»

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@T-Bone
I don't know anything about this Kerry guy.

I only know that you've little choice for your government.
3 if I'm correct:
Bush
Kerry
Nader

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. :-) these are the choices after the "runoffs" and are the result of previous choices, they arn't the choices themselves. That's like saying "everyone voted for #1 and #2, therefore these were the only choices"

Anyways, there are MANY people still running for President under other parties. you could still vote for the nominee for any party, not just the 2/3 that are in the news.

And to my opinion, Bush has made a mess. And they suggest that Kerry's the only opponent to Bush.

I agree he made a mess, but for different reasons. I don't like his Federalist stances or his fiscal policy.

And can you give me a source to verify that it is actually the public opinion what you state?

I didn't say he caved into public opinion, you did. I simply stated his position, as he stated he believes it. You said he only did it because of public opinion, so why are you asking me for evidence to support your statement?

[Fade]

@ Speelgoedmannetje

I only know that you've little choice for your government.
3 if I'm correct:
--------------------

There are two main political parties in the US, the Democratic and the Republican parties.

Over the years there have been large numbers of smaller third and fourth parties.

These smaller parties are usually a splinter group from one of the two larger parties that have an agenda aside from the main parties' platform.

Both the Democrats and Republicans hate these third parties because they usually only serve to split a majority vote that would have won, and allow the 2nd place party to win.

A very good example: Ross Peroit split the Republican party by getting 18 million votes, and allowed Bill Clinton to be elected without a majority.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I didn't say he caved into public opinion, you did. I simply stated his position, as he stated he believes it. You said he only did it because of public opinion, so why are you asking me for evidence to support your statement?

ehm, I was referring to this:

Kerry supports MANY controversial stances that public opinion disagrees with

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
I should point out that, most of the clean water was used to wash out the mouths of those whos tongues were being cut off.
But the good jobs of running the human shredder machines that used most of the electricity, are gone forever.

You should only point those things out if you want people to think that you are foolish enough to believe those things.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

ehm, I was referring to this:

That was a direct sequiter response to the above. You are asking me to support a disagreeing position to a position you haven't supported yet.

How am I supposed to do that? You have to make your case before I can refute it. How can I offer a rebutal in advance of the case it's in response to?


[edit- you're saying "I have nothing to support it, but X is probably true, prove me wrong"]

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@Fade
The Netherlands have dealt with this problem with building up our democracy.
You can read here how.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I made my case based upon the fact that they've changed the name of 'French fries' into 'Freedom fries'

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I made my case based upon the fact that they've changed the name of 'French fries' into 'Freedom fries'

Therefore Kerry didn't really agree with the war he voted for? Why do you think Kerry was really against the war, and Bush was really for it, even though both voted for it?

[Fade]

@ FluffyMcDeath
"You should only point those things out if you want people to think that you are foolish enough to believe those things."
--------------

Do you believe this?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@T-Bone
Because Bush said literally, either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.
That's why. And that's why our government voted for the war either.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@T-Bone
Because Bush said literally, either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.
That's why. And that's why our government voted for the war either.

I don't think you know who you're talking about. To say that Kerry, a decendant of Forbes, a friend of John. F Kennedy, a man who's been arrested for being involved in numerous protests and radical political movements, who appeared at political speeches with Jane Fonda, who denounced the POW/MIA issues in the wake of the Vietnam War (when it wasn't the IN thing to do anymore, the Rambo era), who has never backed down from any controversy, even when it's with members of his own party, (or even his personal friends!)... To say he "caved to public opinion" is rediculous and completely out of character.... *especially* when more poll-motivated people DID oppose the war.

I can't find any precidence that Kerry would succomb to public opinion... he certainly never has before, even if he had to be the sole dissenter which he has been on other issues, he hasn't caved, yet you think he caved here, when he would have been in the company of others voting with him? it makes no sense.

The only thing I can find is that you said "He probably did"., but he's never shown the "probability" from what I can see.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

TBH I don't know ANYTHING about this Kerry guy, I only pointed out what I suspect the political situation is in the US and why an opponent of Bush would agree with Bush on this particular case.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"You should only point those things out if you want people to think that you are foolish enough to believe those things."
--------------

Do you believe this?

Saddam was ruthless, and he had people tortured and killed. That much is known. However, it does nothing to subsrtantiate your statement that:

I should point out that, most of the clean water was used to wash out the mouths of those whos tongues were being cut off.
But the good jobs of running the human shredder machines that used most of the electricity, are gone forever.

Most of the clean water was not so used, neither most of the electricity.

[T_Bone]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

Saddam was ruthless, and he had people tortured and killed. That much is known. However, it does nothing to subsrtantiate your statement that:

Most of the clean water was not so used, neither most of the electricity.

Ok, but are you opposed to us sticking around to ensure it gets rebuilt? It sounds like you either were OK with the shredder machines, or us leaving right now without rebuilding... but not us sticking around to rebuild now that the shredders are gone :-?

-sdp

[Fade]

Well Fluffy, when you make statements like,

"This would probably be true if they also had the electricity, jobs, clean water and lack of civil war that they tended to have under Saddam.",

then you shouldn't complain when someone points out the absurdity of those statements, that some here might believe, by making absurd statements that are so obvious, that no one can believe them.

Remember there are some young impressionable people here, and we wouldn't want them to be exposed to Socialist propaganda, without at least getting a look at the other side of things.