What SCARES me even MORE than TERRORISM...

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
I believe the biggest threat to America is socialism and nanny-state laws forced by rampant lawsuits and busybodies taking away our freedoms .

I guess it's all in who's bull is being gored.

It also seems that the older one gets, the more pragmatic and less idealistic they get.

Therefore, as bad as Bush may be, I cannot bring myself to vote for a person with a vote history left of Ted Kennedy, and an ambulance chaser who got rich off of junk science lawsuits.

To each their own, I guess.

I'm not idealist either but I can't vote for a man who recklessly invades another country which had the effect of actually helping our real enemies, Al Qaeda, by isolating us from our allies and by making us look like agressors in the eyes of the masses of Muslims in the M.E. which has helped with Al Qaeda's recruiting and resulted in growing support among the Muslim Masses.

How many terrorist attacks in this country since Bush took action? How many happened while we buried our head in the sand? Hmm.. Answer this Red, how many LESS attacks than zero should Bush have had to make his war on terror a success?

You make claims like 'He helped our enemies, Al Qaeda has grown, etc'.. yet there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE what so ever of that occuring. If anything, the opposite is true.. ZERO attacks since 9/11.. NONE.. ZILCH.. NADA... What else would he have had to have done to make it a success for you? Somehow make it so the WTC's rebuilt themselves magically?

Give me a break.

How many attacks on American Soil from Al Qaeda Prior to 9/11? 1 on the same complex back in 93. That was 8 years prior to 9/11 yet you often say that Clinton didn't do a good job on the war against terror. Of course the first one was not near the scale of the one on 9/11 under Bushes watch. Granted he was just in office for over a year and wasn't prepared. BTW although the attacks weren't against us there have been more attacks from Al Qaeda around the world since we went on the offensive against them. The Dub definately has not made the world a safer place. Now if he hadn't of gotten distracted with his ill conceived excellent adventure in Iraq we might have been able to crush Al Qaeda!

I didn't say around the world did I? Its clear that Al Qaeda can run around and do whatever they want in worthless countries like Spain.. Europe hasn't wanted to deal with a problem of theirs in the past 75 years.. As long as Europe continues to give in to Al Qaeda's wishes, they will continue to be attacked. WE have not been attacked since we started dealing with the problem.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
I believe the biggest threat to America is socialism and nanny-state laws forced by rampant lawsuits and busybodies taking away our freedoms .

I guess it's all in who's bull is being gored.

It also seems that the older one gets, the more pragmatic and less idealistic they get.

Therefore, as bad as Bush may be, I cannot bring myself to vote for a person with a vote history left of Ted Kennedy, and an ambulance chaser who got rich off of junk science lawsuits.

To each their own, I guess.

I'm not idealist either but I can't vote for a man who recklessly invades another country which had the effect of actually helping our real enemies, Al Qaeda, by isolating us from our allies and by making us look like agressors in the eyes of the masses of Muslims in the M.E. which has helped with Al Qaeda's recruiting and resulted in growing support among the Muslim Masses.

How many terrorist attacks in this country since Bush took action? How many happened while we buried our head in the sand? Hmm.. Answer this Red, how many LESS attacks than zero should Bush have had to make his war on terror a success?

You make claims like 'He helped our enemies, Al Qaeda has grown, etc'.. yet there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE what so ever of that occuring. If anything, the opposite is true.. ZERO attacks since 9/11.. NONE.. ZILCH.. NADA... What else would he have had to have done to make it a success for you? Somehow make it so the WTC's rebuilt themselves magically?

Give me a break.

Oh here we go with the Bush has made us safer crap... PULEAAASSEEE

How many Americans have died since 9/11 in terrorist attacks in the United States? Absolutely NO evidence exists to indicate we are in more danger NOW than we were pre-9/11. Simply saying it does not make it so. FACTS are there have been ZERO terrorist attacks here since Bush started his war on terror.. THOSE are the facts.. the rest is just speculation.

So you are giving credit to Bush then for preventing any attacks since 9/11. Going by that logic then you are saying the Bush is responsible for not preventing 9/11. K. Thanks. Even I don't susbscibe to that logic.

Absoutely NO evidence exists that we are any safer from danger NOW than we were pre-9/11.

Bush supports need to get off this Bush has made us safer and Kerry will make us weaker. Please cite evidence that supports Kerry will make this country and less/more safe.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

And again with "the Dub and his network of nefarious Neocons" ? :roll: Can you actually type that with a straight face?

No I cringe when ever I think about them leading our country to hell in a handbasket.

I don't believe for a moment that Bush "manipulated" the American people into supporting a war on Iraq. I would be willing to bet if we had a pure, majority-wins vote over what to do with the entire Middle East a year or 2 ago, the decision would have been made to nuke the entire area, repeatedly. That was a prevailing sentiment held by a "lot" of "average" Americans. Fortunately, we are NOT ruled by popular-vote, and we have elected officials, whose responsibility it is to act in a rational manner with respect to the country's people and the rest of the world. Americans screamed for blood, and the government answered by sending a very precise military strike into the heart of the matter and took out a very detrimental world leader. Was it a less-than-perfect solution? Yes. Would it have been better to get Osama, rather than Sadam? Yes. Was is an "unjust" war where Bush "sent our children to die for no reason other than to line the pockets of Dick Cheney?" No.

First of all I'm not saying that we went to war to line the pockets of guys like Cheney (unlike the war in Viet Nam) What I am saying is that they had a pre-ordained agenda to take out Hussien before 9/11 and the attack gave them the means to sell it to us based on faulty and what I believe to be cherry picked intel.

As for Americans screaming for blood, that blood lust was satisfied with the retalitory attack on Al Qaeda and their supporters and hosts, the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Dub and his crew however siezed on the shock and horror of 9/11 and presented a horrific scenario of Hussien and Iraq continuing what the Taliban started which has now been shown to be nothing short of unadulterated Bullsh!t. I can assure you that most Americans at the time could have given a sh!t about the Iraqis themselves (I actually don't believe that most Americans today really give a good God Damn about them)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Todd33

I cannot bring myself to vote for a person with a vote history left of Ted Kennedy

Wow, you ate the talking poits hook line and sinker. That crap alalysys was for 2003 when he was absent meny votes while campaigning. His overall record is not that left. One analsys showed the person with the most extreme voting record of the four was Cheney, he was so far right he made David Duke say "whoa"

My point stands. His voting history is very far left and is far more socialist than I would want for any leader. I believe the biggest threat to our freedom right now is socialism, and I will vote against any leader who supports it more than the opposition.

That's MY opinion. You may not like it and that's fine.

Dude, as left as he may be, the Republican Congress would prevent him from inacting any of the things you fear that he would. On the other hand, with a Republican Congress and a Republican President who is being handled by the far Right whose going to prevent them from running roughshod?

We had that for the last four years. And the only thing he got passed was a tax cut (a much needed one IMO). No religious right laws.

Hell, the Patriot Act was voted for by a majority of dems as well, so we wont count that.

I just see the left as a bigger threat to my economic, and therefore social freedom than the right at this point. Because, as I said before, socialism has always led to a loss of freedoms in this country.

You know, if the left would drop their socialist goals and end their big mother nanny-state laws, I would jump on their wagon.

Not for lack of trying. It is ridiculous to deny the fact that Bush has been pushing the agenda of the religious right. A proposed constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage? How about this protecting a fetus bullsh*t trying to overturn Roe v. Wade? Thank god he didn't manage to pass any religious right laws, but it certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

The patriot act passed in a time when the United States was very much united. A good leader could have kept up that sentiment. An unskilled leader, such as GWB, squanders a great opportunity to move America in the right direction and divides the country more than anyone can recall in recent history.

Bigger threat to the economy? How about a $200 billion dollar debt for an optional war that we and our children, and our children's children will have to deal with? Is that economically sound policy? To pay for this war, every man woman and child in the United States would have to cough up around $800 bucks. Does that help your economic wellbeing? How bout instead, spending that same $800 per person to give everyone who needs it health care. But then, would you feel less elite, b/c other people have health care too?

You talk about FREEDOMS. The socialists are taking away your freedoms? What freedoms would those be? Homeland security and the patriot act are taking away more freedoms than any drop in the economy would cause. Let the damn thing sunset.

You missed the point. Red claimed that a majority Republican congress and a Republican president would be able to get their whole far right agenda passed. I showed they did not.

The fact that those religious right laws did not pass shows that the religious right has nearly zero effect on our rights and freedoms.

Healthcare is not a right. Healthcare requires the labor of another. Ayn Rand said it best:

"No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave."

Socialism has cost us many rights and freedoms. Tobacco taxes, bans on smoking in private businesses, health taxes in general (bad food taxes are next), loss of economic freedom, nanny-state laws that restrict our freedoms. Probably a whole host of laws you agree with. But each and every one is a lost freedom or burden upon a people who are supposed to be free. And each and every one is tied directly to socialist policy. "such and such costs taxpayers so much money-- it must be taxed or banned" If taxpayers weren't paying for it through socialist programs, we wouldn't have lost those freedoms.

I have not lost a single freedom to the Homeland Security act or the Patriot Act. I DO fear their abuse, and therefore oppose them, however neither has cost me any freedoms or rights.

 

[Corn]

....only you liberal conservatives.......

Eh? *scratches head*

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Corn

....only you liberal conservatives.......

Eh? *scratches head*

I think he meant neocons! I'm a neocon, a liberal who has moved over to more conservative viewpoints. :laugh:

 

[Madcowz]

How many terrorist attacks in this country since Bush took action? How many happened while we buried our head in the sand? Hmm.. Answer this Red, how many LESS attacks than zero should Bush have had to make his war on terror a success?

You make claims like 'He helped our enemies, Al Qaeda has grown, etc'.. yet there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE what so ever of that occuring. If anything, the opposite is true.. ZERO attacks since 9/11.. NONE.. ZILCH.. NADA... What else would he have had to have done to make it a success for you? Somehow make it so the WTC's rebuilt themselves magically?

Yes, their ATTACKS HAD elevated post 9/11, only you don't know that simply because they were not successful. I have personally spoken to an FBI agent who told me there are SO many attacks that we don't know about that are thwarted all the time. You have to give credit to where it's deserved; the FBI and the men who work around the clock keeping us safe have been doing their jobs. 9/11 never should have happened, and partly it was a blunder on the part of our intelligence agencies as WELL as president Bush himself who was warned of the attack but never saw it as being a serious threat. We have since then learned from our mistakes and have been much more catious, hence that is why you haven't seen more attacks. I have NO reason to believe our country is safer with BUSH than Kerry, and in fact, I believe we may be in MORE danger with Bush in office.

Terrorism was NEVER a huge problem within the US UNTIL the Bush administration, and now all of a sudden it's a big issue. You know why? Bush only fueled the fire, creating further hatred towards the United States. I for one adhear to the philosophy that if you anger the beast, he will only aggress further. I think Bush's actions, and the way in which he went to war with Iraq, provoked terrorists more than ever. It gave them even more reason to believe that we, the United States, are evil. If you ask me, I think we will be in more trouble with Bush IN office than with him out, simply because terrorists hate BUSH himself perhaps even more than they hate the US.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
I believe the biggest threat to America is socialism and nanny-state laws forced by rampant lawsuits and busybodies taking away our freedoms .

I guess it's all in who's bull is being gored.

It also seems that the older one gets, the more pragmatic and less idealistic they get.

Therefore, as bad as Bush may be, I cannot bring myself to vote for a person with a vote history left of Ted Kennedy, and an ambulance chaser who got rich off of junk science lawsuits.

To each their own, I guess.

I'm not idealist either but I can't vote for a man who recklessly invades another country which had the effect of actually helping our real enemies, Al Qaeda, by isolating us from our allies and by making us look like agressors in the eyes of the masses of Muslims in the M.E. which has helped with Al Qaeda's recruiting and resulted in growing support among the Muslim Masses.

Bingo!! Give that man a cupee doll.

The time to take Saddam out was when he invaded Kuwait. We had the army ther and the support from the country. Bush Sr. blinked first I guess. I think he was just eyeing the coming election and thought it was a such a great victory that it would get him reelected. Now for his son to come by 10 years later and try to finish the job just isn't the same thing. Especially withour the support of ALL of our allies. Now we are seen as the agressors. The Bush's botched it. GWB doesn't deserve to be reelected. End of story.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I don't think Bush -deserves- another term and I want to see how someone else will do.

Kerry is not my ideal candidate.

One candidate must win.

I will vote for Kerry.

If Kerry messes up, I'll vote for someone else in 2008. Let George come back and try again then. He seems like a decent guy. For now, he had his turn, and I'm not a fan of what he did with it. With politics, you've got to take a hit on one side to advance your cause on the other. I'm willing to vote for my non-ideal candidate because the alternative is unacceptable.

Bush's record hasn't made me overly proud of being an American. I want to be proud of being American. I'm willing to give Kerry a shot.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
I don't think Bush -deserves- another term and I want to see how someone else will do.

Kerry is not my ideal candidate.

One candidate must win.

I will vote for Kerry.

If Kerry messes up, I'll vote for someone else in 2008. Let George come back and try again then. He seems like a decent guy. For now, he had his turn, and I'm not a fan of what he did with it. With politics, you've got to take a hit on one side to advance your cause on the other. I'm willing to vote for my non-ideal candidate because the alternative is unacceptable.

Bush's record hasn't made me overly proud of being an American. I want to be proud of being American. I'm willing to give Kerry a shot.

Exactly my sentiments. My vote for Kerry is more for getting this country moving in a different direction then thinking he is a great leader. Who know what kind of leader he will turn out to be?? Elections are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you will get.

 

[Miramonti]

Its disgusting that so many people want to vote to send Bush back to Texas.


The world would be far safer imo to vote to send him here.