WHY WE Support BUSH

S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I gotta agree with Isty - the only thing Magic has in common with D&D is that it's set in a fantasy environment. The "roleplaying" part (and honestly, who really thinks themself as a mage casting spells nowadays?) is more like Mortal Kombat or a similar arcade fighting game, except instead of fighting, you cast spells to gain your victory.

To tell the truth, it's really in a class by itself since it invented the collectible card game genre, but if you had to make comparisons, the arcade-like one is what I'd go with.
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Train,
Drilling for oil in Alaska isn't a bad thing. Especially not the way it's going to be done. Anyone who is in favor of State's Rights has to support the decision to drill, because Alaska made it themselves. They've decided not to drill direct, but instead to drill from oil rigs out in the ocean last I heard. Then, you get the oil, and don't have to disturb the Preserve.

I've never seen the war in Iraq as a means of political gain. If you want to go by the polls, it never has been. Even before the war began, the polls said that the American people weren't in favor of the war. What kind of ditz would you have to be to look at a poll that says people aren't in favor of something and determine that they somehow REALLY want you to do it anyway? If anything, the invasion of Iraq was an unknown as to how it would effect his chances for re-election.

WMD, did he have them, or not? I don't know, and I doubt we'll ever really know for sure. I seriously doubt that anyone would bet their life on it either way. But, there's one thing that folks seem to forget when they begin to criticize the WMD argument. Hussein himself could have removed that doubt by simply complying with the resolutions that he BEGGED for after the first Gulf War.

Hussein begged the U.N. to hold the U.S. back after the liberation of Kuwait. In exchange, he agreed to allow U.N. inspectors into Iraq to oversee the destruction and disposal of his entire arsenal of WMD, as well as long range weapons. If I'm not mistaken, he wasn't supposed to even have a missile that was capable of travelling over 500 miles. He also agreed to provide a detailed and up to date accounting of the progress of said disposals, and keep it readily available for inspection at any time.

Through the 12 years following the end of the first Gulf War, Hussein repeatedly thumbed his nose at the U.N. by kicking the inspectors out of Iraq and continuing to violate the resolutions passed against him. When the intelligence reports came in from all over the world, as well as from our own people that Hussein still had WMD and may possibly be developing nuclear weapons, Bush tried to follow the U.N. resolutions first. He simply asked Hussein to provide that record of disposal in full detail just as he had agreed to do. When the record was found to be grossly incomplete, and over 1200 weapons were unaccounted for, exactly what was he supposed to think?

Still, Bush gave him yet another chance. Step down and surrender, and there will be no war. The man broke rules that he begged to be given to follow, but in a last ditch effort to avoid going to war, he's asked to simply vacate his position and get out of Iraq. When he doesn't, he leaves us two choices. Sit back and hope he's just got a bad bookkeeper, or go in and remove him once and for all, putting an end to any danger he may pose. With all your advisors, including people who disagree with you at every turn politically, democrats, and anyone else who looks at what you're given for intelligence against Iraq tell you that he has them, and he can't even produce the evidence saying he doesn't that HE agreed to be willing to provide at a moment's notice.........what would you have done? Just curious.

Gay marriage........man, I couldn't care less if gay people want to get married. It's not a matter of acceptance of gay people, because I don't feel like I have to accept anything. Especially something that I see as being completely unnatural. I just don't see as it would hurt me or the people I care about if they get married. I don't see as it would hurt anyone for that matter. So, on that front, I disagree with banning gay marriage.

I'll be glad to see the end of the debate on the Florida votes put to rest, although I suspect it never will be. Not that it matters that every major newspaper and news organization sent people down to Florida and they found no wrong-doing had taken place. That is, except for the fact that it was announced on TV that the polls were closed in Florida because some bumbling idiots in the newsrooms forgot that Florida has TWO time-zones and that the polls were still open on the West coast for another hour. Alas, no matter how many times you hammer it in that the votes have been counted, and that Gore actually lost by a LARGER margin than was originally reported, people will continue to argue that the election was stolen. I believe they would, even if they could count the votes themselves.

Oh, Spidey........

Games I play are Wordox and Word Yacht, as well as any kind of poker. Especially like No Limit Hold 'em.
 
T

train

Guest
I didn't say anything about drilling for oil... or the other stuff oyu mentioned...did I?...:confused:
 
F

FREEDOM

Guest
I was at the Kerry rally's and those dems were shoving us and spitting on us. There was about 5,000-6,000 Kerry supporters. They were so violent to us and I just keep on taking the pushes and these kerry people just kept on runing there mouths. I know the difference between us.
 
C

conservative_infidel

Guest
Drilling for oil in Alaska isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure it isn't a good thing.

In recent polls conducted by reasonable people at touchyfeely.com and animals-r-people2.com, one could determine that we must protect the living room of the Caribou and other such environmentally critical, fur bearing beasts.

The poll reveals that if we disturb the walkways of said furry beasts, we would disturb their worldview and chance for survival in this digital age. Who then would care for these as they question their beast gender or ability to get out and find food?

Just like in 2001 and 2010: A Space Odyssey, they would change because of their lack of ability to deal with the monolith and their new life to one side of it or the other.

However, the poll also shows that already gay beasts would be better able to cope because they would then live in two Anwar's.

But what of the beasts in the middle?

The polls indicate that these may not know where in the society of beasts to reside--where a majority of beasts reside left or right of the monolith. Also that the ability to recognize simple and plain consequences of residing left or right of the monolith may become compromised.

The poll suggests that these beasts may not able to deal with this divide and perhaps roam aimlessly among the greater population of beasts as undecided beasts, sometimes living to the left or right of the monolith.

It is a dilemma. But what are the alternatives?

I would argue that depending on most (if not all) of our oil to come from foreign sources is perhaps the far better alternative. My reasons are simple:

1. As long as we have the U.N., the U.S. would be in a less stressful position of having to make tough decisions. The U.N. could make them for us. All the country’s leaders need to do is create an economic and military infrastructure based on foreign oil dependence and viola . . . we live happily ever after.

2. We could cut our military troop numbers. Because there would obviously be no need to question the authority and decisions of the U.N., the Security Council and strength of U.N. troops will mostly manage and defend the foriegn affairs of our country.

3. We could take the savings from military spending and reroute these funds into special Caribou programs.

Perhaps there are more and better reasons, but leave it to others to consider these. But as for me, the choice is quite clear.

Infidel :D
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Yep, just as crazy as you are C.I. That is, assuming I'm reading the proper amount of sarcasm into your reply :D
 
C

conservative_infidel

Guest
Originally posted by Oversoul
Please don't make this another gay animal thread...
Click to expand...
Okay. No gay animals. But I am interested in talking to Turtle about his views and tolorances about the whole gay agenda in general.
. . . Turtle?:)
 
S

sickandtired2004

Guest
People are against Bush not because he had the guts to stand up to the Taliban and Al-Queda, It is what he did after the invasion of Afhganistan.

He pick and chose a war with a country that was convenient. He may have had good intentions and thought that a war with Iraq was the way to stabilize the Middle East. If that was the case he should have used that reason to go to war.

The other reason is because Republicans have no regard for fact or truth when campaigning.

They call John Kerry a "Flip Flopper", what about this Flip Flop

: " we are going to war because Irag has WMD"

no wait a minute, because , " he kills his own people"

no wait a minute " because he may be linked to terrorist"

ahh you get my point,

Bush and his close advisors are crooks, period.
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Are you really that mis-informed, or are you just pulling some talking points off some liberal website?
1. It is a KNOWN and proven FACT that Saddam Hussein had WMD at the end of the Gulf War.
2. When Bush Sr. wanted to go on into Baghdad and finish the job of eliminating Hussein, the U.N. begged him not to.
3. The U.N. passed resolutions against Iraq and Hussein himself demanding that he disarm his WMD, allow U.N. inspectors to oversee the disarmament process, and keep a detailed record of every WMD destroyed including how it was done. Remember that part, because it's important.
4. Time and again, Hussein violated the sanctions and resolutions levied against him by the U.N. by kicking the inspectors out of Iraq. During these periods of abscense, nobody knows what was going on, but we do know that he was in direct violation of the sanctions that he himself BEGGED for.
5. After 12 years, and 16 or so useless resolutions, he was finally asked to account for his WMD. Alas, that "detailed record" came in 1200 weapons short of the original count that the U.N. inspectors submitted after they took inventory at the end of the Gulf War.

Bush gave Hussein a chance to explain where those weapons went and he either couldn't or just wouldn't. Even at that point, he was given YET ANOTHER chance to avert war by simply resigning his position and leaving the country with his sons. Again, he refused to comply, apparently feeling that after breaking resolution after resolution, and basically thumbing his nose at the U.N. for 12 years, that he deserved no punishment.

Now, you tell me, if you were the President of the United States, and this LUNATIC gives you an inventory with 1200 weapons missing.......do you believe him when he says "Really, we disposed of them, honest. Would I lie to you?"

By the way, if you have 2500 Al-qaeda training camps in your country, and you are paying $25K to the families of every suicide bomber that carries out a mission, there is no "may be linked to a terrorist". You ARE linked and deserve everything you get.

I'm truly amazed at how many looney tunes people out there are believing things like Bush dreamed up a war with Iraq before he was even elected. Like he was just sitting around on the ranch down in Crawford, TX one night and says "Laura, I think I'll run for president and start me a war with Iraq. Hell, while I'm at it, I'll kick the hell out of Afghanistan too. Just for giggles." That's just as crazy as all the theories that John Kerry did all his home video re-enactments and got all those medals back in '68 to use in a presidential campaign in '04. Hell, I KNOW that isn't true, cause he'd have changed his mind for sure by now about even wanting to be president..........then again, he could have changed it back again 'cause the wind is always shifting directions. :D

I swear if you start telling me that Kerry doesn't really flip flop and that it's all a partisan attack on him, I'll eat you alive.
 
M

mythosx

Guest
ok so you got some valid points....but the fact is after all this...they havent turned up any WMD so what do you have to say on his behalf now? Bottom line no WMD means your **** out of luck.
 
C

conservative_infidel

Guest
No . . . Iraq possessed WMD, failed to account for WMD, used WMD, and kicked out, rerouted and delayed UNSCUM, and funneled billions into countries who blocked a use of force resolution on the UN Security Council.

Now this goes for all you Bush bashing, Iraq seething Libs who can't see past the SUPPOSED Florida re-count debacle (which Bush came out on top regardless of the number of recounts OR Supreme Court decision).

What would you do post 9-11 if you were the Commander in Chief?

Would you sit there and wait to see what would happen? Well we did and your boy, William Jefferson Clinton, DID NOTHING.

Would you wait to see if Saddam really had WMD but merely stashed these in the middle of the desert only to be found by GPS.

Or perhaps Saddam was simply funneling WMD to Al Qaida types across the boarder?

Would you believe that Saddam had truly turned over a new leaf and was a peaceful leader with no desire to "reach out and touch someone" (i.e., Terahn, Dahran, Bahrain, Kuwait City, Jersuelum, or Northern Iraq)?

I know, maybe you could try to get the members of the UN Security Council to approve a 17th, 20th, or 30 resolutions that said everything and meant nothing?

Why is it with you who are so mentally challenged that when it comes to seeing the difference between black and white, simply see blue.

Party loyalty on the left has caused a liberal stigma to be embraced, supported, upheld, and sustained beyond all reasonable thinking.

I stand on this premise: That if the Kerry and Bush roles were reversed, Kerry would have responded as Dubya did and continue on the GWB path as long as his base were in for the ride. I also believe that it is only because Dubya owned the position first that Kerry has found the need to distinguish himself as something different.

Example:
Pre primaries—Kerry is pro war.
Enter the primaries--Kerry is pro war.
Enter Howard Dean--Kerry is now the, "Anti-war candidate."
Enter George Bush--Kerry is now Pro War but would have done everything differently.

John Kerry is a poll driven, situational ethicist ticking according to what is politically convenient. He is the ultimate political ethicist (how's that for an oxy-moron).

I would say that a majority of American's will, if not already do, see right through the man who has chosen to wave his own Vietnam flag but lacks the moral and ethical foundation to base any decisions from.

Kerry makes decisions based on what is convenient and expedient for JOHN KERRY and nothing else.

This is the reason Zell Miller, who coudn't stand the sight of his own party any longer, spoke as the RNC keynote speaker and ripped the Dems a hole large enough for a B52 to fly through.

Now again let me ask you, or any other left-winger seething at the thought of a Bush relection:

What would you do post 9-11 if you were the Commander in Chief given all the circumstances? Would would you be willing to bank everything on Saddam having and sharing WMD or not?

And don't even go to the Bush lied mantra. We all know that is an extreme reach by the drunkard, Senator Kennedy, for a position to launch the man who links everything to Vietnam. :mad:
 
B

Bobby_103

Guest
Alright, the very statement "they havent turned up any WMD so what do you have to say on his behalf now? Bottom line no WMD means your **** out of luck." is, in itself, a falsehood.
Rockets tipped with Sarin gas qualifies doesn't it? Roadside bombs loaded with Sarin qualify, don't they? And just what IS yellow-cake uranium used for anyway?

I know, I know, a few rockets hardly qualifies as a stockpile. But, the fact is, he was ordered to disarm after the Gulf War.....COMPLETELY. I guess we're supposed to believe that those few rockets are all he had left. Perhaps mementos of days gone by, eh? Yeah, I'm sure you'd bet your life on it. I KNOW John Kerry will.

Oh, and conservative infidel, that's a very true and factual accounting of Kerry's war/anti-war stances, but it's far from my favorite flip flop.
While speaking to the United Auto Worker's Union in Detroit, Kerry tells the crowd that he and his family are huge supporters of theirs. He claims that they own 27 SUV's as well as other cars.

Just a few days later, it's Earth Day and Kerry is speaking to a crowd of tree huggers. He goes on and on about how gas guzzling cars and the SUV craze is depleting the environment of it's oil supply. Then, the magic statement.......he claims that he doesn't even own any SUV's!!

It's my favorite because it was totally unneccesary. It's not like people were clamoring to bash him for owning a bunch of SUV's and killing the environment. He just had to say what the crowd wanted to hear. What an insult to the people who sat at both of these speeches.
 
C

Chaos Turtle

Guest
Howdy, ci (I hope it's all right to abbreviate your name that way).

I only get on sporadically at the moment, most often on the weekends. What views of mine would you like to know about, specifically? I don't mind sharing at all, but please remember that I may take a while to reply, and that I reserve the right to modify my opinions at any time, based upon new evidence. (I'm not running for President, after all. ;))
 
E

Exaulted_Leader

Guest
Bobby, FREEDOM and Infidel:

You guys need to read 1984, by George Orwell.
 
F

FREEDOM

Guest
You know what! I really don't see any smart people on here. I am getting sick and tired of all the lies about Bush. Remember Saddam killed about 1.5 million of his own people in the spring of 1989. Of course he was a threat to the world. Many good things are coming out of this war, we all know one day Iraq will be helping us fight the WAR ON TERROR. I support the president's moves that he has made and will support futher action.
 
Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Originally posted by Exaulted_Leader
Bobby, FREEDOM and Infidel:

You guys need to read 1984, by George Orwell.
Click to expand...
Good book. If you only read one dystopia novel (and why would you do that?) it's the one I would go with. Not sure what how it pertains to the topic at hand, unless you're referring the the Patriot Act and all that...

Dude with the capitilized name: Um, you need to chill. Or you could at least formulate some sort of coherent argument. I mean, what are you trying to argue? That there are too many lies about Bush? That Saddam Hussein is a bad man? That the invasion of Iraq was a good idea? That you support the President? We can't tell from your post...

Anyway, thanks for reminding me about the "war on terror" thing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top