VOTE

[Pathogen]

TTT ... just because I can. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Mighty Thor]

I think the deciding factor will be Iraq. Economy second, medical insurance third, education fourth.

I met a devote democrat 4 days ago. He said he's voting for Bush this time because Bush got the war in terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan going and he should be the one to continue it.

As a Democrat, I feel the same way.

[WishIHad$$$]

Most of the people on this site are Republican.

[3.4 slow to go]

Originally posted by memphis_raines:
I agree. Bush is a beeatch, a sniveling whore screwing the American people for that almighty dollar.

But then again, that reflects the intelligence of the American people who elected him.

spoken like an Algore puppet.


My vote's going to who I believe will best protect my country.

[L32Projekt]

Wow, so since the people who voted for Bush are a bunch of mentally-stranded individuals because we have some sort of responsibility for what happened during President Bush's term. We have a sort of "special-power" to foresee the future, apparently. You know what, if I knew then what I know now, I'D VOTE FOR BUSH AGAIN!!!

Yeah, I said it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. Four more years.

[WishIHad$$$]

Lol, does anyone here actually read newspapers?

[skorpion317]

Originally posted by WishIHad$$$:
Lol, does anyone here actually read newspapers?

every day. there's a lot of BS tossed back and forth...the whole thing with the Vietnam service stuff is crap. who cares if Kerry was a wuss who scratched his finger and went home for it? who cares if Bush missed a couple drills? neither one of them is perfect. the job goes to the person who is best suited for it. John Kerry isn't, George W. Bush is. end of story.

[Jerriko]

Originally posted by skorpion317:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ka50:
One thing I don't like about bush is the patriot act... it is rational to put out a piece of legislation to protect america from terrorism, but **** like detention of people without charging them with anything and detention with no time limits is really f*cked up. Also he created some restrictions on 1-st ammendment... witch hunts (aka "terrorist" hunts) and other bs... otherwise nothing's really too bad. If he fixes this, he's good to go.. and yeh, he needs to chill out on foreign policy.

if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it. personally, i think it's better if a suspected terrorist is thrown in jail. better to take precautions now than to have something blow up later. </font>[/QUOTE]Tell that to that lawyer in Seattle they jailed for 3 weeks just because you has arab clients. Sure, when they let him go, they apologized but that didn't replace all of the clients that he lost because of the time he was wrongfully jailed. Half of the clients he lost said that they didn't want to be associated with someone like that. Like what? The problem with the patriotic act is just that. Even though he did nothing wrong and had nothing to fear, he was still arrested. And just because he was arrested, he lost a ton of clients. Yep, that's the american way.

[maxcamaro]

Originally posted by 95fbirdkid:
BUSH BIATCH

amen

[maxcamaro]

Originally posted by WishIHad$$$:
Most of the people on this site are Republican.

prove it...how do you know its just not half democrat half republican and there just a bunch of anti kerry dems?

[Jerriko]

Originally posted by 3.4 slow to go:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by memphis_raines:
I agree. Bush is a beeatch, a sniveling whore screwing the American people for that almighty dollar.

But then again, that reflects the intelligence of the American people who elected him.

spoken like an Algore puppet.


My vote's going to who I believe will best protect my country. </font>[/QUOTE]You must think that the best defense is a good offense. Sorry but this isn't football. And if that case, why don't we go after North Korea. NK is much more of a threat than Iraq ever was. Why is Bush waiting? He won't even talk to them. Let's way the two. In one hand, we have Saddam and Iraq. There's a lot of history there. He has BEEN known to have WMDs and use them on the Kurds. In the first Gulf War, we freed Kuwait and occupied parts of Iraq but left Saddam in charge??? Something I compare to have left Hilter in charge of Germany in 1945. UN teams are dispatched in Iraq and can't find any WMDs. But the almighty CIA finds 'evidence' of chemical and nuclear weapons. In the other hand, we have North Korea. I can't remember the name of the psychotic son of a ***** who leads that ditactorship. We known they have nuclear weapons. They kicked out the UN team monitoring their nuclear facilities. They even tested one of the nuclear weapons which was monitored via satellite. Sorry, I don't see attacking Iraq as defending the nation but more as a personal vendeta (sp?). I mean Bush does like oil and Saddam did try to kill his daddy.

[ABH]

Originally posted by RallyRed 98:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by skorpion317:
if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it. personally, i think it's better if a suspected terrorist is thrown in jail. better to take precautions now than to have something blow up later.

i HATE that argument. you'll say that until you're a suspected terrorist, even if it's just a case of mistaken identity. imagine what a PITA it would be and the embarassment you would suffer if you were detained for only one day and were being interrogated on something you literally know nothing about. </font>[/QUOTE]So do I. I have no wish to see things degenerate to the point where the accusation is the truth.

[3.4 slow to go]

Iraq was on it's way to nukes. They already had had chemical weapons, quess who & why that happened. North Korea, well, for some reason Pres. Bush thought that China, S. Korea, Japan might have something to say about that since they're the ones most affected by N. Korea. But wait, why is the current administration criticised for having a coalition going into Iraq, & also crticised for NOT waiting for a coalition for N. Korea??? Also N. Korea already has nukes, so why let Iraq become another player????? Iran, well, that ball got dropped by the previous & current admin.

This is a never ending argyment.

[Jerriko]

Why do you think that the US wouldn't have a coalition for dealing w/ North Korea? You just mentioned that China, South Korea and Japan are already involved. Pres Bush has REFUSED to deal with that situation for whatever reason.
[img]graemlins/bs.gif[/img] I do have a theory on this but its only a theory. Why would anyone send in ground troops knowing that there is a madman with his finger on a button? Which is why we attacked Iraq. Bush KNEW that Saddam didn't have any nukes or WMDs. Remember, the first gulf war, Saddam was using every weapon he had. Firing SCUDs at Israel and lighting oil wells on fire. But during the second gulf war, what weapons did he use?

Things that make you go hmmm.

What proof do you have that Iraq was on its way to nukes? And there's no proof that Iran is building nikes. The only available proof supports what Iran is saying, that they are using it for energy. Granted, I don't take that to word but that would suggest that we attacked the WRONG COUNTRY!

[BiH]

wow still ghey bush