Do You Believe Kerry?

Wesley · 03-25-2004, 02:05 PM

When Kerry says stuff, do you actually believe he means it? A new poll shows only 1 out of 3 people do... Vote here, I wanna see what y'all think

GTech · 03-25-2004, 02:42 PM

Nope, not a word. One can only flip flop on important issues and take a stance to cut military and defense funding so many times before he loses credibility.

viciouscircle · 03-25-2004, 03:30 PM

hahah. kerry lies through his teeth.

bigboss · 03-25-2004, 04:02 PM

Sounds like he is in Politics

Evilhaider · 03-25-2004, 07:19 PM

Hard to believe ANYbody these days. I think I believed John McCain more than most others (even though I don't support republicans). But I'd be glad to see Bush out of office.

Jeff · 03-25-2004, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigboss
Sounds like he is in Politics

'Zactly, John!
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/the-break-room/24682-do-you-believe-kerry.html

I do think change is on the horizon, though ... time will tell.

viciouscircle · 03-25-2004, 08:54 PM

while bush isnt necessarily the best person for the job, he is still the best choice on the ballot.

Anthony · 03-25-2004, 09:16 PM

If you think Kerry isn't telling the truth, than I assume you won't be voting for Bush either...

Wesley · 03-26-2004, 06:25 AM

Tell me, when did Bush lie? I assume you are going to use the WMDs as your excuse for calling Bush a liar. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't there.

Evilhaider · 03-26-2004, 08:13 PM

He also lied when he told everyone that Saddam had a connection with Bin Laden and therefore was responsible for 9/11. One of the many lies. If you truly don't believe he's ever lied then either you are a party hack, or you are misinformed.

Oh, and by the way, pointing to the WMD argument is not an 'excuse'. The fact that he said Iraq was an *imminent threat* to the US was a lie.

After the fact, they have tried to come up with one justification after another for invading iraq when the WMD's were not found. One of these 'justifications' was the 'humanitarian cause' - also a lie. He doesn't give a $hit about the Iraqi people.

viciouscircle · 03-26-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evilhaider
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682
He also lied when he told everyone that Saddam had a connection with Bin Laden and therefore was responsible for 9/11.

umm, i dont remember hearing that. only hearing that saddam helped fund terrorist organizations and was a threat to our country. both of those statements were true. clinton also attempted to take saddam out. he simply failed. bush got the job done. why should we be angry at that?

JMJ · 03-26-2004, 09:02 PM

I would believe what my X told me over GWB any day and if you knew her you would know how much of a stretch that is. The problem with both my X and GWB is neither of them even know they are telling a lie. With that being said Kerry gets credit over both.

Evilhaider · 03-26-2004, 09:02 PM

Bush administration tried their best to prove there was a link. They were unable to prove it. They went so far as to fake evidence. It's all there. You just have to look. Why should we NOT be angry at that?

rabid_nerd · 03-26-2004, 09:46 PM

Well, if you're NOT polarized enough now, here's the two wings:

Liberals, Progressives, Greens, Socialists, Democrats
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

Libertarians, Conservatives, Fundamentalists, Republicans
http://www.freerepublic.com/

Personally, I don't even consider that lying, thieving, immoral deserter AS the President.

But I did get the Republican nomination for my office

Kerry was my 5th or 6th choice in the primary, but I would vote for a "yellow dog" before I'd vote for Bush (hence the origin of the term, Yellow Dog Democrat) so I will be campaigning for Kerry.

In fact, I go to a Campaign School TOMORROW!

Elefekt · 03-27-2004, 02:14 AM

The way I see it is that politics itself is a big lie so you cant use lies as an excuse to not vote for someone. Campaigning is used for a reason, I think the reason is that its proving that they know what the people want. If they can say that they are going to do what you want then give em your vote..thats as far as its gonna go anyway. People are always complaining about Bush, the way I see it is that at least he did something, might have been stupid but he did do something that he thought was right. Why did we bomb them? Well yea I disagree with that but why didnt Saddam just turn himself in? Why didnt he just agree to let the searches be done? He wasnt hiding anything..or was he? If he wasnt tell the idiot to just let the UN search the place and its all over with. Another thing is why was everyone so happy that Saddam was captured and all I hear is protests that we shouldnt have to do this war blah blah blah. I think the removal of Saddam was justified by the fact that he was killing innocent people.

So in conclusion to my babble, I dont think Bush is that bad at all, I dont think anyone else is that bad or any better cause politics is a bunch of lies anyway and if you think that its not you better get back to reality here.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

Thanks for reading...that is if you actually read it.
And if you want to say I am stupid go ahead..Im not even old enough to vote so what do I know.

Anthony · 03-27-2004, 07:25 AM

If you don't think a link between Hussein and bin Laden was pushed then you need to go back and do some research.

Remember "immediate threat"?
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Wesley · 03-27-2004, 07:42 AM

AHH, not MoveOn.org! *evil*
Just because we haven't found WMDs yet doesn't mean they aren't there. And what about the Mass Graves. Anyone who has killed THAT many people doesn't deserve the right to rule a country. He was a tyrant, and it is our obligation to the world to remove tyrants.

Terry · 03-27-2004, 08:29 AM

A lot of this is 20/20 hind site. I originally supported our presidents decision to go to war. I don't now. I now realize that we are NOT safer. We have stirred (or re-stirred) a hornets nest. Our actions in the middle east are resented by the people who live there. When are we going to learn that we need to come up with an energy policy that does not depend on middle east oil. (economics - oil is the bottom line as to why we are still messing around with the middle east.)

Leave them alone. We do not understand them and they do not understand us. Kicking their tails, acting like a school yard bully, won't change things. And, it does not make us safer.

Additionally, I suppose that many on this forum forget that Saddam had put a contract out on the life of Bush senior. The real reason for our action in Iraq is not WMD. It was and is to avenge that contract. Bush Jr. took the presidency with this action as a personal priority.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

So, do I believe Kerry. Not a bit. He is playing politics just a Bush does. Who are we going to believe. Neither! Ask yourself - really ask yourself, not your dad or your grandad, form your own political opinion - ask yourself, "am I satisfied with the course our society is on"? If you are vote for the incumbents, if not, vote against them. But, don't ever belive them. Action is what counts.

Wesley · 03-27-2004, 09:04 AM

You honesty don't think we are safer? Many of the Iraqi ARE glad we are there, just as the Afganis were. While there is not as much support from the Iraqi people, many are truely glad we are there.

Evilhaider · 03-27-2004, 12:44 PM

The afghanis were/are not glad we are there. Nothing happened there that was worthwhile to them. They lost thousands of lives and nothing has really changed. The US appointed government controls only a small portion of Afghanistan and chaos still reins in other parts. Their situation has not improved, and thats after thousands of deaths. Why would they be happy?

As I said, this war had nothing to do with what Saddam was doing to his people. Bush couldn't give a rat's A$$ about that. The humanitarian argument just doesn't work when you look at the history and look at the fact that there are many other places in a similar situation and nothing is being done about that.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

You seem to keep recycling the one argument you have even though we've shown you the other times Bush has lied. Blind support of a president is bad for everyone's interests.

GTech · 03-27-2004, 02:09 PM

On the issue of "immenent threat," that is so often misquoted by those uninformed:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

Quote:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Bush did not say there was an imminent threat, but rather that some (the Democrats, historically) would prefer to wait till a threat is imminent (ie: Atlanta is sitting under a mushroom cloud).

What were the conditions Bush laid out for Saddam?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0020912-1.html

Quote:

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

Did Saddam choose to disclose his WMD? No, in fact, he was to do so under UN supervision, but refused for twelve years to account for his WMD.

Did Saddam end suppot of terrorism? No, he continued to provide direct financial support to Palestine by rewarding the families of suicide bombers with $25,000 each.

Did Saddam end the torture of his people? No, he continued to torture and persecute his people up till the end. This disputes the claim above that Bush did not care about the welfare of Iraqis, when clearly it was one of the five conditions Saddam *could* have chosen to abide by, but did not.

Did Saddam fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve issues with his Kuwait invasion, as required by Security Council resolutions? No, he did not.

Did Saddam end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program? No, and as is being reported this week, it appears that there was mass corruption in the oil for food pogram within the UN. As the scandal continues to develop about the UN and it's role in taking kickbacks from Saddam in the oil for food program, there is no doubt we will learn even more about the corruption of the UN and leaders of other countries that were bought out.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682

These were the conditions Saddam chose to ignore to prevent war. Saddam made the decision not to cooperate, Bush made the decision to force him to.

Let's visit the WMD issue. If Bush lied about WMD, he did so long after Democrats have been supposedly lying about it. Let's take a look at the Democrats that were convinced Saddam had WMD:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

Low and behold, we have John Kerry pesuading Clinton to go to war because HE thought there were WMD:

Quote:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

Quote:

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

Hillary thought there were WMD:

Quote:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Hillary also seemed to think there was a link to Al Queada. The link to Al Queada is certainly present in Iraq today in their efforts kill innocent Iraqis. Hillary was correct on this one.

Here's a good one:

Quote:

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

How can we forget Al Gore?

Quote:

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

Surely not Nancy, say it isn't so:

Quote:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

What does Bill Clinton think about all this?

Quote:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

My point here is, WMD and Iraq has been around for a long time and there is no question that Democrat leaders have believed Iraq had WMD long before Bush presented it as one of five conditions for Saddam to avoid war.

In all five cases, Saddam chose not to cooperate with the UN (and we are starting to see the corruption behind that) or with the five demands to avoid war.

CoolGuy · 03-27-2004, 02:28 PM

Kerry won't win full stop

Wesley · 03-27-2004, 08:33 PM

Wade, you are exactly right!

Anthony · 03-27-2004, 09:03 PM

Wade and Wesley, I understand your points of view, but you are merely repeating Republican rhetoric.

Wesley · 03-27-2004, 09:12 PM

"Republican rhetoric"? Just because some Republicans are saying it doesn't mean we don't actually believe it? Or did you mean we are basically reading from a script?

Besides, there is nothing wrong with quoting people. In fact, it can really be a strong way to show an opinnion.

Also, Demicrats ALWAYS use "Republican rhetoric" as an excuse when they are trying to get off-topic because they KNOW that they've been cornered with facts. Well, they have other stupid things they say, like that woman on NPR that always says stuff like, "Listen to him, isn't that the weirdest vioce?!" I mean, the way someone looks or sounds really shouldn't matter. For people who "don't discriminate", you sure do a whole lot of name calling and political correctness towards minorities only.

View Poll Results: Do you believe Kerry believes in what he says?
Yes	7	30.43%
No	16	69.57%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

03-25-2004, 02:05 PM	THREAD STARTER #1 (permalink)
Wesley Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MD Posts: 524	Do You Believe Kerry? When Kerry says stuff, do you actually believe he means it? A new poll shows only 1 out of 3 people do... Vote here, I wanna see what y'all think

03-25-2004, 03:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
viciouscircle Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Denton, Texas and Springfield, Virginia Posts: 1,780	hahah. kerry lies through his teeth. __________________ SimplyDelivered.net - E-mail Marketing made Simple! [ Infintium.net \| KwikSEO.com \| WeeklyComic.com \| Xf3.org ]

03-25-2004, 07:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
Evilhaider NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 252	Hard to believe ANYbody these days. I think I believed John McCain more than most others (even though I don't support republicans). But I'd be glad to see Bush out of office. __________________ Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet. http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

03-25-2004, 08:54 PM	#7 (permalink)
viciouscircle Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Denton, Texas and Springfield, Virginia Posts: 1,780	while bush isnt necessarily the best person for the job, he is still the best choice on the ballot. __________________ SimplyDelivered.net - E-mail Marketing made Simple! [ Infintium.net \| KwikSEO.com \| WeeklyComic.com \| Xf3.org ]

03-25-2004, 02:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
GTech NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 327	Nope, not a word. One can only flip flop on important issues and take a stance to cut military and defense funding so many times before he loses credibility.

03-25-2004, 04:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
bigboss NamePros Regular Join Date: May 2003 Location: On a Farm in Wisconsin Posts: 484	Sounds like he is in Politics

03-25-2004, 09:16 PM	#8 (permalink)
Anthony NamePros Expert Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 9,134	If you think Kerry isn't telling the truth, than I assume you won't be voting for Bush either...

03-26-2004, 06:25 AM	THREAD STARTER #9 (permalink)
Wesley Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MD Posts: 524	Tell me, when did Bush lie? I assume you are going to use the WMDs as your excuse for calling Bush a liar. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't there.

03-26-2004, 08:13 PM	#10 (permalink)
Evilhaider NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 252	He also lied when he told everyone that Saddam had a connection with Bin Laden and therefore was responsible for 9/11. One of the many lies. If you truly don't believe he's ever lied then either you are a party hack, or you are misinformed. Oh, and by the way, pointing to the WMD argument is not an 'excuse'. The fact that he said Iraq was an imminent threat to the US was a lie. After the fact, they have tried to come up with one justification after another for invading iraq when the WMD's were not found. One of these 'justifications' was the 'humanitarian cause' - also a lie. He doesn't give a $hit about the Iraqi people. __________________ Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet. http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

03-26-2004, 09:02 PM	#12 (permalink)
JMJ Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nashville Posts: 1,888	I would believe what my X told me over GWB any day and if you knew her you would know how much of a stretch that is. The problem with both my X and GWB is neither of them even know they are telling a lie. With that being said Kerry gets credit over both. __________________ DN Sites Last edited by JoltHost; 03-26-2004 at 09:06 PM.

03-26-2004, 09:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
Evilhaider NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 252	Bush administration tried their best to prove there was a link. They were unable to prove it. They went so far as to fake evidence. It's all there. You just have to look. Why should we NOT be angry at that? __________________ Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet. http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

03-26-2004, 09:46 PM	#14 (permalink)
rabid_nerd NamePros Regular Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Meadville Posts: 640 Follow @rabidnerd	Well, if you're NOT polarized enough now, here's the two wings: Liberals, Progressives, Greens, Socialists, Democrats http://www.democraticunderground.com/ ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682 Libertarians, Conservatives, Fundamentalists, Republicans http://www.freerepublic.com/ Personally, I don't even consider that lying, thieving, immoral deserter AS the President. But I did get the Republican nomination for my office Kerry was my 5th or 6th choice in the primary, but I would vote for a "yellow dog" before I'd vote for Bush (hence the origin of the term, Yellow Dog Democrat) so I will be campaigning for Kerry. In fact, I go to a Campaign School TOMORROW! __________________ Rabid Nerd Productions - $10.49 Domains - $2.92 Hosting - $12 SSL - an eNom Volume ETP * Your Local Weather Forecast

03-27-2004, 02:14 AM	#15 (permalink)
Elefekt Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Hawaii Posts: 3,529	The way I see it is that politics itself is a big lie so you cant use lies as an excuse to not vote for someone. Campaigning is used for a reason, I think the reason is that its proving that they know what the people want. If they can say that they are going to do what you want then give em your vote..thats as far as its gonna go anyway. People are always complaining about Bush, the way I see it is that at least he did something, might have been stupid but he did do something that he thought was right. Why did we bomb them? Well yea I disagree with that but why didnt Saddam just turn himself in? Why didnt he just agree to let the searches be done? He wasnt hiding anything..or was he? If he wasnt tell the idiot to just let the UN search the place and its all over with. Another thing is why was everyone so happy that Saddam was captured and all I hear is protests that we shouldnt have to do this war blah blah blah. I think the removal of Saddam was justified by the fact that he was killing innocent people. So in conclusion to my babble, I dont think Bush is that bad at all, I dont think anyone else is that bad or any better cause politics is a bunch of lies anyway and if you think that its not you better get back to reality here. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682 Thanks for reading...that is if you actually read it. And if you want to say I am stupid go ahead..Im not even old enough to vote so what do I know. __________________ Standards Voice - Coming soon...

03-27-2004, 07:25 AM	#16 (permalink)
Anthony NamePros Expert Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 9,134	If you don't think a link between Hussein and bin Laden was pushed then you need to go back and do some research. Remember "immediate threat"? http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

03-27-2004, 07:42 AM	THREAD STARTER #17 (permalink)
Wesley Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MD Posts: 524	AHH, not MoveOn.org! evil Just because we haven't found WMDs yet doesn't mean they aren't there. And what about the Mass Graves. Anyone who has killed THAT many people doesn't deserve the right to rule a country. He was a tyrant, and it is our obligation to the world to remove tyrants.

03-27-2004, 08:29 AM	#18 (permalink)
Terry NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Wibaux, Montana USA Posts: 650	A lot of this is 20/20 hind site. I originally supported our presidents decision to go to war. I don't now. I now realize that we are NOT safer. We have stirred (or re-stirred) a hornets nest. Our actions in the middle east are resented by the people who live there. When are we going to learn that we need to come up with an energy policy that does not depend on middle east oil. (economics - oil is the bottom line as to why we are still messing around with the middle east.) Leave them alone. We do not understand them and they do not understand us. Kicking their tails, acting like a school yard bully, won't change things. And, it does not make us safer. Additionally, I suppose that many on this forum forget that Saddam had put a contract out on the life of Bush senior. The real reason for our action in Iraq is not WMD. It was and is to avenge that contract. Bush Jr. took the presidency with this action as a personal priority. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682 So, do I believe Kerry. Not a bit. He is playing politics just a Bush does. Who are we going to believe. Neither! Ask yourself - really ask yourself, not your dad or your grandad, form your own political opinion - ask yourself, "am I satisfied with the course our society is on"? If you are vote for the incumbents, if not, vote against them. But, don't ever belive them. Action is what counts. __________________ T1 Internet Services - Direct U Telecom Directory Last edited by Terry; 03-27-2004 at 08:42 AM.

03-27-2004, 09:04 AM	THREAD STARTER #19 (permalink)
Wesley Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MD Posts: 524	You honesty don't think we are safer? Many of the Iraqi ARE glad we are there, just as the Afganis were. While there is not as much support from the Iraqi people, many are truely glad we are there.

03-27-2004, 12:44 PM	#20 (permalink)
Evilhaider NamePros Regular Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 252	The afghanis were/are not glad we are there. Nothing happened there that was worthwhile to them. They lost thousands of lives and nothing has really changed. The US appointed government controls only a small portion of Afghanistan and chaos still reins in other parts. Their situation has not improved, and thats after thousands of deaths. Why would they be happy? As I said, this war had nothing to do with what Saddam was doing to his people. Bush couldn't give a rat's A$$ about that. The humanitarian argument just doesn't work when you look at the history and look at the fact that there are many other places in a similar situation and nothing is being done about that. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=24682 You seem to keep recycling the one argument you have even though we've shown you the other times Bush has lied. Blind support of a president is bad for everyone's interests. __________________ Tutorial Maniacs - The most comprehensive collection of QUALITY hand picked tutorial links on the internet. http://www.tutorialmaniacs.com

03-27-2004, 02:28 PM	#22 (permalink)
CoolGuy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,505	Kerry won't win full stop __________________ Social Blurpalicious Directory Submissions World Internet Discovery Forums International & Local Political Blog Domain for sale: salesold.com (expires April 2009)

03-27-2004, 08:33 PM	THREAD STARTER #23 (permalink)
Wesley Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MD Posts: 524	Wade, you are exactly right!

03-27-2004, 09:03 PM	#24 (permalink)
Anthony NamePros Expert Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 9,134	Wade and Wesley, I understand your points of view, but you are merely repeating Republican rhetoric.

03-27-2004, 09:12 PM	THREAD STARTER #25 (permalink)
Wesley Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MD Posts: 524	"Republican rhetoric"? Just because some Republicans are saying it doesn't mean we don't actually believe it? Or did you mean we are basically reading from a script? Besides, there is nothing wrong with quoting people. In fact, it can really be a strong way to show an opinnion. Also, Demicrats ALWAYS use "Republican rhetoric" as an excuse when they are trying to get off-topic because they KNOW that they've been cornered with facts. Well, they have other stupid things they say, like that woman on NPR that always says stuff like, "Listen to him, isn't that the weirdest vioce?!" I mean, the way someone looks or sounds really shouldn't matter. For people who "don't discriminate", you sure do a whole lot of name calling and political correctness towards minorities only.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)