VOTE

[camaro_speedemon]

I don't like any of the canidates, so I'm probably not gonna vote.

[Skapimp]

two reasons to vote kerry (just took this)

link removed

[ September 27, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: DrSquirts ]

[3.4 slow to go]

Yup, wanting to go through the UN/not doing something UNILATERALY was wrong.
gee, I guess you caint hide anything with a 12yr headstart, huh? IF he did use chemical weapons, how many people would be upset? About the same amount now as then,being proved wrong because chemical weapons were used. OF course Iraq didn't have any nukes, YET. Or would it have been better off for them to set off one in a test?

[imported_admin]

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.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it"... :rolleyes:

That same statement could be applied to law-abiding German citizens in the Third Reich.

Do you have ANY idea how ****ed up that statement is???

America had (past tense) protections against unfair arrest and detention. America had due process to follow before a suspected criminal could be detained. That's all gone now. Today, as long as the authorities mention the word "suspected terrorist" you are guilty until proven innocent.

Is that truly the kind of society you feel "safe" in? Having government agents running amok is just as bad (if not worse) than terrorists doing the same thing.

Bush is not a conservative. Conservatives favor limited government and expanded personal freedoms. Bush is a totalitarian pro-military pro-secret-police pro-empire building maniac who has isolated us from our allies, turned the rest of the world against us, and is leading us straight to world war three.

[ September 27, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Stefan ]

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by Jerriko:
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.

Maybe because we are more efficient than we were during the early 90's when it comes to locating and destroying command and control centers, eliminating the enemy's ability to control his forces (or even let them know when and where our troops were going to attack, until it's too late.) Don't try to turn warfighting into politics. If you don't understand military doctrine, it's not going to be pretty...

[imported_admin]

Originally posted by maxcamaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]Because when you've been on F-Body sites for a few years you notice (its kind of hard not to) that 90% of owners of polluting, gas guzzling, loud and obnoxious muscle cars are conservative. Most conservatives vote Republican.

It also has to do with age. F-Bodies, particularly V6 F-Bodies, appeal to males in the ages of 16-25, which constitutes the bulk of our population. Males that age are not educated enough to see through Bush's lies and they don't understand the concept that a needless war must be paid for. Instead, they just cheer when Bush announces more plans to spend, spend, spend on high-tech weapons and "really cool" spy equipment that can monitor everything you say INSIDE your home from some government van parked down the street. They are also so nieve that they believe you can hunt terrorists down and eventually wipe them all out. They don't understand the concept that terrorists are just like rebellious teenagers... the harder you push, the harder they fight back. When you kill one, two take his place. We can't win this "war", but there are alternatives to fighting--or rather, smarter ways to fight. Bush's plan calls for wiping out all havens for terrorists... well, there are about a dozen other Middle Eastern and North African countries that are known to harbor terrorists. Syria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Tunisia, all of the formerly Soviet republics... what does he plan to do, conquer all of these countries one after another, until terrorists have no place left to hide? We can't even maintain control in Iraq, which is a small country. We've "liberated" them, yet that country is on the verge of civil war. How does Bush plan on taking on the entire Middle East?

[hawgs]

Originally posted by Stefan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by maxcamaro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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? </font>[/QUOTE]Because when you've been on F-Body sites for a few years you notice (its kind of hard not to) that 90% of owners of polluting, gas guzzling, loud and obnoxious muscle cars are conservative. Most conservatives vote Republican.

It also has to do with age. F-Bodies, particularly V6 F-Bodies, appeal to males in the ages of 16-25, which constitutes the bulk of our population. Males that age are not educated enough to see through Bush's lies and they don't understand the concept that a needless war must be paid for. Instead, they just cheer when Bush announces more plans to spend, spend, spend on high-tech weapons and "really cool" spy equipment that can monitor everything you say INSIDE your home from some government van parked down the street. They are also so nieve that they believe you can hunt terrorists down and eventually wipe them all out. They don't understand the concept that terrorists are just like rebellious teenagers... the harder you push, the harder they fight back. When you kill one, two take his place. We can't win this "war", but there are alternatives to fighting--or rather, smarter ways to fight. Bush's plan calls for wiping out all havens for terrorists... well, there are about a dozen other Middle Eastern and North African countries that are known to harbor terrorists. Syria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Tunisia, all of the formerly Soviet republics... what does he plan to do, conquer all of these countries one after another, until terrorists have no place left to hide? We can't even maintain control in Iraq, which is a small country. We've "liberated" them, yet that country is on the verge of civil war. How does Bush plan on taking on the entire Middle East? </font>[/QUOTE]...and then there are the people who aren't that much older but who try and act like they're leaps and bounds older, more mature, and better educate then everyone else and must alert everyone to the consiracies of the government and how they're all out to get us.

November isnt that far away... I cannot wait until Bush wins for more years and you Bush haters/liberals/democraps can eat all of your words because there will be nothing you can do about it.

[95fbirdkid]

November isnt that far away... I cannot wait until Bush wins for more years and you Bush haters/liberals/democraps can eat all of your words because there will be nothing you can do about it.

[img]graemlins/rock.gif[/img]

[Pathogen]

... Stefan ... I still think you talk too much. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[L32Projekt]

I just want to see some evidence of President Bush lying. Show me the lie detector test, really. You know who else lied and was caught doing it? That right, everyone's buddy and savior Bill Clinton. Now there's a lying mug if I ever saw one.

Everyone will have their chance to put in their two cents this November. I know I will.

[Jerriko]

Originally posted by L32Projekt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jerriko:
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.

Maybe because we are more efficient than we were during the early 90's when it comes to locating and destroying command and control centers, eliminating the enemy's ability to control his forces (or even let them know when and where our troops were going to attack, until it's too late.) Don't try to turn warfighting into politics. If you don't understand military doctrine, it's not going to be pretty... </font>[/QUOTE]That all maybe true but still the fact remains. Saddam didn't use WMDs or nukes during the second gulf war because he didn't have any of those weapons the second time around. I'm not sure what those facts have to do w/ military doctrine.

[Jerriko]

Originally posted by hawgs:
and then there are the people who aren't that much older but who try and act like they're leaps and bounds older, more mature, and better educate then everyone else and must alert everyone to the consiracies of the government and how they're all out to get us.

November isnt that far away... I cannot wait until Bush wins for more years and you Bush haters/liberals/democraps can eat all of your words because there will be nothing you can do about it.

Well, at least you and Bush have something in common. Neither of you can spell. [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by Jerriko:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by L32Projekt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jerriko:
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.

Maybe because we are more efficient than we were during the early 90's when it comes to locating and destroying command and control centers, eliminating the enemy's ability to control his forces (or even let them know when and where our troops were going to attack, until it's too late.) Don't try to turn warfighting into politics. If you don't understand military doctrine, it's not going to be pretty... </font>[/QUOTE]That all maybe true but still the fact remains. Saddam didn't use WMDs or nukes during the second gulf war because he didn't have any of those weapons the second time around. I'm not sure what those facts have to do w/ military doctrine.
</font>[/QUOTE]Saddam couldn't use much of ANYTHING because his C2 systems were fragged. No comm, no direction, no warning. I'm not saying he had WMD or chem/bio weapons to use, but even if he did I'm sure with his forces in complete disarray they wouldn't have been launched. Military doctine states that if your enemy cannot coordinate, they can't put up a meaningful defense.

[Jerriko]

Originally posted by L32Projekt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jerriko:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by L32Projekt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jerriko:
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.

Maybe because we are more efficient than we were during the early 90's when it comes to locating and destroying command and control centers, eliminating the enemy's ability to control his forces (or even let them know when and where our troops were going to attack, until it's too late.) Don't try to turn warfighting into politics. If you don't understand military doctrine, it's not going to be pretty... </font>[/QUOTE]That all maybe true but still the fact remains. Saddam didn't use WMDs or nukes during the second gulf war because he didn't have any of those weapons the second time around. I'm not sure what those facts have to do w/ military doctrine.
</font>[/QUOTE]Saddam couldn't use much of ANYTHING because his C2 systems were fragged. No comm, no direction, no warning. I'm not saying he had WMD or chem/bio weapons to use, but even if he did I'm sure with his forces in complete disarray they wouldn't have been launched. Military doctine states that if your enemy cannot coordinate, they can't put up a meaningful defense. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think you understand. You completely sidestepped the point that I am trying to communicate to you. It's ashame that military doctrine you hold so dearly doesn't apply towards the current occupation of Iraq. I guess the insurgants didn't read that one. :rolleyes: Regardless, US soldiers are dying for no good reason. The longer we are there, the more the citizens of Iraq don't want us there. We shouldn't have gone, we still shouldn't be there and I think its appalling to here Bush and his military advisors now say that they underestimated the will of the insurgants. Come on, this region of the world has been invaded time and time again for centuries and they repelled those invasions so why should we know think that this one would be different?

[Jerriko]

Originally posted by camaro_speedemon:
I don't like any of the canidates, so I'm probably not gonna vote.

I think this is the most irresponsible thing said in this thread. If you don't like the candidates, just ask yourself, "do I like how the last 4 years have gone?" Then vote accordingly but to do nothing. [img]graemlins/twak.gif[/img]