PDA

View Full Version : John who? whos John Kerry????


[PDM]PartyMarty
03-26-2004, 12:06 AM
LOL.... Did anyone here what John Kerry said? He said that America needs a faithful leader. Ummmm last time I checked he has flipped and flopped on both wars in Iraq and multiple other things involving things with our nation. so who is he to say that? Last time i checked when u change your mind after telling people one thing and then u go do it is not being to faithful, isnt that misleading?

gordanfreman
03-26-2004, 11:31 AM
misleading possibly, but it is also a possibility that he changed his mind. that is allowed you know-just because a politician changed their view on something due to new circumstances does not necissarily make them a bad leader. i would rather have a leader who can adapt to the changing times by changing their policies than one who sticks to the same plan even if when it does not work.

[PDM]PartyMarty
03-26-2004, 12:50 PM
that is true, but you can not go back and forth on something you stand for then think oh wait no i dont then go back. When people are like out of politics they are thought of as week minded and cant hold a position on something. My question is to you would you rather have a leader that fliped floped on issues that he campaned on and did the opposit on? Im pretty sure you wouldnt.

gordanfreman
03-26-2004, 06:05 PM
I agree i would rather have a leader that can stick to something, but you have to allow them to change their plan if it goes wrong. if you dont, you get things like bush's economy :p

[PDM]PartyMarty
03-28-2004, 12:33 AM
id say something back but im not going to, if u actualy did know me like phildo and stiltz do id keep argueing but im not going to b/c i dont think its worth it and what i have to say back to you is pretty bad. But i am going to say that This Economic problem isnt because of Pres. Bush, The economy started to slump back in late 99 early 00 when manufacturing and GDP started to tumble.... Oh wait lets see who was President then Hummm Clinton, and the only reason the economy did as well is it did was because of Reagan and Bush Sr.. Plus most people are stupid and think we can always have a gane buster economy, but u cant have your ups without your downs, If most people would take an Economics class people would understand that. The best way to bost an economy is to BUY BUY BUY, every penny you spend adds up to the GDP.

nova
03-28-2004, 08:04 AM
**** liberals!

gordanfreman
03-28-2004, 06:47 PM
i understand that the economy has up and downs, this was worse than some standard slump in the economy. we had the highest unemployment rate since the great depression. and after 4 years we have a $1 trillion dollar defecit.

and tell me again how his trickle down effect economics are helping :confused:

[PDM]PartyMarty
03-29-2004, 01:06 PM
You stupid liberal. If it wasnt for Bush and his tax cuts it would have been a repeat of the great depression. and i think its funny when people were complaning about the tax cuts they didnt help the poor but only the richest of the rich, seams to me everyone shut up after they got there money. i made about the same as i did the year b4 and got more money back this past year then they year before, Thank you Pres. Bush. Vote Republican in '04, and how long did we have high unemplyment after the great depression? seams to me longer then 2 years. And you cant blame any of the unemployment on 9/11, and its sickening that so many people have forgot about it already.

gordanfreman
03-29-2004, 02:29 PM
the way our economy was running before the great depression had alot to do with why/how and for how long the depression effected the country (and world for that matter). economists have learned from those mistakes in order to help keep anything like that from happening again. that would partially explain why the unemployment and economic problems did not last nearly a decade.

and i wont try to blame the depression on 9/11. but i would like to blame the current administration for helping the public forget about it. bush tends to mention it when it fits his purpose. as of right now he lead us into an illegal war (im not saying it was a bad thing deposing sadam, but this will only further the middle east's hatred of the US, and we decided to bypass the UN and p/o half of our allies) that had no proven connection to 9/11 chasing some WMD's that have yet to be found. meanwhile we do not seem any closer to catching the perpetrator of 9/11 than we were on the day after the attack. and if we ever do catch osama, what then? history tells us that someone else will only rise up in his place, and will likely be even more dangerous.

[PDM]PartyMarty
03-29-2004, 07:23 PM
I agree with you on that one [PDM] nova liberals do suck they take from the poor take from the middle class and give to the lazy. Maybe what are country needs are for the lazy people that need jobs to get off there asses, and there are jobs out there, the only reason people won’t take them is because they don’t want a pay cut from what they were making at there old job. And dude we were never in a depression, it was a recession 2 different things. Also like 8-10 Iraqis think it was great that we got rid of sadam for them, and im pretty sure when we fought Germany in WWII it took longer then a year to rebuild the country. Don’t you think its kind of weird that Germany, France, and Russia all contracts with Iraq? How many terror plots do you think we have foiled since 9/11 probably quite a few? Oh back in the Clinton administration the stupid man could have got bin lauden on a silver platter.

oh and by the way i was just watchiung FOX NEWS and they have Henry Kisenger on and in 1998 during the clinton admin. a resolutions was passed in the congeress that getting rid of saddam was to be part of are nations agenda, back in 1998 thats five years befor bush followed threw with it Go Bush.


please use the "edit" button so as to not post twice in a row

gordanfreman
03-30-2004, 12:28 AM
of course it took longer than a year to rebuild germany/europe after WW2. the whole continent was practically bombed to all hell after war. cities were piles of rubble. this is slightly different. nor do i believe that a country can be totally rebuilt within a year after a regime change. it should and will most likely take years. as for us foiling terror plots, sure we may have stopped a few minor ones, but NOTHING NEAR 9/11 scale or we would have seen news about it plastered all over the place. what better way to get the public to support bush's extremely questionable 'patriot act' than to prove that the gov't has been able to foil a terrorist attack.

as for those other countries having contracts w/ iraq i wont deny it... but then i could also state the strong connection between the bush administration and oil... something the middle east is very full of.

and i am still waiting for justification of the war that has plunged our country into this humongous deficit...

[PDM]PartyMarty
03-30-2004, 01:24 PM
were only told about the minor ones for the fact that there would be mass hysteria if the public did know about any of the plots that were foiled. what would it look like if the gov. told everyone after every time they stopped one and then they strike? that wouldn't look good would it now? and people would stop believing in the government. and i don't see to much wrong with the patriot act unless your doing something to spark the feds to watch over you, like doing something illegal, and name one war that hasn't made a deficit? Oh and by the way if it wasn't for Johnson we wouldn't of been in Vietnam, some place we shouldn't have been. and how was that justified? a supposed warning shot at a destroyer where it shouldn't have been? And the UN even found weapons that Iraq wasn't suppose to have. for ex. the remote plane, them missiles.

gordanfreman
03-30-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by [PDM]PartyMarty
that wouldn't look good would it now? and people would stop believing in the government.

too late :rolleyes:

as for the feds watching over you... sure i would not mind big brother peering over my shoulder all the time... if i lived in communist russia or nazi germany :o

i agree that the gov't should be able to watch over its' citizens somewhat, but the holocaust started with ***s being forced to register so that the gov't could track them. not saying anything like that will happen from this, but what does come next when the gov't is now able to do basically whatever they want because they have a hunch we may have something to do with some terrorist cell :rolleyes: personally i prefer my personal freedoms thankyouverymuch.

[PDM]PartyMarty
03-30-2004, 09:08 PM
umm what do you call a wire tap on your phone line and a majorady of the previouse laws already on the books that are included in the patrot act? and a question for you would you rather have the freedoms you have now or would u like to live in Israel, and live with the notion in your mind that u could die any time you go to the market, ride the bus, or just go to a cafe? im guessing your freedoms you have now. I dont care that iam being looked over by big brother. how do you stop a would be terroist with a hunch? The Patriot Act. Oh and gordanfreman you may want to read up on your history of the holocaust

gordanfreman
03-31-2004, 04:14 PM
i never said i would rather live in israel. but how about nearly anywhere in europe. or canada. or australia. as for those laws that were already on the books, sure they already exist, but they need a warrant to do things like that. the patriot act just require that the gov't have some hunch on you. somehow i have a feeling that they could pass alot of things on a hunch of being somehow connected to some terrorist cell. terrorist cells are everywhere. and for some reason our great war on terrorism seems to be focusing soley on those from the middle east.

[PDM]PartyMarty
03-31-2004, 07:38 PM
hummm there could be a reason for that. where have 90% of the teroists come from? you guessed it the middle east. all the big terroirst actions have involved people form the middle east

gordanfreman
04-03-2004, 11:33 AM
as the self proclaimed 'protector of the free world' shouldnt our all encompassing war on terrorism include those in spain, ireland, central america etc etc etc

there are terror groups all over the world. there are groups here in the US even. just because they havent hijacked airplanes and flew them into landmark buildings yet doesnt mean they dont have the capability to in the future...

[PDM]PartyMarty
04-03-2004, 08:00 PM
And we are not the self proclaimed protector of the free world I believe the UN gave us that role to play. Ireland’s war has been going on with the Catholics and the Protestants for generations. We told Spain it was going to happen, and gee I wonder why we have the Patriot Act, to look at what the suspected terrorists here are up to. and of course your not going to stop every terroist act thats going to happen, but it is reinsuring to know that we have are service men and women protecting the LAND OF THE FREE, and taking the battle to them.

The best defense is a good Offense