Hmmm...what's Bush hiding NOW?

stormchazer · #21 Postby **stormchazer** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:15 pm

Aslkahuna wrote:Republican Yes, Bush Supporter No. As for the UN, I don't trust them either. But I also don't trust Halliburton. Regardless of actualities, though, witholding information makes one a crook by implication. If the Administration had nothing to hide, then why not release the info. I doesn't hurt anybody and might even do their Campaign some good which Heaven knows it needs to some good right now. I'm sure that if the Republicans had nominated McCain instead of Bush they a. would have actually won the Popular and Electoral vote and b. we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Steve

Oh yeah...coming clean sure helps. Helped Pres. Bush when he let his National Guard record out. Dems still saying he was AWOL. Released the report after Clark book, "well he should have acted sooner based on that knowledge," said the Dems. Do you suggest we release our Nuclear Weapons programs to the UN? They are secret. I do not think the President should bow to the UN. Part of the reason they want this stuff is to try to embarrass Pres. Bush in light of him not allowing countries who did not support us to bid on the contracts. The UN is the most crooked organization on this planet.

Jean-Pierre Halbwachs....hmmm...suppose he is French? Scr#w them!

chadtm80 · #22 Postby **chadtm80** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:18 pm

azsnowman wrote:Actually Brother, like Alskahuna says, I'm voting "NO" for president! "LOL!" It's the election of the "Lesser of 2 EVILS!"

Dennis

Why would you NOT want to be a part of the decision making? I dont care that you dont like either.. Weather you like it or not ONE of them will be President.. Its YOUR duty to decide what one will do a better job.

Skywatch_NC · #23 Postby **Skywatch_NC** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:02 pm

chadtm80 wrote:
azsnowman wrote:Actually Brother, like Alskahuna says, I'm voting "NO" for president! "LOL!" It's the election of the "Lesser of 2 EVILS!"

Dennis

Why would you NOT want to be a part of the decision making? I dont care that you dont like either.. Weather you like it or not ONE of them will be President.. Its YOUR duty to decide what one will do a better job.

Same here, Chad.

Dennis, if anything else it should be every U.S. citizen's civic duty to get out and VOTE, Brother.

azsnowman · #24 Postby **azsnowman** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:19 pm

chadtm80 wrote:
azsnowman wrote:Actually Brother, like Alskahuna says, I'm voting "NO" for president! "LOL!" It's the election of the "Lesser of 2 EVILS!"

Dennis

Why would you NOT want to be a part of the decision making? I dont care that you dont like either.. Weather you like it or not ONE of them will be President.. Its YOUR duty to decide what one will do a better job.

I didn't SAY I wasn't going to VOTE now DID I....I'm going to write in "NO" for president, maybe Ralph Nader, like I said, IMHO, this years presidental race, it's the LESSER of 2 EVILS

I've been VOTING since I was 18 years old, 27 years ago and this is the FIRST TIME EVER that I've thrown away a VOTE, but ya know what? At this point in time, I feel a vote for either ONE is a waste :roll:

So.....there it is, in black and white!

Dennis 8-)

Skywatch_NC · #25 Postby **Skywatch_NC** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:23 pm

azsnowman wrote:
chadtm80 wrote:
azsnowman wrote:Actually Brother, like Alskahuna says, I'm voting "NO" for president! "LOL!" It's the election of the "Lesser of 2 EVILS!"

Dennis

Why would you NOT want to be a part of the decision making? I dont care that you dont like either.. Weather you like it or not ONE of them will be President.. Its YOUR duty to decide what one will do a better job.

I didn't SAY I wasn't going to VOTE now DID I....I'm going to write in "NO" for president, maybe Ralph Nader, like I said, IMHO, it's the LESSER of 2 EVILS

Dennis

Even though Nader wouldn't have a snowball's chance... :wink:

Website · #26 Postby **Brent** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:49 pm

Skywatch_NC wrote:
azsnowman wrote:
chadtm80 wrote:
azsnowman wrote:Actually Brother, like Alskahuna says, I'm voting "NO" for president! "LOL!" It's the election of the "Lesser of 2 EVILS!"

Dennis

Why would you NOT want to be a part of the decision making? I dont care that you dont like either.. Weather you like it or not ONE of them will be President.. Its YOUR duty to decide what one will do a better job.

I didn't SAY I wasn't going to VOTE now DID I....I'm going to write in "NO" for president, maybe Ralph Nader, like I said, IMHO, it's the LESSER of 2 EVILS

Dennis

Even though Nader wouldn't have a snowball's chance...

LOL, correct.

Nader is freaky looking too, just like Mr. John Frankenstein Kerry. :lol:

#27 Postby **Aslkahuna** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:49 pm

It doesn't matter whether or not Nader or the Libertarian or someone else has a chance of winning or not what does matter that since ALL of the Candidates are losers one way or another and the top ones are crooks to boot then voting for a different loser is one way of telling Bush and Kerry to get screwed. Voting NO expresses one's lack of confidence in how our elections are being run nowadays and shows contempt for the two major Parties which deserve it greatly.

Steve
8-)

Skywatch_NC · #28 Postby **Skywatch_NC** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:08 pm

Aslkahuna wrote:It doesn't matter whether or not Nader or the Libertarian or someone else has a chance of winning or not what does matter that since ALL of the Candidates are losers one way or another and the top ones are crooks to boot then voting for a different loser is one way of telling Bush and Kerry to get screwed. Voting NO expresses one's lack of confidence in how our elections are being run nowadays and shows contempt for the two major Parties which deserve it greatly.

Steve

And when one thinks about it...IT's better living in a country like our's where there's a democracy and elections...rather than a dictatorship where a crook like Saddam, etc., used to voted himself IN.

Eric

southerngale · #29 Postby **southerngale** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:16 am

There's nothing "evil" about Bush.

Dennis, I'm a bit surprised that one who is against radical environmentalism and is a Christian is so anti-Bush. :wink:

azsnowman · #30 Postby **azsnowman** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 7:26 am

southerngale wrote:There's nothing "evil" about Bush.

Dennis, I'm a bit surprised that one who is against radical environmentalism and is a Christian is so anti-Bush.

LOL SG

I don't quite understand your point SG, yes, I am a Christian and YES, I dislike RADICAL environmentalists with a passion but what does that have to do with my dislike of Bush? As I've said before on a number of other issues, I forgive the person but CONDEMN their ACTIONS and Bush, well :roll:

I support his decission on the war in Iraq to a certain extent, that's a GIVEN.....but some of his OTHER lame brain ideas, well....let's just say :roll:

Dennis

#31 Postby **Stephanie** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:06 am

azsnowman wrote:
Stephanie wrote:
azsnowman wrote:Good point HOWEVER......with holding ANY information from ANYONE makes one (myself) a MIGHT BIT Suspicious! JMHO!

Dennis

That's how I feel.

*faints* Thanks Stephanie, I don't feel like the *LOOOOONE Stranger* Yes Kimosabe...him heep big liar

Dennis

- Dennis, you KNOW that I've been always on the outside looking in here!

SG - there's alot of Christians that are Democrats as well.

I just want to say one thing. This has to be one of THE BEST political threads we've had so far. Great discussions and points from BOTH sides and NO FLAMING! BRAVO!!!!

Lindaloo · #32 Postby **Lindaloo** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:25 am

Throws out a flame thrower just for Stephanie. :onfire:

#33 Postby **Stephanie** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:22 am

Rainband · #34 Postby **Rainband** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:48 pm

southerngale wrote:There's nothing "evil" about Bush.

Dennis, I'm a bit surprised that one who is against radical environmentalism and is a Christian is so anti-Bush.

Just because someone has certain views and ideals doesn't mean they have to support a candidate with those same ideals..SOME people vote with that standard and to some....if they have them......or don't isn't important. It's not that cut and dry in my opinion. I agree with what Dennis said. I support Bush to an extent but there is a lot he has done that I don't agree with and no matter what anybody says He is far from perfect. Part of the reason he will win is because every other candidate is an idiot, part of the reason he will win is because of what he has done. The Margin of those two things is left up to the voters. Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean they are bound by contract to vote for GW. I can pretty much gaurantee that he will be re elcted, wether it is because of his merits or a lack of a better candidate will remain a mystery because that decision will be made in the voting booth. :wink:

#35 Postby **streetsoldier** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:31 pm

Well, I guess it's my turn to say something.

If one looked at my situation (disabled, unable to afford health care, chronically ill, etc.), one would think that I'd be a perfect case for the Democratic vote.

Thing is, I don't vote with my "wallet", or emotionally; I look, as far as I am able, at the "big picture"...i.e., what this battered Republic could look like four, eight years from now...and from that analysis, I base my vote on certain principles that I believe are "absolutes", i.e. things that should not be left to "current fads" or change for the sake of change.

What I have concluded is that my vote, particularly on the State and Federal levels, will go to the Republicans; the "loyal (?) opposition" doesn't seem to have a clue, and frankly they scare the hell out of me. Not for what they have done in years past (which is scary enough), but for what they COULD do, according to their support base, statements in the campaign, etc.

That's all I have to offer...thanks for reading it.

Rainband · #36 Postby **Rainband** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:41 pm

streetsoldier wrote:certain principles that I believe are "absolutes", i.e. things that should not be left to "current fads" or change for the sake of change.

Fads, can you explain??? I would hope nobody bases their vote on fads!! :lol:

#37 Postby **streetsoldier** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:43 pm

By "fads", I was referring to the current "wisdom" that brings us unenforceable "no-touch" rules in classes, rather than academic freedom for teachers...QUALIFIED in their specific discplines...to pass, or fail students based on performance; having to change so-called "offensive" school mascots to "politically correct", albeit meaningless ones; championing whatever "rights(?)" are being "violated" by this week's
"minority", etc., etc.

Not to mention the call for "internationalism", which IMHO means selling our security out to the UN, the Hague, and some erstwhile "friends" that have proven to be anything BUT friendly...while the terrorists, who recognize NO authority but their own distortions, kill and bomb at will while the US waits helplessly for some inept body to convene for "consensus" before acting.

These are but a small portion of what I could offer...but it is enough for now.

Kiko · #38 Postby **Kiko** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:53 pm

So going back to the original question here, allowing UN inspectors to oversee our elections is a bad thing? And by that logic, leading by example is bad too?

Showing the world how democracy is done can't possibly be wrong when it's the core value we are at war for. That's internationalism.

(Don't get me started on a global economy.)

After the 2000 fiasco, I would think every step would want to be made to show the world what honest players in democracy we are and can be.

And that would mean allowing representatives of the world to be right there, right then.

chadtm80 · #39 Postby **chadtm80** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:57 pm

So going back to the original question here, allowing UN inspectors to oversee our elections is a bad thing

Now your getting it :-)

Kiko · #40 Postby **Kiko** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:12 pm

What I'm getting Chad, is that you're failing to see that this is the shining example we set for the world to see, with or without inspectors.

And we expect other countries to want to follow that example? Then policies of pre-exemption will be fair game for all to try.

Hmmm...what's Bush hiding NOW?

Who is online