Bush wins the election

...and also brought about the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and forced Osama into hiding.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

VAKEMP,

Perhaps you should review what Bin Laden's goals are. By having the USA collapse economically, Israel will lose funding, many of the Middle Eastern dictators and monarchs will lose (some) power. He also know his goals are not achievable any other way. Most of all USA counter attack against 9/11 has actually gained support for Bin laden in many areas of the world. It would have been much better if he was actually cought.

TruthSeeker,

Explain how we are doomed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It isn't? Tell me, what makes the USA important? Why do many countries listen to the USA? I think that it is connected with popularity. This is definitely about popularity, the US have lost support in many places, the dollar is dropping, it is ever harder to get into the USA and it does not appear to be a desirable place to be... this is about image and credibility.

Offense against what? Bombing some hills in Afghanistan was the only action against "terror". The intermezzo with Saddam was another thing, but it nonetheless costs the USA a lot, and without money, there can be no offense. Also, I and many many others do not think that a war that is led on the premise of "The best defense is a good offense" is in any way justifiable. Which, again, reduces the credibility of the USA.

So? But he got a lot more followers and sympathizers after the US invaded the middle east, and he can still do his training somewhere in the desert, furthermore, I believe that other states might show sympathy for Osama and other terrrorist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My oppinion is that Osama only gained from the Bush's victory too

 

If the world lost support for the USA it would be disastrous! A larger percentage of USA value is due to foreign investment, if they pulled out all their money and switch from trading dollars to say Euros, America monitary value would drop like a skydiver with a anvil parachute, our money would become worthless, banks across the USA would close, we would be unable to import or purchase any imports nor would we be able to sell anything to any other country at a reasonable price. No oil, not cloths, not microchips, ect the USA would grind to a horrific halt, double digit percentage of the population would be jobless. Starvation and suffering would be 3rd world level.

 

I'm sure Osama is already making some plans.........It doesn't take a stupid president to figure that out! If the U.S. thought the first four years of Bush was bad, I can only imagine what the next four will bring!

Atta Boy

 

I never said Iraq had ties to 9/11. This is another issue which has been discussed in numerous threads before. I think everyone understands that Iraq didn't have ties with 9/11. Maybe it is you who doesn't understand why we are in Iraq?

 

Ah, something irrelevant. It was my mistake to presume you were trying to be relevant. My apologies. I won't let that kind of optimism cloud my vision again.

So you say. But you are unwilling to explain.

Go for it. I'm willing to argue history. Why aren't you?

That seems to be your absurd sense of equivocation, that being displeased with what the facts show is equivalent to fostering lies and hyperbole in order to justify a baseless hatred.

Shall I just presume that you're always being irrelevant, then?

In the meantime, Wes, there's also your extremist, hypocritical, hateful, and factually-incorrect posting history to consider.

Actually, I felt Counsler's post warranted it.

He chose to defend the indefensible.

Coming from a wellspring of ignorance such as yourself, that assessment isn't particularly troubling. For instance:

Note your second paragraph:

Your sense of equivocation is ridiculous:

(1) Many new voters are voting against Bush because he makes them sick.
(2) He makes YOU sick. You hate him, you find him "evil" and a "scourge to humanity". You justify it to yourself as factual. That's fine. I disagree with your assessment of the facts, to which you call me a "liar and a jerk".
(3) You assert your opinion as factual. I assert that you're another hater.
(4) It's certainly not quite that simple, but you seem to find yourself above your own emotions.
(5) You seem to think the power of hate has no effect on you, even though you admit you hate him.
(6) You pretend it's "too subtle for me to understand" in order to escape into yourself when you know damned well that has nothing to do with it and I'm perfectly capable of understanding about anything you can throw at me.
(7) There's nothing subtle about it.
(8) You hate him, and that must necessarily affect your interpretation of information you recieve regarding him.
(9) You can claim it doesn't, but the vehemence of your last rant at me makes it clear.​

Now then:

(1) Yes, and that's motivating them to vote and do something in response to their conscience. Why do you have a problem with that? Should they not vote and then sit around and bitch for four years?
(2) That you disagree isn't problematic. That your disagreement comes without substance or fact, and instead vicious hyperbole, is in fact, what compels me to consider you a liar and a jerk. You're provocative and dishonest, as your posting record and longtime grudge demonstrate.
(3) Yet you cannot substantiate your assertion without disregarding fact and equivocating like a madman.
(4) I am conscious of my emotions. For instance, I originally let your frothing rant go without response because I figured it wouldn't do either of us any good to simply reiterate facts you don't pay attention to while pursuing the objects of your hatred.
(5) I am aware of the effects of my hatred. If your sense of relativity wasn't so absurd, you would understand that things are not nearly so simple as you demand.
(6) I don't have to pretend: it's obvious in your posts. Furthermore, you're quite demonstrably incapable of understanding much of what I throw at you. How many thousands of words would you have to delete from the record in order to erase that demonstration?
(7) I agree. However, it's still too subtle for you because of your absurd equivocation. Something about a mountain and a molehill, for instance. The difference is obvious to many, but not to you.
(8) To a degree, sure. But, to the other, I'm not holding him to his statement that the government is looking for ways to hurt people, except maybe to chuckle. That you pretend to understand what you clearly don't ... well, that just doesn't do much for the credibility of your argument.
(9) Given the history of your grudge, Wes, and considering your sense of equivocation, your perception of "vehemence" is doubtful. As far as I can tell, the "vehemence" you referred to ... well, it was hard to tell what post you were referring to, in part because of the topic moderation. But then again, even that post wasn't vehement. It always strikes me when you do something like this: there are plenty of posts you could call vehement, but the time period you refer to doesn't contain it, mod-deleted posts and all. Advising you to reconsider whether or not it's wise to pursue your grudge on a false pretense? Given that you staged a repeat of a prior performance and went off without any apparent clue what you were talking about, well, I figured it wouldn't either of us much good to waste the words on a longer post. Yet ... here we are.

The next time you wish to ejaculate in my box, pause and reconsider the wisdom of what you propose to do.

Maybe you should consider arguing from something other than a simpleton's perspective. Come on, Wes. You say you're smart. You consider your character beyond reproach. Where's the product? Don't give me twinkie fluff with rat poison and tell me it's filet mignon. That you presume people are as stupid as your arguments explains much about your arguments, and speaks ill of your character.

My opinion doesn't change the facts of your inaccuracy, provocative attitude, absurd equivocation, and general dishonesty. That's because there's more than one way to form an opinion, Wes. And forming one around facts just seems more reliable to me. Do you worry about how annoying the houndstooth sky is? No, because the sky is generally blue, sometimes red and orange, sometimes white and gray with clouds. But if the sky is houndstooth? Well, there's a problem if the sky looks like houndstooth. And since it doesn't, why would you have an opinion about how annoying or not the houndstooth sky over your head is?

Quite frequently.

Coming from you? Right. Your judgment is questionable, Wes. Very questionable. There was the time you accused me of moderating a post in a forum outside my authority. And the time you emailed me to tell me that somebody was exactly what he said he was and I should lay off, and he copped to the point a couple days later. You'll notice I let those go at the time. I should have noted the points at the time, because it makes it easier to dig them up in search engines if I'm looking for my own posts.

Yet you persist, pretending your past doesn't exist. It would be amusing, I suppose, if you were worth that measure of contempt. That, and, of course, given your habits, it gets really tedious trying to respect you at all. You make such a point of wanting disrespect that there comes a point when the only thing left to do is oblige you.

There have been three diagnoses; two by PhD's, and one by a PhD candidate:

(1) "There's nothing wrong with you." (PhD)
(2) "Diagnosis exceeds my faculties." (Doctoral candidate)
(3) "There's no diagnosis to give." (PhD) ​

The first is a literal phrasing. The second is extrapolated from the principle that, without telling me what was wrong with me, the doctoral candidate told me in essence to go fix the problem myself and then come see him. The third is extrapolated from a refusal to offer a diagnosis, though I was offered an opportunity to meet with a prescription consultant and get some really good speed if I thought it would help. He seemed happy enough with my refusal.

The response reflects the point it counters.

If your posts had any substance, there would be substance to deal with. After raising all of that fluff, why be upset when I point out the obvious?

Yes, I realize that dealing with such far-out concepts as fact can be dizzying for you. I wonder why you put yourself through it.

A common couch-potato diagnosis. I understand, though Wes. Thought can be scary at times. Life itself is absurd. Your vicious sense of equivocation stunts your ability to accommodate and assimilate that absurdity.

Well, if you would like to discuss facts, you should assert some in your posts.

That you disregard fact is long-established in your posting history, although we know you care nothing for history.

Actually, you are making your head explode. This is all what you choose, Wes. You choose to bear this grudge. You choose to let your hatred warp your perception and stunt your intellect. You choose to celebrate hatred.

You're a human being. You should try getting used to that fact sometime. Your head will hurt a lot less.

At least you're not blaming it on "Not Me". Of course, nobody's quite sure what "it" is. I doubt you do, either, since you won't actually explain what the hell your problem is in any way that doesn't come back to your own inadequacies.

Um ... Wes? Facts.

You're short on facts again, Wes. If you want a more substantial answer than having the obvious pointed out to you repeatedly, well ... try giving something more substantial. If you dislike the simplicity of my responses, then don't seek to oblige me to accommodate you in such a manner.

Despite its consistency with prior claims you've made, such an assertion does not reflect your posting history.

Gee, you're now encouraging me to call my dealer?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your opinions of what is cool or not, well, obviously I don't care what you think is cool or not.

However, I edited that word out in order to accommodate your poor reading comprehension; there was the danger of confusing you into thinking I was thankful for Bush's election.

Something about reading comprehension goes here. Curb your hatred and try it again, Wes:

Surveys indicate that Bush supporters are less-informed about current events. Their shaky grasp on the facts is an important factor in explaining Bush's election.

I have history on my side. Start anywhere you want.

If you say so.

Indeed they will. They generally do. And then they try to shovel it off onto future generations. That'll catch up with the country eventually.

Rome didn't fall in a day.

In the meantime, you might wish to spend some time reviewing your equivocations; our past debates have involved a good deal of me trying to explain obvious facts--e.g. what is actually written down, in some cases--while you equivocate in order to justify your attitude problem despite the facts.

If you have something more than spite to go on, by all means impress me and show me what that is.

 

Oh I do understand. 1) Apparently MonkeyBoy had plans for Iraq in 1999 before the inaguration . . . because Saddam wanted to kill his daddy 2) As a diversion 3) For control and future stability of oil supplies.

If you think differently, then "Maybe it is you who doesn't understand why we are in Iraq?"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well at least the election was decidedly in his favor this time.

I don't know if I'd be able to take four more years of loony leftists raving SELECTED HAIL TO THE THIEF LOL

 

Yeah... but americans should probably start running for their lives......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I shouldn't laugh.... It is sad...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh well... better to laugh at it than to cry about it.


Good post tiassa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1) Because Saddam wanted to kill his daddy? I'm sure that motivated him, but it was Saddam who gave him a reason!

2) So you say...

3) So you say...

Saddam chose not to comply with UN Resolutions several times before he was overthrown. Regardless of what your conspiracy theories might be, it was no one's fault but Saddam's. The US decided to do what no other country would, and that is call Saddam's bluff.

 

Anybody who dares question your rightous god whispered-to leader is a ''loony''? Hmmm. Anyways, I think that if truly no voters were disenfranshed (debatable) -- then cool. America deserves what it gets. Don't forget that it was a 51-49% vote though, so its not exactly like you Neo-Cons have a VAST "decided" majority.

Anyways, one great irony I saw was when the White House Chief of staff said , before the electoral votes were finalized, "well, we DO have a voter majority" . . . . BUT, BUT, BUT -- the same folks 4 years ago kept talking about how a voter majority was ''irrelevant''! But they were ready to pull it out themselves if need be.

Wait, so -- a Bush and his puppeeters hate the U.N. and don't respect their authority yet went into Iraq because of their resolutions? Huh. And if we are being the worlds policemen . . . Iran and North Korea were and are BIGGER threats . . . but we do Iraq first? Huh. Google on "Bush" and "Dominionism" or "Christian Reconstructionism" if you want some dark motivations.

 

Yes. The US tried to get the support of the UN, based on UN violations by Saddam's regime. When it was apparent they were too chicken-sh!t to enforce their own rules, the US acted without UN backing. You can argue all you want that the US overthrew Saddam for personal reasons, but you can't dispute the fact that Saddam hadn't complied with several of the UN resolutions. So, the international community doesn't have a legitimate argument.

The UN/international community is free to flex their collective muscle against North Korea, Iran or "BIGGER threats", but I don't envision that happening without the US' involvement.

I did, and I saw a lot of propaganda.

 

Maybe Bush won and maybe he didn't, but we will never know, since many voters used electronic voting machines with no paper trail.

 

Unfortunately there is nothing you or anyone else can do about the election. The results are in and now america and the rest of the world have to contend with four more years of Bush and his stupid 'bullshit'........However, I'm sure there will come a time when he will be held accountable for all of the crap he started in Iraq!

Atta Boy

 

History shows that no empire lasts forever, in fact their average lifespan is 150-250 years. We are there. I hope to be wrong, I have children -- so before anymore morons act like we WANT this shit to happen -- we don't. But unlike most Americans . . . I've lived in other countries for extended periods, and know the universe does not revolve around us. And I also know that their opinions of us WILL eventually matter . . . a lot. We've helped out other nations before, but when we get in big trouble, who will be there for us? Tony Blair will be there ready to give Bush a rimjob, but outside of that? The rest of the world will be ready to swoop in and profit from the leftovers. And they are not ''evil'' -- just realists, who know history.

 

He is realizing that?! Is that really what you think? The problem is he is not only threatenng but he is also acting and hurting people.
We are talking about a terrorst here..a mindless killin machine. So, what does it matter if he realizes it or not? He doesnt function like many of us.

 

I predicted Dubya's re-election. I so wanted John Kerry to win.

 

Mindless? Your words, not mine.

I agree though that it is too late for him. And, I don't care if he realizes his mistake or not. He's still going to die, along with the majority of his Al Qaida followers.

Yes he does function. Unfortunately, he made a mistake when he chose violence to get the USA's attention.