OT...3 reasons why Bush is an unacceptable choice.

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Jul 18, 2002
536
0
0
#1
1) He stole the 2000 election. Voting to "reelect" an illegitimate commander-in-chief who seized power by judicial coup d'état is a tacit endorsement of how he got into the White House in the first place. How the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore is irrelevant. As a federal court, the five runaway Supreme Court justices had no right to agree to hear the case. Under our system of government, elections--and election disputes--fall under state jurisdiction. Their decision to take the case, the way they fixed the outcome in Bush's favor, and Bush's willingness to assume the presidency extraconstitutionally are outrages that no patriotic American, even if they agree with his policies, can forgive.

2) Bush has done nothing to improve the economy. At one of the presidential debates, Bush was asked what he would tell someone who had lost their job to outsourcing overseas. He answered that the unemployed had received their $300 tax cuts, and that within five years his education policies would start to help children. The truth is, Bush did nothing to jumpstart the weak post-dot-com economy he inherited in 2000. Like most Republicans, he favors high unemployment as a way to keep labor week and salaries cheap. A Bush victory would ensure more of the same--fewer jobs, lower salaries, reduced unemployment benefits. A president can do a lot to stimulate the economy: jobs programs funded by the government, tax cuts for the working class. But Bush won't act because it would run counter to his ideological beliefs.

3) He let the terrorists get away while giving them a payraise. The 9/11 hijackers were Egyptians and Saudis recruited by an Egyptian group, Islamic Jihad, with funding from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, some of whom received training at camps which were mostly in Pakistan, all of which were funded by Pakistani secret intelligence. Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), who may have funded all or part of the operation via Al Qaeda, was in Pakistan on 9/11. So who does Bush go after? Afghanistan (news - web sites), at best a back lot of Pakistani-backed Islamists and Iraq (news - web sites)--which had nothing to do with 9/11. And what does he do about our real enemies in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia? He sells them more weapons. Egypt becomes the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel, collecting over $2 billion annually. Pakistan, ruled by a pro-Taliban general who jailed and tortured his democratically elected predecessor, is encouraged to develop its nascent nuclear capabilities. The 3,000 victims of 9/11 remain unavenged--and the stage is set for future attacks.
 
Nov 14, 2002
15,455
537
113
40
#2
I hope you made that shit up yourself, because if you actually saw that and thought it was good enough to cut and paste over here that makes you twice as stupid. Not to say I disagree with your points though. They're so... original and driven by fact.
 
Jun 22, 2004
466
0
0
#3
Listen to This!!! I was gonna make this an OT thread but it looks like the perfect place to post it.

Why 1 Vote Is Important:
In 1645 one vote gave Oliver Cormwell control of England.
In 1649 one vote cause Charles I of England to be executed.
In 1776 one vote gave America the English language instead of German. That means for all u Americans on here you would be speakin German today if not for 1 vote.
In 1845 one vote brought Texas into the union.
In 1923 one vote gave Adolph Hitler leadership of the Nazi Party. As a result over 6 million Jews died and millions more from all walks of life and all religions.

Your vote counts dont let Kerry get into office and take away funding to fight the war. Saddam Heusien was a modern day Hitler.
-sam
 
Jul 18, 2002
536
0
0
#5
sam42004 said:
Your vote counts dont let Kerry get into office and take away funding to fight the war. Saddam Heusien was a modern day Hitler.
-sam

Yo sam, got a question for ya...ever heard of Darfur in the Sudan...?

"Over one million people are already displaced and it is estimated that up to 30,000 have been killed. Now the whole area is facing a man-made famine that could threaten the lives of thousands more." ..."The conflict in Darfur is causing one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world, yet little has been done about a tragedy that affects more than a million people."

http://www.itdg.org/html/itdg_sudan/dafur_situation.htm#The human situation

Now that sounds like some Hitler type of shit, how come we ain't helpin them out..? cause they have nothing to offer us in return..? hmmm, something to think about.
 
Nov 14, 2002
15,455
537
113
40
#6
Oh yeah. I follow. That's why I'm on the bandwagon with the 95% of you who are pro-Kerry, most of which (like you) can't spell or capatalize.

But good work trying to convince people who are already going to vote for Kerry to vote for Kerry on the "folks that know what's up" tip.
 
Nov 14, 2002
15,455
537
113
40
#7
Now that sounds like some Hitler type of shit, how come we ain't helpin them out..? cause they have nothing to offer us in return..? hmmm, something to think about.
Maybe because they choose to kill themselves and keep to themselves. They don't train or fund terrorists who seek to come to the United States, or Allied embassies and blow them to smithereens. Hussein factually attempted to have an American president assasinated. Whether you like who it was or not, that seems like a threat to this country to me.
 
Jul 18, 2002
536
0
0
#8
Zer0.MediA said:
Maybe because they choose to kill themselves and keep to themselves. They don't train or fund terrorists who seek to come to the United States, or Allied embassies and blow them to smithereens. Hussein factually attempted to have an American president assasinated. Whether you like who it was or not, that seems like a threat to this country to me.

Ok, so in that line of thinking, if Hitler never invaded any other countries but killed 6 million jews in his own country, no one should feel obligated to help 'liberate' (I think that's what bush calls it) them? I see your way of thinking............
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#9
there goes the saddam and terrorism link again. a link that has been discredited and disproven by EVERYONE that has investigated it.
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#10
how bout some other Iraq lies?

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." – President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.


FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic that, "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."


LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.


FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. "They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."


LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." – Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."


FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.


LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." – CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.


FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.


LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." – President Bush, Oct. 7.


FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.


LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." – President Bush, Oct. 7.


FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?


LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." – President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.


FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.


LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." – Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.


FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet our own intelligence reports show that these stocks – if they existed – were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder.


LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.


FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise.


LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." – President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.


FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were are potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts – including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week – have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were, facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
 
Sep 17, 2003
955
7
0
#11
Unless Kerry can win Ohio, then he's gonna have a hard time winning the election... Bush looks to have Florida in control... what I don't understand is why they keep saying that Bush already has Missouri won (figuratively speaking). I thought Missouri was going to be a lot closer than that.
 
Jul 18, 2002
536
0
0
#12
hey shep, don't confuse the issues by using logic and facts...haha

...some of these blind sheep will never learn, fuck'm tho, let's just hope we got enuff votes to send that dumbfuck back to texas.
 
Nov 14, 2002
15,455
537
113
40
#17
Ok, so in that line of thinking, if Hitler never invaded any other countries but killed 6 million jews in his own country, no one should feel obligated to help 'liberate' (I think that's what bush calls it) them? I see your way of thinking............
So then what's your point about going into Iraq, chief?

capitalize
Haha... I'm a dumbass.