More Kerry Issue Flip Flopping

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » July 6th, 2004, 2:26 am

John Kerry wrote:“I oppose abortion, personally,” he told the newspaper. “I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

That quote comes from the following link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5365307/

It's about 2/3 the way down the page.

Ending his three-day push to court rural voters in the heartland [of Iowa], Kerry continued to stress his “conservative values” as he sought to connect with the GOP-leaning bloc. He stressed his personal position on abortion in an interview published Sunday in The Telegraph Herald in Dubuque.

Stephanie Cutter, a Kerry spokeswoman wrote:“He’s always said he doesn’t believe in abortion, but these are his convictions that he can’t enforce on others,” said Stephanie Cutter, a Kerry spokeswoman. “He’s pro-choice and believes that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.”

That is all on the same page. This is how Kerry presents himself, he says what his audience wants to hear, whether he agrees with it or not.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » July 6th, 2004, 3:03 am

Kerry is a faliure he dosen't know what to do

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 20th, 2004, 3:40 am

Just because he believes it is wrong personally doesn't mean he has the right to make his personal opinion law. There is no flip-flop, as you say, he is defending personal choice and less government restriction.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 20th, 2004, 8:57 pm

Ok, he personally is against it but he wouldn't legislate it upon people who are not against it personally. Fine, except he has to explain now why he is personally against murder but would legislate it upon people who weren't necessarily against murder.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 20th, 2004, 11:37 pm

He's agianst abortion, but yet pulls out some plans that are even more liberal then Ted Kennedy.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 21st, 2004, 12:17 am

Kerry's stance on Abortion is that choice is a personal option, not a government one. He's against Abortion, that doesn;t mean he has the right to stop it from happening. Abortion is an issue where choice and morality collide, which makes it sucha tough issue. Kerry, supports choice, and leaves out the issue of morality.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 21st, 2004, 2:38 am

Abortion:
- Kills a human being

Murder:
- Kills a human being

What makes abortion legal, then? What does Kerry say to what I said earlier?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » August 21st, 2004, 2:59 am

Kerry says, "Abortion is good." (Waving his hand over the crowd.)
He used "The Force."

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 21st, 2004, 3:35 am

This is how Kerry is "I"m on your side Pope, but due to the duties of my party not my personal position I have to vote for pro choice"
what i just said is bs but just a thought

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » August 21st, 2004, 3:40 am

Everyone needs enjoyment sometimes. Thanks The_Man.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 21st, 2004, 4:53 am

Sigh, man I'm outnumbered on this board. I can only fight one battle at a time.

aishel · Post by **aishel** » August 29th, 2004, 6:02 am

Kerry's Flip-Flop Olympics

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 29th, 2004, 11:55 pm

Funny, but it's shit. lol please don't make me post any liberal stuff liek that, some people don't have my sense of humor.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 30th, 2004, 12:43 am

Its funny, but Kerry actually did that stuff. (correct me if i'm wrong)

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 30th, 2004, 8:38 pm

I don't have the time to debunk each and every one of those votes, but off the top of my head I know that the 'bipartisan' no child left behind act is a horrible piece of legislation that has damaged the school system. The thing about politics is that issues often lay upon broad subjects, and that the ground fought for on each side can spin any motion made by the opposite side to be evil and wrong. If you believe the absolute shit they post on GeorgeWBush.com or JohnKerry.com than you are an ignorant fool who drowns himself in the lies of party propaganda.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 30th, 2004, 9:02 pm

Suvorov wrote:If you believe the absolute shit they post on GeorgeWBush.com or JohnKerry.com than you are an ignorant fool who drowns himself in the lies of party propaganda.

Same goes for people who believe everything they hear on Internet News Sites and TV.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 30th, 2004, 9:56 pm

You're right, Smartweb, you're right. The media today, as well as the people, are sharply divided into those 2 groups, each willing to spin any and every move made by the other side into something evil. The truth lies somewhere not between the two, but beyond them, in the realm of facts. Facts and numbers are not on the side of Bush. With less popular votes making him president, 12,000 civilian deaths in Iraq (Not to mention the 900 or so Dead American Soldiers), a massive budget deficit, 2 million jobs gone, a 13 billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton.... I'm done listing numbers, though they go on and on.

What about Flip-Flops, eh? Those nasty little changes of mind Kerry experienced, like most of the US, upon realising that the President lied about Iraq and WMD's? Eh? Is that the worst the republicans spin doctors can come up with? Here's a little list of my own. President Bush's Flip-Flops: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp ... VF&b=42263

Compassionate Conservatism doesn't needlessly slaughter 12,000 civilians.

But hey, we all make mistakes, right? I can't even believe that I would have voted for Bush in the 2000 election (Were I not 14 years old at the time), but back then I actually bought the party's lies. Shit, I didn't even care about politics back then. Look at me now - No - look at America now. This the price the world pays for our ignorance, for our naive belief that the leaders of the civilized world have the welfare of the people in mind. Yes, I would have voted for him then, I would have voted for the man who destroyed the image of America not only in the minds of the world, but in my mind as well. What fools we were, and what fools we will continue to be if we allow him to remain in office.

Now I challenge you, all of you here, as voters and as Americans, to actually look at the world, at Bush, and at yourselves. Defend him here, please, defend him here - place your beliefs here so that I may try to wash them away with the cleansing water of truth and reason. I will not be able to vote at the next election, so my duty to America, the country that I love, is to change your minds so that you may vote in the way you KNOW is correct.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 30th, 2004, 10:35 pm

You give these numbers, and numbers do not lie, but they do spin.

Less popular votes for president -- yes, but is that Bush's fault. Why are you using that as a basic for an argument against him? It is irrelevant.
12,000 civilians killed in Iraq -- It sounds bad, but a comparable number would have died had we not invaded anyway. Don't say this number till you give the number of Iraq civilians that were killed by Saddam's regime. This is a prime example of how the media sneaks propaganda into what you hear. Do you best to ask for the facts and all the facts.
900 American Solidiers dead -- They all volunteered to join the military, all understood the possible consequences. We respect them and will remember them giving their lives to protect our freedom.

We have been through a recession (caused by Clinton's economic policies), the worst terrorist attacks on our soil ever (cause by both Clinton's failure to do anything about Al Quaida and Bush's not doing anything in the few months he had before the attacks), and a war (caused by faulty intelligence), but still the economy is still growing. There are two less brutal regimes in the Middle East. If you believe that the world is better off with the Taliban suppressing the people of Afghanistan and with Saddam Hussein and his sons using chemical weapons on their own people, say so now. The media has misled the nation, not President Bush. Bush lead the American people through the 9/11 attacks, and he had an 88% approval rating at the time. The media has used the Iraq was as a battleground for their own war. The New York Times ran over 40 consecutive front page stories about the Abu-Graib prisoner abuse, blaming the Bush Administration. When you listen to the news, do you want some far left people's opinion or the balanced facts.

If a story that you have something to do with has ever been covered by some news medium before, you know how much the facts get slanted or changed. Imagine how it is when you have a vastly liberal news media against Bush. The media is clearly misleading the country. If you submit to them, you give up your right to dissent and have become their zombies.

Suvorov, you tell the American people to look at the world around them, and then to look at Bush. When they do that, will they not be doing so through the eye of the media? I'll alter that advice. Look at the world through the eye of the media, but think of all places in that vision where there could be slants. Then look to other news sources and see if those things are reported differently. If you have been submitting yourself to the media for the past four years, look again at the world and where we have come. Look at where we are going, where we would be going with Bush four more years, and then where we would be going with Kerry for four years. There is no harm in making sure that you opinion is as correct as possible. You would be plain dumb to not knowing that the media has used its propaganda to convince you that Bush is a liar.

I will not tell you who to vote for, I will just say to follow Suvorov's advice to look once more at the world around you and think about the past four years, but when you do so, make sure you get a true picture of the world and not one painted by the media.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 30th, 2004, 11:35 pm

The way President Bush came to office not only shows the honor of the man and the way he 'represents' the people, but the manipulative party that gave leadership to him. It is not "irrelevant" that the popular opinion of the United States of America be ignored by the representative government that is supposed to serve them. Don't insult Democracy and the constitution by ignoring such an egregious misuse of power.

So the lives of these 12,000 were gone anyway, eh? The lives of 12,000 people were just waiting to be takien, why not use our weapons? Is that your question? My god, do you actually believe that? I don't know how many Saddam would have killed, frankly, that is not the business of the United States of America, that is the business of the Iraqis. There are countries all over the Earth that are routinely subject to a madman's ideas, as I have said earlier, and there are many nations that routinely execute and torture as many or even more people than Saddam. Don't preach moral righteousness of America's battle when Abu Ghraib prison is in use in the same way it was before this war.

If the 964+ people who died in Iraq died for Iraqis then they died for a people who hate them. If they died for the United States of America they died for an Administration who misled them for personal gain. If they died for Bush they died for a man who knows nothing of war or soldiers. Just like Vietnam, this battle was not theirs to fight.

I have never seen any evidence of Clinton's economic policies doing anything but lifting the burden of deficit from America's back. 9/11 was not, as you say, "caused" by Clinton or Bush. Bush enacted military operations on the Taliban, as ANY president would have done in the aftermath of those terrible attacks.

The Iraq War was not caused by faulty intelligence, as though the intelligence, faulty as it was, proceeded to present itself to America of it's own volition and ordered the fist bombs upon the people of Baghdad. It was pushed, blindly or not, by the administration who had been 'building' a case against Iraq since the moment it entered office. It was produced by administration lackeys to the US Congress in a little vial of Anthrax-like dust that was no more real than the 'chemical labs' that appeared on blurry satellite imagery. No, President Bush ordered those bombs.

And since when was Abu Ghraib a 'far-left' issue? It is a basic, terrible lack of humane thought by the policy makers in the Pentagon that allowed it to happen. 40 Front page articles does little to make up for the line the Bush Administration crossed when it allowed the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution to be circumvented in the name of security. Those who would give a little freedom for a little security deserve neither, said Benjamin Franklin.

Is the World better off now than when Bush entered office? Hell no. My god no. Not even because of 9/11, but because of the path our nation has taken. We have moved backward morally, economically, politically and internationally toward a state where war is conducted on the whim of a single man and the information given to the people has no bearing on reality. Iraq has tumbled into chaos, the United Nations now is united against the US, Afghanistan is without proper military support because of Iraq, North Korea now feels, with US troops leaving South Korea, that it has less restrictions on it's nuclear program, Arab people as a whole now feel far more resentment against the US, and billions of dollars we don't have are leaving our nation to fund a war that wasn't ours. Is this better, in any way beyond those lofty, existential goals reached only in the minds of Fox News commentators and Bush sponsored Advertisements, than the stable world we gave away in 2000?

I don't need the media to tell me Bush is a liar, I remember his campaign slogan: Compassionate Conservative. What is compassionate about unbridaled, unprovoked war? Bush argues for Pro-Life as he orders bombs to be dropped across a dense metropolis. Bush argues against nation-building before he is elected, yet justifies his war as building a better Iraq. Integrity is something Bush knows nothing of.

What am I to believe, if not media? I do not rely on a single source nor do I rely on a single political spectrum for my opinions. I examine the differences, the things that are left out or over-exposed, and develop my own opinion. If you subscribe to the tripe the government issues on it's policies, if you watch the Republican (Or Democratic) Conventions and say "This is the world, this is reality", than you are a tool of propaganda.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 30th, 2004, 11:53 pm

On the 12,000 Iraqis that died, the americans aren't at fault for why they died, its the terroist trying to kill the americans who don't care about how many Iraqis they kill in the process. That is how i understand it (i may be wrong)

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 30th, 2004, 11:57 pm

Conflict in Iraq is the result of American Occupation, and the majority of those 12,000 come from the might of the US Army being unleashed upon an urban center. You cannot blame an enemy for not lyng down and accepting an occupation, nor can you blame either military for casualties during war. But when the conflict had no real reason, when it is pre-emptive war, it is our fault for beginning that conflict. We are responsible for those people, the blood is on the hands of the people who allowed it to happen.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » August 30th, 2004, 11:58 pm

You say the Bush administration is not "Pro-Life" when 12,000 Iraqi civilians die, but that many babies are aborted every week in America. The number of civilians killed by Saddam Hussein was in the six digits, and you are blaming Bush for the deaths of 12,000 Iraqi civilians.

Most of the Iraqis love the Bush administration, as you woudl have seen if you'd have watched the people in Baghdad the day coalition forces moved into Baghdad in 2003. You have clearly been watching liberal news and think of the average Iraqi as being an anti-American terrorist.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 31st, 2004, 12:31 am

Smartweb man we are moving into the realm of fantasy here. Please check your information before saying 12,000 Abortions occur each week. That's a falsity and you know it. As I said before Saddam may have killed many, but they were killed by Saddam's army and not by ours. If the conditions were the same or worse when Saddam was in power then why wasn't the sheik al-sadr killing Republican Guard members in Najaf or Fallujah? The conditions brought about by the US war are far worse than any the nation has ever seen.

I am not only blaming Bush, but America (Including myself and you) for allowing this to happen in our names and in the name of our great nation. Each man, women and child that dies there dies because of us, because of our war and our President. As the man who controls the US's armed forces (Without needing the consent of Congress), President Bush is most responsible for allowing the illusion of threat (Whether he propagated that or not) to bring this nation to war.

Most of the Iraqis love the Iraq administration? Are you serious? Do you believe the young men who ran to destory the image of Saddam as our troops stormed into Baghdad still believe that the USA is their friend? American tanks roll down their streets, US forces return fire in crowded city streets. Iraqis don't see the US occupation as necessary anymore, they see it as the cause of the destruction around them. Do you blame them? A soldier described Najaf as Dresden, Germany, but with less fire. The US Military is a broadsword, yet we ask it to be a scalpel in Iraq, to remove the insurgents like some malignant cancer. The iraqis want peace, yet our presence brings only war and death, so, no, I don't think they still love Bush. Like the Viet Cong before them, the Iraqi's are led to believe that fighting the US will make them leave, as we did in Vietnam. It's called a quagmire, and we're neck deep in it.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » August 31st, 2004, 12:41 am

This is yours and smartweb's fight, just a quick statement though, Could the reason why Iraqis don't think America is not a necessity anymore because they are not educated and know not what we are trying to do. America trying to create a good for them, they just not educated enough to realize it. Also u had mentioned that we are teh cause of destruction, yes we are,but its the terroist who are causing us to fire back, its the terroist that are preventing Iraq from running itself, do Iraqi's really understand this? Reply if u want just a quick statement

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » August 31st, 2004, 12:53 am

Your opinion is as welcome as anyone's. I don't think it takes higher education to know the environment around you. Lofty goals and righteous speeches mean little when small arms fire is being traded at your doorstep and on your streets. People see this conflict as America fighting in their country against their people, which is exactly what is happening. Yes, it is the terrorists (Insurgents is more correct, I think, as the majority of the soldiers are recruited from within Iraq by muslim sheiks and foreign terrorists) who are provoking the might of the US military. I don't blame the iraqi's for believing, in the environment they live in, that the US is at fault for the conflict in their streets. This comes from provincial thought, muslim propaganda and the fact that the tanks rolling through their streets bear the US Flag on their armor. I think the misunderstanding on our side far outweighs the misunderstanding on theirs. While they look out onto a world of terror, fear and violence - we see only pixelated images on CNN and Fox News. Who is the terrorist, to them?

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 3rd, 2004, 3:42 am

Bush's speech tonite has left me speechless - I cannot believe Bush would so blithely connect Iraq and Afghanistan as a solitary conflict, almost as though each were fought for the same reason. Do Republicans believe this? Does anyone still believe that there are any connections between Militant, Secular Iraq (Who never attacked us) and fuedal, radical Afghanistan (Who harbored the man responsible for actually attacking us)? It is a shame these two nations lie relatively close together, had they not, the average American might realize that the tripe coming from that man's mouth has no bearing on reality. The man never discusses Iraq and Afghanistan on their own, as seperate conflicts, because there is no justification for the former.

-Afghanistan was a valiant war, a war fought out of revenge and vigilance. Our soldiers fought not for the liberty of another people, but for our continued enjoyment of it.

-Iraq was fought for fear, for ignorance, and for personal gain. People, whose fear was capitalized upon by an administration bent on personal gain and family vendettas, were convinced into believing that Iraq was an immediate threat to America. In post 9/11 America, anything was possible, right? Wasn't the color-code orange then? We had to do something, so we blindly followed. Iraq was annihilated for doing nothing to the United States, and while it was led by a madman, so are dozens of other nations, some of which may actually have those weapons we were looking for. Now, people are dying for the vested interests ($13 Billion) of Halliburton Corp., whose former CEO is now the 2nd most powerful man on Earth.

To connect these two wars is to exploit the deaths of September 11th, something the GOP does very, very well.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 3rd, 2004, 2:56 pm

Suvorov, in the 1930's Hitler never attacked the United States, but would you have removed him? The US waited until the Axis powers attacked them to fight the WWII. Bush will not wait until we are attacked to remove a possible threat. Even Michael Moore said (on O'Reilly Factor) that he'd have invaded Germany before Hitler could have become the threat that he did. Would you have waited for Saddam to give his WMD's (which we now know that he either hid well or destroyed) to Al Quaida? The 9/11 commission said that there were ties between Al Quaida and Saddam Hussein. Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US, a madman, and a helper of terrorists. He did help Al Quaida with September 11, but he was on the side of the terrorists. John Kerry says we should fight a more sensitive war on terror. That would only allow for another attack on the US.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 3rd, 2004, 9:12 pm

Since when was Saddam Hussein the new Adolf Hitler? Before you go off comparing the reactions, we're going to need a little subtext here.

Yes, it would have been better, in hindsight, had the allied forces stood up to Hitler's aggression before it occurred. Of course, the militant nature of Germany and the Nazi party could have been a clue, as well as the Hitler's own ideology, published in 1925, entitled Mein Kampf. All of these things pointed toward a military expansion. When Hitler's army seized parts of Poland and their other neighbors, the Allied Nations did not respond. It is at this point, when Hitler appeared to be on the verge of militaristic expansion into allied nations, that the Allies should have responded.

In fact, at this very moment, I am drawing a blank as to how, in any way, Hitler and Saddam are connected. Perhaps back in 1991, when Iraq attacked the sovereign, allied nation of Kuwait, we should have continued our assault onto Iraqi soil - but that's something you will have to take up with the former President Bush.

No, the modern day Iraqi conflict is being waged not out of retaliation but of 'pre-emption', the VERY blind assumption that Iraq MAY have had WMD's and MAY have given them to terrorists. AAAarrrrgh how can you say something so inept to political history????? Saddam actually complied with UN inspections, allowing them to search his country. They, of course, found nothing. As opposed to Hitler, who was allowed to create Tanks and War Planes, against the rules set by the Treaty of Versailles.

Well, no physical proof is needed for President Bush, the president of Integrity and Faith, to launch a war against a nation that had done nothing to us or anyone besides it's own people.

And what's with your facts, man? "We now know he either hid them or destroyed them?" How about he never had them in the first place? That's another one of those examples of how, when presented with lack of evidence, Republicans site the lack of evidence AS ENVIDENCE. That's not the way justice works, my friend. If you bring a man to court on the charge of murder, and say that because there was no evidence, that must mean he knew what he was doing and premeditated that murder, you will be laughed out of a courtroom.

Also, the 9/11 commission stated, very, very clearly, that there were NO ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and in fact that there were actual ties between IRAN and Al QAEDA, ties that exist to this day.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 004_pg7_42

Saddam's only foray into terrorism was a poorly designed plot to assassinate President H.W Bush.

Saddam did NOT help in 9/11 in any way, shape or form.

In short, Smartweb, a real argument is based upon real facts and applicable scenarios, none of which were presented. O'Reilly used the false analogy of Hitler to coerce Moore into agreeing, by false proxy, with the war on Iraq. It is a classic pundit trick. Also, O'Reilly is a shit head who couldn't argue his way out of a box.

As for the claim on the bottom of the page, "John Kerry says we should fight a more sensitive war on terror. That would only allow for another attack on the US.", I would say that Bush's balls-out, dumbass approach to pursuing Arabs, not terrorists, has not only breeded more terrorists from the disenfranchised Iraqi youth, but increased the support for international terrorism around the globe.

Next time, Smartweb, don't pull your argument from O'Reilly's mouth. The shit that pores from his talking-hole doesn't fly here.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 5th, 2004, 2:41 am

So Iraq harbored no terrorist?

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 5th, 2004, 6:37 am

None that attacked the US or any US allies before we invaded their nation without provocation.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 6th, 2004, 3:53 am

So your saying Iraq harbored no Al Quida Terroist, but still harbored terroist?

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 6th, 2004, 7:04 am

Iraq harbored no terrorists, in that no one in Iraq either planned or perpetrated terrorism against any US ally or the US itself. It harbored no Al Qaeda and had absolutely no ties to the group.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 7th, 2004, 12:03 am

Could the Iraqi government in a since be called Terroist, because they did cause fear in the people and killed them sincelessly.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 7th, 2004, 2:15 am

You are arguing wording when the fact is they never attacked us in the first place. Is the world ours to patrol according to our standards? There are many nations, a number of which are worse than Iraq, that caused fear and terror in their people. If that does make it our problem, then why are we not overthrowing North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia? We attacked first, without provocation.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 8th, 2004, 11:05 pm

Yes there are other brutal dictatorships, but Iraq is the most important on stopping currently. The former Iraqi governmnet was to me a terroist group to its own people. Bush said he would try and stop terroism. From what I know most terroism comes from the Middle East, even the Russian Terroist had Arabs with them, so having another democracy in the Middle East is all the better at stopping terroism. Germany after WWII was just the same with leftover Nazi's destroying everything, like it is in Iraq. Also stopping Sadaam is better for stopping all of terroism then stopping North Korea because most of terroism is traced back to the middle east, from what i know. So from the point of stopping terroism which was another reason for entering Iraq, it was a good move.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 9th, 2004, 3:16 am

That post, while admirable, displays the extent to which the Bush Administration's rhetoric affects the general public. Iraq was no terrorist regime. Just because it was in the Middle East does not mean it was terrorist, or muslim. The Ba'ath Party is a secular, conservative group in the Middle East that is opposed by fundamentalist Islamic groups.

Yes, Chechnya is an Arab state within Russia, and it is likely the the terrorists in that state have connections with Al Qaeda. That, to me, is another point against the Bush Administration. With places like Iran, Syria, and Chechnya actually supporting and training terrorists like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, how can we go after a secular, non-terrorist state like Iraq?

The terror Saddam inflicted on his people is not the terror that attacked us on 9/11 nor is it the terror we declared war upon.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 10th, 2004, 2:10 am

How could you call something that kills people for very simple things that terroist kill for not a teorrist regime, just because they call themselves a secular group is a whole bunch of BS. Yes its not the terror we declared war on, but bush said he will go after all terroism

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 10th, 2004, 2:57 am

The_Man, the argument you present is an honorable one. I wish that all the evil regimes around the world could be destroyed, replaced with democracies like ours that represent the the national will. But, unfortunately, we live in a more complicated world than that. When we trek across the world to 'stop evil regimes', it is our sons and daughters, people like you and me, that are on the front lines of that battle. Our nation did not choose to free the iraqis from Saddam, nor did we choose to trade our children's lives for their freedom. We fought for our own freedom, why should they be spared and we burdened? Your honorable beliefs will tell you that as the strongest ation in the world it is our duty to save less fortunate from their controllers. I believe that as the strongest nation in the world we must first protect ourselves. The army that fights in Iraq is the same one that should be protecting us from the real threats, threats like those unleashed in New York, Washington and most recently, Moscow. What it comes down to is self-preservation, our nation exists to protect us. We are not global police. If we were, 140,000 American troops would not be fighting alongside only 10,000 British. The social belief in the good nature of man and the nature of the friendly neighbor should come second to that of self-preservation and defense. And while I am not saying that 'brother-love' is the cause of the Iraq war (In fact, I believe it is corporate greed and ignorance), I am saying that even if it were it still wouldn't be right. The terrorism we declared war upon was the terrorism that attacked us, the people of this nation.

As a side note, I feel it is unimaginable that the Bush Administration touts this war as one for the Iraqi people, all while compromising the future of it's own by spending Social Security and tax dollars on the bombs it drops.

PS - The_Man, I can tell you are a young dude and that you are still developing your societal views. I myself swung wildly across the political spectrum when I was 12-16, embracing different ideas from groups like socialists and liberals to conservatives and even machiavellian dictatorships. My advice to you is to embrace as many different opinions as possible, not just those of your parents or the ruling parties of America. Make your own opinions, and define what is truly good for all people. And remember, if it is good for all people then it should be good for you as well, and no one elses welfare should be placed above your own. Make sure you consider that carefully, No one else's welfare should be placed above your own. That is justice.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 13th, 2004, 2:29 am

I do have my opinions and so do you and yoru not much older then me although 3 years does make a big difference for now, but I have seen the democratic views and to me I don't really like them. I mean sure Kerry has his views and Bush has his own but looking at it raising taxes and nationalizing healthcare will just mess everything up. Also taking billions away from medicine developers will only slow new medicines from comming out. If the RNC was correct about Kerry's voting history weakening our military isn't the best way for selfpreservatoin. I mean he voted for the war, but then votes against protecting our soilders, that isn't exactly selfpreservation. That is my idea of selfpreservatoin against what kerry has done, i don't think you talking about kerry when u made that statement.

The_Man · Post by **The_Man** » September 13th, 2004, 2:37 am

I"m guessing yoru around 18

ellen_w · Post by **ellen_w** » September 27th, 2004, 5:22 pm

kerry may change his mind, but at least he doesn't lie to you like bush

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 27th, 2004, 9:19 pm

ellen_w wrote:kerry may change his mind, but at least he doesn't lie to you like bush

Bush haters claiming that Bush lied really need to pick up a dictionary and look up the word "lie." They should also realize that CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC "lie" in a much worse way than Bush "lied."

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » September 27th, 2004, 9:42 pm

All those networks lie/twist facts, and that definitely includes Fox News. All news is opinionated. 'No Spin Zone' my ass, O'Reilly, that zone is a maelstrom.

---

I do believe that Bush witheld information when making the case for war, information that, if released, would have falsified his baseless claims. That's lying in my book, if lying by proxy.

And while news networks lying and twisting facts is bad, it isn't worse than our president, leader of our nation, lying. That might be the worst argument stated here. CNN or MSNBC or Fox lying doesn't send 150,000+ Americans to Iraq.

ellen_w · Post by **ellen_w** » September 30th, 2004, 8:37 pm

i looked it up. yeah, he lied. and so does my sister, but that deosn't mean she should be president.

make some sense.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 30th, 2004, 10:10 pm

Dems, get over it, Bush did lie to the country. He was misled by intelligence, even though Anti-Bush propaganda can make it look like he selected bits of intelligence. The disturbing thing in this country is how easily swayed Americans are by the media, 80% of whom are for Kerry.

Tebow2000 · Post by **Tebow2000** » September 30th, 2004, 11:07 pm

80% of Americans are not for kerry....

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » September 30th, 2004, 11:13 pm

80% of the media is.

Suvorov · Post by **Suvorov** » October 1st, 2004, 2:24 am

Seriously, where do these numbers come from?

Nolano · Post by **Nolano** » January 4th, 2005, 12:49 pm

I am going to bring this back from the dead. in the bush-kerry debate in the town hall meeting, kerry attacked bush on invading iraq for WMD's, and bush's response, to that was some like this:"I was disapointed in hearing that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.(mindless blather). But the reason we went to Iraq was to stop saddam from giving terrorists WMD."

And you call Kerry flip-flop. whats also strange, is that that is pretty much all you people attack kerry about. Most of them are taken out of context completely, and just saying, "kerry sucks, cause he did this, then he did that".
IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO CHANGE ONES MIND. Most of them are, like I said, taken out of context.

Smartweb · Post by **Smartweb** » January 4th, 2005, 4:32 pm

Nolano wrote:I am going to bring this back from the dead. in the bush-kerry debate in the town hall meeting, kerry attacked bush on invading iraq for WMD's, and bush's response, to that was some like this:"I was disapointed in hearing that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.(mindless blather). But the reason we went to Iraq was to stop saddam from giving terrorists WMD."

And you call Kerry flip-flop. whats also strange, is that that is pretty much all you people attack kerry about. Most of them are taken out of context completely, and just saying, "kerry sucks, cause he did this, then he did that".
IT IS HUMAN NATURE TO CHANGE ONES MIND. Most of them are, like I said, taken out of context.

Sorry Nolano, Kerry lost.