John Kerry quotes

[Civic_Zen]

It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take.

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.

:ROFLMAO: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.

[Kobe]

:ROFLMAO: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.

Please try to avoid making mistakes when insulting people's intelligence. BTW, "you're" is the contraction of "you are."

[evangelion]

It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take.

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.

:ROFLMAO: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.

Yeah, definetley speaks for itself.

"I don't care if my president says one thing, then does another. As long as he doesn't try to change the course of the world by trying to eliminate a threat to every living person on Earth."

Nice one.

[Civic_Zen]

Perhaps a bit of schooling would do you some good as well. Till then, "you're" is the contraction of "you are."

Perhaps it would. I like to type fast, and you know, I could care less if I make a typo here and there.

Your just defending Galapidate here, when he has mouthed the most absurd, nonsensical, and downright foolish idea's since Sebstance said Saddam should go free. Good job buddy.

[evangelion]

Perhaps a bit of schooling would do you some good as well. Till then, "you're" is the contraction of "you are."

Perhaps it would. I like to type fast, and you know, I could care less if I make a typo here and there.

Your just defending Galapidate here, when he has mouthed some of the most foolish, absurd, and nonsensical idea's I've heard since Sebstance said Saddam should go free.

Plus, you know your arguement is wearing thin when you start going for typographical errors.

[Kobe]

Civic, you just did it again. I?ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was intentional this time.

I'm sticking up for him because you guys are making cheap ad hominem attacks. If you have a problem with his comment, respond to that with some sort of logic or explanation of why you disagree. We are all stating our opinions, and despite what you may think, yours are no more valid than anyone else's? at least on face value.

[Civic_Zen]

Civic, you just did it again. I?ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was intentional this time.

I'm sticking up for him because you guys are making cheap ad hominem attacks. If you have a problem with his comment, respond to that with some sort of logic or explanation of why you disagree. We are all stating our opinions, and despite what you may think, yours are no more valid than anyone else's? at least on face value.

Oh so "we're" (notice how I used it this time. ) all ganging up on the poor lil' liberals eh?

Lets see, there is evangelion, Jenks, mylexicon, cosmo, and myself who are maybe a bit more conservative or just pro-war. Oh ya and now the newcomer gokado. = 6

And then on the other side of the spectrum is everybody else. Ya, seems like your just sticking up for the little guy there. Exactly like Moore sticks up for the little guy. :ROFLMAO:

Not only that, but you pick Galapidate of all people, to defend. After babbling the most hilarious statement of the week. In doing so, you know how you come across right? Its like evangelion said, your going to just attack my gramatical errors, because its the best you can do.

I could point out why Galapidates statement was in fact so histerical, and in doing so, point out how rediculous it was for you to defend him, but like I said, it speaks entirely for itself.

Good day Kobeashimaru

[Jenks]

I have nothing against Galapidate personally, i'm sure he's a good kid. I have a hard time taking his political comments seriously because of his age. Yeah, we all have opinions and we're all entitled to them, and that's all fine and dandy. However, the debate in some of these political threads goes way beyond blanket statements, and you actually have to know something about the world besides what the TV gives you...the history of fascism, for example, or global politics from a historical standpoint...having lived in a foreign country, or at least travelled and spent time in other cultures...basically, much more than a high school civics class is going to teach you.

So when he blurts out his one line baseless anti bush comments, i grit my teeth.

Again, no offense personally Galapidate.

And lets all try to leave personal attacks out of debate. You don't know how many times reading through some of these threads i want to post, "you stupid mother fucker..." but i realize in doing so, that makes me the stupid mother fucker.

[Galapidate]

It's better than having completely stupid quotes by Bush. One time I remembered him saying "War is a terrible place."

If you think that comments that bespeak of hypocrisy/duplicity are a "better" alternative for those of inane foot-in-the-mouth variety, congratulations - that's a great stand to take.

I'd rather have a president with a hypocritical policy than a president with no policy but war.

:ROFLMAO: I think this comment speaks for itself. How old are you Galapidate? You need to go back to school if your not still there.

Yeah, definetley speaks for itself.

"I don't care if my president says one thing, then does another. As long as he doesn't try to change the course of the world by trying to eliminate a threat to every living person on Earth."

Nice one.

Let me ask you something. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat to America, he was only a threat to Iraqis. If we were serious about this "War On Terror" how come we didn't continue to pursue bin Laden? Because of our lack of devotion to the problems in Afghanistan, he is still at large. He could be planning out another attack for all we know. The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.

[Jenks]

^Sadly, capturing BinLaden does nothing to stop terror. The second he's dead, another head steps in line. Ending Saddam's regime, while may look like a mess right now, is better for the middle east, USA, the world, etc.

I honestly don't know if there is a way to stop global terrorism, and it surely won't come in our lifetime. Bin Laden sure isn't the key tho...but it would look nice on CNN if he was captured.

[Galapidate]

^Well I was afraid once we turned over power another person would step in line as a dictator. I agree it's better without Saddam, but Iraq is in a huge mess. For example, the videos from Iraq show how so many people are unemployed still, which makes me wonder if Iraq will ever fully recover.

I still don't see the connection with Saddam and the war on terror. The original motive was to go after the people who committed 9/11, so how come we didn't put so much emphasis on "smoking out" al Qaeda? Now not only is al Qaeda still functioning, but we have insurgents our troops are dealing with in Iraq. I would be surprised if global terrorism came to an end some point in our lifetime, but as long as the terrorists have their "holy war" it isn't going to stop at all.

[gokada]

Let me ask you something. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat to America, he was only a threat to Iraqis. If we were serious about this "War On Terror" how come we didn't continue to pursue bin Laden? Because of our lack of devotion to the problems in Afghanistan, he is still at large. He could be planning out another attack for all we know. The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.

Oh really? Read on...

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration intelligence that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime was preparing attacks against the United States and its interests abroad before the Iraq war, President Vladimir Putin said Friday. Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians' information was in the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. However, he said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm opposition to the war.

"Indeed, after Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests," Putin said.

found this at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155982/posts

..and the same thing here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C293...3051%2C00.html

..and here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ussia.warning/

So there you have it. Anyone that says otherwise is either misinformed or a liar. Notice I grabbed the story from a conservative source, a liberal source, and an independent source. Free republic may not be independent, but the actual story was reported by AP which is...

[evangelion]

The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.

Says who...you? Liberals? All of the brainwashed masses having just seen your buddy Moore's movie and all of sudden think they "know what's going on?"

Why does everyone either forget or ignore the fact that Iraq is a free counrty now? Yeah, there is still a huge mess to finish cleaning up but that is a definite sign of progress. For the first time in over 30 years the Iraqi people are free to choose their leader...which they will do early next year. And this means nothing???

TAKE OFF YOUR BUSH-HATING BLINDERS AND SEE THAT THERE IS GOOD COMING OF THIS!!!!!!!

[mylexicon]

Let me ask you something. Saddam was NOT an immediate threat to America

Only as long as U.N. sanctions were choking his people to death......so on
that note we can add the U.N. to the list of people/organizations we are
saving the Iraqis from.

he was only a threat to Iraqis.

Ask DaveTLV about this one.....when the U.N. mobilized to expel troops from
Kuwait, Scuds started landing in Israel. Is it just me or does Saddam seem
to pick fights with a lot of people.

I'm sure Kuwait and Iran wouldn't particularly care for that comment either.

If we were serious about this "War On Terror" how come we didn't continue to pursue bin Laden? Because of our lack of devotion to the problems in Afghanistan, he is still at large.

k, i kinda agree with you on this one, but only because i want Osama's head
on a stick for justice reasons. But like Jenks said he is more of a figurehead
now. He will never carry out an attack himself, and as long as we keep his
minions in check or 6 feet under, he is pretty much useless.

[delirious]

The War On Terror's original intentions of getting rid of al Qaeda were ok, but the war in Iraq was not.

Says who...you? Liberals? All of the brainwashed masses having just seen your buddy Moore's movie and all of sudden think they "know what's going on?"

No, most of the world (see the Gallup poll in the "Is bush winning the WOT thread). The US couldn't even get the Security Council to pass a vote to "liberate" Iraq. More people protested this war around the war than nearly any other even in history...were all those people also brainwashed by Michael Moore's movie?