# Bush Wins!



## SniperPride

Bush 58,487,138 
Kerry 54,964,038

Bush wins with most votes recieved in Nations history!  
:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## mr.trooper

We just got the news! Kerry has Conceded the Election!!

Bush Wins!!!

*11:35 AM, November 3, 2004:

Whilst listening intently to a motivating, and already joyous political message being delivered by Dr. Bob Jones III in the Founders Memorial Amphitorium, a distinguished member of the university faculty suddenly stood up from his seat located behind the speaker, and briskly approached the monumental Podium. The crowd of approximately 5,000 Conservative Republican College Students fell silent. The depth of the Silence was mind boggling. It was deep enough to allow one to hear the beat of his own heart, and nothing more. What could be so important as to cause this grievous breech of protocol? As the Faculty member returned to his seat, a broad smile appeared across the face of the Universities president, who promptly informed the Student body: "I have been informed the John Kerry has just conceded the Election."

What followed was a bold and vibrant eruption of glee: a standing ovation accompanied by what seemed like ages of shouts, applause, and smiling faces. This was far from an instantaneous or random act. You may have heard much of liberal college students standing in line for up to 9 hours to vote. What you didn't see were reports from conservative colleges where students sported hastily constructed "I love W" T-shirts drawn with magic markers and finger paint, and slapped "Bush-Cheney 04" bumper sticker to sleeves, cars, buildings, and hats. The media tried its best to sway the election at the last moment, but the public had made its decision, giving GW Bush the largest popular vote IN AMERICAN HISTORY, with the exception of George Washington our first and possibly most loved president.


----------



## jamartinmg2

Thankfully this ended without a 10 day, or more, challenge of some kind. Overall a huge win for the republicans last night across the country.


----------



## SniperPride

absolutely, even minority leader Tom Daschle booted out, way to go SD!


----------



## njsimonson

I hope that all elected, regardless of party, can work together for the next four years, voicing the public's wishes and acting in the public good with the same unity experienced after September 11, 2001 and prior about January 1, 2004.

God's speed to the lawmakers and our executive and legislative branches. More important, God's speed to our troops. Get home soon.


----------



## jamartinmg2

Amen to that NJ! It gets tiresome seeing the politics of hate every single day. It would be nice to see both parties work together, just for once. Probably wishful thinking, but I like the premise in theory!


----------



## MSG Rude

Go Right on this one folks. G W is the man to take us where we need to go in this mess. I notice that it's very quite on the left front this morning.


----------



## BigDaddy

Rude,

What do you want me to say? Do you want me to say, "Congratulations"? Do you want me to admit that Bush was the better man?

In my mind, the country took another step backward with this election. However, there is nothing that anybody can do now. The real issue is where we go from here.

I sincerely hope that Bush can begin healing the rift that exists in this nation and unite us again. I cannot recall a time when the country has been so polarized. However, if he is to unite us, he will need to admit his mistakes and be open with the public and the media.

I continue to be amazed by his response to a question during one of the debates. He was asked if he had made any mistakes. He responded that he couldn't recall any. Are you kidding me? It is this arrogance that turns me off.

Again, we need to unite this country, not divide it further.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Being that Bush has no re-election to be wary of, and there is a republican majority in congress, if there is a draft I sincerely hope that your sons are the first to go.


----------



## sdeprie

I can hear the healing love already. :eyeroll:


----------



## Buckshot

> I cannot recall a time when the country has been so polarized.


I don't recall first-hand, but I'm guessing around the period of the civil war we were a polarized nation. :wink:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Militant_Tiger said:


> Being that Bush has no re-election to be wary of, and there is a republican majority in congress, if there is a draft I sincerely hope that your sons are the first to go.


Jesus MT. Sour grapes is one thing but comments like that make me ashamed that you are supposedly on my side. I would go back and edit that post again. You just give them so much to work with, it makes my job harder.

RC


----------



## SniperPride

Kerry and Democrats in general got owned big time. There is more to celebrate for Republicans then just Bush winning thats for sure. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Robert A. Langager said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being that Bush has no re-election to be wary of, and there is a republican majority in congress, if there is a draft I sincerely hope that your sons are the first to go.
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus MT. Sour grapes is one thing but comments like that make me ashamed that you are supposedly on my side. I would go back and edit that post again. You just give them so much to work with, it makes my job harder.
> 
> RC
Click to expand...

I thought about it Robert, I know how it sounds. I just wanted to give thought to all of those rejoicing over this election, you reep what you sow. This man has now been given unlimited power, and when push comes to shove we are the ones who will pay for it. God help America.


----------



## mr.trooper

Your still spoiling over a draft....get over it. there is no draft, and there will be no draft. that came out of the horse's mouth.


----------



## zogman

I presume Kerry has no more need for the phony LL Bean barn coat he wore most of the time trying to look like a common man. uke: Oh and that nice over and under he carried in Iowa. I'd bid on that.

With Bush and the Republicans gaining ground in both the House and Senate we should not hear about gun control issues for a few more years. :beer:

Also we will have Judges that support the constitution not spin their own veiws into it. Let the Dems get on board and the healing can begin.

The Dems destroyed Daschle sent him out front and he acted like an east coast left wing wacko. That didn't fly in SD. Dorgan on the other hand seems to stay near the middle at least in public. :wink:


----------



## mr.trooper

i agree Zog, what we need now is to appoint some reasonable moderate Dems into positions where they can still do good, but not have anough say to ruin anything- like maybee to the head of the department of Argiculture. HEY! maybee that would get them to shut up about republicans and bad enviromenta policies! lets appoint Democrats to take care of the enviroment! they can help, but not do anything dumb like gun controll, or destroying morals!

i think thats a great compromise! We Keep things on the Strait and narow, and the Dems can preserve the enviroment! a Win Win situation!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Neither of them are common men, but they both make attempts to come off that way. I think not having to worry about gun rights for a while is great, but I also think that they can do a lot of bad as well. There are no checks and balances to hold them accountable, and that is not good.


----------



## mr.trooper

"No checks and balances to hold them accountable"

Who? what? be more specific.

BTW: i know bush isnt a common man. when i said "common man" i was tlking about the American voting public, not Dub'Yah.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Im talking about the congress, who would be the ones to pass a draft bill.


----------



## mr.trooper

How is it that they are not acauntable? if they do anythng that bad, Just Filibuster....That is mostly what the Senate has been doing for the last few years :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Just filabuster? I'm going to need an explination on that one.


----------



## mr.trooper

my point was that no mater what the ration of Dems to Reps, there is alwase some form of a balance. unlimited Senate debate time, and thus the Filibuster is just one such check.


----------



## Plainsman

I hope this time the republicans act like winners. When the democrats loose they think they have won and start making demands. I don't remember which thread it was where someone said Bush better reach across the isle. He did that after the last election and the democrats slapped his hand. This time the democrats better reach across the isle or get run over.

Even James Carville (spelling?) got it last night. He said, after spending this much money, this much time, with this many volunteers and we still lose tells us we should step back and examine where the democratic party is going. Carville !!!!!! Unbelievable.

If the radical segment of the democratic party can not come to grips with reality and they foolishly move further left the time will be ripe for a third party. The republicans reexamined their platform after loosing seats last time and have improved. The democrats need to do that now or they will set themselves up for a bigger loss next election. If they like to loose just run Hillary next time.

Jeb Bush in 2008


----------



## jamartinmg2

MT.... the check and balance on the congress is the voting public.... if we the people don't like what they are doing, vote them out of office. I think the democrats might have learned a little about checks and balances last evening...


----------



## southdakbearfan

We will see where the dems go after this with their leadership nominations after loosing both the house and senate leaders of their parties. If they go with totally far left, hillary, boxer or someone else like that, they will go down in flames against the next election.

I think both parties need to take a look and get a little common sense, but the dems have a lot farther to go in my opinion.


----------



## zogman

Plainsman,

Again you hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't agree more. When the far left of the Dems (Carvelle and the like) realize they are now a minority and will keep getting smaller it's a great day for America. But can they really change??????. Who cares. They either get some common sence. Join middle America or get trampled.

God bless the United States of America.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Do you guys listen to Rush Limbaugh?? Did you hear his sarcastic statement about Kerry? After Kerry's concession speach, Rush said if Kerry really wants to help America be great, he should share his "SECRET" plans for medicare, taxes, prescription drugs, and intelligence. Secret because he never indicated what is plan was in the debates or through the media........he only said "I/We have a plan"

It was Rush being Rush..........but it did make some sense..........like him or not!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I

Just to clarify........so I don't get bombarded........I do not look to Rush Limbaugh as a source for my political views/opinions. I do, however enjoy listening to his show to stay up-to-date with which issues I need to stay on top of, and of course for the entertainment! :beer:


----------



## mr.trooper

Realy? i dont think Rush is conservitive enough. He just doesnt stick to the od ways as much as he should. id call him a moderate by my standards.


----------



## tail chaser

Don't think Rush is conservitive enough? Now I have heard it all! :rollin: :rollin:

I wonder what people would think if I said Hillary isn't liberal enough?
Now that is scary.

One thing to consider in 4 years for the Rep's is what if the Dem's come up with a candidate who is closer to the moral values of the midwest, comes out against gun control, and is for the working stiff and unions,
is against abortion. The Rep's will be forced to run on their own record they will have run out of wedge issues to spew. They had better get on the ball and prove they are the party of morals and gain a little more compassion. The Republicans have the stage lets see what they do with it.

TC


----------



## B King

MT
Not sure if I read correctly? you are quite young?

I keep seeing little snipes about the draft. Just curious if this was your nightmare about Bush and war? Could it be you are not willing to serve this country?

I can understand anyone being scared about it. Heck if I was young enough I would go but I would be afraid also. Common sense tells you war is not pretty. Bad things happen and its not the movies.

I just think you fell for the sick Democratic political lies to scare the heck out of the youth. You fell for it hook line and sinker.

Why do you think GW made the announcement to move soldiers from Europe over to the mid east and other locations the next few years? This was to balance the military resouces so we would not need the draft.

I am sure glad this election is over with.


----------



## SniperPride

Well, bush clearly said there would be no draft, many times. Even if somehow we would need one, I would proudly go without looking back.
:sniper:


----------



## OneShotOneKill

*I am happy my firearms remain safe with Bush still calling the shots!

Thank you America!*


----------



## mr.trooper

right on OSOK!!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I keep seeing little snipes about the draft. Just curious if this was your nightmare about Bush and war? Could it be you are not willing to serve this country? "

I'll be damned if im going to die in a war that I think was wrong in the first place.


----------



## mr.trooper

oke:


----------



## GunRunner

OneShotOneKill said:


> *I am happy my firearms remain safe with Bush still calling the shots!
> 
> Thank you America!*


im not a real political person, but i have to agree with this statment. bush has shown the nation in the recent past that the hands of the anti-gun groups have gotten weak, and bush listened to the american people. when he was re-elected, he made history with the amount of popular vote he recieved from the nation. also, how many people were there that DIDNT vote that are clearly for bush. a WHOLE LOT. i can say i took the time sometime back to do some research on how kerry voted on alot of the key issues in the past, and was really not impressed one bit. this is a guy who voiced that Dub'Yah did the right thing by sennding forces into iraq, but then voted AGAINST the funding that they needed to provide them with the body armor they should have had to protect them.this is a guy who actually wanted to take ALL SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS away from you, the american people. this is a guy that lied to get metals that should have rightly went to someone else. this is a guy who conspired with the enemy in viet nam to the point of being honored

"Communist Vietnamese honor John Kerry, the war protestor, as a hero in their victory over the United States in the Vietnam War.
In the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum (formerly known as the "War Crimes Museum") in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon), a photograph of John Kerry hangs in a room dedicated to the anti-war activists who helped the Vietnamese Communists win the Vietnam War. The photograph shows Senator Kerry being greeted by the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Comrade Do Muoi.

Jeffrey M. Epstein of Vietnam Vets for the Truth acquired the photograph over the Memorial Day weekend as America was commemorating its military heroes. Epstein's organization, Vietnam Vets for the Truth, issued a general request last week for photographs documenting Kerry's activities on behalf of the enemy. Bob Shirley, a Vietnam Swift Boat veteran (www.pcf45.com), sent the photograph to Epstein in response to that call. Shirley recently joined over 200 other Swift Boat veterans in signing an open letter questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander-in-Chief."

all kerrys record shows is that he has consistantly been against the american people.

there were alot of reasons that bush sent our troops over to play in the sand, and WMD was only 1 of them. also, are you aware that just before we went into iraq that saddam had just struck a deal to purchase ballistic missles?....as one of G.W's reps said on an election night debate i watched on CNN, he wasnt planning on putting fruit baskets on the tips of those things, he was planning on putting WARHEADS on them with chemical and/or biological weapons.

fact is, no matter how you look at it, the United States of America are the #1 power in the world, and if we dont do something about the BS that goes on, no one will. this is the ONLY reason you enjoy the freedoms that you do today.

remember, a leader who wants your guns has an alternate agenda, and is AFRAID of the people.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" 
- Adolph Hitler 1935-

that would have read
-John Kerry 2004-
if he would have been elected!

there are alot of reasons that kerry should never even have been considered as our new commander in chief, and i for one am glad as heck that he got beat out as good as he did.

"Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." - Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks, 1965

i personally feel that by re-electing Bush, this is what we, as citizens have done.

it can now be said that, being as it was his first time ,Kerry really had no experience in LICKING BUSH, and thats why he failed to get the response he hoped for!
-GunRunner 2004-


----------



## GunRunner

Another Firearms Quote or two for you to ponder...LOL:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one (<---John Kerry) who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright FORCE. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government --and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
-- Edward Abbey (1927-1989)

(me too!...LOL)

"You can get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."
-- Al Capone (1899-1947), U.S. Gangster

"He was a cowboy, mister, and he loved the land. He loved it so much he made a woman out of dirt and married her. But when he kissed her, she disintegrated. Later, at the funeral, when the preacher said, 'Dust to dust,' some people laughed, and the cowboy shot them. At his hanging, he told the others, 'I'll be waiting for you in heaven---with a gun.'"
-- Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts],

"To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form." 
-- Roy Innis, President of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)

"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power."
-- Yoshimi Ishikawa

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."
-- James Earl Jones, actor
( maybe he was refering to SOME of our goverment officials?....)

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."
-- Lyle Myhur

"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary."
-- Ronald Wilson Reagan (b. 1911), 40th US President, Republican
(you go Ronnie!...may you rest in peace)

"[Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
-- Josh Sugarmann

"Only a coward supports gun control, you know how to stop car jacking? Shoot the carjacker. If someone is going to kill me for my Buick, I'm gonna shoot until I'm out of ammo, and then I'll call 911."

Ted Nugent, musician and avid hunter, People Magazine, 1994

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

Sigmund Freud

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances, and tendencies PROVE that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indespensable. The very atmosphere of firearms EVERYWHERE restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of HONOR with all that's good!"

President Geo. Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790

(what really gets me about the anti-gun crowd is that if it were not for great men like George Washington, we would not enjoy the freedoms we do today as our country was built on the backs of these great leaders and sportsmen who didnt have it as we do today, and actually had to use there firearms to eat,to survive and to protect what we have today)

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

( so true....that is the #1 reason we havent been invaded in the CONUS. no county wants to invade another country where the majority of its citizens are armed, and espcially when they know how to use them....)

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed unless they try to take it."

Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the PEOPLE to RETAIN the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against TYRANNY in Government!"

Thomas Jefferson

"No FREE man shall EVER be barred the use of arms"

Thos. Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, T. Jefferson Papers, 334

"It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master."

-and-

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws..........Create a nation of lawbreakers, and then you can cash in on the guilt."

-and-

"We are fast aproaching the stage in the ultimate inversion; the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only permission; which is the stage of the darkest period of human history; the stage of rule by brute force."

Ayn Rand, author

"If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"

Clint Smith, director, Thunder Ranch

A few more FACTS about why gun control is good for everyone. And the United Nations wants this for us all!! NEVER!!!

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 through 1917, 1.5 MILLION Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 through 1953, 20 MILLION political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 through 1945, 13 MILLION Jews, Gypsies, HOMOSEXUALS, the mentally ill, and other "mongrolized" people, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1949 through ???, 20 MILLION political dissidents and others, unable to defend themselves, have been rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 through 1977, 1 MILLION "educated people", unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 through 1981, 100,000 native Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 through 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The United States started establishing gun control in 1934...........

NAW!..........I won't even! But you THINK about it a little, OK??

theres about a billion more where those came from...LOL


----------



## GunRunner

Militant_Tiger said:


> I'll be damned if im going to die in a war that I think was wrong in the first place.


with an additude like that, if you were drafted into service of our great nation, you WOULD be killed in war. we enjoy the liberties we have today because our citizens were willing to go to war and defend this great nation (even pre-emptively)

BUT, i bet alot of people with that additude sleep well at night KNOWING that there's somene out there PROTECTING THEM, and FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOMS THEY TAKE FOR GRANTED EACH AND EVERY DAY,without them even having to see it or lift a finger, but mention that they or someone they know, or a family member of theres might have to go to WAR at some late date in the future to fight like the others out there right now to keep them safe at night, and to keep this great country we live in safe, and all of the sudden, its "I'll be damned if im going to die in a war that I think was wrong in the first place".
now, maybe im just strange,crazy or just dont think right, but somehow to me, thats just wrong. if a persons going to live under the blanket of freedom our troops are providing, and enjoy the liberties they do every single day, they should be willing to help out any way they can, if need be.

you could always do what alot of other conciencious objectors have done-------go to canada!


----------



## Militant_Tiger

GunRunner said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be damned if im going to die in a war that I think was wrong in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> with an additude like that, if you were drafted into service of our great nation, you WOULD be killed in war. we enjoy the liberties we have today because our citizens were willing to go to war and defend this great nation (even pre-emptively)
> 
> BUT, i bet alot of people with that additude sleep well at night KNOWING that there's somene out there PROTECTING THEM, and FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOMS THEY TAKE FOR GRANTED EACH AND EVERY DAY,without them even having to see it or lift a finger, but mention that they or someone they know, or a family member of theres might have to go to WAR at some late date in the future to fight like the others out there right now to keep them safe at night, and to keep this great country we live in safe, and all of the sudden, its "I'll be damned if im going to die in a war that I think was wrong in the first place".
> now, maybe im just strange,crazy or just dont think right, but somehow to me, thats just wrong. if a persons going to live under the blanket of freedom our troops are providing, and enjoy the liberties they do every single day, they should be willing to help out any way they can, if need be.
> 
> you could always do what alot of other conciencious objectors have done-------go to canada!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can still be so confused. Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Don't tell me that we "thought" they had weapons, we went in on faulty and exaggerated evidence, which was contradicted by the work of the weapons inspectors. It is not our place to stop dictators from waring with their own people, especially one which occured 16 years ago. We would be SAFER had we not gone into Iraq, and I will thus not fight in said war. There is no blanket of freedom being fought for in Iraq, we are fighting for oil. There are similar situations in many of the countries of Africa, but we do not lift a finger because they dont have oil. Good morning America, smell the coffee.


----------



## esox

Gun, instead of saying "go to Canada", I think you may have meant to say, run to Canada. :lol:


----------



## james s melson

To all the libs who jumped on the Kerry Titanic that was destined to go to the bottom......please take Baldwin, Sprinsteen, Moore, and the rest of Hollywood with you when you leave for some other country. Time for healing can come later. Lets enjoy the victory. Thankyou ND for being in the Bush column, a red state along with SD and Iowa, I'm embarrassed by the way MN cast its electoral vote. Kerry was a lying traitor from the start. The only decent thing he did was concede early and not drag this thing out even though his running mate (whats his name) wanted to wait "til' every vote was counted". We are safe from seeing the Stars and Stripes replaced by the blue U.N. rag as long as Bush is in office. Please excuse me for being absent for so long, I can't log on at lunch anymore.

Tiger, don't lose sleep worrying about getting drafted, this country doesn't need soldiers that don't want to serve their country, we have plenty of courageous, smart, patriotic volunteers. The troops over there right now are the finest that have ever been deployed, no need to delute that with those who would rather watch Farenheight 911 and listen to Tim Robins.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

james s melson said:


> To all the libs who jumped on the Kerry Titanic that was destined to go to the bottom......please take Baldwin, Sprinsteen, Moore, and the rest of Hollywood with you when you leave for some other country. Time for healing can come later. Lets enjoy the victory. Thankyou ND for being in the Bush column, a red state along with SD and Iowa, I'm embarrassed by the way MN cast its electoral vote. Kerry was a lying traitor from the start. The only decent thing he did was concede early and not drag this thing out even though his running mate (whats his name) wanted to wait "til' every vote was counted". We are safe from seeing the Stars and Stripes replaced by the blue U.N. rag as long as Bush is in office.


Yeah!
How dare you field a candidate in this democracy! Shame on you for having an opposing view! Now get out of my country so I can have it all to myself, with only us like-minded people. Take that you traitor!

You people should listen to yourselves sometimes.

Pretty scary.

RC
Who has no plans to leave. Go ahead and make me.


----------



## GunRunner

james s melson said:


> To all the libs who jumped on the Kerry Titanic that was destined to go to the bottom......please take Baldwin, Sprinsteen, Moore, and the rest of Hollywood with you when you leave for some other country. Time for healing can come later. Lets enjoy the victory. Thankyou ND for being in the Bush column, a red state along with SD and Iowa, I'm embarrassed by the way MN cast its electoral vote. Kerry was a lying traitor from the start. The only decent thing he did was concede early and not drag this thing out even though his running mate (whats his name) wanted to wait "til' every vote was counted". We are safe from seeing the Stars and Stripes replaced by the blue U.N. rag as long as Bush is in office. Please excuse me for being absent for so long, I can't log on at lunch anymore.
> 
> Tiger, don't lose sleep worrying about getting drafted, this country doesn't need soldiers that don't want to serve their country, we have plenty of courageous, smart, patriotic volunteers. The troops over there right now are the finest that have ever been deployed, no need to delute that with those who would rather watch Farenheight 911 and listen to Tim Robins.


all i can say to esox and Jame's is AMEN BROTHER'S!

it just burns me up too see someone get on here, talk about guns,hunting,ect. clearly enjoying the freedoms that our troops provide to them every day, then say something like that. do you think you would be able to do any of thet stuff in the future if everyone else had that kind of additude, or if kerry would have gotten elected?...i truely dont think so....after 9/11 all you heard is everyone screaming that we needed to do something about the BS and the terrorists in the world. saddam was a clear supporter of terrorism, he proved that time after time. now, you hear people sniveling that its a "war that they dont agree with" what happened to the screaming for revenge ( for the lack of a better expression) that everyone was doing and wanted?.....

also, these same people snivel about the soldiers that have been killed over there.....

NEWS FLASH......

WAR IS DANGEROUS...PEOPLE DIE

if it wasnt for YOUR forefathers DIEING for what they believed in, you would most likely NOT be here, and if you were, you would be living a life somewhat along the lines of what the jews did during hitlers days. how do you think our forefathers procured these freedoms?...AT THE END OF A GUN, AT WAR.

i think we did the RIGHT thing by going over there and stomping some buttz.

i also think someone should go BACK to school, crack open a history book, and learn something.


----------



## GunRunner

Robert A. Langager said:


> Yeah!
> How dare you field a candidate in this democracy! Shame on you for having an opposing view! Now get out of my country so I can have it all to myself, with only us like-minded people. Take that you traitor!
> 
> You people should listen to yourselves sometimes.
> 
> Pretty scary.
> 
> RC
> Who has no plans to leave. Go ahead and make me.


i dont think that hes a traitor, i just think that he needs to be alittle more informed. if this person was up on the issues, he would see that everything he claims he stands for, kerry has tried to bat down every single chance hes gotten ( kerry is a canidate who voted AGAINST funding to supply our troops with the items they needed the most to keep them safe, and has voiced his views publically several times on taking all semi-auto firearms away from the american people, a canidate who , during the viet nam war collaberated with the enemy, and is actually HONORED there for his part in HELPING THE ENEMY WIN THE WAR, and who lied about certain things during and after the war to procure metals he had no right to wear, just to mention a very few things...). as far as the oposing view thing, yes, one of the nice things about living in a free country is everyone has the right to have there own opinon, and actually voice it.

i love to hear everyones opinions. people are allowed to have different views , and i actually enjoy hearing them, even if i dont agree with them. im not the sort o person whos going to hate someone because of there views ( i learned years ago to hate everyone EQUAL, that way you never have any problems). thats one of the things that makes this country great (agreeing to disagree...LOL....)

just because i disagree with him, doesnt mean i would tell him to jump off a building, or refuse him if he needed something or shoot him in the face with an SMG..........

surviellance photo of Senator John Kerry....what do you suppose hes smoking?










must be a camel


----------



## james s melson

Nice candidate, F rating by the NRA, photo in a place of honor in a communist country for being a hero for their causes. Look up the meaning of traitor, if the shoe fits...well you know.

Better try a woman candidate next time.....oops...


----------



## GunRunner

james s melson said:


> Nice candidate, F rating by the NRA, photo in a place of honor in a communist country for being a hero for their causes. Look up the meaning of traitor, if the shoe fits...well you know.
> 
> Better try a woman candidate next time.....oops...


well, personally, i WOULD rather see a woman in the whitehouse [sic] than Kerry.........

ANYONES gotta be beter at "LICKING BUSH" than Kerry...LOL


----------



## southdakbearfan

GunRunner said:


> james s melson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice candidate, F rating by the NRA, photo in a place of honor in a communist country for being a hero for their causes. Look up the meaning of traitor, if the shoe fits...well you know.
> 
> Better try a woman candidate next time.....oops...
> 
> 
> 
> well, personally, i WOULD rather see a woman in the whitehouse [sic] than Kerry.........
> 
> ANYONES gotta be beter at "LICKING BUSH" than Kerry...LOL
Click to expand...

If Kerry would have known that, he would have flip/flopped and said he was a woman before he was a man.


----------



## GunRunner

LOL!


----------



## esox

It's likely had he been elected we would have had some Mozambique wiccan wart, (his wife), running the country. Phew, close call. This countries policy would have been guided by casting bones on the ground for a daily reading/briefing. Scary thought, especially after already having had that wiccan wart from Arkansas in the White House.
Hows this for a corelation? Old man Heinz, the Mozambique wart's first husband, gets offed in an airplane "accident". John Jr., the Arkansas wart's only competition for the N.Y. senate seat she now holds, was also offed in an airplane "accident".
Gotta give Kerry credit for one thing though. He had enough sense to not choose the Hildebeest for a running mate. Had he been elected, Air Force One would've made the big dive.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"saddam was a clear supporter of terrorism, he proved that time after time. now, you hear people sniveling that its a "war that they dont agree with" what happened to the screaming for revenge ( for the lack of a better expression) that everyone was doing and wanted?..... "

There is no proof that Saddam supported terrorism. Saddam turned down offers by Osama to join together. If you want to say something you're going to need facts to back it up.

As for letting our soldiers go to war unprepared, he voted against the proposition to give the soldiers less funds, and voted for the larger amount of funds. The talking points don't add up to a cup of warm spit when you look at the facts.


----------



## jacks

MT, you keep wanting people to show you the facts. Please back this quote of yours up with some facts.

"There is no blanket of freedom being fought for in Iraq, we are fighting for oil. "


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Gladly

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITIC ... time.iraq/
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 9C7EF0.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -8358r.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

Saddam was not connected with 9/11, he had no ties with terror in the recent past, and was not a threat to the United states.


----------



## GunRunner

read it on the internet, so it MUST be true!...LOL

a bunch of heresay,ect. is not very convincing ( at least 2 of the stories you cited were overseas publications, and one of those was a suspect site anyway).do a search on how may stories/pages,ect you can find on kerrys BS.

Results 1 - 10 of about 960,000 for john kerry war crimes. (0.46 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 80,700 for john kerry viet nam war . (0.24 seconds) 
Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for john kerry liar. (0.47 seconds) 
Results 1 - 10 of about 155,000 for john kerry helping the enemy. (0.49 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 146,000 for saddam helping osama bin laden. (0.44 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 107,000 for saddam 9/11 attacks involvement. (0.30 seconds)

saddam link to 9/11 conf.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=13323

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=11647

links dont really mean too much as no matter what you search for, youl find thousands of stories, pro and con on both sides

how about this one

Osama Bin Laden supports John Kerry for presedent

http://www.rense.com/general59/smak.htm

and i suppose that he wasnt attempting ( saddam) to purchase ballistic missles that were capable of carrying chemical and biological weapons with the specific intention of using them?........

you can defend your old buddies,kerry,saddam and osama all you like, but youll not convince me of anything

also, how do you explain all of the provable wrongs that kerry has done?.......i guess you have an explanation for his helping the enemy in viet nam, and the lies he told, and all the BS he pulled,right?........

fact is, sadam was a T U R D, and everyone knows it. now hes gonna die an old beaten man in prison ( if he doesnt die first)....... my brother in law just got home from over there in iraq. fact is, he was on several of the details that went out specifically looking for sadam.some of the stuff he's told us since hes been back is really enough to make you want to nuke there whole country.

as an example, he told us of one mission they were on, where they entered one of sadams compounds. they turned the corner to see one of sadams men ( who was oblivious to there presence) having his way with a 11 YEAR OLD BOY from the rear. needless to say, it didnt continue, as the guy lost about 3/4ths of his head to a point blank .45 acp hollow point.

we have acoplished 2 things by going over there. we have made our country safe and we have created an enviroment where the people of iraq can actually sleep at night without fear.

if i could have went, i would STILL be there, weapon in hand, ready to defend whats right.
hey, you have dinner with Mike Moore lately?


----------



## james s melson

Militant_Tiger said:


> "
> There is no proof that Saddam supported terrorism. Saddam turned down offers by Osama to join together. If you want to say something you're going to need facts to back it up.
> 
> .


No proof! Where have you been?

Of course Saddam turned down offers from Osama to join forces, he had a nice little dictatorship going on, complete with rape rooms, torture rooms, a little inside deals with the French (cowards, spine-less) Germany (who cares) and Russians (still trying to get their crap together) Don't forget NATO and the corrupt oil for food program.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

GunRunner said:


> read it on the internet, so it MUST be true!...LOL
> 
> a bunch of heresay,ect. is not very convincing ( at least 2 of the stories you cited were overseas publications, and one of those was a suspect site anyway).do a search on how may stories/pages,ect you can find on kerrys BS.
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 960,000 for john kerry war crimes. (0.46 seconds)
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 80,700 for john kerry viet nam war . (0.24 seconds)
> Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for john kerry liar. (0.47 seconds)
> Results 1 - 10 of about 155,000 for john kerry helping the enemy. (0.49 seconds)
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 146,000 for saddam helping osama bin laden. (0.44 seconds)
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 107,000 for saddam 9/11 attacks involvement. (0.30 seconds)
> 
> saddam link to 9/11 conf.
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=13323
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=11647
> 
> links dont really mean too much as no matter what you search for, youl find thousands of stories, pro and con on both sides
> 
> how about this one
> 
> Osama Bin Laden supports John Kerry for presedent
> 
> http://www.rense.com/general59/smak.htm
> 
> and i suppose that he wasnt attempting ( saddam) to purchase ballistic missles that were capable of carrying chemical and biological weapons with the specific intention of using them?........
> 
> you can defend your old buddies,kerry,saddam and osama all you like, but youll not convince me of anything
> 
> also, how do you explain all of the provable wrongs that kerry has done?.......i guess you have an explanation for his helping the enemy in viet nam, and the lies he told, and all the BS he pulled,right?........
> 
> fact is, sadam was a T U R D, and everyone knows it. now hes gonna die an old beaten man in prison ( if he doesnt die first)....... my brother in law just got home from over there in iraq. fact is, he was on several of the details that went out specifically looking for sadam.some of the stuff he's told us since hes been back is really enough to make you want to nuke there whole country.
> 
> as an example, he told us of one mission they were on, where they entered one of sadams compounds. they turned the corner to see one of sadams men ( who was oblivious to there presence) having his way with a 11 YEAR OLD BOY from the rear. needless to say, it didnt continue, as the guy lost about 3/4ths of his head to a point blank .45 acp hollow point.
> 
> we have acoplished 2 things by going over there. we have made our country safe and we have created an enviroment where the people of iraq can actually sleep at night without fear.
> 
> if i could have went, i would STILL be there, weapon in hand, ready to defend whats right.
> hey, you have dinner with Mike Moore lately?


Indeed you can find many pages saying things like "the world is flat", unfortunately you fail to consider that the credibility of said pages is nill. If you do not trust CNN, the washington times, or the BBC to give fair information, who do you trust (I can answer this one myself, lets just say it jumps over the lazy dog).

While Saddam was "attempting" to purchase said missiles (much like the aluminum pipes Ms. Rice was losing her mind about) Iran already had nukes, and ties to terrorism. How is it that Iraq was seen as the bigger threat?

"also, how do you explain all of the provable wrongs that kerry has done?.......i guess you have an explanation for his helping the enemy in viet nam, and the lies he told, and all the BS he pulled,right?........ "

If having dinner with the north vietnamese is helping the enemy then Mr. Bush's avoidance of the area in general is a flat out benedict arnold. 
As for lies, which lies are these. Are you incinuating that Mr Bush has never told a lie in office?

"as an example, he told us of one mission they were on, where they entered one of sadams compounds. they turned the corner to see one of sadams men ( who was oblivious to there presence) having his way with a 11 YEAR OLD BOY from the rear. needless to say, it didnt continue, as the guy lost about 3/4ths of his head to a point blank .45 acp hollow point. "

I find this a little funny, because after the hague convention (early 1900's) the use of all but full metal jacket bullets was banned. Also, the .45 was replaced by the 9mm in 1990. You know we have the same type of people in this country as well, called child molesters. Why not divert some of the forces from Iraq and try to root out the sickos among us instead?

"we have acoplished 2 things by going over there. we have made our country safe and we have created an enviroment where the people of iraq can actually sleep at night without fear. "

We have caused Iraq to become a petri dish for terrorism, and we have created an environment of constant killing and bloodshed. So you're close.


----------



## Plainsman

> If you do not trust CNN, the washington times, or the BBC to give fair information, who do you trust (I can answer this one myself, lets just say it jumps over the lazy dog).


MT, we all must decide who we trust. We read whatever we get our hands on, look at as many sources as we can and decide. We older people do have an advantage. I watched Kerry on TV when he testified before congress. I stared at the television new real in total misbelief, surely my ears must deceive me.

You and I are at a different age, you will have to explain your cliché to this old geezer.

In closing I certainly do not believe what CBS-BS says, or NBC-BS, ABC-BS, CNN-BS, or BBC-BS.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"You and I are at a different age, you will have to explain your cliché to this old geezer. "

The quick brown FOX jumps over the lazy dog, a sentence used to test keyboards and such as it uses every letter of the alphabet.


----------



## GunRunner

this sorta fit the situation i think:

From The Morning Call -- November 8, 2004

Jesus speaks through the Republicans

I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.

*The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.*
Earl Balboa

Washington Township


----------



## mr.trooper

"I find this a little funny, because after the hague convention (early 1900's) the use of all but full metal jacket bullets was banned. Also, the .45 was replaced by the 9mm in 1990. You know we have the same type of people in this country as well, called child molesters. Why not divert some of the forces from Iraq and try to root out the sickos among us instead?"

#1) who gives a hoot about the Hague? also, Woever shot the man could have purchased the ammo seperately? ACTUALY, the Huage conference baned "dumb-dumb" bullets, AKA Soft points. Hollow ooits as we know them were not avalable at the time, and are not specificaly stated in its regulations.:thumb:

#2) several Special forces units and Marine units have started using the .45acp 1911 again, so yes, it is posible.

Also, the democrats would revolt if we dared to violate the rights of sick perverted child molesters that way! After all, they have the right to engare in whaever "life style" they want to...dont they?


----------



## GunRunner

"I find this a little funny, because after the hague convention (early 1900's) the use of all but full metal jacket bullets was banned. Also, the .45 was replaced by the 9mm in 1990. You know we have the same type of people in this country as well, called child molesters. Why not divert some of the forces from Iraq and try to root out the sickos among us instead? "

i dont know where your from, but i can tell you dont have any military experience, especially in combat where your allowed to use whatever you have at your disposal..

are you aware that when the war started in iraq that the US governemt requisitioned alot of there ammunition from retail warehouses,ect?. longs drugs specifically sold MILLIONS of rounds of 222,223,9mm,308,300 win mag and other calibers to the US Military, along with most of the ammunition manufacters in the US. i know this to be a fact because i was out of most of this type of ammo, and cound not get alot of it, and our local longs drugs stores shelves were bare as a welfare mothers cabinets.

i guess if our soldiers run shot of ammunition, we just have to surender because some dumbazz says they cant use anything but "FMJ"...it aint gonna happen..........

as amusing as i find this thread, im finished with it. you cant make a point or argue with someone who knows 'everything"....

you have won nothing when you have bested a fool........


----------



## Gunner

Militant_Tiger said:


> As for lies, which lies are these. Are you incinuating that Mr Bush has never told a lie in office?


MT, it might be hard for you to believe, but there are those of us (including the Prsident) who are guided by moral compasses and believe personal integrity to be the most important quality we can possess. Lying is completely foreign to us and the truth is so engrained in us that we would rather be destroyed by the truth than to lie and reap any possible rewards associated with it. Now mind you, this doesn't mean we're always right, but we can live with ourselves knowing we make decisions based on truth.

On the other hand there are those among us that believe the end justify the means and blatantly lie to achieve thier agenda.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.

It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans. "

Wasn't it hitler who said that he was doing God's will by killing the jews as well? It's easy to say God is on your side since he won't tell you different, at least not in this lifetime.

"Also, the democrats would revolt if we dared to violate the rights of sick perverted child molesters that way! After all, they have the right to engare in whaever "life style" they want to...dont they?"

What's funny about this one is that the repubs see it fit to take rule over the lifestyles which don't hurt anyone (such as the gays) but make little effort to go after those who do hurt others, corporations who lie to make money like enron for instance.

"#1) who gives a hoot about the Hague? also, Woever shot the man could have purchased the ammo seperately? ACTUALY, the Huage conference baned "dumb-dumb" bullets, AKA Soft points. Hollow ooits as we know them were not avalable at the time, and are not specificaly stated in its regulations. "

Indeed who cares about the rules of war, we are fighting monkeys after all. I say we just bomb the whole damn place. And yes is is stated that nothing but FMJ's can be used.

"The Hague Convention prohibits the use of expanding or fragmenting bullets in warfare (often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions), but hollow point bullets are one of the most common types of civilian and police ammunition. In fact, in many jurisdictions it is illegal to hunt game with ammunition that doesn't expand, and many target ranges also forbid full metal jacket ammuntion (which is more likely to ricochet)."

"MT, it might be hard for you to believe, but there are those of us (including the Prsident) who are guided by moral compasses and believe personal integrity to be the most important quality we can possess. Lying is completely foreign to us and the truth is so engrained in us that we would rather be destroyed by the truth than to lie and reap any possible rewards associated with it."

Indeed stretching the truth to give credence for war is a laughable and highly unlikely situation for any republican to be in :eyeroll:


----------



## racer66

If I can ask, how old are you MT?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I am 16 years old racer, which means that I must be an idiot. I suppose I should give up arguing now :lol:


----------



## racer66

In know way did I say you're an idiot, keep arguing it's your right, I was just curious.


----------



## GunRunner

Militant_Tiger said:


> I am 16 years old racer


well, MEN, that explains EVERYTHING...............

LOL....

i rest my case......


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Sorry racer I'm just a little touchy on the issue of age, every time it has been brought up it was used as a method to discredit me.


----------



## mr.trooper

MT: we know you are fully capable of findng the truth at your age. if you wernt, we woudnt be so hard on you. but the fact is, you DO get wiser with time. i know just a few years ago when i was your age, i thought had all the solutions to the worlds problems, and i thought i was the peek of scientific and political knowldedge also. It only took a few years to realize how stupid i was. Wait till your 20 or so, and see if you still think the same. if you do, then good on ya. But experience and history saisy thats not likely.

College, a job, and an engagement/marriage put things in perspecitve, and the simple fact is, that at 16 years of age, your unlikely to have any of those. if you do, then great. The world still looks simple from where your standing. that will change.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I'm sure that time will change a few things, but I am fairly steadfast in my beliefs. I am a pretty good debater, its going to be hard talking myself out of the big ones.


----------



## tail chaser

Hey G-Runner,

You said in response to MT's being 16 years old " well gentlemen I rest my case". Are you giving up because a kid can beat you in debate?

I don't always agree with MT but you have to give him credit the kid makes a lot of good points and quite frankly makes some eat crow once in a while. I say keep it up MT I enjoy reading what you have to say.

I wonder how many Right thinking people on this site wish they had a 16 year old son or daughter who was as concerned as MT is about the state of our country or polotics? Perhaps their kids are being left behind?

Keep it up MT

TC


----------



## mr.trooper

Actauly, i must say i enjoy debating with MT. we never seem to get anywhere but thats beside the point! :lol: ill hand it to him, he doesn make points on some issues. we just need to help him make them more clear sometimes. thats OK--it will come with time and experience.


----------



## IAHunter

Militant_Tiger

I would like to make one attempt at shooting down your accusation on Bush lying about this war, if I may. I have put this before alot of people and some of them do agree, some argue, and some want to hit me for attempting to break into their cozy little world they have built up around them. Here it goes:

Scenario: You are the President of the United States and your country has just been attacked, out of the blue, killing over 3,000 of your countrymen. The enemy is capable of hiding anywhere without restrictions to a set piece of land. They have shown that they have no regards for human life and, worse, for their life. They have only one goal, to bring down the great Satan no matter the consecenses. Do we have all of that? OK, now we know that their main camps are within Afganistan, so that is were we first will strike, but this group is an autonomous group, with splinter cells capable of operating independently of a central organization. Now we go into the details. You have your Intelligence agency coming to you with an entire list of possibilities of how a terrorist can strike the country. The biggest threat? Dirty bombs. Chemical weapons. How many possible deaths? Hard to say, middle of Chicago or Las Angelas during rush hour, could run between 5,000 to 50,000. How would they get such weapons? Iraq is the best possibility. A known madman who has no love for this country and has already made one attempt at assassinating President of the United States. You need verification. Iraqi dissidents provide the intelligence and the British Intelligence back up all information.

How do you go? Two of the best intelligence agencies on the WORLD report that Saddam still has WDMs and that terrorist have made attempts at getting them. France and Germany say that the weapon inspectors have not had enough time to determine whether they have any or not, but are not willing to put any type of deadline on when enough is enough for inspections. The weapon inspectors are not allowed to inspect all areas that they wish, the palaces that encompass thousands of acres. And they also report suspicous activities of vehicles leaving through backways of areas to be inspected. That is if the inspectors are even allowed within the country.

Now, you have SOME of the information that the President has. Your job is the protection of this country and its citizens, that's pretty much it. NO PRESSURE. Do you disbelieve the best intelligence agency in the world, your intelligence agency, with the backing of the British Intelligence. Do you want to run the risk of letting the weapon inspectors have another three, five, ten years of TRYING to get access to the locations they really want to go to but are not allowed. Do you want to run the risk that the next terrorist strike could kill tens of thousands of the very people that you have sworn to protect?

There you have it. Two choices. Make a preemptive strike that may piss off the world but shorts the terrorist of one possibile avenue for dirty bombs or chemical weapons, or wait several years for the weapon inspectors to "maybe" get full access. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED HINDSIGHT. This is right after 3,000 of your citizens were killed right under your nose. Remember that.

I know this is cliche, but that country would of been glowing for the next several eons if I was President, but I'm an idiot and rather unstable and totally unelectable. "My judgement is not by man, but by God, and my soul shall rest until then." Gen. Patton

He didn't lie, he was doing what he was supposed to do. Protecting us.

IaHunter


----------



## Militant_Tiger

IAHunter said:


> Militant_Tiger
> Scenario: You are the President of the United States and your country has just been attacked, out of the blue, killing over 3,000 of your countrymen. The enemy is capable of hiding anywhere without restrictions to a set piece of land. They have shown that they have no regards for human life and, worse, for their life. They have only one goal, to bring down the great Satan no matter the consecenses. Do we have all of that? OK, now we know that their main camps are within Afganistan, so that is were we first will strike, but this group is an autonomous group, with splinter cells capable of operating independently of a central organization. Now we go into the details. You have your Intelligence agency coming to you with an entire list of possibilities of how a terrorist can strike the country. The biggest threat? Dirty bombs. Chemical weapons. How many possible deaths? Hard to say, middle of Chicago or Las Angelas during rush hour, could run between 5,000 to 50,000. How would they get such weapons? Iraq is the best possibility. A known madman who has no love for this country and has already made one attempt at assassinating President of the United States. You need verification. Iraqi dissidents provide the intelligence and the British Intelligence back up all information.
> IaHunter


Here is the part that I dont like. Iraq had no WMD's, there was no hard evidence to show that he did. Iran however did, and hates the US just as much if not more. Also, the Saudis made up the lions share of the hijackers, yet we did not touch them. It was a tense situation indeed, but Bush made the stupid decision and in my opinion doesn't have the judgement to be president.

I like this quote personally

"He who would exchange essential liberty for temporary safety deserves
neither liberty nor safety"
-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Plainsman

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and all the rest of the Muslim world hate us. What are you advocating MT that we should have gone into Iran and Saudi Arabia first? The fact is, Bush couldn't do anything that would make you happy. If he had gone to Iran you would think he was stupid for not going to Iraq.

I don't think that at the time we went into Iraq that we knew how far along Iran was with WMD's. Another attempt on your part MT to ridicule Bush for something no one knew. Remember it was your buddies that cut the funding for the CIA, and blinded out intelligence. Most of the problems we have are caused by the liberals. Terrorists hit us and Clinton said they will be hunted down and punished. Never happened. They seen us as week, and the weakness of the liberals invited attack. Weakness of a people like weakness of an animal attracts predators.

France, Germany, Russia, and perhaps China were all on the take, as well as the UN. It is hard to believe that anyone, much less a presidential candidate (Kerry) is so naive about the UN. Lets watch and see where the investigation into the UN food for oil scandal goes. The best thing we could do is throw their behind out of the U. S.

MT, I sure do agree with the quote at the end of your post. I am sure you think this relates to the Patriot Act, it just fits your psyche. I see it as those who are willing to let terrorists threaten us, even kill us, and do nothing.


----------



## mr.trooper

What do you expect? you have to go to a private school to even be OFFERED the CHANCE to hear the Conservative View point. Public school sweep eveorything that isnt "Progressive" enough under te rug thse days. alot has changed in the last few years...even in the sort time iv been away at colledge things have changed. Our locl public school is still 95% liberal DESPITE having a Born again christian as a Principle. Eveory time i talk to Cierra i cant believe some of the things she tells me that the teachers present as "facts" to the student body. its realy sad. :eyeroll:


----------



## tail chaser

Mr Trooper,
If you don't mind could you expailn in more detail what have been desribed as facts? I would like to hear them.

TC


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and all the rest of the Muslim world hate us. What are you advocating MT that we should have gone into Iran and Saudi Arabia first? The fact is, Bush couldn't do anything that would make you happy. If he had gone to Iran you would think he was stupid for not going to Iraq.
> 
> I don't think that at the time we went into Iraq that we knew how far along Iran was with WMD's. Another attempt on your part MT to ridicule Bush for something no one knew. Remember it was your buddies that cut the funding for the CIA, and blinded out intelligence. Most of the problems we have are caused by the liberals. Terrorists hit us and Clinton said they will be hunted down and punished. Never happened. They seen us as week, and the weakness of the liberals invited attack. Weakness of a people like weakness of an animal attracts predators.
> 
> France, Germany, Russia, and perhaps China were all on the take, as well as the UN. It is hard to believe that anyone, much less a presidential candidate (Kerry) is so naive about the UN. Lets watch and see where the investigation into the UN food for oil scandal goes. The best thing we could do is throw their behind out of the U. S.
> 
> MT, I sure do agree with the quote at the end of your post. I am sure you think this relates to the Patriot Act, it just fits your psyche. I see it as those who are willing to let terrorists threaten us, even kill us, and do nothing.


You can bet your *** I would have advocated going into saudi arabia. Your damned if you do damned if you dont plan doesnt work out here. Being that most of the hijackers were saudi, following the plan that we did of attacking iraq is like catching your girlfriend cheating and kicking your dog, it doesnt make any sense.

"I don't think that at the time we went into Iraq that we knew how far along Iran was with WMD's. "

This is a load of it, we have known that they had nukes for many years

"Most of the problems we have are caused by the liberals. Terrorists hit us and Clinton said they will be hunted down and punished. Never happened. They seen us as week, and the weakness of the liberals invited attack. Weakness of a people like weakness of an animal attracts predators. "

I knew that you would find some way to blame the attacks on the liberals. You see plainsie the reason that we were attacked and the reason that we are hated in the east is because we cant keep to ourselves. We continuously try to aid countries in that area while kicking down other countries. We keep turning around to feed and shun these dogs back and forth, I am not surprised that we got bit.

"France, Germany, Russia, and perhaps China were all on the take, as well as the UN. It is hard to believe that anyone, much less a presidential candidate (Kerry) is so naive about the UN. Lets watch and see where the investigation into the UN food for oil scandal goes. The best thing we could do is throw their behind out of the U. S. "

All of this while haliburton is still doing buisness with Iran, and the corporate rip offs walk freely.

"What do you expect? you have to go to a private school to even be OFFERED the CHANCE to hear the Conservative View point."

It is stunning how far out of the mainstream you are. It seems as if you have no clue as to how anything is run apart from the areas directly around you.

"Our locl public school is still 95% liberal DESPITE having a Born again christian as a Principle."

You find a problem with being a liberal Christian? I find fault with you being a Christian who supports killing in the name of smoke and mirrors safety.


----------



## IAHunter

Militant_Tiger

You advocate going to war with Saudi Arabia because "most" of the hijackers came from that country? What intelligence report have you read that specified that the Saudi government financed them? Where is the proof that they were acting on the demands of the Saudi government? You lost a little more credibility with me on that one. Invade a country because 15 of the terrorist came from that country, but don't invade a country that your intelligence agency tells you has a very good possibility of having WMD's. Even John Kerry, who saw the same reports as Bush, advocated invading Iraq as a preemptive strike. Hillary Clinton, among a very few other Senators from the Dem. side, still believes that what we did was correct.

As for our government knowing for many years that Iran had nuclear weapons. They still don't and never have. They are CURRENTLY building a facility that will have the CAPABILITY of enriching uranium. Iran came out and let it be know that they were building this facility just last year. Why? If they didn't and the Isrealis discovered this, that place would of been leveled in less than 24 hours. Don't believe me? The Isrealis did it to Iraq. Oh, and the fact that they had American troops on two sides of them might of, just a little...tiny..itsy bit, helped in letting the world know about the place.

The terrorist do see us as being weak. They took what they learned in the history books about Viet Nam (hold on long enough for the American publics opinion to turn sour, even if you are losing), and in the Beirut bombing of a Marine barracks (may God rest their souls), and sprinkle in their own lesson of Somolia (do something so hidious that the American public will DEMAND the return of the troops). Why do you think they video tape the beheadings? It is for us, the wishy-washy American public.

As for Halliburton. They recieved just over $12 Billion in no-bid contracts from President Clinton. Why? They are one of the few corporations in the world that is capable of handling the logistics that are needed for supplying troops in another country. Do I agree with no-bid contracts? No. But don't blame Cheney for Halliburton getting the type of deal that Clinton also gave them. And if they did rip off the government, as it looks like they did with the fuel, then they should be held accountable.

And you didn't give me an answer to my earlier post. Read through it again and remember no hindsight "Iraq 'had' no WMD's". Follow the rules.

And I'm against the Patriot Act also. As a conservative, it violates what I believe in.

IaHunter[/b][/quote]


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"You advocate going to war with Saudi Arabia because "most" of the hijackers came from that country? What intelligence report have you read that specified that the Saudi government financed them? Where is the proof that they were acting on the demands of the Saudi government? "

If we were attacked by canadian rebels, we would still attack canada. You root out the problem, I am not advocating carpet bombing but it is rather obvious that there is a strong terror presence in said country.


----------



## Plainsman

If those same Canadians attacked from Mexico, I wouldn't attack Canada. Would you MT?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I'm actually not sure where the 9/11 hijackers staged the attack, enlighten me


----------



## Plainsman

MT, I was not insinuating that I knew where anyone came from. I guess the general consensus is they came from Afghanistan , hence our first target. I was making the simple statement that if a German attacks us it doesn't necessarily mean Germany is attacking. One hour fifteen minutes and counting to deer hunting.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If the majority were saudi, it is an indication of a strong terror presence from said country that needs to be taken care of. My point is that it was a far greater target than Iraq was.


----------



## IAHunter

Militant_Tiger

Please start researching before spouting. The terrorists from Saudi Arabia are part of the Wahabi sect of the muslim religion, a very militant sect. The Saudi government has allowed the Wahabi sect to stay because they have a very tenuous hold on power within the country. *THEY WERE NOT FINANCED OR HELPED BY THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT*

That's it, I have reached the end of my rope. I have decided that your are an ingnorant, small minded child who is unable to listen, or just ignores, when people give opposing views. You believe that we are a bunch of country rubes who should listen to your obvious intellect (140 IQ, so you say), and bow down at your feet because you are trying to enlighten us and bring us to an upright posture.

I will no longer post to you or your insipid remarks because I do not like ignorant, mental runts, no matter their political views.

IaHunter


----------



## mr.trooper

"If those same Canadians attacked from Mexico, I wouldn't attack Canada. Would you MT"

PERFECT! thatwould give us just the chance we need to Take back the parts of Mexico we should have keept aftr the war, and the parts of Canada that we returned to the British or French way bac then! PERFECT! i hopw Canadian rebels DO attack from Mexico. Then we will have all of canadas Carribu, an all of Mexicos Cacti!


----------



## seabass

IAHunter said:


> Militant_Tiger
> 
> Please start researching before spouting. The terrorists from Saudi Arabia are part of the Wahabi sect of the muslim religion, a very militant sect. The Saudi government has allowed the Wahabi sect to stay because they have a very tenuous hold on power within the country. *THEY WERE NOT FINANCED OR HELPED BY THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT*
> 
> That's it, I have reached the end of my rope. I have decided that your are an ingnorant, small minded child who is unable to listen, or just ignores, when people give opposing views. You believe that we are a bunch of country rubes who should listen to your obvious intellect (140 IQ, so you say), and bow down at your feet because you are trying to enlighten us and bring us to an upright posture.
> 
> I will no longer post to you or your insipid remarks because I do not like ignorant, mental runts, no matter their political views.
> IaHunter


Step away from the coffee pot. You have reached your caffeine threshold.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

IAHunter said:


> Militant_Tiger
> 
> Please start researching before spouting. The terrorists from Saudi Arabia are part of the Wahabi sect of the muslim religion, a very militant sect. The Saudi government has allowed the Wahabi sect to stay because they have a very tenuous hold on power within the country. *THEY WERE NOT FINANCED OR HELPED BY THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT*
> 
> That's it, I have reached the end of my rope. I have decided that your are an ingnorant, small minded child who is unable to listen, or just ignores, when people give opposing views. You believe that we are a bunch of country rubes who should listen to your obvious intellect (140 IQ, so you say), and bow down at your feet because you are trying to enlighten us and bring us to an upright posture.
> 
> I will no longer post to you or your insipid remarks because I do not like ignorant, mental runts, no matter their political views.
> 
> IaHunter


We attacked Afghanistan, the afghani government did not fund said terrorists. No matter whether the government funded terror or not if there is a presence of terror, just like there was in afghanistan you send troops to root them out. You fail to realize that much of what you say contradicts itself. I will however not call you a mental runt, ignorant, nor small minded, even if it is true.


----------



## mr.trooper

You supported Afghanistan correct? i seem to remember you sayng that.

"No matter whether the government funded terror or not if there is a presence of terror, just like there was in afghanistan you send troops to root them out"
--You then go on to say how we contradict ourselvs...Yet you were against the War in Iraq even though there was a "presence of terror"??? please explain MT.

You say you would have supported an invasion of Iran or Saudi arabia because they supported terror....but your not willing to go to war against a country with a "Presence of terorism" that the whole world was SURE had WMD (except france...but no one listens to them becase tey are alwase the whiners. Whio would have guessed they were right for once? :huh: )? i hope your using satire or joking, because this doesnt make sence.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

mr.trooper said:


> You supported Afghanistan correct? i seem to remember you sayng that.
> 
> "No matter whether the government funded terror or not if there is a presence of terror, just like there was in afghanistan you send troops to root them out"
> --You then go on to say how we contradict ourselvs...Yet you were against the War in Iraq even though there was a "presence of terror"??? please explain MT.
> 
> You say you would have supported an invasion of Iran or Saudi arabia because they supported terror....but your not willing to go to war against a country with a "Presence of terorism" that the whole world was SURE had WMD (except france...but no one listens to them becase tey are alwase the whiners. Whio would have guessed they were right for once? :huh: )? i hope your using satire or joking, because this doesnt make sence.


I'm rather sure that it wouldn't make sense to you trooper, because you view the world with red cellophane over your eyes. Saddam had turned down offers from osama to work together, and was not a supporter of terror. I believe either one or none of the hijackers on 9/11 were iraqis. There was hardly any presence of terror in Iraq before the invasions. If a WMD was equal to a presence of terror then north korea or iran should have been the first targets. Your logic doesnt add up trooper.


----------



## james s melson

Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with a high school kid.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Indeed why waste your time with my newfangled hippie logic?


----------



## seabass

james s melson said:


> Why are you guys wasting your time arguing with a high school kid.


Why? Well, who likes to lose debates to a high schooler?


----------



## mr.trooper

"Your logic doesnt add up trooper."
...thats funny, since i never made any statements revealing MY logic. Would Iraq have been my first choice? no. I would have gone for North Korea. But our President decided iraq would be done first. No big deal to me. It had to be done sometime. But your statements that Iraq had little to no presence of terror before the war is ammusing.

By the way...just because Osama isnt in Iraq doesnt that mean we should ignore the other ones that were present? why should we focus only on OSAMA? If we kill the big fish, one of the smaler ones will just take his place....they all have to go, and starting at the botom is the best way to do it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"But your statements that Iraq had little to no presence of terror before the war is ammusing. "

Have you got any reputible sources to back this up, or are you just quoting one of the no name nutbags off fox? As for my statement of little terror presence before the invasion, I got that from Kerry in the debates, which means it must be true else the republicans would have been on it like flies on stink.


----------



## mr.trooper

You want me to back up my statements MT? Fine. Here they are. Just don't complain about my sources. A lot of this comes from a documented report compiled of Iraqi Testimony. you cant refute that. This is strait from the horse's mouth.

This first bit of information was found on a news sight from New Zealand (http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0212/S00018.htm). I don't recall New Zealand being one of the U.S.A's major allies. in other words, they have nothing to gain by saying what they are saying. also interesting there information is from a report compiled from Testimonials of Iraqis.

"Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council, which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state institutions. Several RCC decrees give the security agencies full powers to suppress dissent with impunity."

--sounds a lot like what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. They WERE terrorists.

"An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even death when pursuing enemies of the regime"

--Wouldn't people who have government permission to run around and kill people that disagree for little or no reason be terrorists?

"Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences"

--Cruel and unusual punishments; A Hallmark of Terrorists.

"These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to others"

--in other words, these horrible tings are offen done to people who have done noting more than disagree politically; Very terrorist like.

"According to an Amnesty International report published in August 2001, 'torture is used systematically against political detainees. The scale and severity of torture in Iraq can only result from the acceptance of its use at the highest level."

--Torture is outlawed in civilized nations, because it it un reasonable punishment, and instills unnecessary fear in the hearts of the general populace.

"Arbitrary arrests and killings are commonplace. Between three and four million Iraqis, about 15% of the population, have fled their homeland rather than live under Saddam Hussein's regime"

--In other words, his men could bust down your door in the middle of the night, kill you for no reason, and no one would care. That is direct terrorism, resulting in significant portion of the population fleeing in fear.

"Fear is Saddam's chosen method for staying in power."

--This is true for all terrorists.

"This report, based on the testimony of Iraqi exiles, evidence gathered by UN rapporteurs and human rights organisations, and intelligence material, describes the human cost of Saddam Hussein's control of Iraq"

--Are Iraqi Exiles credible as witnesses? I hope so, seeing as you have used them in the past to try and justify your statements.

"It (the Testimonial Report) examines in turn Iraq's record on torture, the treatment of women, prison conditions, arbitrary and summary killings, the persecution of the Kurds and the Shia, the harassment of opposition figures outside Iraq and the occupation of Kuwait."

--So basically, the Exiles say he is a terrorist who terrorized oppressed and murdered minorities.

"For 10 years Saddam denied access to the UN Special Rapporteurs on the human rights situation in Iraq."

--Why would he deny access for 10 years if he was just bluffing? Honestly...a 10 year bluff?

"However, in February 2002, Andreas Mavrommatis, the current UN Special Rapporteur, was able to make a brief visit. Iraqi officials accompanied him everywhere during a strictly limited programme. It remains to be seen whether he will be able to return to Iraq to continue his mission and if he will be given unrestricted access to enable him to carry out a full, independent assessment of Iraq's human rights situation. In his report , dated 20 August 2002, Mr. Mavrommatis regretted that, since his visit, the Iraqi governmnent were not showing a sufficient level of cooperation. Iraq still refuses to allow UN human rights monitors to operate in Iraq, in defiance of the UN's demands."

--Iraq has constantly refused to cooperate with the United Nations, the agency the Democrats claim is so vital and effective for international policies, and nothing happened. the U.N was completely ineffective.

"Qusayy Saddam Hussein Saddam's younger son. As head of the Iraqi internal security agencies, he has permitted and encouraged the endemic use of torture, including rape and the threat of rape, in Iraq."

--Saddams Sons were even worse than he was. and he did nothing to stop them from terrorizing the people from there high offices.

The following was taken off of the White house web page (http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html). I know you don't hold that to be very reliable, but regardless of your opinion of "W", this one statement at least is valid:

"The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:

*26,000 liters of anthrax-enough to kill several million people

*38,000 liters of botulinum toxin

*500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents "

--You HAVE TO NOTICE the fat that the U.N is stated first with regards to intelligence. The simple fact is, that Saddam Hap WMD in the past, he used them against IRAN and against the Kurds in the north. That's a Fact. He unquestionably had them at one time. Even after the fact he acted like he still had them, and refused to account for the weapons we knew that he had at one time. Whether he got rid of the before we arrived, hid them or used them all up in unknown. that is FACT is that he had motive and intent to possess and use these weapons.

For more Information on Saddam, you can head Here: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... urley.html Or HERE: http://www.strategypage.com/onpoint/art ... 010801.asp Or HERE: http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/4_abuse.html . The last one is particularly potent, as they are QUOTE: "a non-profit, non-governmental organization working for democracy and human rights in Iraq, and for a better international understanding of Iraq's potential as a contributor to political stability and economic progress in the Middle East."

Saddam was a terrorist, flat out. the simple fact that he was their leader meant there was a significant presence of terror. 
Notice that none of my sources are FOX news.

BTW: if I cant quote FOX, you can't quote Kerry. A lot of what he said in the debates was just spin anyway. Just because the Republicans didn't refute it doesn't mean it's true; were getting tired of this hog-wash.

Also, you didn't respond to this statement: "By the way...just because Osama isn't in Iraq doesn't that mean we should ignore the other ones that were present? Why should we focus only on OSAMA? If we kill the big fish, one of the smaller ones will just take his place....they all have to go, and starting at the bottom is the best way to do it."

I'm curious to hear your answer.


----------



## sdeprie

Mr Trooper, Tiger has been informed of ALL of this before and refuses to accept it. What makes you think he will now. You will only lose you patience and self respect trying to argue with someone who embraces their ignorance so completely. It's time to walk away, like into those hills. Those deer are waiting for us.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

So essientally he was unjust to his own people, and hadn't gone along with the UN sanctions in the past (though he was before the invasion). This charactarizes many, many leaders in that part of the world, and yet saddam was the target above iran, saudi arabia, etc. No matter how bad of a guy Saddam was, it does not give us a right to invade him because he posed no threat to us. The modern day definition of terrorism is 
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." 
You are in a pre 9/11 mindset, trooper.

"BTW: if I cant quote FOX, you can't quote Kerry. A lot of what he said in the debates was just spin anyway. Just because the Republicans didn't refute it doesn't mean it's true; were getting tired of this hog-wash. "

That has to be the biggest load of it I've heard all week.


----------



## sdeprie

MT, I've given the facts to you many times. I'm not about to repeat them, again.


----------



## mr.trooper

Ok. As iv said before, Saddam is only the first target on the list. were taking out the little fish first. They will all be dealt with eventualy. End of story. At least this time you cant argue that im "SHEALTERED" or "UN INFORMED" as you so often like to do. . .

This Discussion is OVER.

GOOD DAY SIR.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

We had poor evidence pointing to the fact that he might possibly have the capability to produce weapons, there was far stronger evidence against Iran. Most of the hijackers were saudi, and yet Iraq was still at the top of the list. I have never argued that I am uninformed, but you have tried to "defend" me as such.


----------



## sdeprie

sdeprie said:


> MT, I've given the facts to you many times. I'm not about to repeat them, again.


----------

