HaVoC Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I agree with them on Iraq. I also agree with them on fox-hunting (I hate the 'sport', although they're still meddling with petty things like that, which they shouldn't really be...) I hate them on everything else, however. I believe they need to stop piddling around with worrying people oiut of their minds - "TOO MUCH SALT!"..."TOO MUCH SUGAR!"..."TOO MUCH FAT!"... I'll eat what I want, thanks, and there's nothing they can do to stop me... Link to post Share on other sites
EMR5485 Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 no way in hell im gonna vote for kerry, bush will let me keep my guns Link to post Share on other sites
rhino Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 What annoys me more than anything as the way that the government likes to make everything out to be "Bad for you". Example, over 2 years ago i quit smoking because i was sick of people saying it's bad for you. Understandably i've put on quite a bit of weight (10 stone to 16 stone) and now they're saying that Obesity is a bigger killer than cigarettes. Well all i'm gonna say to 'em is this. "Screw you! I'd rather die ignorant and content than a paranoid automaton." (Rant over.) Link to post Share on other sites
R22Master Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 I agree with them on Iraq. I also agree with them on fox-hunting (I hate the 'sport', although they're still meddling with petty things like that, which they shouldn't really be...) I hate them on everything else, however. I believe they need to stop piddling around with worrying people oiut of their minds - "TOO MUCH SALT!"..."TOO MUCH SUGAR!"..."TOO MUCH FAT!"... I'll eat what I want, thanks, and there's nothing they can do to stop me... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree that they shouldn't be meddling with things like fox-hunting, etc... I don't like the sport, but it's not their place to say that people who live in the country CAN'T do it. There are valid reasons why it should go ahead, but these are swept under the carpet because they don't support the "popular" notion. They can always ban salt, sugar, etc... T-Bone Steaks were illegal for many months because of this government. Isn't that a step too far? Link to post Share on other sites
Plymouth Roadrunner Posted October 7, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Like I said I dont want to get into this with anyone, but one thing, NEVER PUT IRAQ IN COMPARISON TO VIETNAM, IT IS NOWHERE NEAR NAM. The newspapers and organizations just say that. Had to get that out, really bugs me. Go bush! Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Go Plymouth Roadrunner! Point well made R22 - I HATE(d) foxhunting, but I don't believe it should have been banned, as banning even something like that means that it's then credible to ban things like paintball and...erm...airsoft... Also, I didn't know T-Bone steaks were banned for many months...why was that? I love T-Bone steaks, and they, along with the good ol' thick, juicy, tender, Sirloin, is what I most loook forward to when I go to America every year. If they banned steaks over there there'd be anarchy! Link to post Share on other sites
rizzo Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 R22, unfortunately, it seems as if Blair will be back in for another term (his 4th, making him the longest serving PM ever). I mean, seriously, who is going to vote for Michael Howard? I don't view him as a strong leader, he comes across as sleezy and slightely insane In all honesty, I would vote Blair if I could. I don't think the war in Iraq was neccessarily Blair's fualt. Bush was going in anyway, and i know people are going to be irate about me saying this, but Blair had two options, as I see it. 1. Go to war with Bush. Keep good relations with US. Remove an evil man. 2. Do not go to war. Strain relations with the US (the most powerful country on earth). Bush would remove Saddam anyway... just my young, ignorant view on things... Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 R22, unfortunately, it seems as if Blair will be back in for another term (his 4th, making him the longest serving PM ever). I mean, seriously, who is going to vote for Michael Howard? I don't view him as a strong leader, he comes across as sleezy and slightely insane In all honesty, I would vote Blair if I could. I don't think the war in Iraq was neccessarily Blair's fualt. Bush was going in anyway, and i know people are going to be irate about me saying this, but Blair had two options, as I see it. 1. Go to war with Bush. Keep good relations with US. Remove an evil man. 2. Do not go to war. Strain relations with the US (the most powerful country on earth). Bush would remove Saddam anyway... just my young, ignorant view on things... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well if the UK didnt go along you'd be harboring terrorists! Its the Bush Doctrine. Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 no way in hell im gonna vote for kerry, bush will let me keep my guns <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can keep your guns, 2nd Admendment says so. Even when Kerry is president, if the legislative branch is still controlled by the republicans he cant really do anything. Link to post Share on other sites
Sean Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 With thinking like that you would be the first to have your privlage [sic] revoked. This is supposed to be a free country, although that statement is BS, we still have some controll [sic] over it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it were a free country we wouldn't have a constitution, or laws, or a president to vote on for that matter; we'd just be able to do what we want. Some people say it's not just your right as an American to vote, but your duty. Well it's not. Your duty as an American research and find information on the candidates and their policies to make an informed vote. A un-informed vote can be worse then not voting at all, and I don't believe people should be allowed to make an un-informed. If your not willing to do the work, then you shouldn't have an affect on the outcome. Thus had you done just a little research into Nader, you would find out that by his own admittance he his not running in the presidential election to be the president. Rather, Nader is running to bring third party and independent candidates forward in the minds of the american public. You can learn this on Nader's own site. A noble cause sure, but since he's not running to be president, then he's not worthy of a presidential vote. Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Like I said I dont want to get into this with anyone, but one thing, NEVER PUT IRAQ IN COMPARISON TO VIETNAM, IT IS NOWHERE NEAR NAM. The newspapers and organizations just say that. Had to get that out, really bugs me. Go bush! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Its like Vietnam on several levels. We lied to get into the war, had a rosy picture painted by the govt for the public, casualties mounting everyday. Link to post Share on other sites
Banzai Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 ^couhg*world war 2*cough* suuuure, we had no idea about the japanese coming, only the friggin president knew! gah, how many people had to die that day to send us to more death? we should have stepped up and started fighting earlier and ended the bloody thing asap but we had to purposely wait to jump in becuase no one in america wanted to go to war. Link to post Share on other sites
destrukto Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Another little interesting point about Vietnam, it's called the draft, or conscription. With the body count rising, how many people are still going to volunteer?? Where are the troops going to come from for Bush's wars of "liberation", the rich and the politicians sure as hell aren't going to send their kids.. That leaves the children of working and middle class families to fight this "war on terror". And before some of you go touting this patriotic ###### and waving your flags all about think about this How many soldiers last dying thoughts were about freedom, liberty, and democracy? How many thought about their family, friends, and the life they'd never have? How does a grieving widow explain to her 4 year old child that daddy is never going to come home? Why is daddy never coming back? where did daddy go? For those that believe the war was just, maybe you should answer those questions I grew up without a father and it was a living hell, but how many more children must also go through that before this war is over? too many Just think about that before you go off start saying I'm "unpatriotic" or even accuse me of "treason" as has happened before when I asked people to think about this Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Another little interesting point about Vietnam, it's called the draft, or conscription. With the body count rising, how many people are still going to volunteer?? Where are the troops going to come from for Bush's wars of "liberation", the rich and the politicians sure as hell aren't going to send their kids.. That leaves the children of working and middle class families to fight this "war on terror". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yep, might seem like the only option when all the regular jobs are going overseas. Alot of American civilians in iraq are there because they lost their jobs and joined on as civil contractors to earn big bucks at high risks. Link to post Share on other sites
Banzai Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I do beleive the vote for the draft in the house was soemthing like this: Yes: 2 No: 402 and the 2 were democrats Link to post Share on other sites
BadAssTronaut Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Farenheit 9/11 is very biased. Moore leaves out things that will purposely make Bush look bad. For example, the whole Afghanistan oil pipeline thing for Bush. That deal was made in the Clinton eras, and had little to do with Bush's decision to invade Afghanistan. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thats pretty irrelevant since the negative things Bush has done far outweigh the good ones anyway. For example invading Iraq without UN support based on based on what I can safely say was a rumor about WMD's, thats just one of the negative things Bush has done in his time as president, a negative thing that may well not have happened had he not cheated in the presidential election that saw him gain control of America as president in the first place, another negative thing Bush has done. Link to post Share on other sites
Kosac Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 The latest reports on IRaq say there are no WMDs and there never were. OK getting rid of Saddam was a good thing but that was not why i was told we were going to war. As for BUsh and Kerry I dont Particularily like either but I think Kerry has better Fiscal policies Link to post Share on other sites
rizzo Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Well if the UK didnt go along you'd be harboring terrorists! Its the Bush Doctrine. I don't understand. How would not following Bush into war mean the UK is harboUring terrorists?If Blair did not go to war with Bush, on the basis that the evidence was shoddy, he could still find and prosecute terrorists on British soil, surely? I don't see how you can 'harbor' a person if they are not on your land or in your control... Link to post Share on other sites
sp00n Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I would. He's a good speechmaker from what I've heard, isn't afraid to crack jokes about himself and his acting career, and he does know something about polotics. Remember, Ronald Reagan was an actor, and look how well he did as the President... Oh, and just because his 'acting' skills are a little lacking doesn't mean he's stupid - far from it in fact, from what I've heard... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unless you guys are joking about Ahnold being el presidente, he cannot ever be president. You have to be a natural born citizen of the US to run, and he, obviously, is not. Link to post Share on other sites
rhino Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Well i'm always joking about Arnold. Link to post Share on other sites
Phoenix Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Actually the Republicans are introduced or have introduced a proposed amendment to allow naturalized immigrants to be president after 20 years of citizenship. Link to post Share on other sites
Dafool Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Democraci is nothing but lies. Im sure most of the people in the Us didnt even want to go to "war" but did bush listen ? No thought so. I know that the brits surtently didnt and Blair the sent them anyway. Meh call the democraci i seen more freedome at a hot dog stand. Link to post Share on other sites
rizzo Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 I love dafool and his cRaZi spelling! Link to post Share on other sites
sp00n Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Democraci is nothing but lies. Im sure most of the people in the Us didnt even want to go to "war" but did bush listen ? No thought so. I know that the brits surtently didnt and Blair the sent them anyway. Meh call the democraci i seen more freedome at a hot dog stand. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Werent you banned? Do us all a favor and not post in here again, you cant even spell democracy. Link to post Share on other sites
rizzo Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 Werent you banned? I guess Arnies wiped the digital slate clean, gave everyone a fresh start... why oh why Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.