Sounds to me that you are jealous of Kerry's wealth. Is that a reason to hate someone? Bush is also filthy rich.

Kerry was also in support of Iraq but support does not mean going to war. Bush went into Iraq saying that war is inevitable. He didn't leave any other options open. If the Iraqi people hated Saddam so much, why didn't they take him down? All it would take is one person to assassinate him. With the whole country hating him, I am suprised that someone would not step up. It doesn't make sense. Why would 10,000+ Iraqis give their lives for someone that they hated?

BTW Peter, Kerry is going to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich bastards like him and Bush. You guys complain that he married into wealth. If he married into it, wouldn't he have a better idea of the needs of the common american? Bush grew up rich. How should he know what the common american needs? [/b][/quote]
I am not jealous of kerry's wealth. I think he is a old pompous man who married someone to become more wealthy and powerful. I hate what he says and his extreme liberal views. What does support mean? Mabey you can speak for kerry because he cant. Bush tried every option. He took action. Kerry would of let everyone steam row over him because he is a wussy. Reason iraqi people did not kill saddam is because they could not. Affraid of him. He was a tyrant. Your ridiculous. Anyone trying to assassinate saddam was killed on the spot. Do you really believe iraqi people liked him when he was killing his own people. Plus, the leaders under saddam are far worse then him. What are you talking about when you say, "why would 10,000 + iraqis give their lives". kerry's tax cuts of the rich will never work, it will increase the taxes of the common american. This is a quote by Bush from the debate.

Who cares what the people of Iraq wanted. We are Americans, not Iraqis. Republicans of all people shouldn't take this stance, you do realize you oppose government intervention in your life. Yet you agree with totaly shaping a nation. Not to mention your core base is really upset with the deficit incurred under this president.

Would I rather see more terrorism or more democracy. What do you think I want? But we can't try to exterminate terrorism because it is just not possble. We should have saved the $120+ billion and used it to SECURE OUR COUNTRY, not Iraq.

I hope I see the light, I hope that god can take sometime away from Bush to help me see the truth. Stupid fuck.

What about the 2nd gulf war (Clinton)? He had not invaded anyone. He was just pulling the same BS with the UN inspectors that he was before we went in this time. If Clinton had taken care of it (Saddam/Alqueda) when he was in office we wouldn't be dealing with it now. Air attacks alone will not accomplish anything as he has proven over & over again. If he would have put troops in Afgahnistan instead of cruise missling it there would be no 9/11.

Just because we haven't found WMD's doesn't mean they didn't exsist. We found stockpiles of missles set up for delivering chemical attacks when we first went in after 9/11. There was no chemicals in them but why have weapons like that if you did not have the Chems or are trying to procure them? I think alot of the WMDs were destroyed unknowingly during the 2nd gulf war. They say that weapons bunkers were improperly searched/inspected before disposal (blowing up). It is said that the incineration and inhalation by our troops of those chemicals is the cause of Gulf War Syndrom which has hurt many of our GI's.

Kerry voted FOR the war veiwing the same intelligence that bush had to go on. Just because he changed his mind (imagine that) he is now trying to blame Bush & Bush alone for going to war. [/b][/quote]
http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabot...r_Efforts.shtml :naughty:
Nice try, but your wrong, like usual.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabot...r_Efforts.shtml :naughty:
Nice try, but your wrong, like usual. [/b][/quote]
:slap:

And a liberal propaganda columnist proves what?

Quoted from that artical
"In August 1998, President Clinton ordered missile strikes against targets in Afghanistan in an effort to hit Osama bin Laden, who had been linked to the embassy bombings in Africa (and was later connected to the attack on the USS Cole). The missiles reportedly missed bin Laden by a few hours."

This article actually validates my point on Clinton.
My point was he never sent troops in to get Osama.
Comprende?


Mike Hersh http://mnracing.org/forum/images/smi...ies/wackit.gif

Who cares what the people of Iraq wanted. We are Americans, not Iraqis. Republicans of all people shouldn't take this stance, you do realize you oppose government intervention in your life. Yet you agree with totaly shaping a nation. Not to mention your core base is really upset with the deficit incurred under this president.

Would I rather see more terrorism or more democracy. What do you think I want? But we can't try to exterminate terrorism because it is just not possble. We should have saved the $120+ billion and used it to SECURE OUR COUNTRY, not Iraq.

I hope I see the light, I hope that god can take sometime away from Bush to help me see the truth. Stupid fuck. [/b][/quote]
Nope, I believe in a republican run government, not democratic. That is not opposing government intervention. Those are your words. I believe in democracy and the iraqis want to have a democracy, not a tyrant. Hello, the 120 billion was used to secure are country. Securing are country costs money. We are at war against terrorists. So from your quote I am assuming you would like to see more democracy in the world. Who ever said extermination of terrorists. Your words again. Why do you have to take the extreme with everything. Saying terrorism will always exist is pesimistic. Bad attitude. Preventing terrorists from another 9/11 is the goal. If they just play with themselves in their country and have no wmd. Fine. That I believe is the goal. Preventing them from having the capacity and money. There is always going to be a bully, I believe in standing up against them and taking action, especially before they can attack us. Hey, out of respect of your opinions I will not call you a stupidfuck!

And a liberal propaganda columnist proves what? [/b][/quote]
Hey, I read this too and it is just liberal propaganda. mike hersh is a liberal columnist. What a joke! :lol:

Actually the 9/11 commision proved that Iraq had no links to Suddam, and just the other day it came out that Iraq had NO wmd's. Wrong again. [/b][/quote]
I assume once again you are reading some liberals interpretation of the report, but if you read parts of the actual report, it states there WERE links between Iraq and Al Quaeda, just not a collaboration between Iraq and Al Quaeda on the 9/11 event.Besides that, it is known a high ranking member of Saddams fedayeen(sp?), Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, was also a high ranking member of Al Quaeda.So I'll sum it up for you,according to the 9/11 commission, there WERE definate links between Saddam and Al Quaeda, but Iraq was not behind 9/11.And no one ever said Saddam was behind 9/11, so you're talking out your impressionable ignorant ass again.

And I can't seem to find the part that states there were no WMDs in Iraq or any other proof there were no WMDs in Iraq, maybe you could point that out?

Here it is.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Yep I have said some wonderful CORRECT things, you can't however say the same.95% percent of the shit you post is fucking rediculously incorrect.And the only thing you have proven is how UNeducated you antiBush people really are.

Wheres CVD with the owned pics??

This it the thing about some of you republicans. You can never seem top look outside of the box on issues. You go to the polling station and mark everybox down under republican no matter who is running. I am sure if Osama Bin Ladden was running as a republican he would show a good amount of votes since some of you idiots cant seem to pull your head out of your ass and look at a different view. Have you noticed what a 3rd party does to elections? It takes votes away from the democrats because of the republicans who will never look outside of the republican party. BEING A REPUBLICAN CANIDATE DOESN'T MEAN THE PERSON IS ANY BETTER.

he cant decide what republican to use them on

Im not a dedicated republican, just in this race I will vote republican because of Bush... so dont generalize crap about "republicans."

I vote for whoever I think is better. I tend to like the republican veiwpoint though becuase its not so wack. But some things I agree with the certain democratic leaders, people.

Regarding the owned pic... Did you read any of the stuff Lightning just posted or did you just fly down to the quick reply button and keep talking?

This it the thing about some of you republicans. You can never seem top look outside of the box on issues. You go to the polling station and mark everybox down under republican no matter who is running. I am sure if Osama Bin Ladden was running as a republican he would show a good amount of votes since some of you idiots cant seem to pull your head out of your ass and look at a different view. Have you noticed what a 3rd party does to elections? It takes votes away from the democrats because of the republicans who will never look outside of the republican party. BEING A REPUBLICAN CANIDATE DOESN'T MEAN THE PERSON IS ANY BETTER. [/b][/quote]
Being a republican canidate tells what a person stands for on issues. I voted for Ross Perot of the Reform party in 1996. I voted for him because I believed he was best canidate and person.

I'm not a republican.And I'm definately not a democrat.I don't share enough views with either party to consider myself one of them.

BTW Democrats are the ONLY people, who have gotten owned in any of these political threads.

I am a conservative independant. Bush is just the better choice this time around.
I voted for Clinton in 96 and didn't vote in 2000 because I didn't like either candidate so don't generalize me please ;)

By the way... Where's Remy :whipped: :lol:

I am not one or the other either, but there are people that only vote republican for everything

He must be getting tired of getting owned on this politics shit. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Since last night, he's read this thread at least twice with no comment.It usually takes him a couple days to dig up his worthless info though.

Ok, I've let this thread go on for days to see if ppl would grow up.

The next person to directly bash a member will be banned by me. And the person after that, and so on. I realize politics is a hot topic, but you do not need to directly attack members.

He must be getting tired of getting owned on this politics shit. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Since last night, he's read this thread at least twice with no comment.It usually takes him a couple days to dig up his worthless info though. [/b][/quote]
at least he doesn't sit home all day looking on the internet...