'Over there'

[Cidien]

Just because two people at your work got screwed doesn't mean all rich people are greedy. My parents, for example, give loads to charity and my dad takes very good care of all his employees. However, if Kerry were to screw him with his taxes he would not change his lifestyle because of it. He would, in that case, let some workers go if needed.

Besides that, I don't really care about how either handle the taxes much. 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. At least, it used to be. We've lost sight of that goal since the collapse of the Soviet Union it seems. I hate fighting terrorists. So much more complicated. =/

[Mantis421]

Here is a thouht for you all. I have a Friend in Egypt I talk to via E-Mail. Known her for over a year. We usually talk every 2-3 days. We talked this morning I was told that she might not be able to chat much with me for a little bit because she is afraid her friends will find out she is friends with an American. Apparently America is getting indirectly blamed right now for the bombing in Egypt few day back.

[Andromeda18_]

The problem is the entire world doesn't see America with very good eyes right now, especially middle-eastern countries. That happens because you're nosy, you meddle in other countries' business and people don't like that. I've mentioned before, in another thread, that some months after the 11th of September I watched a tv show where New Yorkers said they had to watch European tv channels in order to find out what was really going on in the world. They also said that at first they didn't understand why America had been attacked but that now they understood, they knew it happened for a reason. The image the world has of America is that of a country of conceited people who think they're the best in the world and who think it's their destiny to spread democracy across the world. Obviously people don't like that and the war in Iraq only made things worse. I personally know there are a lot of good people in America, like you guys, but the truth is pretty much the whole world is against you and that's all due to your government's actions. And let's face it, people weren't so mad at America when Bill Clinton was president!

[multipak]

Just because two people at your work got screwed doesn't mean all rich people are greedy. My parents, for example, give loads to charity and my dad takes very good care of all his employees. However, if Kerry were to screw him with his taxes he would not change his lifestyle because of it. He would, in that case, let some workers go if needed.

I see what?s going on here. Your daddy, affluent, well to do business owner, falls right under the demographic that Bush is trying to look after

Little boy is looking out for Daddy?s little interest, eh? .

Of course, you wouldn?t want your daddy to pay 30% tax bracket, would you? After all, he?s got that 42 inch flat screen plasma TV and new BMW SUV to buy that he?s been promising. Otherwise, he might have to layoff a couple good guys from the work. He?s gotta have that precious TV.

And of course, he will give the company to you when he?s tired of it, and you wouldn?t want to pay any inheritance tax, do you? Woops, sorry. Is that what Bush calls Death tax? Of course, you will want to get the company for free. Why should you pay tax for something that you got for free? Change the label. Call it a death tax, and then all the suckers will tell you that you deserve something that you never earned.

Good for you. You want a free ride, and I guess you think Bush will give it to you.

[Cidien]

I knew you'd say something like that multipak, which is why I wasn't sure if I should post that or not. Obviously I shouldn't since I already knew what your next post was, stupid of me. But whatever. Think what you want. Spoiled rich boy thinks he knows everything. Stupid poor person doesn't realize how the world works, how 'bout that? And i'm not rich anymore, my parents don't take care of me and I won't be getting daddys company because daddy thinks I should work for my money. And he's right. I'm not a democrat, I believe people should work for their money. If I was going to be taken care of for the rest of my life and get daddys company I wouldn't be getting a college education dipshit. Oh, and what you posted was very rude, even for a debate like this. I'm now done posting any replies to you. Comments like the one you just made are spawned only out of jealousy. You're an asshole.

Oh, and by the way, my dad lived in a small trailor with 4 brothers and 3 sisters with cracked windows in the winter without even enough blankets to keep them warm because their alcoholic father spent all his money on booze. He earned every damn penny he has and he has every right to get that big screen tv and nice car. Perhaps you should have worked harder to make something of yourself, because you obviously aren't satisfied what whatever you've made of yourself.

"And let's face it, people weren't so mad at America when Bill Clinton was president!"

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. At least his presidency wasn't as bad as Carter. Carter would do nothing and seriously screw something up. Hell, Iran went from ally to enemy simply because Carter did nothing. The really sad thing is Carter still believes he did the right thing. Don't understand how a man like that ever became president. Hard to even find a democrat nowadays that will stick up for him.

[Zagatto]

Whoah!!!!!
I don't believe what I'm reading here.
Jimmy Carter is revered by most people I know as an advocate of peace and a man with a strong sense of social welfare. He created almost 8 MILLION new jobs and made a HUGE reduction in the deficit. The unfortunate downside to this was rising inflation and interest rates which were ended with a short recession.

Another problem he handled well was the energy crisis where he instituted the national energy policy. He also expanded our national parks to help preserve our environment.

Then there were the Camp David talks which established a temporary peace between Egypt and Isreal for the first time in two Millenia.

All of these things are commendable and make for a great presidency.
There were poor choices made as well and since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize it seems that there has been a LOT of attention focused on those choices with blinders to all the good things Carter did both while in office and since he left office. It seems again that your young mind has been clouded by current events reports from the right wing.

Why I think Clinton was president can be summed up from his biography on the official White House web site. And I quote " During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus. As part of a plan to celebrate the millennium in 2000, Clinton called for a great national initiative to end racial discrimination." There is more but I would be labouring the point.

It seems that the great strength of our Republican leaders has been in their show of strength and power around the world while the great strength of our Democratic leaders has been in the building of a better place here for Americans to live at.

All the presidents have international success stories as well as horrible mistakes that can be pointed to (except for Gerald Ford... all he'll ever be remembered for is Vietnam).

In the end, I value those strengths shown by our Democratic leaders. Especially those shown by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Franklin D Roosevelt. These three great men have shown the foresight to build solid programs that have benefited the country beyond their terms in office.

[Zagatto]

While I'm sticking up for things I believe in I'm going to direct a little at multipak as well. While I agree with your political standings I have big issues with the way you stand for your point. 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.

It's just as bad as saying all people who hold a certain belief to be morons or idiots. With any president in the history of the US I can show both great things and horrible things that they have done (ok... I admit it... Ford did have some strengths). The difference between the presidents is what direction they focused their strengths in.

Lets try to keep this debate civil.
Focus on what it is that makes you proud to support Kerry and which failings Bush has shown to you that make you not support him.

[Cidien]

What made Carter such an awful president was his foreign policy issues. The Iran issue was the perfect example. If Carter had just done something to help, anything to help, Iran would still be our ally today.

Do you deny that Reagan had nothing to do with Clinton's booming economy? Clinton was handed an economy on the rise. All he had to do was NOT screw it up and enjoy all the benefits it brought him. By not screwing it up he did a great job for almost eight years.

The one thing Clinton did do was nothing in the middle east for eight years. That helped. Wait, he did bomb next to nothing in Iraq to take some of the heat of his sex scandal. We should have been after Saddam a long time ago when Clinton was still in office. As soon as Saddam broke the U.N. resolutions they should have been in his face. The only reason we had to go to war in the first place is because the U.N. is useless and Clinton didn't want to stand up and do something himself.

By the way, I do appologize for the forceful way I word some thing such as calling people idiots for believing something. It is pretty rude of me.

[Elcoholic]

And Bush's foreign policy is good?

I believe the Iraq mistake is more than reason enough not to realect him.

Reason 1: He lied about Iraq having WMD which wouldn't be such a bad thing if he just admitted it but no, he now changes the reason to Saddam being a bad man (BTW, there are waaaay more people in the world now who think Bush is worse than Saddam, me not being one of them but still). Then I think, what about all the other bad men and opressed people? Oh well, They didn't have beef with your dad and they have no oil. That explains it.

Reason 2: In the 'war on terror' invading Iraq was one of the worst moves ever. You're figting an ideal, a way of thinking. This way of thinking has gotten infinetly more followers all over the world by invading Iraq. Way more people are prepared to fight against the US now (look at all the foreign terrorists in Iraq if your news bing you this info) than after 911 when the whole world sided with america. Bush has not gotten rid of terrorists, he created new ones

I watch the debates and the one thing I notice most is Kerry 's giving the people lots of plans and Bush is only talking about how Kerry's plans will fail and repeating the same thing over and over. He hardly presents any plans of his own. He not trying to win votes, he's only trying to take them away from Kerry it seems.

I really can't see how anyone would vote for Bush after the way he embarresed your country in front of the whole world by invading Iraq practically on his own and lying to everyone about the reasons.

[Cidien]

"Reason 1: He lied about Iraq having WMD which wouldn't be such a bad thing if he just admitted it but no, he now changes the reason to Saddam being a bad man (BTW, there are waaaay more people in the world now who think Bush is worse than Saddam, me not being one of them but still). Then I think, what about all the other bad men and opressed people? Oh well, They didn't have beef with your dad and they have no oil. That explains it."

Iraq had WMD's. Theres a lot of evidence that Saddam moved them before the invasion, but not enough to prove it. Bush HAS admitted that Saddam had no WMD's and he regrets using that faulty intelligence. Kerry, btw, had access to the same intelligence as Bush and came to the same conclusions. So how is Kerry better?

You can't take all the bad men in the world on at the same time. Yes, I think Saddam was first in line because we rely on that region for oil. Is this wrong? Would you rather we say screw our interests, we're starting with the place that's the least beneficial to us! Once again, the U.N. doesn't care about what's right most the time. They are the ones that are supposed to stick up for those smaller nations when they are being slaughtered, but they don't.

Calling Bush worse than Saddam is retarded. Saddam acted much like Hitler on a smaller scale. Had he had access to the resources Hiter did, I doubt Saddam would have been any better. I know you didn't say this, but people that do make me angry.

"Reason 2: In the 'war on terror' invading Iraq was one of the worst moves ever. You're figting an ideal, a way of thinking. This way of thinking has gotten infinetly more followers all over the world by invading Iraq. Way more people are prepared to fight against the US now (look at all the foreign terrorists in Iraq if your news bing you this info) than after 911 when the whole world sided with america. Bush has not gotten rid of terrorists, he created new ones"

Really? Where are all these new terrorists coming from? I've already addressed this. Yes, I could very well be wrong. However, I don't think sitting back and doing nothing will help anybody. There will still be terrorists and they will still want to kill us. May as well go after them instead of waiting for them to come to us.

"I watch the debates and the one thing I notice most is Kerry 's giving the people lots of plans and Bush is only talking about how Kerry's plans will fail and repeating the same thing over and over. He hardly presents any plans of his own. He not trying to win votes, he's only trying to take them away from Kerry it seems."

Kerry may as well write a theme song called "Not Bush". Don't feel like going off on this again but most of the votes Kerry will be getting in the election will be coming from people who just want anyone but Bush. I wonder what % of Kerry voters will be able to give a real reason why they voted for him. =/

Bush has not lied. Please, point out a lie to me. The only "lies" people show me are pure speculation. Bush is human, he makes mistakes. In fact, Kerry made most of them alongside Bush then made a lot more against Bush later. Kerry is the one who should be ashamed of how he's acted during our war on terror. He's hardly been better than during the Cold War. He sure was on the right side of history then...

[Zagatto]

Too bad the "war on terrorism" isn't the only flaw of Bush's that I see but since that is what is on the table that is what I will address.

The whole idea of invading Iraq or any other nation that has NOT declared war on another country is violating that country's sovereign rights. Just as the US was founded by our forefathers in search of a country to run the way we wanted it run, that is all the other countries are looking for.

There are dictatorships, communist state, kingdoms, and a host of varied governments that take bits of all of those. It is up to the people of those countries to decide what government they want to be under and how they want to be governed.

Iraq never declared war on the US.
The best evidence currently shows that Iraq hasn't had any WMDs since 1993.
Iraq was not exterminating a minority ethnic or religious group.

I'm not saying that Iraq was good to the majority of the people living there or even that terrorists didn't live there. What I am saying is that the government of Iraq did not support or defend these terrorists. Iraq was not declaring war on the US. Iraq wasn't even a clear threat to our country.

North Korea DOES have WMDs and is developing them further.
Saudi Arabia is known to host terrorist organizations.
Sudan is currently practicing genocide.

These are all good reasons to invade a country but we haven't.
Sadam was a bad guy. That's our reason?

Looking at "TERRORISM" in general it's easy to see there are people who have extreme beliefs within any country. Heck, look at Oaklahoma City. That was a terrorist attack from within our own country. Do we go invade Michigan? Do we crack down on military organizations?

Terrorists like to play the role of the martyr. Dying for their cause only gets them more attention and gets more people to pay attention. When we invade and kill people it's like saying "hey, these terrorists may actually be on to something. Maybe the US is spending too much time meddling in foreign affairs."

I've got more to say but I have to go now....

[Cidien]

"The whole idea of invading Iraq or any other nation that has NOT declared war on another country is violating that country's sovereign rights. Just as the US was founded by our forefathers in search of a country to run the way we wanted it run, that is all the other countries are looking for."

I'm pretty sure there are an awful lot of Iraqis that were looking for a leader that wouldn't kill them because they said his clothes don't match. Yes, Saddam has killed people for saying his clothes did not match. How is it bad we took Saddam out of power? Yes, Saddam was a bad guy is more than enough reason. We need to help more countries out that have cruel leaders like this.

There are not enough terrorists in the U.S. to do much about it. Invading Michigan would be kinda pointless since Michigan has no ties to terrorists except in certain organizations. Do I think we should raid those identified organizations? Hell yes.

And to those people that claim there were no ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, that's not a very intelligent arguement. Hell, there are ties to Al Qaeda here in Fargo ND. The difference is Iraq can do a lot more damage helping Al Qaeda than anyone in Fargo ND.

"Iraq was not declaring war on the US. Iraq wasn't even a clear threat to our country."

Kerry thought it was until he realized it would be bad for Bush if he denounced the war and pretended he never really supported going.

"North Korea DOES have WMDs and is developing them further.
Saudi Arabia is known to host terrorist organizations.
Sudan is currently practicing genocide.

These are all good reasons to invade a country but we haven't."

I completely agree. We can't take them all on at once, but something needs to be done about them. Once again, I wish the U.N. would get off its lazy ass and do something. Once Iraq is fairly stable i'm sure we'll be turning out attention more towards North Korea. We better anyways. But once again, how do you deal with a country that openly states if we invade them they will nuke us?

[Cidien]

Wow, I just watched Kerry say "Never again will one million black voters not have their vote count." Hmm, 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. Kerry leads the way for them...

[Cidien]

More good news.

Quote:

The Taliban vowed to turn the Afghan election into a day of bloodshed, but the rebels mounted only a smattering of small-scale attacks on police and civilians and a larger clash that left many of their own dead.

After months of what proved to be empty threats, military commanders and ordinary Afghans said Sunday the vote was a serious setback for the holdouts of the hard-line Islamic regime that was driven from power by U.S. bombs almost three years ago for harboring Osama bin Laden.

Voters also said the Taliban had been exposed as weak.

"Yesterday was a big defeat for the Taliban and a huge defeat for al-Qaida," Lt. Gen. David Barno, the top American commander in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press. "It shows that the political process is overwhelming any influence they may have."



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? Invading Afghanistan is little different than invading Iraq to these people. Infadels are setting foot on their holy territory. Obviously killing them off by the hundreds is doing some good. Left wing analists a while back predicted a lot worse during the afghan election than this.

[Elcoholic]

Iraq had WMD's. Theres a lot of evidence that Saddam moved them before the invasion, but not enough to prove it. Bush HAS admitted that Saddam had no WMD's and he regrets using that faulty intelligence. Kerry, btw, had access to the same intelligence as Bush and came to the same conclusions. So how is Kerry better?

He had WMD. The US gave them to him. But as Zagatto pointed out, there haven't been any in his hands since 1993. Just read the damn report. I really don't believe Kerry had the same intel. I don't believe there was any real intel. I believe Bush planed to attack Iraq regarless. I think he was planning it before 911. There are alot of people in his own administration who have said so. Kerry is better because he pointed out how Bush didn't keep his word to the senate by not building a large coalition and ussing force as a last option. Which he didn't because the weapon inspectors weren't finished yet. But because the reports of the inspectors were showing they couldn't find any WMD Bush had to hurry before the final report was presented to the UN. I'm actually amazed that the US didn't plant some WMD and said they were Saddams (I know it sounds weird but that's the view people in the world have about Bush).

You can't take all the bad men in the world on at the same time. Yes, I think Saddam was first in line because we rely on that region for oil. Is this wrong? Would you rather we say screw our interests, we're starting with the place that's the least beneficial to us! Once again, the U.N. doesn't care about what's right most the time. They are the ones that are supposed to stick up for those smaller nations when they are being slaughtered, but they don't.

You are living in a dream world if you think the US is going to free all opressed people. You can't even get rid of Castro who is right arround the corner let alone North korea which is the biggest threat to the world.
Is going there for oil wrong? Hell yes. You had no interests there for a reason, they don't want you there.
Do you even know what the UN is? They don't have an army of their own you know.
And if you think your presindent is doing it to free people all over the world than get the fuck out of Iraq and over to Darfur asap.

Calling Bush worse than Saddam is retarded. Saddam acted much like Hitler on a smaller scale. Had he had access to the resources Hiter did, I doubt Saddam would have been any better. I know you didn't say this, but people that do make me angry.

I know but I just want to point out to you that he brought this onto his own. Let me tell you the comparison with Hitler is not so bad. In our eyes Saddam is the Hitler, in the eyes of people in the middle east and asia Bush is. Invading Iraq only enforced these people's beliefs. And now with the US admitting there were no WMD, well you can see faith in Bush is non-existent in those parts of the world and he will not get anywhere with diplomacy there in the comming 4 years.

And to those people that claim there were no ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, that's not a very intelligent arguement. Hell, there are ties to Al Qaeda here in Fargo ND. The difference is Iraq can do a lot more damage helping Al Qaeda than anyone in Fargo ND.

There are no ties between Saddam and Al-qaida. Period. But you think that the commision is corrupt and you know better.

And don't think the Iraq thing will be over anytime soon. You don't even control all of the country anymore and the attacks still occur daily.

Cidien, you really talk like a Bush propaganda machine. The example I find most obvious is you stating the 911 commision gave a false report. This shows you just won't believe anything that's bad about Bush. I liked that question in the last debate so Cidien, Is there anything that you don't agree with Bush about or are there any mistakes he made in the last four years that you don't like?

(ps, none of this is personal and I still think you are a nice poster, I'm just trying to get insight in how Bush voters think since there are hardly any pro-Bush people in europe)