A lot of activities since my last visit.
Did Dick Cheney tell you that? Clinton had admirable domestic and international policies. During the time of Clinton era, America enjoyed one of the most prosper times in its history. If that is not an accomplishment, I don?t know what it is. In history books, Clinton will be honored for his domestic and economic policies.
Oh, really? You think no one cares? How about Iraqis themselves? Do you think they don?t care why we went to war? Spreading freedom and democracy sounds very good to me. How do you do it? Your preferred method is by invading and occupying another country?
In general, voting irregularities are most prone in districts of poor inner cities where great population of black voters reside. Poor areas tend to have poor voting machines that cause more errors. There tend to be longer lines, fewer machines, and a less number of guides per person. Surely you must be smart enough to figure out why those factors will result in less # of votes counted? In 2000 elections, there were reports that alleged some Republicans of using intimidation tactics to prevent uneducated black voters from voting.
Are you that naive or that dumb? The country is occupied by US, the election was monitored by US, and the people were voting under the looming presence of US tanks. Where is your phantom democracy? You are bringing nothing but propaganda. It?s only logical that there wasn?t a flurry of violence. Terrorists don?t hit when everyone is expecting them. If you were terrorists, would you plan a large-scale assault against waiting US army? They were all empty threats that were meant to generate panic among Afghans.
I am getting so tired of you bringing out the same old bullshit that Republicans babble repeatedly. Don?t you ever think for yourself? Senate didn?t vote to go to war. They voted to give Bush discretion to go to war. The onus was on Bush. Don?t spin the fact.
That?s where you are partly wrong. Republican personal attacks on Kerry (e.g., infamous speech by Senator Zell Miller, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, etc) since Democratic convention have resulted in a large gain for Bush until Bush bungled the first debate. You might argue that it makes republicans petty and not worth paying attention to. Yet, the majority of people are not turned off by it. It?s something I would not advocate, but that?s the reality. It works.
In contrast, Democrats have been very weak on attacking Bush. Democrats was in a total disarray until Howard Dean appeared in the national scene, started attacking Bush, and revitalized the Democratic Party. Kerry is still benefiting from Dean?s energy. However, in general, Democrats play nice. While the positive tone of Democratic convention gave Kerry 0% boost, the negative attacking tone of Republican convention gave Bush 3% gain. It works. It?s time for Democrats to stop playing nice.
Cidien Wrote:That's because Clinton didn't do anything. Sure, people wern't so mad at him, but the only thing he'll be remembered for later in history is a sex scandal and a person that accomplished almost nothing and screwed up almost nothing.
Did Dick Cheney tell you that? Clinton had admirable domestic and international policies. During the time of Clinton era, America enjoyed one of the most prosper times in its history. If that is not an accomplishment, I don?t know what it is. In history books, Clinton will be honored for his domestic and economic policies.
Cidien Wrote:What's more important to me is what we are doing in the world. We removed an evil dictator from power and are now trying to spread freedom to millions of Iraqis and hopefully more in the future. Sure, that may not be the only reason we went to war, but who cares. The goal of this country is to spread freedom and democracy around this world.
Oh, really? You think no one cares? How about Iraqis themselves? Do you think they don?t care why we went to war? Spreading freedom and democracy sounds very good to me. How do you do it? Your preferred method is by invading and occupying another country?
Cidien Wrote:"Never again will one million black voters not have their vote count." i'd like to know how/why their vote didn't count and i'd like to see some of these people that supposedly couldn't vote. What a whacko. Of course there are so many left wing conspiracy theories.
In general, voting irregularities are most prone in districts of poor inner cities where great population of black voters reside. Poor areas tend to have poor voting machines that cause more errors. There tend to be longer lines, fewer machines, and a less number of guides per person. Surely you must be smart enough to figure out why those factors will result in less # of votes counted? In 2000 elections, there were reports that alleged some Republicans of using intimidation tactics to prevent uneducated black voters from voting.
Cidien Wrote:We just brought democracy to one nation and soon to another. I'd say our war on terror has been doing pretty well. Notice the lack of a large scale assault? Where are all these new terrorists that were made?
Are you that naive or that dumb? The country is occupied by US, the election was monitored by US, and the people were voting under the looming presence of US tanks. Where is your phantom democracy? You are bringing nothing but propaganda. It?s only logical that there wasn?t a flurry of violence. Terrorists don?t hit when everyone is expecting them. If you were terrorists, would you plan a large-scale assault against waiting US army? They were all empty threats that were meant to generate panic among Afghans.
Cidien Wrote:Then why did they vote to go to war? Bush didn't just wake up one day and say hey lets put our troops in Iraq and take out Saddam. It was approved, by Kerry and the rest of the senate. So what you're telling me is Kerry is dumb enough to vote to go to war without any intel? Right...
I am getting so tired of you bringing out the same old bullshit that Republicans babble repeatedly. Don?t you ever think for yourself? Senate didn?t vote to go to war. They voted to give Bush discretion to go to war. The onus was on Bush. Don?t spin the fact.
Zagatto Wrote:You are making personal attacks on someone you know almost nothing about. It's true that Cidien's opinions seems coloured by right wing news but that doesn't make it excusable to make personal attacks on his upbringing.//?..//When debating politics, try to keep the debate to politics. By attacking the debator instead of his standings you weaken your own voice. You show yourself to be petty and not worth paying attention to.
That?s where you are partly wrong. Republican personal attacks on Kerry (e.g., infamous speech by Senator Zell Miller, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, etc) since Democratic convention have resulted in a large gain for Bush until Bush bungled the first debate. You might argue that it makes republicans petty and not worth paying attention to. Yet, the majority of people are not turned off by it. It?s something I would not advocate, but that?s the reality. It works.
In contrast, Democrats have been very weak on attacking Bush. Democrats was in a total disarray until Howard Dean appeared in the national scene, started attacking Bush, and revitalized the Democratic Party. Kerry is still benefiting from Dean?s energy. However, in general, Democrats play nice. While the positive tone of Democratic convention gave Kerry 0% boost, the negative attacking tone of Republican convention gave Bush 3% gain. It works. It?s time for Democrats to stop playing nice.