I am for Bush

(Sry, I'm bored with alot of work, and I just need a few good laughs)

I hope no one takes this thread too seriously like some ppl did in the past, and if it does get out of hand, oh well just lock it, mabe a stupid idea, but I need some amusement before I die of boredom XD

(I wanna see if ppl can handle it without starting flame wars XD

for specific reasons, I will not be posting in this thread (well mabe a bit)

Ah well, Grabs popcorn

Last edited: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 6:03:08 PM

Wow, how many times do I have to say this: Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11!!! If was a victim then I would be angry that the government is using 9/11 as an excuse to kill more people. You know, many more families ar losing their loved ones because of this war.

Neva:
yes, you've missed a lot. Go back and reread my posts. I'm not about to shill for the democrats. Your question is ill conceived anyway, as I've tried to explain to you.

@ NEVA. Why does stinky have to tell you about what we would have done. There are so many articles on the internet about this subject.

He turned his attention to Iraq. And for what? Weapons of mass destruction? LOL

@ Woot= good points B)

(Heck if u'r parents were the victims, what would u'r instinct tell u to do? Go out there and seek revange)

^ if someone murders your parents do you go and murder THAT person? Does that make you a better person? Does it change anything?

...and what if that persons son tries to avenge HIS fathers murder.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do however believe that 9/11 was just to validate this war on iraq... Whether it be a lucky tragedy (for the government) or whether it was planned implicitly and finalised down to the last detail.

Last edited: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 3:13:06 AM

^ if someone kills a loved one, u have a legal right to kill that man in self deffence (and it would certainly make u feel better that that man is no longer walking the streets, and that their lives have been avenged B) )

^? Are you from a greek island?

^ nope :P

^^^ Once he is gone, this "self-defense" is no longer that. It is ASSAULT. ARROGANT, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. The only time/place you have a right to kill him is immediately after he kills a loved one and when he poses an immediate threat to your life.
And you forgot one thing: What if the guy you end up killing isn't the right one?

^ ok, so u'r saying that if u don't kill the guy before 5 minutes, the guy is off the hook? That is ridiculous XD

And besides, how on earth would u mistake the aggressor?!!! I mean, it's not like the guy is gonna come with a tux, clean shoes, and a smile that says "I didn't do it" Lmao! XD XD

Oh... Now where did I put that popcorn? :P

This was supposed to be an analogy to 9/11...
We are attacking/invading/focusing-on the wrong country. *HEM HEM*

Yeah, I'm saying that after he's no longer an immediate threat to your life, it's no longer self-defense. AKA you have no right to kill him after that time. Self-defense is okay. Revenge is wrong.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mt 5:39

@Playa:
That too _v . XD

Last edited: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 3:02:10 PM

If you are killing someone in "self-defence", you are just putting another family through what you just had to go through. Is that right? I am sure the victims of 9/11 would not want what befell them to happen to anyone else.

Like bloop said... That certainly isn't legal in this country.

EDIT: @ monica: Their minds can't understand the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I've given up trying to explain that. It seems that whatever the government says they will take it for granted, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Last edited: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 3:06:21 PM

Personally, I don't think the guy would even have a family :P (atleast not a family that loves him B) ) (goes back to background...)

Wow cadc, you just proved my point. You don't seem to care if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, you just want to kill as many people from that area as possible.

At least 34493 civilians have been killed in Iraq, most of them probably have families. First of all, they are civilians so of course they had nothing to do with the war in the first place. And even you kill an insurgent who is fighting against U.S. Troops you aren't "getting revenge". They had nothing to do with 9/11.

Don't pester cadc with silly things like facts. He's a theocrat, so silly things like facts aren't about to get in his way. He's a believer, not a thinker.

So don't waste your time.

.................

Thats bush, believes and thats what he does but he doenst go by the facts.

@ Player= no player, that's just what u wish to believe about me, and again, that's probably also the way Bush is missunderstood (wether on purpose or not)

"Bush is missunderstood"

Classic!

Please, as you have the insight...explain him for us! It should be a GD hoot! Now I'm looking for popcorn.

He's probably just way ahead of his time, right?

@ Cadc: I see you are just as much of a troublemaker as always.

Cadc is not a theocrat, he's an instigator (a rather amusing one at that). You guys should recognize the difference between a heartfelt expression of opinion versus declaring extreme views just to push buttons! If we were to push Cadc and Stinkfingers together, there would be annihilation of mater combined with a great release of energy. Thankfully, we've learned to harnass and throttle that energy through the use of forum threads. We have enough energy reserve to last another 3 years.

I just know he's sitting back with a bag of popcorn and watching this thread like a good movie. Don't make me toss your UFO like a frisbee to my dog!

Bomb...James Bomb

Yey Frisbee! :P

Well, I stand by my views. Nothing more :)

@ Stinky= I won't take 2 hours to explain why I think Bush is a good president, instead, I could send u an audio recording of why John kerry shouldn't be president B)

Last edited: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 11:13:55 AM

JB: You think?

Neva: you were asking for the democrats plan. This may be more than what you are looking for, but it seems to cover a lot of what many progressives hope to be the new democratic plan. I dunno.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11424

Its a discussion of a "vision" for the party more than a concrete plan, but I sensed that's what you were looking for anyway. It provides a historical analysis of 20th century liberalism that may be useful to achieve a better understanding of 49% of the country, and outlines a vision for the democratic party for the future.

Cadc: to summarize your response: Kerry would have been a terrible president, therefore Bush has done a fine job.

Wow. I hope JB is right, for your sake.

Last edited: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 11:23:14 AM

So, Bush has now referred to himself as a "Decider" eh?
To be exact, he said... ""But I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."

I looked up the word Decider just to see if it was real (it is). One of the definitions of "Decider" caught my attention.....

It makes me giggle that Bush has referred to himself as something that is guaranteed to halt whenever there is a problem to solve.

Last edited: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 11:20:09 AM

He's a decider...a unificator...and an expert at strategery.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

You two don't find bufoonery charming? You fellers must be part of the liberal elite that I'm told to hate. Demanding coherence and cogency from a US president! The nerve! His folksy stupidity just endears him to folks. Doncha git it?

Now there's a depressing piece of truth. Why do we only get to vote between two people at elections? Oh sure, there's always a couple of guys from those "other" parties, but they have yet to be taken seriously. I mean, Bush won because he was Republican. He's NOT a good speaker, he fumbles with the hard questions, and it was KNOWN during the election that his daddy pulled him out of the National Guard (hearing this jerk talk about the "duty" of National Guard soldiers makes my gut turn). And yet....he won...because it's been a free ride for the Republicans after Clinton's dance in the house.

It would've been nice to at least have McCain as an option. No politician is perfect, but I think he would've done a much better job as Republicans go.

Kerry wasn't my first pick for Democrats either. Sheesh...do you know what it's like when you find that BOTH of the smarter ones in each party didn't make the primaries? What a system....

- Bomb...James Bomb

I liked Howard Dean, to bad he didn't make it through the primaries.

@ JB: Yeah, it would be nice to have 3 or 4 candidates that actually have a chance of winning. And welcome back, glad you haven't turned into a theocrat.

My Spidey-senses detect an old friend...I recognize that lingo. B)

- Bomb...James Bomb

^ oh btw, hello James bomb, welcome back old friend B)