AstroProdigy

How could you even say I need a link to prove that Bush linked Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda? That just goes to show that you will stick with Bush to even the bitter end no matter wat happens. Such mindless following can be compared to the Nazis and the Soviet Communists. You have no idea what's going on; but if you really need a link about how Bush linked Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda and used that as a reason for going to war in Iraq then: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/pro....96065143057433 ^------------Got that link from FOXNews.com and includes quotes of what Bush stated himself. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/12/bus...illy/index.html ^------------Here Bush says that the invasion of Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism significantly. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/...iraq/index.html ^------------Bush says the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror because "Saddam could use al Qaeda as a 'forward army' that could attack the United States with weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction 'and never leave a fingerprint behind.'" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html ^------------Here's another one http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm What is that, eight links from a variety of sources? They're all fake right Lear? Do i need a link to these links or else the links are made up? Why don't you use that argument again it's the only one you seem to have. Everyone else has posted arguments that show they're at least using their own brains and thinking about the issues, but all you've been doing is spewing the propaganda of your intellectual masters. You obviously have no mind of your own. Anything someone who doesn't agree with what Bush says must be spewing liberal propaganda in your mind. You don't even care what's said unless it's identical to the Republican Party propaganda; and when what you're beloved party says doesn't make sense, your way of dealing with it is deny, deny, deny. Good job.

That's really funny that you say I'm full of it and then say Bush never said Saddam Hussein was helping Osama binLaden. Are your eyes completely shut that you are simply looking to disprove anything someone says unless it is what the Republican Party dictates and you firmly adhere to? You obviously don't think for yourself you just look for what your sacred Neo Conservative Propaganda says and automatically take it as fact and look to disprove anyone who would dare use their own brains. That is exactly what scares Democrats about the Republican Party. They have complete control over you and you have no idea.

Ok I must be making things up because I don't agree with you. Thanks. You don't even bother to look at what I say you immediately want to p!@#$%^&* judgement.

Religion is a tool used by man used to explain natural phenomenon before science can come in and explain how the natural phenomenon actually occured. Religion gives people peace of mind over their basic fear; the unknown. To say that Intelligent Design explains the creation of the first cell and the creation of the universe is simply to say that you do not understand how these events actually occured because science has not advanced that far yet. I love seeing how people agree that religion was wrong in the past because it only made !@#$%^&*umptions and tried to destroy science in order to keep it from being proven wrong, such as with the Inquisition and Galileo, but THIS TIME IT'S SOMEHOW DIFFERENT EVEN THOUGH THE CIR!@#$%^&*STANCES ARE THE SAME!!!! Future generations will look and laugh at the people who want to replace science with religion for things that they did not yet understand, yet I bet future generations will have new phenomena that they can't prove yet so many of them will call it "Intelligent Design" or whatever the new name will be and then say THIS TIME IT'S SOMEHOW DIFFERENT EVEN THOUGH THE CIR!@#$%^&*STANCES ARE THE SAME!!!! Let's not try to turn religion into something it is not. Religion is a measure of faith and it's fine to be religious, but trying to turn religion into science is impossible unless you leave out obvious facts disproving it. The lessons of history should not just be ignored. The way you can tell someone really knows what they're talking about is if they know that no one really knows for sure about anything. Science operates under this principle tries to do the best that it can with what it has to find out what is occuring and eliminate as much sources of error as possible. If an error cannot be eliminated, then the science has to be changed to suit experimental data better. Religion starts with an !@#$%^&*umption and must stay with that !@#$%^&*umption no matter what the evidence says. If the evidence can be seen as being in support of religion it is hailed as indisputable proof and if the evidence smacks the face of religion it is covered up. That is why religion cannot be proven. The blatant disregard for the scientific method means that it is not a science. It could be right, but until it can actually be treated as a science it is not a science.

Well, no it wouldn't have happened before 2002 because the chief reason that got the Bush administration approval for going to war with Iraq was that the intelligence given to the country stated clearly that Saddam Hussein was helping Osama bin Laden. Now that intelligence was completely false, but after 9/11, the American public was afraid of another terrorist attack and were willing to do anything to prevent one. Also, there are blatant misconceptions about the Native Americans that have been stated here. For one, the Native Americans of North America were not a country; they were a vast and diverse group of tribes. Also, the French and Indian War wasn't to decide whether the Native Americans could keep their land; it was a long lasting Cold War between France and Britain that spilled over to the Americas. The point was to decide whether the British or the French would get the land. In fact, after the British won they did not want to push the Native American groups there away; they wanted to prevent the colonists from pushing them away and destroying the valuable fur trade. As for saying Native Americans aren't our citizens, this is an extremely arbitrary argument. You can say that the Kurds aren't Iraqi citizens by the same argument. This really serves no purpose. Part of the reason for the Revolutionary War was so that we could go and get rid of the Native Americans without British interference. In this case the British were the more enlightened and more powerful nation. Americans are very proud that we won the Revolutionary War and ignore the fact that this doomed the Native Americans. Using such simplistic arguments doesn't show what the issue actually is. Anti War protestors are NOT anti soldier. I can't stand people who oversimplify the issues and try to give groups with opposing views labels that make them look like something they're not. If anything Anti War protesters support the soldiers more because unlike War Hawks, the protestors don't want to see our brave men and women come into harms way needlessly unlike the War Hawks (Republican Party) who think more about the United States overpowering the rest of the world (we spend more on military than all other nations combined) and don't seem to care how many soldiers need to die in order to achieve this. The problem with our two main parties is quite simple. The Republican Party has been corrupted. I'm not saying this is natural to the Republican Party. The corruption under the Bush administration is completely different from previous Republican administrations. I respect Bush senior, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower. They may or may not have had a positive influence on the United States, but at least there wasn't such a blatant partisanship and disregard for democracy. The Democratic Party does not have a strong, unified message to bring to the people. That is the problem that the Democrats have; they look weak. I don't know if or when that will change, but it might be soon as the Democrats in the Congress have been voting solidly together while the Republican Party has been divided as moderate Republicans now see that the mainstream of America is NOT conservative as it seems to be.

I just thought of an argument in favor of gay marriage. Gay marriage would actually IMPROVE the sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage. A big problem with marriage is people get married simply because someone gets pregnant and that's not right. It also doesn't work out well. With gay marriage, you don't have to worry about someone getting pregnant because it's physically impossible! Therefore, gay marriage would actually be more stable than straight marriage, i. e. gay marriage will improve the overall sanc!@#$%^&*y of marriage. At this point, the only argument that has any merit is that gay marriage is against the bible and this is a smack in the face of the seperation of church and state. BOOYA! Also never forget to tie your shoes.

No...Christianity teaches compassion and forgiveness. If evangelical Christians opposed both abortion rights and the death pentalty, then that would be understandable. The way it is now is a giant contradiction. As for liberals, they are pro life when the life is corporeal while the believe non corporeal life does not get the same rights as corporeal life, regardless of potential. By the way, spyed spammed on this thread like four times already is anyone going to do something about that?

a ) Spyed stfu... b ) Anyone notice are opposed to killing fetuses but embrace killing full developed human beings? If conservatives really cared about human life they would give the worst criminals life in prison rather than death. Why do conservatives value the life of non corporeal collections of cells over disturbed human beings?

Stop spamming spyed...

"Abortion is different than "pulling the plug", because the fetus is alive. (otherwise it would be labeled as a miscarriage)" So is the person in the coma. They don't have any brain functions and cannot survive on their own. Guess what that's the same as a fetus. "Abortion is clearly different than executions because the fetus could not possibly commit crimes." Of course a fetus can commit crimes. You say a fetus is the possibility of life so why can't the fetus be the possibility of an cereal killer. "Abortion is different than war, because killing the fetus cannot possibly advance any great cause." Killing the fetus advances the great cause of womens' rights and the last time i checked the pursuit of oil isn't a great cause.

What if the condom breaks? Should everyone stop having premarital sex? If that happened, I don't know what I would do...probably !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inate someone.

Yes. That is how it should be; yet it isn't. They frequently travel to swing states to get their supporters ready to vote. They also use huge amounts of negative campaigning in swing states to get the other side to feel disallusioned and not bother to vote. Is this too difficult to understand? """"The Republican Party has plenty of middle class/ working class supporters, yet they are undeniably pro rich""" So what part of the statement is you NOT saying that?" Did you learn grammar in school? The Republican Party is undeniably pro rich. My sentence didn't say middle class/ working class supporters are undeniably pro rich. Stop twisting my words when you don't have an argument. How did you think this manifested itself. The disappointing voter turnout of democrats versus the suprisingly high voter turnout of republicans. That is how people vote. How many people do you think look closely at a candidates competency? They vote on party lines and usually vote for one party down the list. You obviously show that you have a naive view of elections that's jaded by what you yourself believe. "You were brought up supporting political segregation. Nothing in this statement is false. That's putting no words in your mouth and it is the truth. Thinking someone from the same political spectrum should vote for one specific party is the evidence. Somewhere in your lifetime, this was evident and you found it okay and decided to support the system." Do you even pay attention to what I say? Just because I know the situation is one way, that doesn't automatically mean that this is what I support. Gay marriage is illegal. I support the right of homosexuals to marry, but under your reasoning, since gay marriage is illegal then I am opposed to gay marriage. Quite the reasoning skills you have here. Using your own mentality to judge you, I would say you would support the sexiest candidate because you seem to care more about how the candidate looks that what he and his administration stand for. I happen to prefer looking at all the issues if I can. Don't automatically assume things about me just because it makes you feel better. No Ducky, you should stick to someone with a completely different opinion that you and will make your life worse because they seem to be a strong person. That is the hilarity. By the way, my dad works as a griller in a restauraunt and my mom is a housewife. I am not the rich "the man" that you are inferring me to be. You are only doing that to make the argument that since I don't agree with you, then I must be corrupted.

You are thinking of the swing vote with one giant variable ignored. Only half of eligable voters actually vote. Therefore, its more like 22.5% republican, 22.5% democrat and 5% swing. Then the other big variabe you ignored as that much more people who are unsure of who to vote for don't vote because they get disallusioned from both candidates because of all of the negative campaigning. This would bring the numbers more to about 24% republican, 24% democrat, and 2% swing. Therefore, if you can tap into the large amounts of non voters, like for example the larger amount of evangelical christians bush campaigners got to vote, you win the election. This is a much easier strategy than taking the risk of trying to convince swing voters to vote for your side. I never working and middle c!@#$%^&* republicans are pro rich, they just choose to look at the social issues as more important than the economic issues. Bush did win without the swing votes. He won by getting people on the other side not to vote and getting more of the people on his side to vote. I never told anyone to vote one way. I just questioned why they would vote either way if it's far off from their own beliefs. Now you said I was brought up supporting segregation? When did I ever say it was right? Stop putting words in my mouth. It's not right, but thats the way things work. The fact is a two party system is inevitably flawed. Neither party ever puts up a stupid candidate for election. That argument is worthless. You have a very interesting view of the country. Unfortunately, it isn't the country we actually live in. Maybe when you grow up, you'll see that.

Dude, do you pay attention to elections? Did you hear anything about the last election? If you did it would be staring you in the face that you're being an idiot. Of course a party tries to get people not to vote. What do you think negative campaigning is? There was also a very small window of undecided voters, what you call the "majority". Also, Bush didn't win by getting Democratic support. He won by getting large numbers of evangelical christians to go and vote. By the way, you are only one individual. The Republican Party has plenty of middle class/ working class supporters, yet they are undeniably pro rich. Why is that? It is because of social issues nimrod. Please, post intelligently. You are posting what you yourself would do. I am posting what is a proven fact in past elections and am thinking about what people as a whole would do.

Are you a dumb !@#$%^&*? No matter how nice a guy is if his opinions are far off from mine then i can't possible support him. You don't just vote the person into office. You vote the whole executive office because he will pick people with similar views to him. Guess what; if you knew anything about politics you'd know everyone votes for a candidate based on his views and republicans rarely vote for democrats while democrats rarely vote for republicans. That is what the last election was exactly. It wasn't getting people from one camp to change sides. It was getting people on the other camp to feel disenfranchised and not go to vote while getting as many people in your camp to vote. If you had a brain, you would use your common sense to figure this out. This is exactly why voter turnout is so low in the United States. Each side tries to get their people to vote while getting theother half of the country not to vote. That is why only half the country votes in presidential elections. Also, when people go to vote for a particular candidate, they tend to vote for everyone else on in his political party down the board. I'm sorry I had to insult you, but you started it calling me an ignorant and a dumb !@#$%^&*. Good luck eating adopted babies for lunch.

aw...

Yeah, that makes me really ignorant making the foolish claim that you should support the person with views similar to yours rather than someone who will do things you don't want. Tisk tisk for me. Its better to support Bush if you're a super liberal environmentalist because supporting someone with similar views as you is ignorant, eh Ducky? Think about what you say before you say it, Ducky.

No! My second biggest one is Islam like hers. Yours isn't! Besides, you look like a 40 year old man that goes from white to black to white again .

You're like me, Bajan . By the way, is that a pic of you?

Actually Hitler was much more of a moderate when it came to the economy, but hes somewhat more authoritarian.

"For example, the flaw here is that if you suppose there is a masochist who likes to be stabbed. Astro's theory then says that he should run around town and stab everyone he sees." How does my theory say that? Ducky, you try to disprove my theory, yet you use a fairly abstract issue to do so. Let's look at basic morality. Would you like others to kill you? Would you like others to steal from you? Would you like others to cut off your leg? Would you like others to take your loved one away from you? Most people would say no, excluding the insane. Therefore, this is what it proves.

Because if you are a moderate you should support a moderate. An extreme conservative would have very different views from you. You also wouldn't support an extreme liberal

No one said it had to be the real "right and wrong". There is no right and wrong described by some physical force. That is a human concept and this is how we operate.

If you were moderate you wouldn't support Bush . Did you not see where his point is on the webpage?

My Political Comp!@#$%^&* Economic left/right: -3.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26 That means I am a democrat and partial libertarian.