Democratic Candidates (Arcane Ver.)

[LawrenceOfArabia]

Im a republican so...GO BUSH...but for the sake of the topic, I like edwards, john kerry is just as bad as clinton from what ive heard and read.

 

[Forged]

Ross Perot

His drug addiction got the best of him.

Im a republican so...GO BUSH

I am glad you can't vote.

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

Im glad we have a republican president

 

[amrtin77]

dont vote based on republica/ democrat, too many idiots already do that. take all canidates seriously, the fact that someone is republican/democrat means nothing. both are too busy with their struggle to take over america to care what they stand for. look at all canidates and choose them based on what you think they will do for the country, not because of some damn title they use to get campaign money.

 

[Forged]

why to destroy the country? Most countrys including Great Britian consider The United States the most dangerous country in the world, and it is all because of George Bush He signle handidlly turned the most empathetic filling the world has ever had for us to pure hatred in less than one year.

What a great president.

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

you know, people would have said that if churchill was elected in place of nevile chamberlain in Britain in the late 30's, cuz he would have launched some sort of preemptive strike against hitler, which would have turned some heads but ultimatly save millions of lives in the process...yet, with his predictions of the approaching storm, everyone thought he was mad. I think that relates to Bush. he hit iraq quick and fast so they couldnt get nuclear weapons so they couldnt obliverate the isarailies or other neighbouring middle eastern nations. North korea, we really couldnt have done anything there. Unlike iraq, north korea is a massive forested area that is rather hard to find science buildings that would be developing nuclear weapons. Now it is imperative that we stop north korea from doing anything.

amrtin, i didnt say i can vote now did i??

ok im done talking about bush now

 

[Forged]

hitler was attacking and dominating near by countrys and had an army that could stand up to france and england, they actually anally rapped france.

Iraw was a small country George Bush attacked to make himself and his friends rich while alos making sure he got re-elected.

In the year we have been there (almost) We have yet to find any chemical weapons or anything supporting any kind of WMD.
Yes we know 10 years ago they had Chemical Weapons because The U.S wanted Iraq to take over iran...

 

[amrtin77]

you will be able to eventually... i hope you dont vote for whoever the republican running is.

and i highly doubt the iraq conflict had anything to do with nuclear missiles, or even weapons of mass destruction. that was our justification, but we obviously want something else there.. im only for the war because i believe we needed to finish the job from gulf war 1, and i believe this will help the iraqis in the long run.

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by Forged
why to destroy the country? Most countrys including Great Britian consider The United States the most dangerous country in the world, and it is all because of George Bush He signle handidlly turned the most empathetic filling the world has ever had for us to pure hatred in less than one year.

What a great president.

And had we not been attacked and these other countries not refused to help us out when retaliation was needed, it wouldnt have happened.


Anywho, the problem with the current democratic elections, is that people are not voting based on what the candidate stands for, they are merely voting on "electability". They dont care for what Kerry believes and his unwavering instability, they just think he can win because he looks and sounds mean. Its pretty sad really. Though this is not how it always is, just how the vast majority of voters are thinking.

Current Standings (delegates):

Kerry: 613
Edwards: 192
Sharpton: 16 *snickers*

 

[Forged]

none for kunich?

 

[amrtin77]

i dont like kerry... i dont care much for bush........ AGHHHHH ANOTHER 4 YEARS OF HELL ><


i like kunich =]

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by Forged
hitler was attacking and dominating near by countrys and had an army that could stand up to france and england, they actually anally rapped france.

Iraw was a small country George Bush attacked to make himself and his friends rich while alos making sure he got re-elected.

Sounds vaguely familiar.... Kuwait anyone? Kuwait mirrors Poland in many ways, except America stood in the way of further conquests. Iraq was sanctioned as a result of the first Gulf war, yet he failed to account for the weapons that were supposedly destroyed. As such, the entirety of the U.N. security council signed on to resolution 1441, thus mandating that Iraq comply or suffer the consequences. So please, explain to me why GWB is accountable for the mistakes and misjudgments made by half of the civilized world?

And your rhetoric about Bush invading for alterior motives is truly laughable. You're acting like a parrot, repeating what you've read from the liberal media. If you can provide any evidence to show that Bush has profited from this war, I'll give you a cookie.

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by Nuts


And your rhetoric about Bush invading for alterior motives is truly laughable. You're acting like a parrot, repeating what you've read from the liberal media. If you can provide any evidence to show that Bush has profited from this war, I'll give you a cookie.

Your thoughts are an exact mirror of my own. It seems incredible that so many people do not and will not think for themselves, only going by what they hear.

How soon we all forget who and what Saddam was. How soon we forget what he was doing to his own people, not to mention those countries surrounding him. How soon we all forget that Saddam blatantly refused the mandatory UN bomb checks and the fact we gave him ample time to give in.


@ Forged, Kunich has 2 delegates.

 

[shutupandgoaway]

The first gulf war was justified, as Iraq had acted. The second was justified in my view, but we have screwed up royally there. We have broken three of the geneva conventions, we have killed more civilians than soldiers, and we have attacked it on no good sound military reason. I think saddams past crimes against the Kurds were sufficient reason to invade, as well as his violations of human rights, and i believe Bush did also, but he knew this could not get it past the senate. So, he( and his cabinet) fabricated WMD's and ties to Al quaeda. I have no problem with the initial invasion, but i have a problem with the lies and pretenses used for it, and the way it has been carried out.

 

[OMGLOLWTFPWN]

Originally posted by Lights
And had we not been attacked and these other countries not refused to help us out when retaliation was needed, it wouldnt have happened.

... by your logic 9/11 was justified. You say retaliation was needed because the states were attacked, but the US had been bombing Iraq for a very long time before 9/11. So, wouldn't that make it retaliation, which according to you, is the right thing to do after being attacked?

 

[Lights]

Originally posted by TreeFrog123
... by your logic 9/11 was justified. You say retaliation was needed because the states were attacked, but the US had been bombing Iraq for a very long time before 9/11. So, wouldn't that make it retaliation, which according to you, is the right thing to do after being attacked?

Iraq was not directly involved in the attacks on the WTC, thus disgruntling your analogy. If Iraq was involved directly, aside from harboring terrorists inside the country, the problem would be much different. We invaded Iraq because of Saddam, not 9/11. If you can recall, we retaliated against the terrorists by chasing the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

Looking back at my post, I did word it strangely, but I was referring to the lack of help against Terror, not against Iraq. Though we havent had much help with that either, but thats a different arguement.

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by shutupandgoaway
we have killed more civilians than soldiers,

Proof of that assertion please.

and we have attacked it on no good sound military reason.

North Korea anyone? A great example of a country, that left unchecked, can prove to be a clear and present danger. It's called preemptive war, and based on all intelligence, it was completely warranted.

but he knew this could not get it past the senate. So, he( and his cabinet) fabricated WMD's and ties to Al quaeda.

WoW, that's one hell of an assumption, you make conspiracy theorists proud! So Bush lied eh? Did Congress lie also? Did Tony Blair lie? Did President Aznar lie too? How about the entirety of the U.N. Security Council when they unanimously passed U.N. Resolution 1441? If Bush lied, then these people lied as well, since they saw exactly the same intelligence as did Bush and came to the same conclusions, Iraq had unaccounted WMD's. So which is it? Either they all lied, or they were all misled, but you can't have it both ways.