Will four more years really be so bad? [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

JohnTheHenchman

11-03-2004, 11:22 PM

First of all, I'm a Libertarian. I am for the lives of our citizens in their own hands, not in the hands of government. Civil and economic freedom reigns supreme in my mind and heart, and interventionism leads to nothing but trouble.

So clearly, there's no way I could ever support Bush or Kerry.

But I'm going to say it, four more years I can deal with.

Because in four more years, Bush won't be here and whoever is elected from either party, in my opinion will be very different from our recent offering. So yeah, I can deal with four more years of Bush.

Knowing that taxes will not be increased on my father's small business (he files as an s-corp) is a good thing. It's a very good thing.

Also, I think we're going to see Bush take a different approach towards Iraq, in the sense that he might make efforts to end it sooner than we think. Atleast it would be very wise of him to do so. He doesn't have to be so cautious in efforts to be reelected, so maybe he'll have a backbone. But, really, this is just speculation.

But honestly, Kerry was all for international appeasement, which really is quite sickening. You're never going to see me appologizing to Europeans because of our election. I really could care less what any European, Canadian, etc has to say about MY country. Because it's my country and a I love it, and when you don't live here it's very easy to criticize America, because you pretty much don't like us anyway. But actual Americans, those are the one's whose criticisms truly matters. We are the ones who can make a difference, not someone from France. I know I didn't vote for Bush, so it's not fair that I'm lumped into the broad generalization of "Americans who dropped the ball".

We were voting for our President, and we have spoken. I know that Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Candidate) almost took Nader, which would have been great. But anyway, we owe no explanation to the international community, absolutely none. There are worse leaders in the world than George W. Bush, seriously who are we kidding.

Unlike many countries in the world, we do not have a pluralist election system, so our winner actually is a majority of people who wanted it that way.

I love my country. I absolutely love this place. I'll never leave, I'll stay with it through thick and thin. I do not support the current presidency, but I don't fear. Fear is wrong. Americans should be looking to a brighter future, all Americans, no one should be full of fear, one day things will be better, but please let's not act like it's the end of the world.

Thanks for reading.

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 02:09 AM

21 views...0 responses....sheesh.

BorderEevilIII

11-04-2004, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
21 views...0 responses....sheesh.

Probably schmoes are too depressed to jump in and say their 2 cents on this...

All I just wanna say is that their FEAR campaign tactics worked. :rolleyes:

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 02:43 AM

I'm not depressed. Lousy presidents have been elected before, it's a part of history....not every President is going to be great.

What really baffles me is that lots of people (clearly a majority of the posters here anyway) and well....other countries, really think Kerry could have done things a great deal differently.

Kerry jumped on the anti-war bandwagon for one reason...votes. He voted to give Bush the right to go to war. But he saw how well Dean was doing as an anti-war candidate so that's what he became. In reality, I believe his plan was to deploy another 40 troops overseas.

I don't know, I just think maybe people were putting too much faith into Kerry as a human, he's a politician like all others going for the job and he's not one with a whole lot of convictions.

free

11-04-2004, 02:56 AM

Because it's my country and a I love it, and when you don't live here it's very easy to criticize America, because you pretty much don't like us anyway. But actual Americans, those are the one's whose criticisms truly matters.

That's very dangerous thinking John. I consider criticism from foreign countries sometime more credible than here, because most of them view issues like ours from a dispassionate point of view.

He voted to give Bush the right to go to war.

Based on the information that Iraq had WMDs. And Bush had many people tell him that Saddam had none, so I won't let him get away with blaming the intelligence.

But to answer your question, yes, it will be that bad. It will be that bad for homosexuals. It will be that bad for the atheists. It will be that bad when Bush pushes more holds on our personal liberties. It will be bad for the citizens of any nation "God" wants us to bomb next. It will be that bad for us, when Bush pisses off the wrong people, and we eat a nuclear sandwich.

So in short, YES, it will be that bad.

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 03:10 AM

But come on, that's some speculation you got there, we're going to get nuked? I mean...you really believe that?

Anyway, Bush is an enemy of civil liberties, hence why I would never vote for him, but he also supports the states decision to decide if they want a civil union. In NJ we have it...right now it's better than nothing, but we need more.

And it's not dangerous to think the way I'm thinking. I love this country. Any rational American thought is worth more to me than a thought from a foreign country. Because ultimately, it affects us moreso than everyone else. It all comes back to us, that is why our view of the contry is paramount to fucking Europe.

Bush acted on faulty intelligence, Russia and English intelligence both told him Iraq had something and Tenent told him it was a "slam dunk". Is it a mistake that Bush won't admit to? Yeah it is, but it's not a boldfaced lie.

Anyway, all you did was say that Bush would be bad for us, you didn't say Kerry would have swooped in and make everything all better.

free

11-04-2004, 03:40 AM

But come on, that's some speculation you got there, we're going to get nuked? I mean...you really believe that?

Yeah, I really do. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not.

but he also supports the states decision to decide if they want a civil union.

Since you are/voted Libertarian, I would assume you agree with me that the government has no business in anyone private affairs, especially when it involves the bedroom. So thats part of my argument as to why it would be bad.

Any rational American

Depending on your definition of rational, I do agree that it affects us more often than foreign opinion, but you shouldn't just dismiss a criticism because it comes for outside the US.

Russia and English intelligence both told him Iraq had something

But the UN had people whose jobs are to find WMD, they were given access that they hadn't had before, and even commented on how cooperative Saddam was. They found none.

Anyway, all you did was say that Bush would be bad for us, you didn't say Kerry would have swooped in and make everything all better.

Kerry had plans to withdraw troops, he had plans to fix our education system that Bush promised he would fix, then underfunded it. Kerry would have given us more credibility with foreign nations, and woudl have actively involved the UN (of which we are a member) more in the reconstruction of Iraq. And ANYONE would've been better that Bush/Cheney.

electriclite

11-04-2004, 04:03 AM

I think your's is one of the better statements I've heard this year, and while I don't agree with some of your statements I think its the more realistic and level-headed. Its very hard these days to hear a reason for picking a candidate without people getting their emotions involved, and it was good to here someone just mention the issues that meant something to them and explain why the other guy or current guy wasn't gonna meet them. I was never happy with Kerry as the opponent, but much like now, that's the card we were dealt.

I think either way we've been getting dealt some shitty cards waaaay to frequently and we gotta do something to either get a better deck or a better dealer.

arto_j

11-04-2004, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
. Because it's my country and a I love it, and when you don't live here it's very easy to criticize America, because you pretty much don't like us anyway.

I don't really agree with this sentence here. Most people around here (Europe that is) have been of the opinion that American people are generally good folk, and it's the government that should be disliked. That view might just change now though, since you (Americans) pretty much posted a clear seal of approval for the government's actions.

But you're right. It's your country, it's your election, it's your problem. Let's just hope Bush & co. don't keep bringing their problems overseas.

MarkItZero

11-04-2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by free
Kerry had plans to withdraw troops, he had plans to fix our education system that Bush promised he would fix, then underfunded it.

If Kerry had all these great "plans" then my question would be..What the fuck has he been doing in the senate the last 20 years? And why havent any of these great "plans" been introduced as bills?

My next question is....Now that Kerry lost, is he just gonna pack up his "plans" and go home. Because my guess is that this is the last we will hear of Kerry's great "plans" for fixing everything from the school system to bad acne.

If I lived in Massachusetts I would be more than a little pissed off to hear that my Senator had all these great plans, but yet never seemed to act on them. Isnt that his job as a senator?

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by free
Yeah, I really do. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that I'm not.

Since you are/voted Libertarian, I would assume you agree with me that the government has no business in anyone private affairs, especially when it involves the bedroom. So thats part of my argument as to why it would be bad.

Depending on your definition of rational, I do agree that it affects us more often than foreign opinion, but you shouldn't just dismiss a criticism because it comes for outside the US.

But the UN had people whose jobs are to find WMD, they were given access that they hadn't had before, and even commented on how cooperative Saddam was. They found none.

Kerry had plans to withdraw troops, he had plans to fix our education system that Bush promised he would fix, then underfunded it. Kerry would have given us more credibility with foreign nations, and woudl have actively involved the UN (of which we are a member) more in the reconstruction of Iraq. And ANYONE would've been better that Bush/Cheney.

Heh, bringing up the UN is probably not the best defense to me, although unrelated to how they've dealt with Bush, I feel that the UN is worthlesss and needs to be removed from our soil immediately.

jeo4

11-04-2004, 09:23 AM

I think MarkItZero got it right again. If Kerry had all these grand plans, why didn't he push for them as a Senator?

Mu next question goes to BorderEvillll: What scare tactics have the Bush camp employed??

MacReady

11-04-2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by jeo4
I think MarkItZero got it right again. If Kerry had all these grand plans, why didn't he push for them as a Senator?

Mu next question goes to BorderEvillll: What scare tactics have the Bush camp employed??

He probably knows it would be far easier to have his plans suceed in the white house than if he was in the senate.

Second, I don't want to presume I speak for BorderEevil, but I feel that during election time, the Bush/Cheney camp all but came out and said "if you elect Kerry, terrorist will kill you" (like a terrorist attack has never happened under a republican president's watch:rolleyes:).

Finally, I'd have rather heard of a plague of the undead breaking out all over North America* and the national guard and SWAT being helpless to stop them then that retard** being elected once more. He's already gone to war twice with both overall missions of that war failing (Bin Laden's still out there while no WMDs were found). Plus he's and excellent terrorist recruiting tool. I really think he's gonna piss off the wrong people from here to 2008

*When there's no more room in hell, George Bush will be re-elected as president.

**Get used to this word, I'll use it alot from now on.

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by arto_j
I don't really agree with this sentence here. Most people around here (Europe that is) have been of the opinion that American people are generally good folk, and it's the government that should be disliked. That view might just change now though, since you (Americans) pretty much posted a clear seal of approval for the government's actions.

But you're right. It's your country, it's your election, it's your problem. Let's just hope Bush & co. don't keep bringing their problems overseas.

Posted a clear seal of approval? See this is the sentiment I'm talking about. Bush got almost 59,000,000 votea and Kerry has over 55,000,000. Ad up all those who voted for third party and you have another million plus. Look at these numbers. Now, how can you say that we as a whole people posted a clear seal of approval? How? This isn't like when Reagan got 49 states. This was a close race, but it seems that you are letting the result speak for every American person, and I'm sorry but as the number show, that's wrong. Bush had a decsive victory, but it was certainly not an overwhelming one.

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 09:50 AM

Twisted Sister

11-04-2004, 10:03 AM

Since free is doing such a good job debating in this thread (props), I'll keep my ranting to a minimum.

I will say, however, that if Bush pursues his so-called "Axis if Evil," we will, most likely, get nuked. North Korea in the next four years, anyone?

jeo4

11-04-2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by MacReady
He probably knows it would be far easier to have his plans suceed in the white house than if he was in the senate.

Second, I don't want to presume I speak for BorderEevil, but I feel that during election time, the Bush/Cheney camp all but came out and said "if you elect Kerry, terrorist will kill you" (like a terrorist attack has never happened under a republican president's watch:rolleyes:).

Finally, I'd have rather heard of a plague of the undead breaking out all over North America* and the national guard and SWAT being helpless to stop them then that retard** being elected once more. He's already gone to war twice with both overall missions of that war failing (Bin Laden's still out there while no WMDs were found). Plus he's and excellent terrorist recruiting tool. I really think he's gonna piss off the wrong people from here to 2008

*When there's no more room in hell, George Bush will be re-elected as president.

**Get used to this word, I'll use it alot from now on.

I'm not sure that I buy into the idea of "fear tactics" considering Kerry was as anti-war as they come. I understand the comments that Cheney made about terrorists "wanting" Kerry to be elected and I think he's full of shit. But I don't think that the Bush camp ever exaggerated the worry they had for the threat of terrorists.

I also completely disagree with Bush "pissing off" all the wrong people. He didn't bring a terror attack into America. He had only been in office eight months when al Qaeda struck. Before that, the attacks were during Clinton's term (WTC bombing, USS Cole, US Embassy, etc.) What people don't get is that these people hated the US way before Bush took office and they will hate the US long after he's gone. Regardless of a Democrat or Republican leader, that's a fact.

I could easily disagree with the statement that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not failures, as al Qaeda was captured and/or killed and so was Saddam and his two thug children. Again, I say American intelligence has been revamped, but the agency that gave us the information (British, I might add) has made ZERO changes. What happened was definitely for the better in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it definitely made the US more aware of its own flaws. I'd hardly call that a failure, especially considering the measures taken to correct the mistakes made and the new governments created in these two nations.

MacReady

11-04-2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
I'm not sure that I buy into the idea of "fear tactics" considering Kerry was as anti-war as they come. I understand the comments that Cheney made about terrorists "wanting" Kerry to be elected and I think he's full of shit. But I don't think that the Bush camp ever exaggerated the worry they had for the threat of terrorists.

I also completely disagree with Bush "pissing off" all the wrong people. He didn't bring a terror attack into America. He had only been in office eight months when al Qaeda struck. Before that, the attacks were during Clinton's term (WTC bombing, USS Cole, US Embassy, etc.) What people don't get is that these people hated the US way before Bush took office and they will hate the US long after he's gone. Regardless of a Democrat or Republican leader, that's a fact.

I could easily disagree with the statement that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not failures, as al Qaeda was captured and/or killed and so was Saddam and his two thug children. Again, I say American intelligence has been revamped, but the agency that gave us the information (British, I might add) has made ZERO changes. What happened was definitely for the better in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it definitely made the US more aware of its own flaws. I'd hardly call that a failure, especially considering the measures taken to correct the mistakes made and the new governments created in these two nations.

I think they did. They constantly spoke of generic and clunky reports/threats about the possibility of an attack. Didn't you see that ad by The Daily Show that showed Bush both saying that America is safer then saying America is still under attack? I feel he's trying to create an air that the U.S. is under constant threat and it's thanks to him that's it's not invaded or attacked everyday.

After 9/11, you guys had almost total world support and sympathy. Now Bush has pissed that away in a fruitless invasion of Iraq. In other words, you have less allies and friends. Second, on Iraqis TV they're showing tons of dead and maimed children from the American air forces carpet bombing, which is no doubt angering alot of folks. Finally, Jim H spoke of how a genocide of sorts against the middle east might be jst enough to gather them together against a foe. Bush is certain to invade another counrty in the middle east and it might bring about the idea that Jim H spoke of.

I didn't really mean COMPLETE failure of the mission, just the major objective wasn't achieved. That' all. Plus he's gone no record with saying that he simply dosen't care about Osama anymore. Now that he's back in power (Bush), do you feel safer? Because Kerry spoke of taking him out of the picture...

...You typical, arrogant Jesuslandian pig.;) :D

jeo4

11-04-2004, 01:27 PM

I'm going to make that my new location. Jesusland. LOL!! :D

Yeah, I have no real argument against the fact that Bush is gifted at pissing off other nations. Hell, we hadn't mouthed off at North Korea in 50 years when Bush labeled then part of his "Axis of Evil". Probably not a good idea to pick a fight with a leader who's bug fucking crazy. And yeah, I remember some of the reports put out, but most of them pointed to a colossal failure on the part of the CIA to follow up with the information received. And of course, the terrorism argument is a strong one for an election, so I'm sure they played it up.

And I want Osama in custody or dead myself, but I think Bush is downplaying his tirades to make everyone more comfortable and probably to convey the message that those video comments mean nothing to the people here. He's pretty much been neutered since his network has broken down, althought not completely. Thsi could also be an attempt to rile him up again and force him to make a mistake out of anger. At least that's the impression I'm left with.

I really hope Bush wraps up things in Iraq and does something with the US economy. This country has had enough of the overseas skirmishes and it needs to rebuild its relationships with allies. This will be the best way to rebuild America's economy and ease tensions among people on both sides of the pond.

darchangel

11-04-2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
He's an excellent recruiting tool? How? If this is true, where are all these terrorists? Surely there'd be more than there used to be, how come these vast numbers of terrorists have not tried anything? And how come their leader is making a video where he doesn't exactly come off like the strong terrorist mastermind he once was?

the terrorists are in Iraq, sawing heads off civilians and journalists on Al-Jazeera until Bush's administration agrees to return the POWs from the war.

how do you not interpret 'if you strike against us, we'll strike back' as the statement of a terrorist mastermind? he's more than likely grouping forces while we make asses out of ourselves rooting around in Iraq.

i'd say free summed it up best when s/he said, 'it will be that bad for us when Bush pisses off the wrong people and we eat a nuclear sandwich'

i can definitely say i don't want to pay for my government's mistakes.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Thrizzle

11-04-2004, 02:50 PM

A recent report speculated that Al Qaeda is actually larger than it was before 9-11, numbering around 20,000 men now.

The war in Iraq is the main factor in boosted recruiting. Muslim extremists claim we are trying to invade their religion and impose our beliefs and culture on them. We sure showed them.....by invading a muslim country on false claims. Oops.

AppleHuntr

11-04-2004, 03:05 PM

jeo4

11-04-2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by AppleHuntr
I thought it was generally accepted that faer tactics were a key part of this election. I mean really, what were those warning levels all about? And why did they only fluctaute when Bush was in need of more support? There were many times when the warnings were high but nothing happened whatsoever. We were not told of any major threats that we avoided, it was all "confidential". I think it was bullshit. I know that they probably did have some information that an attack could be possible, but I think they milked it for all they could. Remember when we were all told to buy duct tape? Fear tactics were used by the Bush administration because they knew that terrorism was Bushs only strong point (well, in the eyes of many Americans it was). Well, terrorism and moral values, oi.

I think it is important what other countries think about is. I cannot stand this "America is the best so fuck you!" attitude that is so popular these days, it just leads to war and other conflicts. For peace and progress to happen we need respect.

Yes, I do think the next 4 years WILL be that bad, but I think free has said everything else I wanted to say.

Who ever said Americans don't respect other nations?? You're really pulling that out of left field. America as a whole does more business with the world than any other country. And who the hell ever said "America is best, so fuck you" in this forum?! The alerts came into play two years ago, after we were attacked. Now suddenly two years after this terror level alert is initiated, it is being used as a fear tactic?! I'd like to see proof of this.

I highly doubt that anyone in a position of power is going to use nuclear weapons. The consequences would be devastating and every leader knows this.

And one more thing: It's only four years. If you don't like who's in office, it's going to change anyway. So vote, and tell everyone under the age of 30 out there who isn't taking part in the elections to get off their asses and vote too. Seventeen percent of 18 to 24 year olds voting is a disgrace. It's because of idiots like them that you're enduring another four years.

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
the terrorists are in Iraq, sawing heads off civilians and journalists on Al-Jazeera until Bush's administration agrees to return the POWs from the war.

how do you not interpret 'if you strike against us, we'll strike back' as the statement of a terrorist mastermind? he's more than likely grouping forces while we make asses out of ourselves rooting around in Iraq.

i'd say free summed it up best when s/he said, 'it will be that bad for us when Bush pisses off the wrong people and we eat a nuclear sandwich'

i can definitely say i don't want to pay for my government's mistakes.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

The terrorists are in Iraq? I thought there were no terrorists in Iraq?

Twisted Sister

11-04-2004, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
The terrorists are in Iraq? I thought there were no terrorists in Iraq?

John,

There are terrorists in Iraq. There are no WMD's. I think you're confused.

jeo4

11-04-2004, 05:01 PM

I think it is important what other countries think about is. I cannot stand this "America is the best so fuck you!" attitude that is so popular these days, it just leads to war and other conflicts. For peace and progress to happen we need respect.

God knows we aren't as respectful as other nations. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041104/ap_on_re_eu/bush_international_headlines)

:rolleyes:

darchangel

11-04-2004, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Twisted Sister
John,

There are terrorists in Iraq. There are no WMD's. I think you're confused.

what s/he said.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

AppleHuntr

11-04-2004, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
Who ever said Americans don't respect other nations?? You're really pulling that out of left field. America as a whole does more business with the world than any other country. And who the hell ever said "America is best, so fuck you" in this forum?! The alerts came into play two years ago, after we were attacked. Now suddenly two years after this terror level alert is initiated, it is being used as a fear tactic?! I'd like to see proof of this.

I highly doubt that anyone in a position of power is going to use nuclear weapons. The consequences would be devastating and every leader knows this.

And one more thing: It's only four years. If you don't like who's in office, it's going to change anyway. So vote, and tell everyone under the age of 30 out there who isn't taking part in the elections to get off their asses and vote too. Seventeen percent of 18 to 24 year olds voting is a disgrace. It's because of idiots like them that you're enduring another four years.

If America completely respected other nations, would we have really invaded Iraq without the UNs permission? And I didnt (completely) mean America as a whole, but moreso many of its citizens dont respect other nations (need I bring up Freedom Fries? wait, that ties into the government as well....). And if America did wholeheartedly respect other nations, why did we just re-elect one of the Bush, who is clearly unpopular with everyone outside of America (and for good reason). \

I didn't say anyone in this forum said "America's the best so fuck you" but its obvious that many people (possibly some who use these forums as well but who knows) have this attitude. After 9/11 people became openly hostile towards other nations and cultures and it was in some cases accepted as OK because look what our country just went through.

I know the terror alerts were created 2 years ago, and I didnt say it was fact that they were used as fear tactics, but that I (and many others, there are several good articles on this on the net)thought it highly suspicious that these levels went up when Bush was going down in the polls.

It is not highly unlikely that another world leader would use nuclear weapons. They know it would be devastating, thats likely their intention. If the Bush administration keeps bullying other nations one of them is going to fight back.

Yes, there will be a change in 4 years but 4 years is PLENTY OF TIME for Bush to fuck things up even worse. These past 4 years were Bush being nice for the voters (i think thats pretty damn scary) but now he doesnt have to answer to us again we'll see what he really wants to do.

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Twisted Sister
John,

There are terrorists in Iraq. There are no WMD's. I think you're confused.

But I always here that there were no terrorists in Iraq either....or am I crazy?

JohnTheHenchman

11-04-2004, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by AppleHuntr
If America completely respected other nations, would we have really invaded Iraq without the UNs permission? And I didnt (completely) mean America as a whole, but moreso many of its citizens dont respect other nations (need I bring up Freedom Fries? wait, that ties into the government as well....). And if America did wholeheartedly respect other nations, why did we just re-elect one of the Bush, who is clearly unpopular with everyone outside of America (and for good reason). \

I didn't say anyone in this forum said "America's the best so fuck you" but its obvious that many people (possibly some who use these forums as well but who knows) have this attitude. After 9/11 people became openly hostile towards other nations and cultures and it was in some cases accepted as OK because look what our country just went through.

I know the terror alerts were created 2 years ago, and I didnt say it was fact that they were used as fear tactics, but that I (and many others, there are several good articles on this on the net)thought it highly suspicious that these levels went up when Bush was going down in the polls.

It is not highly unlikely that another world leader would use nuclear weapons. They know it would be devastating, thats likely their intention. If the Bush administration keeps bullying other nations one of them is going to fight back.

Yes, there will be a change in 4 years but 4 years is PLENTY OF TIME for Bush to fuck things up even worse. These past 4 years were Bush being nice for the voters (i think thats pretty damn scary) but now he doesnt have to answer to us again we'll see what he really wants to do.

Why should I respect France? Sure, Montesqeiu was a Frenchman and his writings were very important, but that was a long time ago. So seriously, why should I care about what France thinks of me or my country?

I don't see how a majority of the voters, voting for Bush is a sign of disrespect to other countries. Again, all I hear from people overseas is that we are idiots. Maybe when they treat me with a modicum of respect I can return it.

As horrible of a President that I think Bush is....WE have always had bad presidents at time. It's unfortunate, but not everyone will be a great president.

I'm sorry, but I really can't say I respect any other country's opinion of me as an American or my country. It's for me to decide if my country is fucked up.

And believe me, America is fucked up. But I have the right to say that, because any problems we have affect us more than someone in France.

Tweek

11-04-2004, 11:52 PM

What really baffles me is that lots of people (clearly a majority of the posters here anyway) and well....other countries, really think Kerry could have done things a great deal differently.

I think people, including me, were betting on Kerry because it would have been change.

Probably not a good idea to pick a fight with a leader who's bug fucking crazy

LOL.
Even saddam says "This guy is bonkers... Whacko"

free

11-05-2004, 12:48 AM

"Oops — they did it again," Germany's left-leaning Tageszeitung newspaper said in a front-page English headline.

Even if you voted Bush, you have to admit that's funny. :D

But I always here that there were no terrorists in Iraq either....or am I crazy?

There are terrorists in Flordida, should we bomb the state and capture Jeb?

Maybe when they treat me with a modicum of respect I can return it.

And maybe when we don't lead them in a war for no reason, and get rid of the leader that failed us, they won't call us idiots.

Now suddenly two years after this terror level alert is initiated, it is being used as a fear tactic?!

I has been a fear tactic since it began. We weren't even told WHAT to be afraid of most of the time. Like Robin Williamssaid, "I don't know where, I don't know when, but something bad is gonna happen. No questions."

those video comments mean nothing to the people here.

They reminded us that we still need to be afraid. It SHOULD have helped Kerry, showing Buhs hasn't even caught the man, but like they say, we can't change horses mid apocalypse.

JohnTheHenchman

11-05-2004, 01:27 AM

And maybe when we don't lead them in a war for no reason, and get rid of the leader that failed us, they won't call us idiots.

Many of those critical of us AS A PEOPLE, their countries aren't even involved in the war.

But really, Americans are idiots. Does this include the people that didn't vote for Bush? The Kerry supporters? The Nader supporters? The third party supporters and those that didn't even vote for anyone....are they all idiots?

We are the idiots that built the biggest, strongest and greatest nation in the world.

But yeah, we're idiots.

BorderEevilIII

11-05-2004, 01:40 AM

The Republicans definately used "Fear Tactics" alongisde Guns and Gay Marriage which is another topic in their campaign for the White House. They may bash Kerry for his past but throwing in Terrorism as a What If Kerry was elected? It doesn't matter WHO gets to claim the Oval Office for the next four years.
Another 9/11 is gonna happen on US grounds but WHERE and WHEN is another mystery. And dont let me get started on the ongoing war in Iraq. :rolleyes:

JohnTheHenchman

11-05-2004, 02:01 AM

I agree with the gay marriage issue, it's absolutely horrendous.

But what's so bad about guns?

free

11-05-2004, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
We are the idiots that built the biggest, strongest and greatest nation in the world.

But yeah, we're idiots.

No, we are the idiots that will destroy it.

their countries aren't even involved in the war.

Everyone pretty much is involved in the war, whether they fight in it or not.

But what's so bad about guns?

Bush supporters tried to make everyone believe Kerry would take away their guns, which wasn't true at all. He wanted to extend the assault weapons ban, (which need to be re-written if it is to be brought back, though).

free

11-05-2004, 03:00 AM

BTW, we had a pretty interesting conversation going in a thread that was closed down. I wanted to post the replies in this one to see what everyone thinks.

Originally posted by free
I read that most people who voted for Bush, said they voted for his "moral values".

How could any sane person vote for someone who lied to the American people, pushed through a bill that pinched personal liberties and tried to deny Americans the right to marry whom they love, sent troops over to a country that posed no credible threat to our nation, end up being responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 US troops and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, on the basis of his "moral values".

I wonder if people find the irony in saying how bad it is for a religion to run a country in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Indy in IN
Does this mean nothing to you?

Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplaySe...00&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

I guess Hitler wasn't such a bad guy either. Making truces with the countries that border Germany just before he invaded them. The whole Death Camp thing. Was WWII a pointless war too?? Saddam was heading the same direction.

How quickly we forget.

Sure, save a tree, but who gives a ......about a whole country.

That's why I am a Republican.

Originally posted by MacReady
Are you aware that there's other countries with people who are having their human right violated? Are you aware that Ronal Reagan, a republican, elected alot of evil south American dictators into power?

America isn't a righteous country, so I don't see how it being responsible for killing 10000 Iraqis cilivilians (whom you insist that Saddam killing them is evil) is less evil than what that guy did.

arto_j

11-05-2004, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Posted a clear seal of approval? See this is the sentiment I'm talking about. Bush got almost 59,000,000 votea and Kerry has over 55,000,000. Ad up all those who voted for third party and you have another million plus. Look at these numbers. Now, how can you say that we as a whole people posted a clear seal of approval? How? This isn't like when Reagan got 49 states. This was a close race, but it seems that you are letting the result speak for every American person, and I'm sorry but as the number show, that's wrong. Bush had a decsive victory, but it was certainly not an overwhelming one.

Sure it was a close race, but he still won. My phrasing earlier may not have been the best, but the point is, you have established a system to elect a president to lead the country. And everyone in it, including the people who may have voted for someone else. Your system, the people, have elected mr. Bush as your president twice, and I'm not sure if many people will care how close the race was, especially a few years on.

Now, I get your point. Not everyone likes Bush or his policies out there, not even nearly. But he's the guy your majority elected out there, and that's the first thing that foreigners will get. I've already heard such comments, which are a bit uninformed for sure. But over half of your population seems to be perfectly satisfied with the work he's done over the last four years, and that's mainly what some people having a tough time understanding.

free

11-05-2004, 03:12 AM

I guess Hitler wasn't such a bad guy either. Making truces with the countries that border Germany just before he invaded them. The whole Death Camp thing. Was WWII a pointless war too?? Saddam was heading the same direction.

Hitler, as well as Saddam, was a very evil man. What he did was unthinkable and despicable, as well as Saddam killing all those innocent people. But to compare the nation of Germany to Iraq ia laughable. Iraq has very little modern weaponry, a very small army compared to most, and hadn't invaded anyone for nearly a decade. Plus, Hitler also had a very big ally, Italy, with him at the beginning.

What you suggest is since Saddam was evil, we should go in and start a war to overthrow him. Isn't that like going to a known serial murderer's neighborhood and throwing a few bombs at him? Sure, you would kill a very evil man, but you would also kill his maybe innocent family, some families around the neighborhood, and destroy many houses. You could spend money to rebuild the houses, but you still have caused mass destruction and caused death and pain to many innocent people.

BorderEevilIII

11-05-2004, 10:46 AM

As I move onto this past Tuesday Nights Results I could not believe Americans casted their votes for Nader. :rolleyes: I know that he would have been Option C versus Bush & Kerry. But if Nader did not sleaze his way in the votes he got could they have been for Kerry/ Bush?

And I aint no Republican Hater :D But each time I hear George talking makes me ill. I can't tell if he's being sincere when he talks or just some snot nosed individual. :confused:

JohnTheHenchman

11-05-2004, 11:05 AM

Nader was a total non-factor, he didn't even get 400,000 votes nationwide.

MacReady

11-05-2004, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
I think it is important what other countries think about is. I cannot stand this "America is the best so fuck you!" attitude that is so popular these days, it just leads to war and other conflicts. For peace and progress to happen we need respect.

God knows we aren't as respectful as other nations. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041104/ap_on_re_eu/bush_international_headlines)

:rolleyes:

If you'll check out betavote (http://www.betavote.com/) you might be shocked to learn that an overwhelming 88% of human species wanted Kerry as president (and that total includes the semi-conservative America. Imagine what would happen if that half wan't included). It's fucking stunning to the rest of the world that you've let Bush be given power over you for 4 more years. Even if it was just 51%, we feel Kerry should of won by a landslide.

WOOHOO! Only a 1000 posts to go!:D

darchangel

11-05-2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
But I always here that there were no terrorists in Iraq either....or am I crazy?

to answer that question: yes you are ;)

but seriously...you asked how exactly George Bush was a recruiting tool for terrorists, and i told you how i think he is.

we didn't have stories of Iraqi terrorists sawing heads off of journalists on Al-Jazeera before the war (or at least it wasn't nearly as publicized by the terrorist groups beforehand)

i think that's proof that new terrorists have appeared since the implementing of some of the worst choices made by the Bush administration.

so that would be the answer. (see fig. 9-11 'how our president is a figurehead for the recruiting tool of terrorists)

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

<3mekthx

11-05-2004, 01:42 PM

I know I'm probably going to take a beating for this, but I believe the "one" of the reasons that lots of Europeans hate Bush is there overwhelmly liberal media. I'm sure lots of you are going to say that "its simply a myth," but I'm a believer :)

darchangel

11-05-2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
I know I'm probably going to take a beating for this, but I believe the "one" of the reasons that lots of Europeans hate Bush is there overwhelmly liberal media. I'm sure lots of you are going to say that "its simply a myth," but I'm a believer :)

yep, i hate those damn liberal media...especially Fox News :rolleyes:

i don't suppose that one of the major reasons could be that Bush has destroyed foreign alliances with countries such as France, Germany and Russia with the whole 'if you won't help us in Iraq, then we'll consider you enemies' speech, could it?

i don't suppose it has anything to do with freedom fries and freedom toast either and seeing Americans pouring bottles of French wine down the gutters in the streets, huh?

and it surely couldn't be that Bush and his administrators pretty much told the UN to go piss up a flagpole when they said they wanted time to search for WMDs before staging a full-fleged war...

freedom fries.....:mad:

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

<3mekthx

11-05-2004, 02:17 PM

The UN? (laff) How did I know that I would get a "FOX News" reference to my post.:) How is this administration considering France, German, and Russia "enemies"? I didn't know that this administration classified them as new members of the "axis", but I could be mistaken. What's wrong with Freedom Fries, the one's I've had were very tasty. ::rolleyes: It's any Americans right to boycott what they please (ie. pouring wine in the ocean).

Again, LOVED the FOX reference

jeo4

11-05-2004, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
If you'll check out betavote (http://www.betavote.com/) you might be shocked to learn that an overwhelming 88% of human species wanted Kerry as president (and that total includes the semi-conservative America. Imagine what would happen if that half wan't included). It's fucking stunning to the rest of the world that you've let Bush be given power over you for 4 more years. Even if it was just 51%, we feel Kerry should of won by a landslide.

WOOHOO! Only a 1000 posts to go!:D

I understand what you're saying, but the topic at hand was respect, and the people of America aren't seeing it and haven't seen it in a long while. And by a long while, I mean LONG before Bush took office. We have never been the darlings of the media or the governments anywhere in Europe.

And while I agree that the ideas of "freedom fries" and dumping of imported goods into the streets is just really stupid, so is badmouthing an ally, be it America or France, or Germany, etc. The hateful comments coming from all of our so-called allies in the media and in the parliaments are completely rude and uncalled for. If it's so easy to sweep aside all the hard work this nation has done for decades on end just because Bush is re-elected, then it's easy to see why America is becoming a hostile nation toward others. Insults are being thrown in every direction toward our nation because of our vote. Why bother examining the reasons America voted (or didn't vote) when you can simply tear them down? I'm disgusted with the attitudes given off. Before the election, people were saying "don't throw insults" or "don't resort to 'their' tactics", but when the counting is done, suddenly we are "idiots" and "out of step" with the world. It's judgemental and hypocritical.

Tom Samborski

11-05-2004, 10:14 PM

See, that's the problem with America, right there. Rather than just shrugging off the anti-American voice from the rest of the world, America says "Choose us or die", "Choose us or die", or they just impose a big fat trade sanction that wrecks another nation's economy. The message is clear and simple: sooner or later, there may be a person or two who doesn't like you, but does that give you the right to do terrible things to them?

Before America blows all the anti-American comments out of proportion, maybe America should try to look into why many countries hate it rather than just resorting to "You're Dead" tactics.

Twisted Sister

11-05-2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by darchangel

freedom fries.....:mad:

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Tee Hee!!!!! I had forgotten all about that!!!

I was gonna write some smart-ass/deep commentary, but ~darchangel~ put a stop to it by making milk squirt out my nose.

Elgyn

11-06-2004, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
What scare tactics have the Bush camp employed??

Well, for one, how about those stupid TV ads that showed wolves sneaking around ominously in the woods?
Yes, that`s right, vote Bush because he`ll protect us from the WOLVES!
Yeah, right, and how about the 'wolves' that are circling an entire generation of Americans, getting ready to herd them all into the next Middle Eastern country to get blown-up by suicide bombers?
Because freedom`s on the move!

And also, right before the election, Dickface himself (Cheney, that is) was speaking to an audiance (I saw this on CNN or C-SPAN or one of those channels.....hell, maybe it was FoxNews!).
Anyways, Cheney was rattling on about how we needed Bush to protect us from the terrorists. I couldn`t help but think 'Put a cork in it, Cheney'. This is the same damn broken record the Bush camp has been playing the whole election campaign.

Elgyn

11-06-2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by free

What you suggest is since Saddam was evil, we should go in and start a war to overthrow him. Isn't that like going to a known serial murderer's neighborhood and throwing a few bombs at him?

Sure, you would kill a very evil man, but you would also kill his maybe innocent family, some families around the neighborhood, and destroy many houses. You could spend money to rebuild the houses, but you still have caused mass destruction and caused death and pain to many innocent people.

Exactly.
I try to say things like this to 'Bushies', and they always give me the same response: That`s a neccesary part of war.
And, yes, that`s true.
But why does that make it acceptable?
To me, the fact that it`s a "neccesary part of war" should just be all the more to reason to NOT go to war unless ABSOLUTLEY NECCESARY.
And folks, is it "absolutley neccesary" that we be in Iraq?

Here`s what I say to somebody who gives me the "neccesary part of war" retort:
What if the Bush Administration declared war on drug-dealers. All drug-dealers. Any drug-dealers.
Say there happens to be a drug-dealer living on your street.........and you and your neighbors don`t even realize it.
KA-BLAMMO!!!
There goes your whole neighborhood. Your whole family is dead.
But, who cares, right? It`s just a neccesary part of war.

Say what you want (and I KNOW I`m gonna get the phrase "bleeding-heart liberal" thrown at me), but this is EXACTLY what we`re doing in Iraq right now, ladies and gentlemen.

jeo4

11-07-2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Tom Samborski
See, that's the problem with America, right there. Rather than just shrugging off the anti-American voice from the rest of the world, America says "Choose us or die", "Choose us or die", or they just impose a big fat trade sanction that wrecks another nation's economy. The message is clear and simple: sooner or later, there may be a person or two who doesn't like you, but does that give you the right to do terrible things to them?

Before America blows all the anti-American comments out of proportion, maybe America should try to look into why many countries hate it rather than just resorting to "You're Dead" tactics.

Was this directed toward my last post? Because if it is, then it had nothing to do with what I said.

:confused:

darchangel

11-08-2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
The UN? (laff) How did I know that I would get a "FOX News" reference to my post.:) How is this administration considering France, German, and Russia "enemies"? I didn't know that this administration classified them as new members of the "axis", but I could be mistaken. What's wrong with Freedom Fries, the one's I've had were very tasty. ::rolleyes: It's any Americans right to boycott what they please (ie. pouring wine in the ocean).

Again, LOVED the FOX reference

Bush said during the beginning of 'Operation Iraqui Freedom' that if countries who were our allies (particularly France, Germany and Russia) refused to aid our cause, that they would be considered hostile.

Bush has since kissed and made up with Presidente Chiraq, but you honestly don't think that explains PART of the reason the French hate Bush?

and the eye rolling at freedom fries is unnecessary...you said 'liberal media' was the reason foreign countries hate Bush...i think 'freedom fries' are more than enough reason to think otherwise.

also, the Anti-French sentiment (i.e. pouring wine down gutters, Freedom Fries, etc.) was spawned from Bush's 'if you're not with us, you're against us' comments to countries such as France during the beginnings of the war.

do you think people just woke up one morning and thought, 'hey, i really hate those damn French, so i'm going to take all the French wine I have and make a big deal about pouring it down a sewer and rename French Fries 'Freedom Fries' ?'

reasons like these are why foreign countries hate Bush, and why we as a nation now look like the village idiot of the world for re-electing him.

as a side note, i've managed to give at least one example of a right-leaning media (Fox News, which you seem to find so funny). exactly what media outlets are you accusing of blatant left-leaning?

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

<3mekthx

11-08-2004, 06:00 PM

and the eye rolling at freedom fries is unnecessary...you said 'liberal media' was the reason foreign countries hate Bush...i think 'freedom fries' are more than enough reason to think otherwise.

I do believe I stated that the "liberal media bias" was ******ONE****** of the reasons many Europeans disliked Bush. I never implied that this was the SOLE purpose for all the hate. They don't like his policies, don't like the iraq deal, and don't like the fact that he's from TEXAS.

Bush has since kissed and made up with Presidente Chiraq, but you honestly don't think that explains PART of the reason the French hate Bush?

I never once stated that I didn't think that could be PART of the reason. Not really sure where you came up with the idea that I didnt.

also, the Anti-French sentiment (i.e. pouring wine down gutters, Freedom Fries, etc.) was spawned from Bush's 'if you're not with us, you're against us' comments to countries such as France during the beginnings of the war.

I don't necessarily think that Bush 'spawned' the anti-French sentiment in America. I think plenty of Americans seen that France was in NO WAY going to side with the U.S on the subject of Iraq, and was going to use and reuse it's veto power in the security council. I think lots of people felt that France was going to go against anything with "America" tagged on it, so they protested the best way they knew how. (whine, the infamous freedom fries) I'm also ready to see the results from the "UN oil for food program." I have no problem with the French or any country voting or taking another side of an issue against the U.S.A, nor do I have a problem with people protesting when they do.

do you think people just woke up one morning and thought, 'hey, i really hate those damn French, so i'm going to take all the French wine I have and make a big deal about pouring it down a sewer and rename French Fries 'Freedom Fries' ?'

Again, I have no clue how you came to this conclusion from my original post? :confused:

reasons like these are why foreign countries hate Bush, and why we as a nation now look like the village idiot of the world for re-electing him.

I feel as if you think the people who voted 'R' on election day are morons or 'village idiots.' Personally, I wasn't thinking of all those foreign countries while I was placing my vote.

as a side note, i've managed to give at least one example of a right-leaning media (Fox News, which you seem to find so funny). exactly what media outlets are you accusing of blatant left-leaning?

I enjoyed your FOX News statement. Let's see. BBC? New York Times. ABC News, CBS News.

Thrizzle

11-08-2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
I enjoyed your FOX News statement. Let's see. BBC? New York Times. ABC News, CBS News.

Care to provide evidence? Any indication at all that they are liberal and biased?

Documented stats of a bias on FOX (shouldnt come as a surprise):
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html

BakeTheMooCow

11-08-2004, 09:03 PM

Yes.

MacReady

11-08-2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
I understand what you're saying, but the topic at hand was respect, and the people of America aren't seeing it and haven't seen it in a long while. And by a long while, I mean LONG before Bush took office. We have never been the darlings of the media or the governments anywhere in Europe.

I'll try to make my point more clear (you're getting it fine, I just don't feel as if I'm explaining enough). I constantly read about all the terrible things Bush does to you guys and how sometimes he's worse folks outside your country (I still won't get over how many Iraqis civilians and U.S. have been killed in the war). He seems to be totally useless in almost all that he says he wants to achieve in order to get America better (except for stopping consenting adults of the same sex from getting married and making life easier for the rich). Hence, a massive wave of anti-Bush sentiment has sweep around the world. We were absolutely stunned that hee won and feel that you've traded away freedom, economic stability and foreign relations for security (which he won't provide anyway).

I know some of you say we shouldn't judge you guys for this since it was only 51%, but I along with many other feel that Bush should of been crushed by a landslide. Besides, he's still there. That's the big problem.

You also speak of how other nations shouldn't judge you with such haste but I feel as if America is like a friend that slowly wasting away to a dangerous drug addiction. Far fetched analogy? Maybe. But I feel it best describes my outlook on it.

<3mekthx

11-08-2004, 11:07 PM

I could provide 30 some odd "documented stats" to back up my OPINION, but there are lots of partisans out there with there "studies" to back up there "truth". I could give you a link to that memo that senior political director Mark Halperin for ABCNEWS that says both sides are not 'equally accountable'. link (http://www.drudgereport.com/mh.htm) I know that each side will spin this how they want.

RATHERGATE. How could professionals screw that one up as royally as they did. How could a few 'professional' producers and a few months of working on a story thought to be real be discredited in a manner of hours by online bloggers? I'm not saying that Rather and company knew they were fake, but WOW.

60 minutes wanted to save the "380 tons of explosives in Iraq missing" story until the Sunday night before the election. They wanted to sit on this story for a full week and drop it 36 hours before the election, only to have the NYT break the story.

I don't like throwing too many "sources" around because frankly I'm just to sceptable of them. After looking around on that site for a few minutes, I don't hold to much stock in it. I have a pretty cool link to read (requires adobe acrobat reader) that comes out with the direct opposite conclusion that your fair.org came to.
http://www.cbrss.harvard.edu/events/ppe/papers/Tim%20Groseclose%20Media%20Bias%20Paper.pdf

Thrizzle

11-09-2004, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
RATHERGATE. How could professionals screw that one up as royally as they did. How could a few 'professional' producers and a few months of working on a story thought to be real be discredited in a manner of hours by online bloggers? I'm not saying that Rather and company knew they were fake, but WOW.

Yes, i think we can all agree the media is extremely incompetent.

60 minutes wanted to save the "380 tons of explosives in Iraq missing" story until the Sunday night before the election. They wanted to sit on this story for a full week and drop it 36 hours before the election, only to have the NYT break the story.

Conservatives love to spin conspirast theories :D . The story wasn't complete, there were A LOT of unknowns, and still are. If they had reported it sooner they most likely wouldve gotten the story wrong.

I don't like throwing too many "sources" around because frankly I'm just to sceptable of them. After looking around on that site for a few minutes, I don't hold to much stock in it. I have a pretty cool link to read (requires adobe acrobat reader) that comes out with the direct opposite conclusion that your fair.org came to.
http://www.cbrss.harvard.edu/events/ppe/papers/Tim%20Groseclose%20Media%20Bias%20Paper.pdf

Well, thats based on News Stories. Not quite he same. My eyes opened when i read that they considered Fox News and Drudge Report in the middle. But, I get your point.

darchangel

11-09-2004, 02:38 PM

let's see here:

YOU SAID:
I do believe I stated that the "liberal media bias" was ******ONE****** of the reasons many Europeans disliked Bush. I never implied that this was the SOLE purpose for all the hate. They don't like his policies, don't like the iraq deal, and don't like the fact that he's from TEXAS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REPLY IS:
look at your above post (from they don't like his policies on), and you'll see exactly what i've been saying to you...as a side note, i don't really think people from foreign countries care what state he's from.

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

YOU SAID:
I never once stated that I didn't think that could be PART of the reason. Not really sure where you came up with the idea that I didnt.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REPLY IS:
if you believe that media's not the only reason, then why are you still arguing with me?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU SAID:
I don't necessarily think that Bush 'spawned' the anti-French sentiment in America. I think plenty of Americans seen that France was in NO WAY going to side with the U.S on the subject of Iraq, and was going to use and reuse it's veto power in the security council. I think lots of people felt that France was going to go against anything with "America" tagged on it, so they protested the best way they knew how. (whine, the infamous freedom fries) I'm also ready to see the results from the "UN oil for food program." I have no problem with the French or any country voting or taking another side of an issue against the U.S.A, nor do I have a problem with people protesting when they do.

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

MY REPLY IS:
and where do you think Americans got these ideas? it obviously couldn't be from the media, since they're all so liberal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU SAID:
I feel as if you think the people who voted 'R' on election day are morons or 'village idiots.' Personally, I wasn't thinking of all those foreign countries while I was placing my vote.

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

MY REPLY IS:
i said that's why FOREIGN countries think we look stupid...a German newspaper came out the day after Kerry conceded with the headline 'Oops...they did it again!' in reference to us re-electing Bush. That gives me more than enough reason to think foreigners think we're morons for re-electing him.

Also, i don't think all republicans are idiots...just for your personal clarification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU SAID:
I enjoyed your FOX News statement. Let's see. BBC? New York Times. ABC News, CBS News.

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

MY REPLY IS:
as Thrizzle already stated, you should probably put some documented sources up as proof of your theories about these media outlets.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~