Isn't it hilarious how Kerry...

Here you go - http://www.gop.com/kerryvskerry/backup.asp#5.

Nos.

Bush does the same thing. You have to realize all politicians do it. In his election campaign last election he said "I am not in the business of nation building." There are millions of examples for every politician, american politics isn't cut-and-dry opinions, lobbyists and corporations play a huge role. And most people just vote on the party line anyways.

I don't understand what is wrong with changing your mind? Why should someone never change their opinion? Only fools ignore other points of views and refuse to change theirs. Changing an opinion shows a willingness to hear out another side and take that group's cause if it is worthy.

That's why we should all vote Libertarian

And I have stood behind Bush many many times. Out of the two he is probably the lesser of two evils but I'm tired of having to vote that way.

A third party would make politics a bit more honest again... noticed I said "a bit" more.

I don't understand what is wrong with changing your mind? Why should someone never change their opinion?

But 35 times in an election year? Come on, now... It is kind of expected that he be solid on his platforms since he's RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, don't you agree?

And Pank - i am quite fond of the Libertarian Party. I support a lot of their economic views (cut spending, decrease taxes, privatize schools, etc). The reason i am still a Republican, though, is that the Libertarian social issues are a bit far-fetched.

Nos.

I must admit not up on my knowledge of the Libertarian Party. Anyone have a good link for me to read besides their web site?

[QUOTE=Michaelp]I think im going to vote kerry just to get bush out. Sick of the US fighting other peoples wars. People will always hate you... 2 wars in 3 years is just to much for me. Gooooood byyyye Bush.[/QUOTE]

Wow your an idiot rofl. This is actually our war because of the threat to the U.S. you really want another 9/11 to happen? gtfo of the U.S. Bush > Kerry anyday. You have no good reasons for voting against Bush. If Kerry was president right now we would get bombed so easily. So stfu and btw there wasn't a war in Afghanistan we were just looking for Bin Laden. Only 1 war in 3 years(War in Iraq). Next time count.

How would the Iraqi people revolt againist Saddam if he had control of the military and weapons? They'd fight back and just get shot and have their families tortured.

[QUOTE=DefactO]Wow your an idiot rofl. [/QUOTE]
The primer, we all know where this is going...

[QUOTE=DefactO]This is actually our war because of the threat to the U.S. you really want another 9/11 to happen?[/QUOTE]
Saddam has nor ever had any links to Al Queda, information to the contrary is propoganda from the Bush administration which was later retracted at a very low key event so people still go on believing the lie even though they "officially" retracted it. Ah politics. Ah humanity!

[QUOTE=DefactO]gtfo of the U.S. Bush > Kerry anyday.[/QUOTE]
Indeciferable acronym followed by just another "my canidate is better than yours" which people on both sides are guilty of.

[QUOTE=DefactO]You have no good reasons for voting against Bush.[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of good reasons to vote against Bush just as there are for voting against Kerry. Both have good and bad points, it's all about choosing the canidate who you think can do the best job. It's not black and white like people try to make it. No canidate is clearly and undoubtably better than another.

[QUOTE=DefactO]If Kerry was president right now we would get bombed so easily.[/QUOTE]
Remind me again during which administration 9/11 happened? But that's a null point, the attacks would have happened anyways, and don't believe that bullcrap about how terrorists "hate freedom and everything America stands for," they hate America due to reasons beyond any modern President's control. The Middle East's (and Africa's) problems and hatred for the U.S. stems from Imperialism by the British Empire and the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The terrorists have no valid point and there is no positive outcome for them in this situation.

I am tired of liberals who say that Bush is the reason the world hates us. First of all, we elected him, whether you voted for him or not he was officially elected. (And get over that "popular vote" bullcrap, the popular vote never in the history of the United States decided the president, it was always the Electoral College. Bush was elected, get over it. Our guy lost and you can't change history.) The only faults Bush is guilty of in international relations is the fact that he chose, in my opinion, a bad way to deal with terrorists. Violence begets violence. We have entered a vicious cycle. No President wants to end this through "negotiations" because they would be accused of being weak by the media and the masses. It's just a game to pass the buck to someone else.

[QUOTE=DefactO]So stfu[/QUOTE]
So simple, yet so eloquent.

[QUOTE=DefactO]and btw there wasn't a war in Afghanistan we were just looking for Bin Laden.[/QUOTE]
We went in there to depose the Afghani government by force. Whether you support the action or not, it's still a war. It was an armed conflict between soldiers of two internationally recognized nations. I think that fits the definition of a war.

[QUOTE=DefactO]Only 1 war in 3 years(War in Iraq). Next time count.[/QUOTE]
Or learn that when two nations fight each other, that is a war. (It doesn't even have to be between two nations.)


[QUOTE=Dictionary.com]war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôr)
n.

1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.[/QUOTE]

Goddamn*t, I got into another political debate...*sits on hands*

;) ;)

Saddam has nor ever had any links to Al Queda, information to the contrary is propoganda from the Bush administration which was later retracted at a very low key event so people still go on believing the lie even though they "officially" retracted it. Ah politics. Ah humanity!

I had to chime in here...

I would like to see the official retraction, or at least an official transcript of one. What? You can't supply either?! What a surprise...

The Clinton administration even warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

For two years, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.

Also, there are plenty of cases where Iraq made contracts with other nations, and the money went elsewhere in an unreported transaction. Small amounts, of course - only several hundreds of thousands at a time - wouldn't want anyone to become suspicious, would we?

Where were you at the start of this year? Did you not see the news concerning the memos found between Saddam Hussein, Mohamed Atta and other infamous terrorist groups and leaders..? According to the memos--which lay out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting I mean, if you haven't heard of this yet, at least admit to ignorance - i don't think anyone will think any less of you.

And one final nail to close your coffin - Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough wrote a report for The Washington Times with more evidence concerning the ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam: We have obtained a document discovered in Iraq from the files of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The report provides new evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages.
The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators."
On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden."
The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan."
"And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."

Now who is the one spewing propoganda?

(Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4)

Nos.