posted
Vote for a oil robber??lol Bush is nothing but a pain in the a** for all americains.Sending soldiers to die ,robbing Irak's oil,killing civilians....why the bretzel didn't kill him??
Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a communist nor a terrorist and i vote for Kerry.Bush is just so stupid.And besides that he gets wath he deserves:attack aother people and they will attack you,action-reaction...Let other people live the life they want and you will be safe in America.And don't say me that terrorists are fanatics because the biggest fanatic of God is Bush himself.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
uh-oh... this thread is getting red-hot quick! Regardless of who wins... I think the markets will be more predictable AFTER it's over... like tomorrow. I gotta admit though... I'm such a political junkie... I'll have to watch the race today and tonight... even though it's south of the border. Hope there is a CLEAR winner this time. salemm.
Posts: 783 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just remember: " That when you step on toes today, you need to be careful that they are not attached to the "ass" that you will have to kiss tomorrow"
Get Out There And Vote !!!!!!!
------------------ "If We Agree To Disagree, Then We Can Remain friends"
[This message has been edited by Doctoall (edited November 02, 2004).]
Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Kurupt, Not looking to fight, I would like to ask you a question reguarding you action-reaction. I would like to understand your thought process behind your statement. Prior to 9/11, I didn't see the U.S. addressing terrorist actions around the globe. Even the prior terrorist actions directed towards U.S. citizens around the globe didn't seem to get direct action. After terrorist attacked on 9/11, Bush took direct action to address the attack. As you said, action(9/11)-reaction(war). Again, I'm not looking for a fight, just want to understand what you mean when you say when you attack others, they will attack you. Are you saying the U.S. should not have responded to the 9/11 attack? Let me know what you think. Just looking for the other side of the fence's view.
posted
I voted Bush today on one moral stand - you can agree to disagree, but with a troubled heart IMO. Kerry = 6 votes FOR partial birth abortions. Bush = policy to abolish partial birth abortions. I agree Bush sent people to death in Iraq, BUT (and this is a big BUT) the people who signed up for the American Armed forces did just that made a choice along with living a terrific 18-20 years. I hate the fact that people are dying over there, but I don't think it's for nothing. What I believe "dying for nothing" is is having legal partial birth abortions. A human being who did not get to live 18-20 years or even make one single choice in life. I think most people are good hearted and will choose well.
Posts: 829 | From: people's republic of cambridge | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said Spinoff. There is NO reason for partial-birth abortion. For a candidate--let alone a Catholic--to vote for and approve of such a method is more barbaric than the war he says is wrong.
We have reasons for the war we fight, there is no reason for PBA.
posted
Skippy - this is the sentence that 95% of people outside US don't accept:
- action(9/11)-reaction(war) -
- why invent a war against 2 indipendent nations when you know that the terrorist group involved in 9/11 was SAUDI, created by a SAUDI and financed by SAUDI? - Everybody know the answer: the SAUDI oil is already a US colony (and BUSH has good business there ...)
If you REALLY want to fight against terrorism you must create a commando and chase(and "terminate") the chiefs of these groups around the world; the base will disappear naturally (without the need to kill many civilians)
posted
Vote Bush, why you might ask read Bin Ladins latest video translation. it sounds as if kerry wrote it. again why you might ask, according to arabic study groups bin ladin wants a change in the white house to give him time to regroup and it is the veiw of the arab world that kerry will not press as hard thus not having the election in iraq & the afgan election may be able to be throw out. again why you might ask? the female voters. bin ladin wants the elections in these places ended because it will get females in the rest of the muslim world wanting the same rights. something they do not enjoy today. so a vote for kerry is a vote for what bin ladin wants. you may not like this statement but the truth hurts sometimes.
Posts: 3651 | From: Algonac, MI. 48001 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what this whole election is about IMO.
quote:Originally posted by osubucks30: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin
[This message has been edited by Ric (edited November 02, 2004).]
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
