Bush supporters give me a break!
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 08-04-2004 - 2:17pm |
I truly feel like whenever I hear a Bush supporter speak, it is like listening to someone with Stolkholm syndrome, THEY ARE COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED!!! I mean, honestly, unless you are living in a cave (without internet, mind you) there is no way that the Bush supporters do not intake the same news that I do.
HE LIED!!! HE LIED!!! Let this serve as a newsflash to anyone who did not know. THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. IF THERE ARE, HIS DAD SUPPLIED THEM. This is something that they were aware of befor the sent us into Iraq. That is unethical manipulation of your position of power.
For those of you who were just about to argue that we went in for "humanitarian" reasons to collapse the tyranical reign of Saddam, let me just halt you in your tracks. Why are we not in any country in Africa, in which there are civil wars, AIDs epidemics, and feminist repression running rampant due to governmental proceedings? Why are we not in China? Why are we not in Palestine (oh wait, I forgot, we are, sponsering their killing by the Israelis)? Becaus they do not benefit us? So what's the deal, we fight for humanity contigent on how much money we gain from it? Give me a break!
I read another posting about how Republicans are frustrated with the Democrats focus on how George Bush cannot speak. A couple interesting points: It worries us that he cannot speak because you'd think that after a couple years at Yale, the University rated number one on the recently released Princenton Review, that he would be able to process a few words. I guess the fact that he graduated with like a D average just does not count. Additionally, I would just like to call to attention the fact that over and over again science has come to the conclusion that the major difference between humans and the animal kingdom is our ability to speak, and our advanced methods of communication which in turn lead to organization and technology, thus the advancement of the human race. If he cannot speak, then he is getting closer and closer to the animal, right?
Finally, on the GOP thread several posters commented on how although Dems were calling them nervous, they were actually unwaveringly confident. Yeah, I would be too if my party had just rigged the last election!!
People, women, get to the polls!!
Let's make it like father, like son, one term!
Lani

Pages
Edited 8/5/2004 1:57 pm ET ET by truemobile
Pakastani's? Where, when?
You are making a ludicrous assumption... the electoral college balances the geography of the states with the population of the states... this precludes a few states from dominating all states. There is not now, nor has there ever been a requirement for a President to obtain a majority vote of the population, but rather of the electoral college. The large number of states who vote Republican counterbalance the smaller areas which vote Democratic in national elections... because of the nature of the electoral college regional needs of the various states are both important and respected. In the last election had Clinton or Gore carried either of their home states they would have won, had they carried even West Virginia they would have won. The smaller states overwhelmed the popular vote sufficiently to assure Bush victory... appeal across a broad number of states IS important and this is no accident, and doesn't need to be changed.
As to your assertions regarding Bush not winning the last election, when Gore took his case to court, and once ANY court accepted jurisdiction, there was going to be a judicial decision regarding the outcome of the election... that Gore lost is too bad... on checks by the press later, Bush won by all legitimate counting techniques... only the illigitimate overvote had Gore winning, but overvoting is voting for 2 people and is precluded in our constitution by 1 person 1 vote.... Gore can only win where some persons had 2 votes (or more). Thus only in direct violation of the constitution could Gore ever have had a prayer of winning.
<<The thing about the resolutions put into place after the Gulf War declared there would be serious consequences if Iraq didn't comply, but did not specify just what those consequences would or would not be. >>
Also, I just read something by Colin Powell explaining that in the UN charter military action is included in the definition of 'serious consequences.'
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Indeed it is a serious consequence, and any diplomat who read it understood what was being stated... there could be war on failure to satisfy the resolution.
As we have discussed before, we were the first to draw attention to the developing problem, the first to act put sanctions in place, the country who forced the UN to take take notice, and the one which is still trying to get together a coalition to act against the violence. The govt. of Sudan has prevented humanitarian workers from entering the country and, along with
Renee ~~~
OBL was invited according to the 9/11 report to reside in Iraq by Saddam
--
That is a bold statement. I hadn't even heard that on Fox News. You're certain this is in the 9/11 report?
<>
You created a thread complaining about what the posters in the GOP thread were saying.
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Wouldn't be the first time :)
As for this question... " How is that not a threat to their neighbors?"
Bone up on local history there (geography would be helpful as well) and get back to me when you have a clue what is what.
"Why was it this particular set of orders or why was it this particular country against which we chose to enforce orders?"
Because of it's history of military actions against neighboring countries, it's treatment of it's own citizens, and it's creation and use of WMD's.
~mark~
Pages