2004 elections were rigged... better late than never

Yeah I used a strawman because I couldn't resist that argument. You, being an atheist, have beliefs that I assume are along the lines of "I don't believe in God because there's no evidence for him." I'm just wondering why you don't apply to same logic to this war.

And let's just put away the satire, shall we? Let's look at this honestly. Yes, I agree liberals won't give a fuck no matter what Obama does, they'll be too busy defending Obama because conservatives will use every excuse to discredit him. They're already saying the world is going to shit on Fox news. Both political parties are so entrenched in their sides that they can't rightfully criticize their own leaders without giving an inch of land to the other political side, so they don't They focus on attacking. Even you must agree Bush was a freaking moron, and a religious nutcase. But you defend him because the people attacking him aren't attacking him constructively, they're trying to devour his soul. The same thing happened the Clinton. Clinton was a very good president when it came to domestic issues. But you don't hear about that, he's associated with a sex scandal.

My point is this, I'll say it hoping if I give you an inch you won't try to take a mile. I don't like everything about Obama. I think he's all rhetoric and has nothing real to say to back himself up. Honestly, when I watched his inauguration, I was like "wtf was that?" because all he did was shoot off rhetorical lines but he never fundamentally said anything. He didn't stand for anything, everything was soft, empty. He had a speech full of weasel words. BUT he's still closing CIA prisons, he's already got a plan that will harness alternative energy and get this country off fossil fuels. Frankly, I think this world is a lot better off with him. It would have been better off with McCain, too, but it would have landed in economic disaster. I don't say this becaue I hate republicans, I say this because I had to study the Great Depression in school, and even with our pro-capitalist textbooks that verdict was extremely clear. Hoover clung to the Purism model, and in doing so ended up being a complete hypocrite as he saved the Banks from going out of business and he saved the Pigs from dying of disease but he never did shit to help the people. Things got worse and worse when they could have been curbed if he was willing to grow some damned testicles and take the necessary steps. The New Deal saved the nation. People claim it was the war, but the war only restored it to super power level. The New Deal saved the people, it got them working, it gave them back their purchasing power so they could turn the economic gears once again.

So to me, Obama is an empty schmuk and a putz, but McCain advocated the Purism model in every single debate, and Obama advocated the New Deal model. I had history to back my decision up, which made it pretty easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yeah I used a strawman because I couldn't resist that argument. You, being an atheist, have beliefs that I assume are along the lines of "I don't believe in God because there's no evidence for him." I'm just wondering why you don't apply to same logic to this war.

---

I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian type of God because it is an illogical concept on about 400 levels and has about 0 evidence, though I lean heavily in the direction of Taoism and Zen-Buddhism. However, lots of intelligence backed the WMD claims. I don't swear they were there. I just know Hussein's history of WMD programs and WMD terrorism and what loads of intelligence experts from many countries reported. It was serious enough to act on, especially considering the other reasons for the war. Personally, I think it is the civilized world's responsibility to end dictatorial oppression everywhere it exists (unless they are a bad ass nuke country like China). That reason alone is enough for me. I think dictatorships should be internationally outlawed. They have no place on this planet. My libertarian attitude about my own country extends to the entire rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And let's just put away the satire, shall we? Let's look at this honestly. Yes, I agree liberals won't give a fuck no matter what Obama does, they'll be too busy defending Obama because conservatives will use every excuse to discredit him. They're already saying the world is going to shit on Fox news. Both political parties are so entrenched in their sides that they can't rightfully criticize their own leaders without giving an inch of land to the other political side, so they don't They focus on attacking. Even you must agree Bush was a freaking moron, and a religious nutcase. But you defend him because the people attacking him aren't attacking him constructively, they're trying to devour his soul. The same thing happened the Clinton. Clinton was a very good president when it came to domestic issues. But you don't hear about that, he's associated with a sex scandal.

My point is this, I'll say it hoping if I give you an inch you won't try to take a mile. I don't like everything about Obama. I think he's all rhetoric and has nothing real to say to back himself up. Honestly, when I watched his inauguration, I was like "wtf was that?" because all he did was shoot off rhetorical lines but he never fundamentally said anything. He didn't stand for anything, everything was soft, empty. He had a speech full of weasel words. BUT he's still closing CIA prisons, he's already got a plan that will harness alternative energy and get this country off fossil fuels. Frankly, I think this world is a lot better off with him. It would have been better off with McCain, too, but it would have landed in economic disaster. I don't say this becaue I hate republicans, I say this because I had to study the Great Depression in school, and even with our pro-capitalist textbooks that verdict was extremely clear. Hoover clung to the Purism model, and in doing so ended up being a complete hypocrite as he saved the Banks from going out of business and he saved the Pigs from dying of disease but he never did shit to help the [b]people./b] Things got nworse and worse when they could have been curbed if he was willing to grow some damned trsticles and take the necessary steps. The New Deal saved the nation. People claim it was the war, but the war only restored it to super power level. The New Deal saved the people, it got them working, it gave them back their purchasing power so they could turn the economic gears once again.

So to me, Obama is an empty schmuk and a putz, but McCain advociated the Purism model in every single debate, and Obama advocated the New Deal model. I had history to back my decision up, which made it pretty easy.

---

I don't support Bush on everything, not even on most things. My religious beliefs alone are enough reason to disagree with him on all kinds of stuff, and you know my opinion on the war on drugs. I also think Bush was too liberal on economic issues. The only thing I really agree with him on is the transformation of the Middle East.

All I have seen from Obama is a bunch of talk. He talked his way into the White House, and he is talking and talking now. Maybe he will do something of some type at some point, but the major move he made recently is that he "ordered" the Guantamo Bay prison shut. Well, it's open, and there is no plan whatsoever for what to have as an alternative. He is talking out of his ass. His press secretary sounded like somebody mumbling in his sleep when he was asked what the alternative plan is. I also have a hunch that Obama is going to keep our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan even longer than I want them there. I think we might have a paper mache president who is just there to look good during the most screwed up time period for this country any American under 60 has ever seen.

We'll see...

They're submitting the prisoners the habeus corpus and sending them to US prisons, how was that unclear?

Anyway, you started this about how liberals are two faced because theyre just protesting the war to discredit the otherside of the argument. I was making the claim that in ways your right, that because people have became so aggressively dogmatic against each other and so polarized, they will support assholes in charge so they don't appear weak or wrong in front of the other side.

We were wrong to enter Iraq, Bush liead, the evidence has all been discredited. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader keeping Iraq stable and was not even close the worst disctator in charge of a nation. He was merely the weakest, and there was a lot to gain from his removal. We paid for it, we never saw the benefits. Any idealistic pursuit of democracy is a bullshit sales pitch because if we were really in pursuit of democracy there were a lot of other nations that deserved better reform. I'm sure in your heart you want to admit that's true, but if you did you'd have to admit the other side was right and give up your entrenchment, and then the liberals would just gloat in your face which you can't allow. It works both ways, even if Obama never left Iraq (he mentioned escalation of Afghanistan, not withdrawel) thereby giving all the radical conservatives a reason to gloat, no liberal in the US would admit they're wrong.

So maybe we should work on THAT instead of just trying to brag about how awesome we are and how stupid the people that disagree with us are. I don't know, maybe just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

They're submitting the prisoners the habeus corpus and sending them to US prisons, how was that unclear?

---

This week?

I thought the press secretary said they were going to, "Uh buh, well, the, you see, ubble ubble..." Maybe I didn't see the whole response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Anyway, you started this about how liberals are two faced because theyre just protesting the war to discredit the otherside of the argument. I was making the claim that in ways your right, that because people have became so aggressively dogmatic against each other and so polarized, they will support assholes in charge so they don't appear weak or wrong in front of the other side.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

We were wrong to enter Iraq, Bush liead, the evidence has all been discredited. Saddam Hussein was a secular leader keeping Iraq stable and was not even close the worst disctator in charge of a nation. He was merely the weakest, and there was a lot to gain from his removal. We paid for it, we never saw the benefits. Any idealistic pursuit of democracy is a bullshit sales pitch because if we were really in pursuit of democracy there were a lot of other nations that deserved better reform. I'm sure in your heart you want to admit that's true, but if you did you'd have to admit the other side was right and give up your entrenchment, and then the liberals would just gloat in your face which you can't allow. It works both ways, even if Obama never left Iraq (he mentioned escalation of Afghanistan, not withdrawel) thereby giving all the radical conservatives a reason to gloat, no liberal in the US would admit they're wrong.

---

Again, how is reporting a massive load of intelligence the same as lying? Was Clinton lying when he said it first? What about the Democrats in Congress who said it before Bush was even famous? Are they all liars too?

Genocide and terrorism are not stable.

Democracy alone is not the reason for the Iraq war. It happened because there was a long enough list of reasons for it. I said that I personally support liberating all dictatorships unless it will result in nuclear insanity. Republicans don't agree.

The problem I think is illustrated with the major easing of anti-war sentiment we are going to be witnessing is that radical liberals (not the more rational, sincere ones) hate Republicans first and foremost. Their religion is anti-Republicanism, and everything stems from there. I agree that people on both sides get caught up in that game and deadlock progress because of closed-mindedness and the refusal to ever admit anything wrong with their side. It is like cult behavior.

Bush got over 3 million more votes. Not as huge as this election, but honestly, no body was talking about Kerry back then.

And you don't find it funny that a guy was saying in a rigged election the votes would be split exactly 51/49, and then the results came out EXACTLY 51/49?

There are 300 million people in the US, 3 million coincides perfectly with the testimony about how voter fraud works.