Voting For Bush?

[matt1122]

That explains why the numbers are so misleading.

←

sometimes I put nader in just for fun.

they actually ask the political questions and the demographic questions on every single poll right at the beginning, regardless of the actual survey topic, so sometimes I get tired of paying attention and click around hoping I hit something sensible.

[fromtheshadows]

The army thats fighting right now isn't like the the red coats where they line up and then the blue coats line up and bang, you are right. The injurys and deaths thus far have been cause by something very real, if you don't want to call it a real army that ok with me, but it's certianly real. The fight thats going on right now is the hard part, cause all the rule books don't apply, every thing thats know about armys don't apply. The fight thats going on right now is to me the real reason to be there. Saddams armys, the ones with the uniforms, the ones that march in ranks etc. were never going to march in any city in the USA, but whats being fought right now is the real fight that has and will be brought to our cities. My hope is that all the good thats being done over there to get the people back on their feet and begin living a life with freedom and lack of surpression will take hold. Then much like places here in the USA the people that live there get fed up with the drug dealers working their blocks, they start to take action along with the Police and then and only then does the problem begin to change.

←

OK...by real army I meant federally funded. Just like if I decided to lead a group of guys to march on washington you wouldnt call that a real army. (Im not planning anything if anyones watching) PLease stop splitting hairs here ppl. Im also pretty sure if some stupid country saw what Bush was doing as a conquereor of foriegn nations , compiled a theory that the elections here were fixed and started bombing the U.S. in the name of doing good, killing innocent people, Id shoot them as soon as I saw the whites of their eyes. There arent drug dealers working the blocks of Iraq, and before we took sadaam out there was order, terrorists wouldnt dare, or they would face that crazy sadaam. Now there is chaos. I think youre underestimating how many people hate us for this, and how strong this war has made our opponent. Look at Iraqs borders. Now think of palestine. Israel hasnt won that war yet, and theyve got the same weapons as we do. It has given our opponent the worst kind of ammo. As soon as things settle down...boom. Thats the guerilla way. As far as the "good" being done over there, what good? killing innocent ppl, killing rebels because they fear us enough to take up arms, please dont tell me we are doing Gods work here. The Iraqi ppl are not free under american military watch. Trust me I know Ive lived on military bases my whole life and the military isnt even free for the ppl in the military. Your expected to go where they want you to when they want, and if they say "strip search time", well its strip search time.(not that ive ever exp. that, ahem)

There are many other US cities, many more countries that need our help more than Iraq did. Where there are drug dealers working the blocks ...and poverty, lets just say there are places here in LA that I would almost need a police escort to walk through. Why dont we clean them up while were at it. MIlitary style? Cause someone needs their vote, or doesn't want their opponent to have it. Having a say in your future is freedom. And Iraq wont have that. Freedom cant be forced onto a ppl. It contradicts the definition. I claim we violated the prime directive on this one.

Edited October 24, 2004 by ashman

[fromtheshadows]

Please dont tell me that because you took 2 sysmesters of economics this makes you a Econ Wiz? Hell, I was an econ major for 2 years, that makes me a GENIOUS!

Tell me this (your remark about america recovering from economic disaster), with the gap growing at an ever more rate between the middle and the upper class, thousands of people dropping out of the middle into the lower class, the ever increasing privatization of utilities and media ect

who recovers economically? Me, you? Or the upper 5 percent

←

America will recover the worst economic disaster, it has before, but not all of its ppl will survive the recovery unscathed. Ill recover, im a survivor . The upper 5% wont have to "recover" because theyll be just fine (standard of living-wise).Unless the poor people storm their houses in revolutionary fashion and take everything they have, then the poor people would be the recovering ones, It will all balance out until the day we all run out of our natural resources...

[ontheheel]

how far left are you? on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being liberal and ten being conservative? i am just curious to see where you place yourself.

[Bay13]

I know exactly what you mean by armys and you know exactly what my responce meant, why the long paragraph of mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with anything being discussed?

No good being done, you know exactly what good is being done, you've read the same posts in the other threads that I read.

God? not mentioned by me, must be something there.

Your encounter with the military while growing up sounds so grim. Sadly it's not the story relayed by most service brats. You are right you do have to do what they say, it's not a democracy, surprise.

I tried to keep my responce short and rather simple, directed at the quote, sorry next time I'll bring up all kinds of unrelated stuff so it sounds like I really know what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

[ontheheel]

I tried to keep my responce short and rather simple, directed at the quote, sorry next time I'll bring up all kinds of unrelated stuff so it sounds like I really know what I'm talking about. 

←

:lol:

Edited October 24, 2004 by ontheheel

[ChuckV986]

:lol:

Wow you must know the right people! Wake up call - not that many people have died in Iraq.

←

First: Do you know what Fact Check is? Given your response, I doubt it. And no, books written by prominent conservative authors, or right wing mags/news papers don't count as more reliable.

Second: Well duh, and thank god. Not that many Americans anyway. Do you have a point?

I'm perfectly ok with disscussing my points with you. But please, try to disscuss the points. Don't think Fact Check is reliable? Tell me why not. Don't think seeing your best friend killed due to Bush's monkey-ups is a valid reason to vote against him? Tell me why not.

[matt1122]

Yes, I know what Fact Check is, and the reason Fact Check is not the most reliable source is because ANYTHING can be proven true or false regardless of what the truth really is if you try hard enough - you can't get more flawed than that.

No, I don't think seeing your best friend killed due to Bush's monkey-ups is a valid reason to vote against him because blaming it on Bush is foolish. What I was pointing out, though, was that you essentially said that 1/4 of the people you have talked to's best friends were all killed as a result of Bush's monkey-ups.

[ChuckV986]

Yes, I know what Fact Check is, and the reason Fact Check is not the most reliable source is because ANYTHING can be proven true or false regardless of what the truth really is if you try hard enough - you can't get more flawed than that.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Maybe you mean both canidates lie? That's true. Something can't be proven true if it's wrong. That's just a plain and simple contradiction. You can mislead people into thinking something is true if it is false. Are you trying to say that factcheck.org is somehow biased? I don't see how you can.... Or are you trying to say that clearly all the Vietnam era accusations against Kerry are I'm dumb, and people just believe them because a bunch of privately funded liars have spent enough time trying to prove them true?

How about this. Read this: http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Disprove anything they say.

No, I don't think seeing your best friend killed due to Bush's monkey-ups is a valid reason to vote against him because blaming it on Bush is foolish. What I was pointing out, though, was that you essentially said that 1/4 of the people you have talked to's best friends were all killed as a result of Bush's monkey-ups.

Why is blaming Bush's monkey ups on him foolish? I think he should be responsible for his monkey-ups, just like you and I. He commited troops too early, not in enough numbers, and without a real plan to secure the country. More people died than should have as a result. That's his monkey-up. I can understand someone who saw their best freind's head blown off next to them in a war that seemed pointless to them, or certainly not worth the life of a loved-one, being angry.

You're right, I should have worded that better. Out of the people I've talked to in the military, at least 50% of them are voting for Kerry, but only a couple because they've had close friends die. Others have other reasons. Maybe that's because of the area I live in *shrug*

[matt1122]

Okay, I don't think this discussion can go anywhere, but I do want to demonstrate how fact check isn't as reliable as you think it is -

YES, they showed that the people saying Kerry LIED to get his medals were not completely believable and some people said it was the truth - but that wasn't the true issue - fact of the matter is Kerry whined over VERY minor injuries to get those medals, THAT is an act of cowardice, much worse than lying in my opinion if you are running for the position of commander in chief. Fact Check doesn't even touch on the middle ground - they disprove the extreme point of view - that Kerry lied - and ignore the middle ground which is where the real issue is - the fact that Kerry whined and begged and harassed his COs to get the recommendations for the medal and so on and so forth. I wish I had time to go back through everything I've found that pushes this fact, but I don't - if you search heavily on the matter you will come upon plenty of support for this.

Just like wth the lumber company incident they proved the bare facts - Kerry did not lie.

Lumber Company incident - they left out the fact that Bush doesn't control his own funds, didn't know he owned the stock in the lumber company and also that the lumber company stock was the result of owning a share in an oil company.

This incident - they leave out the accusation that Kerry exagerrated and whined and begged to get those medals for things not medal worthy.

They don't follow through on the issue, just on the facts, and it can be misleading.

[beachnut]

Yes.

Wasn't that the question? ;)

[sp5368]

You have to ask the question why has Kerry not opened up his military files which would clearly explain vietnam record,why has he not apoligized to the service men and woman who he hurt. I look at him and see a man who has know courage to stand on his own ,someone who must find fault to make him to look better.He is a pig with know feeling for others only his own gain but other than that I wouldn't vote for him

[sequestrum]

According to Cheney it's factcheck.com There are many internets though.

Edited October 29, 2004 by sequestrum

[Bay13]

it's factcheck.com

Ya, he like the rest of us know it now, and you repeating it like no one has heard the slip between org and com is to prove what? You must work in the Grand Canyon, as a liberal echo, let us know when you come up with some thoughts of your own.

[matt1122]

:lol: Internets.

George Bush is like that friend who always says something wrong and doesn't catch himself. Makes you slap yourself on the forhead and think "there go another 250 votes from stupid people who can't actually comprehend the issues so they vote based upon the presidents ability to pronounce nuclear and recognize that generally people say "the internet." (Despite the fact that there is more than one Network, which is why some do refer to it as the internets despite the fact that the internet is the composition of those networks.)