People of the USA

Home  \  Off Topic  \  People of the USA

I'll take this moment to thank all of the voters and Bush supporters that thumbed their nose to that lying,flip/flopping traitor. :thumbs: :clap:

posted by  lectroid

euh...
Congrats to the winners.

posted by  karburator

GO BUSH!! (Nice sig lectroid!)

posted by  StiMan

Oh yay. Another 4 years of lying, cheating, and murder.


Horay for corruption!

posted by  abless

SORRY,not, about your big ole wasted state of Californicaters. Next election you may have better luck. :laughing: MURDER :doh:

posted by  lectroid

I never had one doubt in my mind. I always knew Bush would win throughout the entire campaign. I always knew there were more smart people in this country than dumbasses. It was proven. :thumbs:

posted by  DodgeRida67

huh? *is baffled*

posted by  SuperJew

Drop the Cali and get you dictionary.

posted by  lectroid

no...like, i cant understand your gibberish. what does "drop the Cali" mean??

posted by  SuperJew

What don't you understand, about my gibberish?

posted by  lectroid

what it's supposed to mean...

posted by  SuperJew

fornicater. I think that is the right spelling.

posted by  lectroid

When I woke up this morning, I knew that 2 people were going to be happy today. Bush and Hilairy Clinton. My guess is we will have the first women running for office in 2008. Oh ya, way to go BUSH :thumbs:

posted by  Voda48

Gotta disagree.

Funny thing is people could stand lying coming from Kerry, but had to make UP lying coming from Bush... just to have something to complain about.

posted by  ChrisV

no...... you see, what we did on the second and third is avoid four years of lying,cheating, murder, and corruption. too bad for you radical liberals, i guess you are going to have to wait four years untill you get another chance to increase the ways and reasons that innocent BABIES (because that is what they are) are murdered. you talk of lying, cheating and corruption? well, you obviously dont know anything about your man kerry.

posted by  farmboy

im not a fan of kerry but i just wanted bush outta the presidential chair.

posted by  Ki2AY

What a crock of shit.

posted by  DodgeRida67

I'm dying to know why. :hi:

posted by  DodgeRida67

because i believe in democrats.

posted by  Ki2AY

Horay for spoon feeding lazy asses that won't work from sucking off from the people that do work. :thumbs:

posted by  DodgeRida67

i knew you would come up with something like that. look bud, im not even going to flame over this. i have my beliefs and so do you. ill respect yours and be mature about it.. shall we move on zit boy.? (opps loooks like my immaturity just kicked in).

posted by  Ki2AY

Most likely because you knew it was true.





Flame? Who said anything about flaming?




Almost. But it's like this. I have my truths, you have your speculation and false opinions.




You're a real democrat now.

I'd bet anything you are really about 14.

posted by  DodgeRida67

That is what most people who voted for kerry said...
GO BUSH!!

posted by  StiMan

true that you wasnt mature enough to just ignore and respect my beliefs rather than start an argument about it yes.... my mistake...






(look i can act stupid to) yeh what flame?






that line can actually be directed towards you to... say i can say exsactly the same thing about you. so lets move on and be adults.




ill take that as a compliment



that line is so old.. im not even going to reply to that.

posted by  Ki2AY

You sure got me there.

Where are those WMD's again?



Well good thing we don't have to wait 4 years to kill any more Iraqi babies.



Even IF Kerry didn't do everything he said he did in Vietnam, at least he was there.

posted by  abless

Syria,Iran and Russia. If you would read the news,you wouldn't have to ask.

posted by  lectroid

and North Korea, as well.

i like your sig Lectroid. :thumbs:

posted by  SuperJew

Let me put it to you this way.

If you knew I had car keys, and you watched me put my car keys on teh table, would you be lying if you turned and told someone that I had car keys and put them on the table? If I picked them up while your back was turned, and then you and the person you told looked on the table and they weren't there, could they correctly assume that you were lying when you told them I put the keys on the table? Would the person you told be right if they said I didn't have keys at all, because they weren't where you said they were?

If you look for something you lost, would you be lying if you said you had them before? Would the truth be you never had it at all?

The whole WORLD knew Saddam had WMDs, he used teh chemicals on his own people. He was in negotiation for nukes from Kim Jong Il. And he kept shuffling inspectors around for YEARS, not letting them see certain areas. is it logical to assume he never had any, or that he moved stuff while distracting the inspectors?

But, you might want to read this in it's entirety: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11282003.html



Saddam should never have invaded Kuwait, and never killed a few hundred thousand of his own citizens. He should never have ignored 14 separate UN resolutions, and should never shot at our planes in the no fly zone during the extended cease fire after the Gulf War (which of course was started by Saddam invading Kuwait).

All of those things are the reasons the war was restarted (remember, we never officially stopped being at war with Saddam after the Gulf War). Yes. It's called an act of war, disobeying UN resolutions, and firing on coalition aircraft during a cease fire. Remember, we were already at war with Iraq from when they invaded Kuwait. So yes, when we signed a cease fire, he was supposed to, well, cease firing. He didn't, so we get to go back in and finish the war.

Had Saddam not killed Americans and British hostages after the Gulf war, had he followed the UN resolutions, and not shot at the planes, and not paid to have Americans and British killed worldwide, or harbored the guy who mixed the chemicals in the bomb that blew up the WTC during Clinton's presidency, we never would have gone back to war with him.

What? You think that world history started in 2001?

Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)




Ok, here's a lovely point. he lied about when he was there for 30 years. This was an isue decades ago. he lied about what he DID there. Then he came backcalling his fellow sopldiers war criminals, denouncing everything he did. he lied about commendations he got. he lied about what he did with the Vietnamses leaders. And the list goes on.

GWB never lied about his service. he has fully admitted he was a bit of a screwup while growing up, a clown and a joker, who didn't get his act together until he met his wife.

BUT...

GWB joined up in the Air Natinal Guard. Ask any guardsman if they are serious or not, or try to accuse them of "playing" to get out of serving. Bush's ANG unit was in fact flying combat missions in Vietnam, under Operation Palace Guard. the planed he was flying were some of the most difficult to fly of the era, killing over 70 pilots. If you were trying to get out of serving in Vietnam, you don't sign up for a unit flying active duty there, and then excell at being a pilot of one of the more dangerous fighter planes in combat. The ONLY reason he didnt' fly actual combat is that he didn't have enough flight hours by the time that Operation Palace guard was cancelled. But official records showed him to be an outstanding pilot, a natural leader, and more. These are not the things one does when trying to get out of something.

posted by  ChrisV

The "keys" on the table, so to speak, span farther back than the Bush presidency. Contrary to popular belief Saddam and Bin Laden were not born on September 11. Ireguardless to the US Islamic charities that somehow directly fed Osama Bin Laden and Saddam unspecified ammounts of money. Does'nt matter if American soldiers trianed Al Qaeda "terrorist" on take-over tactics. All of these these things were going on before Bush was ever president.

So what would you do if you were appointed president. Your advisers tell you about all of this. Something that you did'nt have anything to do with, you did'nt start it but you're President so you have to deal with it. I don't blame Bush for searching for WMD's. He was told they were there and America had valid proof and beliefs that Saddam had them. Ireguardless to if we funded them or not. So America turns to the man in office. Somone has to be to blame or take action for all of this. But I have to say, knowing something is there and not finding it looks almost as bad as lying about it being there in the first place.

Not saying he damn well did'nt know about all of this, after all his father was president. Bush is not a saint, and Kerry sure the hell is not one either. If any of you are willing to think all the stuff either of them say is true, you're only being fed more horse shit than flies on a stud ranch. I'm not a fan of Bush, quite frankly I don't like the idea of a war that I could potentially be drafted into. Nor am I a Fan of Kerry and his constant lying. So wich of the two evils do we want? It seems America chose Bush.....

Bush is no better than any other president. I suppose if the trade towers were blown up when Clinton was getting his dick sucked he'd look like a bad guy also?

posted by  DSMer

But the timeline of the Saddam/Kim Jung Il events were not known until fairly late, and things were changing fast while we were in Afghanistan trying to oust the Taliban. Like I said, while we were in Afghanistan, it became clear what Saddam as trying to do, with repeated calls for the deaths of Americans and British worldwide, and the harboring of people who were involved in the WTC bombings and the Cole attack.



Looks almost as bad, but it still isn't actually lying, which is the contention by Democrats. he did not lie about them, pretty much everyone in the world, using all sorts of different intelligence agencies, knew he had them, he had used them, and was trying to get more, all of which is in direct opposition to the 14 UN resolutions and the terms of our Cease Fire form the Gulf War (which was fought because Saddam invaded and tried to take over Kuwait. To many people seem to forget that whole scenario..)



Actually, the World Trade Center WAS bombed while Clinton was in office, and we knew Al Qaeda did it. People died then. They also blew up the USS Cole. And the guy that was responsible for making the bombs for the WTC bombing was in the employ of Saddam. This is known by everybody, including John Kerry. And yes, Clinton DOES look like a bad guy because, after the twin towers got bombed, and the Cole got bombed, Clinton lobbed a cruise missile at an afghanistan training center, missed everything, and gave up. It just happens the result of looking like a paper tiger there was a renewed sense of superiority for Al Qaeda, who came back with an even larger attack. You watch Black Hawk Down? That Somalian operation was carried out under Clinton, and without proper support from the top, it failed because he only had enough backbone to go in there, but not enough to actually see it through.

When we went into Iraq this time, the estimates for US Forces casualties was set at approx 5000 US soldiers dying. Dems and Republicans decided that was a fair figure for a major operation. We haven't come close to that yet, and now they are claiming that more soldiers died than they thought would. Apparently they've been playing too many videogames, where no one on your side actually dies...

posted by  ChrisV

Your Message