'Over there'

[Cidien]

"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."

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...

And who are these people who have said so in his administration? I've heard a lot of left wing whackos (Al Gore for one, man i'm glad he lost he'd be worse than Kerry) but please point out someone in Bush's administration who said Bush was planning to go to war before 9/11. Now, he was keeping more tabs on Saddam and upping intelligence gathering and such. There's nothing wrong with that. Clinton was a fool for cutting so much of our intelligence and military budget.

Well just read your next paragraph about living in a dream world so i'm now done reading anything you write or responding. Don't like talking to people like you. I never said we would free all oppressed people, but if you want to sit back and do absolutely nothing for nobody move to France.

[Elcoholic]

I think they were presented with intel, I just don't think it was real intel but that it was made up or corrupted by the Bush admin. As I heard Kerry state in the debates he voted for going to war on bases of this false intel (you must agree by now it was false) and he voted for going to war with UN consent and a large coalition which didn't happen.

I don't have any names for you since I am not that much into US politics (I'm not from the US in case you hadn't noticed) but I believe there were several instances that they reported such alligations in the news and I think some of them were by people from his own white house staff. People who were ordered to find anything to go to war over.

If you are insulted by my remark of your dream world that's not what I want and I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. As I said before, I don't talk to many pro Bush people here in europe. Can I gather from your responce that you really do believe he did this for the Iraq's and is going to continue to 'free' people all over the world? Even those that don't pose a threat to the US (Darfur and many other african country's?). Cause that would be great. Only thing is he should have used that reason from the beginning to get my vote.

And if you choose to continue this discussion than please answer my last question. 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?

[Cidien]

One thing I don't like about Bush is he limits genetic and stem cell research too much. The dems try to exagerate this though by making Bush look worse than he is. Bush only stops fetal stem cell research which hasn't been shown to help one person with anything. It's adult stem cell research which Bush permits for the most part because you don't have to kill a human being whenever you use adult stem cells. It's also adult stem cell research that has been helping and curing people. However, I don't think this kind of research should be limited at all.

I also don't like that Bush approved the democrats plans for education then cut the budget for the plan quite significantly. However, we still have one of the largest (if not the largest, I forget exactly) increases in spending on education in the history of the U.S.

While I don't agree with gay marriage I believe it's their right to choose what they want to do with their lives. I don't like that Bush is against gay marriage so much.

There are a few other small things but for the most part I support Bush. There's much more about Kerry that I don't like. Thanks God he wasn't president during Reagans term. The Soviet Union would probably still be a threat to us today with both their nukes and their excessive funding of terrorist programs.

Where are the compassionate dems from the past like Kennedy? =/ Then again, by todays standards kennedy would probably be a republican. The dems used to be the conservative party lol. It's kind of funny with old people. My moms parents claim to be democrats but they are republicans and my dads parents claim to be republicans but they are actually democrats. =P

While I think Bush really does want to help the Iraqi people I don't think that's the only reason for going. As long as those people are truly getting help and freedom to choose what kind of life they lead I don't care if there were other reasons for going.

[multipak]

A lot of activities since my last visit.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

[Cidien]

Not even gonna read another post by you. If that post was aimed at me you just wasted a lot of time.

[multipak]

Don?t flatter yourself. My posts were aimed at everyone as well as you so that we all can see how shallow your arguments are. I don?t expect to see your reply because you got no reply. Or are you intimidated intellectually to the point you are afraid to reply?

I?ve achieved my goal for I stop you from posting any more garbage spewed out by Fox news. Besides, I am 99.99% sure that you already read all of my posts.

Just answer one question* Where is the tie between Al Qaeda and Sadam, as you repeatedly claimed?

*I already know your answer. That is, no answer or unable to answer.

[Cidien]

Actually I didn't read your last post. I read this one because it was short. If it will get you to shut up then here:

Found some proof for you.

Pages 61 through 66 of the 9/11 report for starters, even more in the Senate Intelligence report and the British Buttler Commission Report.
google it.

Or if you want a link to a story all done up for you here:

http://cshink.com/salman_pak.htm

Now, will you admit you were wrong or are you going to try in a feeble attempt to portray this as republican propoganda or something?

Here's another link for ya. Scan for the italicized stuff.

http://www.timespapers.com/misc/911ReportAnalysis.pdf

[multipak]

You are funny. The half of my long post was your own writing. Don?t like seeing your own words? If you truly didn?t read it, you were wise because you would?ve felt disgraced. Don?t read it. In fact, I should delete some parts of it that are very embarrassing to you. I don?t want to humble you too much. I am nice, am I not?

Hahahahaha whahahahaha. NewsMax!!!! You?re a joker!! That news was disregarded by even Republicans. NewsMax (your source) is an infamous right wing news outlet website run by Republicans, most notably Chris Ruddy. Bill O?Reilly used to work for them. One of their articles include ?Democrats Plot Against Bush.? Enough said.

Cidien, you are losing credibility fast if you had any to begin with. I am asking you once again. Where is the quote from 9/11 commission report? Also, don?t give us this Bushit ?report analysis? by someone else. We don?t want any spin. We want the unaltered, original words that support your claim.

[Cidien]

Reread my post dumbass. I told you where in the commission report to read.

If that doesn't convince you (assuming you actually read it instead of posting again laughing like an idiot) not sure anything will. I'm done now, you can have fun debating yourself if you want to. Anyone else who spends the time reading it will know it's you who just lost your credibility, not me.

[multipak]

Kid, You are still a joker.
I already read the 9/11 commission report a while ago when it came out, and I am familiar with the contents. I don?t throw unsupported claims around like you joker are fond of doing.

Your pathetic reply is ?read pages 61-66? as if the whole section support your claims. That?s about as valid as saying ?read the internet.? You failed to quote a single line.

At the end of the day, your ultimate reply is ?I am done debating with you.? Everyone knows that?s a favorite line of losers when they are pushed into corners. Loser, stay off the debate. You cannot handle it.

[Cidien]

=P Whatever makes you feel better.