Carigamers
Off Topic => Ole Talk => Politics & Soap Box Rants => Topic started by: nytemare on September 30, 2004, 02:33:24 PM
-
BUSH vS. KERRY TONIGHT
-
is this important to plp livin in trinidad what kinda stupid post is this,
lol of course it is important, well it might not be important but real damn funny, i wonder how many words is bush goin to mispronounce 5,6,7 or maybe 10
-
actually this is important to the entire world. America has a great influence as u undoubtedly know
-
Well, say something about the debate, for crying out loud.
You don't just start topics like that and not say squat.
-
as usual the politicians danced around questions... why do ppl bother watching debates when they know that none of the questions gonna get answered.
-
bush real repeat himself on the mix messages crap but all in all bush win lol
-
Kerry = Weak !!! Al Qu'aida Food !!
The world full ah mad mad men. Mad men in the middle-east and Israel. Mad men in Chechnya and Russia. Mad men in the phillipines, algeria, afganistan, bosnia, north korea, iran,serbia america, etc.
In a world where Madness, chaos and violence is the order of the day, the most powerful country needs someone equal to the task.
BUSH for President.
A weak American President = Taliban iwmc.
A mad crazy world can only be ruled by ......America (default) -----> BUSH !!!!
Take Iraq as an example...Bush remove a madman....and tens of madboys poppin up.
Imagine if Bush gone ??
Lol.....Bush for President.....and i damn serious..... :lol:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
actually, i would say Kerry was more on point, but bush won overall. kerry was clear on his answers and seemed more focused. this is a case of "picking the lesser of two evils" tough luck I'm not voting
-
Only person 2 stop a madman iz a madman end of story, still dont really see the importance of watching it
-
bush won overall?? wta , my 2 year old could give better response than bush
-
actually, thats not my personal opinion, cause i like neither of them, but reading the papers this morning, alot of political analysts said bush won over all. so....
-
Only person 2 stop a madman iz a madman end of story, still dont really see the importance of watching it
actually, i would say Kerry was more on point, but bush won overall. kerry was clear on his answers and seemed more focused. this is a case of "picking the lesser of two evils" tough luck I'm not voting
The world full ah mad mad men. Mad men in the middle-east and Israel. Mad men in Chechnya and Russia. Mad men in the phillipines, algeria, afganistan, bosnia, north korea, iran,serbia america, etc.
A weak American President = Taliban iwmc
actually, i would say Kerry was more on point, but bush won overall. kerry was clear on his answers and seemed more focused. this is a case of "picking the lesser of two evils" tough luck I'm not voting
LOVELY i think i got it in order
Now i have to say Kelly can really talk the good talk.....but....i go have to agree with Silk Bush is the righteous man for this fragile state where war is a #1 factor.
And frankly kelly dont have the proper mentality to do what needs to be done.
Now don't get me wrong.... I don't have a favoutrite with regards for there elections. I mean ever since Arnold got voted in....sigh....my respect for the some *american intelligence* dropped:(
-
Muahahahahaha..lol
-
Arnold got voted in....sigh....my respect for the some *american intelligence* dropped:(
lawd what d man do that was so horrible he beat a porn star back lol
-
Amazing...the man who served a tour of duty, was injured in the line of duty, came home and was decorated as a war hero, had the balls to stand up in front of the nation and stand against his own country's atrocities...is weak.
The man who took the easy way out of war then and taking the easy way out of war now...is strong.
If weakness is having the balls to do the right thing, even when it's the tougher thing to do, we should all be that weak.
Take Iraq as an example...Bush remove a madman....and tens of madboys poppin up.
Imagine if Bush gone ??
According to that logic, if Bush goes we'll have less madmen.
-
yes bush is a madman...americans will eventually pay for their stupidity and arrogance, deh shoulda vote gore when dey had de chance but dey wanted a change. kerry might win but if he does it wouldnt be dat dey votin for him but rather votin against bush
-
If weakness is having the balls to do the right thing, even when it's the tougher thing to do, we should all be that weak.
....nirvana ?
Politics ain't about doing the right thing. Is about winning. Kerry thinks he can win by attacking Bush's war in Iraq. We won't know his true stand unless he wins and somebody bomb the statue of liberty...lol.
By pandering to public opinion HE WEAK !!!.
I not denying bush overall over agression and muscle flexing.. But in the context of the world today, thas what America need. America is serving the SAME purpose Saddam served in Iraq. "Keep all other badboys quiet."
So now that Saddam gone, is chaos over there. If America gets a weak leader .i.e. Kerry, he WILL be challenged by every dick with half ah army and 2 nukes.
Let we be real !!! Bush have ppl jumpy and bummy !! And as sad as it is, that's what the psychos of this planet need. Why u think since 911 America ent get a good bombing again ?? Cause they security good ?? NAH...cause the middle-east bummy !! Them nah know how he go react this time, after he over-react with 911. All over the world they still bombing, India, France, Spain, Russia. Kerry want to talk..and have dialogue.... :lol: :lol: :lol: The planet is NOT civilized. And as such it needs a fitting chief i.e. Bush.
BTW, not my opinion, just reality.
-
Pandering to public opinion is not weak.
In fact...that statement doh even make any sense. The opinion polls have been split since 9/11. So has Bush been weak everytime he did something that the majority of people wanted?
Seeking to negotiate, even with all the risks involved, and rebuild good relations with allies, is not weak.
Military strength is not the only strength there is, and not the only strength that matters.
And the planet is as civilised as its inhabitants want it to be. If a major player like the US goes the way of negotiation, many others will follow, and there will be change.
Bombing a country is the easy way out, and as you noted, does nothing but create more madmen. Negotiation is a slower and more tenuous process, but it works.
This weak/strong business not really making any sense. Come better than that.
-
I find it intriguing that ppl who possess a weak grasp of US national politics would rely on the American media sources (via CNN & FOXNEWS) to garner any valid stance in this issue, when there has been a marked display of bias favouring an imcumbent president.
I wonder if if would surprise many of you to know that the Halliburton corporation is one of the main shareholders in FOX networks. The same corporation that employed George Bush Senior & Junior in the position of Manager and Advisor respectively. CNN isn't immune to bias and nepotism either. Who do you think contributed $100,000 to Jeb Bush's campaign for Governor? ETC communications....a dependency of CNN.
How fair can you expect Fox and CNN to be in an election coverage? Get your news from the BBC or the Associated press articles. Then we can talk politics.
-
*points to Smurf's post*
That is DAMN valid!!!
Never trust American media for coverage of american elections...go to an independent body for something more balanced...
And according to what I've been hearing, Kerry's position has been strengthened after that debate....
More than ever now, Jeb may be more of the deciding factor in this election...
I, personally, don't care much for American politics, if it wasn't for the fact that America wasn't so influential on so many other countries (here included)...
-
Pandering to public opinion is weak. It means one has no depth of character or strength to make a stand on something. I know u think it's not a problem as Kerry is perceived as being in the right. What if public opinion is being channeled in a wrong direction ?? For example the brave US President that abolished slavery, in the face of a civil war and huge internal fallout ?? That took strength !!! He made a decision and stood by it regardless of the outcome and the popular opinion.
Regardless of whether Bush was right or wrong for invading Iraq, he stands by his decision. He displays strength. I not getting into the right or wrong of the decision. Kerry wavers. He unsure. He weak !!
So was the big deal with a weak American President ??
I, personally, don't care much for American politics, if it wasn't for the fact that America wasn't so influential on so many other countries (here included)...
Thas it...it will affect the rest of the world.
I agree though, that military might is not strength. I think Clinton was a strong President and he's not like Bush...But come on man...leh we take off the anti-bush specs...Kerry Weak !!!......Taliban food :lol:
-
Regardless of whether Bush was right or wrong for invading Iraq, he stands by his decision. He displays strength. I not getting into the right or wrong of the decision. Kerry wavers. He is unsure. He is weak !!
CNN says "jump beyotch" and you say "how high?"
I have heard this argument a dozen times since the debate and its nexus is the Fox News post debate commentary, which was replayed again and again through the mouths of a dozen analysts all repeating the same phrase. Hell, you almost have the phrase exact....
I don't disagree with your opinion or your right to hold an opinion. I mainly disagree with why you hold the opinion.
-
Pandering to public opinion is weak. It means one has no depth of character or strength to make a stand on something.
But I addressed this. When Bush invaded Iraq he was "pandering to public opinion". When Lincoln freed the slaves he was "pandering to public opinion".
There are always views for and against any particular matter.
When Lincoln freed the slaves he was "pandering" to the will of more than half the country.
Bush's post-9/11 opinion polls have almost always been evenly split.
So he was always "pandering" to at least 45% of the country and going against the rest.
The opinion on Kerry's plan is relatively split. So he's "pandering" to half the public and going against the rest.
In all three cases, there were/are risks and difficulties involved.
The point is that Kerry believes that his plan will have better results than Bush's, which has already proven to be counterproductive at best.
Where has Kerry wavered? This was de fella who not only went to war (something Bush never did), but came back and had the balls to stand up against what he thought was wrong on the battlefield. That is strength of character.
He made a decision and stood by it regardless of the outcome
That's not strength.
That's foolhardiness.
You stand by your decision when it gives you the desired outcome.
If you make a decision and you don't get the "Mission Accomplished" that you desire, true strength means admitting you were wrong and trying a better plan.
You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please..I urge you to think about what you're typing so we can move forward.
-
You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please..I urge you to think about what you're typing so we can move forward.
Ouch :sad:
Bless fella ! :)
CNN says "jump beyotch" and you say "how high?"
I have heard this argument a dozen times since the debate and its nexus is the Fox News post debate commentary, which was replayed again and again through the mouths of a dozen analysts all repeating the same phrase. Hell, you almost have the phrase exact....
I don't disagree with your opinion or your right to hold an opinion. I mainly disagree with why you hold the opinion.
I actually dislike CNN and i don't have cable. FOX ? lol..
Yeah it seems like the news but it's my opinion. I hold my opinion mainly because i think bush must have been mad to invade iraq. And after he did it, he more or less tells the rest of the world to **** off. As "sick" as it is, i admire the guys "balls". And a lot of middle eastern leaders are scared and wary of the lil guy. If his goal was to scare the the terrorist world or any would be America bombers (which IMO was the sole purpose of his heavy hand in Afganistan and Iraq)....hand it to the guy, he succeded !!
Evidence - There has been NO major acts of terrorism against American interest sinde the Iraq invasion. Again IMO, this isn't because of a lack of terrorist activity, Spain was bombed, there are daily bombings in Iraq and the Beslan School thingie. Its (IMO), FEAR. FEAR of Bush's reaction, cause almost all terrorism is sponsored by middle-eastern govt's.
Nobody wants to be in Bush's cross hairs, hence the lack of major attacks on American interests.
Terrorists and Anti-America countries are not scared of America, they are wary of BUSH !
I would have rather not entered into this lengthy debate, except for the post by Papa Smurf, attributing my opinion to CNN..
<---- shudders ---- CNN ????? Awwww come on...THEY STINK !!!
Ok for the record, Kerry ain't half bad. He aight. I just like that ignorant MoFo, Bush. He is just what the sponsors of terrorism need !!
Bush IWMC !! Who vex lorse !!
So...thas how i formed my opinions on Bush & Kerry !
BTW smurf how do you form yours ?? BBC , Al Jazeera ?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: <no malice intended> <one love>
-
If his goal was to scare the the terrorist world or any would be America bombers (which IMO was the sole purpose of his heavy hand in Afganistan and Iraq)....hand it to the guy, he succeded !!
The reason there haven't been any acts of terrorism on the US mainland is because of the super-tight US security. Not because anyone is scared.
If the terrorists were scared of the US, you think they'd be beheading men left and right, and sending video of it right back to the US? You think they're be engaging the US forces in Iraq?
The terrorists are underequipped and unable to penetrate US homeland defense (so far).
But scared?
Nah.
You honestly feel Bush could be any more crazy than men who believe that strapping a bomb to their chests and blowing up buses is a straight road to heaven?
Also, keep in mind that terrorist strikes on the US were few and far between either way. The original WTC bombing took place in 1993. Discounting the Oklahoma business (since it was internal), there weren't any other terrorist acts since then.
So saying that Bush's actions have "scared" terrorists away from the states doh make too much sense.
Clinton managed to "scare" them away from 1993-2000 by bombing one airfield?
almost all terrorism is sponsored by middle-eastern govt's.
No. The majority of terrorism is funded by big Middle East businesses. The oil magnates. Like those in Saudi Arabia. Like those that Bush is in bed with.
I just like that ignorant MoFo, Bush. He is just what the sponsors of terrorism need !!
This definitely makes sense.
The sponsors of terrorism need a reason to hate the Western World even more and despatch their boys wherever they can.
-
Clinton managed to "scare" them away from 1993-2000 by bombing one airfield?
Quote:
almost all terrorism is sponsored by middle-eastern govt's.
No. The majority of terrorism is funded by big Middle East businesses. The oil magnates. Like those in Saudi Arabia. Like those that Bush is in bed with.
Quote:
I just like that ignorant MoFo, Bush. He is just what the sponsors of terrorism need !!
This definitely makes sense.
The sponsors of terrorism need a reason to hate the Western World even more and despatch their boys wherever they can.
I agree with the above statements I mean terrorism is in fact sponsored by the most gornments and factions from the middle-east.
That why if it were up to me I was putting Bill Clinton back in the seat.
Bill Clinton for President :!: :lol :lol: :lol:
-
if clinton was president there would be no more terrosim evrybody likes a high man
-
The reason there haven't been any acts of terrorism on the US mainland is because of the super-tight US security. Not because anyone is scared.
On the US mainland ??? I wrote, US INTERESTS. .....Poor journalism !!!
Sooo, the bombing of The USS Cole, and two American Embassies don't count ?? And there have been NO, such attacks ANYWHERE in the world since Bush's heavy hand. There have been NO major attacks WORLDWIDE !!!. And there were, before Bush went postal.
If the terrorists were scared of the US, you think they'd be beheading men left and right, and sending video of it right back to the US? You think they're be engaging the US forces in Iraq?
Oh boy. The terrorists kidnapping and beheading anybody they feel like. They have beheaded, Iraqis, jordanians, turks, and americans. Those are weak, independent actions, aimed at undermining the US presence in Iraq
and soliciting money for further terrorist actions.
So saying that Bush's actions have "scared" terrorists away from the states doh make too much sense.
Duh !! A terrorist is NEVER scared. However the ppl / countries that fund, sponsor, and provide training camps ARE scared. NOBODY wants to be the country that is connected to the next American bombing, and that's because of BadMan Bush !!!
No. The majority of terrorism is funded by big Middle East businesses. The oil magnates. Like those in Saudi Arabia. Like those that Bush is in bed with.
You believe what you wish !!! Free World !!
-
Poor journalism !!!
First things. Keep the silly little personal jibs out of the conversation. Journalism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=journalism) has nothing to do with what you pointed out. If you disagree, disagree. Doh bring my job into this.
NOBODY wants to be the country that is connected to the next American bombing, and that's because of BadMan Bush !!!
Why would they be scared? The 9/11 terrorists had Saudi passports, got Saudi funding and Bin Laden has more Saudi ties than any other country.
And there have been NO, such attacks ANYWHERE in the world since Bush's heavy hand. There have been NO major attacks WORLDWIDE !!!. And there were, before Bush went postal.
I'll say it again. This has more to with the level of US security both at home and at its interests than with anyone being afraid of "BadMan Bush".
All "BadMan Bush" doing is bombing a ants nest to kill jep. The smoke and fire might keep the jep and them away for a while, but in the meanwhile, people in his house ketchin dey ass and all his neighbours taking two steps back.
I'll be reasonable and agree that the military approach has its merits.
But we're not in the Middle Ages anymore.
Two of the things you've written strike me as regressive.
Pandering to public opinion is not weak. It's generally known as "democracy".
And as I mentioned before, the world is only as civilised as people want it to be. If enough people go down the diplomatic path, we WILL find a diplomatic solution.
-
i dont think they terrorist not acting because of the high security, i think it have more to do with waiting till things calm down a bit. The worst war is when it in your own country yes. And that is what they doing, they bringing th e war to the states. The citizens fraid now, fear of getting bomb an thing. It have people who doh even wanna go in a major building anymore because of fear.
If you as the enemy, and you have the people in the country fearful, you accomplish a lot yes. hmm lemme rephrase that a bit. because of their actions america increase security, making america a less free country in terms of rights an thing. The police could basically do what they want, walk in you house any time and walk back out. all they need is a slight clue of you involved in terrorist acts, making it the perfect excuse for doing anything they want to. So you got a country on their toes, high security, people complaining about rights and people fraid to get bomb -not going in some buildings etc. Eventually they go hadda drop the security to make the people in the country feel at peace. Ah mean you cant be in a country all the days of your life with tight security, you go feel violated. So the terrorists probably chilling on a blocking lighting up a spliff waiting for the country to calm down before waking dem up again. The perfect strat.
-
I really don't think the 'lack' of terrorism is because of Bush's efforts...
The nature of terrorism is to strike exactly when you don't expect A THING!!!
They did what they did, mission successful for them. Anything that happens afterwards for them is basically moot! They got what they wanted...and the Americans responded in the way that would have been hoped for by a lot of these people, which simply create more martyrs for their own cause....so America is fueling their own enemies with emotional arms, which can be stronger than any gun or bomb that you can lay into a person's hands...
The lack of terrorism, IMO, is because they HAVE NO REASON to provoke it on American soil....the Americans are doing more than enough to keep the hatred being spread all around...
-
Well put.
-
Its a subjective point i suppose. I see they (terrorists), still firing rockets at israel, the russian school, the spanish train. While i agree with all of the above points, i think its pretty easy to hit a US target outside of America. Just like the train in Spain. The two planes in Russia.
I personally think there's NOTHING one can do to stop terrorism. This has been proven consistently. No amount of security can stop it. But i tired....Anti-bush coalition....take win.
So i take allyuh argument (don't believe it), but i bligh it. Let's hope America can pass on some of its security tips to the wider world. Mainly israel, who has a huge problem. Russia and India too. Anybody with terrorist problems. We might be on to something good here.
Andlet's hope security hold's up if Kerry win !!! :lol:
Anyways. leh we move on....
It's subjective. All points taken.....Bless !!!!
<------ dig the avatar ?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
off to school !! :lol:
-
I agree with what ramp said, and SPK i mean terrosist have already succeeded in thier main purpose of terrorising.
I personally think there's NOTHING one can do to stop terrorism. This has been proven consistently. No amount of security can stop it. But i tired....Anti-bush coalition....take win.
I beg to differ for every problem=solution
I like d avatar! :lol:
-
Dread I just listen to Bu$h say: "I made a decision to destroy life..... to balance...." aight the world has gone mad.... ppl WDF? I mean he eh lying cause he pong the middle east like a cheap whore from 'bangcock' (ignore the spelling its the effect i'm going for) and kill real ppl for nothing including his own soldiers... so I guess hes fessing up... (PS I know it was wrt to stem cell, I am just in shock he would say something so dumb.... then again.... it is him)
-
american security can never ever be tight enough to barr the activites of terrorist
because to do so would mean to turn america into a police state
the terrorist achieved what they wanted to achieve for the most part with 9/11
but they are not finished
we do not know where there funding comes from
any statements express here is only the opinions of the speaker or that of his source
until detailed confessions/interrogations are released the truth is no one really knows why
not even the americans
all we could do is hope tthat someone ends it
the politics of the situation is beyond us as we do not have all the facts
but I will say that I would rather a man concerned about getting the job done rather than being politically correct, or playing by the UN's rules
the truth is it is as corrupt as any other political body, and in my opinion too much so as it is supposed to be a body to versee international relations
america was not the first nation to disobey the UN
and the fact of the matter is much of the UN's strength is america
we are just caught up in both an internal american political struggle and an international one concerning the countries of europe, the UN and america
bush doh cater, he does what has to be done, and yes it does
saddam and his sons had to be removed,
as did the taliban
but everyone shouts that the transition of those two countries is being badly handled because it isn't going smoothly
but nothing worth doing is easy
he is a man of charater
and I respect him for it
kerry is in reality, an ass
but whatever, none of us are in a position to truly say what is fact, so the above is simply my opinion, or part of it
which is why I find that all of these discussions are totally pointless
especially since we need to be concerned with our own country
before we should start to judge others
in other words, omg why does this topic exist
what is the point
what difference does this make
if you want to do something, do something for your country
cause we need the help
-
I personally think there's NOTHING one can do to stop terrorism. This has been proven consistently. No amount of security can stop it.
You are wrong on the former but do hold some validity on the latter point.
Security cannot stop terrorism, this is true. Terrorism, whether you like it or not, is an international ideology along the lines of capitalism, socialism, pluralism and liberalism. It exists in all societies as the ultimate expression of rebellion and defiance at what it views as a unjust authority. It's embodied in all people. You can find evidence of it within any microcosm of a societal sturcture. Whether it be children defacing a wall with graffiti to get bach at their school, or gang violence leading to cartel & mafia wars because their minority is misrepresented in politics. It's still terrorism, using violence in a reactionary manner. The US itself has a high number of terrorists living inside its borders, but because they are not Arabs or muslims with Rockets & WMD's they are not branded as "Terrorists". These ppl strike out at the very society which created them because they feel oppressed and abused by that said society. And as long as their is exploitation by the ruling party in all spheres of the US (political & Economic as well as social), there will exist terrorism. So do not believe that the US is free from "terrorism", whether you call it crime or not.
However, there is something you can do to stop it. Stop exploiting the majority humanity for the benefit of the minority. If the driving force of humanity was changed from the accumulation of wealth to the desire to see all mankind united as equal through the acquistion of knowledge, then terrorism would have no need to exist. The fundamental thing about terrorism is that it is a reaction theory. Something must exist to provoke it. If the provocation were removed then so would the motivation behind all terrorist acts.
However, this is not as easy as i make it sound. The feasibility if changing the human desire to acquire wealth and distinction, to be unequal to your race, is very great. I do not forsee this ever coming into being in my lifetime. But i will not discount its potential. It has occurred before and enjoyed some measure of success before it was thrown down and denounced by today's ruling socio-economic ideology. Capitalism itself took many centuries to develop to dominance, and i view Capitalism and as merly a stepping stone / stage to something greater. Something that will let everyone live with a little more dignity.
-
Rommel, when do you intend to stop bitching about people's threads and practice what you preach?
Yuh always dissing people for discussing topics, and telling them to "go make a difference" because "words mean nothing".
So why you here? Why you posting?
Is your bitching making a difference?
Sweating in HQ makin a difference?
Playing Lineage and CoD improving the world?
What exactly are you doing for your country?
Man, if yuh have nutten to say, say nothing.
Doh be coming in people thread to tell them to stop conversing. Yuh eh making no sense.