If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Latest poll shows 49 percent for Bush, 49 percent for Kerry. In other news, 49 percent of U.S. voters are morons   (usatoday.com) divider line 731
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

9318 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2004 at 1:06 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



731 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-10-04 02:37:57 PM
Actually, it means 98% of all voters are morons.
 
2004-10-04 02:38:33 PM
 
2004-10-04 02:39:07 PM
whidbey

sigh.

We have been growing as a military force for decades--WITHOUT a draft.

Apparently the post which said the only comment Republicans make about the draft is that there won't be one, and the only people proposing to reinstate it are the Democrats, just goes right over the head's of some "true believers".

THERE. WILL. BE. NO. DRAFT.

Let's all jump off this fake issue train and harp about something real.

~~
Anyone ever have a website that just cracks them up to no end, no matter how many times you look at it? Just felt a need to share one:
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/rusty/rusty.html
 
2004-10-04 02:40:58 PM
And I wonder: What is everybody talking about on these nasty things? It is like people have to be in constant communication with somebody somewhere talking about nothing. It is hard for me even to describe the stupendously inane "conversations" which I have been forced to overhear because of the things. I didn't think so many could talk so much and say so little. It almost becomes a sort of white noise.

On the bus, this woman actually speaks to someone at home and calls out each milestone on her bus trip: "We just passed 104th and Colorado! OK, here comes 108th! Passed it!"

And so on.

This woman rides the bus every day, and three days out of five she goes through the same incredible brain-dead ritual.

Then there are the grocery store talkers: "Should I get the big can of beans, or the smaller size? OK, I'm in aisle five now! Oh, look! Croutons are on sale! Should I buy some?"

And so on.

And then there are the really interesting conversations: "I can barely hear you. You're breaking up. OK. Call me back and we'll see if I can hear you then."

And so on.

What did people do before cell phones, jibber and tremble in the absence of constant blabbering? Curl up in abject fear of a universe without the soothing sound of pointless human yammering?
 
2004-10-04 02:41:12 PM
Of course, who am I kidding? They would NEVER win a Republican Primary.

My thoughts exactly. Unless the moderate Republicans regain control from the extremists in the party, there's no way McCain is going to win the primary.

Still don't know if I can vote for McCain, though. Depends on who he's running against. I liked him, but I think he has sold his principles by continuing to support Bush. I don't think he should go support Kerry, necessarily, but he shouldn't be out campaigning for Bush if he really disagrees with his handling of foreign policy.
 
2004-10-04 02:43:23 PM
Vote Libertarian!
 
2004-10-04 02:44:00 PM
GorgeousOrifice
Option 1 is out because it is tantamount to admitting that it was wrong to go there at all...

First off, I must agree that if we don't get an administration change all past indications are that we'll need more troops for Iraq or the Syrian and Iranian invasions they're already starting to sell. But the majority of Bush's base will apparently believe anything as long as it is said forcefully and with conviction. I believe Bush could completely pull out and, like he claimed before, declare "Mission Accomplished". His people already believe in talking snakes and walking undead Jewish carpenters so if Bush says we won and the media stays on his side that will be the end of it. They're still behind him even though the economy is wrecked, we have a record deficit, and we're mired in a disaster in Iraq that will go on for years. He's looked America in its camera lens eye time and again and, smirking, lied without flinching. What's one more in the name of Ummmmairikuh?

This nut didn't fall too far from the tree: Read my lips; No New Draft. Stay the course. Thousand points of light. Stay the course. No New Draft.
 
2004-10-04 02:44:27 PM

In an assessment that differs sharply with his view
today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam
Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that
capturing Saddam wouldn't be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of
getting "bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."


Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the time,
made the observations answering audience questions after a speech to the
Discovery Institute in August 1992, nearly 18 months after U.S. forces routed
the Iraqi army and liberated Kuwait.


President George H.W. Bush was criticized for
pulling out before U.S. forces could storm Baghdad, allowing Saddam to remain in
power and eventually setting the stage for the invasion of Iraq ordered by his
son, President George W. Bush, in March 2003.


The comments Cheney made more than a decade ago in a
little-publicized appearance have acquired new relevance as he and Bush run for
a second term. A central theme of their campaign has been their unflinching,
unchanging approach toward Iraq and the shifting positions offered by Democratic
nominee John Kerry.


A transcript of the 1992 appearance was tracked down
by P-I columnist Joel Connelly, as reported in


today's In the Northwest column
.


"And the question in my mind is how many additional
American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a
question.


"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think
we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when
the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were
not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and
govern Iraq."


About 146 Americans were killed in the Gulf War.
More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in the invasion of Iraq and its
aftermath.


Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require
a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside
the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or
comfortable fighting.



"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting
in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations
on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney
said.


"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his
government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you
then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."


Last week, Cheney attacked Kerry for his alleged
inconsistencies. "Senator Kerry ... said that under his leadership, more of
America's friends would speak with one voice on Iraq. That seems a little odd
coming from a guy who doesn't speak with one voice himself. By his repeated
efforts to recast and redefine the war on terror and our operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan, Senator Kerry has given every indication that he lacks the resolve,
the determination and the conviction to prevail in the conflict we face."


Cheney's office did not respond to requests for
comment about his 1992 statements, nor did the White House. The Bush-Cheney
re-election campaign, also asked about the 1992 statements, did not respond.


Despite his reservations 12 years ago, Cheney was
one of this administration's vocal and unrelenting supporters of invading Iraq.
The decision was based on Saddam's reported development of nuclear, biological
and other weapons of mass destruction that Bush and Cheney said posed a direct
and imminent threat to the United States.


No weapons, however, have been found.


That debate will intensify tomorrow when Bush and
Kerry square off in a debate that is expected to focus heavily on the future of
Iraq and more broadly the war on terror.


The Bush campaign launched a new ad yesterday
accusing "Kerry and congressional liberals" of "putting our protection at risk."


"Strength builds peace. Weakness invites those who
do us harm," the ad says, a suggestion that Kerry would be a weak leader in
wartime and a country headed by him would be vulnerable to terrorist attacks.


The ad accuses Kerry of "refusing to support our
troops in combat" and trying to severely slash intelligence budgets and
eliminate military weapons after the first attack on the World Trade Center.


Throughout the campaign, Bush and especially Cheney
have ridiculed Kerry for changing positions on the war in Iraq and presenting a
confusing and distorted picture of the future of that country.


But in his 1992 remarks in Seattle, Cheney
foreshadowed a future in Iraq that is remarkably close to conditions found there
today, suggesting that it would be difficult to bring the country's various
political factions together and that U.S. troops would be vulnerable to
insurrection and guerrilla attacks.


"Now what kind of government are you going to
establish? Is it going to be a Kurdish government, or a Shi'ia government, or a
Sunni government, or maybe a government based on the old Baathist Party, or some
mixture thereof? You will have, I think by that time, lost the support of the
Arab coalition that was so crucial to our operations over there," he said.


The end result, Cheney said in 1992, would be a
messy, dangerous situation requiring a long-term presence by U.S. forces.


"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would
still have forces in Baghdad today, we'd be running the country. We would not
have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home," Cheney said, 18
months after the war ended.

 
2004-10-04 02:45:34 PM
We have been growing as a military force for decades--WITHOUT a draft.

But NOT attacking countries where we may have another Vietnam-type experience (Iraq). Sorry.

I'll bet you a nickel. How's that?

And yeah, it sucks that the Democrats are the ones proposing the draft. Must be all that baby boomer guilt.

But believe me, if Bush gets elected, there will be a move for some kind of "national service" sometime in the first two years of his term. Just wouldn't put it past him...
 
2004-10-04 02:45:55 PM
thanks for the compliments... it's my first greenlighted submission.
 
2004-10-04 02:46:04 PM
A) Bush is still a douchebag.

B) I hate cell phones too. I only surrendered to the cell phone trend when we my wife got pregnant and we had to be ready to drive an hour to the hospital. I have no idea what the hell everyone is talking about all the time. I keep wondering, who are they talking to and what's so important? Half the people driving are on the damn phone. Freakin' talk to them when you get there! I even see people who are on the phone in the car on the way to work. ???
 
2004-10-04 02:46:31 PM
AuntofDogface: "I had a blowout on a rather desolate highway in northwestern Connecticut - was glad to my my celphone and was able to call AAA."

Oh, the wild and wooly outback of Northwestern Connecticut! A trackless wasteland populated only by desperados and vicious beasts lurking in the unmapped vastness!

Seriously: How many times can you throw a rock in Connecticut without hitting someone? Twice? In the Lower 48, you can never be anywhere further than twenty miles from a road.
 
2004-10-04 02:46:40 PM
Cellphoneness related to pollings... is how this is connected.

I use my cellphone for business... which is extremely practical. I agree about the use of cellphones by everyone else. They talk about things that aren't worth talking about. But then again, people do that on the landline but you only see it when they do it beside you in the grocery store. People have stupid conversations all day long, some in private, some beside you while they are eating a sandwich driving a ford taurus while they are reading a map. This person in particular will vote libertarian. I speak truth.
 
2004-10-04 02:46:48 PM
I would assume that the 49% in question are the 49% that choose to NOT CAST A FARKIN' VOTE!!!

/People DIED so you could vote...
 
2004-10-04 02:47:00 PM
canyoneer --
"And I wonder: What is everybody talking about on these nasty things? It is like people have to be in constant communication with somebody somewhere talking about nothing. It is hard for me even to describe the stupendously inane "conversations" which I have been forced to overhear because of the things. I didn't think so many could talk so much and say so little. It almost becomes a sort of white noise."


#1 Reason: Saves me five farking trips to the grocery store. Call the woman and get the shiat she wants the first time.

#2 Reason: Sitting in the middle of desert between Phoenix and Yuma, Az. with a broken timing belt makes you a believer.

#3 Reason: I can go about my day if I'm waiting on an important call from the bank or whatever.

#4 Reason: As I said, it's cheaper for me.
 
2004-10-04 02:47:19 PM
this is the source of my post

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

// Sorry for screaming
 
2004-10-04 02:47:25 PM

garkola --
There are scenarios in which Bush or Kerry would consider declaring failure and pushing for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, I think. If the Iraqi situation degenerates to the point where US forces are not actually useful there (perhaps provoking more unrest than they're fixing, say) or are simply not enough (perhaps in the face of a broad civil war), then it would be difficult to justify staying. I seem to recall Kerry once posing a question about how one asks a soldier to be the last one to die for a mistake.


There may also be crises in where those troops would be more urgently needed. For a particularly nasty potential scenario, what if Israel decides to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities, and Iran retalliates by lobbing missiles at the Israeli nuclear facilities in Dimona? That might get pretty ugly.

 
2004-10-04 02:48:12 PM
Which group do I fall into? I support Kerry but I'm voting for Bush because my candidates have never won in a presidential election and I'm hoping to jinx him (plus I live in Massachusetts so my vote REALLY doesn't matter).

Incidentally, I'm a registered Republican, have been for 30 years. I did it so I could vote for the wrong guy in the primaries, making it easier for the Democrat to win, and because it's SO easy to say no when the GOP calls up asking for money.
 
2004-10-04 02:48:32 PM
These are probably old, but they were new to me:

Bush talking out of his ass

Bush drunk at a wedding
 
2004-10-04 02:49:33 PM
The "global test" talking point relies on a lie. Read Kerry's sentences: these are not PRE-conditions for pre-emptive action. Here's why:

"...the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing..." --Kerry

Note that Kerry says "what you're doing." Doing, folks. He may decide to do something before you fully understand why.

"...and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons..."

Can prove. Did it. Verb tenses matter. Here's the lie told by the Bush campaign et al. They claim that Kerry said:

"And you've proven to the world that you should do it"

Which he didn't, as the transcript shows. Simple.

Shove this in Reps. faces when they bring the matter up.
 
2004-10-04 02:50:11 PM
whidbey

A nickel? I'll easily put $100 on the table that there will absolutely be no draft at all.

And calling Iraq "another Vietnam" is just another BS catch-phrase used as a buzzword to invoke an emotional response rather than a logical one.

It's getting a bit too Pavlovian around here.
 
2004-10-04 02:50:23 PM
LessO2 --
You shouldn't trust Kerry, either, judging from his campaign. It's not as bad as the Bush presidency in terms of bogosity, but it's far from perfect in this regard.

I might also suggest that neither the cost of pharmaceuticals nor the cost of gasoline appears to be under the authority of the Federal government, unless you're alleging illegal practices such as abuse of monopoly power in setting those prices, or you're dealing with a government insurance/subsidy program which sets copayments etc. The temptation to ignore the Tenth Amendment as well as assorted complications and to ascribe all responsibility to the Federal government should be avoided.


Thank you for telling me how to think. That is one of the things that I left off the list for space sake. I am tired of being told how to think. I choose to see and read where things are and see what Bush and Kerry have done. Do I think Kerry is the greatest candidate? Of course not, but he's better than the alternative.

No, gas prices or pharmaceuticals are not under control of the feds. But prior to this administration, we would at least have someone on the red-eye to Vienna to see what the hell was going on with oil prices, then somehow the prices would stop climbing or even go down for some reason.

As for pharmaceuticals, I have a difficult time thinking that in this technological age that prices can't be maintained or reduced. Why are the same drugs cheaper in Canada? I do not believe R&D costs that much. All the extra money we're doling out goes to stupid things like paying for TV commercials about boner pills.
 
2004-10-04 02:51:45 PM
galahad_11

Congratulations! Everyone hates you now.
 
2004-10-04 02:52:32 PM
Seriously: How many times can you throw a rock in Connecticut without hitting someone? Twice? In the Lower 48, you can never be anywhere further than twenty miles from a road.

Are you saying someone should flag down a passing motorist for a ride when you're stranded? Or find someone's home or get a business to actually let you go inside just to use the phone?

Your faith in the generousity of your fellow humans is inspiring. Naive and pollyanna-like, but inspiring nonetheless.

/would feel lucky if he survived a random stranger pulling over to "help" him around Houston
 
2004-10-04 02:52:42 PM
Yeah. Trying being stuck in the middle of the Arizona desert in August at 2pm while your car is dead and not have a cell phone.

I am with you on that one. Yeesh.
 
2004-10-04 02:52:53 PM
Omega Ohm: Well, to each his own. I see them mostly as a way to avoid planning anything. And even out here in the desolate, dangerous Western wilds, I rarely have been on a highway where another car is not coming along within five minutes, tops. On the roads where this is not true, there are no cells.
 
2004-10-04 02:55:41 PM
I see them mostly as a way to avoid planning anything

In that you have a point. Used to be that you'd call and say "bar x at 8pm" and everyone would be there. Now no one is because they feel they can call ahead, change the plan, say they'll be late. Drives me nuts.
 
2004-10-04 02:55:45 PM
Hmmm.. it seems that everyone in this thread agrees Bush is an asshat, so the flamewar should be about cell phones vs land lines instead...
 
2004-10-04 02:55:52 PM
Null Pointer
Also McCain being 72 in '08...isn't that Reagan's age when he was elected the first time?

On the date of his first inauguration, Reagan was 22 days shy of his 70th birthday.

That being said, he was still the oldest man elected president, beating out William Henry Harrison, who died of pneumonia at age 68 years-1 month-26 days, a month after his inauguration.
 
2004-10-04 02:56:28 PM
since people jack off and waste time on the internet, is the internet useless? are those individuals morons, too?
 
2004-10-04 02:56:56 PM
Four more weeks! Four more weeks! four more weeks!
 
2004-10-04 02:57:59 PM
anyone who's part of either 49% is a sucker

anyone who thinks the debate was legitimate probably thinks professional wrestling is real too

the purpose of the debate was to make the race closer in the mass polls because the herds actually base their voting on polls. the two-party cabal needs to keep itself in power, and the mass media is compicit in this because their fortunes are at stake too.

it's such an obvious combination of "divide and conquer" and "good cop -- bad cop" psychological manipulation.
 
2004-10-04 02:58:39 PM
thanks Vet_Curm I knew it was close.
 
2004-10-04 02:59:02 PM
wayward2
McCain, Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, Lindsey Graham and a few other Republicans who did not ingest too much of the Bush kool-aid are positioning themselves to take over the party after the fallout.

As for 2008, McCain would be 72, IIRC. He may not run himself, but will enthusiastically back one of his buddies, probably Hagel.

Lindsey Graham has a good shot at the VP slot on this ticket. He's a rising star in the GOP, a close ally of McCain, and the perfect opponent to John Edwards (same birthplace)

Of course, who am I kidding? They would NEVER win a Republican Primary. The fix is probably already in. It will be Jeb Bush/Elizabeth Dole. The GOP isn't that creative.


Dick Lugar is an old family friend of my parents, from back in their Indianapolis days. He is a bright, capable leader and a genuinely decent man. I would actually vote for him before any other Republican I know of.

If the GOP would regain their sanity and back away from the ideological asswipes who have hijacked the entire country, they could count on my vote. But as long as the likes of Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al are setting the agenda...they can collectively go to hell.
 
2004-10-04 02:59:08 PM
Dire... look behind you!

Gotcha.
 
2004-10-04 03:00:29 PM
Cell phone story. I was having breakfast at a place run by two gay guys. They serve huge portions of diner food, so they attract all types.

There's a guy eating at the bar talking on his cell, full voice. I realize he's talking the most explicit gay sex talk you could possibly imagine. Name a fetish, he yelled about it between bites of food. 20-30 minutes.

The owners just kept giving him coffee etc. I don't think I will be going back -- they should've stifled him.
 
2004-10-04 03:00:54 PM
2004-10-04 02:46:31 PM canyoneer

Unless you are familiar with the area that I am speaking of, which it sounds like you aren't, shut your piehole. I have driven on this highway at 3:00 a.m. and passed maybe a handful of cars in a 15 mile stretch.

The last time I broke down pre-celphone, I had to walk along the side of a highway where someone I know was killed doing the same thing I was - walking off of the exit to get to the commuter parking lot where there was a pay phone.
 
2004-10-04 03:00:59 PM
In the Lower 48, you can never be anywhere further than twenty miles from a road.

he's right. it's on page 23 of the PA driver's manual. seriously, are you some kind of idiot? why would being 19 miles from help be beneficial?
 
2004-10-04 03:01:22 PM
2004-10-04 02:50:11 PM KarmicHoax

I swear, you keep pitchin' em, I'll keep hitting em...

And calling Iraq "another Vietnam" is just another BS catch-phrase used as a buzzword to invoke an emotional response rather than a logical one.

No, your DISMISSAL of Iraq as a mere milk run of a war is the problem...

You really think it's going to be peachy-keen and democratic by next year?

SOMEBODY's dreaming. Dream on. I can't argue about it anymore, only that golden day I'll be saying "I told you so." I won't collect the hundred bucks...
 
2004-10-04 03:01:41 PM
49% cell phones
49% land lines
 
2004-10-04 03:02:41 PM
elchip

I think Eagleton did a lot to hurt McGovern too. If they were smarter they'd have floated his name to the press sooner so that his history depression, psychological exhaustion, and electro-shock treatments might have come out sooner.
 
2004-10-04 03:02:53 PM

LessO2
As for pharmaceuticals, I have a difficult time thinking that in this technological age that prices can't be maintained or reduced. Why are the same drugs cheaper in Canada? I do not believe R&D costs that much. All the extra money we're doling out goes to stupid things like paying for TV commercials about boner pills.


the top 3 pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than on R&D. they essentially form an informal monopoly, and charge the citizens every bit they can get away with. R&D costs are what they say gives justification for high drug prices, but it isn't true.
and thanks to bush's 'medicare reform', the federal government is now legally unable to ask for a lower price from those companies.
thanks, bush!
 
2004-10-04 03:04:00 PM
Korovyov: "...a particularly nasty potential scenario, what if Israel decides to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities, and Iran retalliates by lobbing missiles at the Israeli nuclear facilities in Dimona? That might get pretty ugly."

At this point, I almost think that would be a good thing, and I can't imagine why we should have to interfere. Just think of the benefits of letting the asshat nuts of the Middle East exteminate each other! The downside might be a little radioactive fallout, but we survived that back in the good old days when the boys were touching them off at Jackass Flats. Piece of cake.

Kinglyam: I suppose I am just a pollyanna, but I don't go around trembling about the dark intentions of every stranger in the world. Newsflash: two million people in Denver were not murdered by random strangers yesterday! Phew! That was close one. Usually, thousands are slain by bloodthirsty strangers every day around here!

KarmicHoax: I'm a desert rat from way back, and the clever ones in the desert are taking siesta at 2PM in August in Southern Arizona. But I understand that Americans generally eschew the idea of adapting to their environment, and insist that it should adapt to them!

How many deciduous trees native to Eastern North America are planted in the Valley of the Sun? I rest my case.
 
2004-10-04 03:04:13 PM
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
 
2004-10-04 03:07:47 PM
"49 percent of U.S. voters are morons"

Actually, I would draw an entirely different conclusion from the data. I think the poll results conclusively demonstrate that 98% of U.S. voters are morons.
 
2004-10-04 03:08:45 PM
Anything to distract from this dreadful, endless round and round about Bush and Kerry. Most people have already made up their minds anyway, and we'll know the outcome soon enough. Those who have not made up their minds are drooling simpletons who should not be allowed to vote, anyway. What spoon-feeding of emotional pap are they waiting for?
 
2004-10-04 03:08:54 PM
hillbillypharmacist
the top 3 pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than on R&D. they essentially form an informal monopoly, and charge the citizens every bit they can get away with

And THAT's an issue I strongly feel needs to be addressed.

Spending money for mass market advertising of prescription drugs is crap, if they are allowed to write it off as a business expense.

Let the cost come out of net profits, and then see how much they do it.
 
2004-10-04 03:09:03 PM
Holygeekboy

Vote Libertarian!

I am, to the core, a Libertarian. A firm believer in personal responsibility and personal freedoms.

I will not vote for Michael Badnarik, whom I find to be a flaming wackjob.


I'm curious why you feel that way. I've met the man and I found him to be seriously commited to protecting our personal freedoms. I'll admit he comes off quite strong with the whole "You'll never get my gun if I can get my finger on the trigger". Liberty called you need to do the right thing and vote for him.
 
2004-10-04 03:11:01 PM
wizaltThe point I was trying to make was that any contemporary poll is statistically insignificant because of the bias data set. I wouldn't even want to begin to guess who the uncaptured group would vote for. That's speculation with no recourse of validation and hardly any better than relying on biased data.
 
2004-10-04 03:11:13 PM
canyoneer,

Are you sure about that 20 miles thing? I would think that somewhere like Escalante/Grand Staircase National Monument would have a few spots more than 20 miles from any road.
 
Displayed 50 of 731 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report