They didn't talk about Latin America because the debate was on homeland and national security. There will be two more, although I'm unclear on the topics.
(That means you think Kerry lost. I know you meant Bush, though. ) [/b][/quote] I need sleep, ok . I wanted to write Kerry owned Bush but just jumped over to something else and when I came back to writing this I wrote got owned .
Hmm. Guess I was the only one that was converted into a Bush supporter. Or, I'm not the only one. I can't be assed to read this whole thread.
The '$87 billion bill' Kerry voted for was a different bill than the '$87 billion bill' he voted against. Originally Kerry voted for the $87 billion to supply soldiers with the proper armor, ammunition, etc. But afterwards a change was made to that bill. What was going to happen was $67 billion of that would go to the soldiers(Kerry liked that) but the other $20 billion would basically be a blank check to the Bush Administration for the rebuilding of Iraq(Kerry didn't like that). It was basically a scam to benifit big companys, a.k.a. Halliburton. And we all know how Halliburton has overcharged the Government before and where'd the extra money go? Most likely straight into Cheney's pockets. Since being discovered Hallibuton has agreed to refund the Government but that has yet to happen. Another reason Kerry later disagreed with the bill is on how the money would be collected. Kerry supported the Democratic-Way of getting it - By taking it from the rich people's tax cuts. Bush has given them enough, maybe it's time they gave back to the US. But nooo Bush doesn't want to upset his rich buddys so he thought getting the money through loans would be a better idea. Kerry didn't like this because by getting it through loans that would mean young people/kids would be paying it back for years and years to come. Kerry thought that was wrong and taking money from the rich people's tax cuts was a much better idea. And personally, I'd have to agree. So when it came time for another vote for the bill Kerry voted against it. He knew for a fact that no matter which way he voted he knew the bill would pass and the soldiers would get their money. He voted against the bill as a form of protest on how the Bush Administration was handling it. He wouldn't have protested with his vote if there was a chance the soldiers wouldn't get their money. He only did it because he KNEW the bill would be passed no matter which way he voted. Yes, that was a flip flop but I think the reason for flip flopping was a good one. Just because you're a politician doesn't mean you can't change your mind once in awhile, or learn new things about something and change your standing on a particular event(aka Iraq War). And if there's anyone out there who still wants to complain about Kerry's "flip flops"(no one really shows any flip flops though) then go look here, here, and here. I'd also like to note that Bush several times threatened to veto the bill if things did not go the way he wanted. $1.2 million of that was going to go to reservists and veterans - Not under Bush's watch. Bush's people said that unless that was removed from the bill they would tell Bush to veto the bill. Bush also threatened to veto the bill if soldiers did not sign up for longer terms. Now seriously, what kind of bullsh*t is that? Which is worse: Threatening to "veto the soldiers safety" so more would sign up for longer terms or use your vote(that would mean nothing) in a way to protest the way the Bush Administration was handling the bill? Also: I think Kerry hit Bush pretty good during the debate when he said that he "made a mistake in talking about the war" and Bush made a mistake in "going into the war." There's a big difference in that, especially seeing as George Bush had more information on the Iraq war, and the fact that the war has been prooven it was planned YEARS before 9/11.
Yeah that was a good hit on Kerry's Part. My personal favorite though was when Bush tried to relate Iraq as our attackers and Kerry slammed him for it. It's amazing that Bush is still trying to pass off Iraq as having a part in 9/11.
believe me, if ya'll knew what i knew...you would agree with me not to elaborate - i would get banned. Would things be different if i were a democrat saying this? I won't let it happen again. FYI : I'm a "her" I think i'm done with this thread...bye [/b][/quote] If you know something so big then post it up. You're not going to get in trouble for posting up your views on things, even if they differ from the majority of the people here. If you still think you would get banned then please PM me what you know. Because to be quite honest, I don't think you know anything that big. You just want people to think you do. Sorry for the double post. I was hoping someone had posted before I posted this one.
Even though chances are I'll disagree with anything boo posts, as well most of the staff, I can promise you that you will NOT get banned as long as it falls within the forum guidlines
Well, why the hell in Miami then?? [/b][/quote] It was on National Security! They're not going to talk about anything else except National Security! National Security. For the last time, it was on National Security. Nothing to do with latin-americans. National security.
Well, why the hell in Miami then?? [/b][/quote] Who in the bloody hell cares?! If it was in West Virginia, do you think they'd debate about incest? NO. SHUT UP. Miami isn't in Latin America anyway! IT'S IN THE UNITED STATES.
Who in the bloody hell cares?! If it was in West Virginia, do you think they'd debate about incest? NO. SHUT UP. Miami isn't in Latin America anyway! IT'S IN THE UNITED STATES. [/b][/quote] If you go to Miami and you say "Hi", everyone answers "Hola" ("Hi" in Spanish). And I think you are underestimating the importance of Latinos in this country. We're 40 million, more than blacks or Jews or Asians or any other race/ethnicity that lives here. And if it was just national security, they would have to mention something about the borders and the illegals and Cuba and stuff. But I know you will ignore me so I'll shut up now.
If you go to Miami and you say "Hi", everyone answers "Hola" ("Hi" in Spanish). And I think you are underestimating the importance of Latinos in this country. We're 40 million, more than blacks or Jews or Asians or any other race/ethnicity that lives here. And if it was just national security, they would have to mention something about the borders and the illegals and Cuba and stuff. But I know you will ignore me so I'll shut up now. [/b][/quote] THEY DID. Just because it's in Miami DOES NOT MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT LATIN PEOPLE. What part of that don't you understand?!?!!?
If you go to Miami and you say "Hi", everyone answers "Hola" ("Hi" in Spanish). And I think you are underestimating the importance of Latinos in this country. We're 40 million, more than blacks or Jews or Asians or any other race/ethnicity that lives here. And if it was just national security, they would have to mention something about the borders and the illegals and Cuba and stuff. But I know you will ignore me so I'll shut up now. [/b][/quote] You're ridiculous. They talked about the borders. And last time I checked, illegal aliens weren't exactly terrorists. Cuba's not a threat becuase they don't have missiles anymore. You should probably stop being selfish about this now.