This is what I am talking about

[Iacobus]

Not you can't 100% compere models to reality. But it hightlights that BIG problems can come soon, next 5-10 years, if a major policy change doesn't occur in the White House.

[Tony]

[quote name='picchick' date='Oct 25 2004, 06:38 PM'] This race is between Kerry and Bush ONLY.  There is no way on God's green earth that Joe is going to win. 
Pax out,
Meg [/quote]



Ill be for Bush in 2004 but this was my motto when I voted for Buchanan in 2000:


Its never wrong to vote a pro life catholic that goes along with the teachings of the Catholic Church. even if they are a huge longshot.. they gotta start somewhere, right?

Edited October 26, 2004 by Tony

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 25 2004, 05:14 PM'] I might have posted this in the wrong phourm. If a mod feels inclined to move it to debate please do so. Thanks. [/quote]
[font="Courier"]I don't think there is a debate on this story - when all the facts are given...
According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.[/font]

[url="http://www.drudgereport.com/nbcw.htm"]check it here[/url]

[shelly_freak]

no don't use american news sources, they can't be trusted! use BBC, BBC rocks!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Oct 25 2004, 11:42 PM'] no don't use american news sources, they can't be trusted! use BBC, BBC rocks! [/quote]
BBC which quoted a nun in Africa as saying, "I wish we could do more to stop the AIDS, but we just can't," and then had a voice-over by the commentator saying, "even this Catholic nun is upset that the Church won't let her distribute contraceptives"? That BBC?

[Guest Aluigi]

a dios mio! American news sources are liberally anti-bush biased if anything!

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Oct 25 2004, 11:42 PM'] no don't use american news sources, they can't be trusted! use BBC, BBC rocks! [/quote]
[font="Courier"]Or maybe the Gaudian.uk
yes, the Gaurdian is outside the U.S. and thus objective...
[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/tvradio/story/0,14676,1335307,00.html"]if you overlook reports like this[/url]:
[quote]On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?[/quote][/font]

[Lounge Daddy]

[font="Courier"]Liberal bias in the media?
YES[/font]

[Iacobus]

Liberal bias in the US media? No.

Overseas, and we are starting to get it here, are bias stations. Kinda like Rush meets CNN. LOL! You get that overseas a lot. I did add a few overseas links, CBC and the Guradian (sp?), but I skipped on the BBC because they are, at least in your minds (I LOVE them, but than again I only listen after 12 midnite until like 5 am), less trustworthy.

[Iacobus]

LD,

If the US knew they were gone, and the UN inspector reported looking at the site before being pulled out in the fall of 2002/winter 2003, why did Rice only learn "days after Oct 15 2004" that they were gone?

[azaelia]

I hate it when I am accused of voting for Bush just because he's pro-life. It's like saying "You're single-minded..." John Kerry may have a better foreign policy (although I seem to remember him saying he would stop nuclear weapons development and basically leave us unprotected against any country with a nuclear weapons program and the mind to blow us to Kingdom Come) but Bush is against euthanasia, abortion, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and homosexual unions. Those, I believe, are more important issues to the survival of our society. If any of those issues aren't stopped, the US will fall in a matter of decades. It happened to the Roman empire. And I'm sorry, but that scares me more.

And call me crazy, but I like Bush.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Bush assigned Kerry to guard these weapons.

With all seriousness, do you hold Bush PERSONALLY responsible for this? There's a huge chain of command and then there's the fact that these weapons were nowhere to be found when the troops secured the facility in the first place! I'm tired of the fact that the Democrats' spin machine is putting up this junk everyday about Bush did this or he didn't do that. I'm sure he went out and in Donald Trump style fired all the people who lost jobs in the wake of an economic collapse. I won't blame Clinton for the collapse either. The economy is a big machine no one person can control.

If Bush was half the dictator liberals claim him to be then everyone would have jobs because he can will them into existence and no one would be challenging him for the presidency because all the Democrats would be sent to special 'camps.'

Edited October 26, 2004 by 1337 k4th0l1x0r

[Iacobus]

Do I hold Bush personally responible? Yes, yes I do. Why? Because he and his White House were advised not to invade Iraq, because it would
[list]
[*]Over extend US forces
[*]Pull troops from units fighting "real" terrorism
[*]Open a power vaccum in the Middle East likly to be filled by people worse than Saddam
[*]And he didn't have enough troops ready to start the invasion
[/list]
But they choose to invade. Before the war we [i]knew[/i] where these weapons were. They were under watch because they are "duel use weapons." After lunching the war the base has been looted 3+ times under US guard and now this huge stockpile of weapons is missing. Sounds like the power vaccum is trying to be filled by someone who wants power and will get that power via force and is taking advantage of the overextended and thinned out US forces.

Azaelia, I feel like my congressman but I must say it, I repect your views but disagree with you. I am sure you are not a single issue voter. A lot of people hold economic views different than mine and I am sure that is from how we were raised and our only personal life stories. I would love for everyone to hold my views, but that is silly. Disagreement is how we make progress.

[quote](although I seem to remember him saying he would stop nuclear weapons development and basically leave us unprotected against any country with a nuclear weapons program and the mind to blow us to Kingdom Come)[/quote]

We did not say he would leave us unprotected. To steal something from Tom Clancey (a Reagan admirer of the 1st order),

[quote]I have a gun. I am pointing it at you. It has 16 bullets. I am going to remove 10 bullets, leaving me with only 6 rounds. Do you feel any safer?[/quote]

To stop weapons devolpment (which the Church has called for) wouldn't leave us exposed to any nut with a nuke. We still have enough nuclear weapons to end the world how many times over? And as a member of the UN and NATO, if we were attacked with a nuke by a rouge state, that state wouldn't exist within 20 minutes. Moreover, the main progarm Sen Kerry is speaking of cutting is "the bunker buster" nuke. Beside that that would be far from making the world more safe, it is made for an outdated war. Most terrorists don't have eblorate bunker systems that we can put a nuke in. Some use tunnels and caves, but that is a lot harder to hit when your error is +/- 8 meters. Moreover, the round would have to enter the earth and not hit anything that would make it explode itself. To cut that program would be Repulican, smaller gov't.

Okay, now that I cleared up the nuke thing,

[quote]Bush is against euthanasia, abortion, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and homosexual unions.[/quote]

I think most Americans are against euthanasia, and TBMK neither party has a real stance on it. Of course, it is easily assumed that the GOP is against it and as neither Sen Kerry nor his party has spoken on the issue to imply that Kerry is for euthanasia nears libel.

Bush is against abortion. And Kerry is personaly against it but refuses to legsate it. However, there is a quote by Kerry that implys that he wants abortions to decrease and disapper. Someone asked him how he votes on abortion and one of the things he said he seeks to do is "make it rare." And it can be drawn non existant.

Assisted suicide, at least in my mind, falls under euthanasia thus I won't say anything more on it, save to refer you back to euthanasia.

On embryonic stem-cell research, that depends on how you look it at. I could say, and do say, Bush is less for embryonic stem cell research than Kerry is. Kerry supports it greatly, Bush supports it. He allowed for Fed funds to go to grants for embryonic stem cell research and also has made no moves to reduce the push or the amount of study done on embryonic stem cells.

On cloning, Bush does support the UN (yes UN) proposed ban on cloning. I do not know of an offical stance taken by Sen Kerry or the Democratic party.

On homosexual unions, both man refuse to support these. Kerry supported the DOMA. However, Kerry will not endorse a movement to admend the US Con but instead says it is a state issue (a Jeffersoian *sp?* stance). Bush wants a Fed admendement, a very anti state rights stance, which runs against what his platform is, but never mind that.

I think I covered all that you said. Please don't take this as a plug for Kerry, for it is not. If you have any more questions that you would like to have me try and answer go ahead, but like I said to Paige, "I can't explain Kerry on everything if I don't know what everything is to you."

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

If we had invaded Afghanistan before September 11 the Democrats would have said Bush was war hungry and would complain that since Osama bin Laden was never captured it was a wasted effort. When the terrorists would have struck on Sept. 11 they would have said that it was in retaliation for the invasion. However, there's a good chance that maybe the attacks would never have happened. No one would have said that people in Afghanastan had any more capability than people in Iraq to strike at Americans but they did and there are those who were and still are in Iraq with the capability to strike at America. I think Kerry's 'international test' and 'we must build a coalition' would take far too long considering many of these foreign governments have had some very shady relations with the mid-east governments.

I've yet to see how Kerry would do anything to make America safer. He's very soft and talks as if big things must happen before we take the smallest of actions. He can take this anti-war stance only because he's not the incumbent. Bush could easily adopt a stance that would re-elect him with a landslide, but he's chosen standing by his principles and decisions as that is best for the country and not best for himself.

As for Kerry wanting to make abortion 'rare,' I'd like to ask him if making it illegal would help make it rare. I suppose the best way to reduce violent crime would be to make it all legal and throw a bunch of money at government programs with catchy acronyms that put ads on TV trying to talk people out of committing crimes. What will he do to make abortion rare? Distribute contraception? Great, let's replace one sin with another. In my opinion, I could not vote for this. And he sure as heck won't donate money to go to sidewalk counselors. This will be a total violation of so-called "women's rights."

[Lounge Daddy]

[font="Courier"]Bush at rally in Pennsylvania:

"After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons..."

"If Senator Kerry had his way... Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would control those all of those weapons and explosives and could share them with his terrorist friends. Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts.' Think about that: The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts..."

"Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief." [/font]