Presidential run

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:09 am

i respectfully disagree with you, flood. if you truly understand our political system, you would realize that there is no difference between kerry and bush.

kerry, as with most of congress, voted to allow bush to invade iraq. even with bush's 'coalition of the willing', kerry WANTED the invasion to occur! every member of congress that voted for that legislation is as much to blame as bush.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14441

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:10 am

sintekk wrote:
FloodG8-9595 wrote:

Don't worry, if he revokes it, PBS Kids has your back

Thats what the frech would call.. el terrible..

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14442

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:17 am

sintekk wrote:
FloodG8-9595 wrote:

Don't worry, if he revokes it, PBS Kids has your back

yay! i finly get me web lisense!!11!1!!!1111

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14445

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:26 am

fragged one wrote: i respectfully disagree with you, flood. if you truly understand our political system, you would realize that there is no difference between kerry and bush.

kerry, as with most of congress, voted to allow bush to invade iraq. even with bush's 'coalition of the willing', kerry WANTED the invasion to occur! every member of congress that voted for that legislation is as much to blame as bush.

yeah I realize that Kerry did vote for the war. As for his reasons I can't speculate on what they may have been.(remember that at the time I would have voted yes as well) All I can say is that given the intelligence at the time It was the right thing to do (ie give the president the power to go to war). My problem also comes in on the other side. Bush won't admit that he was wrong. Like I said before he thinks that saying "we were wrong to vote that way" shows that he's a flip flopper when in fact it makes him a person able to adapt to change in inteligence. So what does he do?. He ignores it and pretends that the reason we invaded is because "The world is safer without sadam hussain" It's Not the reason we went it.. It's a statment.. and a true one.. but it's not the reason that we went in the first place. If he's fess up to the truth. I'd respect the man.. but he won't.

I don't thin that Kerry and Bush are both equally bad for this country... I balance the scales and for me Bush looses big time. Just look at both candidates website (I know you have) what I found on Bushes was a lot of retoric and attacks. What I found on Kerrys was his plan. A friend has also pointed out to me that you can find a heck of a lot of transcripts of Kerry speeches on his site.. not so many of Bush.

Even if I go down to the very bottom of the barrel for material for the scale put them as equaly bad and then put on the fact that President Bush can't speak coheriently and it tips the scales for me.. that may sound petty, but communication is Key in that job and frankly the man sounds like a rambling tape which occasionally loops on itself.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14448

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:56 am

bush did admit that the intelligence that was used as a basis for the invasion was not as solid as presumed, however i don't see how that makes him wrong, or makes it a 'mistake'.

you said yourself that you would have done the same thing with the same information. to say that the action was a mistake, is the same as calling it a mistake to end up at walmart when your map from trusty mapquest has you at your hotel, which is in fact across town.

he was wrong to put trust in the cia, british mi6, israeli mossad, and the russian ministry of defense...he was wrong there, but since he did trust those sources, he acted...it turned out the sources were wrong.

what is the reason we went in? to 'make the world a safer place by ridding it of saddam', and more specifically, his wmd's. we knew he had wmd's, we gave them to him, and he used them in the past. he did not document the destruction of all of the wmd's...if he did destroy them, why wouldn't he document it? there's more than meets the eye about that, but for the sake of argument, and the fact that we have not found the actual substances (except in small amounts), we'll just say they were destroyed.

the ONLY fault i have in bush for the war in iraq, is the troop management. there need to be more troops there, and i said so to you at the time. but that would cause something else that is very unpopular in the world, too, and that's the removal of troops from germany, korea, vietnam, japan, etc... so that we can place them in iraq.

we know the motives of the french, germans, and russians in iraq now that the whole oil for food bribery scandal was discovered. i believe that leads to a partial conclusion as to why the coalition was smaller than what we had wanted. however, the coalition is much larger than i think is advertised.

regarding the websites...i noticed that, as well. bush's site is 'kerrykerrykerrybush', while kerry's site is 'kerrybushkerrybush'. i do, however, have difficulty in actually finding where kerry says what he will do and HOW he will do it.

i know it's kind of cliched now that bush has actually said it, but it's true. at least with bush you know where he stands and what he will do. with kerry you have an idea of where he stands, and no clue what he will do.

am i defending bush? yeah, you kinda forced me to.

but i'm not voting for him, hell no.

it's the domestic issues that really have me at odds with both guys. they both support the patriot act, and that has me up in arms. i think that is far more important that the war, as it affects far more people than the war does.

we need more and better intelligence, that's for sure, but kerry voted against more funding for intelligence...i dunno.

i guarantee you that it will be more of the same from kerry that we've had from bush...why? because on the important issues, they agree.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14453

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:39 pm

fragged one wrote: bush did admit that the intelligence that was used as a basis for the invasion was not as solid as presumed, however i don't see how that makes him wrong, or makes it a 'mistake'.

In my mind regardless of the fault of the inellignece it was still a mistake. one that he cant correct thats just the truth and it would probably be the truth with any president in the same senario.. so really this is just a fact and not an argument. He said that even having the information he has now he'd still have gone in.. That worries me. Yes Sadam was a bad guy and yes we sold him WMD's at one point and I was fairly convinced that he had them still (seeing as how he couldn't prove the destruction of them) but, knowing what we know now the ONLY viable reason we had for going into Iraq has been elimitated. The other reasons don't appeal to me as much.

fragged one wrote: he was wrong to put trust in the cia, british mi6, israeli mossad, and the russian ministry of defense...he was wrong there, but since he did trust those sources, he acted...it turned out the sources were wrong.

This counts as a mistake in my book.. would anyone else have done it differently? eh?

fragged one wrote: what is the reason we went in? to 'make the world a safer place by ridding it of saddam', and more specifically, his wmd's.

.

I think your using a political trick here fragged.. you've learned well from the likes of news anchors

You use the phrase as President Bush used it in a true statment (when he used it in a crappy one) however, If we are assuming (since we haven't found them) that there are no WMD's then does that not nullify Bushes 'make the world a safer place' retoric?

fragged one wrote: the ONLY fault i have in bush for the war in iraq, is the troop management. there need to be more troops there, and i said so to you at the time. but that would cause something else that is very unpopular in the world, too, and that's the removal of troops from germany, korea, vietnam, japan, etc... so that we can place them in iraq.

Yeah I agree with this things are Crazy over there and the more troops we have working the quicker they can all come back. and WW2 has been over for how long?.. hello... a lot troops in Germany? Japan?..

fragged one wrote: we know the motives of the french, germans, and russians in iraq now that the whole oil for food bribery scandal was discovered. i believe that leads to a partial conclusion as to why the coalition was smaller than what we had wanted. however, the coalition is much larger than i think is advertised.

Yeah I rememberthat whole fiasco but still.. 3 countrys.. starting a war with 3 allies.. I know we have about 30 now helping out.. but we went to war with 3.

fragged one wrote: regarding the websites...i noticed that, as well. bush's site is 'kerrykerrykerrybush', while kerry's site is 'kerrybushkerrybush'. i do, however, have difficulty in actually finding where kerry says what he will do and HOW he will do it.

I actually haven't had a chance to really sit down and read throgh the Kerry plan. from what I've heard it seems coherient and I have read bits and pieces of it when I could. I gotta say it beats hearing the same old propoganda from Bush.. I swear if that guy smirks one more time... I'm gonna.. oh wait I was not gonna vote for him allready.

fragged one wrote: i know it's kind of cliched now that bush has actually said it, but it's true. at least with bush you know where he stands and what he will do.

Yes, yes I do and that scares me to no end.

fragged one wrote: it's the domestic issues that really have me at odds with both guys. they both support the patriot act, and that has me up in arms. i think that is far more important that the war, as it affects far more people than the war does.

I'm not sure I've read a whole lot on Kerry ideas on the Patriot act. If he's for taking certain passages out of it and keeping the part that might actually do some good I'm ok with that. I sat down and reviewed the patriot act (while watching that yahoo on Public Access)a long while ago and there are SOME parts of it that seem valuable none-the-less.

fragged one wrote: we need more and better intelligence, that's for sure, but kerry voted against more funding for intelligence...i dunno.

two things here.. Kerry voted against a buncha stuff so you could say exactly the same thing. infact so has almost anybody whos ever held a seat. It could have been any number of reasons that I would accept for voting against it. Maybe there was somthing tacked on to that intelligence bill that would have been bad in his eyes. and secondly.. Kerry is a represenitive of the people of the U.S. therefor the only record that should matter is that he's done what the people of the state of MASS have wanted him to do.

fragged one wrote: i guarantee you that it will be more of the same from kerry that we've had from bush...why? because on the important issues, they agree.

I'm not saying that Kerry is our savior.. I just think he won't do as much damage. Atleast there's a chance he COULD be a good president.. I allready KNOW bush isn't

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14478

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:05 pm

Regarding the patriot act:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/04/...ain647329.shtml

Bush's stance is bad and Kerry's is only slightly better, which isn't enough

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14481

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:10 pm

Bill Gates should run as president.

He can then supply terrorist groups with weapons that suck.

The new micro chip technology AK 47, powered by windows ME!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14482

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:14 pm

A gun that frequently locks up and shoots 30 rounds every 5 minutes, even if you aren't pulling the trigger

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14483

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:44 pm

flood, i hate to sound offensive here, and i know you quite well, so let me say this. i really have the feeling that you're bandwagoning. none of your arguments hold any water...basically what i'm getting from you is that you're voting for kerry because you don't like bush's smirk.

i'm not sure what propaganda you've been reading and listening to, but kerry and bush feel exactly the same on iraq. kerry said just a while ago that even knowing what we know today, that he would still invaded iraq. bush said the same...

unless you actually point out any differences here, i'm just going to have to toss you into the 'i'll just vote for whoever' crowd.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14487

shenbaw · Post by **shenbaw** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:12 pm

fragged one wrote: unless you actually point out any differences here, i'm just going to have to toss you into the 'i'll just vote for whoever' crowd.

Fragged, all due respect, but who cares what crowd you toss Flood into, or anyone else into for that matter? The point is Flood's going to vote. Who are you to tell people what to base their decision on, whether it be a smirk, a laugh, a policy, or religious beliefs, everyone makes their own decisions based on their own standards. You can only set your own.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14491

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:14 pm

shenbaw wrote:
fragged one wrote: unless you actually point out any differences here, i'm just going to have to toss you into the 'i'll just vote for whoever' crowd.
Fragged, all due respect, but who cares what crowd you toss Flood into, or anyone else into for that matter? The point is Flood's going to vote. Who are you to tell people what to base their decision on, whether it be a smirk, a laugh, a policy, or religious beliefs, everyone makes their own decisions based on their own standards. You can only set your own.

because flood is a person that i have been very good friends with for years. we were roommates for 3 years...i have great respect for him, and i guess i just expect more from him than most others, like you.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14492

shenbaw · Post by **shenbaw** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:31 pm

fragged one wrote: i guess i just expect more from him than most others, like you.

Wow, the hospitality has really diminished around here as of late, eh? Well, good to see you too.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what kind of low standards you have come to expect from me over the course of our interaction?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14495

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:37 pm

shenbaw wrote:
fragged one wrote: i guess i just expect more from him than most others, like you.
Wow, the hospitality has really diminished around here as of late, eh? Well, good to see you too.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what kind of low standards you have come to expect from me over the course of our interaction?

i apologize, shenbaw, i wasn't trying to be an

.

i haven't had a cigarette all day, and i'm really jonezin' hard for one, and i'm a bit irritable.

anyway...i don't know, maybe i'm trying to be his dad or something, but i know he's more intelligent than to vote for someone because the other guy has a smirk. that's something i'd expect from jason (flood will know).

basically, i'm trying to convince him not to waste his vote like that, especially when i don't feel he has a grasp on the whole situation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14496

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:40 pm

fragged one wrote: flood, i hate to sound offensive here, and i know you quite well, so let me say this. i really have the feeling that you're bandwagoning. none of your arguments hold any water...basically what i'm getting from you is that you're voting for kerry because you don't like bush's smirk.

i'm not sure what propaganda you've been reading and listening to, but kerry and bush feel exactly the same on iraq. kerry said just a while ago that even knowing what we know today, that he would still invaded iraq. bush said the same...

unless you actually point out any differences here, i'm just going to have to toss you into the 'i'll just vote for whoever' crowd.

I really hope you don't think that I would just go with whats popular fragged. I know I make a lot of jokes and vailed comments in my posts but, thats just my way of dealing with what I consider stress. I may have over played the smirk thing but I do think my arguments are well thought out. I'm smart enough to get my information from several sorces. I know that there are still things out there about both candidates that I would find dispicable personally. What I don't understand in your argument is why you KNOW that Kerry wouldn't do anything different. All I'm saying is putting all else aside that the simple fact that Bush has had his chance and not proven himself reliable in my eyes. While I have my ethics and morals about who I vote for unfortunatley there just arn't that many choices and I'd rather vote in what I truley feel to be the right direction in the choices given than to turn a blind eye to the presidency by not voting which IS my other alternative. Being one of the people who taught me that lesson I would hope that you atleast approve of my political activity no matter how misslead you may think it to be.

I listen to the news on TV. I also read the news from several independant sorces on the internet. I have on several occasions tried to look for negative things that Kerry has done. I know that he's voted against things that apparently would have been good for the country but, nor you or I can say exactly what was in those bills (primarily because I don't think either one of us will actually take the time to read every single bill he's voted down in it's entirety) I know that politicians will put things into bills just for the reason of getting them blocked Those things hold a lot of weight with me. btw I wached that Kerry speech and he was refering to giving Bush the athorization to go to war.. not actually giving the order.. because Kerry actually said that if he had been president he would have asked for the power but he would not have used it so quickly and without restraint.

in conclusion I'm voting for Kerry because I think he deserves the chance if for nothing else . Is there a better candidate out there that may have been?.. Yes but I can allways say that. If I could pick the president by myself I'm not sure who I'd pick but I assure you it would be neither of the people running now but, if I held myself to that standard I'd never vote. An independant candidate needs to rise to the occasion (I know thats difficult/impossible) and take the reigns of this country.. because I think that if the right person at the right time came to the forefront it could happen.
Don't think I'm being a sheep Fragged... I've done enough of that in my life. I've never claimed to be a good debater either and you know that for sure. Take my opinions for what you will but, not for brainwashing. If I was truley following the bandwagon I'd be doing a lot more Bush bashing. I think he's done some good things I don't think he's stupid. I think he's a bad public speaker. I don't think he's evil or mean. I think he's misslead and incorrect(not to mention incoherant). Plus the way the Bush administration is using that Global Test thing against Kerry?.. I mean come on.. I know both sides do that kind of stuff but, that was ridiculously taken out of context and then harped on and harped on like they think were stupid. The Bush administration in my eyes has done far worse work in that area than the Kerry campaign

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14501

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:26 pm

Someone sounds like WW

fragged wrote: bush did admit that the intelligence that was used as a basis for the invasion was not as solid as presumed, however i don't see how that makes him wrong, or makes it a 'mistake'.

It makes him negligent, but if this were a “one time” thing, you can forgive it as a mistake, not so much when every issue turns out this way.

fragged wrote: you said yourself that you would have done the same thing with the same information. to say that the action was a mistake, is the same as calling it a mistake to end up at walmart when your map from trusty mapquest has you at your hotel, which is in fact across town.

Anytime you are going to take action on something, you need to be able to verify your sources, which documents have shown was not done. CBS anyone? I guess only the Bush Admin can do that and justify it. At least no one gets killed when CBS doesn’t verify their sources. Negligent. You have to take precautions depending to your situation, presidents who understand their job and role in government as the executive branch know this. I think you need to focus on the details more.
[quote=-> he was wrong to put trust in the cia, british mi6, israeli mossad, and the russian ministry of defense...he was wrong there, but since he did trust those sources, he acted...it turned out the sources were wrong.
what is the reason we went in? to 'make the world a safer place by ridding it of saddam', and more specifically, his wmd's. we knew he had wmd's, we gave them to him, and he used them in the past. he did not document the destruction of all of the wmd's...if he did destroy them, why wouldn't he document it? there's more than meets the eye about that, but for the sake of argument, and the fact that we have not found the actual substances (except in small amounts), we'll just say they were destroyed.[/quote]
He was wrong not to have hard evidence before going into war, like he said he had. With the information they had, he should have exhausted other efforts and planned appropriately for the war when it came. Instead he didn’t follow the advice of the people around him and a substandard plan was put into place. More negligence. If the Saddam regime had no WMD’s, the US had no right to invade via hostile force because there was no immediate threat, yes the world is better off, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do things.
<!--QuoteBegin-fragged] the ONLY fault i have in bush for the war in iraq, is the troop management. there need to be more troops there, and i said so to you at the time. but that would cause something else that is very unpopular in the world, too, and that's the removal of troops from germany, korea, vietnam, japan, etc... so that we can place them in iraq.[/quote]
We are in the process of doing that right now, it should have been done a long time ago. The removal of our troops from many of their locations around the world would be seen more as a positive from the world than a negative. At least it's happening.

-> we know the motives of the french, germans, and russians in iraq now that the whole oil for food bribery scandal was discovered. i believe that leads to a partial conclusion as to why the coalition was smaller than what we had wanted. however, the coalition is much larger than i think is advertised.[/quote wrote: I can’t believe that you would believe that BS. I believe French motives were the same as they were in Afghanistan, prepare a better plan and then we’ll come along. The Food for Oil scandal is often used as a smoke screen for those not willing to admit the truth that the “your with us or against us” attitude has cost us. Lets talk about the coalition:

’91 - 33 nations start
’03 – 3 nations start

Why? Because the plan for war in ’91 was solid. Bush did it his way with no concessions to anyone, even when there should have been.

regarding the websites...i noticed that, as well. bush's site is 'kerrykerrykerrybush', while kerry's site is 'kerrybushkerrybush'. i do, however, have difficulty in actually finding where kerry says what he will do and HOW he will do it.
That’s completely ridiculous. He release a book with details when he and Edwards began campaigning, it available everywhere. It sounds like someone listens to the TV more than reading the direct source. Giving all the details would do nothing but fuel more arguments, politicians have to know how to give enough information without giving so much that it confuses the general public, which for the most part don’t understand the processes in these events. Giving all the details would make it easy for someone to convince person A that their plan is better in area A, because it makes logical sense to a person who knows nothing about how that area works, the classic flaw of democracy.
i know it's kind of cliched now that bush has actually said it, but it's true. at least with bush you know where he stands and what he will do. with kerry you have an idea of where he stands, and no clue what he will do.
You watch/read too much commentary. If you’re looking at his voting record for a clue as to what he stands for, you must not understand the job of a representative. Otherwise, it’s very easy if you read or listen to what he says, instead of what others say about him. But since we saw the same speak and he said he would still have ‘authorized the use of force as a possibility, but exhausted other sources first’, but you heard ‘kerry said just a while ago that even knowing what we know today, that he would still invaded iraq.’ Hmmm… Having the power to invade if necessary is not the same as still would have invaded…
<!--QuoteBegin-fragged] am i defending bush? yeah, you kinda forced me to.
but i'm not voting for him, hell no.
it's the domestic issues that really have me at odds with both guys. they both support the patriot act, and that has me up in arms. i think that is far more important that the war, as it affects far more people than the war does.

The patriot act, minus the 3 or 4(I can’t remember how many) unconstitutional clauses is a good thing, it breaks the walls set up for bureaucracy sake that make it more difficult to track terrorist and keeps the checks in place to make us safer.

we need more and better intelligence, that's for sure, but kerry voted against more funding for intelligence...i dunno.

You know very well that not voting to increase funding for intelligence in a bill does not mean that you don’t want more money in intel, but often that the way the bill was authored or the tack ons made it bad, the way it allocates funds, there are so many reasons for a bill not to pass, to say voting against it means you do not support the idea is a distort of the truth.

What else do you hate? foetus'? puppies? churches?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14508

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:02 pm

kicks a puppy thru a church's window onto a pregnant woman's stomach, thus injuring her foetus

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14516

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:15 pm

well, i'll just have to settle for the fact that your votes are going to kerry to be anti-bush, as that's how i'm reading your ideas.

i'm anti-bush and anti-kerry, and i've yet to have a single person point out to me how they would fundamentally run the country differently.

so instead of voting anti-bush, or anti-kerry, i'm voting pro what matters.

let me try one more angle...if you guys support for there to be more third-party participation, then you should vote for a third party, and preferably a popular third party. living in texas, your vote for kerry is not going to matter, may as well put it where it may actually count.

btw...you guys are just flat wrong. i'll drop it at that, and leave the discussion for a day when we can actually discuss it.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14525

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:37 am

well, i'll just have to settle for the fact that your votes are going to kerry to be anti-bush, as that's how i'm reading your ideas.

It's true that I'm unhappy with the way bush is running the country and if that makes me anti-bush thats fine.

let me try one more angle...if you guys support for there to be more third-party participation, then you should vote for a third party, and preferably a popular third party. living in texas, your vote for kerry is not going to matter, may as well put it where it may actually count.

you have a point here.. my vote won't count but, the truth is that you never really know whats gonna happen. Remember also that a larger vote toward Kerry than expected in a state like Texas might just change the rules a little bit in the electoral college area so my vote might count next time. Maybe I'm dreaming but I'd rather dream than be a pecimist.

btw...you guys are just flat wrong. i'll drop it at that, and leave the discussion for a day when we can actually discuss it.

Most of what I've said has been based on what I know to be truth. I can't see how my opinions (which is what I'm assuming your speaking about) are "flat out wrong".. they simply are opinions. So far in your posts here you've told me that I'm wrong but given me very little actual information in retort to what I've said. here are a few differneces that I can think of. If you don't feel like responding to this I'll understand as you said you were dropping it. here it is none-the-less.

1. Bush won't admit that he and his administration made a mistake in judgement. (I believe that someone like Kerry would)
2. Bush would have invaded IRAQ even knowing there were no WMD's (Kerry would not have and has said so many times)
3.Bush is a terrible public speaker (Kerry is not) btw I'm not just saying this jokingly I really feel that it's an important skill that he lacks.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14532

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:13 am

FloodG8-9595 wrote:
2. Bush would have invaded IRAQ even knowing there were no WMD's (Kerry would not have and has said so many times)

Woah, woah, woah, didn't kerry say he still would have invaded iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14535

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:30 am

That's sad, but you can think what you like fragged, I wasn't asked to explain my beliefs in Kerry, nor did you ask, i just refuted your uneducated claims. I expect more from my president, if you can't see differences between the two, I think you might have a problem with comprehension. Anyone can see differences in fundamental policy and the way to go about things, there is no doubt about that. John Kerry's 'supposed' vision and philosophy fits more with what I believe more than any other candidate in any party. I fear the democratic party a little, but thats a whole other issue. You can think what you want, but it sounds to me like you haven't done the research to find out what claims are true and what are not, and have fallen on the bandwagon of misinformation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14536

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:33 am

sintekk wrote:
FloodG8-9595 wrote:
2. Bush would have invaded IRAQ even knowing there were no WMD's (Kerry would not have and has said so many times)

Woah, woah, woah, didn't kerry say he still would have invaded iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

MrSelf wrote: But since we saw the same speak and he said he would still have ‘authorized the use of force as a possibility, but exhausted other sources first’, but you heard ‘kerry said just a while ago that even knowing what we know today, that he would still invaded iraq.’ Hmmm… Having the power to invade if necessary is not the same as still would have invaded…

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14537

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:50 am

MrSelf wrote:
sintekk wrote:
FloodG8-9595 wrote:
2. Bush would have invaded IRAQ even knowing there were no WMD's (Kerry would not have and has said so many times)

Woah, woah, woah, didn't kerry say he still would have invaded iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

MrSelf wrote: But since we saw the same speak and he said he would still have ‘authorized the use of force as a possibility, but exhausted other sources first’, but you heard ‘kerry said just a while ago that even knowing what we know today, that he would still invaded iraq.’ Hmmm… Having the power to invade if necessary is not the same as still would have invaded…

Bah! I don't got time to read your uber-long 300+ word posts

(of course, this makes me think "Why did kerry authorize the war in the first place if he believed more work/searching/hob-knobbing/etc. was needed?" But I'm tired, it's midnight, and I could be missing another fact

)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14540

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:52 am

Public Law 107 -243 is titled OCT. 16, 2002 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

This athorized the President to have the leverage of military force as an option.

Public Law 107-243 can be read in it's entirety at this address
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14542

FloodG8-9595 · Post by **FloodG8-9595** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:53 am

UN Resolution 1441 can be found here

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1133, old post ID:14543