 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
The point is that every election has a few flaws in it, but he didn't sue because that one was particularly corrupt. (Certainly not on a Kennedy-Nixon 1960 standard) He sued entirely because he was a sore loser and wanted to win, not out of some moral concern for the rights of the disenfranchised. |
You are awesome 
quote:
Kerry voted for a forceful message granting the President the authority to go to war as a last resort after other options had been exhausted. It wasn't a green light, it was a warning that the US had had it up to here *brings hand to upper forehead* with Saddam, that if he persisted in defying the UN resolutions there would be real consequences, war if necessary. Congress was told the Saddam had uber-buttloads of WMD's and if they didn't give Bush the authority to act there would be Iraqi UAVs flying down Main Street, USA. Hmmm... |
That's absurd. Congress and its men have the responsiblity to verify the intelligence. If it's not there, or inadequate, you don't vote for it. And if you want to scare Saddam, you don't tell the president he can invade at will. There's a certain leap of logic there.
And conservatives fought against a free election? There were concerns about who counted the damn votes. In some counties it was a 3 man panel, 2 of which had liberal connections. Plus the election was called early. Plus Bush initially won +500 votes. I think it is bogus you still whine about this, and it is your mindset that is leading to lawsuits already before the election has taken place. Sue sue sue and hope for the best, tell your poll workers that there is voter intimidation, yadadaa. It's hokey and criminal and punishable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
You are awesome |
Thank you, but you're still a loon. 
quote:
That's absurd. Congress and its men have the responsiblity to verify the intelligence. |
Oh, you mean all the intelligence the Bush Administration used to prove Saddam had sought yellowcake, aluminum tubes, unmanned deathgliders, mobile germ labs, big scary balloons, strategery meetings with... uh, erm... what was that name again... Osama bin Forgotten yadadaa (FYI the term is 'yadda yadda')?
quote:
If it's not there, or inadequate, you don't vote for it. And if you want to scare Saddam, you don't tell the president he can invade at will. There's a certain leap of logic there. |
So you think Congress should have instead threatened more sanctions?
quote:
And conservatives fought against a free election? There were concerns about who counted the damn votes. In some counties it was a 3 man panel, 2 of which had liberal connections. Plus the election was called early. Plus Bush initially won +500 votes. I think it is bogus you still whine about this, and it is your mindset that is leading to lawsuits already before the election has taken place. Sue sue sue and hope for the best, tell your poll workers that there is voter intimidation, yadadaa. It's hokey and criminal and punishable. |
Seeing as there are already discrepencies in early elections and the ever-popular e-voting machines, litigation may be the only recourse against what is gearing up to another debacle, this time on a national scale. Had the federal government been serious about cleaning up the mess from 2000, HAVA would have been much more effective and thorough in outlining what needed to be done. Too many politicans got caught up in the belief that e-voting would be a cure-all that they didn't give a critical look at it in time. I don't know enough about the other things that have come out of HAVA, but e-voting nationally was mind-bogglingly poorly planned (setting aside the plethora of conspiracy theories).
And yes, Big Media shares in the blame for 2000 by calling elections before an aceptable percentage of the vote has been counted (I would say 90% at the very least but would much rather they keep their damn mouths shut until official numbers are released), but they don't physically block people from reaching the polls, that's the fault of voters who say, "F*ck it, I'm not voting."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MalevolentLight
|
|
High Above
Jul 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
Isn't it interesting how Kerry says we did all of this unilaterally and illegally (even though we have some 30 countries supporting us) and that anyone who is with us is apart of the coerced and the bribed. Before the war all he could talk about was how right a decision it was to go to war. He talked about how Saddam had WMD and he supported terrorism, and even said that anyone who thinks Saddam isn't a threat isn't fit to lead the country (he said this in televised interviews so don't try to deny it). As soon as Dean started gaining he changed his position. He also voted against the first Iraq war which was supposedly an enormous coalition. He voted against funding the troops, yet he constantly harps on Bush saying the troops are underfunded. I could go on and on and on about everything Kerry has done and then not done. There is absolutely no consitency to what he says and does. And then you guys come on here and try to say we are distoring his record. How can you distort something someone says themselves on a recorded television interview?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
I'll "give it up" when Bush supporters stop claiming Bush recieved a mandate. I'll "give it up" when people stop claiming there aren't serious problems brewing for this election. I'll "give it up" when Wiglaf stops offering me ice cream. |
A mandate? What are you talking about. No one disputes that it was a blowout election. And as for the ice cream, my god, it is an analogy that stands, under your watch no ice cream venders would be safe, I forget the context though, and move to strike.
quote:
I still can't believe we invaded another country for no reason. |
Yeah, in a post-9/11 world, being a radical islamic anti-US state that gassed with WMD's its own people and violates a dozen resolutions and hurls its moustaches at us in defiance and is not openly honest with inspectors ain't enough. Evidence that they still have these WMD's is brewing, and Saddam offers no explanation for where his weapons might be now.
If you ask me, they're in Syria. Who will make heads roll there, not that ****er Kerry, I'll tell you that right now.
Moving on members of both parties, some pretty and some who look like Frankeinstein, signed off on the war. The intelligence wasn't much in dispute, and if the WMD's are in Syria it still shouldn't be.
In a post 9/11 world, if you're a nation state satisfying the above criterea, and we can take you out, you can go to hell. Libya realized that and abandoned their WMD programs.
Wiglaf 10
Mr Fun and cohorts 0
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
Dis, I would like you to assume you were president in 2002. Saddam is in power and Zarqawi, a close OBL associate, is in charge of a terrorist training camp inside Iraq and has just assassinated our ambassador to Jordan. Your intelligence services say he has chemical and bio weapons and he is working on nukes. Inspectors have not been in the country for four years. Sanctions are killing 300,000 Iraqis per year. Saddam is using Oil for Food money to build palaces, buy arms and most importantly, bribe the French, Russians and Chinese, all permanent members of the UNSC. His goal is to remove sanctions entirely. He is also using the money to fund bombers families in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood and probably al Qaeda.
What do you do, if anything?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Dis, I would like you to assume you were president in 2002. Saddam is in power and Zarqawi, a close OBL associate, is in charge of a terrorist training camp inside Iraq and has just assassinated our ambassador to Jordan. Your intelligence services say he has chemical and bio weapons and he is working on nukes. Inspectors have not been in the country for four years. Sanctions are killing 300,000 Iraqis per year. Saddam is using Oil for Food money to build palaces, buy arms and most importantly, bribe the French, Russians and Chinese, all permanent members of the UNSC. His goal is to remove sanctions entirely. He is also using the money to fund bombers families in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood and probably al Qaeda.
What do you do, if anything? |
make further attempts as weapons inspectors. I would never go in without the support of France and Germany.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-10-2004 06:01
|