I really don't understand about Kerry... - Page 4

TCO · January 23, 2004, 20:46

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

I was looking for work 8+ hours a day. I got a job before my unemployment ran out (though I did need an extention). Towards the end we were planning on moving to what we hoped would be a better job market.

bullshit.

Ned · January 23, 2004, 20:49

Spiffor, but the burden of proof (UNSC 1441) was on Saddam to account for WMD and precusor materials that he admitted having.

chequita guevara · January 24, 2004, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by TCO

bullshit.

**** you!

Sava · January 24, 2004, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
How did he end up winning in Iowa? Dean was touted as being the most Bush hating, ultra left boy on the block. Kerry on the other hand served in the military, supported the war? -Not sure about this. Anyway he's more centrist than Dean. Dean only took 3rd! So is the democratic party more centrist than supposed?

Also, Edwards seems to me like a guy that could run well against Bush, (win?) so is he on the democratic left or center? Where does he stand on Iraq? What are his chances of getting the nomination?

Kerry's voting record and policies are more "liberal" than Deans.

The dopes in America who believe what the media tells them think Dean is more "liberal".

plus, I think the pundits were completely wrong about Dean being the front-runner. They relied on polls where more than 30% of the people were undecided. When people finally decided, they mostly went with Kerry or Edwards. Plus, Kucinich supporters went with Edwards via a deal DK made with JE. Dean has a hardcore group of supporters... probably about 16-18% of Democrats... but these people are mostly newcomers and people who like Dean's anti-establishment campaign. It's not necessarily about being "ultra-left" as it is about not liking Washington politicians. But most Americans are status quo types and go with establishment candidates. I'm not surprised too much about Kerry's win in Iowa.

Sava · January 24, 2004, 13:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, but the burden of proof (UNSC 1441) was on Saddam to account for WMD and precusor materials that he admitted having.

so big deal? I did a thread reporting how the US is violating numerous resolutions regarding the use of Depleted Uranium... should the world attack the US for violating resolutions?

1441 is just another lame excuse...

DinoDoc · January 24, 2004, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
so big deal? I did a thread reporting how the US is violating numerous resolutions regarding the use of Depleted Uranium... should the world attack the US for violating resolutions?

No one cares at all about resolutions that don't come out of the UNSC. I thought we established that already in your troll on the subject.

Sava · January 24, 2004, 13:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No one cares at all about resolutions that don't come out of the UNSC. I thought we established that already in your troll on the subject.

you are right, which is sad, nobody cares about the utter stupidity and hypocrisy in our country...

DinoDoc · January 24, 2004, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
you are right, which is sad, nobody cares about the utter stupidity and hypocrisy in our country...

That's not it at all. No one cares at all about things that lack even the pretense of being binding on anyone. Why should they?

Sava · January 24, 2004, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's not it at all. No one cares at all about things that lack even the pretense of being binding on anyone. Why should they?

actually, that is it... nobody cares that the world community imposes silly and inane resolutions on one country, then the US, uses said violation as a pretext to war... and in the process goes against the world communities' wishes and invades while violating resolutions in the process.

It is hypocrisy... and it is really quite pathetic that dopey hawks use the UN resolution in their argument for war, while then calling the UN "irrelevant"... and citing the US doesn't need the world's permission to unjustly invade another nation.

So which is it? Does the UN matter? Either it does or doesn't. Dopey hawks and conservatives can't have it both ways.

DinoDoc · January 24, 2004, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
actually, that is it... nobody cares that the world community imposes silly and inane resolutions on one country,

Those came down from the UNSC and had the needed pretense of binding authority. Hence people cared. So you're wrong off the bat. Really if you can not make the trolls harder to disprove it ceases to be entertaining.

Sava · January 24, 2004, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Those came down from the UNSC and had the needed pretense of binding authority. Hence people cared. So you're wrong off the bat. Really if you can not make the trolls harder to disprove it ceases to be entertaining.

makes no difference, they are both UN resolutions...

plus it's great that you can only insult me because you have no sound points to make... my arguments are based with fact and logic... your sole argument is "BLLAAHHHH SAVA IS A TROLL"

it's really sad that you lose debates to the likes of me

DinoDoc · January 24, 2004, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
it's really sad that you lose debates to the likes of me

We're debating? I thought we were threadjacking. I still haven't seen the facts and logic you speak of.

Lancer · January 24, 2004, 14:18

Thanks for the replies. I was reading and thinking of my replies them, but they got to be so many that I've condensed it down to 'oh, huh'.

Sava · January 24, 2004, 14:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We're debating? I thought we were threadjacking. I still haven't seen the facts and logic you speak of.

about threadjacking

re:facts... I'm referring to my other thread about the hypocrisy of the whole UN excuse for pro-war. Go there and attempt to debate me about that subject.
[/end threadjack]

Spiffor · January 24, 2004, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, but the burden of proof (UNSC 1441) was on Saddam to account for WMD and precusor materials that he admitted having.

Yes, but there was no indication whatsoever that he intended to use them against the US.

I'll tell you what: France has Wommdies, and is perfectly able to have all your major cities glow in the dark. Does it make France an immediate danger to your country? Nope, simply because we don't intend to use them on you.

Same goes for Iraq: even if Iraq had wommdies, there was no indication whatsoever it intended to use them against the US. The "immediate threat" crap was pure propaganda.

Lancer · January 24, 2004, 16:12

"I'll tell you what: France has Wommdies, and is perfectly able to have all your major cities glow in the dark. Does it make France an immediate danger to your country? Nope, simply because we don't intend to use them on you."

Good, we can get in the first strike.

Ned · January 24, 2004, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

Yes, but there was no indication whatsoever that he intended to use them against the US.

What does this have to do with whether he was complying with UNSC resolutions?

tcb221 · January 25, 2004, 00:01

Actually, the US political spectrum in the right center Republicans, the leftist/socialist Dems and the ULTRA LEFT NUTCASE greens.

Guynemer · January 25, 2004, 00:03

tcb221 · January 25, 2004, 00:14

The tax cuts are what (along with the historically low interest rates) that have given the US an 8% growth rate.

The shortfalls are because of the recession (Thank you MR Greenspan) and the highest federal tax burden in US History (Thank you MR Clinton).
Add in the 150 billion shelled out in moronic spending from 9-11 by politicians that wanted to feel warm and fuzzy and bail out the airlines from law-suits because the airlines refused to increase security over the years.

The lack of new jobs is because the US is profoundly incapable of negotiating a trade treaty that actually works for the US instead of everyone else.

We have actually created tax code that benefits companies that move operations outside the US!

If you take out the adding money spent on security, well spent or otherwise, the US budget is really fairly well off.

The trick now is to REDUCE spending on pork.

I held my noise when I voted for Bush and I will again.

tcb221 · January 25, 2004, 00:19

Guynemer

How are things in the Peoples Republic of Ann Arbor?

LOL

Guynemer · January 25, 2004, 00:24

Just ****ing spiffy. Where exactly are you, Near Detroit?

chequita guevara · January 25, 2004, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by tcb221
The tax cuts are what (along with the historically low interest rates) that have given the US an 8% growth rate.

Actually, it was the child tax credits, and the 8% spurt only lasted one quarter. It doesn't seem to have done much for the Xmas season, and new job offers aren't up either. Unemployment is down, but only because people are reaching the end of their payments without finding work. According to what I've read, for most of us, what tax cuts we've received will be lost because of the alternative minimum tax. I'll know in a little over a week how this is gonna affect me.