Respectful Debate

[Giancarlo]

At any rate, this race again will come down to Florida, which I believe Bush will win handedly because of the substantial grassroots movement done down there by the republican party. The democrats made an error in judgement by failing to campaign there enough (has Kerry been to Florida all that much? Not at all).

Ohio has swung back into Bush's favor.

Using realclearpolitics.com, since Ohio is now in Bush's hand, his electoral college vote will add up to 247. He needs Florida.

 

[airiox]

Kerry has been in florida just as much as bush has. But he does not draw the huge loud crowds like bush does.

Here are some pics of the election.

anyways there is a ton more but im going to bed.

 

[Giancarlo]

What do you think of Florida though? You think Bush willl win? Personally I think so, because he has a huge grassroots movement down there (well something his brother is responsible for mostly).

 

[alvino]

ahahah thats funny! lol i mean even tho i kinda despise Bush, thats still funny!

 

[root]

Your stupidity amazes me,

You are ignorant to the reality. You are small minded, simple minded and dumb. Not very educated about the reality facing the United States and the world with tomorrow's election. The right option is not defined by who has the most popular opinion, but what policy would actually work in practice, in this case Bush's.

It is you that is being dumb, Had you actually read my post (which I doubt you did entierly, you'd have realised that I disagree with most of kerrys policies, and tend to favour bush, (what I am saying is I am on your side).
I'm not calling you ignorant, narrow minded or dumb because I disagree withyour political views, I'm calling you that because of the way you've reached your choices, it seems obvious that you've been brought up republican, and that the way you're staying, without ever entertaining the possibility of the other choice. -thats where the stupidity comes in.

This is not really relevant to what is being discussed. This has nothing to do with what happened during WWII. This has nothing to do with who wins, but it has to do with what policies would work in combating terrorism and be successful. For the most part, Bush's policies have been successful.

The example was to illustrate the fact that in politics it is the popular opinion that is correct, the example was that dispite indiscriminant killing of thousands of German citizens the Allied forces are still hailed as heros, and their tactics are still touted as the right way to have done things.

Actually wrong. It is people like you who endorse terrorism and allow it to happen because of your arrogant inaction. You think by being isolationist that nothing will happen. It is people like you who let terrorism happen.

I am neither ignorant to, endorse or allow terrorism to happen, What I said is that the attitude you display here is what the world sees as 'typically american' and it's that attitude that makes people hate you, In case you didn't notice, I (well britain) am/are not isolationalist, we teamed up with america and went to war.

Before Any American lectures and british person on attitudes to terrorism, and allowing terrorism to happen, perhaps they should take a good hard look at themselves, their sympathetic attitude to the IRA and the corperate funding from american companies, the IRA recieved.
It's american citizens and american business that sympathise and fund terrorists, (and in the case of al-queda the CIA actually trained them!)

The Saudi government had nothing to do with 9/11.

I didn't say that the soudi government endorsed the 911 terrorist strike, I said that most of the attackers were of saudi arabian oragine, and were trained inside of that counrty.

The group Ansar-Al-Islam which was being backed Hussein to fight kurds, is an al qaeda sponsored group. I have plenty of problems with what Saudi Arabia is doing and want something to change, but Kerry does not promise to do anything about that. He doesn't really care. He only cares about getting elected. Heck Bush probably cares about getting elected too. But Bush is a far better option then Kerry.

and al-queda was funded and trained by the CIA in the 1980's during the afagnistan/russia war. If you think that Bush *probably* cares about getting re-elected then I think you are wrong, right now I think that will be the most important thing in his life, as for the last sentance, at least your supporting arguments are geting better!

This is a war and accident happen. There was a communication breakdown a few times (but that happens in the chaos of a battle). I however, think there should of been more of a command. Quite a few of my family members are also in the US military (or have been at one point in time, including my now passed away uncle who served in Vietnam for 24 months).

If you put "Iraq friendly fire deaths" into google you'll find 84,300 pages are returned, with this article being of particular interest, far from the It's a war and communication breakdowns/accidents happen it seems the reason for this 'friendly fire' / 'blue on blue' was that the US troups in question were on drugs.
the fact still stands that more british soldiers have died in 'friendly fire' than have died in 'hostile fire'

I'm telling that this our decision, not the decision of those who can't vote for one reason or the other. You are not quite sure what you are talking about at any rate.

I am quite sure what I am talking about, had you taken the time to carefully read the points I made you'd realise this*, It might be your decision, but it affects the world (for better or worse), and therefore the world has a right to take an active interest.

*I refere specifically to the fact that I've stated my preference for president would actually be Bush -having weighed up his policies against Kerry's policies, yet you still keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about!

Your arguments are full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies. You are for the most part wrong and I have pointed that out. The sad thing is you really believe it so much.

I'll say again, the Irony of this statement is that I am a would-be bush supporter, I realise that a lot of the actions he has taken are for the better, but I also believe a lot of laws passed (the patriot act for example) are not good for the country, and will not help the futherment of the country or the industries based there.

Crushed you again.

You would have crushed me, except for a few problems.

1, as I said in the last post I would prefere bush as president, so your 'crushing' is miss placed, you are preaching to the converted as they say.

2, you didn't bother to read what I had written, -had you read (and understood) what I had written, then you wouldn't have come back with a post full of mostly irrelevant tripe.

3, the sole basis of your argument seems to still be based around personal insult and flames than it does actual politics. (aside from this being the reason for the last thread being locked, you (and everyone else) was asked to keep the flames to a minimum, if your passion for politics and ecconomy is so great then you should be able to form a reasonable, unbiased argument soly on politics and not have to resort to personal insluts.

4, for the reason stated above in point 3, I don't believe you are a politics major student, In fact I don't believe you know anything more about politics than you read from cnn.com or see on Fox (both politically biased towards bush).

Once you have fully read this reply I suggest that you take some time to reflect on the post, check out the links, perform a few seardches, think about what you are going to say and then make a reasonable post. -one like we havn't yet seen in this debate.

 

[Giancarlo]

Again more nonsense I have to go through.. this is getting very tiring...

Your stupidity amazes me,

The only stupidity displayed here has been by you.

It is you that is being dumb, Had you actually read my post (which I doubt you did entierly, you'd have realised that I disagree with most of kerrys policies, and tend to favour bush, (what I am saying is I am on your side).

I don't really care. I'm just disagreeing with your methods on the way you state things, especially when it comes to me. I think it isn't right to say the things you have said. I could care less if you support Bush, Kerry or Nader.

it seems obvious that you've been brought up republican, and that the way you're staying, without ever entertaining the possibility of the other choice. -thats where the stupidity comes in.

I'm registered non-partisan and consider myself moderate. I wasn't raised to be republican or democrat. I was raised to come up with my own points of view and that I did.

The example was to illustrate the fact that in politics it is the popular opinion that is correct, the example was that dispite indiscriminant killing of thousands of German citizens the Allied forces are still hailed as heros, and their tactics are still touted as the right way to have done things.

Again I don't know why you brought up German citizens. I never brought that up and never made a statement like that. Now you're being irrelevant as a whole to this argument. How sad. You bring up totally different topics you never heard my opinion and you persist.

I am neither ignorant to, endorse or allow terrorism to happen, What I said is that the attitude you display here is what the world sees as 'typically american' and it's that attitude that makes people hate you, In case you didn't notice, I (well britain) am/are not isolationalist, we teamed up with america and went to war.

You are ignorant and your views I believe would allow terrorism a free ticket. Typically american? Wake up dude, I wasn't even born in the US. I'm like Arnold Schwarzenegger though. I believe the US is a great country.

Before Any American lectures and british person on attitudes to terrorism, and allowing terrorism to happen, perhaps they should take a good hard look at themselves, their sympathetic attitude to the IRA and the corperate funding from american companies, the IRA recieved.

Not relevant again (let alone I don't think that's at all factual). And besides Ronald Reagan was a close friend to Margaret Thatcher. Reagan was assisting the British and the two were very good friends (Reagan deployed an SSN and some other ships when the falkland war erupted).

It's american citizens and american business that sympathise and fund terrorists, (and in the case of al-queda the CIA actually trained them!)

Typical rantings of a deranged leftist.

I didn't say that the soudi government endorsed the 911 terrorist strike, I said that most of the attackers were of saudi arabian oragine, and were trained inside of that counrty.

So, since Timothy McVeigh was American, we should bomb ourselves? How funny. He afterall, like many domestic terrorists, were trained in the US.

and al-queda was funded and trained by the CIA in the 1980's during the afagnistan/russia war. If you think that Bush *probably* cares about getting re-elected then I think you are wrong, right now I think that will be the most important thing in his life, as for the last sentance, at least your supporting arguments are geting better!

Al Qaeda wasn't funded and trained by the CIA in the 1980s. Al Qaeda was an off-shoot of a different group originally intended to fight the Soviets. These included arab fighters who went to Afghanistan to fight the onslaught of the Soviet invasion. I would of supported doing the same thing then, but I would of never seen that Al Qaeda would of formed. I would of wanted the Afghanis to fight for their independence, however what was disgraceful is that Bush Sr or Clinton did not help Afghanistan. At first the taliban, was eyed to bring positive change believe it or not.. but that soon changed when the entire movement was hijacked by radicals. You really should study your history. Your supporting arguments suck and always have.

I am quite sure what I am talking about, had you taken the time to carefully read the points I made you'd realise this*, It might be your decision, but it affects the world (for better or worse), and therefore the world has a right to take an active interest.

You aren't too sure actually. You don't take into account the reality and what is really going on in this world. I could care less if you support Bush, Kerry or Nader. What I have a problem is with your reasoning skills. The world cannot hijack an election or tell people who to vote.

*I refere specifically to the fact that I've stated my preference for president would actually be Bush -having weighed up his policies against Kerry's policies, yet you still keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about!

I again am talking about your ways of thinking.

1, as I said in the last post I would prefere bush as president, so your 'crushing' is miss placed, you are preaching to the converted as they say.

Nope. I'm crushing your ways of coming up to conclusions and presenting arguments.

2, you didn't bother to read what I had written, -had you read (and understood) what I had written, then you wouldn't have come back with a post full of mostly irrelevant tripe.

You don't know what you are talking about again. You are the one full of irrelevant tripe (why were you going on about the Germans in WWII when I mentioned nothing of WWII?) If there is a course named relevant argument 101 you should seriously consider taking it. Your arguments are what I call, totally irrelevant and totally useless to this debate.

3, the sole basis of your argument seems to still be based around personal insult and flames than it does actual politics. (aside from this being the reason for the last thread being locked, you (and everyone else) was asked to keep the flames to a minimum, if your passion for politics and ecconomy is so great then you should be able to form a reasonable, unbiased argument soly on politics and not have to resort to personal insluts.

Again this is wrong. Look at your own posts. They are the ones focused around personal insult and flames. I know a lot more in this topic then you do apparently. You are the one who has problems with reason. Unbiased arguments? Arguments have a slant always and are not unbiased. You have to get off your ego, and understand you are not the one directing things around here. And my standards are different then yours, so you cannot tell me what is the right way to argue and what isn't.

4, for the reason stated above in point 3, I don't believe you are a politics major student, In fact I don't believe you know anything more about politics than you read from cnn.com or see on Fox (both politically biased towards bush).

You again are a liar. I'm very much a political science student. I find you to be one of the most insulting people on this forum. How dare you question my intelligence and my education, you impudent little snob? CNN.com biased towards Bush? What are you on now? I don't think you know anything about politics at all. You can't even form a logical argument as it is.

Once you have fully read this reply I suggest that you take some time to reflect on the post, check out the links, perform a few seardches, think about what you are going to say and then make a reasonable post. -one like we havn't yet seen in this debate.

I suggest you take time to think and actually form an argument because you are filling this forum with a bunch of useless garbage. Please for once in your life, think before you say something mind numbingly stupid. You haven't yet made a well reasoned post. I'm waiting for one. All you have managed to do is attack my well backed arguments.

 

[Giancarlo]

At any rate, root.. please think before you reply to my post. It requires one level of a thought before you go on your little bash fest and make a complete idiot of yourself.

 

[airiox]

okay the reason the last thread was close was because people starting making fun of others. Its begining to happen again. So follow the title and have a respectful debate.

 

[135791]

carry on just watch out this doesnt turn into a flame thread

 

[rakedog]

The person who is turning this into a flame thread is Giancarlo. He's the one who calls us idiots every time we say something with which he doesn't agree with.