Duke Atreides Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 Yep, Notice they do not use any sound from what was being said. Appearance means much more than substance (DNC Mantra). To them these vid clips are more helpful to John Kerry than what was actually said. Typical. Got a flag for that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asus Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 This thread is filled with the most ignorant crap I've ever read. I knew there was a reason I avoided political discussion on here--because it gripes me to no end that I waste my time folding for a place where the majority of users support the barely literate bush child. I mean, I can't even fathom for a moment--not for a second even--why anyone with even a small amount of common sense would want to doom our country to four more years of this administration's self serving haphazard ineptitude. What a shame. If a chimpanzee were the only 'person' running against dubya, I'd cross my fingers and vote for the monkey. I would gladly take the time to explain my views and post detailed rebuttals of each point posted on here that I disagree with if I had any faith whatsoever in the ability of the majority of users here to objectively consider what I have to say. It may sound like a cop-out (it may even be a cop-out), I'd just rather not waste my time. See ya at the polls! Bruce finally someone who things like i do.. the fact of the matter is.. KERRY killed bush.. bush was speachless.. 1/2 the time he had to think.. not respond.. and for a president.. he should be able to whip stuff out.. kerry is planely better suted to run the country.. but still.. this elections is about the lesser of 2 evel's.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Atreides Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 finally someone who things like i do.. the fact of the matter is.. KERRY killed bush.. bush was speachless.. 1/2 the time he had to think.. not respond.. and for a president.. he should be able to whip stuff out.. kerry is planely better suted to run the country.. but still.. this elections is about the lesser of 2 evel's.. asus, Did you happen to read my post? I interject humour because I try to never take myself too seriously. Kerry KILLED Bush? Not according to Joe Lockhart (though he did not know he was on camera when he said it) Would you rather have a president that can w"whip stuff out" only to later have to explain what he REALLY meant? Or would you rather have a president who THINKS about what he says before he says it? Lets see, shoot my mouth off and backpedal later or take a second to think... hmmm... Your definition of a preferred president will spend half his time explaing what he meant when he "whipped stuff out" and the rest of his time trying to figure out what his audience wants to hear so he can deliver... Sounds like an actor, or just a drama queen instead of a president. But then again, for me WHAT a man says is far more iportant than how FAST he says it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodySunday Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 (edited) Bush for some of the questions had no other response then well he changes his mind. And even after Kerry defended himself in regards to that comment Bush just kept hitting on it with little to no facts to back it up in his actual statements. Bush to responded to most things with were trying and its hard work instead of saying anything about how they were actually going to solve it. My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn Edited October 2, 2004 by BloodySunday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa_smurf Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 I think Bush's point is that you shouldn't always be reacting to your opponent; sometimes you have to act first to deprive them of options. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodySunday Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 So hes saying that even though we knew Iraq was more fuel for Osama Bin Ladens Anti-American fire that we shouldn't care cause its our decision. Its like letting him gain momentum because then hes less dangerous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special_K Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 I think Bush's point is that you shouldn't always be reacting to your opponent; sometimes you have to act first to deprive them of options. One of the best things I can remember from any high school sport I played is: "offense wins games, defense wins championships." I believe it applies here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 So hes saying that even though we knew Iraq was more fuel for Osama Bin Ladens Anti-American fire that we shouldn't care cause its our decision. Its like letting him gain momentum because then hes less dangerous. more fuel for bin laden's fire? Bin Laden already had enough "fuel"...he needed no excuse to wage war against Americans...hell, he started it. It's naive of you, and of Kerry, to say that the situation in Iraq is fueling his anti-american movement, but going into Afghanistan instead wouldn't have? No matter what action we took, he would have his "fuel." And do you think if we sat on our asses he would end his anti-American ways? That's just ludicrous. Bush for some of the questions had no other response then well he changes his mind. And even after Kerry defended himself in regards to that comment Bush just kept hitting on it with little to no facts to back it up in his actual statements. Bush to responded to most things with were trying and its hard work instead of saying anything about how they were actually going to solve it. uh....what? arguments usually work better when they're presented in a coherent and grammatically sound manner. I don't even know what you're getting at there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 I guess Bush wanted an excuse to run for four more years I guess he let Osama go this round and went after Saddam. Jeea what a loose. Osama attacked U.S and not Saddam. But wait Bush does not know who he is going after. Osama or Saddam?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindDrive Posted October 2, 2004 Posted October 2, 2004 MY PERSONAL OPINION is that they both have good points about the war and they are both idiots when it comes to decision making: so like it states in The Constitution of The United States of America, *abstract* If a governtment does not work, then it is left to the people to overthrow that government and rebuild one that works - i have studied constitutional law for about a year and a half and have learned that its basicly suspended and is no longer funcitonal as a written document. its obvious that our (USA) government has repeatedly for the past 45 years or so , has made nothing but poor choices in terms and tasks that would supposedly resolve problems that the last presidents have left behind. A major resolution is needed and personally i think that the United States government is out of bandaids when it comes to policies addressing the "GENERAL PUBLIC" the past 4 presidents have tried to "mend" misused legistlature, policies, and bills instead they should have been uprooting and replacing these disfunctional programs about that "NICE" little tax break that most of the American citizens received a while back, well what did most people use that for? somehow it found its way back to the government one way or another...... so a "bandaid" was issued to bring up the hopes of the American people's and their outlooks - basicly that tax break was a fluffer to make legislation look "better" because they wanted a diversion from something else that was happening that should have been paid attention to instead of the money that you "received" as a "reward" gesture. FRIGGIN WAKE UP AMERICA - SMELL THE ROSES- POOPOO OLD GLORY: http://houseandhome.msn.com/improve/expert...Etiquette0.aspx The Constitution of the United States of America: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html Black's Law Dictionary: http://www.barristerbooks.com/index.asp?Pr...&OVMTC=standard Sovereignty http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts