|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
TO ALL BUSH LOVERS | from zac_stone - Wednesday, October 13, 2004
accessed 3504 times JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. JUST FUCKING VOTE FOR KERRY, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE KERRY.. JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT COCKY BUSH OUT. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from sarafina
Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 11:09
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Now I have heard this subject come up a few times and while I disagree on Kerry’s healthcare proposal I’d like to know why you who are voting for it think it’s justifiable.
Why do you think that Kerry’s plan to raise taxes on the rich to cover the cost of medical for those who can’t afford it is right?
Why should someone get taxed more just because they make more money? I plan on working my butt off and hopefully one day be rich myself why would I vote for a plan that would penalize me for doing so? All that does is encourages the already thousands of people mooching off the social service system. Believe me I have seen it first hand the majority of those on social services don’t want to work in the fist place. Furtur more we pay extra for every additional kid these people have so if you’ve got five kids you’ve got a nice little income coming in ever month. I find it disgusting!
If I had it my way those on social services would be put on birth control and be required to get a depo shot for as long we are paying them. When they decide to get off their asses and work and can support themselves and their kids then they can have the privilege of having them. I know this will never happen but I’m so sick of seeing it out here esp. with all the illegal immigrants we have out here. I’m so glad that Arnold finally put a stop to illegal immigrants getting driver license and reregistering to vote. Now only if he’d do something about them being able to apply for welfare.
All I know is I do not want my taxes raised just so I can pay for all the medical for illegal immigrants, welfare applicants, emergency victims (like drug overdoes) and so on. Next thing you’ll see is less people will have coverage because they’ll think “hey if I don’t pay for health insurance I’ll still be covered if I have an emergency”
There was a time I didn’t have heath insurance but it wasn’t because I couldn’t afford it I just didn’t want to spend the extra money each month. The one thing I do agree with Kerry on is Drug Reimportation from Canada and Mexico would help cut cost. I know there are many more details I have not covered but here are some of the main differences.
http://www.uoworks.com/articles/policy.bush_vs_kerry.html
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | |  From An opinion
Friday, October 22, 2004, 05:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well if you look at society as a commune, you have the provisioners (the people who work to make money)but all people can't do this as there are children to raise. Who's going to look after those children if they could make money by doing the other job? So they get a percentage of the provisioners money.Everyone bennefits, unless like TF the majority of the money is not distributed evenly, and the the common member has no say in how the money is spent.
The money for "Tools" needed were not the tools we needed.
The tax-payers are paying their money for healthcare, public services and a general quality of life for all to bennefit thus creating a safer enviroment for all; safe play ares for kids, street lighting, youth progects, elderly, disabled, dislocated, policeforce, army, incarceration of undesirables/repeat offenders and rehabilitation.
It would be great to think that you could ever be in the top 5% bracket where none of these things are of any concern, but thats not the way things are going. If you earn millions being a celebraty/star it's only fair that you share that wealth.
The thing with TF is that it didn't have a democratic heart it is a dictatorship. And because people didn't know what they needed and were happy to except what they were told. (i.e stupid Mo letters instead of proper school books) so yes it seems unfair that the money only helped the top.
Well it seems that alot of money is being spent on war and not the people. If the people want to spend a significant amount from the pot on war then hell do it but as long as the information is correct. The U.S right has a history (the cold war was an ilusion set up by neo-conservatives and the christian aliance in the 70's to create a climate of good and evil, us and them, they created their enemy, to unite the people and give them something to fight for.) of spreading fantasy. Just my 2 cents (reply to this comment) |
| | from shikaka
Monday, October 18, 2004 - 19:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Can we please not fight amongst each other, but rather unite to work toward a one world government? Txsm!
(reply to this comment)
| from Shaka
Monday, October 18, 2004 - 12:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Everyone here needs to go see Team America:World Police. Matt Stone and Trey Parker have outdone themselves once again with this movie. Only they could have taken marionettes and made a hit movie with them. It's non-stop laughs from beginning to end. And there's something for everyone. Right-wingers get to see Kim Jong Il and liberal actors like Alec Baldwin and Helen Hunt ridiculed mercilessly, and Michael Moore stuffing his fat guts with hot dogs before blowing himself up in a suicide attack on the All-American "heroes". And all you rabid left-wingers can rest assured that our dear creators of South Park have not held back when it comes to bashing conservative America, albeit subliminally. Definitely the best movie of the year. Go see it!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from crazy
Monday, October 18, 2004 - 10:02
 (Agree/Disagree?)
vote for nadder all !!! hes the best candidate out there
(reply to this comment)
| From smashingrrl
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 19:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, he's so great you can't even spell his name. I worked for him and his lunatics for about two weeks a couple years ago as a junior speechwriter. He's an egomaniacal asshole. But sure, vote for the candidate that unabashedly takes money from right-wing Christian activists who want him in the race for the sole purpose of taking votes from the Democrats. No, I don't believe Kerry is perfect; far from it. Yet the fact remains, he's the only hope we have at preserving our few remaining civil liberties and some sense of sanity in this nation.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from jez
Monday, October 18, 2004 - 02:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Man with hole in pocket, always feel cocky!
(reply to this comment)
| from Test your election IQ
Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 08:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://web.tickle.com/tests/electioniq/
(reply to this comment)
| from frmrjoyish
Friday, October 15, 2004 - 08:35
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Why would someone vote for Kerry just because they don't like Bush? Have any of you with this mindset even done any research on Kerry, his much maligned "record", or his policies? I bet a small percentage of you can actually be specific in stating exactly what it is you disagree with Kerry on.
I have done the research and I like his policies and I like his record. The right wing can twist it however they want but he has not "flipped-flopped". And even if a politician did change his mind, that's life, people! Things change and people have to change with them. You can't stubbornly stick to your guns when things are going wrong or you've made a bad decision. It's not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength. I much prefer it to Bush's stubborn refusal to admit mistakes and make efforts to steer the country in the new direction.
I think it's immature and simple minded to make an uninformed vote. Take responsibility for your decisions, do your research, and then come tell me what you don't like about a particular candidate!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from placebo
Friday, October 15, 2004 - 05:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
The fact of the matter is your two party system is crap....but hey when were the Americans known for having personalities? snicker
(reply to this comment)
| From frmrjoyish
Friday, October 22, 2004, 17:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
The reason for the failure of most third parties is because their platforms are too narrow. By focusing to heavily on "hot button" issues (ie. the environment) they can't appeal to a broad enough audience to gain any sort of real political leverage. With the exception of the Republican party which was able to exploit a political niche due to the declining popularity of the Whigs, no third party has ever gained political prominence. A third party is a good idea but the broad platforms of our two current parties make that unlikely since any new third party would have to compete on the same issues.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from PopNFresh
Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 19:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm voting for Bush. I'm an SGA who has abandoned my hippie childhood for a more conservative money-loving lifestyle.
Republican and proud!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Monday, October 25, 2004, 08:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm guessing you are not a English speaking national from your lack of understanding of sarcasm and your idiotic statements. If so, you are partly forgiven for your stupidity. If not, go to school fuckface. You seem to be the one with the Family hang-ups, namely your apparent lack of education and your hard-on for America's demise. If you remember correctly, it was Berg who liked to prophesy gloom and doom about the end of America. News flash dickwad, not only are we alive and kicking but we are ON TOP and will stay that way for quite some time. So why don't you pray for Jesus to come take you to heaven so you don't have to endure this evil world any longer. (By the way, that was also American sarcasm. I don't actually believe that Jesus is going to take you anywhere seeing as he doesn't exist. Just thought I'd clarify that for you since you seem to be slow of understanding.)
Oh and do you really believe that Muslims are going to bring about our doom? Personally I think of the Muslim world as a giant nest of cockroaches. We may not ever be able to completely get rid of them and they may always be a pain in our civilized ass, but at least we can rest assured that they can never evolve enough to take over or be a real threat to our place on top of the food chain. Because whenever they start to venture out from the cracks and crannies that they hide in, we've got the bug spray. And ain't it satisfying to just stomp those little things once in awhile? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Baxter
Monday, October 25, 2004, 08:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jesus fucking Christ! What is the deal with you liberals? While I am no conservative, I'm getting fucking tired of hearing liberals rant and rave and berate their opposites with this fucking god-awful notion that they are infallibly right! I don't give a shit between two pillows what you believe, it's the fucking given notion that you're smarter than everyone else coz you're a fucking liberal. What the fuck do you call a close-minded liberal? A conservative by a different name!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From smashingrrl
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 22:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I actually have no problem with god. As long as people are convinced that there exists a higher power waiting to turn them into a slippery pile of grease on the sidewalk for stealing my car or kicking my dog....I'm a happy woman. I do, however, have a problem with those followers of god who take such joy in reminding me of my impending trip to hades for homosexuality; while picking shrimp from there teeth, on the sabbath, in their unkosher poly-cotton blend shirts.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From smashingrrl
Friday, October 22, 2004, 14:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I can't speak for all gays. I can say that I don't completely understand the idea that my marriage has any more to do with that of the average heterosexual couple's union than Britney Spears 55 hour marriage has to do with mine. The Massachusetts court ruling was that "seperate but not equal is not justice". At this point, however, I'll take what I can get. Many of these constitutional amendments, in Virginia and Ohio for example, not only outlaw marriage but also ANY legal recognition. This law makes all legal protections invalid to include the power of attorney's we've both signed to make medical decisions for one another. If my partner were hospitalized today, her parents with whom she hasn't spoken in years, would be allowed to make all decisions concerning her health. Friends of mine with children have no legal rights over those children in the event of the birth mother's death. Wills we've signed can be invalidated by immediate family members. These are the things they don't tell you about these amendments. As it stands now, there are over 1,000 legal protections afforded married couples by the federal government that we are not given. Like I said, I'll take what I can get.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From The Pedantic Prick
Monday, October 25, 2004, 18:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
"to have not understood what I was meant.[sic]" Do you mean "what I meant to say" or "what I meant"? See, I'm not "a total moron with no real life [sic: real-life] communication skills"! I just enjoy pointing out other people's mistakes when I think they're amusing. Getting back to yours, you said in black and white that Mr Bush landed the jet DURING the speech. If you're going to communicate poorly, don't call your readers morons when they don't understand you (which, by the way, I did).
Taking a lesson from Alice in Wonderland, Nick, you should say what you mean. It's just as important as meaning what you say.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Friday, October 15, 2004, 13:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, to be a military jet fighter pilot takes years of training. And the mental tests are some of the toughest in the military. There are no stupid fighter pilots. It takes a very calm, levelheaded, and quick thinking individual to fly one of those things. And no Zacky, the hours you spend fondling your joystick don't count in the least.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Vicky
Friday, October 15, 2004, 13:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, I realise I am simplifying the issue.
Obviously I know that being a fighter pilot is a very tough job and takes enormous skill. That said, I STILL don't think it makes him the right man for the job, and I am of the firm opinion that some level of intelligent thought doth not necessarily a great leader make. And, most of all, I just don't like him or the principles he stands for. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Vicky
Monday, October 25, 2004, 12:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course it's rather naive to regard the President as anything other than a figurehead, so in reality the issue of his personal level of intelligence is neither here nor there.
Having said that, I think Dubya comes across as so laughably ignorant that it's an embarrassment to the U.S., and if I were an American I would find it so hard to take him seriously as a leader. Maybe I am being excessively pernickety, but I think that the Head of State of a country as powerful as the U.S. should at least be able to give an impression of substantial intellectual grasp, which is something that Bush has rarely, if ever, accomplished, in my opinion.(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Monday, October 25, 2004, 14:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
He is an embarrassment.
Maybe he is a figurehead, but even a figurehead should be top-notch for such an important figurehead slot. Makes one wonder: if the figurehead, the part that's most in the public's eye, is of sucky quality, what the heck kind of quality is the non-figurehead component in charge made up of?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Sunday, October 17, 2004, 03:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm the first to agree that a high IQ does not necessarily make one a good leader. I think that the reason this point was brought up, though, is that a lot of the anti-Bush camp (most of whom I don't think could even be considered pro-Kerry) have claimed that Bush was less qualified as a leader because he wasn't as intelligent as Kerry. When one considers the rigorous standards set for a fighter pilot, the probability that Bush is as dumb as he is often made out is reduced to a near impossibility.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Shaka
Friday, October 15, 2004, 13:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
#1 It is far easier to fly a 747 than it is a fighter jet.
#2 Brainwashing was not good enough to teach those terrorists to fly. Flight school did the job that Allah could not.
#3 Even with the training they had, the plan was only to take control of the plane once it was in the air, fly it in a straight line, and crash it into an enormous building. No tricky take-offs and landings.
Seriously dude, stay off topics you know nothing about.(reply to this comment) |
| | From zac_stone
Friday, October 15, 2004, 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
With all respect, I think you're wrong.. you just feel important because you're part of the army service or whatever.. if you want world to look at you serving the WAR for USA, you better not to be on Bush's side because whole WORLD will hate you. You're out of luck, sorry man. That is how the world looks at USA right now. Since I am in America and I'm not proud of what BUSH HAD DONE!!
Yes, I think flying fighter jet is cool, but that got NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR BRAIN. Its like person who can write english but yet he can't fucking DRAW! Bush can do ACTIONS, but he can't deal with world's culture.
I don't think it got anything to do with flying to do with dealing America's problems. Poop on you, I bet you're shooting beer cans in backyard... WHITETRASH!!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nick
Friday, October 15, 2004, 09:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Now this is a typical example of a Democrat Kerry lover.
Absolutely no thought behind why they want to vote for Kerry and have no idea what he is or what he stands for except “bush is dumb”.
I agree with PopNFresh. I am a proud republican and Bush supporter because I like freedom and money! The republican attitude is work hard and live the American dream. The Democrat way is to let the successful people get rich and support the rest of Americans.
I have no doubt that Bush will win this election and all you idiots out there that have nothing better to do that say "bush is a dumb ass bush is a dumb ass bush is a dumb ass" just prove one of my theories. God has put 50% of the people on this earth to fuck with other intelligent 50% of us.
VOTE BUSH and prosper! (reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Friday, October 15, 2004, 10:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well said Nick. I completely agree with your comment. Bush may not be the most eloquent speaker but at least I know exactly where he stands on issues. His responses while short, simple and sometimes not always what your want to hear are honest direct and to the point. Not all buttered up and coated in false promises and bull like Kerry's speaches. All Kerry does is Yak and Yak away about nothing he never takes a definite side he just says what people want to hear and leaves you as confused as ever as to where he stands. I watched the last debate and I thought Bush did very well and so did most everyone else I know around here. They were very satisfied with his answers.
So even though you don't see us picketing with "Vote Bush" signs in the streets or click on every online poll or don't post campaign slogans and stupid copy paste articles on here like all you Kerry fans, doesn't mean we aren't still here it's just that we don't need to. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From frmrjoyish
Thursday, October 21, 2004, 05:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Again, another anonymous ignoramous spouting off crap they know nothing about. The fact is is that within the next Presidential term several Supreme Court justices will/might be retiring. There has been a strong effort from the conservatives to overturn the right of a woman to chose what to do with her own body. George Bush, due to his active stance against abortion, is very in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned and will appoint new Justices that will see that this is done. This is a fact and is generally not disputed, even between opposite political sides. The only thing that will potentially prevent this from occuring is if women create a huge uproar about this. Get your facts straight, moron! This issue is too important to be minimized by the uninformed. (reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Friday, October 15, 2004, 16:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I never said I couldn't understand Kerry as far as his vocabulary goes I understood him just fine but having a "larger vocabulary and better grammar " doesn't mean he's making solid points or sides either. I know you never said it does, just as I never said "simple and easy = honest and true".
IN my opinion I think Kerry is scared to make any solid statements for fear of shaking up the voters ground to much. Also right now he seems unsure himself about a lot of things and doesn't want to be held to them later on so he constantly makes "outs" available for himself should he ever be pinned or cornered on a issue. I just don't see him as a strong leader but more of a people pleaser and in my opinion when your running a country sometimes you have to make decisions that are going to please people.
As far as "his justifications to go to war were pretty simple and straightforward and we all know how that turned out! " I say it's turning out just fine and long over due and it probably would be over now if he didn't have to deal with all this political red tape and ask permission for every move. I think this war was perfectly justified and well needed. Every power has to have it's strenth tested every now and then or people will begin to doubt in it's strengh.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Sunday, October 17, 2004, 13:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry, but I strongly disagree that the situation in Iraq is "turning out just fine". Each month we lose more soldiers and spend billions more of your's and my hardearned money and there is no end in sight. The difficulty was not winning the military part of the conflict, everyone knew America could do that, but what is eluding ol' Dubya is the leadership ability required to now end the fighting and begin the path towards peace.
This a new type of war is being fought with tactics that the US military is proving to be inept at dealing with. The conventional might and strength of the US military are just not effective in this new scenario. What we need is a President who will seriously and objectively evaluate our current situation and rescend any policies (like unilateralism) that have helped get us stuck in the mess we are now in. Given Bush's unwillingness to entertain the idea that he has made any mistakes in this matter, it is unlikely that he is that President.
Furthurmore, a strong nation has no need to test its strength on weaker nations. That is an irresponsible use of power and I believe there is a term for that that any child would be familiar with: bully! In fact, we all know that the US has gone to war with several nations for the very same thing, including Iraq. (reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Sunday, October 17, 2004, 17:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I know you disagree, you've made that very obvious in all your political aguments and comments that you make on here alsmost every day. I'm not trying to get into an political agument with you esp.since we are friends.I've always avoided responding to your personal comments regarding this issue and let you battle it out with others and I would prefer to keep it that way. For one I am no match for your large vocabulary and better grammer it would just be another repeat of a Bush & Kerry debate and I think we've all seen enough of that ;) So lets just leave it at "We agree to disagree" =)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From moon beam
Monday, October 18, 2004, 01:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes nothing gets people quite as heated as politics and I agree it shouldn't become personal. ;)I myself am very passionate about the subject, and see a great need for change.
I do wonder why debating with the right is similar to debating with christians, one says "we support the war", the other "It's all down to faith" ARGGGHHHH It's just no answer.
I was watching some news slot the other day and some US citizens were saying how they would vote, they all mentioned the war on terror as a reason to vote Bush, so to all Republicans I ask, Why else? What if this war was not on the agenda? What is so great about his policies?
Frmjoyish did a great job in her article "A day in the life of a Democrat" on listing the the Democratic manefesto's, is there no Republican here who has a wish list(other then take the world to WW3)that they feel Bush can deliver on? For instance I know they support the death penalty, anti-abortion,Tax cuts for the rich, Gun culture, War, So what reasoning is it that you can side with that lot? Does equality , the enviroment, and Non-christian nations really deserve to be passed over for the sake of some one who wants to carry a gun or make sure criminals are electricuted? (IMO, if someone killed my child I would want them to rot in prison for a long time)
Another sad irony in the news last night, is that the once christian west has destroyed and corrupted other nation's cultures and beliefs, to instill our own. So now that we are allowing gays to be priests and discrimination to cease, the "church" in Africa is coming back to preach to us, that gays are not allowed in the church.
Oh well! (reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Monday, October 18, 2004, 12:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well I certainly never said I agree with Bush on everything there are many things I disagree with him on. I do however agree and support the death penalty for serial killers, murderers and multi offence child rapist. Yes I'd like to see them in prison for a long while (which they are) but after their served time they should be executed not released.
I also agree with being able to own a gun. I've owned one myself up until I sold it a short while back. You are never going to be able to stop criminals from owning them just the law abiding citizens who should be allowed to protect themselves.
I do however while I disagree with Bush on the Gay Rights issue (but then so does Chaney so maybe he can have some influence in that area.)I also am very pro-choice and mostly, don't believe in a God unlike Bush. I also strongly dislike any person who believes it's OK to burn and desecrate the Flag I feel it should be a crime and do not want a president who disrespects his country by doing so or supporting those who do.
Over all what I am trying to say is I did not just vote for Bush because of the war, there were other determining factors like his foreign polices, tax issues, school and education and such. I went over both candidates and all the issues I agreed and disagreed with and gave each issue points of importance to me and I just voted for the person who ended up with the most points I agreed with. Same reason I voted for Arnold as Governor and he's doing a great Job out here in CA and you will hear that from both Republicans and Democrats.
As for comparing "debating with republicans to debating with Christians" I find that comment completely unnecessary and just a low jab. I'm sure they could say the very same of you. Your mind is just as made up and I think that comment might even apply more to all you who think "all the worlds problems can be solved with peace and love" So lets just leave the insults and comparisons out of the debates =)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From moon beam
Monday, October 18, 2004, 12:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
It was not an insult to you, I have just found that to be the case for me, an observation on my part, and as you can imagine I do it a lot. I respect your choice and when I critise The right (not you) it's because I do really feel strongly about the issues concerned. For instance I dissagree with guns. A 14 yr old was shot dead walking back from a fair with her friends last week, and if it's possible to get hold of guns, these crimes will happen. I do understand that you have reasons for your opinions and it's good to hear them specifically. I feel its worthwhile to debate and raise these issues and I don't mean to be offensive to you as a person. ;) (reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Monday, October 18, 2004, 13:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
No problem maybe I took it as a bit of an insult esp.since I am not a Christian Nor am I a right winger, In fact have mostly voted democratic in the past but always check the "independent" box on the voters registration form.
As for guns I know all about them. My 17 year old brother shot himself in the head with one last year and is no longer here. Do I think it was the gun's fault? No. It's people that are stupid not the gun. There are far more ways you can have an accident them owning a gun. I think there should be regulations and safety percussions taken but ultimately I believe a person should have the right own one should they choose too. Like I said before all that a Gun ban would do is strip the good guys from them not the criminals.
Just as learning to use any dangerous tool or weapon I think there should be some sort of schooling & training before just handing one over to someone and regulations and penalties. For example when you get your drivers license your are first taught how to drive and how to drive safely you are given rules to guide you and laws like "no drinking and driving" Or you must be over a certain age and responsible enough.
Cars are extremely dangerous more people die of car accidents then almost anything else but you can't just take all the cars away. If they don't drive safely or if the brake the rules you punish the person and take away their personal right to drive.
Like cars guns should not be held when drinking or when under the influence and they should be given to a trained and license person. Just as you tell the kids never to drive your car and you try and hide the keys to keep them from the temptation the same should be done with your gun. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Another perspective
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 10:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's a good argument, but there is one flaw in it.
The primary purpose of a cars is to facilitate transporation, not killing people. The primary purpose of a gun is to facilitate killing people or harming them physically.
The only reason one would carry or keep a weapon (other than collectors) would be to kill or injure if the person deemed it necessary to do so.
Therefore, taking away all the guns, although a radical move, may do more to solve the problem than teaching people how to use them responsibly.
As Chris Rock said, guns don't kill people, bullets do--so they should up the price of bullets to $5,000 a peice. That way if someone was shot, you know they deserved it.(reply to this comment) |
| | From The Pedantic Prick
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 13:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Therefore, taking away all the guns, although a radical move, may do more to solve the problem than teaching people how to use them responsibly. "
This argument can be broken down like this:
A. Remove all guns and
B. No one will die from guns
This is a logically sound argument. However, the first premise, A, is erroneous. Want to know why? You can't remove all the guns!! Sorry. I wish we could. I hate guns just as much as the next guy, but I'm a realist about these kinds of things. Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns. Not the result we want. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Another perspective
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 14:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I absolutely agree.
The more actively something is prohibited, the stronger the backfire. Guns and other weapons would continue to be sold on the black market regardless of a mandatory surrender of firearms.
There will never be a universal answer to an issue of this magnitude. The best solution (whatever it may be) will accomplish nothing more that minimize the problem's effect.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 11:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well unfortunately we don't all live in your wonderful La La land where no one needs protection or the need to "kill or injure if the person deemed it necessary to do so ."
In the world I live in we have what we call "bad guys". They are not sweet at all and loving and have none of the lords love in them. Sometimes we have to use a weapon to defend ourselves from these evil attacks of the enemy!
What did you think? That guns are only made to hurt and kill innocent people? Their primary purpose is to do good for a person and not to do bad even though there are those that do bad with them. That’s as dumb as saying "Oh, the primary purpose of cars is to pollute the earth."
Get real dumb ass! Or maybe you can go join MoonShine in her quest to tickle bears with little electric tasers.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 10:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Umm your a bit behind. Moon Beam already mentioned the whole "cars made for transportation" deal and I already posted the whole quote of Chris Rock and the bullet speal so that whole comment of yours was just a repeat. ;) Might want to read all the comments on the subject before posting.
Personally I don't see the difference they both kill people weither they were made to or not and we have far more deaths by car accidents then gun accidents. As far as I'm concerned this is a pointless subject to argue on anyways as I don't think there will ever be a gun ban in our lifetime at least.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nick
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 08:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree on the gun issue. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to say that more gun laws would protect more people. What they don’t realize is already highly illegal for criminals to have a gun and that banning more guns from law abiding citizens would just leave us unarmed and vulnerable.
Then you have the less blatant laws that they are trying to pass. Like no assault style weapons or no folding stocks etc. How absurd is that??? I mean can anyone tell me how a 762.39 round from an AK47 is gonna make me more dead than a round from a 7mm Mag? Or why they want to ban the classic Ruger 1022? I mean that’s a 22cal squirrel gun yet they wanna ban it as it is classified as an assault weapon. If you ask me a blast from a 12 gauge is gonna do a lot more damage than a AK47. I have owned them both and no first hand and not in some flower power anti gun magazine written by someone that has probably never owned or shot a weapon.
Get the facts and learn some stats before talking about revoking one of the most prized and need amendments in the constitution. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Baxter
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 04:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Christina, no official licensing or sale of guns does not mean no guns. the question of eliminating gun culture is so much deeper than that. most of the criminal-owned firearms in this country are smuggled in, not purchased legally or stolen from licensed owners. Restricting the legal ownership of guns does nothing to stem the flow of unregulated guns (living in Nottingham, you should know that). No guns equals no death, but no licensed guns simply means less traceable murder weapons. I go so far as to say that the level and manner of present gun-crime in this country would quite likely be almost totally unaffected if they were to lift restrictions on ownership of firearms. Maybe every once in a while a woman will shoot her philandering husband (or V.V), but the majority of gun-crime does not involve this anyway; it involves people who will get guns whether we want them to or not.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From frmrjoyish
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 09:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
I could be wrong but I thought Canada was full of gun owners and hunters while still having a crime rate significantly lower than the US's?
The gun issue is one where I differ from most other liberals. I do not see how banning law abiding citizens from owning guns will stop criminals from obtaining guns. I believe it is more effective to severly prosecute gun crimes. This allows for a deterent against using guns in crime but does not infringe on law abiding gun owners. I believe we should have background checks, waiting periods etc. but if a criminal wants to get his hands on a gun they will do so no matter how strict the laws are.
Having said that, I also don't believe that the constitution guarantees anyone an implicit right to own a gun. The constitution states that within a well ordered militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. At the time the constitution was written, a well ordered militia would be comparable to our National Guard today. It is not a free pass for any and all firearms. There should be laws allowing citizens to own guns but conservative groups like the NRA are full of it when they try to use the constitution to guarantee a right to their respective hobbies like hunting, shooting, or whatever.
Until we as a society figure out how to live in peace and governments no longer use organized mass murder to furthur their agenda's and until those governments can set a good example of not using weapons capable of killing thousands in an intant, it is hypocritical to restrict a law abiding citizen from owning a gun. (reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 09:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
moon beam, Canada is virtually awash in guns. Though, having said that, I would point out some of the more obvious differences between Canada and the US in regards to firearms ownership. (If it's of any interest, I do believe that responsible individuals should be permitted to own firearms, even being the left-winger that I am on other topics. ;) )
For starters, in Canada we don't have nearly as many handguns. In fact, you need a special class of permit to even own one, and a concealed carry permit is almost impossible to obtain unless you are in Law Enforcement. In fact, you need a licence to buy, own or sell a firearm of any variety, which you can't get if you don't qualify for one, ie if you have a criminal record, a history of serious mental illness, et c. You also must pass the CFSC (Canadian Firearms Safety Course) before you will be issued a PAL (Possession and Acquisistion Licence). There is no constitutional right to bear arms in Canada so the default is that "you may not own". This alone keeps guns further from idiots who have no place having the power of life or death at their fingertips. Because, as Nick (and Chris Tucker in "Money Talks") said earlier, guns don't kill people, stupid motherfuckers with guns kill people. Ergo, the fewer stupid motherfuckers with guns, the fewer deaths. This is why Canada doesn't have as many gun-related deaths as do our southerly neighbours. :)
IMHO, handguns cause so many needless deaths by their A) ease of concealment (as opposed to carrying around a rifle or shotgun in your jeans pocket), B)relative ease of use (at short range, the original point n' click), and C) The fact that a large percentage of people feel 12 feet tall and invulnerable when they're packing heat, which makes them more likely to respond to stressful situations with bullets.
Nick: as far as I can tell, most firearms regulations use caliber, barrel length and rate of fire in classifying which weapons are restricted/prohibited and which aren't. Besides, (some) shotguns have a legitimate place in hunting whereas to bring an AK47 deer hunting is somewhat unsporting, all other considerations aside, don't ya think? :) Assault weapons are for assaulting and not much else, and damned if we need everyone doing that at every opportunity. Just curious: on what grounds are they trying to ban the 10/22? is it that it's easily modifyable to full-auto?
more information on what's legal in Canada and what isn't: http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/owners_users/fact_sheets/r&p.asp(reply to this comment) |
| | From sarafina
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 12:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think Chris Rock had the best plan and that was to raise the cost of bullets. It goes somthing like this.. " if a bullet cost you $5,000 there'd be a whole lot less shooting. Fights would go more like this..."What? Oh really? Wait there I'll be right back..I'm gonna go home look in the classifieds , get me a job, buy me a bullet and then ...it's ooon muthaf---er... and your a dead man..you'd better hope I can't get no bullets on layway" Then if anyone ever did get shot you'd know they did somthing wrong cause someone just spent $50,000 of bullets on their ass." J/K =) but it was a great piece have you seen it?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From moon beam
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 09:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes I know from "Bowling for columbine" that Canada has a pretty simular amount of guns yet the gun crime is far less.
I was trying to answer Nicks points and the last sentence was alluding to the differences you laid out.
Nick said "Tightening gun laws wouldn't be the anawer" so the last sentence was about Canada being an example of the middle ground so to speak. but (I was trying to battle with the chat room problem at the time) (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 09:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually Rough, caliber and barrel length don't have anything to do with what they ban. What they want to ban is assault style rifles because they look menacing and some have capacity for large clips. I mean you can still go and buy an old British Enfield which has a huge .303 bullet or you can buy a 50 call gun which I am sure you know is huge! Barrel length doesn’t come into play either as they are fine with the collapsible 22s or the old boy scout one shots that have barrels as short as 18”. (Exception to that rule on barrel length is on a sawn off shotgun which is a dangerous weapon as you can not control the way all the shot leave the barrel.)
Your point of the AK47 being unsporting is not really true. I mean all that gun shoots is a relatively smaller 762.39 round which is smaller that the 7mm Mag. The AK47 that you buy today is not fully auto and while a little inaccurate at long range, is a very reliable weapon and once scoped perfect for close range hunting like boar. Same with the SKS. I have owned and shot both of those. Seriously, please give me one valid reason why hunting with a single fire AK47 is unsporting.
You are right about the rate of fire and you can not own a weapon that is automatic. I do tend to agree with that one and that is a law that is accepted by most gun advocates.
They want to ban the Ruger 1022 as you can buy large capacity cartridges for it and they make a lot of after market assault style stocks for it. (reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 10:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
So do you hunt? And if so what do you do with the meat? (I don't have a problem if I was starving and I had to kill an animal in order to survive but just for the sheer fun of it would not appeal to me at all.
I guess it 's no surprise that I am a vegtarian and am against hunting, esp fox hunting here in the UK.
I am sorry that the climate is so violent over there and that it is deemed necesary to have a gun for protection. (reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 10:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
hmmmm..http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=692 . I can see why there might be some concern if this is as easy as they make it sound. - Though I'm not sure why you'd want the hassle of a fully auto piece that uses rimfire ammo in a mag.. The .303 British, if I remember correctly, jams if the mag isn't loaded properly (rims hang up on each other). Though aside from the short stock that was on the service models, I found it a nice gun, a good one to get used to iron sights on. (My Grandpa had one from WW2)
Perhaps a single-shot AK wouldn't be too terrible for hunting, but then again, you're talking to a bolt-action-school guy,(-I think it's sour grapes 'cause I don't have a semi-auto..:) Having said that, my Browning A-bolt 30-06 is a very fine rifle and (using Nosler slugs) is quite enough for any game we have here, including grizzly bear. (-as my uncle was forced to prove when he was set upon by 3 grizzlies about 5 years ago).
I guess barrel length isn't as big a deal in Texas as it is here, as it's one of the largest distinctions between permitted, restricted and prohibited in Canada. I think it's a concealment issue more than anything, and (duh) that wouldn't be an issue in the Great State A'.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 10:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yeah, you can convert it I guess. You can prob get conversion manuals for most rifles out there. That would be illegal to do even tho you can buy those books at most guns shows.
30-06 is a nice gun. Never owned one myself but have shot one. I do prefer bolt action for dear or long range shooting where it’s 1 shot 1 kill. However if you are boar hunting you want a semi so you can get off another few shots when that bad boy is charging down on you. Do you get to do much big game hunting there? All I really do here is Dove and turkey.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From sarafina
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 11:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Lmao! Girl, If you were ever attacked by a mountain lion or bear you'd be wishing you had a gun. You know how close you'd have to let them get to you before being able to use a stun gun? I hope you were joking, cause a bear can still attack you after you empty an entire clip into it and no amount of "bear spray" or a stun gun is going to help you.
As for hunting we mostly hunt deer and you have to buy a license to hunt and there are many regulations such as you can only shoot one deer per license , fawns or females and they are not cheap mind you. Usually cost a couple hundred dollars. The reason MN upped the amount of hunting licenses is was because they were having a deer problem, to many of them so it's sort of a way to control the deer population. However all the meat is completely used, we'd make jerky and stakes and sausage and share it with the whole family. Although my brothers mostly hunt with guns MY Uncle actually hunts with a Cross bow (feels it's more sportsmanship) but as much as I'd like to try that I can't even pull that bow string back so to each their own. =)(reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 12:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Absolutly, I probably would if I were in the situation you describe, but wonder if theres other avenues to explore.
I agree theres a difference between farmers and such having them and an office worker.
we don't have such dangerous animals and the need to kill our own food over here as much anymore so I too am releved I don't have to do it.
I've tasted boar just the once,it tasted to a bit like kangaroo, which I didn't like;( since i have stopped eating meat I stopped suffering from hayfever, which was a bonus ;) (reply to this comment) |
| | From night_raver
Thursday, October 21, 2004, 07:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
I told the girls in the office about stun-gunning a bear and they all just died laughing, wondering where you're from. I'm guessing the bears you might have seen are the quiet little lazy ones in zoos. In the wild they move quite fast and in wooded areas like out here, you often wont see them until they're 30 feet away, they can cover that distance in 3 full strides, and if there are cubs they WILL attack -- not many other avenues to explore in 3 seconds.
There was a question a bit earlier about whether hunters in the U.S. eat the meat -- believe me, they do. I dont hunt, but I get a lot of venison from hunters here and like it alot, the healthiest red meat you can eat. Hunting here traditionally was colonialists who needed meat (not British Earls who wanted antlers and left the meat to rot), and you can feed a family of 5 for 6 months from a single deer; my roomate from West Virginia lived on it growing up. There's a lot more space in the U.S. to hunt than other places, and while there are grocery stores (duh), hunting is usually cheaper if you eat a lot of meat.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Friday, October 22, 2004, 03:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
LHM, I'm putting myself on a non-sci-fi diet for awhile.
Relating to other avenues to explore, I believe that with fox hunting, the fox population can be controlled without the savagery of what occurs now. The argument for is that it is tradition and a way to keep the population down, now that may have been true for times past but can no longer be a valid argument, IMO. Just because something has "always been" doesn't mean it will always or has to be so.
While there will never be a world without guns in our life time but by making that move, fazing them out slowly, (I'm not in for a quick round up every gun in a week type senario, which I think I said earlier, they are still needed for some aspects of modern society,) and tightening the existing laws will leave a better , safer situation for our children in the future...
"Once you are on the right path all you have to do is keep walking!" untill it becomes the wrong one and a different path has to be found/chosen.
BT
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nick
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 08:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well I do agree that in a perfect world that concept does make sense however it is unrealistic in the real world and even more so in the US where there are millions and millions of guns out there and eradicating all of them is almost an impossibility. Not to mention detrimental to the safety of millions that rely on guns for protection.
Then you have the facts of what happens when you do try ban guns in a whole country. Take Australia for example. It didn't solve the issue and in some cases made it worse. For a start smaller gun crimes and crimes committed while in position of a gun went down only a measly 7%. But where the real "shocker" came was in home invasions and armed robbery of small mom and pop stores. That went up over 20% in the few years after they banned weapons.
All that not to mention that guns are a part of life in America that most people do not want to see taken away. There are a few clueless mothers out there who’s kids may have been tragically shot but that doesn't mean you need to throw out the baby with the bath water and leave the rest of the population sitting ducks and prone to more deaths because they can not defend themselves. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 08:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree on the gun issue. It is irresponsible and unrealistic to say that more gun laws would protect more people. What they don’t realize is already highly illegal for criminals to have a gun and that banning more guns from law abiding citizens would just leave us unarmed and vulnerable.
Then you have the less blatant laws that they are trying to pass. Like no assault style weapons or no folding stocks etc. How absurd is that??? I mean can anyone tell me how a 762.39 round from an AK47 is gonna make me more dead than a round from a 7mm Mag? Or why they want to ban the classic Ruger 1022? I mean that’s a 22cal squirrel gun yet they wanna ban it as it is classified as an assault weapon. If you ask me a blast from a 12 gauge is gonna do a lot more damage than a AK47. I have owned them both and no first hand and not in some flower power anti gun magazine written by someone that has probably never owned or shot a weapon.
Get the facts and learn some stats before talking about revoking one of the most prized and need amendments in the constitution. (reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 03:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am sad to hear of your loss, I didn't know he died that way, or I would never have bought up that particular example.
I don't know much about guns butI think I see what you are saying, that anything can be a weapon and it's the parents responsibility to keep such weapons away from children. But in the cases that I know about, it was registered weapons, that belonged to "repsonsible users" that were stollen/found which were used or sold to gangs. Plus there is less effort and more opportunity involved with using a gun-say then a knife or baseball bat, and when it's too easy to do and get ahold of one, thats what they'll do, IMO. (The girl was killed in a drive by.)
I am in favour of stun guns for special police instead of the bullet variety, I don't see how nicking some petrol and having a police chase then being shot dead i s a reasonable response for this day and age.
There must also be a difference between a car which was made to drive and a gun which was made to kill, like there is a difference between an aeroplane and a nuclear weapon. Like Bush said he was trying to do, take away the nuclear power from saddam, but he wouldn't take away all the planes, cars etc...
P.S LOL my mom would agree with you about feeling insulted, whenever we get into religion and politics, she takes my critism as personal, for that I am sorry. ;) Maybe I see that alot of right wing people who, support Bush because "He is a god fearing man" where otherwise they wouldn't, which kind of reminds me of people in the cult and church who also place blind faith in their fellow (possible perverts) for exactly the same reason.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sarafina
Monday, October 18, 2004, 13:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
LOL! Oops sorry. I think my auto spell check was on it automatically changes the words to what it thinks it should be if I misspell them. I'm not sure how it got turned on. That's what I get for trying to type a post and talk to customers at the same time I wasn't really paying well attention to either. But there could be some truth to that last part of your comment also.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From roughneck
Sunday, October 17, 2004, 12:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, being as how the US Senate ratified the UN charter in July of 1945, the US *does* have to ask permission of sorts before engaging in an armed conflict with another country. Have a read of the UN charter at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm
To bypass the UN as an "irrelevant debating society" is naked imperialism to most of the world, and in the tiny minds of moslem fundamentalists a crusade against Islam. The game in the middle east is such that if you alter even one player, it has the potential to send the whole house of cards tumbling down. Previous presidents have realised this to a greater extent than (IMO) George Bush does. The addition of hundreds of thousands of US troops to a notoriously unstable region causes greater unrest, no matter how you slice it. This directly translates to more attacks on America by madmen like Osama.
Not only that, but by involving themselves so deeply in Iraq's internal affairs, the US has taken upon an unlimited commitment to staying in Iraq. This can only be a situation like Vietnam where the US was basically acting as buffer for 2 peoples who were already killing each other before the US got there. This means lots of Americans dying in someone else's civil war. At some point it is no longer going to be worth it in terms of men, materiel and money spent to stake out Iraq as the 51st state. At this point the US leaves, and Iraq goes back to the way it was before the US was there, with a dictator or worse yet a religious maniac in charge. End result? One dictator replaced with another, not necessarily better dictator.
Even if the current US plan is successful (ie, a friendly (puppet) government in Baghdad, there is no guarantee that a coup wouldn't wipe that out as soon as someone sees the chance, a la the Shah of Iran. The truth is that if the US were to allow proper "democratic" elections, there's a good chance that the religious fanatic Shi'ite candidate(s) would win fair and square. I'm not sure exactly how much better Khomeini's Iran was than Saddam's Iraq, but from what I've read it seems Iraq was the better place to be of the 2. Not only that, but the Kurds are going to want their own independent state, which could cause Turkey a lot of problems, and the list goes on.
My point in mentioning the above is that the situation in Iraq is much more complex than Dubya and co. seemed to think it was at the outset of Operation Enduring Petroleum.
The real downside to this war is that the US is going to end up looking more ineffectual than ever, just as it did after the pullout in Vietnam. What exactly *is* the point of this war anyway?(reply to this comment) |
| | From 5th Grade Civics Teacher
Saturday, October 16, 2004, 20:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
"political red tape and ask permission for every move." Maybe you should brush up on the Constitution -- you'd find we have a little something called "checks and balances." Being able to do whatever you want without "political red tape and ask[ing] permission for every move" is a privilege enjoyed by such illustrious dictators as Fidel Castro, Kim Il Jong, and former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, whom you are all so thrilled to have seen removed from power. Think about that when you express your respect and admiration for your Commander in Chief. Or maybe you prefer the Britney Spears world-view: "I think we should just totally trust the president in whatever decision he makes" Jesus! Thinking like that got Monica Lewinsky a Montecristo between the thighs! (Many thanks to GQ for that one!)(reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Saturday, October 16, 2004, 06:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I just think it's a shame that some people feel that "sometimes you have to make decisions that are (not) going to please people." That's what voting and democracy is all about, listeniung to the population!! It's what makes it different to a dictatorship, something you say you are trying to accomplish in Iraq. (oil oil oil)
When one and a half million people march in London(and other countries)and the prime minister has to LIE to get his OWN way,and all along we've known what they were up to, just look back at all the threads in all my politics, that is a sad state of affairs don't you think?
It's insulting and patronising to people when the majority in the UK have not agreed with Blair taking us to Iraq in the way that he did, then when he was proved wrong and we right, he refuses to say sorry and admit it.
And you can't count a human as a WMD!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Democrat
Friday, October 15, 2004, 10:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Kerry and Bush are just figure heads representing a body of people, so maybe people don't have much knolwedge of Kerry himself but know that the Democrats are supporting policies and institutions that matter to them, Kyoto treaty, UN, International law, gay rights, equal rights, etc.. Some republicans may also view Bush as dumb, and may wish for a better figure head so they don't look so stupid but are still willing to vote Republican as they are far-right, facist, war-mongering, god-fearing (well they use the fear of god to their own ends), bible bashers, who want woman in the home, unable to make decisions about her fertility etc. Who are happy to make money on the backs of slaves, then call this hard work.
Blair is a liar and criminal(He took the UK to war on the premise that Saddam had WMD's and that Saddam could stay in power if he handed them over, now that they have proved there is nada there, he says it was to get rid of Saddam. Now that is "regime change" which is against international law.) but he will be voted back in the UK because it dosn't bear thinking about if the conservitives got back in.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From katrim4
Friday, October 15, 2004, 12:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh Nick, I forgot how funny you are!
When you say "the invasion was needed and served a good purpose" are you referring to the Iraqi invasion or the invasion of Afghanistan? I'm just wondering as you go on to mention the Taliban and how they destroyed the buddha statues. See, the map I looked at showed Afghanistan and Iraq to be pretty far away from each other. So I'm wondering if what the government of Afghanistan did justifies us invading Iraq?
I do agree with you on Saadh Arabia though. Their track record on women's rights has consistently been worse than those of some of their neighbors. A good number of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi too. Maybe we invaded the wrong country after all.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From The Pedantic Prick
Friday, October 15, 2004, 10:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
By that logic, Boeing is a producer of WMDs, since it was their jets that caused the deaths of over 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.
I agree that Saddam was an asshole, and the Taliban were even worse, but has this war been worth it? Over 1,000 of our soldiers are dead, thousands more are wounded, and god knows how many Iraqi civilians have died. I'm just glad my brother came home in one piece.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nick
Friday, October 15, 2004, 11:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
No, your logic is off there. Boeing didn't kill 3,000 people. The Terrorists that controlled the aircraft did. Just as in "gun's don't kill people. Stupid people with guns kill people."
As for the 1,000 troops that lost their lives in Iraq. Well that is a huge tragedy and I get upset every time I hear about another death on the news. But this is a war and in order to secure freedom for millions for generations to come we did have to lose a few lives. Freedom has a steep price tag and that’s unfortunate but a reality. (reply to this comment) |
| | from Banshee
Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 16:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
They have started a new section over in the FG exfamily site for politics, and I have been interested to see that the majority of the FGs that post on there seem to be in favor of Bush. I am trying to figure this out (well, to be fair, I have been trying to figure out why anyone would vote for Bush).
It seems to me that the majority of us on this site--at least according to the polls, and we know how accurate polls can be--are in favor of Kerry.
What do you all think is the difference between the FGs and the SGs that shows the predominance in the way our respective opinions swing?
Do you think that it is just a sample of a more broad assessment of the public in general, i.e. more young people are voting for Kerry and more older people are voting for Bush? Or does it have more to do with religion and the fact that it seems the more religious rights or the more religious fanatics or the more uptight, self-righteous "I'm-going-to-shove-my-religion-down-your-throat" types are the ones voting for Bush? Since that seems to be part of "who he is," as he so aptly put it in last night's debate.
I am a member of another forum-type board with over 40,000 members, and there is a politics forum, and it seems to me from being on there that there are two main leanings in the people voting for Bush: the very military-minded type, who believe it is the US prerogative to bully...I mean "police"...the nations of the world, and then the aforementioned religious types. I am thinking that the FGs seem to, in general, fall into the latter category, and this might account for the majority of them seeming to lean in Bush's favor.
(reply to this comment)
| From Baxter
Friday, October 15, 2004, 06:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey, doesn't anyone remember when G Bush sr got elected over Michael Dukakis? The Family was totally for Bush, Berg couldn't stop going on about how horribly evil the left was, and how Bush would help bring morality back into schools and shit. Then the Gulf War happens, and he totally swings sides. Then.....wahey.......Clinton shows up, and he's totally for Bush again, he's so crushed that horrible AC Clinton wins the election, it's all over for the US, God has left America, yak yak yak.
I remember when the Bush jr/Gore race was on, and my dad (who's British anyhow) is telling me that he thinks that Bush would be the better man (again, yak yak yak). AND THEN.........wahey........... the Gulf War kicks off again, and the Family are back to bashing Bush! Dudes ain't got a fucking clue!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Haunted
Friday, October 15, 2004, 05:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, yes, sad as it is, my Mom is an extreme Bush (that's George W. for all you dirty minded people...) supporter.
Her reasoning lies behind the argument "he's a good christian man".
I know, it makes my blood boil too, but I guess that's why I've chosen not to even try and discuss it with her logically or statistically.
Anything he says or does is right in her eyes because she 'believes in him", I guess now I have an answer to the question that has been plaguing me for years about my upbringing.........(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from
Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 05:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
IT I-S -W-O-R-K-I-N-G, seriously though, complete cheat, using a wire, and even funnier to see him trying to listen to his ear piece (you can see his eyes moving and the concentration on his face!) and talk at the same time, trying to get the rythym right. Why do American woman love hiom, it kinda proves woman do go for idiots, so just for that reason alone...DON'T VOTE BUSH
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]