Bush lovers read this...

[94RedSiGal]

Originally posted by New2TheCarScene@Dec 9 2004, 01:40 PM
1. Regardless if it was brought before the people as a 'goodwill war', none of the tree huggers would have accepted it because they just can't except the ways of life and war.

2. For people who claim that you should constantly question the government and then feel misled, my only advice to them would have been to research further before giving the approval.

3. The majority of the general public approved of the war in Iraq and I believe a good majority still supports and approves of the war.

4. Thats what democracy is, can't make everyone happy.

5. Get yourself some journals and proved that the war is a total loss. He made fuck ups in planning in terms of the war but that doesnt mean that the war itself is any less right. You can only speculate about that.

[post=429413]Quoted post[/post]​

1. I am pretty darn close to being a tree-hugger and would not have objected to Bush making the case for removing Saddam as a goodwill mission. I was horrified at the accounts of Saddam putting people in meat grinders. However, Bush would have had to go through the UN approval process to do so.

2. I don't understand this statement. I've evaluated Bush and in both elections, voted against him. What is this approval process you speak of? Or better yet, before anyone is allowed to support the (Bush) government, they need to do some mandatory research too. Voting for someone just because they are also of the same faith (Christian) shouldn't be allowed imo.

3. No. Especially not now. And I've heard several reports that those currently serving in our military are particularly unhappy with the war. They are admirably doing their duty to their country, but there is no rosy glow of being there and doing the right thing for our country and the world. The disatisfaction level in amongst our troops is at an all time high. I would be curious to find the real number of how our soldiers voted in the election also. The public just wants out of the war. There were no WOMD in Iraq and not connections to Bin Laden. The insurgent Iraqis are making a mess of their country's transistion to democracy and we, the people of America just want out of that country and all of our soldiers safely home. Enough of the mounting war debt, our soldiers killed and injured (the numbers getting higher every month), and frankly most of us don't care about that heap of sand. How wonderful to destroy Fallujah, but then to feel be obligated rebuild that damn city for $90 million (?) dollars was a ridiculous course of action on the part of our government.

4. No. Granted you can never make everyone happy, but with a democracy, more than half of us should be pleased.

5. No. No speculation necessary. The Iraqi war was totally wrong and still is. The only thing that the American public wanted and the world backed us up on after 9-11 was that Bin Laden needed to be captured, his terrorist network dismantled and him in particular brought to justice. That was Bush's only mandate from the Americans and the world... get Bin Laden. The WOMD was a much lower priority and shouldn't have been lumped in as a package deal.... remember the World Trade Center towers were brought down with airliners, not WOMD's, the terrorists are wrecking havok with cheap primitive expolosives, nothing fancy or sophisticated.

 

[Battle Pope]

You can spout the words "moderate" and "unpartisan" (okay so I don't recall you saying unpartisan, but I like the word and it means the same thing sort of ) all you want, but you use such ferocity in your argument FOR the war, it makes you sound VERY republican. VERY. And your "I'm a better person because I'm educated" high-horse doesn't help either.

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 02:15 PM
:fuckyou3: mr spell check...

...and its not about political affiliation for the last time.

bahahhaa, i think if you could stop sucking republican dick for 5 seconds you'd see that you are no where near a "moderate"

and where did i call you republican? or a right winger?
lol

i just said you believe FALSE REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA

[post=429435]Quoted post[/post]​

As for spell check, its not the fact that you spelled it wrong...its the fact that the people who spell the word like that are usually the people who say the word incorrectly when trying to insult someone and then are like I don't care...RETART!

You didn't need to blatantly call me a republican, but people definately worked off the fact of Battle Pope calling me a Republican zealot.

In no way do I agree 100% with either side. I agree with the war as previously stated I dont agree with the religion, abortion, or stem cell research stance.

...because I agree with one issue doesn't mean that I'm 'sucking republican dick' as much as your left wing self would like to assume.

 

[reckedracing]

no, he refused to send more troops cause rumsfeld thought he could send in the elite forces and then after baghdad fell that everything would fall into place...

i guess both YOU and bush should have read bush sr's book about how it would have been impossible to go in and get out in a simple means...
no exit strategy...

This guy was of the opinion that basically everything was absolutely wrong and nothing good could come of it. He was blinded by what he saw as bad to see anything that could be good.

hmmm, lets see here
what good might you be speaking of..
i believe the rising oil prices disprove your lower gas and oil prices theory...

ok, so we help out some people on the other side of the world in the fucking dessert....

wooptie fucking shit

was it worth the expense? was it worth it for the american taxpayer to have to pay off the expense of this war for the next 10 or 20 or even 30 years???
was it worth the american lives that have been lost?
is it worth the lives of the innocent iraqis??

fact is bush told america iraq had WMD and saddam = terrorist...

ALSO FACT IS, he was wrong, and now we're in the middle of a mess that bush sr himself predicted 10 years earlier...

what now???

way to fuck america mr bush, and way to defend him with your huge scholarly brain...

 

[totalburnout]

1. I am pretty darn close to being a tree-hugger and would not have objected to Bush making the case for removing Saddam as a goodwill mission. I was horrified at the accounts of Saddam putting people in meat grinders. However, Bush would have had to go through the UN approval process to do so.

The UN said before Bush formally asked for their help that they would not support the war. If they already said they're not going to support you, whats the point of formally asking?

2. I don't understand this statement. I've evaluated Bush and in both elections, voted against him. What is this approval process you speak of? Or better yet, before anyone is allowed to support the (Bush) government, they need to do some mandatory research too. Voting for someone just because they are also of the same faith (Christian) shouldn't be allowed imo.

Who's to say that everyone did? I'm non-practicing and not religious in the least. I tend to side with science more than religion and I don't believe in God, heaven, or hell. ...if you needed to know.

3. No. Especially not now. And I've heard several reports that those currently serving in our military are particularly unhappy with the war. They are admirably doing their duty to their country, but there is no rosy glow of being there and doing the right thing for our country and the world. The disatisfaction level in amongst our troops is at an all time high. I would be curious to find the real number of how our soldiers voted in the election also. The public just wants out of the war. There were no WOMD in Iraq and not connections to Bin Laden. The insurgent Iraqis are making a mess of their country's transistion to democracy and we, the people of America just want out of that country and all of our soldiers safely home. Enough of the mounting war debt, our soldiers killed and injured (the numbers getting higher every month), and frankly most of us don't care about that heap of sand. How wonderful to destroy Fallujah, but then to feel be obligated rebuild that damn city for $90 million (?) dollars was a ridiculous course of action on the part of our government.

The military is predominately Republican, although some here seem to think otherwise for whatever reason. The disatisfaction level amongst the troops come solely from the loss of lives, the real possibility of losing their own, and from lack of support coming from the homefront. I don't care if people agree with Bush or not, but support the damn troops because its not their fault that we're over there. Oh and we rebuilt Hiroshaki after we dropped the A-bomb on it.

4. No. Granted you can never make everyone happy, but with a democracy, more than half of us should be pleased.

More than half were pleased, Bush won the popular vote by 3 million this year. Why is that so hard for some to comprehend. His approval rating is still fairly high.

5. No. No speculation necessary. The Iraqi war was totally wrong and still is. The only thing that the American public wanted and the world backed us up on after 9-11 was that Bin Laden needed to be captured, his terrorist network dismantled and him in particular brought to justice. That was Bush's only mandate from the Americans and the world... get Bin Laden. The WOMD was a much lower priority and shouldn't have been lumped in as a package deal.... remember the World Trade Center towers were brought down with airliners, not WOMD's, the terrorists are wrecking havok with cheap primitive expolosives, nothing fancy or sophisticated.

...and I won't touch on that.

 

[reckedracing]

its the fact that the people who spell the word like that are usually the people who say the word incorrectly when trying to insult someone and then are like I don't care...RETART

hmm, sounds like speculation to me...
i'd like to see your sources... preferably scholarly journals...

The military is predominately Republican

SOURCES?!?!?!

put up or shut up...

 

[totalburnout]

no, he refused to send more troops cause rumsfeld thought he could send in the elite forces and then after baghdad fell that everything would fall into place...

So you're saying that he listened to another 'expert's' plan? Weren't you just bashing him for not listening to an expert, whats the deal here?

i guess both YOU and bush should have read bush sr's book about how it would have been impossible to go in and get out in a simple means...
no exit strategy...

News flash I was the one who stated I understood the entire time it wasn't going to be a cakewalk. Vietnam proved this and history repeats itself.

hmmm, lets see here
what good might you be speaking of..
i believe the rising oil prices disprove your lower gas and oil prices theory...

Oil prices are decreasing as we speak. The price of crude oil is down from what it was, it'll be back to normal again, soon.

ok, so we help out some people on the other side of the world in the fucking dessert....

wooptie fucking shit

was it worth the expense? was it worth it for the american taxpayer to have to pay off the expense of this war for the next 10 or 20 or even 30 years???
was it worth the american lives that have been lost?
is it worth the lives of the innocent iraqis??

How can you even say that? 'Was it worth the money' Was someone's freedom worth the money, I don't know...ask France who spent the money on the United States to gain its freedom (even if they didn't do it for the most noble causes, point is they did it)

You'll never see the expense, as I stated before...the country has been in debt since its formation.

One can make the argument that live is precious and invaluable so nothing is worth the cost of life, but thats unrealistic.

fact is bush told america iraq had WMD and saddam = terrorist...

ALSO FACT IS, he was wrong, and now we're in the middle of a mess that bush sr himself predicted 10 years earlier...

The experts told Bush that there were, how could he nor you or I have known any better if we were misinformed? Is he superman?

 

[totalburnout]

hmm, sounds like speculation to me...
i'd like to see your sources... preferably scholarly journals...

Experience is a bitch. If I'm wrong about it, so be it. You're still the dumbass who can't properly spell a COMMON, SIMPLE word.

SOURCES?!?!?!

put up or shut up...

To find a source that has a poll of the current military's political affliation can take awhile.

Regardless the fact remains that Bush won the popular vote and was elected by 3 million people, therefore the majority of people sided with Bush to your discontent.

 

[reckedracing]

So you're saying that he listened to another 'expert's' plan?

last time i checked RUMSFELD IS NOT expert on anything military... example... iraq war... bahahahah

Oil prices are decreasing as we speak. The price of crude oil is down from what it was, it'll be back to normal again, soon.

until the next insurgent blows up the pipe line right?

the country has been in debt since its formation.

but not as much debt as bush had amounted... go bush

The experts told Bush that there were, how could he nor you or I have known any better if we were misinformed? Is he superman?

hmmm, thats funny, cause i do believe the CHEIF WEAPONS INSPECTOR said iraq had no WMD's... and i do believe he would be the expert on the metter...

 

[reckedracing]

Regardless the fact remains that Bush won the popular vote and was elected by 3 million people, therefore the majority of people sided with Bush to your discontent.

thanks to the diebold voting machines...

god i hate election fraud

how about the shortage of voting machines in democratic ohio districts causing voters to become frustrated and not stand in the long lines?

:bye1: hi, i'm a retarTed dumbass

 

[asmallsol]

cnn poll

Based on this, the more education you have, the more likely you were to vote for Kerry, however, the more money you have, the more likly were were to vote for Bush.

 

[Sabz5150]

Also shows that if you are christian or born again evangelical, you were more likely to vote for bush. No suprise there.

If you are a woman in the workforce, you most likely voted for Kerry. Those that don't vote for Bush. I believe that directly parallels income in many cases.

Shows that people who were more driven moral values, terror and taxes voted for bush. Obviously. Goes with the rich people thing.

So basically rich christians voted for bush. Suprise, suprise.

 

[micah]

so you think the majority of america is rich christians?

i would have to say a big no to that one lol

 

[dohch22a4]

Goddamn, you guys are hilarious. This is one of the biggest verbal circle jerks I've ever borne witness to. You should be ashamed. This is the political equivalent of little Johnny and little Mikey getting into a shoving match on the playground. Just shut the fuck up. Half of us are too far right and half are too far left. Leave it alone because it will never be resolved. Ever.

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by asmallsol@Dec 9 2004, 06:18 PM
cnn poll

Based on this, the more education you have, the more likely you were to vote for Kerry, however, the more money you have, the more likly were were to vote for Bush.

[post=429597]Quoted post[/post]​

A cnn pole isnt worthy of review.

Its justs an tv broadcasting station, the poll is entirely slanted based upon the reviewers of the show....most people who view cnn will vote democrat

 

[totalburnout]

Originally posted by micah@Dec 9 2004, 09:35 PM
so you think the majority of america is rich christians?

i would have to say a big no to that one lol

[post=429723]Quoted post[/post]​

ditto

 

[asmallsol]

Originally posted by New2TheCarScene+Dec 10 2004, 12:53 AM-->

micah

@Dec 9 2004, 09:35 PM
so you think the majority of america is rich christians?

i would have to say a big no to that one lol

[post=429723]Quoted post[/post]​

ditto

[post=429784]Quoted post[/post]​

No, that would be uneducated christians, with some money here and there. .

Without the "ethical vote" Bush would have stood no chance. "morals" were what the 2004 election was about.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by reckedracing@Dec 9 2004, 08:01 PM
large caches of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS, that he was allowed to have for self defense of his country...

[post=429427]Quoted post[/post]​

Conventional weapons? Maybe, depends on your definition of conventional. I'd say we found enough to definitely keep the idea alive that Iraq was dabbling in NBC, hell Saddam says he was actively trying to get his chemical and nuclear weapons off the ground. Not to mention many of the weapon systems we found were altered into something else, creative little bastards. So would you say conventional weapons, used unconventionally, are still conventional?

 

[reckedracing]

"A sacked CIA official has sued, alleging he was fired for refusing to fake reports supporting the White House position that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, local media said. Described as a senior CIA official who was sacked in August 'for unspecified reasons,' the lawsuit appeared to be the first public instance of a CIA agent charging he was pressured to concoct intelligence on Iraq. The suit claims the unidentified ex agent was urged to produce reports in line with President George W Bush's contention that Iraq had illegal chemical or biological weapons, which threatened US and international security."

hmmm, perhaps the truth will come out after all???

responses?

 

[totalburnout]

No, that would be uneducated christians, with some money here and there. .

Without the "ethical vote" Bush would have stood no chance. "morals" were what the 2004 election was about.

[post=429826]Quoted post[/post]​

Ridiculous.


Prove that Bush won because of the religious card. Yes some Christians might've swayed towards him, but this country isn't as religious as it once was.... I haven't seen any studies specifically about christianity but I have seen studies that the typical white american male is quickly on his or her way to becoming a minority.

I really just think that you're bias and resentful towards the religion.

New Jersey the WEALTHIEST most populated state, went to Kerry. It was close, but it went to Kerry. That pretty much disproves what you have to say.

As I said, I'm non practicing...i'm astheist. don't believe in heaven, hell, or God and I still voted for Bush. I don't have loads of money. My parents don't have loads of money. My one set of grandparents doesn't have loads of money. My other set of grandparents have money, but they're not religious. My girlfriend's parents don't have money. My girlfriend is in the hole 60grand for going to PSU... All educated peoples who are not religious and don't have an excessive amount of money and we all voted Bush.

Just because what money and daddy have preached to you Clayton does not neccesarly mean that only big business and the evil rich christians vote Republican, because I'll tell you what...theres not enough votes from big business alone to capture the popular vote in America, and thats exactly what Bush did.

I'd like to see an unbias poll by a noteworthy polling company to prove that people with higher education voted for Kerry. If this were the case, I could probably also hypothesize that much of it was the first or second generation of kids going to college having a higher education versus older people who did not have the liberty to go to college in their time.