percentage simply because they make a lot of money is stupid. It's called trickle-down economics. If you increase taxes on the rich, wealthy spending will decrease which means business spending will decrease which means jobs will be cut which means you'll be *****ing about where Bush sent your jobs to.

"Trickle down economics" (aka VooDoo Economics and Raganomics) was a farce.

Why not tax the fat cats to finance a $200 billion and counting political war? The disappearing middle class can't afford it and besides, they already supply the blood and guts.

4) Give me a break. Greg answered this question already. Do some reading on your candidate please and don't just vote out of spite for Bush.

If you have a problem with Kerry's recognized achievements on tthe battlefield, take it up with the Navy. Fact is he was there getting shot at while bush was getting drunk and stoned in Alabama. And now you think bush knows best? C'mon. You can do better than bush. Much better.

[Jesda]

From the National Review:

Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks OutThe medical description of his first wound.

By Byron York

Some critics of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry have questioned the circumstances surrounding the first of three Purple Hearts Kerry won in Vietnam. Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished.

Kerry was treated for the wound at a medical facility in Cam Ranh Bay. The doctor who treated Kerry, Louis Letson, is today a retired general practitioner in Alabama. Letson says he remembers his brief encounter with Kerry 35 years ago because "some of his crewmen related that Lt. Kerry had told them that he would be the next JFK from Massachusetts." Letson says that last year, as the Democratic campaign began to heat up, he told friends that he remembered treating one of the candidates many years ago. In response to their questions, Letson says, he wrote down his recollections of the time. (Letson says he has had no contacts with anyone from the Bush campaign or the Republican party.) What follows is Letson's memory, as he wrote it. I have a very clear memory of an incident which occurred while I was the Medical Officer at Naval Support Facility, Cam Ranh Bay.

John Kerry was a (jg), the OinC or skipper of a Swift boat, newly arrived in Vietnam. On the night of December 2, he was on patrol north of Cam Ranh, up near Nha Trang area. The next day he came to sick bay, the medical facility, for treatment of a wound that had occurred that night.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a fire fight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a mortar round at close range to some rocks on shore. The crewman thought that the injury was caused by a fragment ricocheting from that mortar round when it struck the rocks.

That seemed to fit the injury which I treated.

What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.

I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.

The wound was covered with a bandaid.

Not [sic] other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any reported damage to the boat.

[Bubba1]

Hitman. I'd like to see you provide some data that shows the majority of women in this country are pro-life. I suspect you have it backward, my friend. It may be true among your friends, but I suspect that's not the case nationwide. As far as god-fearing folks, I don't choose my friends based on their opinions on abortion, or if they're of a specific religion or race. So I have a nice variety of friends with all different views and religions. Makes for fun sometimes intense conversations.

What it boils down to is what an adult woman does with her body is hers alone to decide. Not the US government, not Dubya, not your church, not yours, (well, that is unless you knocked up Tino's mom) and not even mine. It should be the woman's choice.

And to answer your question, yes my wife and I did pursue adoption at one time Of course I told my mother-in-law that I had my eye on this cute 17 yr old asian girl. (ahem j/k) Seriously we did register at a private agenciy and as Nathan said, the waiting list was into years, but that was for a CAUCASION baby. If you expanded your preferences for no specific race or sex, and upped the child's age, that would have made it far faster. To make a long story short, fertility drugs worked almost immediately for us so we decided to stop pursuing adoption.

I also don't think you're a grinch, Hitman. I chalk it up to your advanced age. heh-heh. (Oh, FYI, I'm older than you)

Torry, I think it always pays to keep an open mind. I heard the movie got good reviews. Heck, you might find it entertaining. (gasp)

[Jesda]

You can attempt to frame the debate as one solely about choice, but it wouldnt be so debateable if it was just that. The "choice" that is being debated is whether to end the life of what may or may not be a human life. The "may or may not" is what keeps us baffled, divided, and arguing.

I believe abortion is usually wrong, even in cases of rape (its not the baby's fault) but in practice it would be a legal quagmire, and effectively unenforceable. We'd sacrifice too many other subfreedoms in an attempt to wipe out abortion. Not worth it, to me.

-Jesda

[spitz7985]

Uhhh, Kerry is for a war on Iraq; he just doesn't agree with Bush's ways of carrying it out. Why does it seem that every Iraq war supporter on this site likes Bush because they say Kerry wants to pull out of Iraq right away and blah blah blah.

Me, I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet, but I am definatly leaning towards Kerry. The only arguments I've read on this thread against him is that he is indecisive and he is going to pull out of Iraq as soon as he gets elected. Well, what I got from the whole "doesn't have the balls to publically pick a stance on the gay marraiges issue" arguement is that he is morally opposed to it but doesn't believe legal action should be taken to outlaw it. Well, that is the same way I feel and, IMO, leagues ahead of the reactionary view that Bush has on the issue. Come on, America was founded on the principle of freedom of beliefs. Outlawing gay marraiges is no worse then outlawing certain religions in parts of Europe back in the 18th century and prior.

The belief on here that he is going to pull out of Iraq right away is just wrong. I believe that Kerry will handle post-war Iraq better then Bush is/will. I also support the fact the Kerry respects the UN and I believe he will maintain a better relationship with it then Bush has.

Is Kerry the perfect man for the job? Hell no. Is he better then Bush. Ohh yeah.

My reasons for disliking Bush center around two main things, but there are others that I won't get into.

Reason 1: He sent us to war under false pretenses. Do I think that Iraq had WMD? Yes. But Bush sent us there to revenge the attacks on 9/11 (revenge is a bad word, but you get the idea). The bottom line is, Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11 that has been proven. I think the war on Iraq is a good thing. I think the timing was bad, actually horrible (or the timing was too advanced and caused detonation, it needed to be retarded a few degrees ). I think we need more money being spent on security here in the states.

Reason 2: He's a dumbass. Literally. The guy is not a smart person. He makes ridiculous gramatical errors while speaking, gives off the vibe of an airhead, etc. I don't want the representative of my country and the most powerful man in the world to be George W. Bush. Sorry.

Feel free to try and change my mind. I have a very open mind and am very indecisive.

[spitz7985]

From the National Review:

Kerry Purple Heart Doc Speaks OutThe medical description of his first wound.

Kerry: In Vietnam whining about a scrape.Bush: In the states toking, drinking and talking baseball.

You decide who would be better.

[Cold_Zero]

Hmmm. That really sways my vote!

I guess I will vote for Bush because his daughters are hotter than John Kerry's daughters are.

/sarcasm

[cys19]

let's vote for whoever that likes nissans the most

[Nathan]

If the Iraqi's could hide over 30 jet fighters in the desert without our satellites or reconaissance drones detecting them, its not too outrageous to think they could have hidden a few missles or equipment for making biological or chemical weapons out there either. Check this out to learn more about the planes: http://www.jinsa.org/articles/...,2186



Reportedly, they only found them because the sand had been blown away to expose the tails of a Mig-25 Foxbat. I personally think that there was materials and intent to create biological or chemical weapons. I mean really, do you think Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq numerous times during the 90's just for ****s and giggles? Saddam was out to piss everyone off and further his own goals, no matter what laws or regulations were placed upon him.

Here's a good page about wmd's, al qaida, and the weapons inspectors that hussein would not allow back into Iraq for 4 long years. In fact, he only agreed to let them back in when a substantial chunk of the American military force was standing on his doorstep looking very menacing. Hussein was known to be dishonest, to believe that he did not at the very least WANT wmd's is, in my opinion...nothing more than wishful thinking. Take off the rose colored glasses, and see the world for what it really is.

[spitz7985]

Hmmm. That really sways my vote!

I guess I will vote for Bush because his daughters are hotter than John Kerry's daughters are.

/sarcasm

Hey, buddy, let's try to keep the asswhole-ness to a minimum. It wasn't meant to sway anyone. It was to make a point, just like Jesda's quote. So watch it or before you know it this thread will get closed because of pointless arguing, and I'm enjoying it.

[spitz7985]

If the Iraqi's could hide over 30 jet fighters in the desert without our satellites or reconaissance drones detecting them, its not too outrageous ...Hussein was known to be dishonest, to believe that he did not at the very least WANT wmd's is, in my opinion...nothing more than wishful thinking. Take off the rose colored glasses, and see the world for what it really is.

Who's arguing that Hussein didn't have WMDs?

[ilovedrifting]

saddams wmd's are in syria, we need to go there next

[Nathan]

Who's arguing that Hussein didn't have WMDs?

VimyJ is: Quote »VimyJ "]The reasons given to congress were 1. WMD and 2. AQ. No other official reasons were ever given. No freeing Iraq. No removing SH. The official reasons were 1. & 2. That is what congress voted on and those were the only points bush was officially allowed by congress to invade Iraq. Those very two points turned out to be completely erroneous. Therefore, call a spade a spade, bush lied about the reason for the war.[/quote]

[Nathan]

saddams wmd's are in syria, we need to go there next

I like your thinking!

[AZhitman]

Reason 2: He's a dumbass. Literally. The guy is not a smart person. He makes ridiculous gramatical errors while speaking, gives off the vibe of an airhead, etc. I don't want the representative of my country and the most powerful man in the world to be George W. Bush. Sorry.

Feel free to try and change my mind. I have a very open mind and am very indecisive.

While I was pretty much with you through your whole post, I gotta disagree on this point.

No one at that level of government is a "dumbass". Hell, he's not "polished", and his grammar is atrocious. But dumb? No.

I'd hazard a guess he's at least as sharp as Clinton, and truth be told, an IQ test is a POOR yardstick for leadership anyway.

p.s. Great post otherwise spitz!