Dr.Worthless

Solid speech, I didn't much agree with the message, but a solid speech none the less.

Doubtful Vile, general concensus from both parties is (Speculation) Hillary Clinton -2008 V George Pataki or Rudolph Guliani -2008

Thx for calling me unsophisticated, along with 200+ million americans. Reminds me of something Teresa Heinz (kerry) would say.

I heard that the grizzly army was controlled by remote-control by the drunken mountie brigade :/ We would stand no chance.

I still would love to see where people get this from, mabye I'm just misinformed, but I'm really not buying that. Can you atleast agree that if things work out how intended, the average Iraqi citizens life will be 100000% better? Sure, US colonists had an "ok" life under british rule, and im sure as -*BAD WORD*- they endured some hardships fighting for freedom, but I believe its pretty safe to say that I'm living a better life right now than I would have been if we stayed under british rule. You're wanting a quick fix, and the situation over in iraq and the middle east isn't a quick-fix situation. Let me just say that I believe EVEN the life Iraqi's have no is better than before. Freedom of press, Freedom of !@#$%^&*embly, the Right to VOTE, womens rights making strides.. yeah all of that is ok. When I see the TV covering Iraqi's gathering in public protesting, I think "Man, if that happened 2 years ago all of those folks would be dead or in prison" not "Jesus those US occupiers must be TYRANTS!" I seriously disagree, if you can show me any instance where the UN has been effective in solving any terrorist related activities, I might consider the position. Last I checked Europe has been dealing with terrorism for centuries, and still deal with it today. It was only 2 days ago that Australias embasy in Indonesia got car-bombed by a terrorist organization. Coincidence that Australia has an election coming up? I seriously doubt it. Where's the UN in this instance? How about when Spain's railways were attacked (hhmm, another election, pattern anyone?), where was the UN intervention there? Ireland? Israel? (Last I heard the UN was trying to stop Israel from defending itself against Palestinian terrorists. While I agree Israel is pro-active in some instances, they should atleast have the right to fight the folks sending suicide bombers onto their busses and into their malls, or I guess Israel has that coming too? ) Russia? Canada? (Need I continue on with the list?)

If you ment "hasn't" been mentioned, I'm not. The UN is a s-*BAD WORD*- of the organization it was intended to become.

I seriously do believe that Bush's pushing for Tort law reform will curb some of the insurance hikes, and in return consumer price hikes. While your life may be terrible ducky, I promise you that in comparison to probably 70-% of the world population, your life is heaven.

Under the same token, the same idealistic muslim kid would have grown up hating the US for sanctions put against his country, and if there were no sanctions would have grown up hating the US for not removing the viscious dictator who's imprisoning his parents and raping his sisters.. Quite the Win/Win situation!!! BTW I still find it absolutly HILARIOUS that no mention of the Saddam Regime is included in your statement monte. The evil US Invasion has got to be 100000000 times worse than Saddam, eh?

I guess what it comes down to is, we should let terrorists attack us because we deserve it. Sorry, Wont ever happen.

Coincidence that those regions do not possess a super-power?

I could resort to making a generalized satire about Kerry supporters, but I refuse to sink to your level.

Who knows the motives, but mabye when a terrorist group flies planes into a canadian building and kills 3000 folks, or the same happens to wherever Vile lives, folks will start taking the threat seriously. Joke all you want guys, laugh it up even, but I bet the little children who lost parents on September 11'th, or the people that lost spouses, or the parents who lost children don't find the situation very funny, and honestly I don't think you should either.

Basically what bacchus is saying is that it's the US's fault that 9/11 happened. We caused the terrorists to attack us so we should just let them kill our citizens, we deserve it. Sorry bacchus, aint ever gonna happen. Deserve it or not, if there is an attack on US soil, the US will retaliate. Right or Wrong. Mabye we're just not as understanding of other cultures as you, or the french, or europe as a whole is. But if that culture consists of killing Americans, that culture isn't going to exist anymore. And please don't go into the blah blah blah typical american blah blah blah. If defending our own countries citizens is wrong, go ahead and lock me up, because that opinion is never gonna change.

Create a stable democratic government and ally in the heart of the middle east. Mabye you can agree that a non-saddam government whos friendly to the US in the middle east would be beneficial to stoping terrorist?

While I agree that the website I got those voting records from is slanted, its hard as -*BAD WORD*- to slant a voting record Vile. Infact, You cant. There was a bill and Kerry voted Yea or Nae, its all in the records and pretty much impossible to slant without flat out lieing. I just want to point out that while some of those links are credible, others are laughable. You want to call a blog un-biased and un-slanted? HuH? truthout.org? Its in the same boat as moveon.org. All of the newspapers listed were likely folks that write with a left slant. Not that its a bad thing, but its impossible to write an article without an opinionated slant in it, especially during election year.

Yes, I did, and I still believe that way

Stance on Religion. Basically that Religious organizations have just as much place in society as any other organization. Economy Across the board tax cuts. Letting americans spend their dollars, and control portions of their money in government programs. (Health saving accounts is a VERY good idea, investigate it) By easing the tax burden on the business owners, it frees up more money for them to hire more people. Environment Admitedly it could use some work. He has urged that lots of money be poured into alternative fuel sources, which is :onethumb: Stem Cell Research. I'm not particularly familiar with his stance, I'm not sure if the president is completely against it, or against harvesting embryo's for it. Personally I believe that a child is a human being the DAY it is concieved, and thus should have every right that every other american citizen and human being on this earth is en!@#$%^&*led to. That include not being killed for its cells. Gay Marriage. My Moral beliefs and Civil Rights beliefs conflict on this, so I wont comment, because to be honest I'm not even sure where I stand on the issue right now. The President is against gay marriage, and if that's his belief I would venture to say that his is the same as the majority of US citizens. As for Kerry, What he says during this political race is 1 thing, the way he votes is another. If you don't believe me someone post his stances on these very same issues, and i know for a fact I can find instances where he's (multiple times) voted opposite of his stated opinion.

Let me ask you something bacchus.. Why did it take US invading and removing Saddam from power to get the rest of the world to give a flying -*BAD WORD*- about the citizens of Iraq? Up until we invaded, all the European nations were willing to do was p!@#$%^&* resolutions which they had no intentions of keeping.

How do you know it wasn't? Do you agree or disagree with the statement that terrorist activity is active in every islamic middle eastern country? If you said yes to that statement, how can you NOT include Iraq in with it? There is no substancial evidence that Terrorists weren't using Iraq. Saddam openly supported suicide bombers with government stipends. Well known Al-Qaeda members have also been confirmed in baghdad. Saying Iraq had No terrorist activity what-so-ever is !@#$%^&*anine. HUH!? Countless captures all across Europe, in Britain, etc says otherwise. A.) It removed a terrorist supporter from running a country.B.) Theoritically a democratic government in the middle of the middle east will provide stability. Not Immediate, its going to take time. But ANY form of government other than a sadistic madman terrorising his own citizens and invading/threatening other countries is far times better. C.) We for sure don't know all there is to know about Saddam's dealings with terrorism or any other organization, its impossible to. I really do find it amazing that people are just willing to write off a madman like Saddam. At no point was he benign, by his past record he would have obtained weapons (if he didn't already have them) and used them as leverage. If you don't think he would have, you're insane, just as insane as Saddam. How often do you believe a saddistic person who's killed thousands and initiated war 2 seperate times can just all of a sudden become peaceful and non-threatening. The answer should be Never.

Yeah, I think he is, and I agree with his opinion. Please show facts that show otherwise. Please don't cite the war with Iraq as proof, given the same intelligence on the day it was given, you to would have chosen to remove Saddam, just like the president and Senate/House did. Other intelligence might have come around after the fact.. but hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.

Ok bachus.. but when france or any other country needs liberation from another country willing to hold a large standing army, please don't come looking to the US. Not like that would ever happen though, everyone int he world is peaceful so I can see your point, there really isn't need for a standing army.. If you can make the arguement that America hasn't done more for the world community, participation, ideology, and $$ wise, please do so. If not please get over your US hatred. Ok, so you're opinion is that the islamic world (im sure the whole world, in your opinion) see us as an evil imperialistic empire. That's great. Bottom line is if our citizens are attacked and killed, we're going to go after whatever en!@#$%^&*y with zeal and retribution. Coming from such a weak country bachus I can understand why the concept is alittle foreign, but "peaceful negotiation" doesn't always work, and sometimes you've got to take a stand on things, right or wrong. "Evil Empire" or not, if an organization or country targets us, we will not be asking permission to defend ourselves, we never have and hopefully never will.

Well then holy -*BAD WORD*- Bacchus, if you really believe that then march your -*BAD WORD*- down to the frenchy army office and inlist. Because if you relate the USA with a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group, France really has some -*BAD WORD*- to worry about. Islamic fundamentalists have car bombs and suicide bombers.. the USA is the worlds on superpower.

Sure i've got an opinion as to why, but I don't know their reasoning for it. My opinion.. All of the third world countries blame us for their situations. If they live in a poverty stricken area, it must be the US's fault. No food? US fault. Etc,etc,etc. When there's a really powerful en!@#$%^&*y out in the world, and X person's life is bad, its really convinient to attribute those problems on someone else. Its even easier for X leader to gain populatrity by blaming the powerful en!@#$%^&*y. Hitler and the Jews cause any lightbulbs to go off? Yeah.. Think of us as the Jews and all the US haters as Hitler. There's my opinion, why dont you tell us the real reason? Terrorists are cabbages, in a sense. Terrorists are home grown, they aren't born with abnormal hatred. 2.) Islamic fundamentalists do.. if they die they get the virgin business.. etc. 3.) Yep you do have to be desperate, desperation doesn't = suicidewithbomb although. I'm really curious to hear how you feel its the US's fault on ANY subject. I'm sure you've got a whole list.

Heh, im sure to a frenchy its because America is evil encarnate. My answer is, I don't know.

bump.. modified post above.