i just like posting one-liners <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So do I...
IF WE CUT THEIR HEADS OFF, THEY CAN'T WEAR HATS!
*Drums and Cymbal*
I'll be here all week.
I'm voting Bush. At first I thought I'd vote for someone else, but Kerry's platform is basically "I'm not Bush. Really.", and voting Nader is wasting a vote. I figure that since Bush started this "War on Terrorism", he has a plan to finish it. That or he's making up as he goes.
Unless of course I can convince enough people to vote Cthulhu.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
You know why Vietnam Service wasn't a issue in 2000?
Because Al Gore was truely coddled, his racist father, a congressmen at the time had his son become a combat photographer. But thats not only after having 2 BLACK soldiers as bodyguards.
What about Kerry's service in vietnam?
Lets cut the BS, no one goes to Paris to negociate with PRG (enemy) communists on how to end the war. Anyone with a fuctioning brain would know thats collaberation, he should of be prohibited from entering the united states after that.
John Kerry also has a FBI file, him and his group had the idea of assassinating pro war senators, but it was voted down due to the fact the FBI would of had them all arrested.
You want a Resume? Try being Bipartisan and look at both cadidate's for once.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
Wow! Without all the peopel pointing how much this thread sucks, it really wouldn't seem to suck that much! Funny how that works.
And to all people saying that this list is so rediculous that it doesn't even require a retort: you can go ahead and ignore what you find to be over the top, but this is what a lot of people believe, and if you don't take their ideas seriously enough to retort them, no matter how obviously wrong they may seem to you, the ideas will just keep spreading. And you don't want that, do you?
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Sep 24 2004, 06:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Sep 24 2004, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow! Without all the peopel pointing how much this thread sucks, it really wouldn't seem to suck that much! Funny how that works.
And to all people saying that this list is so rediculous that it doesn't even require a retort: you can go ahead and ignore what you find to be over the top, but this is what a lot of people believe, and if you don't take their ideas seriously enough to retort them, no matter how obviously wrong they may seem to you, the ideas will just keep spreading. And you don't want that, do you?
That having been said, Bush=tehsux <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If Bush Sux Kerry Swallows Vigorously.
Where have all the <s>cowboys</s> good candidates-we-used-to-have gone? I'm afraid that I was a Clinton fan. Can't help thinking reverse reaganomics worked for me.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 06:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 06:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Sep 24 2004, 06:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Sep 24 2004, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Agreed. And Nader films the whole thing. BOOYA! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> with funding from ross perot.
BA-DUMPSHHHH! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A political porno.....y'know that's not actually a half bad idea. I'd watch it.
I find it both hilarious and saddening how people keep screaming how accurate/inaccurate this list is, yet nobody offers anything in support/defense out of "oh well only idiots do/don't believe that".
While most of this list is common knowledge (if you payed attention you'll remember at least half of it, if not close to 70%), there are a few things I hadn't heard before that I would like to see where that information came from. Things such as the supposed links between Bush and the Enron folks, that sort of thing.
One point in the list that is obvious without needing a source is the statement as to how divided the country has become. If Bush wins the election I wouldn't be suprised at all if talk of seceeding from the union and/or civil war start up. People may think "oh that's nuts, it'll never happen" but it grows closer and closer to it with each passing day.
Of course it would be an incredibly short civil since only one side has planes, bombs, nukes, missles, etc...
<!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Sep 24 2004, 06:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Sep 24 2004, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Things such as the supposed links between Bush and the Enron folks, that sort of thing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Campaign funding as far as I know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One point in the list that is obvious without needing a source is the statement as to how divided the country has become. If Bush wins the election I wouldn't be suprised at all if talk of seceeding from the union and/or civil war start up. People may think "oh that's nuts, it'll never happen" but it grows closer and closer to it with each passing day.
Of course it would be an incredibly short civil since only one side has planes, bombs, nukes, missles, etc...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Seems too extreme. Very unlikely. If this is sarcasm, I'm sorry for not picking up on it, but you seemed kinda serious.
Seriously though, 90% of that is complete crap, the rest is debatable. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> sigh.
are we ever going to see the end of this "but he's not bush!" / "but he's not gore!" / "but he's not kerry!' crap?
as for the 90% crap, rest debatable - not only do you avoid giving an actual response, you don't provide any facts to back yourself up either.
soooo, anyone actually going to post any actual counters to the OP? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find it both hilarious and saddening how people keep screaming how accurate/inaccurate this list is, yet nobody offers anything in support/defense out of "oh well only idiots do/don't believe that". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it both hilarious and saddening how people keep screaming how accurate/inaccurate this list is, yet the truth is <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>that no one knows how to debate as the burden of proof is on the main poster, and the website supplied has no backing to it.</span>
Q.E.D.
My original point really still stands though,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I once went to a manure farm, but this piece of writing has more crap in it than that.
It is so laughable it's not even worth a discussion, but it is worth a
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold-NiTe+Sep 24 2004, 07:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold-NiTe @ Sep 24 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Sep 24 2004, 07:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Sep 24 2004, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So wait Bush didn't invade two countries? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Forlorn says no. So I guess not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If this website was the only news source we had access to, and it said that america invaded 2 countries, I wouldn't believe it.
But again, taking the sources seriously only occurs in a debate, or a discussion, of which this is not.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 24 2004, 07:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 24 2004, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold-NiTe+Sep 24 2004, 07:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold-NiTe @ Sep 24 2004, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Sep 24 2004, 07:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Sep 24 2004, 07:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So wait Bush didn't invade two countries? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Forlorn says no. So I guess not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If this website was the only news source we had access to, and it said that america invaded 2 countries, I wouldn't believe it.
But again, taking the sources seriously only occurs in a debate, or a discussion, of which this is not.
+1 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted, the website is pretty worthless. However, I'm thinking that we could easily find this information from more reliable sources. My guess is however that since you said the burden of proof is on him, you want him to look it up and prove it to us. Which I suppose is also sensible. But just because he is the one that has to prove it with a better more reliable website, and has yet to do so, doesn't mean that all of it is untrue, just that it remains unverified.
I have to agree with you on one point, I'm not going to look up and verify any of those points for him. However I don't believe that he will either, since he posted it in off topic for its comedic value rather than in discussion for an actual discussion on it. (Which, despite my absence from that place. I'm sure there has been one in there already).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course it would be an incredibly short civil since only one side has planes, bombs, nukes, missles, etc... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I don't know about that. The last civil war lasted 4 years and only one side had a military force at the start. Of course, large segments of the armed forces split and left the union to fight for the South (and interestingly a few Southerners went North to fight for the Union). I think that if there was a new secession occurance there is a possibility that the armed forces would split, but not as great a chance as in 1861. Mainly for the reason that since the Civil War the importance of the nation, not the state, has been paramount, and Americans today are more loyal to their nation, not their state. Prior to the Civil War, the reverse of this was true.
On the list itself, some of the stuff in there is common knowledge, some of it I havn't heard of. People claiming it's full of crap: put up or shut up. Prove it wrong, provide facts; don't just sit there saying "OMG ROFL TEH LEFTIE COMMIE HIPPIES ARE BRING DOWN SOCIETY". People claiming it's all true: the same to you. The site itself does not seem to provide links to support it's claims.
Man, its funny. When john tittor predicted a civil war would start in the next few years (from our perspective) back in 2000, everybody called him crazy....
Seriously, its just not even worth trying to convince people to vote for your candidate anymore. Bush supporters refuse to believe that Bush has done bad things in his life and gotten away with them because of daddy. Kerry supporters refuse to believe Kerry could be worse than Bush. Independants don't give a **** about either candidate since they are both freaking worthless. And, as was said earlier, third party votes are a waste. So much so in this election that the Green party is telling its followers in swing states to vote for Kerry just to keep bush out of office.
Now, if you were to ask me, I'd say that both Kerry and Bush should be put up against a wall and shot for treason because the USAPATRIOT ACT is the most unconcstitutional legislation ever written and both of them either voted for it, or didn't veto it. Man, if only Feingold had run for president...
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Sep 24 2004, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Sep 24 2004, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Out of curiosity, what reasons have persuaded you to be against Bush, or did you not like him since 2000?
Also you obviously don't like this "he's not Bush" stuff, so are you voting for Kerry for another reason, or not at all? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't like him in 2000 either. He's anti-equality for LGBT, he's managed to create an insane deficit, he's pushed for bills that are making it WORSE without fixes, gotten us into a war a great many of us did not want to be involved in, and in general just done things that make him look like a horrible leader (in particular I'm reminded of "marriage protection week", during which he attempted to promote protection of marriage by denying it to a group of people that don't have it in the first place).
(I'm being general, apologies - I don't feel like digging up for background, I'm just trying to answer the question).
I don't like the "he's not (insert politician here)" crap because it's not a real argument. It doesn't sway anyone one way or another or provide any useful information, it's just a pointless insult. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I really started to think that a LOT when I was watching Oprah the other day (<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->), and saw a segment about a 14 year old Iraqi kid, who sold out his father because he was part of one of the "lets shoot us some of them thar americans!" groups. His mother was killed because of it, too...and he didn't seem to have many regrets. He did it because he felt that the Americans were right in doing what they were doing, and that they were good people.
Now, if a child makes that kind of a decision, and says those kinds of things about a country (and people) who marched into his country to set things right...I don't see any way in hell that our war in Iraq could be deemed wrong. Simply becuase a non-english speaking child from Iraq is not swayed by the monstrous fountain of **** that is politics and current events, he speaks what is on his mind, and how he really feels.
That might have been slightly off-topic and probably has errors and inconsistancies here and there.
<!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Sep 24 2004, 09:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Sep 24 2004, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wow, Bush = 1337 in my book...
I really started to think that a LOT when I was watching Oprah the other day (<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->), and saw a segment about a 14 year old Iraqi kid, who sold out his father because he was part of one of the "lets shoot us some of them thar americans!" groups. His mother was killed because of it, too...and he didn't seem to have many regrets. He did it because he felt that the Americans were right in doing what they were doing, and that they were good people.
Now, if a child makes that kind of a decision, and says those kinds of things about a country (and people) who marched into his country to set things right...I don't see any way in hell that our war in Iraq could be deemed wrong. Simply becuase a non-english speaking child from Iraq is not swayed by the monstrous fountain of **** that is politics and current events, he speaks what is on his mind, and how he really feels.
That might have been slightly off-topic and probably has errors and inconsistancies here and there.
*edit* New signature. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You applaud a child selling out his family because they were doing what they thought was right. I don't think anyone needs to say anything to you.
No, selling out his bastard murderous father. That's what I applaud. His mother was murdered because of his choice though. Or maybe before...I just know he sold out his father, i'll have to go get the full story for you.
The kid saw the fault in what his father was doing. He drew the line when his father demanded (or invited, not sure which) him to join the little faction he was part of, to kill Americans. The kid saw, and knew, that the Americans were good people with good intentions in his country.
<!--QuoteBegin-dr.d+Sep 24 2004, 10:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Sep 24 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm sure the 20% of the civilian population left alive after the war is over will be really happy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right after they lower our gas prices and accept a new push-over government. (Not that the old one was good, but the new one most likely will have its own different kind of faults.)
Comments
i just like posting one-liners
i just like posting one-liners <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So do I...
IF WE CUT THEIR HEADS OFF, THEY CAN'T WEAR HATS!
*Drums and Cymbal*
I'll be here all week.
I'm voting Bush. At first I thought I'd vote for someone else, but Kerry's platform is basically "I'm not Bush. Really.", and voting Nader is wasting a vote. I figure that since Bush started this "War on Terrorism", he has a plan to finish it. That or he's making up as he goes.
Unless of course I can convince enough people to vote Cthulhu.
Because Al Gore was truely coddled, his racist father, a congressmen at the time had his son become a combat photographer. But thats not only after having 2 BLACK soldiers as bodyguards.
What about Kerry's service in vietnam?
Lets cut the BS, no one goes to Paris to negociate with PRG (enemy) communists on how to end the war. Anyone with a fuctioning brain would know thats collaberation, he should of be prohibited from entering the united states after that.
John Kerry also has a FBI file, him and his group had the idea of assassinating pro war senators, but it was voted down due to the fact the FBI would of had them all arrested.
You want a Resume? Try being Bipartisan and look at both cadidate's for once.
And to all people saying that this list is so rediculous that it doesn't even require a retort: you can go ahead and ignore what you find to be over the top, but this is what a lot of people believe, and if you don't take their ideas seriously enough to retort them, no matter how obviously wrong they may seem to you, the ideas will just keep spreading. And you don't want that, do you?
That having been said, Bush=tehsux
And to all people saying that this list is so rediculous that it doesn't even require a retort: you can go ahead and ignore what you find to be over the top, but this is what a lot of people believe, and if you don't take their ideas seriously enough to retort them, no matter how obviously wrong they may seem to you, the ideas will just keep spreading. And you don't want that, do you?
That having been said, Bush=tehsux <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Bush Sux Kerry Swallows Vigorously.
with funding from ross perot.
BA-DUMPSHHHH!
with funding from ross perot.
BA-DUMPSHHHH! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A political porno.....y'know that's not actually a half bad idea. I'd watch it.
But has it been done RIGHT?
While most of this list is common knowledge (if you payed attention you'll remember at least half of it, if not close to 70%), there are a few things I hadn't heard before that I would like to see where that information came from. Things such as the supposed links between Bush and the Enron folks, that sort of thing.
One point in the list that is obvious without needing a source is the statement as to how divided the country has become. If Bush wins the election I wouldn't be suprised at all if talk of seceeding from the union and/or civil war start up. People may think "oh that's nuts, it'll never happen" but it grows closer and closer to it with each passing day.
Of course it would be an incredibly short civil since only one side has planes, bombs, nukes, missles, etc...
Campaign funding as far as I know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One point in the list that is obvious without needing a source is the statement as to how divided the country has become. If Bush wins the election I wouldn't be suprised at all if talk of seceeding from the union and/or civil war start up. People may think "oh that's nuts, it'll never happen" but it grows closer and closer to it with each passing day.
Of course it would be an incredibly short civil since only one side has planes, bombs, nukes, missles, etc...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Seems too extreme. Very unlikely. If this is sarcasm, I'm sorry for not picking up on it, but you seemed kinda serious.
He wasn't Al Gore, that’s more then good enough. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Seriously though, 90% of that is complete crap, the rest is debatable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
sigh.
are we ever going to see the end of this "but he's not bush!" / "but he's not gore!" / "but he's not kerry!' crap?
as for the 90% crap, rest debatable - not only do you avoid giving an actual response, you don't provide any facts to back yourself up either.
soooo, anyone actually going to post any actual counters to the OP? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I find it both hilarious and saddening how people keep screaming how accurate/inaccurate this list is, yet nobody offers anything in support/defense out of "oh well only idiots do/don't believe that".
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find it both hilarious and saddening how people keep screaming how accurate/inaccurate this list is, yet the truth is <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>that no one knows how to debate as the burden of proof is on the main poster, and the website supplied has no backing to it.</span>
Q.E.D.
My original point really still stands though,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I once went to a manure farm, but this piece of writing has more crap in it than that.
It is so laughable it's not even worth a discussion, but it is worth a
+1<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
+1?
Forlorn says no. So I guess not.
Forlorn says no. So I guess not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this website was the only news source we had access to, and it said that america invaded 2 countries, I wouldn't believe it.
But again, taking the sources seriously only occurs in a debate, or a discussion, of which this is not.
+1
Forlorn says no. So I guess not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If this website was the only news source we had access to, and it said that america invaded 2 countries, I wouldn't believe it.
But again, taking the sources seriously only occurs in a debate, or a discussion, of which this is not.
+1 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted, the website is pretty worthless. However, I'm thinking that we could easily find this information from more reliable sources. My guess is however that since you said the burden of proof is on him, you want him to look it up and prove it to us. Which I suppose is also sensible. But just because he is the one that has to prove it with a better more reliable website, and has yet to do so, doesn't mean that all of it is untrue, just that it remains unverified.
I have to agree with you on one point, I'm not going to look up and verify any of those points for him. However I don't believe that he will either, since he posted it in off topic for its comedic value rather than in discussion for an actual discussion on it. (Which, despite my absence from that place. I'm sure there has been one in there already).
omg me 2
Of course it would be an incredibly short civil since only one side has planes, bombs, nukes, missles, etc...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh I don't know about that. The last civil war lasted 4 years and only one side had a military force at the start. Of course, large segments of the armed forces split and left the union to fight for the South (and interestingly a few Southerners went North to fight for the Union). I think that if there was a new secession occurance there is a possibility that the armed forces would split, but not as great a chance as in 1861. Mainly for the reason that since the Civil War the importance of the nation, not the state, has been paramount, and Americans today are more loyal to their nation, not their state. Prior to the Civil War, the reverse of this was true.
On the list itself, some of the stuff in there is common knowledge, some of it I havn't heard of. People claiming it's full of crap: put up or shut up. Prove it wrong, provide facts; don't just sit there saying "OMG ROFL TEH LEFTIE COMMIE HIPPIES ARE BRING DOWN SOCIETY". People claiming it's all true: the same to you. The site itself does not seem to provide links to support it's claims.
Seriously, its just not even worth trying to convince people to vote for your candidate anymore. Bush supporters refuse to believe that Bush has done bad things in his life and gotten away with them because of daddy. Kerry supporters refuse to believe Kerry could be worse than Bush. Independants don't give a **** about either candidate since they are both freaking worthless. And, as was said earlier, third party votes are a waste. So much so in this election that the Green party is telling its followers in swing states to vote for Kerry just to keep bush out of office.
Now, if you were to ask me, I'd say that both Kerry and Bush should be put up against a wall and shot for treason because the USAPATRIOT ACT is the most unconcstitutional legislation ever written and both of them either voted for it, or didn't veto it. Man, if only Feingold had run for president...
Also you obviously don't like this "he's not Bush" stuff, so are you voting for Kerry for another reason, or not at all? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't like him in 2000 either. He's anti-equality for LGBT, he's managed to create an insane deficit, he's pushed for bills that are making it WORSE without fixes, gotten us into a war a great many of us did not want to be involved in, and in general just done things that make him look like a horrible leader (in particular I'm reminded of "marriage protection week", during which he attempted to promote protection of marriage by denying it to a group of people that don't have it in the first place).
(I'm being general, apologies - I don't feel like digging up for background, I'm just trying to answer the question).
I don't like the "he's not (insert politician here)" crap because it's not a real argument. It doesn't sway anyone one way or another or provide any useful information, it's just a pointless insult. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I really started to think that a LOT when I was watching Oprah the other day (<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->), and saw a segment about a 14 year old Iraqi kid, who sold out his father because he was part of one of the "lets shoot us some of them thar americans!" groups. His mother was killed because of it, too...and he didn't seem to have many regrets. He did it because he felt that the Americans were right in doing what they were doing, and that they were good people.
Now, if a child makes that kind of a decision, and says those kinds of things about a country (and people) who marched into his country to set things right...I don't see any way in hell that our war in Iraq could be deemed wrong. Simply becuase a non-english speaking child from Iraq is not swayed by the monstrous fountain of **** that is politics and current events, he speaks what is on his mind, and how he really feels.
That might have been slightly off-topic and probably has errors and inconsistancies here and there.
*edit* New signature.
I really started to think that a LOT when I was watching Oprah the other day (<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->), and saw a segment about a 14 year old Iraqi kid, who sold out his father because he was part of one of the "lets shoot us some of them thar americans!" groups. His mother was killed because of it, too...and he didn't seem to have many regrets. He did it because he felt that the Americans were right in doing what they were doing, and that they were good people.
Now, if a child makes that kind of a decision, and says those kinds of things about a country (and people) who marched into his country to set things right...I don't see any way in hell that our war in Iraq could be deemed wrong. Simply becuase a non-english speaking child from Iraq is not swayed by the monstrous fountain of **** that is politics and current events, he speaks what is on his mind, and how he really feels.
That might have been slightly off-topic and probably has errors and inconsistancies here and there.
*edit* New signature. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You applaud a child selling out his family because they were doing what they thought was right. I don't think anyone needs to say anything to you.
The kid saw the fault in what his father was doing. He drew the line when his father demanded (or invited, not sure which) him to join the little faction he was part of, to kill Americans. The kid saw, and knew, that the Americans were good people with good intentions in his country.
Right after they lower our gas prices and accept a new push-over government. (Not that the old one was good, but the new one most likely will have its own different kind of faults.)