There is an orginization pushing for 'None Of The Above' to be part of all ballots in all elections.
http://www.nota.org
http://www.nota.org/statebystate.htm
Bush or Kerry? ;)
Moderator: scott
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
So the consensus here is:
My taxes are too low.
Government spends my money better than me.
Men should be able to marry men.
Only criminals should have guns.
Governments supporting terrorists are okay as long as they don't leave their country.
We should seek approval from France before any military action.
My taxes are too low.
Government spends my money better than me.
Men should be able to marry men.
Only criminals should have guns.
Governments supporting terrorists are okay as long as they don't leave their country.
We should seek approval from France before any military action.
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
Glad to see I'm not alone.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
so...
No taxes at all (user pays)
No wealth sharing (sharing only encourages weakness)
Poofters can choose to be shot or castrated (freedom of choice)
Everyone should carry a weapon (you talkin' to me...)
Depose all world governments (only way to be sure)
France who?
yeh... sounds really... fun.
No taxes at all (user pays)
No wealth sharing (sharing only encourages weakness)
Poofters can choose to be shot or castrated (freedom of choice)
Everyone should carry a weapon (you talkin' to me...)
Depose all world governments (only way to be sure)
France who?
yeh... sounds really... fun.
-
coylo
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
I don't understand this point made by Bush.We should seek approval from France before any military action.
What he is trying to say is "we don't need approval for an illegal war based on lies and gross distortion but was waged to satisfy the greed of my (Bush's) Corporate backers."
America seems to do what it wants.
Link between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda: No Evidence
WMD: None Found!
France was right not to rush to war based on sketchy evidence at best.
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
Which country has the biggest annual budget for ongoing developement and maintenance of weapons of mass destruction?
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
I think I should clarify something. There is a report out (starts with D, can't think of the name) that says, well, a lot of things, but relevant here: that France was bribed to veto US action. It also said that France and Russia were braking the sanctions they claimed to support, and were selling illegal arms to Iraq up to less than a month before we went in. (Which means the French and Russians might as well have been there themselves fighting us). The war would not have been illegal if we had gotten permission, but we couldn't get permission because authorities in other countries were breaking the rules. So we had to break the rules to get around the corruption so as to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Now I try not to be for 'the end justifies the means' type action in everyday life, but on a country wide scale sometimes there is little choice. I think it is very important not to forget that Bush did try to get permission.
There is a connection between Iraq and the terrorists, who do you think is beheading people there? (I know they are also flooding in from around the world, but in a way this is convenient, then we don't have to search every cave on earth).
You are right that the evidence was sketchy, but the French did believe it. And so did the British, Russians, Polish, Spanish, and Australians (and a bunch of little nations with more sense than power).
That same 'D' report also said that Saddam was destroying the WMD's (hence none found), but didn't tell anyone because he was afraid it would make him look weak. Clearly this is a stupid plan of action because then he didn't have WMD's but would still get world pressure for having them. But then again, no one ever said Saddam was a very smart guy.
Lastly, the 'D' report, possibly pronounced 'Dull-fer'?
EDIT
Bill got another post in before me. The answer is US. You guys have a ton of extremists on all those islands just north of you, if they start attacking you may be thankful when we come to help with our big weapons.
There is a connection between Iraq and the terrorists, who do you think is beheading people there? (I know they are also flooding in from around the world, but in a way this is convenient, then we don't have to search every cave on earth).
You are right that the evidence was sketchy, but the French did believe it. And so did the British, Russians, Polish, Spanish, and Australians (and a bunch of little nations with more sense than power).
That same 'D' report also said that Saddam was destroying the WMD's (hence none found), but didn't tell anyone because he was afraid it would make him look weak. Clearly this is a stupid plan of action because then he didn't have WMD's but would still get world pressure for having them. But then again, no one ever said Saddam was a very smart guy.
Lastly, the 'D' report, possibly pronounced 'Dull-fer'?
EDIT
Bill got another post in before me. The answer is US. You guys have a ton of extremists on all those islands just north of you, if they start attacking you may be thankful when we come to help with our big weapons.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
Which country is in breach of more UN resolutions than any other in the world and has nuclear chemical and biological WMD's and refuses any international inspections or to sign the non nuclear proliferation treaty?.......Israel,
So we better invade then?
Oh, I forgot, they have no oil so there wont be any Operation Iraqi Liberation there then. :)
So we better invade then?
Oh, I forgot, they have no oil so there wont be any Operation Iraqi Liberation there then. :)
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
Hi Jonathan,
I don't think those 'little islands' are nearly half as scary as a global superpower badly in need of resources, with the tools to annex those resources, and the will do it.
But you're right of course, why would any country in their right mind try to attack a US held interest. What was it your president said, "if you're not with us, you're against us". Extremists rule.
Historically, there has never been a single instance of the developement of an effective military weapon that has not been eventually used on 'the battlefield' - no matter how devestating or unethical. Hate, greed and revenge seem to fabricate their own special kind of reason.You guys have a ton of extremists on all those islands just north of you, if they start attacking you may be thankful when we come to help with our big weapons.
... and who's developing this new weapon? Some reports suggest that this capability is just 10 years away (which probably means it's already been done with an effective unlimited R&D budget).http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le1221.htm
"... advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool"
I don't think those 'little islands' are nearly half as scary as a global superpower badly in need of resources, with the tools to annex those resources, and the will do it.
But you're right of course, why would any country in their right mind try to attack a US held interest. What was it your president said, "if you're not with us, you're against us". Extremists rule.
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
I didn't understand your first point, because it is clearly true and in agreement with what I said. As I said, you'll be happy if we use those weapons against your enemies, and now I add, it will by definition be on a battlefield, and it will be devastating and ethical.
The American people barely have the will for this war, let alone a war only for resources. I think it is clearly more efficient to spend our money on getting the necessary resources from outer space. You don't have to fight anyone for them, they're unlimited, and you'll pave the way for space tourism, all of which spell $$$.
Trev, for the umpteenth time, some of the UN is corrupt, and so their resolutions mean nothing (Saddam broke 17, they did nothing about it, I don't know how many Irsael broke, and they've done nothing about it). Israel is building their wall anyway, and the suicide bombing rate is dropping. Once again, it is someone else (some militant Palestinians in this case) who are breaking the rules and thereby forcing perfectly good nations to break the rules to do what is right. It is Israel's #1 job to protect Israelis, not to kiss French butt.
I just noticed a funny mistake you made though, you mean there would be no "Operation Israeli Liberation", or else your point would make no sense. But wait, that doesn't make sense either, because they don't need liberation. Well, then you're just plain wrong three different ways then. :)
EDIT PS I felt the urge to explain my veiw of things since I'm in the minority here (it's worth trying to change some minds). There have been some fun quips along the way, and I think I've clearly articulated my point, and so I'm probably done (I doubt any minds will change, so we could argue forever, and I've learned its good to stop before things get a chance to become mean-spirited).
The American people barely have the will for this war, let alone a war only for resources. I think it is clearly more efficient to spend our money on getting the necessary resources from outer space. You don't have to fight anyone for them, they're unlimited, and you'll pave the way for space tourism, all of which spell $$$.
Trev, for the umpteenth time, some of the UN is corrupt, and so their resolutions mean nothing (Saddam broke 17, they did nothing about it, I don't know how many Irsael broke, and they've done nothing about it). Israel is building their wall anyway, and the suicide bombing rate is dropping. Once again, it is someone else (some militant Palestinians in this case) who are breaking the rules and thereby forcing perfectly good nations to break the rules to do what is right. It is Israel's #1 job to protect Israelis, not to kiss French butt.
I just noticed a funny mistake you made though, you mean there would be no "Operation Israeli Liberation", or else your point would make no sense. But wait, that doesn't make sense either, because they don't need liberation. Well, then you're just plain wrong three different ways then. :)
EDIT PS I felt the urge to explain my veiw of things since I'm in the minority here (it's worth trying to change some minds). There have been some fun quips along the way, and I think I've clearly articulated my point, and so I'm probably done (I doubt any minds will change, so we could argue forever, and I've learned its good to stop before things get a chance to become mean-spirited).
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
Sevich
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
The bottom line is this:
If the United States was "nuked" from the face of the earth tomorrow.......The Israelis would quickly beg for a hurried peace deal with the palestinians. Rightfully so, as there would be over 100 million Muslems looking over Isreals border wondering whether to invade with no U.S. to help.
No U.S. to help them.........."Poor little Isreal"
This country can behave in the most unfair manner and brake all rules known to Man just because it has a Superpower on its side agreeing with anything it wants.
If the United States was "nuked" from the face of the earth tomorrow.......The Israelis would quickly beg for a hurried peace deal with the palestinians. Rightfully so, as there would be over 100 million Muslems looking over Isreals border wondering whether to invade with no U.S. to help.
No U.S. to help them.........."Poor little Isreal"
This country can behave in the most unfair manner and brake all rules known to Man just because it has a Superpower on its side agreeing with anything it wants.
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
Hi Jonathan,
Yes, I agree that you are right... if Australia is attacked by a force that it can not defend itself against then, as could be expected, it will welcome anyone's help.
Perhaps something similar is happening in Iraq. It seems that many citizens in Iraq see the actions of the US as an attack on their freedom of self-determination, and it clearly is. Some Iraqi factions appear to be resorting to desperate measures in the face of overwhelming odds - the horrible stuff of war.
I really doubt that the US cared too much about Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people - millions have died horrible deaths under other regimes without US intervention. I doubt the US cared too much about Iraq's piddly stockpiles of old-fashioned WMD's - what country doesn't have WMD's? I also doubt the US could argue war over rumours of terrorist training in Iraq - what country does not train terrorists?
So what does the US care about? Is it just corporate agenda?
I don't think the US should have invaded Iraq because I don't think there will be a winner. I also don't think US actions over the last few years have made the world a safer place. I do think we can expect this new 'terrorist threat' war to protract itself indefinately, to the delight of some.
Just my opinions and observations based on the available propaganda. What is it they say about truth being the first casualty of war?
PS: On the contrary, your views here may seem to be in the minority but I think they are probably mainstream. Bush being re-elected will prove this to be the case.
Yes, I agree that you are right... if Australia is attacked by a force that it can not defend itself against then, as could be expected, it will welcome anyone's help.
Perhaps something similar is happening in Iraq. It seems that many citizens in Iraq see the actions of the US as an attack on their freedom of self-determination, and it clearly is. Some Iraqi factions appear to be resorting to desperate measures in the face of overwhelming odds - the horrible stuff of war.
I really doubt that the US cared too much about Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi people - millions have died horrible deaths under other regimes without US intervention. I doubt the US cared too much about Iraq's piddly stockpiles of old-fashioned WMD's - what country doesn't have WMD's? I also doubt the US could argue war over rumours of terrorist training in Iraq - what country does not train terrorists?
So what does the US care about? Is it just corporate agenda?
I don't think the US should have invaded Iraq because I don't think there will be a winner. I also don't think US actions over the last few years have made the world a safer place. I do think we can expect this new 'terrorist threat' war to protract itself indefinately, to the delight of some.
Just my opinions and observations based on the available propaganda. What is it they say about truth being the first casualty of war?
PS: On the contrary, your views here may seem to be in the minority but I think they are probably mainstream. Bush being re-elected will prove this to be the case.
re: Bush or Kerry? ;)
Hi Sevich,
I think you'll find that Israel is a little bigger than it's borders might suggest.
I think you'll find that Israel is a little bigger than it's borders might suggest.