Poll: How are you voting this year?

[horns666]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

why don't we smoke Sadr and his regime of hopping faggots outta that shrine..

Man , I'll take full blame gimme that rocket launcher...Kabal goes KaBooooM! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[nor]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Back to topic:

Bush is by no means the most qualified person for the Presidency of the United States of America. He is, however, the best available candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Yes, it sucks. The Dems had a real potential candidate in Liberman(sp?). He is the smartest, wisest, most politically connected and international-relations savvy of the bunch. Joe could have pulled off what the left wants (international relations, health care, bigger government) AND what the right wants (kick our enemies asses, help small business).

Instead, they went to the Waffle House and ordered a Kerry Special with a side of Edwards. And speaking of Edwards -WTF? Kerry had over a dozen very qualified candidates to choose from, and he chose the only one with ZERO Foriegn Relations experience (this is supposed to be a priority, right?). The least politically experienced of the lot.

Now the Dems have TWO guys with absolutely no political achievements whatsoever.

There is a reason why Kerry has been 'all Vietnam, all the time'. He has nothing else to talk about. Talking about what he did after the war isn't going to get him very far, and discussing his Senate record is worse. Kerry is the stereotypical 'do-nothing-so-you-don't-piss-anyone-off-and-stay-in-office-forever' politician, and Edwards is the stereotypical 'watch-me-buy-the-election-to-protect-my-fat-tort-lawyer-buddies' politician.

Seeing as the biggest impediment to accessable Health Care is spiraling malpractice suits and insanely expensive malpractice insurance premiums - what chance do you think there is of two lawyers actually reforming the tort system so middle-class families can afford health care?

SLIM. AND. NONE.

Kerry's big idea is to tax the rich to pay for health care. THERE AREN'T THAT MANY RICH PEOPLE! And these ass-clowns know it, 'cause they ARE rich people. They'll move the rich tax rate from 45% to 49%, while making sure there are enough loopholes (they ARE lawyers) to allow their accountants to actually save them money! And guess who is gonna end up paying for all this 'Free' Health care. Any guesses? Anyone?

You know what's funny? Out of all the Pres and VP candidates, the least-wealthy of the lot (by far) is George W. Bush.

Whodathunkit?

I'm voting for the poorest candidate.

[wulfe13]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

NOR! [img]/images/graemlins/notworthy.gif[/img]

Here's what really burns my ass... In the 90's even the candyass democrats criticized George Sr. for not finishing the job in Iraq... Now George W. comes along and finishes the job and everybody starts acting like he did something wrong. WTF??? If ya can't see what Saddam was doin your fukkin blind! By the way if ya kept up on the news lately you'd know they found out Saddam DID try to buy Plutonium or Uranium!!! Democrats don't want you to know that though...

Saddam's whole game of "sure look no weapons... uh no you can't come in... sure come on in... no leave...I'll be good I promise... ya gotta leave now... I'm sorry come on back.... get out.... come back.." What the fukk??? How much of that crapp should we take?

[charvelguy]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Air strikes would have done the trick.

[/ QUOTE ]Please name one military situation in which air power alone (ie: no boots on the ground before or after) ended a threat. Just one. I can actually think of one - bet you can't. But even that 1 event was against a huge, fixed target. How could airstrikes possibly eliminate a threat when its location is hidden and mobile, and it is distributed in packaging the size of a guitar case? How would you know if the threat was eliminated? Crystal Ball? FedEx from God? Maybe the bad guys could provide you with a detailed analysis of the hit-miss ratio of your precision munitions?

Still looking for answers...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I see this war on terrorism in this analogy. Fighting this 'war' is much like a blind man trying to bat down a hornets nest with no protective gear. If his neighbors direct him to where the nest is.. he may be successful in smashing it down in a preeminent strike, but there still is going to be a hoard full of now pissed off hornets stinging him. Or.. if he is misdirected by his neighbors and misses the nest.. now he has a situation that has the potential of becoming lethally stung in return. Even if you remove the hive, the residual hornets now can regroup and build upon the remanents of what was not cleared away or destroyed.. bringing more problems out in the future. Crude analogy, but I tend to think it fits.

While it is true that Clinton might have done the same thing eventually, the point is.. he didn't. This is a region where certain types of rule works....while Saddam was a a major pain in the arse, he did not pose the type of threat portrayed. His regime was more of the garden variety honey bee-you leave me alone, and I won't attack and sting ya. Now we have a real mess, both fianacially and tactically. The fact that he (Saddam) was shooting at our planes..yeah, they shot at them when the 'liberation' began as well.. same threat, same results..the planes went virtually untouched. Helicopters on the other hand.. suffered quite a few losses...but because we were using them for an offensive operation. Do I have a point.. yeah, somewhere, I am tired.. had a long day. [img]/images/graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[horns666]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

they need some more shock and awe...that was pretty.

[charvelguy]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

ya, I was in shock and awe over Abu Ghurayb, even moreso over the beheadings. I wonder how many beheadings against innocent contractors have taken place in the last 25 years in foreign lands by terrorists.. you know, before a policy of preeminent strikes for war took place from the USA. We had the upper hand on Saddam, we just couldn't completely bind his hands, tape his mouth and keep him from trying to be a dick/major pain in the ass. I think N. Korea has made some much more caustic comments about nuclear exchanges than Saddam.

Yeah, we came, we saw, we kicked ass, and gave handouts.. now we have a bigger problem.. a very large kicking screaming infant that thinks we're it's mother, and as such is dependant upon us while the child protection agency (the world) looks on with a wary eye.

[horns666]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

they live like the Flinstones over there ...we should just blow 'em up..

Drop the pamphlets ... [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

BTW ..I'm suprised there isn't more coverage of the two highjacked planes in Russia..that's strange..

I was wishing for another "justifiabe" excuse to finish them off.. [img]/images/graemlins/eyes.gif[/img]

[nor]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

And before anyone gets started about pissing off and alienating our 'allies'...

We are talking about three nations. France, Germany, and Russia. Not the whole world. Not most of the world. Not half of the world. Not a quarter of the world. Not a sixteenth of the world. Not a thirty-second of the world...

THREE. ****. COUNTRIES.

Could someone please list for me any significant military or economic contributions to world security by any of these nations in the last 50 years? The Russians, until very recently, were the cause of most of the planets problems, the French only act when it's profitable (or when they get to spit in the US's eye), and the Germans don't have a freaking army to contribute.

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the bunkers Saddam was hiding in were German-built, the missiles fired at our planes were French-supplied, and the RPG's our troops are still dodging are of Russian manufacture. Just a coincidence that those three nations were screaming the loudest to keep us out of Iraq - And all three had lucrative contracts pending (oil for France and Russia, reconstruction for Germany), contracts dependant on the lifting of santions against Iraq.

Bush tried to get 'em on board, but they had way too much to lose - trillions of dollars in debt owed to those three nations (for the bunkers, missiles, and RPG's) by Iraq that would never get paid if Saddam was removed. Am I the only one who noticed how fast all three nations lined up to demand their share of contracts to rebuild the country? LOL, when Bush told 'em 'Sorry - no soup for you!' - he went a long way towards earning my vote. Bush didn't alienate them - they were already in bed with the devil and never would have supported us in any meaningful way. E-V-E-R. He exposed them as the impotent, fair-weather friends they truly are.

Besides, the whole incident showed us who our real 'allies' are. Old friends like the UK and the Aussies, and new friends like the Poland, Hungary, and all the new 'Stans' showed Americans who we can count on when the chips are down.

Bush exposed the UN as the most corrupt organization in modern history. And exposed Arafat as the corrupt piece of shite he really is.

Yep, Bush pissed off a lot of countries - but not one of them would watch our back without picking our pocket in the process.

Our primary adversary since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran, is now completely encircled by nations containing large numbers of US troops, divisions of armor, and carrier battle groups.

Our change of policies regarding Israel have helped then to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to almost nil, and brought previously hostile regional powers (Egypt, Jordan) to the barganing table. The Saudis are finally tackling the 300 pound gorilla in their living room. The Chinese are rapidly moving towards a democracy (free-market economies make it almost inevitable). The Russians are looking to get back on our good side. Almost all of North Korea's friends have been taken out, or led from the dark side - and they know they will never get one more dime of blood money from us unless they change their ways. Libya has given up its WMD's, and wants back in to the world community.

Sounds like damn-well executed foriegn policy to me.

Tomorrow - the economy.
----
Still searching for answers...

[charvelguy]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

The Associated Press
Updated: 5:26 p.m. ET Aug. 25, 2004"Russian security authorities said that explosives specialists were still working at the scene of the crashes. They reported that terrorism remained a possible cause, although there was no evidence so far that terrorists were behind the tragedies."

Terrorism is a consideration, it sure sounds strongly possible with the sounds of explosions going off and the reported hijack signal. It will probably take them a couple weeks to sift thru the wreckage and weigh the data.

[lerxstcat]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Charvelguy, the flaw in your analogy is that the Muslims are not capable of lethally stinging, or killing, the United States as a nation.

However, should someone succeed in slipping a suitcase nuke into a US city and detonate it,
we in our anger ARE capable of destroying EVERY Muslim city we think it MIGHT have come from.

Now if the Japanese had had nukes when we hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what do you think they'd have done? Yep, probably Los Angeles and San Francisco would've gone up.

Anybody who wants to nuke one of our cities better think of the THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads we still have. If they want to bring about the end of the world, they won't see the end because they'll be first to go. Any country who wants to play at harboring terrorists had better consider the same thing.

[nor]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

[/ QUOTE ]That's just silly - hundreds of thousands of troops died to push Japan back to its home islands. The a-bombs didn't win the war - they just finished it. And for those playing our home game, we have had tens of thousands of 'boots on the ground' ever since, and still do at this very moment.

[ QUOTE ]
I see this war on terrorism in this analogy. Fighting this 'war' is much like a blind man trying to bat down a hornets nest with no protective gear. If his neighbors direct him to where the nest is.. he may be successful in smashing it down in a preeminent strike, but there still is going to be a hoard full of now pissed off hornets stinging him. Or.. if he is misdirected by his neighbors and misses the nest.. now he has a situation that has the potential of becoming lethally stung in return. Even if you remove the hive, the residual hornets now can regroup and build upon the remanents of what was not cleared away or destroyed.. bringing more problems out in the future. Crude analogy, but I tend to think it fits.

[/ QUOTE ]But destroying a huge nest prevents a mass swarm, does it not? And the smaller ones are much easier to exterminate, and far less effective.

[ QUOTE ]
While it is true that Clinton might have done the same thing eventually, the point is.. he didn't. This is a region where certain types of rule works....while Saddam was a a major pain in the arse, he did not pose the type of threat portrayed. His regime was more of the garden variety honey bee-you leave me alone, and I won't attack and sting ya. Now we have a real mess, both fianacially and tactically. The fact that he (Saddam) was shooting at our planes..yeah, they shot at them when the 'liberation' began as well.. same threat, same results..the planes went virtually untouched. Helicopters on the other hand.. suffered quite a few losses...but because we were using them for an offensive operation. Do I have a point.. yeah, somewhere, I am tired.. had a long day. [img]/images/graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]LOL - I hear ya. Look at all the shite I've posted tonite. I'm done.

[horns666]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Yeah you guys are making it real hard on yourselves..

I just say "kill 'em" ...that's easier!

well that's what some of you guys really want to say ...I'm just saying it... [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

"Kill 'em"...see that's so easy... [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

that feels good ...try saying it ...it's fun!!!

KILL 'EM!!!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

[PowerTube]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]
Your assertion is devoid of any context whatsoever, and completely ignores 12-13 years of global politics. It's not like W. woke up one day and said "Yo, Rummy! Let's go target shootin' for some A-rabs!". Clinton, on over a half-dozen very public occaisions, warned Saddam that if he did not comply with the UN Resolutions - he would do exactly what W. ended up doing. Billy got sidetracked in Bosnia, Haiti, and Somolia - and never quite got around to Iraq. So, when W. took office, the Iraq issue was already at the boiling point, but got put to the back burner AGAIN after 9/11. Afghanistan had to be dealt with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. If Iraq was at the "boiling point," then why did Bush feel the need to tell two lies, not one, but TWO lies to get support for going in? Now Afghanistan is another story. We went after terrorists who did indeed attack us first. If we had bombed Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, it would have been fine with me, assuming that they didn't turn the terrorists over to us.

Don't even get me started about enforcing UN resolutions. If I were president, I would....

1. Get us out of the UN
2. Evict them from our shores
3. Flip them off as they're leaving

I can't believe how people claim to be patriotic Americans, then turn around and sheep for the UN. The UN is the biggest threat to U.S. sovereignty in history. I say, if the UN declares a "peacekeeping" mission or passes a "resolution," we should tell them to HAVE FUN.

[charvelguy]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

[ QUOTE ]
Charvelguy, the flaw in your analogy is that the Muslims are not capable of lethally stinging, or killing, the United States as a nation.

However, should someone succeed in slipping a suitcase nuke into a US city and detonate it,
we in our anger ARE capable of destroying EVERY Muslim city we think it MIGHT have come from.

Now if the Japanese had had nukes when we hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what do you think they'd have done? Yep, probably Los Angeles and San Francisco would've gone up.

Anybody who wants to nuke one of our cities better think of the THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads we still have. If they want to bring about the end of the world, they won't see the end because they'll be first to go. Any country who wants to play at harboring terrorists had better consider the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, lets think of the blind mans house as a 'nation' and the blind man as himself.. say the President or and particular important key person at the moment. That is the thing, pissed off hornets will attack to defend, most likely discriminating to those who it perceives a threat.

Maybe I'm overlooking something here, but it is a simple fact that we, as a nation had a policy of mutual assured destruction in place against a country that possessed a mega WMD threat for 45+ years. And that we, as a nation had nothing to fear from anyone other than the fact that 'it' could happen simply because we had the capacity to 'win' or destroy an enemy nation that would be suicidal enough to choose to attack. Well, the classification of how we perceive a nation(s) as a threat was changed after 9/11, and it was justifiable with the Taliban and Afghanistan. The governing party essentially aligned themselves with individuals, parties and beliefs that attacked our soil, and our people, but they did it by using elements and industries within against ourselves. That policy of mutually assured destruction which was in place for so long was blatantly trampled on, kicked down the stair and tossed out the door when Bush overexageratted (a rather nice way of putting it) the threat of Saddam as justification to hurriedly invade Iraq despite when people who had been there as military tactitions, ret. Generals who wore their uniforms with pride in service to this country said that by doing this, it would create more terrorists... and it did. How damn unpatriotic of them huh? There were elements within Afghansitan that were blantantly declaring a war against our nation and our allies.. there were overtones of that in Iraq but as far as an immediate threat.. I didn't see it 1.5 years ago, I still am having a difficult time now.
Bush is not selling me on future wars with Iran or N. Korea because of what he did with Iraq, even though I deemed those nations to be far more of a threat than an Iraq in a nut noose threatening to be neutered could ever be. As far foreign policy, we're not just pointing our gun and threatening to shoot in order to shape an outcome....now the blind man has taken that shotgun out of it's corner and is using it, killing whoever he regards as a threat in self defense. How effective is a shotgun against a bunch of pissed off hornets you cannot see? not very.

China becoming a democracy? "yeah, we support a one China" Bush said.. as long as it is a democratic one united with Taiwan-left unsaid, but obviously supported.

Yeah, Bush has got balls, that I will give. It is true that the Arabs would have their unified pow-wow summit every Spring and discuss how they could unify themselves as a threat against Israel and wipe them out. While I think Israel can handle herself like an 800lb gorilla can handle itself around a bunch of kids wielding sticks..no problem. If any group of Arab nations were to start anything, well, you can guess we'd get involved-which is what we started doing in laying the groundwork for staving off future threats.

[VanOsbourne]

Re: Poll: How are you voting this year?

Nor you just want to argue. Name one war when air power alone ended a threat? Uh.. the six days war. Desert Storm maybe. Don't be a dipshit airpower wins every war. My point about Pearl Harbor went right over your head I guess. So Iraq attacked us? When did that happen? We saved THOUSANDS of american lives by dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Man you need some history lessons.

Anyway, all I'm trying to do here is point out that American lives are more important then to waste them in Iraq. Again if you feel differently sign the fuk up and go. If you can think its ok for a mother of two to lose her husband over this war, kids to lose thier father, the least you can do is go the fuk over there and give the same. Oh, and by the way, thats how it was in WWII. Guys signed up to go because they felt it was the right thing to do. They did'nt feel that they should sit here and talk about it. They did it. So sign up please. Here ya go Sign Up Or Shut Up