Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

The Kerry Meltdown begins

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Kalshion:

Just for the record. Despite living in Spain, I am not spaniard. Now, the former spanish government of Prime Minister Aznar (right to center-right, the Popular Party) decided to support Bush and later on send troops against the will of 80% of the spanish citizens for generic european misagreements that we already discussed in other threads. The Socialist Party (PSOE) based its campaign on the withdrawal of these troops. After having won the elections, the PSOE hardly did have a choice. Having said that, it is also obvious that the withdrawal of spanish troops was seen as a success by the terrorists, despite the fact that this withdrawal was promessed long before the bombing of Madrid's train station occurred.

Now see if Spain was like the U.S., after the Bombing, you would have said, "You know what, we WERE going to pull out, but now that you've MESSED with us, you're all going to die. You then would have pulled out all the stops and steam rolled them. But alas, you are not like the U.S., you guys took your beating, and with tail clenched firmly between your legs you scampered off like an injured dog.

Sorry if this offends, but I call it like I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

The US is a young nation whose rulers doesen't seem to learn anything from the past. Europeans have confronted middle-east populations since 1095. We are in 2004. This give us a certain understanding of this area that you americans could only dream of.

Despite being powerful, the US will not be able to beat islamic terrorism with its current approach. Afghanistan isn't pacified. Iraq is turning into a failure. There are dozens of countries were IsTer is endemic. You should take great care not to exhaust your economy & military by running from country to country to kill a few terrorists. Its an equation who is not winnable. As soon you leave a place & focus on the next one, the previous apparently "sanitized" area will degrade again.

If you think that there is a "civilized" military solution that may achieve long lasting political changes & mentality upgrades, be our guest.

There is NO such thing as a civilized military solution.

The militaries job has always been to kill people and break things.

We are doing that to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq.

Yes, The US is a young nation, but somehow in less then 200 years, we became the largest and RICHEST ntion in the world.

We may be, what you call cowboys or whatever, but the war on terrorism is working, the terrorists are at war, and now they know what real war feels like, because they die.

And soon, they will REALLY know what war feels like, because after the election, I believe the gloves are going to come off, and then they will be in deep kaka.

But to say that Iraq is a failure is stupid in the extreme, it has only been 18 months, and it will take at least another 24 months to finally pacify it and get a good number of Iraqi secrurity forces online and protecting themselves.

Iraq is FAR from a failure, it has worked, is working, and will continue to work.

The will of the American people are still behind it, and will remain so. It is a just war, and we will continue until the terrorists either give up, or DIE.

You Europeans do NOT learn from history, otherwise we wouldn't be having this problem. We DO learn from history, which is why we are taking the approach we are.

Giving into terrorism, begets MORE terrorism, because it WORKS, Destroying terrorists and neutralizing the underlying problems that cause terrorism is the solution, and THAT is EXACTLY what we are doing.

It's NOT easy, but we can and will handle it, and our economy is MORE then able to handle what we are doing, and our economy is GROWING, and accelerating.

We have learned from history thank goodness, it is the Europeans who STILL haven't learned that lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

A plane flies to Cuba. Suddenly a terrorist enter the cabin and orders the pilot to fly to Cuba. The pilot says to the terrorist: we are already flying to Cuba...


Good analagy, but you have to also consider that the terrorist may not look at the fact that they are already flying to Cuba; He may just look at the end result which is he got where he wanted to go.

The same thing can apply to Spain. They can say that they were already going to pull out, and maybe they were, but the terrorists may have it in their head that "we attacked Spain and they pulled out. This works so let's keep doing it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

The will of the American people are still behind it, and will remain so. It is a just war, and we will continue until the terrorists either give up, or DIE.

You Europeans do NOT learn from history, otherwise we wouldn't be having this problem. We DO learn from history, which is why we are taking the approach we are.


Once again, please provide an historical example where fighting terrorism with military force has resulted in the elimination of terrorism. You won't find one and you don't really need to look because terrorism still exists!

This is ONE problem you can't fix by beating it with a stick. And that is what European countries have learned over the centuries that our Government fails to grasp.

YOU CANNOT FIGHT AN IDEALOGY AND EXPECT TO WIN.

Unless the US has some sort of Mind Control device and can stop "terroristic thoughts" military force will only serve to exacerbate the situation.

Do you beat an unruly child into submission or attempt to educate them in order to change their behavior? Which tactic is more likely to have a lasting effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Do you beat an unruly child into submission or attempt to educate them in order to change their behavior? Which tactic is more likely to have a lasting effect?

Probably the latter, unless the child is afraid of the big kid on the block beating him up for listening.

What you need to do is remove the big kid from the picture, then you can educate the child and change their behavior.

Saddam was the big kid. The Iraqi people coudn't change their behavior from fear of being killed by him. Now that he is gone, the people can change. And as more people begin to realize that he is truly gone and they don't have to worry anymore, the area will begin to stabilize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Matchoo:

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

Do you beat an unruly child into submission or attempt to educate them in order to change their behavior? Which tactic is more likely to have a lasting effect?

Probably the latter, unless the child is afraid of the big kid on the block beating him up for listening.

What you need to do is remove the big kid from the picture, then you can educate the child and change their behavior.

Saddam was the big kid. The Iraqi people coudn't change their behavior from fear of being killed by him. Now that he is gone, the people can change. And as more people begin to realize that he is truly gone and they don't have to worry anymore, the area will begin to stabilize.


You really think it was all about Saddam? Yeah I'm sure that Middle-Eastern CULTURE, poverty and oppression has nothing to do with it.

Let's just do what Ann Coulter says, "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

OK, back on subject...

I called this, 10-15 point bounce for Bush after the RNC.

The Gallup poll that will be released TOMORROW, has the following results in a 3 way race.

Bush 54%

Kerry 40%

Nader 3%

Oh yeah baby, I called it!!

Here's a cookie and a gold star sticker for you!

I guess it depends on which poll you believe.

[ 09-17-2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Grizzle ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzle:

You really think it was all about Saddam? Yeah I'm sure that Middle-Eastern CULTURE, poverty and oppression has nothing to do with it.

Let's just do what Ann Coulter says, "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." [/QB]

You got a point. I guess Saddam never oppressed his people or forced them into poverty while he lived in his many multi-million dollar palaces. What what I thinking???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee ya got me there...I hadn't even considered you might respond with that one. Don't I feel stupid.

I'll not derail this thread any further, but if you'd like to debate the causes of terrorism, start a new thread and I'll join in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Do you beat an unruly child into submission or attempt to educate them in order to change their behavior?

My brother and my friend both had children within two days of each other. The children grew up playing together.

When they were three, my niece was taking my friend's son's toys and hitting him with it. My brother would yell "Stop it, stop hitting him, put that down."

My friend would rush over and pull the toy out of my niece's hand. While my brother was trying to coax my niece, my friend's son was still being hit.

My brother's objective was to educate my niece. My friend's objective was to stop his son from being beaten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jag, just a question:

Why, aside from being a as-far-as-you-can-be rightwinger, do you support Bush over Kerry?

Just from the fact that Kerry was acually at some time in vietnam, and I recall that you were too. Regardless of the amount of time over there, he still was there, Bush wasn't there at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Blow for the Kerry bid for President:

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that maverick politician Ralph Nader can be on ballot papers in the November US presidential election.

The decision is regarded as a blow to Democratic Party candidate John Kerry.

In the 2000 election Mr Nader attracted enough left-leaning voters in Florida - a key swing state - to cost the Democrats the presidency, analysts say.

The Democratic Party unsuccessfully argued that Mr Nader's Reform Party was not a genuine national organisation.

The Florida Supreme Court said it was not clear what constituted a national party, and that therefore it could not bar Mr Nader from running in the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Baloogan:

Jag, just a question:

Why, aside from being a as-far-as-you-can-be rightwinger, do you support Bush over Kerry?

Just from the fact that Kerry was acually at some time in vietnam, and I recall that you were too. Regardless of the amount of time over there, he still was there, Bush wasn't there at any time.

First off, I was NOT in Vietnam, I was based in Turkey for 18 months in 1989 and 1990.

2nd of all, what does being in Vietnam have to do with being president of the United States?

3rd of all, Kerry was in Vietnam for 4 months, count em, 4 months, and as soon as he got his 3rd purple heart, he was OUTTA there. Then he came home, told lies about what his comrade in Arms were doing in Vietnam UNDER OATH, and because of that he had a DIRECT effect on how our POW's were treated. He shamed the very service that he seems to be so proud of.

Then he went to Paris and met with the ENEMY, WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE NAVY. Under ANY definition, that was TREASON, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

His Senate record is the MOST liberal voting record in the senate, he voted AGAINST giving our troops the tols they need to fight in Iraq, and he Flip flops on EVERY issue. Where does Kerry stand, wait 5 minutes and he'll switch to yours, problem is that he will switch back when the opportunity presents itself.

Yes, I support Bush, why? Because he's A: principled B: He knows what needs to be done C: He knows HOW to get it done D: He is an executive, he was governor of Texas, one of the BIGGEST states in the Union. E: He says what he means, and means what he says.

I could go on and on as to why I am voting for Bush, but it would take up 2 pages, so I will stop now.

But to say that Kerry's service in Vietnam somehow makes him competent to lead the worlds only superpower is not only STUPID, it's suicidal, when you consider everything else this nut has done over the past 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Another Blow for the Kerry bid for President:

The decision is regarded as a blow to Democratic Party candidate John Kerry.

In the 2000 election Mr Nader attracted enough left-leaning voters in Florida - a key swing state - to cost the Democrats the presidency, analysts say.

The Democratic Party unsuccessfully argued that Mr Nader's Reform Party was not a genuine national organisation.

The Florida Supreme Court said it was not clear what constituted a national party, and that therefore it could not bar Mr Nader from running in the state.


I just love this, the Democrats are doing ALL that they can to stifle as many people that are dangerous to Kerry. I just love it, instead of fighting with facts and bolstering thier positions, they just call in the lawyers.

Typical liberal left wing nutjobs, which of course control the Democratic party now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL< what a democracy, now they want to say you can't even run for president, ROFL. You call that democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said: "In state after state, Nader has become an extension of the Republican Party and their corporate backers.""

Did anyone catch the Kerry's 9/15 address on Economic Policy. I've been looking for a transcript of it but can't find any yet. I'd love to properly pick apart his address to pieces. I did watch it on C-span and most of it didn't jive with me. No specifics on any plan he just kept saying I will do this, I will do that. How obscure can he get.

Anyway one of the comments in his address was about cutting taxes except for the most wealthiest which he said he will raise that on them and he also threw in "I will also give a 5% corporate tax break". Hmmm, are these the same corporate backers the DNC is griping about with the Republicans. I don't think Corporate America is buying his promise of a 5% tax break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no tax break with Kerry, if you raise taxes for the rich, the poor pay through higher prices at the register.

If you own a business, and lets say you make $1000 a day. Taxes for businesses right now are almost 50%. So after paying them you are left over with $500 of your own money. Now you have bills, you have other expenses, and you have a good life style that you like to keep. Lets say since you are rich, your taxes go up to 55%, now you still make $1000 a day but because of tax increase you walk away with $450 instead of the $500 you did before, so you think "damn, I still have to make $500 because I got bills, I have that mansion, and I still want to go to Caribean because I was able to afford it before but now can't" So what do you do? You take out your calculator and think. Now if the tax is 55%, how much would I need to make a day to have $500 left over after 55% have been taken away. Now to come out with $500 profit you have to make $1150 instead of the old $1000, for a 5% increase in tax, you have made a 15% increase in the end prices. Therefore the rich never pay more when taxed more, you still end up paying more, but most people are either too ignorant or too lazy to figure out what you end up paying for each 1% increase in taxes on the rich.

Now you might say, hold on, he is raising taxes on the rich, not the businesses. I have to say, slow down there and think again, don't be lazy. Who owns the businesses rich or poor? Who owns the stores, factories, research labs, franchises etc.... the rich or the poor?

Now if you still don't understand, I'll make it super simple, remember star wars, remember the fat rich alien? He doesn't work but still gets a paycheck. He gets paid from the businesses he owns, he doesn't do anything but he owns them and that's his paycheck. Now think about yourself, you get a paycheck, you work. If you see less money on your check all of a sudden but you still work the same and still make those $10 an hour (an example, you might be making 8 or 12 or any other ammount, I gotta make it simple though) but you see less on your paycheck then you know you are getting taxed more. Your bills haven't changed though, so you gotta make those 10 an hour to pay them, so you go up to your boss and you say, hey, taxes are more, I get less, I need a raise because I can't live on less. Now here's where the light bulb lights, if that fat alien rich guy gets taxed more, he goes hey I need a raise, well, I guess I will have to increase prices at my businesses to get a higher paycheck. Now who visits and pays for the products in those businesses, and who now has to pay more?

So when you tax the rich, you are actually taxing the poor, as you noticed from that example, the ratio is a 5% increase in tax for rich, price increase of 15%. So for every $1 dollar he looses, you pay $3. Did that light bulb go on in your head? or are you still p.oed that there's people in the world who have more money than you do and you think that it will hurt them and help you if Kerry taxes them more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerry so far has proimised almost 2 trillion dollars in programs.

Then a paper claimed that Bush's programs would cost 3 trillion dollars.

Well, the actual difference?

Kerry was all spedning by the government, Bush's was TAKING it AWAY from Government.

When you take money AWAY from government, the economy grows, and for some reason, and this is just so bizarre, the tax reciepts actually INCREASE!!

So with a Kerry program the deificit will SKYROCKET, and with Bush's, because of the tax cuts, the deficit will actually decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question

Kerry claim's that he'll cut taxes

Yet, if he's going to spend 2 trillion.. where will all the money come from?

I'll tell you, he'll get rid of Bush's Tax Cut's so he can start racking in the money. THEN He'll use it to fund his little programs

But the major draw back

You're not going to get as much money as you would if Bush's TC's where active

Do the Math, and figure it out for yer-self

Kerry may be a big kid with money, but you honestly think he'll use that money for the US? Nope, he would much rather Tax us all to death

Like his running mate, you KNOW how he got all his money? Easy... by sueing.. nuff said

Trust me, Kerry want's to get rid of Bush's tax cuts... and the only way he'll be able to do that is if he is elected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

OK, just for fun, I am going to bring this thread back to life and give it a little humor to rescusitate it.

quote:

John Kerry meets with the Queen of England. He asks her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government? Are there any tips you can give to me?"

"Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people."

Kerry frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle." The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. "Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walks into the room. "Yes, my Queen?" The Queen smiles. "Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, "That would be me."

"Yes! Very good," says the Queen.

Kerry goes back home to ask John Edwards, his vice presidential choice the same question.

"John. Answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child. It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"

"I'm not sure," says John Edwards. "Let me get back to you on that one." Edwards goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin Powell's shoes in the next stall. Edwards shouts, "Colin! Can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?" Colin Powell yells back, "That's easy. It's me!"

Edwards smiles, and says, "Thanks!" Then, Edwards goes back to speak with Kerry. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It's Colin Powell."

Kerry gets up, stomps over to John Edwards, and angrily yells into his face, "No, you idiot! It's Tony Blair!"


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×