Who will you vote for?

[paulblackgsx]

Those oil prices are almost the nuisance terrorists are.

[monsoon]

[Cotuit]

Once Bush conquered Iraq, the terrorists moved right in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I liked Bush's response to Kerry on the terrorism problem in Iraq. He asked if Kerry thought Zarqawi would be a peaceful and productive member of society if he weren't busy fighting American forces in Iraq.

No Mr. Bush, what he would be is firmly under the thumb of Sadam Hussein, and we could be off dealing with other terrorist threats that have been brushed aside since the war.

[paulblackgsx]

No Mr. Bush, what he would be is firmly under the thumb of Sadam Hussein, and we could be off dealing with other terrorist threats that have been brushed aside since the war.

Good idea. No need to worry about THOSE terrorists.

Yeah, he has done such a good job on that one too. Once Bush conquered Iraq, the terrorists moved right in.

Sure did, joined the ones already there. Now where would I get a crazy conservative Bush loving idea like that....

[Cotuit]

Good idea.  No need to worry about THOSE terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope, not when Saddam had them under control.

[monsoon]

[paulblackgsx]

Nope, not when Saddam had them under control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry you have that incorrect impression. There were lots of terrorists in Iraq that were not under Saddam's control. And this isn't some BS conservative/Bush Administration weak attempt to link Saddam to terrorism either. You should try doing some research about it, there were a handful... like 500-750 of them.

But hey, it's not like this is a comment in support of Bush, because they haven't bothered to push the issue either.

[paulblackgsx]

There has not been any evidence of Al Queda terrorists in Iraq in Pre-Bush Jr. Iraq.

[paulblackgsx]

I even checked your new favorite news reference source, Al Jazeera. Even they reported on them.

You listening to too much Air America or something?

[monsoon]

[BrandonTO416]

I'm sorry you have that incorrect impression.  There were lots of terrorists in Iraq that were not under Saddam's control.  And this isn't some BS conservative/Bush Administration weak attempt to link Saddam to terrorism either.  You should try doing some research about it, there were a handful... like 500-750 of them.

But hey, it's not like this is a comment in support of Bush, because they haven't bothered to push the issue either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No matter how you put it, Iraq was not even close to the top security threat the United States faced. That's the fact everyone has to face.

[Spartan]

Nope, not when Saddam had them under control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is in response to numerous people, not just Cotuit-

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I distinctly remember hearing (on a regular basis) that Saddam gave $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. If that's not supporting terrorism, I don't know what is. Maybe Saddam didn't have alot of terrorists in his country, and maybe he didn't let them have all these bases in Iraq but can you honestly tell me that he wouldn't let them pass through? Its real easy for a dictator to say he's not doing anything wrong, and tell his guards/army/police to just let these guys by with a slap on the wrist.

Also this just out.  Bush and the Robber Barrons are now going to steal from Senior Citizens Retirement funds because the deficit is way out of control.  Guess who gets to pay this back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When the Democrats controlled Congress they used money from the Social Security fund for general spending, which is partially why it is in the state its in now. How is that any different? Also, Tres. Sec'y John Snow did that, not Bush, and it only effected federal employees. Granted, there are alot of Federal employees, but its not the entire nation. It sounds to me like he was being spiteful towards Congress for not raising the deficit limit, rather than trying to screw over fedral employees. He said the money would be repaid in full, so I don't see the big deal here.

also monsoon, I'm just curious- do you generally use Aljazeera as a primary news source, or as more of a 3rd party source?

[Spartan]

Unfortunately in Bush's Iraq, more people are dying per/day than than under Saddam.       

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, I'm sure those litte "genocide" incidents didn't kill that many people. Those mass graves must be from the Ottomans.

[monsoon]

[monsoon]

[Spartan]

Saddam did get on TV and promised $25K to Palestenian bombers.  But where is the imminent and immediate danger to the USA in that?  This is not a reason for the USA, IMO to go to war.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not my point. My point is that he supported terrorism.

The taxes will be paid by us.  I don't like it.    Would have been better if Bush never ran up the deficit in the first place so we would not be in the mess. He squandered the Clinton surplus.  I was happy to see the USA finally paying down its dept after living through two very bad decades, but now it is gone. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Projected surplus, but still I understand what you're saying.

I find that to get the entire picture anymore you have to go to non-USA sources for information.  All of the major US Media is controled by just a few individuals who are quite happy to keep the status quo as it is.    The US Media is good at waving the Flag, but no longer are they any good at raising the red flag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't like red flags. Damn commies.

BTW.  I am more conflicted by this election by far more than any other.  I believe everything that I have posted about Bush, he is bad for the USA.  On the other hand I really don't think Kerry will be any better.  He, long ago, sold out to the same people that Bush has. 

So do I support the system by voting for one of these scoundrels.  Or do I just sit it out?  I can't vote for Nader or anyone else because the two parties have kept everyone off the ballot in NC. 

I am really thinking about sitting this one out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that participation is better that non-participation. I agree that neither candidate is the best though. Hopefully you'll go vote for your local people if nothing else.

[monsoon]

[Tosspot]

The bottom line? Kerry: We'll go backwards less fast.

But anyway, neither candidate has a clue, or gives a rat's ass, about the fact that a way to lessen our dependence on oil would be to end the tax snafus that encourage suburban sprawl and discourage the rehabilitation of existing urban cores. It is this witless frenzy to build sprawl that has made Americans addicted to cars, and addicted to an unwalkable lifestyle of autocentric collector roads and housing pods.

Not once have I heard any of the witless gits in the media, or the political realm, come to the scintillating epiphany that a way to curtail our oil dependency would be to end low density sprawl and encourage high density, walkable development, INCLUDING the infill and rehabilitation of our existing urban cores.

Of course, actually stating that Americans would have to CHANGE THEIR LIFESTYLES is political suicide, and as Shrub and Skerry pander to the overindulged and overfed masses, they realize that to tell them the truth of the situation would be the death knell of their political careers.

You can see the manifestation of this everywhere, especially among the suburbadroids. They'll have a "War Is Not The Answer Sign" in their front yard right next to their two parked SUVs (Suburban Utility Vehicles). I'm sorry, but if you want to keep driving gas-thirsty SUVs and living a lifestyle of low-density car dependence, WAR IS THE ANSWER!

[Cotuit]

I really hate this country.

[Spartan]

Well, none of my town council runs during the major election years and it is non-partisen too which is great.  They just run on what they will do to make the people's lives better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No Representatives or Senators up for election there? I know for sure that there are somepeople running for something, because there were about 9,834,094 campaign signs on every corner in Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties. I thought Gov. Easley was trying to get re-elected this go around?

I really hate this country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is sad. I love it! Our politics might be messed up as hell, but thats not enough reason for me to hate it No place has great politics, that can be assured.

[monsoon]

[paulblackgsx]

LOL, there are AQ affliated terrorists operating in the USA. Maybe you forgot they blew up the WTC? So if you ding Saddam for unaffiliated terrorists in Iraq, they why are you not dinging Bush for the unaffiliated terrorists in the USA? hmm

For one, when did I ding Saddam for those terrorists. You made a blanket statement, no AQ linked terrorists in Iraq. This is a completely misinformed statement considering how readily available this information is. I even hinted to you where you could find it. Secondly, I did ding the Bush administration for missing the boat on this one. Also, I already quoted the number of terrorists that was an average reported by several news agencies, if you find that many in the US... yeah, we got a problem.

[Cotuit]

That is sad. I love it! Our politics might be messed up as hell, but thats not enough reason for me to hate it No place has great politics, that can be assured.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not the politics, it is the root of our politics and the root of everything in our society, greed.

Our society is sick, and it doesn't seem that anyone cares to do anything about it, because we are all too greedy.

[monsoon]

[Cotuit]

Ooh, and that Scott Peterson is such a hotty. I sure hope he's not guilty.