John Kerry vs. George W. Bush

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Faint.09, Jun 19, 2004.

  1. #81
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    Maybe they are biased, but they can't alter facts. That's called libel and they can be sued for millions if they did that.
     
  2. #82
    enfestid

    enfestid Guest




    Yes, but chances are Bush isn't going to care enough to sue. If all the libel cases were actually to go to court then Bush would be a trillionaire. Michael Moore's documentaries have been proven to contain false information (yes, even F9/11), but he hasn't been sued (and he's claimed to sue others for libel slander about claiming he's lied in his movies even after he's been proved wrong :lol: ). That's why journalists have retractions, too. And sometimes they just get false information.

    Going to take a shower, should respond to the other posts in maybe an hour or so.

    EDIT: Also, if there are conflicting reports, then it's obvious that at least one source is wrong... nobody ever sues for libel press then.
     
  3. #83
    enfestid

    enfestid Guest




    For one, the Gaurdian article did not claim that in the least. Two, the popular vote does not mean you win the electoral vote. In a state, yes. For the country, no. You don't have to win the popular vote to win the presidency, you just have to win the electoral college. Look it up... I believe 3 or 4 elections (including this one) have been decided by the electoral college.

    The results were certified by recounts, as I have already told you, led by others than those who have ties to George Bush and/or Jed Bush.

    And, exactly what is your point about the butterfly ballot's creator? Not to be rude, but as far as I can tell there is none.

    Mark: As I said, the ones that were "blacklisted" right before the election were allowed to vote, but their vote simply didn't count. When they recounted all ballots Bush still won. You pretty much just ignored that statement.

    And, as I said, your comment on the Gaurdian is absolutely asinine. The online site is the same as the newspaper, and I've read it numerous times. If you choose not to believe me, so be it -- your choice, not mine. Read the articles there yourself and just tell me that you can't get their affiliation.

    Anyways, not to be rude or anything, but I just really don't want to drag this topic on. Perhaps with more information I would, but there really isn't much else to talk about on the given subjects. If you want to take this as me conceeding, then so be it -- whatever floats your boat. But the fact remains that my other points are still there, and no one bothered to touch two of them.

    Anyways, it actually was a good debate, no matter who you think won/lost, whatever :)
     
  4. #84
    Rachel

    Rachel look at my horse. LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    5,416
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'm so not getting into that argument, so I'll state my opinions:

    Bush:

    1) His anti-gay marriage shpiel. Saying how the country was founded on Christian beliefs. Yes. It's true, the country WAS founded by Christians, but the fact that Bush is praying IN public and saying how it's not morally right to be gay and all that jazz... resembles preaching, if you ask me. And also, Christians believe that it's not morally right, and if the president is to tell everyone that gay marriage is illegal because it's not in the Bible... le shock, that's ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION!
    2) The man has been quoted in saying, "That man [Saddam] tried to kill my daddy". Now, really, give me a reason why the guy would say that. Not, "That man has killed millions of his own people, and inflicted danger to the rest of the world." Nope. "He tried to kill my daddy." Nice... real nice...

    3)This.War. I always think of the political cartoon that shows Dubya going "We have intelligence that tells us that the terrorists involved in 9/11 are from this area [pointing to Saudi Arabia and Egypt]. So we are gonna bomb here [Points to Iraq]"

    I understand, yeah, you want to liberate the Iraqis... let's save the Iraqis... do you have any idea how many AMERICANS need saving? The poor, the homeless, the people that YOU, my dear Mr. President, have caused this harm onto...

    And also, if you WANTED to liberate the Iraqis, why would you have lied to the entire country and whip them into a sense of patriotism by telling them that we're looking for WMD. If you REALLY wanted to look for them, North Korea is shoving them right under your nose, but you don't seriously want that bad of a war.

    Now, I'm not saying Kerry is a great person.

    Kerry:

    1) Isn't agreeing with gay-marriage either. Very neutral and doublespeaking on the subject. "They deserve the rights of marriage, BUT I won't give them the right to BE married." Please, give me a break.

    And not to mention everything else you guys mentioned.

    Thank god I don't vote for another 5 years... but even though I don't agree with things that Kerry does... nothing could be worse than Bush... unless another Nixon comes alone :whistle:

    Haha, I hope Ventura runs in 2008...
     
  5. #85
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388




    Wrong.



    This can also be backed up at The Washington Post, and the United States Comission on Civil Rights (USCCR)

    In the USSCR report, it says
    Now, the number "57,700" is the number of people who voted, but were then thrown off the list. The number "173,000" was the number of people not allowed to vote at all.

    Supported here: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05...05/28/fla.vote/

    <!--QuoteBegin--CNN
    @
    In the 2000 election, state officials purged voter rolls of the names of more than 173,000 people identified as felons or otherwise ineligible to vote, but civil rights activists as well as some Florida county elections supervisors have charged that those lists contained numerous errors, and that thousands of eligible voters were prevented from casting ballots in the election.

    After the Supreme Court closed the door to recounts, President Bush edged then-Vice President Al Gore in Florida by a margin of 537 votes, enough to win the state and, with it, the White House.

    "Florida's 2000 felon purge program resulted in over 50,000 legal voters being disenfranchised," said Leon County elections supervisor Ion Sancho in a written statement. "When asked for assurances that the [2004 felon list] was 90 percent accurate -- the minimum level local supervisors of elections requested for such a list -- we were told that it was better than the 2000 list, with no data to support its accuracy."
    [/quote]

    And here we go again; CNN reported on July 1st;

    <!--QuoteBegin--CNN


    (CNN) -- A state court judge in Florida ordered Thursday that the board of elections immediately release a list of nearly 50,000 suspected felons to CNN and other news organizations that last month sued the state for access to copies of the list.

    The list is used to determine who will be eligible to vote in November's presidential election in the state.

    In a statement issued shortly after the ruling was announced, Secretary of State Glenda Hood accepted the ruling as final.

    "Now that the court has ruled that statute to be unconstitutional, we will make these records accessible to all interested parties," she said.

    Florida bars people convicted of felonies in that state from voting.

    In 2000, a similar list was the center of controversy when state officials acknowledged after the election that it contained thousands of names in error, thus barring eligible people from voting.

    Many of the barred voters were African-Americans, who traditionally tend to vote Democratic.

    Bush won the state by a 537-vote margin and, with it, the presidency.


    The lawsuit, filed by CNN and joined by other news organizations, challenged a 2001 statute passed by the Republican-controlled legislature that limited the public's access to the list.

    News organizations were allowed to inspect the list, but not make copies of it or take notes from it. (CNN asks Florida court for ineligible voters list)

    "The right to inspect without the right to copy is an empty right indeed," said Leon County Circuit Judge Nikki Clark, in her six-page order.

    "Whether the public chooses to inspect or copy [the list] is not the choice of the governmental agency which has custody of the record. It is the choice of the person who has requested access."

    The judge went on to declare the statute unconstitutional because it failed to comply with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing public access to the state's public records.

    The state has a right to an automatic 48-hour stay, if its lawyers appeal.

    They would have to show cause why the information should continue to be withheld, said Tampa attorney Gregg D. Thomas of the law firm Holland & Knight, which is representing the news organizations.

    "I think the long-term impact is that the citizens of Florida will have access to the interactions of their government to make sure that the government, particularly with regard to the right to vote, is conducting itself appropriately."

    The list contains the names of 47,763 suspected felons.

    The voter-exclusion list was compiled from state clemency reports, lists of felons and other databases, Thomas said.

    The ACLU applauded the decision.

    "This is good news for voters because now these records will be open and available for public inspection to help protect the right of every eligible voter in Florida," said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, which also joined the case. "Our interest in this case is to analyze the information on the list to prevent eligible voters from being wrongfully purged from the rolls."

    Miami lawyer Joseph Klock Jr., representing the state, did not return a call Thursday.
    [/quote]

    It's also been said on CNN that while looking at the list, they've identified 2100 errors with it already. Say a man named John Butler commits a crime? Every other John Butler, regardless of race, or age, is taken off the voters list. Ridiculous.
     
  6. #86
    Ander

    Ander LPA VIP LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    8,697
    Likes Received:
    0



    Yea bashing bush is tired and trendy, but this is ####### hilarious
    [​IMG]
     
  7. #87



    When the ballot creator switches political affiliation several years prior to the election, that's quite significant, don't you think? Why the heck would this woman switch to Democrat in 1996, then switch to Independent after she made the ballot? A LOT of votes, which were intended for Gore, were lost as a result of people punching the wrong holes (those votes mostly went to Pat Buchanan in the end). I've seen that ballot and it looks pretty messy to me, and I'm not even an elderly lady with impaired vision who needs reading glasses to see which hole to punch correctly. I don't know about you. Maybe this means nothing to you, maybe it sounds like utter bullsh*t to some people, but somehow it fits in this "scam".

    What you fail to mention is the thousands of black Floridians who flock to the polls on election day, only to be met with a denial of their constitutional right to vote.

    And like Mark said, this is confirmed by the United States Commission of Civil Rights.
     
  8. #88
    JoJaDaWg

    JoJaDaWg Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0



    I am underaged to vote but, i would vote for Bush.

    I cant stand all of the people who thing that abortion is right. I could go all day about whether it is right or wrong but that is a pretty big issue for me! Also I really dont like the fact that Kerry chose Edwards. He's okay and all but he is too young. He will be in the decisions of all of America and I really dont thing that he is ready for that. Maybe as time goes by and he gets some more experience he will be a better candidate but not now!
     
  9. #89
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    I fail to see how the age of someone (John Edwards, by the way, is the Senator of North Carolina) should determine whether you vote for someone. John Edwards had a very turmoil-filled childhood and he understands how middle-class America feels (whether he follows through with tax cuts for middle-class Americans remains to be seen if they get into office). He has experience in the Senate, so that matters.
     
  10. #90
    Glenn

    Glenn Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,865
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'm 15, but I would probably vote for John Kerry if I could vote.
     
  11. #91
    Ander

    Ander LPA VIP LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2003
    Messages:
    8,697
    Likes Received:
    0



    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

    "alarming". This is what I find alarming: the only way around the election, which they have a decent chance of losing, is to create a national state of emergency.

    1. Seizure of Power
    2. Atrocity to Subdue the People
    3. Destroy Elections and Appoint Himself Dictator.
     
  12. #92
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    Young isn't a problem. On the other hand, Richard Cheney is so old if bush got re-elected he'd probably have a heart attack from the excitement and die.
     
  13. #93
    RememberingNever

    RememberingNever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'm not into political stuff. So I no nothing of these two people. :chemist:

    But I think it's time we get a new president so I go with John Kerry. :whistle:
     
  14. #94




    LMAO. :lol:

    <!--QuoteBegin--JoJaDaWg
    @Jul 19 2004, 01:27 AM
    I am underaged to vote but, i would vote for Bush.

    I cant stand all of the people who thing that abortion is right. I could go all day about whether it is right or wrong but that is a pretty big issue for me! Also I really dont like the fact that Kerry chose Edwards. He's okay and all but he is too young. He will be in the decisions of all of America and I really dont thing that he is ready for that. Maybe as time goes by and he gets some more experience he will be a better candidate but not now!
    [/quote]
    Men like John Ashcroft don't think abortion is right either. They think women should have so little choice that they must accept the baby even in cases of rape or incest. Jeez, think about that. If your sister or your girlfriend or your mom or whoever got raped, they'd have to keep the baby. Nice.

    John Edwards is 51, that's hardly young even if he looks that way. Not all politicians have to be so old that they need a pacemaker like Cheney. He's a hard-working man who comes from a working-class family and has more empathy for working- and middle-class America than Bush ever will, what with all that cash lining his pockets. Edwards would probably give tax cuts to the poor, unlike Bush, who likes to give tax cuts to his rich friends.
     
  15. #95
    Madi

    Madi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0



    If I was old enough to vote and I lived in America I would vote Kerry. In Australia, we're having an election before Xmas, I hope the Labor leader Mark Latham gets in because he claims he'll have most Australian troops in Iraq out by Xmas.
     
  16. #96
    rosanna

    rosanna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    0



    i am democratic, so naturally i detest bush. the problem is, i dont like kerry at all either.

    good thing i can't vote until the next presidential election, or nader would be getting my vote.
     
  17. #97
    dips

    dips Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0



    Know much about politics? "politics is all bullshit" your right! politics IS a bunch of bullshit! the political world only exists because some people just have no common sense. Do you know who these people are? "everyone has the right to thier own opinion, there is no right or wrong, no real good or bad" well my friend, it seems as though you have fallen victim to this terrible BS machine of brainwashing called Liberalism. This is the word you must learn to hate. yes, hate is a harsh word, get used to it! prior to what you may have been told its ok to be angry or feel outraged! God gave you emotions, its ok to use them! Ok so you are still sticking to this whole thing about everyone having an opinion and everyone should be respected, I haven't proved a thing to you yet. ok ok.. let me run down a simple list of things here and then we will continue... They are pretty general things.. most people can confidently agree with me on these things...

    Babies are human beings.
    Freedom is a good thing.
    All men of all races were created equally.
    Having your hard earned money taken away from you kind of sucks.
    Theres a difference between an honest Christian man who has worked hard his entire life and a piece of crap who has done nothing for society and just raped and killed your family.
    Parents should be allowed to teach thier kids the values and morals that they wish.
    Terrorists are bad.
    Getting health care when you need it is a good thing.
    Presidents who lie are not cool.
    Evil dictators are not cool.
    Bestiality is not cool. not cool at all.
    Praying is an ok thing to do.
    Paying for someone elses sexchange that you don't even know is not cool.
    Drugs in general are not a cool thing to get mixed up with.

    I could go on. This world is full of many good, bad, and just plain old messed up things. Anyhow, if you can confidently disagree with any of those very general things listed, then go somewhere else. You are not a cool dude at all. You are what is called a Liberal. Whether stupid, misled, crazy, evil, or whatever.. anyway you look at it you are WRONG. "This is ridiculous. No political party could ever be so insane and have almost 50% of the American vote." In a sense you are right, out of that 50% most aren't crazy or evil. They are just misled and don't understand the issues. They are drive by voters who really don't understand the issues, or even that there are issues at all. They just vote for whoever seems cooler. Well there are issues, and actually each one of those very broad statements up there applies directly to its own issue. Hopefully this small site will help you understand the issues. I'll try to keep it as general and understandable as possible. Give me some time to type some stuff up. I'm hopefully going to have some help from friends. Well, with the election coming up here pretty soon, I hope that this small page can open at least a few eyes. I actually just turned 17 so I won't even be able to vote! so all you had better do it for me! VOTE BUSH YOU FOOLS.
     
  18. #98
    Will

    Will bread crumbs & white stones LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2002
    Messages:
    35,486
    Likes Received:
    0



    Just because you don't agree with someone who is a liberal does not in any way, shape or form mean that they are wrong.
     
  19. #99
    dips

    dips Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2003
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    0



    And.... this also:

    Here are quotes by the democratic presidential candidate himself, John "Flip-Flop" Kerry.

    So much for the "mess" Bush created that the libs wanted to clean up! ^_^

    As well as:

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
    That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
    We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
    air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites[/U]) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
    programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom DaschleJohn Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
    continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
    We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
    Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next *five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
    the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction
    ."
    Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, *2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
    chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
    Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
    weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
    He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
    particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
    continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
    So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003


    Vote Republican, it's the best thing out there and we don't lie. We admit when we're wrong and we don't call the American people stupid when we don't get elected it like Grey Davis or others.

    :)
     
  20. rosanna

    rosanna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    0



    ditto.
     

Share This Page