Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Zell Miller's an ass.
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113478] |
Tue, 07 September 2004 14:29   |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| msgtpain |
He answered this statement in the opening 3 minutes of his speech. He stated very clearly that "A whole new generation of Miller's have been born since I stood in this same place over a decade ago." and then he further went on to state that "my family is more important than my party." Did he flip-flop? Maybe so. I'm not arguing that, but that doesn't make him a liar, his priorities have changed due to the change in his family and he now feels that GW Bush is the leader he feels most comfortable with protecting that family.
|
He's also saying that because of his rascist record back in the day. Look at j_ball's uninformed poster - Miller was one of the Democrats who voted No for the Civil Rights Act. Although that was maybe 40 years or so ago, so whatever. Let's not live in the past.
| msgtpain |
Since I am most certain that you were not watching his last speech when you were 2, I can only assume that this is simply a direct quote from the source you quoted.. Have you actually watched internet footage of that speech? or read the transcripts? Like I said, your hatred with Zell Miller seems more of just a regurgitation of the propaganda that a liberal reporter spewed in their column; I have a hard time believeing that you "share" these opinions based on actual events which you were a part of or even have heard for yourself and evaluated. If I am wrong here, then I'm sure you'll be explaining how he was "much less harsh" in 1992.
|
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205981/posts
It really is a lot nicer than his 2004 speech.
| msgtpain |
Please expound.. I'm having a hard time understanding this comment; unless you and I watched a completely different speech. Did he have a few harsh words? sure. But it was very clear that he was questioning "where the Democrats he used to know" have gone. I guess you could say he is "flip-flopping" again, as he is questioning the true colors of the party he grew up believing in and fighting for.
|
A few harsh words is an understatement. He got up and scowled and started ranting about Kerry. Things like this:
| Zell Miller |
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution.
|
...what does this mean? Wouldn't Republicans be closer to this way of thinking, like when Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution? Oh well, it doesn't make any sense.
| Zell Miller |
They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
|
Yeah, and Bill Clinton didn't believe that when he told Richard Clarke to make a comprehensive plan for eliminating Al Qaeda.
| Zell Miller |
Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.
|
This right here is such a lie. When they say he voted against all those weapons systems, he didn't vote against individual ones. He voted against the Defense Appropriations bill, which is the cumulative armed forces spending bill. Several times, the bill has had to have been vetoed because it has so much pork on it, like the Robert Bird Community College, or some random bridge, or something. The biggest piece of pork in there at one point was a retroactive tax fix that affected one company. Guess which company it was? Enron. Retroactively, Enron would have gotten back 250 million dollars in taxes. Bills like those need to be vetoed, and sent back to a committe to be re-built. Now, there were some weapons systems that come up on individual bills, like when the F-15 became out-dated, and needed to be cut, it would come up on a bill, and everyone would vote to cut funding to the plane because it was no longer needed. In the case of the F-15, the Defense Secretary who put it on the chopping block was none other than Dick Cheney. And Senator Kerry has supported over 6.4 trillion in defense spending over the years, more than twice the amount of all other countries in the world combined. How weak on defense can he be?
| Zell Miller |
U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls?
|
Meta-furr.
| Zell Miller |
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.
|
Blah blah blah.
| Zell Miller |
For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.
|
By golly, we never needed those 6.4 trillion in military spending over the years!
| Zell Miller |
As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
|
No he didn't. He came back and tried to stop the war. John Kerry was blaming our reasons for being in the war, never the troops. Saying he blamed the military is such a despicable thing to say.
| Zell Miller |
From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
|
Here he goes saying John Kerry's leadership would only encourage terrorist attacks. By the way, today Cheney came out and said that if John Kerry is elected, there will immediately be a massive terrorist attack.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html
| Zell Miller |
Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
|
There, he's calling John Kerry a sissy.
| msgtpain |
He did make this comment, and to be honest, I'm not sure what he was refering to, as I don't have any knowledge to the speech he is refering to, I will have to do some research on it.
|
Well, I'm not a great believer in Chris Matthews, because he rarely actually plays Hardball, but, I mean, who challenges someone to a duel?
| msgtpain |
This is one of those "I'm going to make a fenceline comment that can't get me in trouble either way." John Kerry has made it absolutely factual that the president abused the power that was given to him, then out of the other side of his mouth, he states that he would never expect the president to do anything but act in the way that they feel that they need to. It's a circular argument.. Either you believe that the President has and had the authority to do what he did, or you argue that he acted irresponsibly and abused his power. All I hear is that "I want the ability to make those decisions myself also if I'm president" .. so what's his beef with Bush.
|
That Bush made bad decisions. John Kerry saying he will exert presidential power to make sure the country is safe doesn't mean that he can't say someone else wielded the aforementioned power irresponsibly.
| msgtpain |
I never heard him say this at all.. and to me, his speech seemed honest and from the heart.. He was pissed off that his brother Democrats are acting the way they are..
|
Alright, i exagerrated the baby killer part, but still, look at what he said about John Kerry's record on defense. It's all a lie.
| msgtpain |
which is why he took the time out of his life to help the people at the RNC understand what his opinion was about "The other side".. He believes that the Republicans have a better candidate, and he gave 100 reasons why.
|
I count 6 reasons. All at the very end of his speech. Most of it was dedicated to attacking John Kerry.
| msgtpain |
If someone came to a democratic convention and started spewing about how Bush and Cheny were a bunch of 'ol boys club Oil rednecks that think they can do whatever they want, and make their buddies richer, you wouldn't be standing up cheering? I find that laughable, actually.
|
Not if they were all scowly and slanderous, I wouldn't be cheering. Speeches to cheer for are ones like Al Sharpton's speech at the DNC this year. That was a great speech.
EDIT: Grammatical Errors.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113479] |
Tue, 07 September 2004 14:53 |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
He's also saying that because of his rascist record back in the day. Look at j_ball's uninformed poster - Miller was one of the Democrats who voted No for the Civil Rights Act. Although that was maybe 40 years or so ago, so whatever. Let's not live in the past.
|
My poster speaks the truth. For 150 years it's been like that. Deny it as you wish, but history defends my poster.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Zell Miller |
Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
|
There, he's calling John Kerry a sissy.
|
Maybe not so much of a sissy as he is an idiot.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113576] |
Wed, 08 September 2004 16:10 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Yeah, that's funny... most Democrats voted against Civil Rights... now they walk around acting like they're the black man's only hope. :rolleyes:
| SuperFlyingLib |
| Zell Miller |
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution.
|
...what does this mean? Wouldn't Republicans be closer to this way of thinking, like when Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution? Oh well, it doesn't make any sense.
|
Have you, or have you not, said that we are the reason that the terrorists hate us? Because I can assure you that a lot of the world and most liberals believe it. You're trying to relate this very erroneously.
Zell Miller is saying that the left believes that our problems with the terrorists are our own fault for being who we are. Reagan said that domestically, government was more of a problem than a solution. The right believes that government is too large and needs to be downsized. They believe the federal government needs to revert some of its authorities and oversight back to the states where it is Constitutionally mandated that the responsibilities lie.
So, in conclusion, Zell Miller is speaking of foreign affairs, Reagan was speaking of domestic affairs. The federal government is, in fact, Constitutionally responsible for the common defense, so this IS their territory.
| SuperFlyingLib |
Yeah, and Bill Clinton didn't believe that when he told Richard Clarke to make a comprehensive plan for eliminating Al Qaeda.
|
Talk is cheap. Where's the action? Clinton had 8 years and he didn't do much... if he had, September 11th, 2001 would have been just another happy Tuesday.
| SuperflyingLib |
| Zell Miller |
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.
|
Blah blah blah.
|
Why did you even write this? It makes you look like an idiot because you couldn't bother to refute it. What he is succinctly referring to is the fact that Kerry would want the UN to approve any use of our military.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Zell Miller |
As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
|
No he didn't. He came back and tried to stop the war. John Kerry was blaming our reasons for being in the war, never the troops. Saying he blamed the military is such a despicable thing to say.
|
Excuse me?! Have you not heard his testimony before Congress where he accused his fellow soldiers of dispicable acts against humanity in Vietnam? Electrodes on genitals? Ring a bell? You can hardly dispute that this testimony played a major part in how badly the veterans were treated when they returned from Vietnam. And by the way, we never declared war in Vietnam. It was a conflict.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| Zell Miller |
From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
|
Here he goes saying John Kerry's leadership would only encourage terrorist attacks. By the way, today Cheney came out and said that if John Kerry is elected, there will immediately be a massive terrorist attack.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html
|
Hello, kettle? This is pot. You are black.
Kerry said, in his new ad, "George Bush's wrong choices have weakened us here at home."
Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
I ask you, how is this accusation ANY different than what Cheney said? Kerry says "Bush made wrong choices that made us weak". Cheney says "If Kerry is elected, he will make wrong choices that will make us weak."
I'm also wondering how we're weak? I mean... for the sake of argument... let's say Bush is making bad decisions to defend us. I mean, I can see your justification. These terrorists have been hitting us left and right. We've lost more planes... there have been chemical attacks in public buildings and at sporting events... Americans are living in fear just waiting for the next attack because they have been constant ever since we started the War on Terror.
OK, now back to reality... we have people already saying "shut up about 9/11 already"... no one is scared any more. There hasn't been any attacks on our homeland since 9/11. If Bush's policies have made us weak, where is the evidence of this alleged weakness?
I just can't understand it...
| SuperFlyingLib |
| Zell Miller |
Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
|
There, he's calling John Kerry a sissy.
|
Awww... poor baby. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
He's also saying that because of his rascist record back in the day. Look at j_ball's uninformed poster - Miller was one of the Democrats who voted No for the Civil Rights Act. Although that was maybe 40 years or so ago, so whatever. Let's not live in the past.
|
Yeah, and Vietnam was over 30 years ago... let's not live in the past. You had no problem with Clinton being a draft dodger, now you hail Kerry's glorious 4 months of service. It's OK if Clinton dodged the draft because that was so many decades ago, but we'd better attack Bush for allegedly missing part of his National Guard duty. Hypocrite?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113585] |
Wed, 08 September 2004 17:29 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
Yeah, that's funny... most Democrats voted against Civil Rights... now they walk around acting like they're the black man's only hope. :rolleyes:
|
That was back when there were a large amount of rascist Southern democrats. Learn your history. But here it goes. Okay, so, back in the day, Lincoln abolished slavery. So, in the South, after that, Lincoln was a Republican, right? So the people who opposed him joined up with the Democratic party in the South. These people were rascist. They started to vanish after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
There, that's a super-brief history lesson, but it's a basic overview of what happened.
| Crimson |
Have you, or have you not, said that we are the reason that the terrorists hate us? Because I can assure you that a lot of the world and most liberals believe it. You're trying to relate this very erroneously.
Zell Miller is saying that the left believes that our problems with the terrorists are our own fault for being who we are. Reagan said that domestically, government was more of a problem than a solution. The right believes that government is too large and needs to be downsized. They believe the federal government needs to revert some of its authorities and oversight back to the states where it is Constitutionally mandated that the responsibilities lie.
So, in conclusion, Zell Miller is speaking of foreign affairs, Reagan was speaking of domestic affairs. The federal government is, in fact, Constitutionally responsible for the common defense, so this IS their territory.
|
This isn't so simple as right and wrong. I'm not saying the terrorists hate us for who we are, but we have performed hostile actions ways back that we tend to forget about. Like, when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with one of our battleships during Israel's big fight with the Middle East after it was established. Well, a whole bunch of terrorists live in the Bekaa Valley, and they were pretty pissed when we killed their friends and family. And that's where a lot of terrorists come from. I don't hate America. But not hating America doesn't mean I have to always pretend our country has always done the right thing.
| Crimson |
Talk is cheap. Where's the action? Clinton had 8 years and he didn't do much... if he had, September 11th, 2001 would have been just another happy Tuesday.
|
I've already posted this two seperate times in different threads, but apparently you have chosen to ignore it both times. I'll maybe post it again in here, but it's a lot of typing and I'm tired right now.
| Crimson |
Why did you even write this? It makes you look like an idiot because you couldn't bother to refute it. What he is succinctly referring to is the fact that Kerry would want the UN to approve any use of our military.
|
But where does that come from? John Kerry doesn't want any 'ole country to decide the U.S.'s own fate, he wants the world to be behind us when we defeat various evil people, such as, but not limited to, terrorists. They're not the same thing. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Not imminent enough for us to dash in after blowing off the UN. Not nearly.
| Crimson |
Excuse me?! Have you not heard his testimony before Congress where he accused his fellow soldiers of dispicable acts against humanity in Vietnam? Electrodes on genitals? Ring a bell? You can hardly dispute that this testimony played a major part in how badly the veterans were treated when they returned from Vietnam. And by the way, we never declared war in Vietnam. It was a conflict.
|
Yeah, I've seen his testimony, but what are you saying? That this didn't happen? Vietnam was an atrocities war. That's been common history for 35 years. Until Swift Boat Stupids have come out and challenged history, naval documents, yadda yadda. The Vietnam conflict. Whatever.
| Crimson |
Hello, kettle? This is pot. You are black.
Kerry said, in his new ad, "George Bush's wrong choices have weakened us here at home."
Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
I ask you, how is this accusation ANY different than what Cheney said? Kerry says "Bush made wrong choices that made us weak". Cheney says "If Kerry is elected, he will make wrong choices that will make us weak."
I'm also wondering how we're weak? I mean... for the sake of argument... let's say Bush is making bad decisions to defend us. I mean, I can see your justification. These terrorists have been hitting us left and right. We've lost more planes... there have been chemical attacks in public buildings and at sporting events... Americans are living in fear just waiting for the next attack because they have been constant ever since we started the War on Terror.
OK, now back to reality... we have people already saying "shut up about 9/11 already"... no one is scared any more. There hasn't been any attacks on our homeland since 9/11. If Bush's policies have made us weak, where is the evidence of this alleged weakness?
I just can't understand it...
|
Cheney said we will be attacked by terrorists, trying to scare people into voting Bush. Kerry said Bush is weak on defense. While somewhat the same, they aren't the same thing.
So us not having been attacked in just 3 years is direct proof that George Bush is being a succesful terror president? How come he raises the terror alert so much?
| Crimson |
Awww... poor baby. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
|
Uh....
| Crimson |
Yeah, and Vietnam was over 30 years ago... let's not live in the past. You had no problem with Clinton being a draft dodger, now you hail Kerry's glorious 4 months of service. It's OK if Clinton dodged the draft because that was so many decades ago, but we'd better attack Bush for allegedly missing part of his National Guard duty. Hypocrite?
|
How do you know for certain that Kerry started trumpeting his war record first? Me, I believe it was Karl Rove, with his tactics of attacking his opponent's greatest strengths. Like Kerry's war record. And Clinton didn't actively dodge the draft, he just got lucky with them not calling him in for service with their crazy birthday system. Not like George Bush, who got daddy to send him to the National Guard, and then skipped out of the National Guard. The two aren't the same.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113613] |
Wed, 08 September 2004 21:23 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
That was back when there were a large amount of rascist Southern democrats. Learn your history. But here it goes. Okay, so, back in the day, Lincoln abolished slavery. So, in the South, after that, Lincoln was a Republican, right? So the people who opposed him joined up with the Democratic party in the South. These people were rascist. They started to vanish after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
There, that's a super-brief history lesson, but it's a basic overview of what happened.
|
Where the heck do you come up with this? It appears to me that the Left is still racist. Why else would they keep giving them special consideration as if they're less capable than whites? Oh wait, these are the same people who don't trust us to spend our own money or manage our retirement funds.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
This isn't so simple as right and wrong. I'm not saying the terrorists hate us for who we are, but we have performed hostile actions ways back that we tend to forget about. Like, when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with one of our battleships during Israel's big fight with the Middle East after it was established. Well, a whole bunch of terrorists live in the Bekaa Valley, and they were pretty pissed when we killed their friends and family. And that's where a lot of terrorists come from. I don't hate America. But not hating America doesn't mean I have to always pretend our country has always done the right thing.
|
Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in. If the IslamoFascists can't handle their problems maturely, then they will be beat down. Nothing excuses 9/11.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I've already posted this two seperate times in different threads, but apparently you have chosen to ignore it both times. I'll maybe post it again in here, but it's a lot of typing and I'm tired right now.
|
You're the one who brought it up. You failed to convince me back then, so don't waste your time cutting and pasting from ILoveClinton.org again. I have seen too much evidence to think of Clinton as anything but scum.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
But where does that come from? John Kerry doesn't want any 'ole country to decide the U.S.'s own fate, he wants the world to be behind us when we defeat various evil people, such as, but not limited to, terrorists. They're not the same thing. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Not imminent enough for us to dash in after blowing off the UN. Not nearly.
|
Any ole country? As in, the United States?
And another thing, even your boy Kerry knows the Iraq is part of the war on terror:
| Kerry |
Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. And I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss.
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Yeah, I've seen his testimony, but what are you saying? That this didn't happen? Vietnam was an atrocities war. That's been common history for 35 years. Until Swift Boat Stupids have come out and challenged history, naval documents, yadda yadda. The Vietnam conflict. Whatever.
|
It's nice how you think so little of our armed forces. There are organizations around just to oppose Kerry for lying about them so many years ago.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Cheney said we will be attacked by terrorists, trying to scare people into voting Bush. Kerry said Bush is weak on defense. While somewhat the same, they aren't the same thing.
So us not having been attacked in just 3 years is direct proof that George Bush is being a succesful terror president? How come he raises the terror alert so much?
|
I've thought the same thing myself. That's one of the reasons I've been such an activist is because I truly believe that our lives depend on not voting Democrat.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113629] |
Thu, 09 September 2004 04:35 |
cokemaster
Messages: 144
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
The question is: who is the lesser of two evils? My understanding is that both are fairly bad choices.
Remember, Friends don't let friends play Reborn!
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113638] |
Thu, 09 September 2004 07:56 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in. If the IslamoFascists can't handle their problems maturely, then they will be beat down. Nothing excuses 9/11.
|
That pretty much described what Bush did with Iraq. Besides, you can't ignore the reasons terrorism exists. Those hijackers didn't wake up one morning thinking "hey, let's fly a plane into a building", you know.
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113650] |
Thu, 09 September 2004 10:03 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
That doesn't excuse how they dealt with their problem.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113672] |
Thu, 09 September 2004 12:38 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Crimson |
Where the heck do you come up with this? It appears to me that the Left is still racist. Why else would they keep giving them special consideration as if they're less capable than whites? Oh wait, these are the same people who don't trust us to spend our own money or manage our retirement funds.
|
I got that from my 8th grade history class, when we were going over the origins of both American political parties. And privatizing social security is still a terrible idea.
| Crimson |
Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in. If the IslamoFascists can't handle their problems maturely, then they will be beat down. Nothing excuses 9/11.
|
So, us killing their families doesn't excuse them from killing our families? While I fully believe 9/11 was a depraved act orchestrated by crazy people, those crazy people were responding to what we had done to them.
| Crimson |
You're the one who brought it up. You failed to convince me back then, so don't waste your time cutting and pasting from ILoveClinton.org again. I have seen too much evidence to think of Clinton as anything but scum.
|
Well, if you don't want to listen, I don't want to tell.
| Crimson |
Any ole country? As in, the United States?
And another thing, even your boy Kerry knows the Iraq is part of the war on terror:
| Kerry |
Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More than one thousand of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the war on terror. And I think that the first thing that every American wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss.
|
|
He was just trying not be to controversial there. No one really knows why we're in Iraq any more, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda.
| Crimson |
It's nice how you think so little of our armed forces. There are organizations around just to oppose Kerry for lying about them so many years ago.
|
I don't think little of our armed forces. I'm proud of the brave men and women who serve our country and keep me out of harm's way. But history has dictated for 30+ years that vietnam was an atrocities war. And John Kerry went and testified to try and get our soldiers out of an atrocities war.
| Crimson |
I've thought the same thing myself. That's one of the reasons I've been such an activist is because I truly believe that our lives depend on not voting Democrat.
|
How do you know John Kerry would be incredibly weak on defending our country from outside attacks? Or is that just your force-fed opinion you got from FOX News?
EDITS: Problems with quotes.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113695] |
Thu, 09 September 2004 13:46 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Crimson |
That doesn't excuse how they dealt with their problem.
|
I wasn't saying that, but ignoring the history of those parts of the world isn't a very good idea either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113715] |
Thu, 09 September 2004 14:51 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
So, us killing their families doesn't excuse them from killing our families? While I fully believe 9/11 was a depraved act orchestrated by crazy people, those crazy people were responding to what we had done to them.
|
I can't believe you justify the actions of these terrorists. They intentionally wanted to kill innocent Americans, while any death of innocents in the war on terror is NOT intentional and avoided as well as possible. Contrary to what you may believe, Americans on the whole are NOT depraved lunatics willing to kill themselves to 'squash the infidels'.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
He was just trying not be to controversial there. No one really knows why we're in Iraq any more, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda.
|
It has everything to do with Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups who are in Iraq. And since when was Kerry not trying to be controversial? I think it's more of a Fruedian slip on his part... he forgot for a moment that the left is supposed to convince everyone is a separate war.
| SuperflyingEngi |
I don't think little of our armed forces. I'm proud of the brave men and women who serve our country and keep me out of harm's way. But history has dictated for 30+ years that vietnam was an atrocities war. And John Kerry went and testified to try and get our soldiers out of an atrocities war.
|
History dictated this thanks to testimony from people like Kerry who used these lies as a reason to justify pulling troops from Vietnam. Just the same as the left tried to get Bush to pull troops out of Iraq because of the Abu Ghraib stuff. I mean, if Kerry had this little 8mm camera to shoot footage of himself in Vietnam, wouldn't he have taped these atrocities that the American troops were allegedly committing? They did in Iraq...
| SuperFlyingEngi |
How do you know John Kerry would be incredibly weak on defending our country from outside attacks? Or is that just your force-fed opinion you got from FOX News?
|
I don't even WATCH Fox News! I read CNN for my news, and I watch and listen to nothing. I also read Limbaugh's commentary transcriptions each day.
I honestly don't know what Kerry's positions are. I mean, even just as far as Iraq goes, he says he'll pull the troops in 6 months, then he says "within his first term"... what the hell? Every time I read on CNN a summary of a recent speech, I have to laugh. Plus, our most recent Democrat president showed himself to be extremely weak on defense as well.
Overall, however, I strongly believe that there will be a terrorist attack on our nation shortly before the election in an attempt to sway the vote. I only hope that the country pulls their heads back out of their asses and votes for Bush if that happens. France is an excellent example of what happens when you appease terrorism... you don't get any sympathy from them. Your journalists will be taken hostage, too.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113772] |
Fri, 10 September 2004 00:45 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Apart from the "democrats are incarnations of satan" implications in that text, it didn't really go into any history earlier that ~1990.
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113804] |
Fri, 10 September 2004 08:12 |
Phoenix - Aeon
Messages: 221
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
You want an example of what happens when you negotiate? Try N.Ireland, it's worked over there, we have both cease-fires and dis-armament programs set-up. People are actually sat down sorting out the problems instead of bombing the fuck out of Manchester. Do you know what we tried before that? Bush's approach, come down hard on them, beat them into submission, we did that for 600 years and it failed, yet less than a decade of negotiations has worked. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113806] |
Fri, 10 September 2004 08:29 |
|
|
I'm thinking that Islamic Extremists (who have and will hate the United States for what we stand for) are going to be a little harder to negotiate with. I don't know, it's just a hunch. Seeing as if we get close to any of them, they'll just blow themselves up. That makes it just a little bit harder to negotiate when you have that as a danger.
BTW, a dude called in and said that to the host, and when I heard that I laughed.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113839] |
Fri, 10 September 2004 12:48 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
*goes up the list to find points to pick on*
Damn, it's a whole stinkin' pile of it!
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution.
|
Wouldn't Republicans be closer to this way of thinking, like when Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution?
|
America is not the government. The government REPRESENTS America, but is never to be used as a synonym for it.
| Quote: |
Now, there were some weapons systems that come up on individual bills, like when the F-15 became out-dated, and needed to be cut, it would come up on a bill, and everyone would vote to cut funding to the plane because it was no longer needed. In the case of the F-15, the Defense Secretary who put it on the chopping block was none other than Dick Cheney.
|
Ooh, fun, a bit about my favorite plane... FYI, the F-15 has been in operational service since the mid-70's. It has gone through several variants, including the original F-15A(single-seat air superiority fighter), F-15B(two-seat trainer), F-15C(the upgraded and current single-seat air superiotity fighter), F-15D(two-seat upgrade), and F-15E(two seat strike fighter). It remains in service and is still one of the most capable aircraft in the world, and second only to the MiG-25 in raw speed. Its replacement, the F-22, has not yet entered service. You must be talking about either an earlier variant or a particular production run, because the F-15 is still alive and kicking ass, and very much up-to-date. 
| Quote: |
Have you, or have you not, said that we are the reason that the terrorists hate us? Because I can assure you that a lot of the world and most liberals believe it. You're trying to relate this very erroneously.
|
Danger! Danger Will Robinson! That's a statement that is an unproven assumption. I know quite a few of what you would define as "liberals," and I can assure you that none of them believe the US brought terrorist attacks on itself. Most of them want to plant a load of high explosives up bin Laden's ass just the same as most of the conservatives do. I have only heard a few people make the "it's our fault" assumption, and I have never met any of them face to face. I'm not saying that some idiots don't believe that crap, but you'd be making a pretty hefty assumption in believing that such stupidity is confined to only one side of the political spectrum.
| Quote: |
Yeah, and Vietnam was over 30 years ago...
|
Yeah, I've finally come to that conclusion as well. In fact, the war ended over a decade before I was born, so it really has no effect on me. My final conclusion is that BOTH presidential candidates did something less than honorable/legal, just like millions of other people in that era. Whoop-dee-freakin' doo.
| Quote: |
Yeah, that's funny... most Democrats voted against Civil Rights... now they walk around acting like they're the black man's only hope.
|
| Quote: |
That was back when there were a large amount of rascist Southern democrats. Learn your history. But here it goes. Okay, so, back in the day, Lincoln abolished slavery. So, in the South, after that, Lincoln was a Republican, right? So the people who opposed him joined up with the Democratic party in the South. These people were rascist. They started to vanish after the Civil Rights Act was passed.
|
WOW. This is moving beyond arguments about the honesty and integrity of political candidates. Now we're beginning to get into events that were set into motion before the candidates' FATHERS were born, and hardly even have any connection to the candidates themselves. Come on, people, will you really say ANYTHING to harp on the other side?
| Quote: |
I'm not saying the terrorists hate us for who we are, but we have performed hostile actions ways back that we tend to forget about. Like, when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with one of our battleships during Israel's big fight with the Middle East after it was established. Well, a whole bunch of terrorists live in the Bekaa Valley, and they were pretty pissed when we killed their friends and family.
|
Yet they(al-Qaida and their cronies) provide no other reason for their attacks than to "kill the infidels." And they attacked CIVILIANS, not legitimate military targets. I could almost, ALMOST understand how you arrived at your conclusions if it were ONLY the Pentagon that was attacked, and if it had been done with an EMPTY airliner instead of one filled with innocents. Instead, they choose to kill people who had done absolutely nothing wrong besides going to work in the morning like they always did.
| Quote: |
Clinton had 8 years and he didn't do much... if he had, September 11th, 2001 would have been just another happy Tuesday.
|
| Quote: |
I've already posted this two seperate times in different threads, but apparently you have chosen to ignore it both times.
|
The truth is that no one really thought that anyone would dare attack on US soil. The last attack of such scale on US turf was by Japan in 1941; 60 years is a long time for complacency to get itself embedded in the thoughts of both population and government.
| Quote: |
Not imminent enough for us to dash in after blowing off the UN. Not nearly.
|
The UN still has no authority that supercedes the right of our government to declare war if they feel the country is at risk. Whether or not there was a threat, a threat was percieved, and it is FAR better to find out you were wrong after dealing with the possibility of said threat than to find out you were right after the schmuck kills American citizens.
| Quote: |
Yeah, I've seen his testimony, but what are you saying? That this didn't happen?
|
Are YOU saying that you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it DID? Remember, Engi, it's innocent until proven guilty in this country, not the other way around.
| Quote: |
Cheney said we will be attacked by terrorists, trying to scare people into voting Bush. Kerry said Bush is weak on defense. While somewhat the same, they aren't the same thing.
|
They're both accusing each other of the same damn thing. One is saying, basically, that the other sucks/will suck at keeping America safe. Where is the difference, except that one has not yet had the chance to suck?
| Quote: |
And Clinton didn't actively dodge the draft, he just got lucky with them not calling him in for service with their crazy birthday system.
|
Actually, he DID actively avoid the draft. But, like I said, this all happened years before I was hatched.
| Quote: |
Not like George Bush, who got daddy to send him to the National Guard
|
That would only really be draft dodging if his unit had been mobilized and he hadn't shown up. And then it would technically be desertion, since he WAS in the military. In case you didn't know, there was a chance that the National Guard could have been sent overseas as well; certain units of the Guard have been sent out to Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is a smaller chance of it happening than, say, joining the regular Air Force, the chance still existed, and Bush was closer to the war than Clinton(who never entered the military) was. Just to clear up how the Guard works. Now Bush may or may not have skipped out on some of his service, but it really makes no fucking difference for an election over 30 years later. Whether he served his time or not, I am not any more inclined to vote for or against him than I was yesterday.
| Quote: |
Where the heck do you come up with this? It appears to me that the Left is still racist. Why else would they keep giving them special consideration as if they're less capable than whites? Oh wait, these are the same people who don't trust us to spend our own money or manage our retirement funds.
|
You didn't just attach two completely different topics together at random did you? Oh, wait, you did. Either way...
| Quote: |
Of course we haven't done everything right... but when you have a child who throws a temper tantrum and breaks things when they don't get their way, you don't give in.
|
A temper tantrum isn't at all comparable to the sick shit terrorists do. Temper tantroms don't slaughter children, terrorists do- and they deserve to die for it.
| Quote: |
I've thought the same thing myself. That's one of the reasons I've been such an activist is because I truly believe that our lives depend on not voting Democrat.
|
I certainly would not go that far. But I also certainly will not vote Democrat. Or Republican, for that matter.
| Quote: |
I want a president that says US US US! Not a president that says VIETNAM VIETNAM VIETNAM!
|
DAMN did that hit the bullseye dead on- even if you weren't aiming for the target you hit. It would rock if some candidate would stand up and do that, wouldn't it?
| Quote: |
The question is: who is the lesser of two evils? My understanding is that both are fairly bad choices.
|
Then don't vote for either. If both, suck, stand up and say it by finding someone who does look like they'll do a better job. There's nothing more American than being an underdog.
| Quote: |
Those hijackers didn't wake up one morning thinking "hey, let's fly a plane into a building", you know.
|
No, you're right. They woke up every morning and thought that. That's what they were thinking right up until they did exactly that.
| Quote: |
I got that from my 8th grade history class, when we were going over the origins of both American political parties. And privatizing social security is still a terrible idea.
|
That's 8th grade history. Like it or not, and no matter what you may believe, those who are in or have graduated high school and college will be more knowledgeable on the same subjects. You simply have not reached the same level of education yet- not to say you're any less intelligent, just less informed.
| Quote: |
So, us killing their families doesn't excuse them from killing our families? While I fully believe 9/11 was a depraved act orchestrated by crazy people, those crazy people were responding to what we had done to them.
|
Horse shit. I defy you to prove that any of the terrorists involved in planning or carrying out 9/11 had ANY close family killed in the events you mentioned. Please. And cousins of cousins' former roomates don't count here. Hell, they didn't even attack the families of the people that were involved in the strikes you mentioned! They just went after the most vulnerable, soft, ripe targets they could set their sick sights on.
| Quote: |
He was just trying not be to controversial there. No one really knows why we're in Iraq any more, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with al Qaeda.
|
And you would know this...how? Proof? Logic? Little birdies chirping in your ear? You don't know the reasons we're still over there. No one does except the people who make such decisions, and the people who are ordered to see those decisions carried out.
| Quote: |
And John Kerry went and testified to try and get our soldiers out of an atrocities war.
|
Honestly, what truly makes you believe that Kerry is any more likely to tell the truth than Bush? I still have yet to see a reason from either side why their candidate should be trusted, when both seem intent on proving that their opponents are skunks.
| Quote: |
Overall, however, I strongly believe that there will be a terrorist attack on our nation shortly before the election in an attempt to sway the vote. I only hope that the country pulls their heads back out of their asses and votes for Bush if that happens.
|
As long as we're expecting it, there will be no attack. Or perhaps the fear of an attack is an attack in and of itself? Something to think about. Terrorism works best when the victims aren't expecting it- but its effects are felt even when it does not strike. Look at Israel, and tell me if you wouldn't be terrified every time you got on a bus...even if it isn't bombed, how do you know it won't be? No candidate will be able to fully erase, or even put a major dent in the effect terror has had on this country, or any other. The damage has already been done- or, more accurately, it is still being done.
| Quote: |
we did that for 600 years and it failed, yet less than a decade of negotiations has worked. Think about it.
|
| Quote: |
Seeing as if we get close to any of them, they'll just blow themselves up. That makes it just a little bit harder to negotiate when you have that as a danger.
|
That, and the terrorists we are currently dealing with have no interest in negotiations. They want to annihilate us, not negotiate with us. BIG difference from Ireland. Those guys didn't intend to kill and maim every living person who didn't follow them.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113904] |
Fri, 10 September 2004 17:43 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
You can try to play the easy game of "I'm not on either side"... but no one likes a fence-sitter. Of course I admit that Bush wasn't cast by the gods out of solid gold, but as far as what I need in a president and what I feel the country needs in a president, this man is the closest we have to fitting that bill. And because the Republican party says outright that they don't require everyone to fall 100% in line like sheep, I can be proud to BE a Republican and still disagree with some of their core principles (like gay marriage, as an example).
Personally, I wouldn't want to ever be in combat, even though I love this country and am proud to be a citizen of it. I don't see it fit to fault someone for preferring to try and stay out of harm's way... especially in a such a horrible conflict such as Vietnam. Likewise I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for the ones who DID go out there and defend my right to my opinion, my right to vote, all the rights I have as an American citizen.
But overall, leading an entire country, especially one with such a large influence over the world... to command an army as large as this one, requires more than 4 months, part of which was commanding a boat. Perhaps it does require one of the toughest MBA's in the country(world?) to get, the Harvard Masters in Business Administration. Commanding one of the highest, if not the highest position in the world requires more than 4 months in a boat... I need more than that. And what little I have heard of Kerry's stance doesn't reflect the ability to do what's best for everyone in the country. I can't hardly even get anyone to tell me why anyone should vote for Kerry without mentioning what they believe Bush has done wrong or isn't doing correctly in their opinions. One votes FOR a candidate, not AGAINST one.
Furthermore, there is a difference between letting terrorism succeed, and being aware of the possibility of attacks. I do not get afraid when I enter a tall building or drive over a busy bridge. I do not watch the skies for low-flying airplanes. But I am conscious of the possibility of an attack and I understand why our president has to make tough decisions to get evil regimes out of power and spread liberty and democracy around the world. America didn't get where it is on pure luck. Our forefathers came up with a great system for our government. It's difficult to deny that, though asinine bills like the McCain-Feingold fair elections bullshit are certainly chinks in the armor.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Apr 28 14:10:18 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01358 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
