Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Why? He disenfranchised Black voters in 2000. He started a WAR without any legitimate cause, and lied to the American people about his justifications. He ruined the image of the United States all around the world. He showed no respect for the United Nations. He refused to protect the American people from Sept. 11th (Do you recall the name of that memo?) He is responsible for the US PATRIOT act. How many Americans have died overseas and in the 9/11 attacks? Where is Osama Bin Laden? Are your freedoms still intact? Is terrorism being detered? Does Bush care? Why do you vote for Bush? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Because of people like you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Just go read stuff around in here. You'll figure it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Well.. no one should respect the United Nations... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Why? He disenfranchised Black voters in 2000. He started a WAR without any legitimate cause, and lied to the American people about his justifications. He ruined the image of the United States all around the world. He showed no respect for the United Nations. He refused to protect the American people from Sept. 11th (Do you recall the name of that memo?) He is responsible for the US PATRIOT act. How many Americans have died overseas and in the 9/11 attacks? Where is Osama Bin Laden? Are your freedoms still intact? Is terrorism being detered? Does Bush care? Why do you vote for Bush? In order: He didn't. He didn't. He didn't. He did. You are inane. Yes, he is. Thank Clinton for 9/11. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 The UN was created to prevent another World War. If you disrespect them, why not throw out Rememberance Day, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, why don't we just forget all the efforts of past military conflicts, and learn nothing from them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Because the UN is no longer fairly governing. Its effectiveness is shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest BDC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 He refused to protect the American people from Sept. 11th (Do you recall the name of that memo?) Okay, shut up, go away. That has got to rank up there with some of the most ignorant things I've heard in this folder. Fifty posts in and great job. I'm outright SURE you don't know what you're talking about. The memo that you're trying to allude to NEVER GOT TO HIM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 The UN was created to prevent another World War. Too bad they didn't prevent genocides at any point. Their record at preventing genocide over the last 50 years is quite poor. Heck, there's one right now they won't do squat about. If you disrespect them, why not throw out Rememberance Day, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, why don't we just forget all the efforts of past military conflicts, and learn nothing from them. I'm trying to respect them --- but the deaths of a couple of hundred thousand Sudanese while the UN does shit is a little hard to ignore. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 MikeSC - Black voters were turned away from polls. Do you think that was an accident? The war was about WMDs that did not exist, and its impossible that they did not know that. I guarentee because of Bush's actions the US's international image has been flushed down the toilet. Do you remember the largest protest of all-time was over the war in Iraq? Bush was too busy vacationing to actually take his job seriously and set up any kind of security meeting to discuss the threat of attacks. He was informed that there was a threat and he ignored it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Black people were turned away by Bush himself when? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 It is true that the UN isn't effective enough in stopping genocide, but war is still not the answer, the international community (basically the human race) has decided that alternatives to war must be worked towards. They may not be effective but the spirit of innovating an alternative to war is still worth respecting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 MikeSC - Black voters were turned away from polls. Do you think that was an accident? No. I'm saying it didn't happen. And, unlike you, I have reality on my side. The war was about WMDs that did not exist, and its impossible that they did not know that. He gave numerous reasons --- and nobody thought Saddam lacked them. Tommy Franks was warned by the leaders of neighboring countries to prepare for WMD attacks from Saddam. I guarentee because of Bush's actions the US's international image has been flushed down the toilet. Europe hated us before. Asking them to, you know, do anything for the good of the world is not something they care about. Do you remember the largest protest of all-time was over the war in Iraq? Shame you couldn't get similar protests about European countries aiding Saddam in stealing money from Iraqis. Shame you couldn't get similar protests about the genocide in Africa. Bush was too busy vacationing to actually take his job seriously and set up any kind of security meeting to discuss the threat of attacks. He was informed that there was a threat and he ignored it. He wasn't informed at all, as the FBI couldn't actually verify the claims of the memo. You need to watch less Moore. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Mr Rant - There is no way Bush did not have a hand in disenfranchising Black voters. For example: Charles Manson did not personally kill anybody but he was still guilty of murder. Black voters were turned away and nobody with logic could not see that he was in on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 It is true that the UN isn't effective enough in stopping genocide, but war is still not the answer, Because those starving people are less important than Europe taking oil from the gov't in Sudan. the international community (basically the human race) has decided that alternatives to war must be worked towards. And while they were talking, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were slaughtered. While they talk, hundreds of thousands of Sudanese are slaughtered. Sorry, action means a lot more than words. They may not be effective but the spirit of innovating an alternative to war is still worth respecting. Says who? I am all for leaving the UN, booting them out of NY, and telling them to screw themselves. I have no use, whatsoever, for the useless UN. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 MikeSC - Black voters were turned away from polls. Do you think that was an accident? Um... I'm sure in the Inner Cities ALL the poll workers were avid Republicans. Yeah. Sure. The war was about WMDs that did not exist, and its impossible that they did not know that. You are fucking KIDDING YOURSELF. Why would the UN be holding inspections if it was impossible to not to know that they didn't exist? EVERYONE thought they had them. The difference was taking care of it. Please, at least get it right. I guarentee because of Bush's actions the US's international image has been flushed down the toilet. Do you remember the largest protest of all-time was over the war in Iraq? Ask me if I care. Just because the left has increasingly demonized Bush to try to get back the White House means shit. Ever study elections, bud? Don't you remember "The Silent Majority"? No, considering you probably haven't gotten past middle school, I'm just assuming too much. Bush was too busy vacationing to actually take his job seriously and set up any kind of security meeting to discuss the threat of attacks. He was informed that there was a threat and he ignored it. You are kidding, right? Seriously, the memo you speak of only said "He's determined to attack in the US". It says nothing of means, time, place, or anything else. He gets dozens of them every day. Do you know how many people "want to attack in the US"? Hundreds of thousands. Hell, Clinton fucking gutted our intelligence community. He was the one that basically let all this shit go down? Seriously, you don't know what you are talking about. Tyler drunk can make more logical and coherent arguments than you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Mr Rant - There is no way Bush did not have a hand in disenfranchising Black voters. For example: Charles Manson did not personally kill anybody but he was still guilty of murder. Black voters were turned away and nobody with logic could not see that he was in on it. Except, of course, when hearings were held --- they could find ONE black person who could claim disenfranchisement. One. That's some strong disenfranchisement. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 So, no black people voted for George Bush? It was just white bible thumping KKK members who hate blacks. Gotcha. I'll remember that. I'm not even Republican and insane people like you make me thank whatever powers there are in the universe that I am not blinded by hatred. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Edit: Completely misread that entire statement. I am multitasking WAY too many things. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Why? He disenfranchised Black voters in 2000. He didn't. Feel free to post whatever crap you read this from I can tear it apart. He started a WAR without any legitimate cause, and lied to the American people about his justifications. This has been debated here endlessly. He had legitimate cause and didn't lie. He ruined the image of the United States all around the world. It was never that good to begin with. I'd rather our image be low than our security be low. He showed no respect for the United Nations. I don't see any need to give respect for that failed organization. He refused to protect the American people from Sept. 11th (Do you recall the name of that memo?) No I don't. Please elaborate since you are full of shit. He is responsible for the US PATRIOT act. Ok, it has its faults but its not EEEEEEEEEEEVIL. It has some good parts and some bad parts. How many Americans have died overseas and in the 9/11 attacks? 3,000 in the 9/11 attacks. Your point? Where is Osama Bin Laden? Hiding in a cave in Western Pakistan cut off from his pet terrorism organization. Are your freedoms still intact? Yes. 115 million people voted tonight you putz. Is terrorism being detered? Yes it is. There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Does Bush care? Apparently he does. Why do you vote for Bush? I hated Kerry so much I was compelled to vote for Bush. God, I had to defend Bush in a Mike-esque way. I need to take a shower... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 If Black voters were not disenfranchise, please show me where this myth came from and the proof it did not happen. "Asking them to, you know, do anything for the good of the world is not something they care about." - You're saying that your nation's perogative is more correct than the perogative of an entire continent. Don't you believe there might be a reason there was an enormous protest against the Iraq war rather than Saddam stealing money or genocide in Africa? How are your ideals more important? And isn't it convinient that the President was not informed of imminent threat of terrorist attacks? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 If Black voters were not disenfranchise, please show me where this myth came from and the proof it did not happen. Huh? Dude, do you understand the American Judicial system? Innocent until proven guilty. Provide credible sources about it and we'll believe you. And the DNC started it so that they could believe they won Florida when they didn't. "Asking them to, you know, do anything for the good of the world is not something they care about." - You're saying that your nation's perogative is more correct than the perogative of an entire continent. Um... What the hell have we done against the will of Canada and Mexico? Seriously, I don't see what the hell argument you are trying to make here... Don't you believe there might be a reason there was an enormous protest against the Iraq war rather than Saddam stealing money or genocide in Africa? How are your ideals more important? Considering more people support this war than supported the Vietnam War, I'd say that the Left is just more politically motivated to make this a bad war, they will. Seriously, you guys have tried to make this into Vietnam time and tiem again, and failed. Your the one who refuses to give up his hatred of Bush to see something that obviously was helpful is very sad. And isn't it convinient that the President was not informed of imminent threat of terrorist attacks? Um... Clinton didn't have any info on the first WTC Bombing. Was that 'convinent'? Same with every other terrorist attack that occured under his administration. Seriously, you are the dumbest fucking troll I've met yet. I might not agree with C-Bacon, I might say that he wears a Tin-Foil hat, but damn it if he can't articulate himself incredibly well. You don't even seem to be past the 8th grade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Cerebus - "There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11." Its not like you were getting constant attacks like some volitile places in the Middle East. How long was it since the last terrorist attack on American soil by a foreign organization? Pearl Harbour? How are you any safer from terrorist threats now that before? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Cerebus - "There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11." Its not like you were getting constant attacks like some volitile places in the Middle East. How long was it since the last terrorist attack on American soil by a foreign organization? Pearl Harbour? How are you any safer from terrorist threats now that before? I suppose there is a point to this that you forgot to make. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Cerebus - "There hasn't been a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11." Its not like you were getting constant attacks like some volitile places in the Middle East. How long was it since the last terrorist attack on American soil by a foreign organization? Pearl Harbour? How are you any safer from terrorist threats now that before? No, you are avoiding the question. You obviously were talking about a 9/11 style attack or some sort of attack on US soil. Terrorism has been on the rise since the 80s. And, um, techincally it was the Bombing of the WTC by an Arab Terrorist in 1993, followed by the bombing of the US Embassies in Tanzania (Embassies are US Sovereign soil). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 PowerPlay - I was saying that the US perogative is believed to be more correct than the perogative of Europe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 I'm surprized more American's don't worry about their international image. If you worked on foreign policy you would have more allies and less countries would want to or dare attack you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 PowerPlay - I was saying that the US perogative is believed to be more correct than the perogative of Europe. Considering Europe's Perogative is exactly what Clinton passed, which basically got us 9/11, I'd say ours does come first. And own up to your damn mistake: We've been attacked on our soil in the last decade. Terrorism on the whole has been on the rise since the 80s. How is 9/11 Bush's fault? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justice 0 Report post Posted November 3, 2004 I'm surprized more American's don't worry about their international image. If you worked on foreign policy you would have more allies and less countries would want to or dare attack you. If we listened to France, China, and Russia in the UN, we'd be playing right into Saddam's hands, since, well, he's been bribing them with oil vouchers ever since sactions were put on. But you already knew that, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoMercy Report post Posted November 3, 2004 Do any of you see something wrong with Bush? At least look at the backlash that has followed his reign. It is not the American left that has conspired to create this, internationally there have been negative reactions to Bush and his administration. Don't any of you see why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites