Kerry or Bush?

[JoePesciAddict]

I know we mostly have UK members here, but vote anyway. Who would you vote for or who are you going to vote for?

[Gorek]

kerry cus

BUSH BUMS BLAIR

the three b's of polatics

[RavinRoadie]

kerry, even though he has a girls name!!
I would choose him ova Bush any day, just coz bush is so stupid!!

It worries me to think that the most powerful man in the world once nearly died eating a pretzel!!!

[Gorek]

very clever roundenhouse roadie.

[Master Pilcher]

Im going for Kerry

[JoePesciAddict]

I would vote for Bush. I think that he has done very good for America. People in the UK just don't realize it. They here all bad things about him just because their countries leaders disagree with some of his decisions. e caught Saddam, didn't he? He made every inncoent person in Iraq free and happy. If you lived here I bet you might have some different views

[RenSuzuki]

I don't like either, but Kerry is the lesser of two evils. Bush is a fucking right handed, civilian killing, money wasting idiot. He should be tried as a war criminal. I can't believe anyone would consider voting for him. He has done terrible for both the United States and the rest of the world.

[RenSuzuki]

Joe said:

I would vote for Bush. I think that he has done very good for America. People in the UK just don't realize it. They here all bad things about him just because their countries leaders disagree with some of his decisions. e caught Saddam, didn't he? He made every inncoent person in Iraq free and happy. If you lived here I bet you might have some different views

1. Saddam -they caught him at the expense of thousands of civilians, many of them children. Bush indirectly killed 3x as many civilians as terrorists did on 9/11.

2. Iraq being free and happy - they are free techincally, I'm sure they are happy being free with guys exploding themselves on there doorsteps. The people who lost family because of the USA sure as hell aren't happy. Saddam is gone, it is far from a perfect place

3. Bush doing great for the States-
a.) your economy has gone down the drain, you are in a record deficit now, that you will eventually have to pay off
b.) like any right handed politician, large companies continue to get more tax breaks
c.) THe USA has lost all the respect it had with the way it dealt with Iraq. Countries are now embaressed instead of proud to call teh USA their allies.
d.) People are now allowed to own dangerous assault weapons in the USAas a result of Bush wanting money from the NRA
e.) Health care, education, and all that is as bad, if not worse, than it was when he took office.

I don't see one good thing that Bush has done for the States, unless of course you are a millionare.

[Gorek]

somebody did his homework

[JoePesciAddict]

That is false. Wherever that information came from, it is false. Barely any civilians died in the Iraq war. We got rid of Saddam who was in the process of builing chemical weapons which the U.S. found because of Bush's decision to go to war. Also, Kerry wants to have bilateral talks with North Korea which then will send China packing from allies with the U.S. And then that will give an oppurtunity for Korea to bomb the U.S. easily. Actually, when Kerry is in office, he is going to force the U.S. into a deeper defecit because he wants thosebilateral talks so bad. 600 billion dollars deeper. Don't judge the U.S. if you don't live in it. You are entitled to your opinion. But I bet, if you watched the presidential debates, you would see Kerry getting stopped in his tracks by Bush

[ShenmueAddict]

I voted Bush. He seems like an alright guy, and Kerry, Fuckin' girls name. nah

[RavinRoadie]

personally i think all politicians are evil, and the best president the USA have had for a while was clinton, i dont give a shit about his personal life, he was a damn good president, and thats all that matters.

Who was the last politician to do anything good for the UK?

[RenSuzuki]

Joe said:

That is false. Wherever that information came from, it is false. Barely any civilians died in the Iraq war. We got rid of Saddam who was in the process of builing chemical weapons which the U.S. found because of Bush's decision to go to war. Also, Kerry wants to have bilateral talks with North Korea which then will send China packing from allies with the U.S. And then that will give an oppurtunity for Korea to bomb the U.S. easily. Actually, when Kerry is in office, he is going to force the U.S. into a deeper defecit because he wants thosebilateral talks so bad. 600 billion dollars deeper. Don't judge the U.S. if you don't live in it. You are entitled to your opinion. But I bet, if you watched the presidential debates, you would see Kerry getting stopped in his tracks by Bush

www.iraqbodycount.net/

There's one site, I have seen info like this on reliable sources. If you call that "barely any" then I guess "absolutely nobody" died in 911

Sadam was never in the process of building chemical weapons, he was a dictator, he wanted to control his country, he did not want to attack the USA, what woulid this gain him? He's not a terrorist nor did he have terrorist ties. Ya its good that he's gone, but at what cost?

And apparently Kerry absolutely killed Bush in the debate. Even hardcore Republicans are basically admitting he did awful.

And you can judge quite well from not living in the USA, better than living there probably. Why? Because we can sere whats happening on a global scale, not just whats going on in the USA. My city in Canada is in trouble of becoming a ghost town because of Bush. Thousands of Iraqis are dead because of Bush. Do I need to go on? Does Canada's PM make on difference to Americans, no. But your president affects everyone. That's why I can judge despite not living in the USA. That comment was extremely arrogent.

And with bilateral talks, China and the USA are by no mean allies, they are simply getting along. Currently the USA is talking through China, and talking directly to North Kariya would be better. And by talking with them it doesnt give Kariya and opportunity to bomb the USA. They coiuld bomb them anyways, at least this way they try to keep some peace. And talks don't throw you into debt, war puts you in debt.

ShenmueAddict said:

I voted Bush. He seems like an alright guy,

I think you need to open your eyes

and Kerry, Fuckin' girls name. nah

That's a good way to pick a president

[JoePesciAddict]

Yes, rather have the U.S. getting along then not, don't you agree. We are talking through China so we will know what North Korea's plans are. If we don't know, then we are blind to attacks. North Korea couldn't just attack at any moment. They want to have a treaty with the U.S. first. It is an estimate, not a full truth that all of those civilians were killed. Also, Saddam wasn't building bombs, but he was having "Chemical" Ali do it. Saddams dictatorship would of had many more civilians die over time than what happened in this war. Saddam is a terrorist, he wants power and more power. U.S. found the blueprints for some of the bombs and you wouldn't believe how devastating they would have been to us. The reason Saddam would attack is because he wants to control everything he can. The U.S. was interfering in some of his plans and he didn't like it. Bush recognized this and ordered the preemptive strike. Why don't you ask the citizens of Iraq, if they are happy now that we displaced Saddam and his Regime out of power

[RenSuzuki]

Joe said:

Yes, rather have the U.S. getting along then not, don't you agree. We are talking through China so we will know what North Korea's plans are. If we don't know, then we are blind to attacks. North Korea couldn't just attack at any moment. They want to have a treaty with the U.S. first. It is an estimate, not a full truth that all of those civilians were killed. Also, Saddam wasn't building bombs, but he was having "Chemical" Ali do it. Saddams dictatorship would of had many more civilians die over time than what happened in this war. Saddam is a terrorist, he wants power and more power. U.S. found the blueprints for some of the bombs and you wouldn't believe how devastating they would have been to us. The reason Saddam would attack is because he wants to control everything he can. The U.S. was interfering in some of his plans and he didn't like it. Bush recognized this and ordered the preemptive strike. Why don't you ask the citizens of Iraq, if they are happy now that we displaced Saddam and his Regime out of power

Talking through China is no safer than talking directly to North Korea.

Yes its an estimate, but even on that link I gave you (I realize this isn't a reliable source) but its shows a min and a max, either way it is high.

Saddam had weapons, but they were all military weaspons and not weapons of mass destruciton.

And Saddam is not a terrorist, dictatosrhip and terrorism are the exact opposites. Terrorists could hurt his control of IRaq. And bombing the USA would have been suicide for Saddam, because as soon as he did Iraq would have been attacked immediately.

And you Bush supporters continuously say "well its good that Saddam is gone, more people would have died under his realm, etc.", but that was not Bush's justification for going to war. It was not to save the Iraqi people. Because quite frankly, even under Saddam, there are a lot worse places that could of used the billions of dollars Bush used in Iraq (See Africa). Even under Saddam, at least they had food, water, and some basic neccesiteis in Iraq, unlike other places. Mentioning the Iraqis freedom is (as someone on the Dojo said) like trying to look for a good thing about being paralized.

Now if Bush wins this election he won't have to worry about being reelected, so who knows what he'll do, since he just won't care. I'll admit I hate right winged governments, but this isn't just any Republican, If Republicans win it sucks but oh well, but Bush is so much worse than any other republican. He is quite possibly the worst president of the USA, ever. I am begging anyone in the USA not to support Bush. He doesn't care about his coutnry or his people and the fact that anyone can support him is appauling

[JoePesciAddict]

Saddam SAID he was using the bombs for military. He wasn't thinking about USA attacking him after he attacks. He thought that one attack would be enough to stop the US for good. Also, Bush gave a warning to Saddam telling him to leave Iraq and he failed to comply. Also, Bush right now is supplying the entire country with food, water and other supplies. Also, in the debate last night Bush killed Kerry. He had way more confidence and more points. Kerry is the phony which I can't believe anyone supports

[RenSuzuki]

Joe said:

Saddam SAID he was using the bombs for military. He wasn't thinking about USA attacking him after he attacks. He thought that one attack would be enough to stop the US for good. Also, Bush gave a warning to Saddam telling him to leave Iraq and he failed to comply. Also, Bush right now is supplying the entire country with food, water and other supplies. Also, in the debate last night Bush killed Kerry. He had way more confidence and more points. Kerry is the phony which I can't believe anyone supports

The weapons he had were not capable of being used against th USA, his missles didn't have the range, the bombs didn't have the size, etc. And the only way one attack would have stopped the States would have bene huge nuclear bombs, which he dind't have. And of course he'd fail to comply to leave Iraq, he was a DICTATOR. If Saddam told Bush to leave the States, I bet he wouldn't do it.

And Bush supplying the coutnry with water? I said they had water before this. What I meant was that there were countires that didn't have food and water. If it was a war for human aid, then they should have invaded these countries first (but those countries had no oil) Yes they have some water under Bush, but they had it under Saddam to.

And the debate was appoarently pretty even, with Kerry slightly winning it. I'm not listenign to your opinion on it becuase you said Kerry got killed in the first debate, which even hardcore republicans regretfully disagree with.

Kerry a phony? sure, but what politician isn't. Bush is way more of a phony than Kerry was. I don't like Kerry, but compared to Bush, a monkey would make a good president of the United States. Like I said before, Kerry is the lesser of two evils.

[JoePesciAddict]

Saddam didn't have the bombs, I know. He had the blueprints for the bombs if you didn't see the news reports on chemical Ali. Also, Saddam took more away from the people than what he supplied them with. What has Bush taken away from them? Has he taken there communism away? Isn't that a good thing? Also, I didn't say Kerry got "killed" in the first debate, I said the second. Which I know for a fact from watching it and seeing publicists thoughts aswell. Why would you think Bush is a phony? What has he said that he hasn't done?

[RenSuzuki]

Joe said:

Saddam didn't have the bombs, I know. He had the blueprints for the bombs if you didn't see the news reports on chemical Ali.

Also, Saddam took more away from the people than what he supplied them with. What has Bush taken away from them? Has he taken there communism away? Isn't that a good thing?

This is irrelevant. I never said Saddam was a good leader, and Bush hasn't been there savior either. I'm saying that Bush didn't justify th war by saying human aid. And it wasn't communism, it was a dictatorship (although nowadays the two are kinda similar). And ya its good dictatorship is gone, but its not like its a working democracy either.
[/quote]

Also, I didn't say Kerry got "killed" in the first debate, I said the second. Which I know for a fact from watching it and seeing publicists thoughts aswell.

"But I bet, if you watched the presidential debates, you would see Kerry getting stopped in his tracks by Bush"

This was after the first debate, and before the second. The parts of the debate I saw didn't see either side really winning at it, and looking at what various sources say, Kerry seemed to have won it

Why would you think Bush is a phony? What has he said that he hasn't done?

- finding weasons of mass destruction
- finding Osama Bin Laden
- caring about the American people
etc.

I bet if I looked at some campaign promises, I could find a lot more

So go ahead, I hope you vote for Bush and get drafted to go and fight in his "phony" war. I don't know if a draft will be introduced, but between Kerry and Bush, Bush will be the one to do it.

[JoePesciAddict]

lol, I won't be drafted. Also, how is it irrelevant of what Bush found. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Everyone knows that was a mistake that he didn't find it, but he found the blueprints and ideas for it. Also, he hasn't found Osama YET? It is a work in process just like rebuilding Iraq. You can't expect it to be a working democracy as soon as the war is over. When the war really isn't even over. I am sure if you look up communism in a Thesauraus you will find Dictator or Saddam right next to it. He made everyone work for the same wages, chicken sratch that could only buy a loaf of bread and some cold rice that had to last them 2 weeks at least. Women didn't have any rights an such. Next, Bush didn't say that he was just going for the weapons of mass destruction, he even announced that he was going to remove Saddam from power either way. Bush does care about the Americans, why would he have cut taxes when Kerry wants to increase them. God knows I don't want to pay more on my taxes. Back to the debates, I still didn't say that Bush "killed Kerry" in the first debate. Which Bush did do in the second. I watched The O'Reilly Factor, Larry king and some other informative news prgrams that actually think my same way on the subject. I don't know what news you are seeing up there, but it isn't very reliable. One more thing, if you can find those campaign promises then I would like to see your point but until then, I am sticking with Bush