[Killerconvic]

off topic: sounds like a plan phorgot. by the way, i love the siggy.

on topic:

I thought the war against Iraq was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction.

it was SUPPOSED to be, but it seems to have mutated.....much like that giant nuklear gerbil....and now people think that there may be no weapons there after all.

So you realize that Bush led the United States to a war on a lie?

[Cspace]

If you haven't noticed if we hadn't started the war then we would've had way more terrorist attacks on the US.

Can you please back this by a fact? Parallel universes haven't been proven yet, so no, I haven't noticed what would have happened otherwise (nothing against you, hehe, just a random astrophysics joke).

And the whole war isn't Bush's fault, it's Clintons, because if he would've went after Osama when he was president then Bush wouldn't have to clean up after him.

If that's the case, it would also be President Bush's fault for not going after Osama before 9/11. I hate it when anyone says that Bush let it happen (he didn't...), but it is the exact same argument as that one against President Clinton.

Clinton would not want to stir up the terrorists, and the second Osama is killed I think we should watch out because all of them would want us dead. Perhaps that is why Bush hasn't, either, actually caught Osama.

Kerry plans to reinstate the draft too, a fact that the media has carefully concealed from the public because they want people to vote for him...

Are you saying that President Bush is planning to have a draft? You're not countering the idea of a draft by saying otherwise, you are attacking Kerry and dancing around the topic.

... And if you are saying that the media is covering it up, can you please tell me exactly what makes you think that Kerry plans to reinstate the draft? Please quote something that would make you think that. Please say exactly what this "fact" is.

Two: I DO NOT and will not support gay marriage.

That's up to you, but truthfully I don't see how this should be an election-deciding issue. Think of how history will look at it, lol.

I thought the war against Iraq was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction.

President Bush sensed a disturbance in the force and thought they were there. Really, I must add, it was a really good guess (I would think that they were there also). They found Saddam in a hole, blew up some non-existent chemical factories (the traces of the gas would have been picked up if they existed), no bombs were found, and Osama is supposedly in South America. Funny how things work.

Ok I am tired of people complaining about the war!

I agree, but soldiers are dying every day. I don't think that should be taken so passively.

If Kerry gets elected then he wont remove the troops from Iraq. He may use a new strategy, but he wont rmove the troops from Iraq. If removed the troops from Iraq he can kisshis re-election goodbye. Also he wouldn't want to withdraw our troops, and leave our allies in their in a war we started.

Exactly. As much as many want to get out of the war, we can't just pull the troops out, it's unfortunately not that simple.

And the media (which is democratic I might add) is dissing Bush because he's republican.

The media is not "liberal" or "conservative" in its entirety. There are "liberal" stations and there are "conservative" stations. I would know this because I have direct connections with some of them including Fox and NBC. I'm sorry to say it, but I'm tired of hearing about the "liberal media" and the "conservative media". Like what Squall says, neither is good or bad, they are just differing opinions. I wish the hate would stop.

Plus, you know what they say. If you only have enough money to buy one newspaper, buy the one of the opposition.

He screwed the economy, made us look stupid in front of our allies, and now we're in a war that lost its purpose

May I add how those who didn't agree to help us were chastised? Like "freedom fries", why the devil do we need to hate a country for not wanting to get into this mess? I don't blame them for looking down on us after what we did.

I think that Kerry should get a new slogan or something like, "The lesser of two evils! Vote Kerry!"

Hehe

However, the media has led people to believe that the national debt is a new aspect of society, brought into play solely by Bush. It ISN'T.

When Clinton was President the debt was also a big issue...

We've been in debt since day one, and have yet to get out of it.

Are you saying that we shouldn't care to manage it? I don't think it's acceptable to treat it as nothing important and just let it increase by trillions of dollars.

For those that don't know what welfare is, it takes tax money to give money to those that are too lazy to get jobs.

Actually, it gives money to the unemployed to try to get them jobs, it is not "free income" as you are implying although it may seem that way on the surface. I don't know if it's good or bad, I disagree with some aspects of it, but it isn't so simple as to just say the whole thing is bad.

The "No Child Left Behind" Act has caused a decrease in racially influenced affirmative action, and has brought the nation's education system closer to giving equal opportunity to students regardless of their background.

As a result of the government's current action with regards to schools, the school system is not better off than it was. First of all, private schools have systematically been overshadowing public schools. Second of all, new testing has been holding back many students. This is being implemented even to the point where if a kindergardener fails a test he/she would be held back. This is increasing drop-outs. Also the money for schools has taken a right-turn and very little actually got to the schools. I personally know people working for the school system and they all hate President Bush's action with regards to the school system.

Gasoline prices in the US have also been considerably lower than in other parts of the world until recently.

Maybe they are lower here, I don't know, but is a 50 cent increase per gallon acceptable? I don't see why we need to justify it with a comparison to other countries.

Gas prices have increased to an extent since the war began, but that's more because of people trying to stop the war on Iraq than it is from the war on Iraq itself.

Is it to stop the war on Iraq, or is it to increase profits? Money is unfortunately a powerful thing.

Also, many people have used the propagandist technique of referring to an unconstitutional authoritarian government as a "soveriegn nation." Under that basis, you could refer to Nazi Germany or Militarist Japan as a similarly "sovereign nation." Nazi Germany, Militarist Japan, and Shiite Iraq have all been run very similarly, the people of such countries taken advantage of and led to believe that their race and/or religion is superior to all others. If that's what a "sovereign nation" is to you, I see no reason to oppose removing such a government from its position of authority.

Do you see anything wrong with imposing it on others?

Bush has done nothing to make the country feel safe

"Is America safer now than before 9/11?" Are we safer? Think about it just a second. There is probably no right answer, and although I agree with the security being beefed up here and the effort being put into it, does throwing a rock at the hornets' nest make the hornets fly away? Will a rocket launcher protect you from every single hornet in a swarm that is flying around and mad at you? It would be effective until they all go after you. By attacking them, they would go after you when the opportunity comes up.

While, by doing nothing, they can attack you. Why can't we deal with the terrorists themselves, beef up our defenses and security, and not relate it to an entire country and a war?

(just expanding on your statement)

Also, many people will blindly vote for Bush.

There will be many who will blindly vote for Kerry as well. One should not feel incapable of thinking for oneself. If someone blindly votes for a candidate based on someone else's opinions, physical looks, or anything similar, their vote does not really mean much. This applies to both candidates.


(I mean nothing against anyone who posted the above quotes, since this is the Debate Forum I figured that I could post this)

[asyluman]

:O

wow. way to go cspace. If you were president, I'd vote for you.

[serpharimon]

There's a debate. "Should Cspace run for president?". That'd be interesting.

Maybe he should..

[Cspace]

*I removed this until a later time, I don't mean to post so much all at once and will welcome counters for my previous post before I post a second*

[Thatoneguy64]

No vietnam should have nothing to do with the presidential election. My uncle was in the vietnam war so does that mean he'd make a good president? No it doesn't and it doesn't mean Kerry would be either. Oh and here's some questions:

Should a presidents IQ make any difference?

Why do most people follow what the media says all the time? (like my friend he used to support Kerry because he thought he was good and now he's more for Bush because "a lot of people are talking about how bad Kerry is")

Why does a lot (or most) of the media talk about how great Kerry is and is against Bush?

Why are there more demecrats than republicans?

Why should the fact that Clinton smoked pot and did that one thing in the oval office matter? (that was the reason most people voted for him in the first place )

(not really a politics thing) How come so many things revolve around christianity? Like the saying "oh my god" or "god bless america" or how the one bumpy thing in your throat is called an "adam's apple" *note: I have nothing against religion, I'm just mad how so much stuff revolves around it*

This post has been edited by Thatoneguy64: 16 September 2004 - 01:58 AM

[asyluman]

Should a presidents IQ make any difference?

Yes?
I'm an agnostic jew. Everyone hates me.

[Sproogle]

Weapons of mass destruction? THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS PRETTY MUCH A FREAKING DESERT! The FIRST place to look would be the towns, so who knows where they could be!?! There are so many huge places to look, we can't be sure until: Every soldier in the U.S. army joins hands in a line across the country, then they walk across the whole thing, looking around as they go.

Kerry plans to reinstate the draft too, a fact that the media has carefully concealed from the public because they want people to vote for him...

So you found this out from that time you dialed a wrong number and got his house?

[Crescens]

Read the "US Draft" topic.

[Mrb1]

Weapons of mass destruction? THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS PRETTY MUCH A FREAKING DESERT! The FIRST place to look would be the towns, so who knows where they could be!?! There are so many huge places to look, we can't be sure until: Every soldier in the U.S. army joins hands in a line across the country, then they walk across the whole thing, looking around as they go.

My guess is that they are in hidden underground silos. So doing your idea (while funny) would be pointless.

This post has been edited by Mrb1: 18 September 2004 - 12:16 PM

[Sproogle]

No, my idea, while funny, was meant to be funny. Too bad you can't type sarcasm, lol

SIDENOTE: 400th post! I have seven little bars now!

This post has been edited by Sproogle: 18 September 2004 - 03:35 PM

[Cspace]

Read the "US Draft" topic.

I read it... and quote where it says anything relating to Kerry? For that matter, where does it refer to President Bush?

Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

That's not saying that President Bush wants it, I personally do not see it happening for political reasons if just over Iraq, but if he goes after other countries we will unfortunately need it. I do not see Kerry doing that and expanding the war, as for Bush?

I'll leave that open because, unlike some political talk shows (whether republican or democrat) and a few here, we don't need to be basing fact on opinion.

My guess is that they are in hidden underground silos. So doing your idea (while funny) would be pointless.

Are you 100% sure that they exist? Unless 100% sure we shouldn't base our outlook on their existence. None have been found so far, and personally I don't think they're there anymore. Until they're found, my opinion will be unchanged.

... And what if Saddam did have a bomb or two? Would he use them on us, rattle his sword at his enemies, or use them on another enemy "closer to home" for him? One bomb drops here, we would pelt them with mushroom clouds until there is a crater visible from the moon. One bomb drops on Iran or another country in that area, the world will take over Iraq. He knows both of these outcomes and therefore wouldn't use a bomb. Therefore, all he could do with them is rattle his sword... And if he did that, would we have difficulty getting support from the world?

Should a presidents IQ make any difference?

Last I knew, our President should be intelligent.

Why do most people follow what the media says all the time? (like my friend he used to support Kerry because he thought he was good and now he's more for Bush because "a lot of people are talking about how bad Kerry is")

The media is influential because it is commonly the only source of information for some people. I personally feel that the radio talk shows are the most influential however, at least they have more people "religiously" listening to them and they can present more blatantly false information with no opposition. You want to know why that is? I know people who have worked with them, and these are true of any radio talk show:

- A nifty "silence button". A talk show host doesn't like what someone is saying? He can press it and carry on with his points with no opposition. Once the guy on the other end is smeared, he releases the button to reveal an angry person who has lost composure. Obviously the host won the debate and anyone of the opposite party is wrong.

- Paid call-ins. Say a host wants to further his points? A paid listener would "call in" and either agree with everything or provide no opposition. Sometimes they even play the other party or another group and lose debates intentionally, that doesn't happen as often but it does happen. They can also call in when a host feels uncomfortable with what someone else said. The paid person would make things better again and help prove the previous caller wrong even after he was disconnected. This makes the host seem like a pro.

I would know this, I personally know someone who was a paid caller on a talk show a while back.

Also, on another matter, listen for "could have", "may have", or any similar conditional statements. They're everywhere and they are commonly the basis of entire shows. If debated for so long (and with enough "victories", however easy on radio) listeners will naturally treat it as fact. This is the same on TV as well though not to the same extent.

Why does a lot (or most) of the media talk about how great Kerry is and is against Bush?

Is "most" of the media against President Bush? Please list some sources of "liberal" media so we have something to work with.

... And if someone is "liberal" for being against President Bush, is that also referring to those republicans who are against him? For that matter, does a republican have to be "conservative"? Does a democrat have to be "liberal"? Is someone against the war "not patriotic", "un-American", or not supportive of the troops?

Are claims against Kerry correct with no basis while claims against Bush incorrect even though they have the documentation to back up the claims?

By the Vice President saying that we will be hit severely if we pick the wrong candidate (obviously referring to Kerry), is he saying that we definitely will not be hit otherwise?

How far are we going to go before the debt is important again?

Just because something is said a lot, does that mean that it's true?

Why did some think that we could walk in and just change a mindset in a benign manner which has existed for many hundreds of years?

Exactly how is the economy is improving? Please, with numbers, not concepts.

Where did the money go that was promised for schools?

When saying that Kerry voted against funding the troops, what was attached to that bill? A piece of legislation can include more things than just one idea, and you can't just vote for a piece of it and not the other.

If two points are joined together in a speech (such as Saddam and 9/11), are they necessarily physically connected?

Well, I've effectively gone off the point. I'll just stop there for now.

Why are there more demecrats than republicans?

I believe that this is mostly due to regional issues more than anything else.

**************************************************************

And to close this little rant/debate/thing, I would just like to state one thing which should be asked about any President going for a second term...

If the first term was handled so you could be re-elected, will you do anything differently during your next term when re-election is no longer an issue?

[Darkness]

About the bomb thing.....

Did anyone ever wonder why France and Germany (not necessarily these countries but that area) were against us going into Iraq? Why they weren't going to help us at all? Obviously what Saddam was doing in Iraq was wrong, so why wouldn't they help us? We found evidence that Iraq was buying essential materials needed to make bombs from the area I just mentioned. That area of the world is having money problems so obviously they would take it and be against us going in there and cutting off that part of their income.
Just 3 or 4 days ago Iran stated that they would continue on with the bomb procedure. So, Bush was right to think that they had bombs, but he came to early for them to make them. I for one voted for bush on this pole.

(This is just something I heard and I'm not sure if it's true.)

[©allum]

Western Europe having Financial problems?

I don't think so.

[Darkness]

About the bomb thing.....

Did anyone ever wonder why France and Germany (not necessarily these countries but that area) were against us going into Iraq?