-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why does it seem like every non-theist is a Kerry voter?
- Thread starter Saw11_2000
- Start date
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
Actually it would be the wrong thing to do. Meetings on budgetary matters are much more operationally detailed than straight joint congress votes and they are open to the public. If you were to first present operational specifics to congress and talk about what tactics, units and equipment will be used for the operation, then you are potentially putting more lives in danger due to the lack of operational security.
Not politically incorrect, but just plain wrong. We are not the problem. They attacked us, remember. Are you saying that we had it coming? We support Israel right to an independant state because for one they were originally on that land (ancient history) and two, they provide us with valuable intelligence on what is happening in the region.
Chile and Nicaragua? What are you saying? We have never invaded these two countries. The only thing we have done is provide support for them during there fight against communist revolutionaries. But, I did notice that you didn't mention Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, South Korea, etc.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
Please LOL Ahnold could single handedly stop all the terrorists. He's that good. If he can hold off some predators, and some freak messed up cyborg, he should have no hard times holding off bin Laden.Jensa said:The Constitution would have to be amended before he could run, though.I doubt that'll happen soon.
After all, if it's amended, the TERRORISTS might come in and run for president!
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
The terrorists on 9/11 I think he's trying to say. Al Quada (I hope I spelled that right).
Melody
Well-Known Member
Why should I. It obviously worked there. It doesn't mean it will work everywhere.EEWRED said:
We may not have physically invaded with our soldiers, but we certainly did provide every other kind of support. Still counts as invasion in my book.
But methinks we're wandering from the original subject.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
Of course. But it isn't a war on just Al Quada, it's about all terrorists, all enemies of America. And I would hardly say that Iraq is an ally of us, or even neutral to us. Anyone who we deem a threat, needs to be taken out. I'm sorry, but I don't want another 9/11 on American soil, nor do I want an attack from North Korea, Iran or any of the other terrorist states. You have to understand that it's a war on terror, not a war on Muslim extremists in the Middle East. If you're a threat to our security, sorry, you are no longer going to be in power when you can do harm to us.
Melody
Well-Known Member
At this point, I have nothing new to add. We've been supporting puppet governments for decades with military equipment, advice and money. We are hardly blameless.EEWRED said:
This is not about terrorism or democracy. This is about George Bush and his own agenda. If it was about terrorism, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia since that is the passport held by the majority of the 9/11 terrorists.
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
Actually, Saudi Arabia is helping us. I think that's the country that offered bin Laden to us, and Clinton said no. I guess the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, and some embassies exploding wasn't enough for Clinton to go after the murderers.
GodofCats
New Member
Republicans always win the military vote? No, it's more like whoever is in office wins the military vote. You're forgetting FDR, who won 3 military votes, in a row. He was a democrat and helped hold the country together during WWII.Saw11_2000 said:
Kerry wouldn't have weakened the military. He may be liberal, but he has a higher IQ than 60, which is to say more than Bush. Bush has really made a mess of things in Iraq and all over the world.
More terrorists in Iraq than there were before = borders not protected enough.
Osama bin Laden still on the loose = flip flopping more than a democrat. 'We will bring the terrorists to justice, or bring justice to the terrorists, but justice will be done' 3 Months later: 'I don't know where Osama bin Laden is. It's not really important.'
North Korea has nukes = And he led us to believe that Saddam was the biggest threat! Ha! What a comedian! Er uh, what a joke!
So who is next? No matter which way you stack it, Georige Boy, you don't have enough allies in this 'grand coalition' to help you out enough. No friends = too many potential enemies. Oh and, we didn't forget Poland this time. Why don't you send them some more money Goergie Boy? Makes us look good on paper. Oh and, as soon as Tony Blair leaves office, Poland will be our only friends.
The air is cleaner than when he came into office? That is either a lie, OR... not true.
Problem is, none of these issues add up, but I guess that's what you get from a simpleton republican who uses fuzzy math. But you know, at least he has good morals.
Melody
Well-Known Member
Using the definitions of "morals" from several dictionaries:GodofCats said:
Having morals means knowing the difference between right and wrong. Since he attacked a country without provocation he either doesn't know the difference or doesn't care. In either case, not a good indication of "good" morals.
Having morals means doing what is just and virtuous. See above.
No, when I teach my child about morals, George Bush is an excellent example of self-righteousness....but I'd have to use him as an example of how "morality" can be corrupted and yet have the appearance of good.
Using the definitions of "morals" from several dictionaries:
Having morals means knowing the difference between right and wrong. Since he attacked a country without provocation he either doesn't know the difference or doesn't care. In either case, not a good indication of "good" morals.
Having morals means doing what is just and virtuous. See above.
No, when I teach my child about morals, George Bush is an excellent example of self-righteousness....but I'd have to use him as an example of how "morality" can be corrupted and yet have the appearance of good.
I agree with you - but isn't that a definition that can be applied to virtually every politician? - kissing babies is the give away!
Having morals means knowing the difference between right and wrong. Since he attacked a country without provocation he either doesn't know the difference or doesn't care. In either case, not a good indication of "good" morals.
Having morals means doing what is just and virtuous. See above.
No, when I teach my child about morals, George Bush is an excellent example of self-righteousness....but I'd have to use him as an example of how "morality" can be corrupted and yet have the appearance of good.
I agree with you - but isn't that a definition that can be applied to virtually every politician? - kissing babies is the give away!
Saw11_2000
Well-Known Member
How does his father being a Nazi make him a Nazi? I think you should give people a chance to prove themselves.
croak
Trickster
You think he did it by accident? Oh no, he wanted Osama Bin Laden to get away. Any of you know that when all the airplanes were grounded on 9/11, one plane was able to fly. The plane carrying the Bin Ladens.
Also, Bush had been given many warnings. Even Mohammed Atta, I think, wanted flying lessons, but not how to land and take off. He also asked about flying in New York air space.....does that ring a bell, Bush? How about information that airplane attacks were probably the most likely? Or that you did nothing about it? You know, America used to be friends with Saddam. It was only him between them and the lovely oil fields. But then Saddam invaded Kuwait. Oh no, the oil is threatened! Another enemy on our list.....