• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who cares whether or not Kerry was in a swift boat?

As a foreigner, watching the U.S. election coverage truly amuses me. People are making a big deal about John Kerry's swift boat actions, while the entire time Bush was standing in Texas somewhere *dangerously and heroically* guarding an Air Force base.

What a joke.

If American voters can't see through this sort of smokescreen and make their decision based on the issues of the election, there is something seriously wrong with their collective decision-making capabilities.

A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.

If you look at other world nations, they do not have the security problems that the U.S. currently has to deal with. Take Japan for example. They are every bit as wealthy as Americans are per capita, yet they don't have people constantly trying to blow them up and kill them. Look at their foreign policy. They have a very small military and are essentially isolationists. Surely they learned their lesson from WWII, and sadly, this is the lesson that I forsee America learning in the not-too-distant future.

I suppose the bottom line is that people need to look at the real issues of this election as opposed to the fluff and the hype. I remember America five years ago, your nation was immensely prosperous and peaceful. I look at it now, and I see a mess. You guys need to deal with the situation. "Once bit, twice shy" is the old saying. I would never re-elect someone who caused my nation such problems.
 
wow you must have thought too highly of the US. Do you even remember that Clinton-Monica thing? If you don't know us by now....
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
As a foreigner, watching the U.S. election coverage truly amuses me. People are making a big deal about John Kerry's swift boat actions, while the entire time Bush was standing in Texas somewhere *dangerously and heroically* guarding an Air Force base.

What a joke.

If American voters can't see through this sort of smokescreen and make their decision based on the issues of the election, there is something seriously wrong with their collective decision-making capabilities.

A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.

If you look at other world nations, they do not have the security problems that the U.S. currently has to deal with. Take Japan for example. They are every bit as wealthy as Americans are per capita, yet they don't have people constantly trying to blow them up and kill them. Look at their foreign policy. They have a very small military and are essentially isolationists. Surely they learned their lesson from WWII, and sadly, this is the lesson that I forsee America learning in the not-too-distant future.

I suppose the bottom line is that people need to look at the real issues of this election as opposed to the fluff and the hype. I remember America five years ago, your nation was immensely prosperous and peaceful. I look at it now, and I see a mess. You guys need to deal with the situation. "Once bit, twice shy" is the old saying. I would never re-elect someone who caused my nation such problems.

I could respond to your nonsensical drivel, but why bother.

p.s. You must be among the 60% of Canadian youth that think that the US is evil.
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.
Other nations need to realize that the US doesn't give a flying f&&^ what they think, just as other countries don't give a f*&^ what the US thinks. Other nations love the US when they can suck us dry and get something from us and any other time they flip us the bird.

If you look at other world nations, they do not have the security problems that the U.S. currently has to deal with. Take Japan for example. They are every bit as wealthy as Americans are per capita, yet they don't have people constantly trying to blow them up and kill them. Look at their foreign policy. They have a very small military and are essentially isolationists. Surely they learned their lesson from WWII, and sadly, this is the lesson that I forsee America learning in the not-too-distant future.
How about the sarin gas in the Tokyo subway? How about the Chechens in Russia killing children? Bombings in Jakarta? The Phillipines? South American countries have the highest incidents of terorism in the world. Please explain those "other world nations."

And, speaking of Japan, who was it that taught them their WW2 lesson and then rebuilt their country and gave it back to them? Yet people pronounce the US a failure at nation building?

The closer this election gets, the more apt I am to buy hip waders, because it's getting deep, real deep.
 
Originally posted by: maddogchen
wow you must have thought too highly of the US. Do you even remember that Clinton-Monica thing? If you don't know us by now....

Wow that was exactly what SickBeast was talking about. So Clinton got a bj? So what?
 
Originally posted by: Darthvoy
Originally posted by: maddogchen
wow you must have thought too highly of the US. Do you even remember that Clinton-Monica thing? If you don't know us by now....

Wow that was exactly what SickBeast was talking about. So Clinton got a bj? So what?

Bu he said he didn't....at first 😕
 
Originally posted by: Darthvoy
Originally posted by: maddogchen
wow you must have thought too highly of the US. Do you even remember that Clinton-Monica thing? If you don't know us by now....

Wow that was exactly what SickBeast was talking about. So Clinton got a bj? So what?

Heheh yeah, if he says he remembers 5 years ago the US was so prosperous and peaceful he shoulda remembered 5 years ago we were just like what we are now, bickering and blowing up trivial things. We haven't changed much. Why is he so shocked? selective memory? 🙂
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
As a foreigner, watching the U.S. election coverage truly amuses me. People are making a big deal about John Kerry's swift boat actions, while the entire time Bush was standing in Texas somewhere *dangerously and heroically* guarding an Air Force base.

What a joke.

If American voters can't see through this sort of smokescreen and make their decision based on the issues of the election, there is something seriously wrong with their collective decision-making capabilities.

Agreed. And I am American. And it's also sad that many, many will not vote. It also galls me that there are many people who wish to come to these American shores, some under extreme opression, and would literally give all they could so they could participate and vote, compared that to citizens who don't know or read up on the issues, don't know who their elected representatives are, and don't take the time to vote.


A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.

I also agree, but you need to look further. It's very likely that whoever wins, it won't be a large margin, and that means that nearly half (or more if you use the popular vote) will not have voted for the winner. So, whoever wins, there will be a large percentage of people who will not be happy and will have not supported the winner.

You also need to understand the amount of fear there is, and how that influences people's vote. There are quite a few people who believe that America can be made safe, and that America can defeat this enemy called 'terrorism', like they have defeated past enemies. There are also people who believe that if you apply your military and other goverment resources in large amounts and effectively, you can win 'peace' through 'war'. I don't believe this, and I think it will be proven out in the end. However, I think it may take some time before others get to this same point.

If you look at other world nations, they do not have the security problems that the U.S. currently has to deal with. Take Japan for example. They are every bit as wealthy as Americans are per capita, yet they don't have people constantly trying to blow them up and kill them. Look at their foreign policy. They have a very small military and are essentially isolationists. Surely they learned their lesson from WWII, and sadly, this is the lesson that I forsee America learning in the not-too-distant future.

I think your use of Japan here is a bad example. Japan does have their own domestic terrorist groups, and most Japanese believe they are under a real threat. As for their foreign policy, well of course -- the U.S. will come to their aid if threatened by China or North Korea. The point being - every country, regardless of policy and location can have a 'security' problem. If you don't believe this, talk to Spain, Austraila, Kenya and many others who have suffered terrorist attacks. Terrorism is just not a U.S. problem, it's a world-wide problem.

I suppose the bottom line is that people need to look at the real issues of this election as opposed to the fluff and the hype. I remember America five years ago, your nation was immensely prosperous and peaceful. I look at it now, and I see a mess. You guys need to deal with the situation. "Once bit, twice shy" is the old saying. I would never re-elect someone who caused my nation such problems.

Agreed. It's just that we are probably so used to sensationalism that we can't see the real issues. Fluff and hype are our speciality (that's why we're the king of Hollywood and reality-tv shows! 🙂 ). Most of America has a new epoch marker: Pre-9/11 and Post-9/11, and many would like to desperately get back to the Pre-9/11. Maybe we can win with war -- it generally has worked for us in the past, but I don't think it always works now. But can you win with peace, either? There is alot of support for the President just because he 'fought back against those people', even if people don't look or want to look at the specifics. It's too complex or too time-consuming to care. But, just the fact we tried to kick someone's behind and fought back is in itself it's own badge of honor. So, although I agree with you, and many others in America agree with you, others in the world need to understand that while common sense and reason may drive people to make decisions, many others make decisions based on fear (an that goes regardless of your political affilliation).

DanceMan
 
I suppose Japan was a poor example, and it definately could be argued that all nations are at equal risk to terrorism, regardless of foreign policy. Even France recently had two journalists captured and threatened with beheading.

The point I'm trying to make is that the aggressive foreign policy of the U.S. that has been in place since Eisenhower and WWII has created an enormous amount of international animousity directed towards your nation. This cannot be helpful in preventing terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I could respond to your nonsensical drivel, but why bother.

p.s. You must be among the 60% of Canadian youth that think that the US is evil.

Your first sentence is typical of someone who has no rebuttal to a statement which they do not agree with.

Your second sentence is offensive, presumptuous, and untrue.
 
No, I just don't feel like wasting my time.

You're right, it's "only" 40% of Canadian teens that think the US is evil. I stand corrected.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
No, I just don't feel like wasting my time.

You're right, it's "only" 40% of Canadian teens that think the US is evil. I stand corrected.

It was more the fact that you assumed I think the US is evil that disturbed me. In any event, you seem to make plenty of assumptions and are obviously incapable of intelligent discussion. Go thread crap on someone else please.
 
he indirectly made it the main focus by running on his service in vietnam. he invited the critics of his record by doing so.
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: Riprorin
No, I just don't feel like wasting my time.

You're right, it's "only" 40% of Canadian teens that think the US is evil. I stand corrected.

It was more the fact that you assumed I think the US is evil that disturbed me. In any event, you seem to make plenty of assumptions and are obviously incapable of intelligent discussion. Go thread crap on someone else please.

It's best to just ignore him. He can't have a discussion without attacking people he disagrees with. Instead of disagreeing with their point of view and comming up with a counter argument.


As for a change in foreign policy being needed. I couldn't agree more. It's been a tad aggressive the past years. The US needs to go back to being the fluffy teddy bear they once were. Because right now they're scaring off the wild life 😛
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
As a foreigner, watching the U.S. election coverage truly amuses me. People are making a big deal about John Kerry's swift boat actions, while the entire time Bush was standing in Texas somewhere *dangerously and heroically* guarding an Air Force base.

What a joke.

If American voters can't see through this sort of smokescreen and make their decision based on the issues of the election, there is something seriously wrong with their collective decision-making capabilities.

A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.

If you look at other world nations, they do not have the security problems that the U.S. currently has to deal with. Take Japan for example. They are every bit as wealthy as Americans are per capita, yet they don't have people constantly trying to blow them up and kill them. Look at their foreign policy. They have a very small military and are essentially isolationists. Surely they learned their lesson from WWII, and sadly, this is the lesson that I forsee America learning in the not-too-distant future.

I suppose the bottom line is that people need to look at the real issues of this election as opposed to the fluff and the hype. I remember America five years ago, your nation was immensely prosperous and peaceful. I look at it now, and I see a mess. You guys need to deal with the situation. "Once bit, twice shy" is the old saying. I would never re-elect someone who caused my nation such problems.

Where are you getting your election coverage from? If you're getting it from the mainstream media, it truly amazes me too.

Are you a Dan Blather fan?
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: SickBeast
As a foreigner, watching the U.S. election coverage truly amuses me. People are making a big deal about John Kerry's swift boat actions, while the entire time Bush was standing in Texas somewhere *dangerously and heroically* guarding an Air Force base.

What a joke.

If American voters can't see through this sort of smokescreen and make their decision based on the issues of the election, there is something seriously wrong with their collective decision-making capabilities.

A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.

If you look at other world nations, they do not have the security problems that the U.S. currently has to deal with. Take Japan for example. They are every bit as wealthy as Americans are per capita, yet they don't have people constantly trying to blow them up and kill them. Look at their foreign policy. They have a very small military and are essentially isolationists. Surely they learned their lesson from WWII, and sadly, this is the lesson that I forsee America learning in the not-too-distant future.

I suppose the bottom line is that people need to look at the real issues of this election as opposed to the fluff and the hype. I remember America five years ago, your nation was immensely prosperous and peaceful. I look at it now, and I see a mess. You guys need to deal with the situation. "Once bit, twice shy" is the old saying. I would never re-elect someone who caused my nation such problems.

Where are you getting your election coverage from? If you're getting it from the mainstream media, it truly amazes me too.

Are you a Dan Blather fan?

He does seem to have a tad distorted view of the US, i'll give you that. But still, you could have at least been polite and discussed the issue, instead of calling what he said 'drivel'.
 
Originally posted by: JackStorm
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: SickBeast
As a foreigner, watching the U.S. election coverage truly amuses me. People are making a big deal about John Kerry's swift boat actions, while the entire time Bush was standing in Texas somewhere *dangerously and heroically* guarding an Air Force base.

What a joke.

If American voters can't see through this sort of smokescreen and make their decision based on the issues of the election, there is something seriously wrong with their collective decision-making capabilities.

A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.

If you look at other world nations, they do not have the security problems that the U.S. currently has to deal with. Take Japan for example. They are every bit as wealthy as Americans are per capita, yet they don't have people constantly trying to blow them up and kill them. Look at their foreign policy. They have a very small military and are essentially isolationists. Surely they learned their lesson from WWII, and sadly, this is the lesson that I forsee America learning in the not-too-distant future.

I suppose the bottom line is that people need to look at the real issues of this election as opposed to the fluff and the hype. I remember America five years ago, your nation was immensely prosperous and peaceful. I look at it now, and I see a mess. You guys need to deal with the situation. "Once bit, twice shy" is the old saying. I would never re-elect someone who caused my nation such problems.

Where are you getting your election coverage from? If you're getting it from the mainstream media, it truly amazes me too.

Are you a Dan Blather fan?

He does seem to have a tad distorted view of the US, i'll give you that. But still, you could have at least been polite and discussed the issue, instead of calling what he said 'drivel'.

You're right. SickBeast, I apologize for calling your distorted views of the US "drivel".

I've seen Canadian news coverage. Do yourself a favor and consider some alternative news sources to get a more balanced view.
 
he indirectly made it the main focus by running on his service in vietnam. he invited the critics of his record by doing so.

I'm not even sure it's that as much as just a result of the vetting process. The press tears into every candidate's background, it's not like they singled him out for a full anal exam of his time in the service, it's just turned out to paradoxically be where his weak underbelly was. If they had found something else in his background first then they would have launched the feeding frenzy on that and that's what we'd be talking about now rather than his Vietnam service.
 
Riprorin, until you are suddenly capable of intelligent discussion I am going to completely ignore you. This was even advised to me by other members. Your style of posting is classic, and believe me I've seen plenty of it on these forums over the years. Do us all a favour and find another message board to ruin.

/ignored.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: SickBeast
A second point I would like to make is that if the American people re-elect Bush, they are basically stating to the world that they approve of his actions over the past 4 years. This will surely infuriate the nations which are already having diplomatic issues with the U.S., and will pose more of a security threat than Kerry ever would with his "indeciciveness". I would rather have someone with combat experience leading my nation militarily than someone who cowardly stayed at home and essentially did absolutely nothing. Bush has sent over 1,000 soldiers to their graves and countless others into horrible situations, without actually realizing the gravity of what he is doing.
Other nations need to realize that the US doesn't give a flying f&&^ what they think, just as other countries don't give a f*&^ what the US thinks. Other nations love the US when they can suck us dry and get something from us and any other time they flip us the bird.

Not giving a fvck about the rest of the world is exactly the problem with US foreign policy. We live in a world community, and we have to be good neighbors. We only engage in things that will greatly benefit the US, else it is deemed unworthy, or unfair. I think we need to learn to give a sh!t about the rest of the world and stop alienating ourselves with unilateral action, because you never know when you are going to need help from your friends.
 
Originally posted by: glenn1
he indirectly made it the main focus by running on his service in vietnam. he invited the critics of his record by doing so.

I'm not even sure it's that as much as just a result of the vetting process. The press tears into every candidate's background, it's not like they singled him out for a full anal exam of his time in the service, it's just turned out to paradoxically be where his weak underbelly was. If they had found something else in his background first then they would have launched the feeding frenzy on that and that's what we'd be talking about now rather than his Vietnam service.

The press has teared into Kerry's service record? Huh. When has that happened?

The SwiftVets teared into Kerry and the mainstream press has ignored and marginalized them, by and large.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: glenn1
he indirectly made it the main focus by running on his service in vietnam. he invited the critics of his record by doing so.

I'm not even sure it's that as much as just a result of the vetting process. The press tears into every candidate's background, it's not like they singled him out for a full anal exam of his time in the service, it's just turned out to paradoxically be where his weak underbelly was. If they had found something else in his background first then they would have launched the feeding frenzy on that and that's what we'd be talking about now rather than his Vietnam service.

The press has teared into Kerry's service record? Huh. When has that happened?

The SwiftVets teared into Kerry and the mainstream press has ignored and marginalized them, by and large.

The press didn't ignore the SwiftVets. The allegations by that group were quickly put into question by others who served with Kerry, so they were essentially discredited. I wouldn't say that the media ignored it; it was all I heard about for a few days.
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Riprorin, until you are suddenly capable of intelligent discussion I am going to completely ignore you. This was even advised to me by other members. Your style of posting is classic, and believe me I've seen plenty of it on these forums over the years. Do us all a favour and find another message board to ruin.

/ignored.

Does this mean that you don't accept my apology?
 
Originally posted by: trilks
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: glenn1
he indirectly made it the main focus by running on his service in vietnam. he invited the critics of his record by doing so.

I'm not even sure it's that as much as just a result of the vetting process. The press tears into every candidate's background, it's not like they singled him out for a full anal exam of his time in the service, it's just turned out to paradoxically be where his weak underbelly was. If they had found something else in his background first then they would have launched the feeding frenzy on that and that's what we'd be talking about now rather than his Vietnam service.

The press has teared into Kerry's service record? Huh. When has that happened?

The SwiftVets teared into Kerry and the mainstream press has ignored and marginalized them, by and large.

The press didn't ignore the SwiftVets. The allegations by that group were quickly put into question by others who served with Kerry, so they were essentially discredited. I wouldn't say that the media ignored it; it was all I heard about for a few days.

What? 250 vets who served with Kerry have spoken out against Kerry vs 6 who support him. Or how about the 17 officers in the famous group picture with Kerry, only 3 of which support him.

Can you seriously say that the mainstream media has dug into Kerry's service record?

Where's the clamour for him to authorize the release of his medical records? That would resolve the issue about his Purple Hearts.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Does this mean that you don't accept my apology?

:roll:

My heart bleeds for you. :brokenheart:

Do you seriously call that an apology or were you being sarcastic? I honestly can't tell; you continued to mindlessly insult my viewpoint throughout it. It would be like me punching you in the face. I would then apologize, saying "Riprorin, I apologize for punching your already distorted face. Do yourself a favour and look into some reconstructive surgery, and change your political viewpoint while you're at it."

Why are we discussing apologies? This is stupid. Seriously dude, if you want pointless and mindless conversation, check out IRC.
 
Back
Top