AMERICA doesn't need G W Bush for four more years, and besides he's an outright failure and despised joke to the rest of the world. Senator John Kerry will get back our country's respect and admiration. John Kerry's Steamroller campaign will roll right over Bush in November just like he rolled over all the Democratic presidential candidates. I guarantee that Kerry will win the election, just as Bill Clinton did against G H W Bush in 1992.

My thoughts exactly ....

Like Father, Like Son

1 TERM ONLY

Oh fuck, is this another Shaman? Stop posting this moronic propoganda. This is SPAM.

These "I like Kerry, therefore he will win" posts are getting a bit old.

no one even likes kerry, they dont like bush. they think they can will the results they want, always seem to forget there isa thing called an election.

someone is coming very close to becoming a victim of constant threadjacking.

someone is coming very close to becoming a victim of constant threadjacking.
With these posts, would anybody care? These threads are useless and moronic, talking about the mating habits of porcupines would be more useful than these propoganda spam threads.


(By the way:
"Mating habits of this creature are rather bizarre; the male approaches the female with embraces and nose-rubbing, if receptive, she allows him to spray her with gouts of urine. When fully soaked copulation occurs and 210 days later one offspring is born, sighted, mobile and covered in hair and quills.", http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/wilderness/animals/porcup.htm )

Originally posted by Travh20
no one even likes kerry, they dont like bush. they think they can will the results they want, always seem to forget there isa thing called an election.
Some people actually do like Kerry. I can't imagine why. This is really the third "lesser of two evils" election in a row, at least for me.

Originally posted by Blibblob
With these posts, would anybody care? These threads are useless and moronic, talking about the mating habits of porcupines would be more useful than these propoganda spam threads.
Why do you think I threadjack almost every single one???

Why do you think I threadjack almost every single one???
I wasn't here for a week, missed them all. I actually thought you were being "nice", something like that... yeah... I was/am in a bad mood so pfth.

I think they are both so disliked, neither will win. The presidential office will go the Wal-Mart Happy Face.

At least the Wal-Mart happy face cuts spending.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
At least the Wal-Mart happy face cuts spending.
LOL...

Bush a joke?

Let's see, Saddam Hussein out of action, Al-queda centralized network has been virtually destroyed, the Afghan regime has been dismantled. Libya's Qadafi has decided that having WMDs is rather bad for his health and is coming clean. I'd say that Bush's first presidency is doing pretty damn good.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Bush a joke?

Let's see, Saddam Hussein out of action, Al-queda centralized network has been virtually destroyed, the Afghan regime has been dismantled. Libya's Qadafi has decided that having WMDs is rather bad for his health and is coming clean. I'd say that Bush's first presidency is doing pretty damn good.
One word: economy

It's improving!

Wal mart happy face .... never thought of that candidate .... maybe as a third party candiate? ... possibly so ...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
It's improving!
Four words: But for how long?

thirty one words: until the librul media can find a way to make it look bad again. seems all their attempts at talking it down are not working. they will find a way though.

LMAO, "librul".

In any case, we'll see how it turns out. Stay tuned to Fox News for more "information".

yes, librul is now what i will call them. kind of like the neo con, but instead the librul

When signs of a recovering economy became obvious, it got called a "jobless recovery." Or the jobs are all hambuger flipper jobs. Or something else.

I've heard that the unemployment rate is around 5%. In 1996, during the Clinton campaign, with the unemployment rate was the same, yet Clinton's economy was called the greatest in history.

So is the glass half empty or half full? If Bush is in the office, the libs will spin it as the glass being broken and on the floor. Of course, if Kerry gets in they'll see a full glass, even if it IS broken and on the floor. Dammit!

I guarentee you the same numbers under kerry would be made to seem good and growing stronger by the day. anyone who doesnt see the librul bias in the media is either a doofus, blind or in on it

The object for the press and the libs is to get a librul prez. After that, then it won't matter what the economy does. Dammit!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The object for the press and the libs is to get a librul prez. After that, then it won't matter what the economy does. Dammit!
Wasn't the media's object to get Gore in in 2000? Not only did they fail at that, they failed to favor Gore at all! Why, I would even say they appeared to favor Bush! How about that!

If you missed all the talk about the Internet and how Gore supposedly lied throughout his campaign, I implore you to get a TV, radio, and computer.

no one said it is going to work borg. the american people are mostly conservative. the silent majority. if there was an actual objective media we would harldy hear a peep from the left. only with the help of their media mouthpieces do they get any play. an example is protests. an anti bush protest with a hundred people makes top of the hour news, so does pro choice protests. hundreds of thousands of people march against abortion and it harldy gets a mention. how would you explain this? why are democrat politicians all over the news day after day, while republicans who are the majority are hardly seen? the republican senate majority leader is a ghost, tom daschle was on everyday with a sound bite. this stuff just doesnt happen without editors and news chiefs making it so. now a good economy doesnt help kerry, so only daily reports of lost jobs and closing factories will help him win. growing economy and hundreds of thousands of new jobs is bad news, so it is mentioned with a grain of salt. the good news about the economy is softened by adding phrases like Mc jobs and jobless recovery. it can never go unfiltered.

I remember very well the press's help in defending Forrest Gore. While Gore and the press were howling about "making every vote count," the only votes that got recounted were those in Palm Beach and Broward County, then there was this little flap about the military absentee votes that weren't going to get counted, the press and Gore said nothing. THEN there was the fact that a Democratic operative got hold of a telemarketing firm and called all over Palm Beach and Broward County saying that the Democrat residents may have voted for Nader when they really wanted to vote for Gore. The press reported the hanging chad thing to death, but not much was mentioned about the activism that got the ball rolling.


So much for the press being "unfriendly" towards Gore. Dammit!!

Do you people not even care that Bush has lied to us on so many occasions??

If he was a 4.0 harvard grad (instead of graduating with a 2.3), a renowned war veteran, and didn't look like a monkey, I would still hate him for lying to us about:

1. The Clean Water act
2. The Clean air act
3. The WMD
4. The war in Iraq, over and over
6. The connection between Al Queda and Iraq
7. The tax cuts, supposedly for those who earned less
8. Exposing an agent's name

Not to mention I'm pissed about the Patriot Act. I still havn't heard an argument for it, only whining telling us that it's not a bad bill.

three of those are exactly the same. And the Patriot act is designed to keep tabs on people and root out possible terrorists like the hijackers.

The Al Queda link with Iraq is one
The WMD is another

I'll admit I put an extra one in, but there are still 7 MAJOR areas where Bush has lied to us. No president should be allowed to stay after that.

You need no warrant in many cases to barge into someone's house. You don't even need to warn them! This is infringing on the right to privacy in our homes.

I earn less and I got a tax break. Normally I pay about a hundred extra, this year, in spite of the fact I earned several thousand more, I'm getting a tiny refund from the govt ($4.05). The feds anyway, the state I live in is giving me the shaft.

Also, the Clinton Administration believed that Hussein had WMDs, but now BUSH is lying because he said what Clinton said. Explain that one, will you?

I've heard about the supposed "exposing" of an agent. She had never worked in the field and it was a reporter that first exposed her. Dammit!

In the Librul's eyes Bush lied about WMD because he was the one with balls to do something about it.

As for the tax cuts the bottom 10% was expanded to include people making more money. The child tax credit was increased, the marriage penalty eliminated, and the death tax repealed. That sounds like a pretty good tax cut to me and Bush wants these to be permanent while Kerry does not. Hrm....

Originally posted by The Republican
In the Librul's eyes Bush lied about WMD because he was the one with balls to do something about it.


You forgot one, minor thing, the UN…haha. You don’t read my posts do you, in the other discussions we’ve had?

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
You forgot one, minor thing, the UN…haha. You don’t read my posts do you, in the other discussions we’ve had?

How old are you? I have noticed you argue your points in a very immature way.

Obviously you have not ready any of my posts either in the other threads.

Originally posted by The Republican
How old are you? I have noticed you argue your points in a very immature way.

Obviously you have not ready any of my posts either in the other threads.

I'm glad you think Trav is more "mature" then me. Maybe you should look into things more...

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
I'm glad you think Trav is more "mature" then me. Maybe you should look into things more...

Nice rebuttal. I never mentioned anything about Trav or any other person on this board. My comments were directed squarely at you, and a very simple question such as your age has gone ignored. You have completely sidestepped the issue and tried to direct it to someone else (Trav).

So let me ask you again. How old are you? The way YOU argue YOUR points is very immature.

Please note that I have deliberately, in this post and the one prior, not compared you to anyone.

Originally posted by The Republican
Nice rebuttal. I never mentioned anything about Trav or any other person on this board. My comments were directed squarely at you, and a very simple question such as your age has gone ignored. You have completely sidestepped the issue and tried to direct it to someone else (Trav).

So let me ask you again. How old are you? The way YOU argue YOUR points is very immature.

Please note that I have deliberately, in this post and the one prior, not compared you to anyone.

16...and you can say my opinions are "bad" because of my age, but whatever. I have presented my arguments on many issues...very well. At least I think so.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
16...and you can say my opinions are "bad" because of my age, but whatever. I have presented my arguments on many issues...very well. At least I think so.

I never said you opinions were bad...I said you argue them in a very immature way.

Originally posted by The Republican
I never said you opinions were bad...I said you argue them in a very immature way.

Please, explain

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Please, explain

I am not going to get into it...but I had a very strong incling that you were a teenager from the immaturity in your posts. Think about that. And something to always keep in mind, nobody knows everything and it is ok to not be stubborn and see the otherside of an argument. They can have merit too.

Originally posted by The Republican
I am not going to get into it...but I had a very strong incling that you were a teenager from the immaturity in your posts. Think about that. And something to always keep in mind, nobody knows everything and it is ok to not be stubborn and see the otherside of an argument. They can have merit too.

Oh well, I am a teenager. Now I'm going to make a reference to Trav.

My posts are more mature then his...and that is my opinion as well as many others. I'm sure you disagree, though.

Originally posted by The Republican
I am not going to get into it...but I had a very strong incling that you were a teenager from the immaturity in your posts. Think about that. And something to always keep in mind, nobody knows everything and it is ok to not be stubborn and see the otherside of an argument. They can have merit too.
I resent that...

Me too. I like to think that i argue rather intelligently. AND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT YOU CAN GO F*** A DOG! hehehe.

You guys are really 15? I thought that was a joke.

Originally posted by The Republican
You guys are really 15? I thought that was a joke.
No, no joke. My birth certificate says July 25, 1988; my school records say July 25, 1988; and even my Learner's Permit says 07-25-88. So if it is a joke, I've been fooled myself for a long time.

April 15 1989, o joy.

Well my comments were not directed at you two. If I had a problem with your posts I would have said it. Sorry if I offended either of you, that was clearly not my intention.

I accept your apology. Thankyou.


Now doesn't everyone feel a little better because of this rare moment of civility in this constant political struggle?

Kerry should be happy eating catsup for the rest of his life. And maybe that flamer can finally come out of the closet with this guy.

Originally posted by LiberalHater
Kerry should be happy eating catsup for the rest of his life. And maybe that flamer can finally come out of the closet with this guy.
Kerry's gay? Where the hell did you get that?

I guess that passes for intelligent debate?

Originally posted by LiberalHater
Kerry should be happy eating catsup for the rest of his life. And maybe that flamer can finally come out of the closet with this guy.

You hate me!
Learn some Peace and Love, my right-wing friend!
Your arguments are so strong
They make me want to be a Republican!
;)

Just think of it ,,if John Kerry is elected we will have another J.F.K.
in the White House !!! Just wish he was another J.F.K.

Kerry couldnt hold JFK's jockstrap

Ok for the last time I get to say this.
If Kerry was so strong how come his advances on BUsh are small . If he had any strength he would have gained a 20% above Bush considering Bushs approval ratings are lower than his poll numbers for re-election.
Explain that?

The reason is the fact that the Republicans have run a 70% negative campaign against Kerry, and they have outspent him. They say he is running the most negative campaign in the history of America. So that is why. While Kerry, does have negative ads on Bush, most of his are positive.

Besides Kerry has been shown, that he runs races behind or tied at the beginning, but pulls ahead in the end (IE: DEAN)

Well you guys are running a negative campiagn against Bush on every web site I have been to. Whats the difference? They said it was the most expensive negative campaign in history. But see Bush has to overcome the use of Moores film and the other slantumentaries that are coming out in the next three months.
But I hope Kerry puts Moore on the stage with him at the convention. It killed Clark and will do the same for Kerry.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Well you guys are running a negative campiagn against Bush on every web site I have been to. Whats the difference? They said it was the most expensive negative campaign in history. But see Bush has to overcome the use of Moores film and the other slantumentaries that are coming out in the next three months.
But I hope Kerry puts Moore on the stage with him at the convention. It killed Clark and will do the same for Kerry.

First of all, the “websites” are usually unreliable, but some provide quotes and links to reliable sources. Most left-liberal and neo-con sites don’t do that, but some do. So those websites you speak of, I’m sure independents don’t take seriously, hell, even I don’t. So they usually only see the ads on television, and the “un-bias” news sources.

Bush has run the most negative campaign in history and has out spent Kerry, even with all of the “little liberal networks” (moveon.org) that are also releasing ads. And you ask why Kerry is only a little ahead?

But then you talk about the Moore film. Well that hasn’t come out yet, so it hasn’t impacted the vote. But I’m sure Moore is just another “idiot liberal” that you don’t take seriously, even though he has valid points.

But you quote them, and I dont think this site is unreliable. You guys always post negativity against Bush. I will bet you that if Kerry is elected after three years there will still be complaining about his policies, because very few Presidents actually differ from the one before.

BV, you are honestly not paying attention. I quote the ones that provide valid quotes, and resources. The sad fact is, you don’t pay attention to the fact that they do provide quotes and factual information.

You just say all of my resources are “liberal and unreliable” when in reality, they give fact in showing my point.

OD why are you so damn stupid? Of course they prove your point, they were written by those who think like you. Damn when I quoted FOx News you said it of course they agree it is FOx News well they are more unbiased than DU and the others you parrot.

BV, you sure get mad at me for calling you a "fool" but you can surly say I'm "so damn stupid". Hypocrite.

Actually most of the articles I post are in a sense left-wing but reference to facts and quotes from reliable people, such as the UN inspectors, CIA reports, and other useful information to support what I'm saying.

Again you are just to blind to see it. You just say "oh it's liberal" and you don't read it carefully enough to see that it does give sources, quotes that are all valid.

Again dont try to distort the facts, I called you stupid because you said I was Ignorant.
None of your links have had any real basis in reality. You discounted the entire Blix report to the UN on WMD's but yet you quote Blix as saying that Hussein never had WMD's but his report says he did and that 1 ton is missing.... So which is more reliable, the report or a lib rag saying Blix says he didnt?
Thats the definition of Naivity.

My links have no basis in reality? 1 ton was missing, but no facts supported he had it, just that it was missing. So he didn’t have it, he could have had it, which is an assumption, which has been proven wrong, because we have not found the weapons Bush said he “had”, that he said he knew “exactly where they were”

My quotes and links are from almost every news organization, even from Fox. It’s a fact that almost all UN reports showed he didn’t have weapons, and all the inspectors said he didn’t. But sure, keep arguing it.

Again, you guys need to take a chill pill. B_V, two wrongs don't make a right. And OD, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them "ignorant", "stupid", "blind" or anything else.

Now, everyone stop, take a deep breath, think of something calming, say, kittens, and then come back with some calm, reasonable posts. :)

kittens

eeewwww I hate kittens, just kidding


Ok back to rational posts

here read it again OD

blix report to un (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)

I would like you to point out, where it says Iraq/Saddam had weapons, in 2001. Because the quotes and reports he was saying then, say different. Because Bush said Saddam had weapons, and I’d like to know where it says he “has” them, in 2001, not that they couldn’t “account” for some.

Originally posted by Overdose
I would like you to point out, where it says Iraq/Saddam had weapons, in 2001. Because the quotes and reports he was saying then, say different. Because Bush said Saddam had weapons, and I’d like to know where it says he “has” them, in 2001, not that they couldn’t “account” for some.

Slowly the truth comes out.

Iraq scrap sales may contain WMD items (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB2NUTFAVD.html)




You really dont think that a missing ton of VX is bad do you? Or that Blix says in the report that Hussein was hiding, moving and misleading his inspectors. Or that he still had the equipment to enrich uranium, and the tanks to breed bio weapons.
Doesnt any of that tell you anything? Or does that mean to you that he disarmed, he didnt have any weapons.
Or maybe he was going to build a micro brewery in one of his palaces.
I dont understand how you cant see that if someone had x amount of something and were told to get rid of it, but they only showed that they got rid of y that there is not a problem.
If you were told by a police man to dump out 12 beers but only showed him 11 cans what would he think? That there was another can hidden somewhere. right? Yes, would any judge in the country say he was wrong? no.
I have proven the point with official documents from the man you quote all the time. We are done

BV, we are not done, and stop acting like you get to decide everything around here.

That last link was not "offical" and the "offical report" never said (that I can tell, and you haven't given me) that he "had" weapons, just that he couldn't "account" for the weapons. Bush said he "had" the weapons not that we couldn't account for some. I guess the ones we couldn't account for, are not there, hmmm?

Anyway, I won't be able to reply to you for awhile, because I'm going on a trip. But, just because you say something, does not mean it is "over".

TTYL

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.N. agency searching for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq said Monday that so far it has not found evidence of one. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/
--------------------
The CIA told the US Senate yesterday in a statement by David Kay about the US three month search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction that "We have not yet found stocks of weapons." http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031003/2003100320.html
-------------------
“The DIA report suggests that before the Iraq War, the U.S. intelligence community did not have hard evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed large stocks of chemical and biological warfare agents that posed an imminent threat to U.S. national security.” Jonathan Tucker former UN arms inspector
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0606-01.htm
----------------
Iraq inspectors: No weapons found
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,882074,00.html
--------------------
A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-07.htm
----------------
UNITED NATIONS -- A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDe...2&oliID=213
------------------
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...02-un-wmd_x.htm
-------------------
Blix told the council that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the country
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm
-------------------
The United Nations' chief weapons inspector says his inspectors found no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, prior to the US-led invasion of the country.
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,,1429_W_884518,00.html
----------------
UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.N. inspectors found no evidence before the U.S.-led invasion in March that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said Thursday. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/
A new report says United Nations inspectors found no evidence Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story....mp;nav=0RceGAGn
-----------------------
As expected, the CIA's lead weapons inspector told congressional intelligence committees Thursday that his team has not yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/
------------------
The chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, said he was starting to suspect Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction in advance of the war on Iraq, a German newspaper reported Friday."I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," Mr Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1614090_comment.php
----------------------
The Pentagon's intelligence service reported last September that it had no reliable evidence that Iraq had chemical agents in weaponized form, officials said today, supporting Mr. Blix damning accusations against US and UK motives for war.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/1616976.php
----------------------------------
The CIA official in charge of the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq has said no such weapons have so far been found. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3157246.stm
"I think that the vast majority of people are feeling that there is very little likelihood that they had anything, and the biggest chance is that they destroyed them in 1991," he said.
http://www.dawn.com/2003/12/24/int2.htm
-------------------------------
The former UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, according to an interview broadcast yesterday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...44511%2C00.html
-------------------------------
"We have not found at this point actual weapons," the expert told reporters after giving closed door briefings to the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees on the work of the Iraq Survey Group.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story...255E2%2C00.html
-------------------------
Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter “Iraq not a threat” http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/ritter.iraq/
Iraq weapons report draws another blank:
Report saying:
Iraq's nuclear program had been suspended for many years.
There was no solid evidence linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, nor evidence that Iraq would transfer WMD to terrorists.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3380645.stm)
--------------------
The search group in charge of finding evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, led by David Kay, has released an interim report saying none have yet been found.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3161032.stm)

Came across a interresting story the other day were people are compairing Bush to Nixon,with his everyones out to get me thoughts. I also wonder how many active U.S. military people and there "families" will vote for Bush ?? Plus all the reserves and there "families" and all the families of those who have been killed and there friends,just wonder how that huge group of folks will vote. Think his days might be numbered. See remember four years is a short period even if the voters don't like the alternative choice at least we get rid of this global cowboy and maybe in four years down the line someone new thats a little more in touch with the regular everyday Americans will have stepped forward.

Originally posted by TMW1956
Came across a interresting story the other day were people are compairing Bush to Nixon,with his everyones out to get me thoughts. I also wonder how many active U.S. military people and there "families" will vote for Bush ?? Plus all the reserves and there "families" and all the families of those who have been killed and there friends,just wonder how that huge group of folks will vote. Think his days might be numbered. See remember four years is a short period even if the voters don't like the alternative choice at least we get rid of this global cowboy and maybe in four years down the line someone new thats a little more in touch with the regular everyday Americans will have stepped forward.
Difference is that Nixon was right, they were out to get him. Bush is not even close to Nixon. As for military votes, generaly a republican group.