*Warning* Political statements

[Myr]

It has been made much of in recent political discussion that John Kerry, the Democrat Nominee, that several foreign leaders have expressed to him their wish that he wins and beats President Bush. He has refused to name names.

Here's why: (the folks that are endorsing John Kerry)

Saddam Huessein

Yasir Arafat

Osama Bin Laden

Jaque Chirac

Mohamar Khadiffi

The Taliban

Al Queda (and all affilated groups)

 

Just thought you might want to know...

 

Myr

Log Cabin Republican

[dkstories]

So how's the log cabin doing these days? I've heard of several members jumping ship with Bush in charge lately.

 

Politics are always brave things to push, especially when people like me are around. Hats off to courage!

[Bill W]

That message was brought to you by the same folks who are proposing a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages... watch who you're sleeping with, Myr...

[Atheist]

I don't really care who wins as long as it isn't Bush.

 

and if those below really endorsed Kerry, at least there will be a lot less bombs

[Myr]

unfortunately, I'm not sleeping with anyone...

[EricCase]

Noone's been bombing Bush lol He's a little confused. It suckss cause I'm Republican but I'm not sure who I'm gonna vote for. I donnn't like Kerry at all Maybe I should run for President

 

President J.E.D. Case

[Myr]

Bush's "dumb" act is an act. He got a business degree from Havard. And Havard doesn't give those out, no matter who your daddy is. And it is worth noting that his daddy was a nobody when he went there.

[EricCase]

My Uncle went to Yale when he did George H. W. Bush was never a nobody though lol he was the son of a Senator from CT and he himself served in the house of reps for two terms in the 60s, then served as the ambassador to the UN, chairman of the Republican National Committee, chief of the U. S. Liaison Office in China, and director of the CIA. All that was before he was Reagan's running mate in 1980. I'm not saying that George Dubbayah was handed a degree from Harvard Business school cause you're right lol they might admit you as an undergrad even though you're underqualified because of who you know and who you're related to, but you don't get a masters degree from their business school if you're stupid lol buuuut Dubbayah's dad was never ever a nobody

[EricCase]

P.S. I just know cause I wrote like a 15 page paper on the history of the Bush family. Talk about a "grrr" assignment lol 15 pages is alotta writing

[Myr]

I sit corrected. (I'm too tired to stand at the moment)

[EricCase]

hehe aaaw I'm a bit sleepy today myself - I think it's just onea those lazy days school sucks lol

[rainbow]

Hi Guys

 

I am staying out of this subject because I live in the UK,

 

The only thing I would like to say is that Bush appears to be a bit of a Homophic, unless I miss reading him, parhaps one of you enlighten me diffently

 

Rainbow.

[miguelsanchez55]

Hey All,

First, I don't think (at least I hope I'm right, here) that the Constitutional Ammendment Bush is proposing will pass because of all it entails. I don't think the Houses in each state will ever get it out passed. I have seen some ammendments proposed in the past that were worthy of passing and they never did.

 

Getting 75% of the states to agree is alot. That would mean 37 states would have to agree to the ammendment and I just don't think Bush can get that much support. It will only require 24 states to say NO and it will fail plus he's not going to be around after this term any way. He's going to have a tough time getting the northern states to vote to ratify.

 

Who's going to follow him, don't know but I also hope it's not Kerry.

 

BTW, before coming to the UK, I lived in the U.S. and I opposed Bush's plan then as I still do. Things in the UK are much different here and man I really like it. Well, all except Blair that is. :wacko:

 

Take care,

Mike :sword:

 

Eric, I hope your arm is better now from all that writing you had to do. Love ya

[miguelsanchez55]

Hey Myr,

LOL my friend

 

Mike :sword:

[BillM]

Hi Guys

 

I am staying out of this subject because I live in the UK,

 

The only thing I would like  to say is that Bush appears to be a bit of a Homophic,  unless I miss reading him, parhaps one of you enlighten me diffently 

 

Rainbow.

I agree with rainbow, I live in Australia but I can feel Bush's homophobic vibes travelling over the Pacific

[EricCase]

I think Bush is taking a risk, trying to appeal to the left-wing religious conservative vote. I don't like Kerry much at all so I'm kinda at a loss, but I've agreed to most of Bush's policies up until he started in on the whole "gay marriage should be constitutionally banned" and it's not even that I want to get married, it's just the idea of making discrimination a part of the constitution is unsettling. but like Mike said, it'll never pass, it's too weighted an issue so I think they'll be S.O.L. on the whole thing.

[Myr]

What Eric said... except religious nuts are "Right" wing... not left

[EricCase]

grrrrrrr one of the things I can never remember since bumping my head! LMBO

 

soo it's it's right wing conservatives, left wing liberals?

[wep363]

I don't know what George is up about gay marriages anyway. He knows that my vote is the only one that counts on a moral level! And I'm in favor of the eterinal concept of marriage for gays. :2hands: :ranger:

[dkstories]

grrrrrrr one of the things I can never remember since bumping my head! LMBO

 

soo it's it's right wing conservatives, left wing liberals?

Yes, that's correct, Eric. Although I think the descriptions are sometimes reversed in some european countries.

 

George W. Bush has always been a right-wing conservative pretending to be a moderate. It comes as no surprise to me that he turns around supports amending the constitution for a social issue. Can we all remember the PROHIBITION ERA and where that led this country (straight into crime, they heyday of the mafia, smuggling, all become 'normal' for many people and an 'acceptable' part of popular society until the Prohibition amendemnt was repealed).

 

I actually kind of hope his same-sex amendment passes because it's effects will give gay and lesbian people a very real target to sink our teeth into, and will help us to change people's minds in a way that is very hard to do right now. (If the Republicans were really smart, they'd declare the word 'marriage' as signifying a religious ceremony, pass a federal law establishing a 'civil union' for legal rights currently associated with marriage and let the states declare who is or is not eligible for a 'civil union' and allow each state to choose if it will recognize the 'unions' of other states. It would totally take the wind out of the gay marriage proponents and they can say they 'saved' marriage for their supporters).

 

Bush has pushed compassionate conservatism, which as Robin Williams said once, is like a volvo with a gun rack. It's a charade for pushing a very pro-business, pro-religious agenda that will eventually ruin this country. If I was Harvard, I'd be ashamed the man had a Business Masters Degree from that university. His business adventures were a disgrace, and his adventures as President are a disgrace.

 

Clinton got impeached for lying about a blow job he got in the oval office. Bush's metaphoric servicing of the business communities that got him into office, and his achievements in seducing us into an unnecessary war far outweigh the good he did after 9/11 with the cleaning up of Afghanistan (something that I agree was necessary and applaud him for doing). The Patriot Act, and his Attorney General's assault on our rights and moves towards a police state are far more worthy of a congressional impeachment (although the Republican Leadership is as guilty as he is and would never take any action) than lies about private sex acts in a civil lawsuit that had nothing to do with the Presidency itself.

 

Last time I was in Europe, I was embarrassed to be an American with Bush as our leader (although I had to argue a few times with people that they were taking things too far). Frankly, I'd vote for Ralph Nader before I'd vote for Bush, and Kerry is a better alternative. I'd rather have Clinton back in office so the worst we had to worry about was who he's getting hummers from, but that's not likely to happen, so it'll just have to be Kerry.

 

Maybe we can get Martin Sheen to run? Or Michael Douglas? Both seem more Presidential than Bush. Hell, I'd take Bill Pullman over Bush. (Guess the movies/television shows).

 

Oh, I almost forgot, have we all seen that new Bush national ad about Kerry? Outright lies/misleading statements that have little basis in reality. The 900 billion in tax increases? Reality: 150 billion based on repealing tax cuts for a small percentage of Americans. Wait for the UN to defend America? Reality: Wanted UN Support for INVADING a foreign country, something many Americans thought should have happened (and many of those who didn't were convinced that it was directly related to 9/11 something Bush later tried to deny, but the record proves every speech he mentioned Iraq, he mentioned 9/11, lending a subconcious link between the two for those who don't analyze his speeches closely - I kept on saying what's the link between 9/11 and Iraq after every speech, wondering what proof he had linking them only to find out he was supposedly never saying they were linked).

 

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN supported kicking him out. When he was kicked out and we proposed no-fly zones, an oil embargo, and very strong measures against Hussein, the UN supported us. When the UN inspectors were thwarted and we wanted to bomb, the UN supported us. When we based our actions on solid reason and evidence, we got UN support. When Dubya said "Saddam is a bad guy and we have to take him out. The hunt for the perpetrators of 9/11 (but 9/11 and Iraq aren't really connected, I'm just mentioning 9/11 because it's an important event for Americans to remember) will go on as well." The UN went "Huh? No, let's talk about this some more."

 

Bush said "Screw talk, we're doing it and we're doing it now so that by 2004 when I'm up for election I have a success under my belt to get re-elected with and I'll get the bad guy that tried to kill my daddy!"

 

Well, we've had Saddam now for a few months. I'm still waiting for him to be arraigned and put on trial for all those links between him and bin Laden and all the other crap he's done (a lot of real, mean crap subjugating and torturing and killing his own people).

 

Another funny story I just remembered...y'all heard about the handful of british citizens that were captured in Afghanistan in 2001? They've been held in Guantanamo Bay for over 2.5 years without charges and finally released, not even to be charged in a Military Court, Britain held them for a few days and said "they've done nothing for us to hold them." Now they're free after two years of imprisonment all without charges.

 

I seem to remember that we went to war with England in 1812 because they were doing the same thing to Americans abroad. Funny, isn't it?

 

Wasn't there something about 'inalienable human rights' in the Declaration of Independence? Wasn't there something about imprisonment without charges being a reason for rebelling against England? Is that a principle we no longer consider as being applicable to anyone who isn't American?

 

No offense, the deaths of 9/11 were horrible and I was outraged and as schocked as any other American, but I feel that giving up what it means to be an American is giving the terrorists a victory, no matter how safe it makes me, and that is what I see Bush and his team as doing: Taking away what it means to be an American.

[EricCase]

First:

Martin Sheen: West Wing?

Michael Douglas: That movie where he fell for that woman while he was president and then it was like upcoming election and the other party started bashing her? I can't remember what the movie was called though.

Bill Pullman: Independance Day

 

Now,

 

The invasion of Iraq wasn't directly related to September 11th, but the two are still linked in what they represent. It was the threat Iraq posed, and their potential to pose a very serious threat to the region and to us here. Personally I think it should have happened a long time ago. Saddam laughed at sanctions for years, adding a few more would have accomplished nothing. Weapons inspections don't work and believing that they do is a dangerous way to be lulled into a false sense of security and prior TO 9/11 we in NA had grown so complacent. We felt untouchable on our continent, and could deploy weapons into remote regions that would let us attack our enemies without ever presenting them with a target.

 

The conflict with Iraq has been a LONG time coming and we found ourself in the situation we were in late in 2002 because of Clinton's utter failure in foreign policy. He did absolutely nothing for eight years, while Saddam continuously defied the United Nations, and the League of Nations... er.. the UN rather - sat there making resolutions and not standing behind them. The world as a whole has a credibility problem of having convictions and not standing by them, Bush showed that we are willing to act alone when need be.

 

The UN supporting an oil embargo, and a no-fly zone accomplished nothing. Saddam was left in power, the people were the ones who suffered and we shrugged our shoulders saying, "not our fault, it's Saddam!"

 

The UN inspectors were a waste of time in the first place. Saddam had no intention of compliance and you can grow and store biological weapons in a small place. You don't need an enormous factory. You can make chemical weapons and stockpile them in a remote location - hell bury them in the sand and you won't find them unless you know where they are. These weapons can easilly still be hidden in Iraq. When the Iraqis refused to allow inspectors in to different areas we didn't ask the UN's permission, there was no resolution, Clinton gave the order to fire some missles and they were fired.

 

The UN failed on the Iraq situation entirely. The French with the outward decision to veto any resolution that could bring about an invasion crippled the UN and basically brought about a situation in which Saddam couldn't lose whether he complied or not. If you have an expansionist government with a history of violence and the potential capability to attack neighbors with weapons of mass destruction (which doesn't have to be nuclear weapons), and anti-western philosophy, how can you sit and do nothing? Talk some more? hehe there were 12 years to talk. If Saddam was going to cooperate he would've done it. What were his reasons for not allowing inspectors to go where they wanted? "Oh well you wanted to see inside my houses and it was rude."

 

Clinton's missile attacks in Iraq in 1996 were to get himself re-elected. The bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan during the scandals about Monica were to get the news media to focus on something else. When he did launch these attacks, he didn't seek the approval of the UN first, he just did it. The difference was he was doing them as a smoke & mirrors diversion. It was about time someone stood up for what was RIGHT instead of saying "can't we all just get along?" Saddam didn't wanna get along.

 

The trial of Saddam Husein will come in time. It needs to be decided who the trial will be performed by. There are a lot of issues to deal with in respect to Saddam's trial. The new "official" Iraqi gov't hasn't been formed yet and until that happens you won't see a trial.

 

The war of 1812 was to "liberate" Canada from British "oppression", bringing Canada into the United States, but it had little to do with any American soldiers being held abroad. It would have been successful had the Canadians joined in the way the Americans believed they would, but basically a lot of the Canadians were all the loyalists who left the US after the declaration of independance so it didn't work out the way everyone thought it would. It wasn't a war against British policies, it was a war to remove British influence from North America and to expand the US.

 

When you go to war with someone, it's to be assumed that prisoners will be taken (that or we could have shot everyone as an alternative). I agree the said prisoners should not be held indefinitely, turning around once the Taliban were removed from power, then putting the prisoners on a boat and shipping them back to afghanistan wouldn't make any sense. They're not being tortured, beaten, etc.

 

We haven't lost what it means to be American. We can still stand on any street corner and protest the actions of our government, and we can exercise our political power by voting, and lobbying our elected representatives. To me being an American is standing up what you believe in regardless of what the consequences may be. That's what the declaration of independance was all about. The signatures on it labelled each man who signed it a traitor to Britain, but they did it because it was what they felt was right. Bush may have some ideas that are contrary to mine, but I'm very glad we've had him to lead us over the past four years so that we didn't hide behind the UN over these four years. Weapons inspections do not work. The Russians had an enormous chemical & biological development program for years. American weapons inspectors inspected the actual factory in which they were developing the weapons and found nothing. If Bush had done nothing, and nine months from now there was a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack against the US everyone would have called him a coward and a failure.

 

The UN failed by not reaching a resolution that would satisfy those involved. This happened because parties in the UN were not willing to state that failure to comply would result in the Iraqi government being forceably removed. Force, violence, and power were the only thing Saddam would understand and respect. Americans have come off as being wrong in the eyes of parts of the world before on issues people don't question today. Time will tell

[EricCase]

P.S. Let's repeal the foreign president ammendment and then Arnold can leave California and move to Washington!! I'd vote for him, his wife's practically a Kennedy!! hehe!

[BillM]

Wow, that's a lot of reading

[dkstories]

Wow, that's a lot of reading 

I had to cut myself off or I would have gone on for several more pages...

 

 

Just saw an article about the President thanking a group of troops who just returned from Iraq, telling them their job was "well done". The troops did a good job, and are doing a good job. Unfortunately the job isn't done though, and that's not the fault of the troops.

 

The units that began the war in Iraq, and whose stay in that country was lengthened and lengthened finally came home a few months ago. They've been told that they'll be going back to Iraq again after 3 months at home. Within a few days, these troops that were just told they completed a good tour over there will likely be given their next operations orders for deployments within 1-2 months.

 

Another misleading speech by the President. If Kerry's smart, he's going to craft a very careful message for the troops, one that might change a lot of the soldier's minds on how well their commander-in-chief is leading them.

[Myr]

Thankfully, Kerry isn't very smart. Nor does he stand for anything but higher taxes on everyone... Oh... and the elimination of our military.