Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Why I Voted For George W. Bush

GW Bush Election Approval of Policy

  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#41 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 07:08 PM

Here is something I wrote 10/3/04 after a presidential debate and one reason why I voted for Bush instead of Kerry in 2004.

Quote

I found what Kerry had to say very scary, especially with respect to China and Russia. He would alienate China in the Korean nuclear situation. He would alienate Russia on their current policy issues regarding dealing with their own terrorists. He also says that he can gather the Russian nuclear materials faster but doesn't say how. He claims he would increase the troops in a number of fronts and on borders yet he doesn't have a positive plan for doing so. He claims he can bring in allies to Iraq that have made it very clear they will not go. These countries aren't going not because Bush is president but because they want no part of that war. Kerry totally avoids the fact that some countries have pulled their people out of Iraq because it is the most dangerous place on the planet at the moment. He disrespects our allies in Iraq and calls Iraq's leadership a puppet government.

Kerry misleads. Kerry said he would hold summits. Bush has orchestrated summit after summit and there are more to come. Kerry said he would build allies. Bush has many, many allies. And, yes, some of those alliances are based on fear that Bush will send in troops to kick their butts if they don't do something about the terrorists in their countries. Kerry sounds as if he would send our troops to those countries to hunt down the terrorists, regardless of what the countries are doing, all the while claiming we are spread too thin, over extended. Kerry totally avoids the fact that most of Al Qaeda's leadership is in prison, dead, or on the run, that other countries are combatting the terrorists training on their home soil, that other countries have complied with the demands they stop their nuclear weapons programs - all because of Bush's resolve that these things will happen. Kerry gripes that Bush "outsourced" to the Afghani warlords the job of hunting down Osama bin Laden in the Afghanistan mountains then turns around and bashes Bush for not letting countries that take no part of the war in Iraq bid on reconstruction jobs.

What I hear Kerry saying: more taxes to fund the wars - and more wars than in Iraq and Afghanistan; more troops - with no statement where the troops will come from - sounds like a draft to me; to hell with China and Russia; England, Australia, and Poland haven't been good allies; pay other countries to rebuild Iraq; and North Korea and Iran are targets.

The scariest thing is what Kerry said is eclipsed by his abilities as a Dale Carnegie schooled public speaker.


#42 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 07:12 PM

Another something I wrote on 10/3/04 after the same debate and about foreign policy and why I voted for Bush:

Quote

Kerry/Edwards - on NATO - direct quote from John Kerry's web site and a statement he made in the debates on Foreign Policy:
Persuade NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq.

This statement misleads in that it implies NATO is not making Iraq one of its global missions and deploying a portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace in Iraq.

In actuality - from NATO's web site:

The campaign against Iraq in 2003 was conducted by a coalition of forces from different countries, some of which were NATO member countries and some were not.

Following a request by Turkey, NATO deployed surveillance aircraft and missile defences from February to April 2003 to help protect the country in the event of an attack on its territory or population.

Poland formally assumed command of the Multinational Division (MND) Central South in Iraq on 3 September 2003. NATO does not have any permanent presence in Iraq, but aids Poland in a variety of supporting roles. This includes help with force generation, communication, logistics and movements.
The decision to provide support to Turkey was made by NATO’s Defence Planning Committee (DPC) and Alliance support for Poland’s role in the multinational stabilization force was agreed on in the North Atlantic Council.

NATO is helping Iraq provide for its own security by training Iraqi personnel and supporting the development of the country’s security institutions.

In response to a request by the Iraqi Interim Government, NATO has established a Training Implementation Mission in Iraq and will support the establishment of a training centre for senior security and defence officials.

At their Summit meeting in Istanbul on 28 June 2004, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to assist Iraq with the training of its security forces. The Training Implementation Mission was established on 30 July.

The NATO mission is a distinct mission, under the political control of NATO’s North Atlantic Council. It is co-ordinated with the US-led Multinational Force.

NATO is involved in training, equipping, and technical assistance - not combat. The aim of the Training Implementation Mission is to help Iraq build the capability of its Government to address the security needs of the Iraqi people.


#43 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 07:16 PM

From another post 10/3/04 prompted by the same debate, also on foreign policy, and again another reason why I voted Bush instead of Kerry.

Quote

Article from online Arab News re: Kerry on the North Korea situation:

John Kerry’s Stand on North Korea Baffling
Adrienne McPhail, Arab News

YOKOSUKA, Japan, 3 October 2004 — Although, the presidential debate on foreign policy and homeland security turned out to be a long debate about the US war in Iraq, there was one issue that was barely explored but is also of grave importance. The issue of how Sen. Kerry would handle North Korea versus President Bush. While Bush defended the current six-party talks involving the US, South Korea, Japan, Russia, China and North Korea, Kerry stated that he would “immediately set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea”. He went on to say that North Korea has acquired more weapons during Bush’s term in office, implying that the nuclear buildup in that country is a direct result of poor foreign policy decisions by the current president. Joseph Biden, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee followed up on the Kerry point by saying that the Chinese want the US to sit down with North Korea and try and hammer out a solution to this nuclear problem.

So, once again you have to ask which one of these candidates has an in-depth understanding of a critical issue. The day before the debate, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing stated that the resolution of the nuclear issue through the framework of the six party talks is the only “feasible and correct” option. US Secretary of State Colin Powell who added that no other means of dealing with North Korea was being considered at this time echoed his comments. Both men expressed confidence that in spite of the failure to hold a fourth meeting in September, they were continuing to work toward additional talks in the future. So, why would Sen. Kerry should he become President Kerry, want to host bilateral meetings between the US and North Korea “immediately”? The answer to this question lies in his adoption of the previous administration’s approach to the problems with North Korea. North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993 signaling a flirtation with nuclear development.

During the Clinton administration, former President Carter visited North Korea and hammered out the now famous Agreed Framework in 1994. Under this agreement North Korea agreed to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for two new-pressured light-water reactors and 500,000 metric tons a year of heavy fuel oil to meet its energy needs until the first reactor became operational. Everyone looked like a winner and Carter was praised for his great negotiating abilities.

Over the next few years, South Korea, Japan and the European Union all agreed to support the agreement. Japan even signed a contract in 1999 committing $1 billion to help fund the new reactors. The problem was and still is, that the ink was no sooner dry on the agreement than North Korea began to think of weapons, not energy. A report to the US Congress in 1999 raised a number of real concerns about this agreement including the fact that “current US policy was not effectively addressing the threat posed by North Korean weapons of mass destruction, missiles and their proliferation”. In other words, the agreement was not working.

It should have come as no surprise to the Bush administration when in November 2002 Pyongyang Radio announced, “we now have nuclear and other strong military weapons due to nuclear threats by US imperialists”. The Bush administration broke off direct communication with North Korea and began to condemn their nuclear program in the eyes of the world. The basic policy, at that point, was that they refused to be subjected to “blackmail”, a reference to the fuel and international food programs for North Korea that did not stop that country from increasing its nuclear arsenal. In late 2003, the administration changed its mind and decided to proceed with the six-party talks but firmly refused any direct meetings. Administration officials have repeated their belief that a multinational approach works better with North Korea because they have a history of breaking agreements with the United States.

Now John Kerry is waving the flag of direct negotiations with North Korea. He has not said if he would also continue the six-party talks or not. What he is really saying is that he is willing to return to the concept of the failed agreement. What else is the explanation for saying to North Korea: If I am elected president we will meet with you and both our arms and our pocket books will be open? The question is, what makes him think this approach will work when North Korea is already empowered with nuclear weapons and has a history of not following through on the 1994 agreement?

Like the Carter agreement North Korea will accept any fuel, dollars and food handed to them but it does not follow that they will simply dismantle their nuclear arms program in return. After all, the only country to dismantle its nuclear program voluntarily is Libya and that was in response to watching the American invasion of neighboring Iraq.


#44 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 07:22 PM

A post I wrote 10/5/04 in response to the VP debates, also regarding foreign policy, and another reason why I chose Bush over Kerry - John Edwards.

Quote

The Vice-Presidential debate was much more lively than the Presidential debate last Thursday.

Just listening to the foreign policies of Kerry scares me, and Edwards makes me want to wet my britches. Those two will get us into a war with Iran, North Korea, the Saudis and possibly even Russia in addition to the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus try to spread us out even more in special forces attacks around the world in place like the Phillipines, Yemen and the Sudan. On top of that, the new governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, China, Australia, Poland, Britain, and the remainder of the 30 countries in the current coalition that Kerry/Edwards won't even acknowledge exist will not be as willing to come to our aide - just as France and Germany will not.

It was very telling that neither side had any awareness that African-American women in the 20-44 year age group are the highest rising group to be infected with AIDS. Further, while Cheney admitted he wasn't aware of that fact but offered an off the cuff resolution to the problem, Edwards totally blew off the question and, instead, focused on the problems in Africa. Interesting that he thinks it is America's single handed moral obligation to do something about the problems in Africa.

Edwards may be a litigation attorney but his answers and attack stance came off to me as campaign rhetoric, not substance.

Interesting that Edwards couldn't bother to show up 33 out of 36 meetings of the judiciary committee, 70% of the intelligence committes, blah, blah, blah as a Senator and that his own home town refers to him as Senator Gone. Wonder if he will actually show up if he is elected Vice-President.

The issue of Haliburton is one that needs to be made clear. Cheney left Haliburton before he ran for VP and he received a tidy separation package. He would get paid that tidy sum regardless of where Haliburton works. Also, Haliburton won that "no-bid" contract for reconstruction in Iraq because they were the only company that fit the qualifications demanded be met by the framers of the contract. It is not like the world is full of nation building contractors - not exactly something that happens on such a wide scale every day.

Edwards still spouts that the Kerry/Edwards duo will bring in other countries to help build and pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. Edwards totally blew off the question about both France and Germany stating unequivocally they will not go to Iraq even if Kerry is President. Edwards totally disregards the cost in lives of the Iraqis and other coalition countries that have fought against the insurgents. Edwards also totally disregards the financial input from other countries.

It cracks me up that Kerry/Edwards refuse to see why it is wise not to attack Iran or North Korea all the time calling Iraq the wrong war at the wrong time.

The poll on Fox News claims Edwards the winner of that debate. Geez - did they only poll Democrats and people who didn't watch the debate?

Where the heck is Ross Perot? Nader sucks, the other candidates are too paltry to consider. Perot is nuts but he has enough money in his back pocket to just buy Iraq outright, redevelop the real estate, and make a profit too. Iraq would be restored to its pre-Saddam regime days when it was a favored nation - high literacy, money in the bank, no debts, quality of life out the roof.


#45 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 07:30 PM

This is from a post I wrote 10/7/04, in response to another poster in discussion of the debates, also about foreign policy and some on the economy:

Quote

Thinking that it is a good idea to bring one group of people down to near poverty to raise another group up to near poverty is a very bad idea. While I don't exactly think of myself as a Republican, I agree more with the Republican idea that creating jobs to give persons the opportunity to support themselves and give them a way to improve their lot in life instead of just making do with what they can get in the government left over program is a better way of doing things. Neither polarized sets of thinking comes even close to addressing the problem of the distribution of the amazing wealth this country has.

So far as who is responsible for the problems rampant in this country at the moment, blaming politicians, special interest groups, etc. doesn't quite cover it. This country was devastated on September 11th, 2001 by the actions of terrorists from another country. Kerry/Edwards can say what they will but the fact is the country has had a great deal to recover from and this administration has done a great deal to hold this country together in some very, very tough times. Not only did we lose 3000 innocent lives, the people of this country were morally and emotionally battered, and our economy sent into a tail spin.

I would remind that those terrorists claim their actions were directly related to the USA's policies regarding Israel. In the Vice Presidential debate, Edwards stated point blank that America should be more of a presence in this situation between Israel and Palestine. He further stated that the Israelis were just in their attacks on the Palestinians. If that is the stance that the Kerry/Edwards team will take on that conflict, then they will have no friends or allies in the Islamic world as they already feel we allow Israel to do any criminal thing to the Palestinians unhindered by anyone but the sacrifices of the Palestinian suicide bombers.

Sadly, I find myself understanding why the President looked so dismayed at the Presidential debates. Instead of people listening to what either he or Kerry is saying, too many are spellbound by Kerry's public speaking abilities and the rhetoric that Kerry/Edwards will make the USA credible in the world again, something that neither Kerry's nor Edwards' personal records suggest.


#46 Themis

Themis
  • Islander
  • 6,544 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 07:54 PM

I gotta admit I really wanted to vote for "none of the above."  As it was, I voted for "not Bush." I SO want an election with two candidates who impress me and one of whom will maye me passionately for him/her instead of just passionately against the other candidate...

Themis
Cats will never be extinct!

#47 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 08:27 PM

So eloisel, how's all that working out for ya? Is China under control or has the fact that they own a huge chunk of our debt hindered us in dealing with them effectively on screwing us over on trade, using the million or so manufacturing jobs they've gained to finance a huge military build up, pirating merchandise, intellectual property rights etc.... How's the North Korea and Tiawan situation going for that matter?

How's Bush's policy varied from that Scary Kerry thing you mentioned in the middle east? Did Bush wack Israel with a big stick to make friends in the region and I missed it somehow? How much love are the Muslims feeling for us after the invasion of Iraq?

BTW...how IS Iraq going? How much in debt has it put us, how many people have died and continue to at an increasing clip there? Are we getting candy grams from Iran yet?

How safe and snug are we at home with millions of illegal Mexicans crossing our wide-open borders every year (and God knows who else from where else)? How much better prepared are we for a major emergency/disaster/terrorist attack given the sorry performance we just witnessed from FEMA? Are you sleeping better at night knowing that MAYBE 10 percent of incoming cargo to the US is actually inspected?

How you feeling about this Republican (what used to be the fiscally conservative/smaller government) party and our sky rocketing, nose bleed deficits and ineffective, bloated buecracy?

Pretty rhetoric is a piss poor substitute for actual progress and I haven't seen any nor have I seen squat in the way of competent, responsible leadership.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#48 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 08:52 PM

Themis, on Sep 17 2005, 12:54 AM, said:

I gotta admit I really wanted to vote for "none of the above."  As it was, I voted for "not Bush." I SO want an election with two candidates who impress me and one of whom will maye me passionately for him/her instead of just passionately against the other candidate...

Themis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wouldn't that be lovely!

Usually I only get interested in the very local politics but the events of the day propelled me into the broader 2004 election.   Initially, I wasn't inclined to vote for Bush.  Although I had no serious objections to him in 2000, in 2004 I disagreed about as equally as I agreed with him; but, I couldn't according to my conscience vote for someone just because they weren't Bush.  The more I looked at the other candidates and specifically at Kerry and Edwards,  I couldn't vote for them at all.

That is why I voted for Bush in 2004.  

I believe that had Kerry/Edwards won the election we would now be in more wars - maybe not with Iraq, but with 3 or 4 other countries as well as deployed in a number of smaller military actions elsewhere.  I believe that there would have been more terrorist attacks on this country - as bad and worse than 9/11.  I believe that more Americans would have found themselves being labeled as "UnAmerican" by a president rather than a president saying "they don't express my opinion" (in reference to the Boykin situation).  I also believe that Hurricane Katrina would still have happened and would have been handled as badly or worse than it was.

Edited by eloisel, 16 September 2005 - 10:30 PM.


#49 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 16 September 2005 - 10:15 PM

Rhiannonjk, on Sep 16 2005, 05:33 PM, said:

mjtian, on Sep 16 2005, 01:29 PM, said:

Yikes, threads like this one could get nasty   :eek2:

I didn't vote for Bush, but I am staying out of this debate   :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't think of it as a debate, think of it as a "question and answer session"  

I'm excited to see Bush supporters explaining issues.  I hope the thread stays friendly...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have written why I voted for George W. Bush.  

Certainly there are big issues to consider such as 9/11, Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina.  However, there is an underlying level of issues that will outlive the urgency of the overwhelming events of the day.  Social Security Reform, Health Care Benefits, Aging Issues, Abortion, Gun Control, Crime, Same Sex Marriages, Foreign Policy, the Economy and a host of other issues are still of concern to me, some uppermost.  That is what I will write about in this thread next.

edited to delete the Jr. as WP pointed out the President is not a Jr.

Edited by eloisel, 24 September 2005 - 09:35 PM.


#50 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 08:28 PM

Lin731, on Sep 16 2005, 05:27 PM, said:

So eloisel, how's all that working out for ya? Is China under control or has the fact that they own a huge chunk of our debt hindered us in dealing with them effectively on screwing us over on trade, using the million or so manufacturing jobs they've gained to finance a huge military build up, pirating merchandise, intellectual property rights etc.... How's the North Korea and Tiawan situation going for that matter?

How's Bush's policy varied from that Scary Kerry thing you mentioned in the middle east? Did Bush wack Israel with a big stick to make friends in the region and I missed it somehow? How much love are the Muslims feeling for us after the invasion of Iraq?

BTW...how IS Iraq going? How much in debt has it put us, how many people have died and continue to at an increasing clip there? Are we getting candy grams from Iran yet?

How safe and snug are we at home with millions of illegal Mexicans crossing our wide-open borders every year (and God knows who else from where else)? How much better prepared are we for a major emergency/disaster/terrorist attack given the sorry performance we just witnessed from FEMA? Are you sleeping better at night knowing that MAYBE 10 percent of incoming cargo to the US is actually inspected?

How you feeling about this Republican (what used to be the fiscally conservative/smaller government) party and our sky rocketing, nose bleed deficits and ineffective, bloated buecracy?

Pretty rhetoric is a piss poor substitute for actual progress and I haven't seen any nor have I seen squat in the way of competent, responsible leadership.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lin speaks for me.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#51 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 08:31 PM

Zwolf666, on Sep 16 2005, 09:23 AM, said:

Speaking of people who haven't shown up and are causing worry, anybody seen Dizaster Overkill yet?  I know he's a Mississippian and hasn't shown up since the storm.  I'm hoping it's just some leftover access problems (power out, phone lines down, somethin'), but it's been a while.  Hope the fella's okay...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure hope he's okay, just waiting for the power to come back on.  

Nonny

Edited by Nonny, 18 September 2005 - 08:32 PM.

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#52 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 08:39 PM

Then can you explain Differently. I remember looking and looking and still we never got to hear what John Fobes Kerry meant by Differently.

I mean we saw what Bush was doing so we did not always get to hear what he was doing we had it right there in front of us.


And the bad mouthing with little to nothing to back it up that made me vote for Bush. I can say it was another reason I voted for him 04.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#53 ZipperInt

ZipperInt
  • Islander
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 18 September 2005 - 10:07 PM

This doesn't really have anything to do with Bush, but I have a question related to something I've read in this topic: do people really feel that the person in charge of the country can prevent terrorist attacks? How so? I'm genuinely curious here.
The second greatest podcast in the history of ever:
http://geeksonaplain.blogspot.com/

#54 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 12:05 AM

ZipperInt, on Sep 19 2005, 03:07 AM, said:

This doesn't really have anything to do with Bush, but I have a question related to something I've read in this topic: do people really feel that the person in charge of the country can prevent terrorist attacks? How so? I'm genuinely curious here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

November 1979 - Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East.

April 1983 - a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut, killing 63 people.

Six months later - a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen were killed.

December 1983 - a truck loaded with explosives was driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait.

September 1984 - a van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut.

April 1985 - a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

August 1985 - a Volkswagen loaded with explosives was driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 were killed.

Fifty-nine days later - a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was hijacked. An American in a wheelchair was singled out of the passenger list and executed.

April 1986 - TWA Flight 840 bombed, killed 4.

1988 - Pan Am Flight 103 bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 259.

January 1993 - two CIA agents were shot and killed as they entered CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

February 1993 - a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people were killed and over 1000 injured.

November 1995 - a car bomb exploded at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

June 1996 - another truck bomb exploded only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroyed the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killed 19 and injured over 500.

Then simultaneous attacks on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. 224 killed.

October 2000 - The USS Cole - docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors.

September 11, 2001

About 25 years of terrorists attacking the US and US citizens.

Since President Bush began the "War on Terror" how many terrorist attacks have there been on Americans and on American property outside of Iraq and Afghanistan?

#55 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 01:00 AM

I do not expect the president to always succeed in protecting us from terrorists.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#56 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 08:53 AM

One of the reasons I voted for George W. Bush - the 6 parties talks with North Korea instead of the bilateral talks Kerry was pushing.  

Fort Worth Star Telegram, 9/19/05 - Deal to drop nukes is reached

Quote

BEIJING - North Korea pledged to drop its nuclear weapons development and rejoin international arms treaties in a unanimous agreement today with other countries at six-party arms talks. The joint statement was the first ever after more than two years of negotiations.

The North "promised to drop all nuclear weapons and current nuclear programs and to get back to the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty as soon as possible and to accept inspections" by the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to the agreement by the six countries at the talks.

"All six parties emphasized that to realize the inspectable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the target of the six-party talks," the statement said.

The North and United States also pledged in the agreement to respect each other's sovereignty and right to peaceful coexistence, and also to take steps to normalize relations.

edited to delete the Jr. as WP pointed out the President is not a Jr.

Edited by eloisel, 24 September 2005 - 09:37 PM.


#57 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 08:55 AM

G1223, on Sep 19 2005, 06:00 AM, said:

I do not expect the president to always succeed in protecting us from terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, one person can't prevent terrorists from being what they are.  However, as our President has done, there are measures that can be taken to better protect us from terrorists.

#58 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 09:26 AM

Quote

True, one person can't prevent terrorists from being what they are. However, as our President has done, there are measures that can be taken to better protect us from terrorists.


What measures are those?
Posted Image
Posted Image

#59 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 04:41 PM

Quote

I meant "SPARKS" sparks Sparks.

You mean me? Ah, well, I wasn't gonna say anything, but since I'm mentioned here... :hehe:

{{{{{{{{{Sparky}}}}}}}}}}}

For having such a great nickname :p

What i have to comment??  :rolleyes:

Well, we REALLY REALLY REALLY don't have anywhere near the same problems over here, by the sound of it. I'm envisaging that scene in Airplane...if you've seen it (EXCELLENT film) you'll know the one i mean...lol.  :cool:

Thus, I'm having a slightly hard time understanding your position. Here's my take on it, for the little it's worth. I am Christian, though, certainly not evangelic. Angelic maybe..  :angel: ... :whistle:

In fact, the Bible says at one point 'do not go up to an unknown city, and knock on the doors of strangers to tell them about God. Those who want to know about God, will come to you, then you can open your arms to them. They will find their way to you.'

Is it just me, or does that totally contradict everything so called 'Jahovah's witnesses' stand for?  :suspect:  hmm. Still, I firmly believe in tolerance, and understanding.  :love:  Why are they doing it? They believe they are doing what's right, it makes them feel better, i assume, and it doesn't hurt anyone, though of course it annoys the *frell* out of a lot of people, but really- they're harmless. Like i said though, I have had *counts..* no experience in my life of such people.

To be honest, you make America seem positively like..a theocracy! I thought it was the opposite- you weren't even allowed to teach religion in schools and so on... :eh:

It really does seem very strange to me. I guess I've never really thought about it but, the UK seems, SEEMS to ME to have the perfect balance as far as religion and government are concerned. We are a Christian country but we teach all the main religions in school, religion and politics are an explosive mix, but there's one other thing i should say...

From my point of view- like i say, in the UK- it aint NEARLY so bad, I get sick of the reverse. People who are totally over-sensitive to "even oblique' Christian related things. I, as a Christian, have to listen to countless anti-Christianity things, my friends are allowed to rant at me for hours on end about how naive Christians are and all about how non-existent God is, but if I mention God to them, I get accused of 'trying to ram it down their throats'. Basically, I believe there should be mutual respect- a respect for those who don't have a religion, and those who do.

Is it really so much of a problem to have basic moral messages- which, yeah uh, may be Christian in basis- for example- World Vision, The Sally-ann, etc - or Muslim- The Red Crescent- whatever- if it's a moral, ethical value that should apply to EVERYONE, regardless of religious status?

World Vision, for example- is not purely for Christians. So...are you implying, by refusing to give to them, that you don't believe in (no, not God, not Christianity- that's superfluous to the *cause*, that's how it was set up not what the aim is) - in solidly good causes? Non- religious people have morals too, so why exactly DON'T you want to help a - yes, Christian, charity, help dying people? I GIVE MONEY TO NON-CHRISTIAN CHARITIES *all the time*.

I feel the mutual respect can go down a foolish path- instead of tolerance, fear. Instead of 'ok, that Christian poster has just as much right to be there as that Muslim one, as that Wiccan one, as that existentialist one' rather than 'no, that might offend them, that one may offend them, let's not have any posters whatsoever.'

I'm not very articulate when trying to express such matters, so I apologise if you look at the above and think 'huh'? :eh: But back to the political issue.

To be honest, with the current president you guys have, I really think you're barking up the wrong Bush.  :D  ... :look:

Sorry *cough* I will be old enough in 3 days to vote, but had i been old enough last time, I would have voted Labour, for Tony Blair..

*Gets shunned out of forum*

Sorry lol I can't really comment on YOUR politics I don't think. It wouldn't be very fair.  :unsure:

*leaves quickly*

Sparky

NB: I'M Sparky, the other one's the imposter :p :p
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#60 Fragsta

Fragsta

    The grandmaster of doom!

  • Islander
  • 554 posts

Posted 19 September 2005 - 05:22 PM

*makes potentially foolish attempt to understand and comment :p *

Quote

Thus, I'm having a slightly hard time understanding your position. Here's my take on it, for the little it's worth. I am Christian, though, certainly not evangelic. Angelic maybe..  :angel: ... :whistle:

So modest... :rolleyes:

Quote

In fact, the Bible says at one point 'do not go up to an unknown city, and knock on the doors of strangers to tell them about God. Those who want to know about God, will come to you, then you can open your arms to them. They will find their way to you.'

Is it just me, or does that totally contradict everything so called 'Jahovah's witnesses' stand for?  :suspect:  hmm. Still, I firmly believe in tolerance, and understanding.  :love:  Why are they doing it? They believe they are doing what's right, it makes them feel better, i assume, and it doesn't hurt anyone, though of course it annoys the *frell* out of a lot of people, but really- they're harmless. Like i said though, I have had *counts..* no experience in my life of such people.

They aren't that annoying, to be honest, but I've just heard bad stories about people leaving their families and wrecking their lives because of Jehovah's witnesses, but they could well be very uncommon cases.

Quote

It really does seem very strange to me. I guess I've never really thought about it but, the UK seems, SEEMS to ME to have the perfect balance as far as religion and government are concerned. We are a Christian country but we teach all the main religions in school, religion and politics are an explosive mix, but there's one other thing i should say...

From my point of view- like i say, in the UK- it aint NEARLY so bad, I get sick of the reverse. People who are totally over-sensitive to "even oblique' Christian related things. I, as a Christian, have to listen to countless anti-Christianity things, my friends are allowed to rant at me for hours on end about how naive Christians are and all about how non-existent God is, but if I mention God to them, I get accused of 'trying to ram it down their throats'. Basically, I believe there should be mutual respect- a respect for those who don't have a religion, and those who do.

Well said - it's like political correctness, in a way. There's certain things which may actually annoy people or be offensive to people, and sure, you can stop people from saying that, but stopping people from saying anything about it at all is just going too far. If you can respect their views, they should respect yours.

Quote

Is it really so much of a problem to have basic moral messages- which, yeah uh, may be Christian in basis- for example- World Vision, The Sally-ann, etc - or Muslim- The Red Crescent- whatever- if it's a moral, ethical value that should apply to EVERYONE, regardless of religious status?

World Vision, for example- is not purely for Christians. So...are you implying, by refusing to give to them, that you don't believe in (no, not God, not Christianity- that's superfluous to the *cause*, that's how it was set up not what the aim is) - in solidly good causes? Non- religious people have morals too, so why exactly DON'T you want to help a - yes, Christian, charity, help dying people? I GIVE MONEY TO NON-CHRISTIAN CHARITIES *all the time*.

Totally. Although, this sort of thing could be because they think that part of the money is going to fund churches. Or maybe they have strong "principles" that they like to stick to.

Quote

I feel the mutual respect can go down a foolish path- instead of tolerance, fear. Instead of 'ok, that Christian poster has just as much right to be there as that Muslim one, as that Wiccan one, as that existentialist one' rather than 'no, that might offend them, that one may offend them, let's not have any posters whatsoever.'

I'm not very articulate when trying to express such matters, so I apologise if you look at the above and think 'huh'? :eh:

I kind of understand, I think...if you're trying to say that there isn't anything wrong with putting up one poster provided everyone else can put their poster up, then I agree. If you're saying that because some people might be offended by someone else's poster because it conflicts with their views then I'm afraid I don't totally agree. I can see some sense in that, because it means that nobody will worry about offending others, but it isn't exactly great for bringing different cultures and religions together, it's just reinforcing differences and walls between them, so I think that as long as a poster isn't actually trying to put down another faith, there is nothing wrong with it. If someone can't stand their poster being next to someone else's because it's different, they should find another place to put it or stop being so childish :rolleyes:

Oh, and sorry if I'm taking this thread further off-topic but I felt I needed to comment there - these are related to issues I often debate with my consciousness! :rolleyes:

Edited by Fragsta, 19 September 2005 - 05:40 PM.

Posted ImagePosted Image
Noticed my avatar and sig changing? Yours can too with the random sig imager!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: GW Bush, Election, Approval of Policy

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users