Is Bush a bit iffy?

Why do you think people should vote Bush? Or in other words, why are you voting Bush?

Glad you agree.

I think you might be romanticising past wars a touch tho. There was plenty of rape-pillage-and-burn style action too. Even armies who played by strict line-up-and-grind-each-other-to-mincemeat rules would also destroy crops in the local vicinity and use various population-targeting tricks to gain advantage.

However, the numbers involved now are certainly higher, and the weapons more powerful. Some modern weapons are designed with 'accuracy' in mind (and some, like the daisy cutters and cluster bombs and long-term-damaging depleted-uranium shells really aren't). But even the best of these have proved to be fallible. The attempt to limit civiliian casualties should be noted, where it occurs. Then you've just got to question the minds guiding the technology, and their ultimate objective (the electricity and water facility strikes during Gulf War 1, which were designed to be used in conjunction with civillian-targeting sanctions is one example. The use of over-whelming force in GW2, without thought for the aftermath, is another).

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I'm votin' BUSH cause I think Abortion is f*cking gross, in some ways the ultimate form of plastic surgery. There's no way to justify it, it's murder. I can see rape being cause for an abortion. But, like Doug Stanhope said, using rape as a way to justify abortion is like saying babies should be sucked out of the womb if their dad's an *******. Kind of extreme, but I see what he was saying.

I'm votin' BUSH cause I think gun control, as Lefties want it, is dumb. They say assault rifles are dangerous to police and other people. How many crimes are actually commited with assault rilfes? It's an average pistol that is used by the average criminal in the average crime, and don't try to tell me you're gonna take away all pistols. Cause then, the criminals that have them will keep them, leaving the criminals and police to be the only ones carrying guns. Besides, shooting assault rifles is fun at the range. If you want to get rid of guns becuase dumb ass people kill other innocent people, you'd have a better argument with trying to git rid of alcohol because dumbass people drive when they're drunk and kill innocent people - same thing.

I'm votin' BUSH because I don't like the idea of gay marriage. I'm from Oregon, we had this. It was done very shady, but they mannaged to mary them. It's right in the bible, being gay is wrong/an abomination. So why then, being that marriage is religious, would you want to do that? Why not make up something else between gays so that they're given all the benefits straight couples have, while calling it something else? Seriously. I think gays should have all the rights non-gays have, but they shouldn't do that to marriage.

I'm votin BUSH because I don't like the idea of national government having more control than the state level of government.

I'm votin' BUSH because even though I might not agree with going into Iraq the way we did, we're there. As far humanity goes, it's the right thing to do. And since we're there, we gonna have to finish it. I don't think Kerry has the balls to stick to any sort of plan. This war wont be won with letters and hand shakes.

I'm votin' BUSH because I like being an individual with the right to dislike whoever I please. The idea that you should be shunned or looked down upon for disliking someone or people is dumb and hypocritical. I'll dislike the crap out of anyone and everyone I please, and it includes racist - see how it works both ways.

I'm votin' BUSH cause his daughters are hot.

That's why I'm votin' BUSH. VOTE BUSH!

I found this off another forum, seems appropriate

Might be iffy, but iffy is iffy

Attachments

 

Good that you know why, but let me just pump your shizzleness a little...

Alright, but aren't automatic weapons used more by crims? A lot of gun controls just want to limit the number of Uzis and similar mass-death items don't they? I live across the sea, in an island of near-gun-free tranquility, and i accept that you may not want that situation (and that you sure as hell can't have it now ), but it seems to me there's no need for those type of things to be freely available.

Fair play on the equal-legality thing. (Incidently, i understand a lot of the bible stuff has been misinterpreted in many translations [there's a thread on this], but either way...). The question is: Do stable gay relationships get the same legal status as stable non-marriage hetero ones currently? (my understanding is that they don't) And are they likely to under Bush?

Well, without letters and handshakes the odds look bad for sorting iraq out. The US is too spread out now both militarily and financially in terms of helping damaged societies rebuild (Afghanistan and Iraq). Without the added training, security, investment, translation and cultural affinity that the 'unwilling' nations could bring, the odds look bleak.

The fact that they refuse to bring these vital resources in reflects badly on the Bush-admin's handling of the events. It demonstrates that Iraq is still being used as a political chessboard. Better to play chess in the staterooms and realise we're all on the same side on this one. My suspicion is that the US-admin felt they had enough pieces to sacrifice both political and human pawns in the name of achieving their aims. Well now those political and flesh-and-blood losses are coming back to haunt them.

My suspicion is that Kerry would've made sure he'd at least played in a team that could win. I think he recognises no country can be king in this situation.

I see what you're saying. I personally don't own a gun and don't have a plan to (unless I move to Compton or Harlem). But, I think they should be available. You've got to understand what I was saying about alcohol, right? Pistols, maybe something like beer. Assault Rifles, maybe like everclear. There's no reason for alcohol, other than enjoyment. I mean, as far as destruction goes, alcohol seriously causes damage. Not only to the individuals involded, but those around. To me, it's just as dangerous as guns. And until lefties are willing to go all out instead of using gun control as a way of getting votes from the undecided, I think it's crap the way they try to focus on it and bring some fatty like Rosie O'Donell into it..



True, but my priorities place the Bible and MY understanding of it over their legal status.



I'm not a military strategist, and wont try to act like one - I'm not saying you did. We're in Iraq fighting terrorist and militias. Who is willing to finish it? I think Bush. On top of that, I don't think we've been doing that bad over there. Wars aren't easy, and if needed I'd be more than willing to pay the extra few hundred dollars in taxes to help the people of iraq and our soldiers. I understand some people need the few extra hundred dollars, sometimes sh*t happens though.

I'm with you there...as the Uzi is clearly a more appropriate Hanukah gift.
Dear lord... I sure hope I don't know what you mean.
You might convince them that there was no froth, but I know better.
ppssstt - when i say froth, in my mind i'm thinking semen! ha!

__________________

How is "as far as humanity goes, it's the right thing to do"? How does war benefit humanity? As long as you are there, finish it???? You are there because Bush put you there. You didn't have to be there. How do you see this ending? All Iraqis dead??? Is that when it is over? Who says when it is over?? When are people going to realize that this particular war is only going to benefit Bush???

Gummo - I'd like to argue, but I'm not gonna. The reply Golgot made was good, not trying to start ****e, but made his/her point clear. I'd like to hear what they have to say about my replies to theirs. You're looking for an argument. I'm more than happy to have one.

Humanity, um lets see. Iraq is now free from Saddam, I think that benefits the Iraqi people - humanity.

I am there because Bush put me there. Please elaborate. I didn't have to be there. Again, elaborate.

I see this ending when the United States pulls out, I see the United States pulling out when Iraq is stable enough to govern themselves without fear of independant militias over throwing them, I see whoever is President making the decision of when this is appropriate.

I don't think this war is benefiting Bush. I think if he wanted to benefit himself personally he wouldn't have become President.

Did you know Kerry's wife made the fortune 500? Somewhere aorund the top 50 richest people in the world. Crazy. She should finance Kerry's campaign herself. I would.

Let's try to keep this civilized. I like discussing politics - especially with people with don't agree with me.

>(I don't agree with everything old Moore-ishness says, especially not about Northern Ireland, but he's got some good stuff in there)

oh, that's informative, in what book does he say something about North Ireland? (i'm interested in Celtic matters AND politics, and find Moore pretty smart sometimes)...
D.

I was going to respond to some of your accusations until I checked out some of the links you posted in support of said accusations... and then read your above quoted post… and decided I had better things to do with my time...

__________________

Yes, people did indeed line up in rows and shoot at each other. Man, that was stupid. "Hey, those people are shooting at me, I know, I'll just stand here, maybe they will miss". One day, one of the soldiers said: "Hey lets run for cover!", he was smart. I'd rather not take an example from people who stood out in an open field getting shot at, and didn't do anything about it.

Godsend: Cute picture, I especially like the line that says "This is no longer an interesting coincidence. It is an unmistakable message from God. I hope people are listening."

I like to use what is known as a "bologna detection kit", where I apply a certain set of tests to any concept to see if it holds water.

So let's see here, let's try occum's razor on this one. What seems more likely:

The global weather system (which is still in flux after the dissipation of El Nino and El Nina), has produced a slightly higher than normal storm count, during this, the tropical storm season. Some of these storms paths took them over Florida, which happens to be made up of counties, some of which voted for one of the two presidential candidates in the last election. These storms, being hurricanes, did some damage to the various counties passed over. The storms then traveled up the coast, like all hurricanes come from the south and hit the east coast, hitting states like South Carolina and Georgia because, well, they are on the east coast. Hurricane have been doing this for some time now, certainly since before the year 2000.

OR, was it this?

An invisible man, who lives in the sky, is mad at Bush. This invisible man, who is omniscient and omnipotent, has decided that, instead of punishing Bush, he will hurl catastrophic storms at Florida, because Bush's brother lives there, and those people in florida just can't get their voting system worked out. Oh, but he is a crafty one, this invisible diety, and his message has gone unnoticed. Luckily, Bob Morris, devine voice of the invisible man, has pieced together the grand conspiricy! These storms were precision strikes on a bunch of satanic golfers and loungeboat owners who brought the antichrist to power! By overlaying the maps of the storms track, which to me look like 3 thin black lines the width of a super-highway, and a map of the voter division of florida, ol' Bob has uncovered a nefarious plan to ...do nothing? Seeing as how the hurricanes didn't wipe out the alleged evil voters in the counties, destroy all the voting machines, or sink Florida, the 2004 election will probably show similar results again this time round in that state. With Kerry still

Also, the 'canes clearly hit Gore counties as well, at least that's how it looks to me, but the map is WAY ambiguous. Are those black lines the eye of the storm? The edge? With Kerry still struggling to get people off the fence, Florida may have even less blue area on the next map.

Oh, I know I know, I'm blaspheming again. Now the invisible man will have me burn, FOREVER. I will be tortured, FOREVER, till the end of time even. BUT, he loves me.



PS I believe in a higher energy, and also in spirituality, so keep the flames out of the thread This post is tounge in cheek.

__________________

Pimp, I am not just looking for an argument, I am looking for a discussion, where people can openly discuss this matter without starting an internet verbal war. Sure the things I wrote are typed with what looks like anger and fighting words...whatever...(i am tired right now)...War angers the hell out of me and the fact that other people don't see it the same as me makes me even angrier. That sounds selfish or whatever...(lacking words right now)...I shouldn't even be posting in here or reading the posts in here because it makes me even madder. I have so much to say about your post but like Caitlyn said, I have better things to do with my time...like sleep.

Caitlyn...responding to the rep points quote...."You need a history lesson".
I don't know the first thing about history...I never claimed I did. I don't even know anything about politics...never claimed I did. And it is quite obvious in my posts. I am not interested in history and politics. The thing I am interested in is stopping this war, and I think it may cause the end of the world. The little that I do know about history is accurate, not some fluff I make up for my own pleasure. Maybe I do not have all the facts, but the stuff I have been fed frustrates me enough. So maybe you need a history lesson as well if you don't believe what I said here....

Gummo, war is an awful thing. I don't think too many people would disagree with that. However, in this world, there do exsist bad people who are singularly commited to doing bad things. Military action become a necessary evil inorder for a country to protect itself. Innocents do die in war, and it is tragic. But this becomes a matter of a few losing there lives so that many may live and prosper. In my mind the argument boils itself down to "What is the best thing to do given ideal circumstances?" vs. "What is the best thing to do given the actual circumstances?". I think we need to decide if this argument is one of idealism, or one of practicality.

__________________
Justice will be served/ And the battle will rage/ This big dog will fight/ When you rattle his cage/ And you’ll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A./ Cause we`ll put a boot in your ass/ It`s the American way.
Courtesy Of The Red, White & Blue - Toby Keith

Cute. Very cute. If only it were so

He touches on it very briefly/superficially in Stupid White Men, and what he does say isn't constructive. He basically makes a very hamfisted joke along the lines of: 'Easy solution - everyone should convert to Catholicism'. Making light of one of the central divides that sustains the conflicts there isn't very useful.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers for the complement Pimpy (in your reply to Gummo)

You can't get rid of guns in the US, sure (and many would argue you're better off with 'em. I'd disagree, but there you go ).

But there's nothing in your argument that contradicts the idea of 'gun control' on automatic weapons which have a greater potential to kill and to allow crims to take on the police (i.e. machine-gun style affairs)

I believe some gun control proposals want to remove all guns, but i thought others were aimed at just reducing the more beefed up/automatic/machine-gun varieties?

If someone were to propose that type of gun control, would you be against it?

Incidently, i don't think the drink analogy really works. Are you saying that guns can be for fun as well as causing death, so if they were banned alchohol would have to be too?? In which case, i'd say:

Alchohol use is limited to an extent by the fact that it's illegal to drink and drive. The downside of guns should also have a limitation put on it, don't you think? I think people could live with the loss of their thrilling machine-gun if it meant less mass-killings and a safer/less-paranoid/more-effective police force - who'd have more time to deal with things like drunk drivers

Ok, but, first off, i'm sure you wouldn't want to be basing your understanding of the bible on bad translations etc. Some do exist in modern translations with respect to condemnation of gays (see this post for some details... http://www.movieforums.com/community...tai#post174906 )

I haven't checked on all the apparently homosexual-condemning phrases in the bible - but certainly the ones debunked by these people (from Corinthians and Timothy), seem to be cited regularly. If those are your sources, i'd suggest you check the full links in that post.

Either way, i understand you having objections to gay couples gaining marriage status equivilant to that of heterosexuals, but would you object if the gay community settled on asking for/receiving legal recognition of their partnerships (rather than marriage/spiritual recognition)?

And has Kerry actually said he's going to allow gay marriages? Bush is certainly much more up for preventing it, granted (but hey, i thought you were against centralised decisions overruling state-based ones? ).

Cool, i won't go into it too much then. Suffice to say that Kerry's multilateral approach would work better in bringing an 'end' to the 'war' in Iraq IMO. If he was successful in establishing a broader coalition it'd bring the advantages of...

-spreading the financial and manpower burden, making long-term change more feasible/stable (both security and rebuilding investment)
-dampening some of the cultural clashes/help with much needed translation etc.
-stop the big countries from using iraq as a pawn and force them to sort out their differences on the debating table (and that doesn't mean compromising on the objective of bringing a peaceful, iraqi-empowering, country into being).

In short...

-increase chances of successful outcome

And the Bush-admin's approach decreases the chances

One thing Bush isn't is "Iffy."

He gets regular criticism for it too.



Toose
(Who didn't read the entire thread because it appeared to be all too encompassing).

Yes, I would object. What I wouldn't object to would be a series of very detailed and strict requirements, including a more in-depth background check. Making it very difficult for anyone to get a gun. The more powerful/deadly, the tighter the requirments. They should in no way be removed though.

"Between 1982 and 1993, 266,291 deaths in the United States were alcohol-related -- one fatality every 30 minutes." (CNN - Data Points)

"There were 39,595 firearm-related fatalities in the United States in
1993. 18,940 were suicides / 18,571 were homicides / 1,521 were unintentional shootings / 563 were of unknown intent" (www.tf.org)

Alcohol - 1 per 30 minutes (average)
Firearms - 1 per 28.30 minutes (average, using homicide only - that's the point democrat's use. Either way crimes has been at it's lowest in a longe time, although that's still high compared to international results.)

I'd say my alcohol argument relates pretty closely (using this weak data, I couldn't find anything better). So I'm sticking to my first opinion. If you're going to ban assault rifles or anything like that, you're going to have to go all the way and ban everything else that causes a high number of deaths. Otherwise it comes off as an attempt to sway voters. Is my math way off?, I was never good.

I could care less if "they" had the exact same benefits as straight couples. I would object to "them" calling it marriage.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953

...there is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs.
- Dwight Eisenhower

A tyrant...is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
- Plato

Wars are not acts of God. They are caused by man, by man-made
institutions, by the way in which man has organized his society.
What man has made, man can change.
- Frederick Moore Vinson (1890-1953)

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to
mankind.
- John F. Kennedy

Love is like war: easy to begin but very hard to stop.
- H.L. Mencken

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of
preserving peace.
- George Washington (1732-1799)

Only the winners decide what were war crimes.
- Gary Wills

Ah, if only it were true, choices would be a lot easier for most folks. Great quote Sarah, but these days it falls a bit short. The lack of global democracy in economics is usually the cause of hunger problems. There is a vast amount of fertile land to the west of Ethiopia, but many of the natives have been forced off the land into the eastern deserts to starve. The food (or the land to grow it on) is there, they just can't get any of it. Problems like this are rampant in South America as well, with rich land owners letting land just sit while many people go hungry. Weapons funding could have something to do with this, but it is clearly not the sole cause, not even one of the larger ones.


A big eye opener for me was reading this book. The co-authors did a ton of research into the concepts of global hunger, with surprising results. Check it out