Okay, I've had it. I've been trying to keep my damn opinions to myself on this whole election thing, but I can't do it anymore. Too many people support Bush. It's stupid. I don't get it.
Kerry's a flip-flop. I know this. I'm not an idiot. And heaven forbid a man should actually change his mind on something. I suppose Kerry should be more like President Bush. Stick with his stance no matter what, even if the facts proving your fallacy are specifically placed directly in front of your face dozens upon dozens of times.
Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were not. Bush said there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. Okay, sure... if by connection, you mean Saddam Hussein himself was on the Al-Qaida's hitlist. Bush said finding Osama Bin Laden was a number one priorty. Then, a few weeks ago in a response to accusations that Bush was putting the situation with Iraq ahead of the situation with Afghanistan, he retorts with a "Osama Bin Laden is no longer a concern." Hmmm... didn't Bush say something about not resting until Bin Laden had been found? Now he's no longer a concern? The most dangerous man in the world, the first person in 60 years to launch such a devestatingly effective attack on the United States is still at large and no longer a concern?! I guess that's what happens you outsmart Bush... he decides to pretend you're no longer a threat. Its called the Ostrich Syndrome. If you pretend not to see something, it ain't really there. Bush tries to pretend he no longer sees Bin Laden as a problem. Therefore, he no longer is. See how that works? Good. Moving right along.
Bush is ignoring the situation with North Korea. I like how Iraq, a nation that has nothing to do with us, a nation that we stopped from invading another nation (Kuwait, a nation ruled by an absolute monarch which is OBVIOUSLY nothing like a dictatorship. ** slow sarcastic clap **), a nation that ALLEGEDLY had weapons of mass destruction, is higher on the priorities list than a nation that has OPENLY STATED that they are developing nuclear weapons, and has said, also openly, that they plan to use these weapons on the United States. "Let China handle them." says Bush. Oh, wonderful idea! Let a giant crazy Communist nation handle the smaller crazy Communist nation! I wish I were as brilliant a tactition as Bush.
So now we've taken Saddam Hussein out of power. Okay. That's good. He was evil.
We also completely destablized the nation and given thousands of psychotic guerilla factions the opening they were looking for. And now one of George Bush's cohorts, the equally brilliant Donald Rumsfeld is pushing for free elections in Iraq in January no matter what. Even though the Iraqi people protest the elections saying they need more time. Only about 15% of the population will even be capable of voting come January. "Oh well!" says Rumsfeld, all smiles. "Nothing's perfect!"
** More slow, sarcastic clapping **
Brilliant. So, when the elections DO take place, and people are "elected", people that 85% of the population had no say in one way or the other.... well.... that 85% probably isn't going to be happy. So then we'll have a nation full of angry people unhappy with their new "democratically elected" leaders, leaders who do NOT have the strength to stave off any revolutions.
Don't think the Iraqi people would revolt so quickly? Why don't you go look up Iraq's history before Saddam's Ba'ath Party took power.
This of course will only give the guerilla factions an even stronger foothold, and Iraq will become a war torn, revolutionary nation with a powerless government that has to keep itself secreted away from the dozens of would-be assassins, while everyday life is governed by radical guerilla fighters and.... the dreaded t-word... terrorists!!
And of course the people will be unhappy about this. And who will the terrorists tell them to blame?
The same people they ALWAYS tell them to blame. Us. America. They'll say "America destroyed your government and stability! America forced you to behave the way they do! And look what its gotten you!!"
Then there will just be one more place for Osama and his crew to hide and orchestrate their networks from.
And President Bush maintains that if he had to do it all over again, he would change absolutely nothing. He would follow the same course of action to the T. Mission accomplished, right Mr. President?
John Kerry has admitted his mistakes in the past. Kerry is willing to admit when he's wrong, and do what he has to to go back and correct the problem. He plans on attempting to branch out and form a true coalition of nations to restabilize Iraq. George Bush won’t allow this. Because nations like France, Germany, and Russia refused to fight in Bush’s war (for shame! Not allying yourself to fight in a foreign war that effects you approximately zero percent!) Bush won’t allow them to be part of the reconstruction. Never mind that it would be much more logical for several nations to help in the reconstruction, and that security and popular support in the U.S. would be greater, these nations have to learn their lesson! If you don’t do what George Bush says, you have to sit in the corner for five minutes! George Bush believes himself to be infallible. He will not go back and correct any of his mistakes because he doesn't believe he's made any. And he responds to any accusations of mistakes made with hostility. You try to correct him, he just gets angry. Basically, it almost seems like he feels peoples' protest of his policies is even MORE of an incentive for him to stick to his course.
John Kerry MUST be elected president this Tuesday. There's already an enormous mess that Bush is sitting on top of, refusing to clean up, with his arms crossed and a pouty expression on his face. If he's allowed to do this for four more years, who knows how large that pile will have grown to and how badly it will have festered.
Vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. Please.
Kerry/Edwards '04: For a Stronger America
Kerry's a flip-flop. I know this. I'm not an idiot. And heaven forbid a man should actually change his mind on something. I suppose Kerry should be more like President Bush. Stick with his stance no matter what, even if the facts proving your fallacy are specifically placed directly in front of your face dozens upon dozens of times.
Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were not. Bush said there was a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. Okay, sure... if by connection, you mean Saddam Hussein himself was on the Al-Qaida's hitlist. Bush said finding Osama Bin Laden was a number one priorty. Then, a few weeks ago in a response to accusations that Bush was putting the situation with Iraq ahead of the situation with Afghanistan, he retorts with a "Osama Bin Laden is no longer a concern." Hmmm... didn't Bush say something about not resting until Bin Laden had been found? Now he's no longer a concern? The most dangerous man in the world, the first person in 60 years to launch such a devestatingly effective attack on the United States is still at large and no longer a concern?! I guess that's what happens you outsmart Bush... he decides to pretend you're no longer a threat. Its called the Ostrich Syndrome. If you pretend not to see something, it ain't really there. Bush tries to pretend he no longer sees Bin Laden as a problem. Therefore, he no longer is. See how that works? Good. Moving right along.
Bush is ignoring the situation with North Korea. I like how Iraq, a nation that has nothing to do with us, a nation that we stopped from invading another nation (Kuwait, a nation ruled by an absolute monarch which is OBVIOUSLY nothing like a dictatorship. ** slow sarcastic clap **), a nation that ALLEGEDLY had weapons of mass destruction, is higher on the priorities list than a nation that has OPENLY STATED that they are developing nuclear weapons, and has said, also openly, that they plan to use these weapons on the United States. "Let China handle them." says Bush. Oh, wonderful idea! Let a giant crazy Communist nation handle the smaller crazy Communist nation! I wish I were as brilliant a tactition as Bush.
So now we've taken Saddam Hussein out of power. Okay. That's good. He was evil.
We also completely destablized the nation and given thousands of psychotic guerilla factions the opening they were looking for. And now one of George Bush's cohorts, the equally brilliant Donald Rumsfeld is pushing for free elections in Iraq in January no matter what. Even though the Iraqi people protest the elections saying they need more time. Only about 15% of the population will even be capable of voting come January. "Oh well!" says Rumsfeld, all smiles. "Nothing's perfect!"
** More slow, sarcastic clapping **
Brilliant. So, when the elections DO take place, and people are "elected", people that 85% of the population had no say in one way or the other.... well.... that 85% probably isn't going to be happy. So then we'll have a nation full of angry people unhappy with their new "democratically elected" leaders, leaders who do NOT have the strength to stave off any revolutions.
Don't think the Iraqi people would revolt so quickly? Why don't you go look up Iraq's history before Saddam's Ba'ath Party took power.
This of course will only give the guerilla factions an even stronger foothold, and Iraq will become a war torn, revolutionary nation with a powerless government that has to keep itself secreted away from the dozens of would-be assassins, while everyday life is governed by radical guerilla fighters and.... the dreaded t-word... terrorists!!
And of course the people will be unhappy about this. And who will the terrorists tell them to blame?
The same people they ALWAYS tell them to blame. Us. America. They'll say "America destroyed your government and stability! America forced you to behave the way they do! And look what its gotten you!!"
Then there will just be one more place for Osama and his crew to hide and orchestrate their networks from.
And President Bush maintains that if he had to do it all over again, he would change absolutely nothing. He would follow the same course of action to the T. Mission accomplished, right Mr. President?
John Kerry has admitted his mistakes in the past. Kerry is willing to admit when he's wrong, and do what he has to to go back and correct the problem. He plans on attempting to branch out and form a true coalition of nations to restabilize Iraq. George Bush won’t allow this. Because nations like France, Germany, and Russia refused to fight in Bush’s war (for shame! Not allying yourself to fight in a foreign war that effects you approximately zero percent!) Bush won’t allow them to be part of the reconstruction. Never mind that it would be much more logical for several nations to help in the reconstruction, and that security and popular support in the U.S. would be greater, these nations have to learn their lesson! If you don’t do what George Bush says, you have to sit in the corner for five minutes! George Bush believes himself to be infallible. He will not go back and correct any of his mistakes because he doesn't believe he's made any. And he responds to any accusations of mistakes made with hostility. You try to correct him, he just gets angry. Basically, it almost seems like he feels peoples' protest of his policies is even MORE of an incentive for him to stick to his course.
John Kerry MUST be elected president this Tuesday. There's already an enormous mess that Bush is sitting on top of, refusing to clean up, with his arms crossed and a pouty expression on his face. If he's allowed to do this for four more years, who knows how large that pile will have grown to and how badly it will have festered.
Vote for John Kerry on November 2nd. Please.
Kerry/Edwards '04: For a Stronger America
4 Comments:
Too many people support Kerry. It's stupid. I don't get it. (in other words, it works both ways.)
Kerry's a flip-lop. We all know this. Heaven forbid a man should actually change his mind on something... three times.... IN ONE DAY. (Look up Kerry's campaign trip to Missouri for his flip-flop-flap stance on the gay marriage ammendment.)
Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were. Unless you don't consider over 600 tons of RDX, HMX, and PETN to be weapons of mass destruction. (Hint: These can be used to trigger nuclear explosions and they are much MUCH nastier than the stuff used to take out the Oklahoma Federal building.) We'll also just ignore the vast amounts of Uranium that was taken from the country and the untold numbers of weapons that were most likely smuggled out to Syria.
And here's a quote from Condolezza Rice:
“Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.”
Oh, and there's also this report:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
And God forbid we misquote Bush, who actually said
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
There is a difference between Osama being a concern, and not being concerned about him. I, personally, do not have intelligence information from the soldiers assigned to tracking Osama down, I'm guess the President just might, so I'm willing to bet he can make that call better than I can.
Yes, North Korea, the country President Clinton practically handed nukes to. Talk about destabilization. I'm sure China would love it if we went in there and carpet bombed the country. They wouldn't see that as a threat to themselves in any way. China is a crazy communistic country. Who most likely does NOT want a smaller crazy communist country making a big enough racket to bring in the USA. Who also does not want a psychotic dictator possibly pointing nukes at THEM any time soon.
Goodness, they've destabilized the Middle East. An area LONG KNOWN FOR BEING EXTREMELY STABLE AND REASONABLE. My God, imagine if there were mass killings, civil unrest, terrorist activities, genocide, border skirmishes, and coups occuring in the Middle East! That would be unheard of! Oh wait..
Why don't we wait for this film, http://www.voicesofiraq.com/
before we start deciding what the people of Iraq do or do not believe. Or you could ask people who have served over there in the past 2 years, and you could hear the stories of how they were greeted and cheered by the Iraqi's and how they helped rebuild schools, hospitals and homes and befriended by many children and adults alike.
Bush refuses to allow Germany, France, and Russia rebuild because he's just upset for them "not allying yourself to fight in a foreign war that effects you approximately zero percent"
Oh WAIT. That's right, they DID have some vested interest. Like the fact they were all illegally trading weapons for oil and were complicit in breaking more than one UN sanctioned embargo against the country.
So wait, these countries were owed billions of dollars and had lucrative oil contracts with Saddam, and they refused to help remove him from power? Imagine that!
But have no fear, because John Kerry will make sure that these very countries agree to EVERYTHING we do before doing it. We wouldn't want them upset at us, now would we.
Because John Kerry is the everyman. Or at least, he tries to agree with every man. And woman. Be they US citizen or third world dictator. In fact, the man has yet to take a stand on any issue that I have seen.
Well, no, that's not quite correct. John Kerry has taken a stand once that I have seen. He seems perfectly willing to allow the murder of hundreds of thousands of unborn children to take place every year in this country. Consistantly voting against any bill to limit abortion, John Kerry has stated that he will not threaten the "Right" of women to murder their unborn children. This ALONE is more than enough reason for me to vote AGAINST
You know, people keep telling me "there WERE weapons in Iraq! There were!"
If there were, how come Bush submits everytime someone brings up the fact that no weapons were found?
*sorry, stupid submit hit early.*
to vote AGAINST John Kerry. Bush is not the only other candidate out there. Chances are, some of the third party candidates are a much better choice than Kerry or Bush.
Remember, there are 3 sides to every issue. Your side. Their side. And the TRUTH.
Don't believe Tim on something? Look it up.
Don't believe something I linked to? Look it up.
Do some research on your own, don't just listen to soundbites and pundits. That's why America is in the shape it is, because people are too willing to accept the quick and dirty answers they want to hear.
Too often I see "Kerry is a flip-flopper" when people don't actually know his quotes or voting record.
Too often I see "There were no WMD's! Bush LIED!" when they haven't bothered to read reports from the military listing the ungodly amount of weapons pulled from Iraq, or the fact that Bush used MANY OTHER REASONS to justify the war OTHER than WMD's.
Lately the big push out there is "We don't care who you vote for, just vote." Personally, I disagree with that.
It should be "We don't care who you vote for, just make an INFORMED vote."
Cheers.
And it was very patronizing of me to start my arguement with "Too many people support Bush. It's stupid." For that I do apologize. I was slightly peeved about this whole subject as I had just gotten through a rather heated arguement with someone about the whole thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home