PDA

View Full Version : Non Americans have a valid opinion on the USA election!


Philbo
Oct 7th, 2004, 02:36 AM
I cannot believe the attitude that some american posters have on the election when it comes to non-americans having an opinion! A few posters think people from outside the USA should shut up and stop interfering as if its none of our business.

Well it is our business.

My prime Minister John Howard lead the Australian military into war on the basis of outright lies because he is George Bush's little lapdog - Bush says Jump, Howard asks "How high"?

The outcome of the persidental election will affect, directly, or indirectly every person on this planet. The USA is heading in the direction of acquiring new, better nuclear weapons after decades of promoting nuclear NON proliferation. Bush has decided pre-emptive strikes against OTHER NATIONS NOT EVEN THREATENING the USA is ok, Bush has decided that telling the rest of the world (except Israel!!) that acquiring nuclear weapons is not okay for them, but ok for the USA - he has basically started up a new arms race.

So to I love Sharapova, PCRtennis and whoever else thinks outsiders should stay out and shut up - think again. I care more about Bush being ousted than Howard winning or losing, cuz in the big grand scheme of things, howard doesnt matter internationally but Bush is the most dangerous world leader in power today and the outcome of the presidential election will affect me directly.

Jeleno Benesovo
Oct 7th, 2004, 03:16 AM
Actually USA's election might impact more outside USA borders than inside USA... so why we shouldn't discuss about it?
howard doesnt matter internationally but Bush is the most dangerous world leader in power today and the outcome of the presidential election will affect me directly.
Agree, it will affect you and me and everybody else in the world, just see how high are the oil prices @ the moment... this is just ONE consequence of Iraq invasion.

Berlin_Calling
Oct 7th, 2004, 03:37 AM
I never said that non-Americans should not have an opinion. The thing that bothers me is when non-Americans think they know what is best for Americans, when they clearly don't.

AjdeNate!
Oct 7th, 2004, 03:42 AM
I never said that non-Americans should not have an opinion. The thing that bothers me is when non-Americans think they know what is best for Americans, when they clearly don't.
But clearly some Americans clearly don't either. :lol:

Cam'ron Giles
Oct 7th, 2004, 06:03 AM
I never said that non-Americans should not have an opinion. The thing that bothers me is when non-Americans think they know what is best for Americans, when they clearly don't.
I agree...Americans are the ones most imediatly affected by the person we chose to govern us. Everyone should have an opinion and should feel free to voice them...But I cant tell aussies what best for Australia...:shug:

Wigglytuff
Oct 7th, 2004, 06:21 AM
I never said that non-Americans should not have an opinion. The thing that bothers me is when non-Americans think they know what is best for Americans, when they clearly don't.

normal i wouldaggree some what

butwhen you have a none elected dicktator declaring war on independent countrys for the hell of it!!! the world has a right to be worried in fact its a miracle the world has not declared sanctions on the US.


1-dont give me this WMD crap, or this saddam is bad guy BS, because he was SANTA FUCKING CLAUSE compared with the leader of china and what he is doing to his people because the like to meditate. but of course since china lets american companies abuse its workers for pennies a day china is an ally not a human rights abuser!!!


EDIT: as for americans know what is best for themselves and their childern. when reports are released, as they were today that 42% believe saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, and the fact that 50% voted for bush, its kinda clear that half of them at least dont know whats best for themselves

unless of course they are down with war and unemployment? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

Bacardi
Oct 7th, 2004, 07:05 AM
But clearly some Americans clearly don't either. :lol:

No shit, like the ones that vote for Bush/Cheney.
Oh, I wish I had the stuff they were smoking, because hell it's good at creating a smoke screen so the world looks like roses and sunshine. :lol:

Bacardi
Oct 7th, 2004, 07:05 AM
The rest of the world has a right to voice it's opinion on who it wants in office in America because, indirectly and directly the USA influences the rest of the world. If you leave two war mongers in office (Bush/Cheney) the rest of the world's going to fear "who are they going to come after next?".

lakeway11
Oct 7th, 2004, 02:28 PM
The rest of the world has a right to voice it's opinion on who it wants in office in America because, indirectly and directly the USA influences the rest of the world. If you leave two war mongers in office (Bush/Cheney) the rest of the world's going to fear "who are they going to come after next?".

i hate to keep having to remind you 'Dani that the sanction policies of Clinton & Co. indirectly led to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children--in fact Clinton led all peers in having economic sanctions against countries...fear? and I'm sure the Serbs were in love with our former Prez as all of NATO....First, any war SHOULD BE authorized by Congress as delared in the Consititution so to put the blame all on Bush and let the Congress have a free pass in downright nonsensical! This mess has many more hands than than Bush & Cheney--much more

*Karen*
Oct 7th, 2004, 02:42 PM
America is so powerful. Whoever gets elected will have an effect on the rest of the world.

griffin
Oct 7th, 2004, 03:00 PM
I never said that non-Americans should not have an opinion. The thing that bothers me is when non-Americans think they know what is best for Americans, when they clearly don't.

I agree in principle, but considering how often America has decided "what's best" for other countries and imposed that decision by force...

I Love Sharapova
Oct 7th, 2004, 03:31 PM
Duly Noted


NOW HERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM IN THIS WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN!!!

It may very well be true that what happens here in the U.S affects everyone else. Have you ever and stopped to wonder why this is the case? While it is easy to simply say,"Well,America is the most powerful nation in the world,blah,blah,blah." The truth is that the issue runs very much deeper than that.
None of you other than Lakeway,myself and maybe two or three others have shown any interest or concern about the globalist movement in this world. While American politicians are certainly not excluded from this travesty of a movement, they by no means are as hept to the idea as the European politicians and population appears to be. :rolleyes:
Some people may say, "How can globalism be such a bad thing?" Well,I can list a good twenty things that globalism will cause if and when it takes place,but I think that it will be sufficient just to list a couple here. Hopefully you all will get the point.

1. A global government and economy would cause much unrest. Where would people identity go.A great many people,I know I certainly do, identify with the sovereignty of his/her country. If the world turns into this gigantic pangaea of one large "world country," what pride is there in that?

2. All a globalist type existence would do is leave the doors wide open for a one world dictator. So you fear Bush,eh? :scratch: I assure you, if people continue toward this mad dash to globalism the "days of Bush" will be looked upon with much nostalgia indeed. Does anyone doubt that Kerry is a globalist? I don't.
It is a fact that there is none other that the U.N would rather see as President of the U.S than Kerry. Why? :shrug: Fairly simple. Kerry would allow his decisions to be based upon what the "world" demands,not what the AMERICAN people demand!!! This I am wholeheartedly against and is one of the many reasons that I will not be casting my ballot for Mr.Kerry in November.

Who is presiding over the U.S elections this year? Who is the monitor? Guess. Think really,really hard. The United Nations Are!!!! Do you think the average American likes this? If you do, I have some ice covered land I'd like to sell you in Florida. Most Americans resent the fact that foreign powers are getting more and more involved in American politics.
However,that is the world we live in today.People think that a globalist government,economy,healthcare system,et cetera will be a "cure-all" for the world. Most people do not have the foresight to acknowledge how much of an evil globalism really is.

*JR*
Oct 7th, 2004, 03:43 PM
1. A global government and economy would cause much unrest. Where would people identity go.A great many people,I know I certainly do, identify with the sovereignty of his/her country. If the world turns into this gigantic pangea of one large "world country," what pride is there in that?
IC that your penchant for circular reasoning is as strong as ever. Lets accept that your words quoted here are correct. Does that make it right?

Ironically, the very same person (Joana) whose virtues I extolled in another thread can tell you firsthand about what happens when "national identity" becomes people's "be all and end all".

Wigglytuff
Oct 7th, 2004, 04:22 PM
u are a fool, not only are you a fool, are you a blind and rude fool.

first of all dont start with this "none of you" bullshit!! you didnt ask a single person on there thoughts on "globalism" before, like an ass, assume peoples take on it.

all most people said is that what happens in america affects other places and they did not, not for the most part, state whether they approve or dissapprove so who the fuck are you to assume shit in their stead?

and then 1- i have been in major opposition of this globalism since before a good number of the posters here were even born.
2-but lets get one thing straight, the UN has aboslutely no controll over the US, particularly US elections, to say so is just bullshit. posters with both a brain and a solid memory will recall that nearly ever nation in the UN was 100% opposed to this war in IRAQ, did the UN us this magic hibby jibby power to stop that rogue nation from undertaking an unjust war and killing thousands of iraqis and getting hundreds of its own bravest YOUNG, and usually POOR men killed? where was this magic power of the UN then?
3-you mentioned "sovereignty" in big bold letters, you mean like the kind that IRAQ once had before the US army invaded it for no reason?
4-
"2. All a globalist type existence would do is leave the doors wide open for a one world dictator. So you fear Bush,eh? I assure you, if people continue toward this mad dash to globalism the "days of Bush" will be looked upon with much nostalgia indeed. Does anyone doubt that Kerry is a globalist? I don't.
It is a fact that there is none other that the U.N would rather see as President of the U.S than Kerry. Why? Fairly simple. Kerry would allow his decisions to be based upon what the "world" demands,not what the AMERICAN people demand!!! This I am wholeheartedly against and is one of the many reasons that I will not be casting my ballot for Mr.Kerry in November.:"

wow talkabout complete lack of reason!!! and full of bullshit.

1- the american people, deserve SOME credit, they did NOT support the war in iraq for no reason, they were mislead by bush intobelieve there was some connection between saddam and bin laden, i've not seen anything the suggest they even met, but MEANWHILE THE BUSHES HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE WITH THE BIN LADENS AND EVEN ESCORTED THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOLLOWING 9/11. and yes that is in the 9/11 commision report!!
2-AS for what kerry would allow its called DIPLOMACY!!!

5-the us is not some victim of globalisation, not even in the least instead the US has been oneof its most serious pushers! bush gives special tax discounts to companies that out source their jobs, THATS GLOBALIZATION. Globalization it the WENDYS or MCD in india, honduras and what have you.

6-its clear from your post that you lacknotonly foresight but hindersight as well because if you recall,as i am sure you dont, the outpouring of global love on and after 9/11, the willingness of the UN to provide theUS with anything it might need. andwhat happened? some big mouthsmall brain texan told them to fuckoff, letbin laden escape a number of times, and invaded the YES sovereign nation of iraq.



i am not saying that the UN has a right to control the US, or even that globalism is all good or all evil, because its nots, i am saying, WE ARE SMART POSTERS HERE, LIES AND DISTORTIONS THAT WORK ELSEWERE WILL NOT WORK HERE.

YOU MAY HAVE A POINT, address it without all this extra bullshit.


Duly Noted


NOW HERE IS THE REAL PROBLEM IN THIS WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN!!!

It may very well be true that what happens here in the U.S affects everyone else. Have you ever and stopped to wonder why this is the case? While it is easy to simply say,"Well,America is the most powerful nation in the world,blah,blah,blah." The truth is that the issue runs very much deeper than that.
None of you other than Lakeway,myself and maybe two or three others have shown any interest or concern about the globalist movement in this world. While American politicians are certainly not excluded from this travesty of a movement, they by no means are as hept to the idea as the European politicians and population appears to be. :rolleyes:
Some people may say, "How can globalism be such a bad thing?" Well,I can list a good twenty things that globalism will cause if and when it takes place,but I think that it will be sufficient just to list a couple here. Hopefully you all will get the point.

1. A global government and economy would cause much unrest. Where would people identity go.A great many people,I know I certainly do, identify with the sovereignty of his/her country. If the world turns into this gigantic pangea of one large "world country," what pride is there in that?

2. All a globalist type existence would do is leave the doors wide open for a one world dictator. So you fear Bush,eh? :scratch: I assure you, if people continue toward this mad dash to globalism the "days of Bush" will be looked upon with much nostalgia indeed. Does anyone doubt that Kerry is a globalist? I don't.
It is a fact that there is none other that the U.N would rather see as President of the U.S than Kerry. Why? :shrug: Fairly simple. Kerry would allow his decisions to be based upon what the "world" demands,not what the AMERICAN people demand!!! This I am wholeheartedly against and is one of the many reasons that I will not be casting my ballot for Mr.Kerry in November.

Who is presiding over the U.S elections this year? Who is the monitor? Guess. Think really,really hard. The United Nations Are!!!! Do you think the average like this? If you do, I have some ice covered land I'd like to sell you in Florida. Most Americans resent the fact that foreign powers are getting more and more involved in American politics.
However,that is the world we live in today.People think that a globalist government,economy,healthcare system,et cetera will be a "cure-all" for the world. Most people do not have the foresight to acknowledge how much of an evil globalism really is.

I Love Sharapova
Oct 7th, 2004, 04:37 PM
Democrats want U.N. to keep an eye on presidential election
The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 07/03/2004 | Todd J. Gillman


Posted on 07/03/2004 11:48:37 AM PDT by webster


Democrats want U.N. to keep an eye on presidential election

By Todd J. Gillman Knight Ridder News Service

WASHINGTON -- A group of congressional Democrats led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas has asked the United Nations to monitor this year's presidential election. "We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy," the lawmakers wrote to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. While the request might evoke images of blue-helmeted peacekeepers outside the local library, the request won't be granted. "Generally, the United Nations does not intervene in electoral affairs unless the request comes from a national government or an electoral authority -- not the legislative branch," said U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe. Because the U.N. Charter bars violations of sovereignty, the State Department, or perhaps the Federal Election Commission, would have to invite observers. Monitoring would have to be approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly. None of the five permanent Security Council members has ever been subjected to such monitoring, officials said. The biggest undertaking was in South Africa, population 43 million, a decade ago when apartheid fell. The rule of thumb is one observer for each 100 polling sites. Johnson aides call the request justified. Her letter points to "widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement" in Florida and other states in 2000, and it cites an April report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that found potential for "significant problems" this year

Wigglytuff
Oct 7th, 2004, 06:35 PM
whats your point?

that the republicans were right to turn 200,000 black men from the polls in florida for no reason?

personally, i dont think the UN has done shit to protect the poor and disenfranchised in america from the claws of those in power.

the UN, i am starting to believe is really a joke, as least as far as the us is concerned. it did nothing to protect blacks durning the 2000, or 2002 elections in florida and its stupid to believe they will do anything now.

as far as i know the UN has never once stepped in to aide blacks in america, not during the civil rights movement, not in the 2002 elections in florida when a town of 10,000 was allowed to cast 100,000 votes almost all for republicans, not at any other time.

Democrats want U.N. to keep an eye on presidential election
The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 07/03/2004 | Todd J. Gillman


Posted on 07/03/2004 11:48:37 AM PDT by webster


Democrats want U.N. to keep an eye on presidential election

By Todd J. Gillman Knight Ridder News Service

WASHINGTON -- A group of congressional Democrats led by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas has asked the United Nations to monitor this year's presidential election. "We are deeply concerned that the right of U.S. citizens to vote in free and fair elections is again in jeopardy," the lawmakers wrote to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. While the request might evoke images of blue-helmeted peacekeepers outside the local library, the request won't be granted. "Generally, the United Nations does not intervene in electoral affairs unless the request comes from a national government or an electoral authority -- not the legislative branch," said U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe. Because the U.N. Charter bars violations of sovereignty, the State Department, or perhaps the Federal Election Commission, would have to invite observers. Monitoring would have to be approved by the Security Council or the General Assembly. None of the five permanent Security Council members has ever been subjected to such monitoring, officials said. The biggest undertaking was in South Africa, population 43 million, a decade ago when apartheid fell. The rule of thumb is one observer for each 100 polling sites. Johnson aides call the request justified. Her letter points to "widespread allegations of voter disenfranchisement" in Florida and other states in 2000, and it cites an April report from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that found potential for "significant problems" this year

I Love Sharapova
Oct 7th, 2004, 08:22 PM
u are a fool, not only are you a fool, are you a blind and rude fool.

first of all dont start with this "none of you" bullshit!! you didnt ask a single person on there thoughts on "globalism" before, like an ass, assume peoples take on it.

all most people said is that what happens in america affects other places and they did not, not for the most part, state whether they approve or dissapprove so who the fuck are you to assume shit in their stead?

and then 1- i have been in major opposition of this globalism since before a good number of the posters here were even born.
2-but lets get one thing straight, the UN has aboslutely no controll over the US, particularly US elections, to say so is just bullshit. posters with both a brain and a solid memory will recall that nearly ever nation in the UN was 100% opposed to this war in IRAQ, did the UN us this magic hibby jibby power to stop that rogue nation from undertaking an unjust war and killing thousands of iraqis and getting hundreds of its own bravest YOUNG, and usually POOR men killed? where was this magic power of the UN then?
3-you mentioned "sovereignty" in big bold letters, you mean like the kind that IRAQ once had before the US army invaded it for no reason?
4-
"2. All a globalist type existence would do is leave the doors wide open for a one world dictator. So you fear Bush,eh? I assure you, if people continue toward this mad dash to globalism the "days of Bush" will be looked upon with much nostalgia indeed. Does anyone doubt that Kerry is a globalist? I don't.
It is a fact that there is none other that the U.N would rather see as President of the U.S than Kerry. Why? Fairly simple. Kerry would allow his decisions to be based upon what the "world" demands,not what the AMERICAN people demand!!! This I am wholeheartedly against and is one of the many reasons that I will not be casting my ballot for Mr.Kerry in November.:"

wow talkabout complete lack of reason!!! and full of bullshit.

1- the american people, deserve SOME credit, they did NOT support the war in iraq for no reason, they were mislead by bush intobelieve there was some connection between saddam and bin laden, i've not seen anything the suggest they even met, but MEANWHILE THE BUSHES HAVE BEEN VERY CLOSE WITH THE BIN LADENS AND EVEN ESCORTED THEM OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOLLOWING 9/11. and yes that is in the 9/11 commision report!!
2-AS for what kerry would allow its called DIPLOMACY!!!

5-the us is not some victim of globalisation, not even in the least instead the US has been oneof its most serious pushers! bush gives special tax discounts to companies that out source their jobs, THATS GLOBALIZATION. Globalization it the WENDYS or MCD in india, honduras and what have you.

6-its clear from your post that you lacknotonly foresight but hindersight as well because if you recall,as i am sure you dont, the outpouring of global love on and after 9/11, the willingness of the UN to provide theUS with anything it might need. andwhat happened? some big mouthsmall brain texan told them to fuckoff, letbin laden escape a number of times, and invaded the YES sovereign nation of iraq.



i am not saying that the UN has a right to control the US, or even that globalism is all good or all evil, because its nots, i am saying, WE ARE SMART POSTERS HERE, LIES AND DISTORTIONS THAT WORK ELSEWERE WILL NOT WORK HERE.

YOU MAY HAVE A POINT, address it without all this extra bullshit.
To be honest,Jiggly,I don't have the time nor the patience for your indignation. :wavey:

Helen Lawson
Oct 7th, 2004, 08:28 PM
I don't get into politics, but I totally hate it when someone tells me how I should vote on the Oscars. I'm like, I won the fucking thing, it's my vote, not yours. Go win your own damn Oscar and then you can vote like me. Until then, piss off!

Wigglytuff
Oct 7th, 2004, 08:53 PM
To be honest,Jiggly,I don't have the time nor the patience for your indignation. :wavey:

of course not. back up what you say??? why NEVER THAT! :rolleyes:

neither does GWB:

Some blame 'bubble' for poor Bush debating

Thu Oct 7, 5:02 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! U.S. National - AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some critics and supporters of US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) agree on an intriguing explanation for his poor showing in his first debate with Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites): Blame it on the White House "bubble."

The term refers to the protective layers of aides, spokespeople, Secret Service security and supporters that encase the modern US president, keeping reporters, hecklers and threats away from the chief executive.

Even allowing for heightened protection around him in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush has taken unusual pains to insulate himself from hard questions from those who disagree with him.

He has held fewer press conferences than any modern president -- including his father, former president George Bush (news - web sites) -- and aides who disagreed publicly with him have generally recanted swiftly and humbly or left the administration.

At least one senior campaign adviser, speaking two days before the first Bush-Kerry debate, seemed to suggest that Bush's considerable debating skills might be rusty from lack of use since taking office in January 2001.

"Presidents tend to listen and make decisions; they don't engage in debates with their opponents or really with anyone else. They listen and make decisions," Karen Hughes told Fox News Channel on September 28.

Many media analysts, including some who scored the first debate as a draw, noted that the camera caught the president frequently looking bored, annoyed, unsettled or distracted during Kerry's attacks on his leadership.

"Bush has been living in a bubble for too long," Richard Reeves, who proclaimed Kerry the winner last week, wrote in the Charleston Gazette.

"What's wrong with him? I would say he has a bad case of Ovalitis - an ear infection endemic to the Oval Office. Sit there long enough, and you don't hear anything you don't want to hear," according to Reeves.

Bush on Wednesday blamed his facial expressions on what he said were Kerry's constantly shifting or even contradictory views on Iraq (news - web sites), saying: "You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face."

But the president rarely hears a discouraging word, as he is largely isolated from critics, reporters, bad news, and a public deeply divided over the March 2003 Iraq invasion to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

One of his reelection campaign's staple events is dubbed "Ask President Bush (news - web sites)," a session in which he takes questions from friendly audiences of campaign aides and carefully screened supporters with nary a heckler in sight.

The first question at one such event on October 4 was a good example of the feedback he typically gets: "Mr President, first, we just want to tell you that we pray for you every night as our President."

Bush has repeatedly declared that he mostly ignores newspaper coverage, telling Fox News television in September 2003 that he prefers to "get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves."

"The best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world," he said in an interview.

Bush's jokes about his facial expressions at a rally in the up-for-grabs state of Pennsylvania Wednesday suggested that his loyal cadre of aides had, in fact, told him about his poor reviews.

-----------

but somehow, while not having the time to effectively challenge those who disagree with your world views, both of you have plenty of time to post lies and simple bullshit.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mariangelina
Oct 7th, 2004, 11:32 PM
:worship: to Czechfan for starting this thread.

I'm not a globalism fan, partly because realistically it's more like let's-Westernise-the-whole-world-ism, if you'll pardon the hyphens. But what on earth does globalism have to do with civil diplomatic relations with other countries and other people having opinions?

I can't vote in the American election- hell, I can't vote in the Canadian election either because someone imposed an age limit. :fiery: I certainly can't know definitively what's best for Americans, but I can make a pretty good guess, and I certainly have my feelings about what result would be better for the rest of the world.

The American government sure thought they could decide what was best for Iraqis, didn't they? :lol: Like it or not, you may be powerful, but you don't have some exalted status hanging over you. Globalism is not a good thing, IMO, but neither is pissing off 9/10 of the world's sovereign nations. It's very possible to conserve your sovereign national identity while accepting the opinions of others and not being an asshole.

Rocketta
Oct 7th, 2004, 11:46 PM
all I can say is I hope all these people who want Americans to respect their opinions does the same when an American gives their opinion about their country. I've seen many a time when an American tries to give an opinion on another country said people of that country tell them they don't know what they are talking about....Americans don't know nothing about other countries other than America and blah blah blah.

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 12:13 AM
all I can say is I hope all these people who want Americans to respect their opinions does the same when an American gives their opinion about their country. I've seen many a time when an American tries to give an opinion on another country said people of that country tell them they don't know what they are talking about....Americans don't know nothing about other countries other than America and blah blah blah.
:clap2: :yeah:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 12:16 AM
of course not. back up what you say??? why NEVER THAT! :rolleyes:

neither does GWB:

Some blame 'bubble' for poor Bush debating

Thu Oct 7, 5:02 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! U.S. National - AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Some critics and supporters of US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) agree on an intriguing explanation for his poor showing in his first debate with Democratic rival John Kerry (news - web sites): Blame it on the White House "bubble."

The term refers to the protective layers of aides, spokespeople, Secret Service security and supporters that encase the modern US president, keeping reporters, hecklers and threats away from the chief executive.

Even allowing for heightened protection around him in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush has taken unusual pains to insulate himself from hard questions from those who disagree with him.

He has held fewer press conferences than any modern president -- including his father, former president George Bush (news - web sites) -- and aides who disagreed publicly with him have generally recanted swiftly and humbly or left the administration.

At least one senior campaign adviser, speaking two days before the first Bush-Kerry debate, seemed to suggest that Bush's considerable debating skills might be rusty from lack of use since taking office in January 2001.

"Presidents tend to listen and make decisions; they don't engage in debates with their opponents or really with anyone else. They listen and make decisions," Karen Hughes told Fox News Channel on September 28.

Many media analysts, including some who scored the first debate as a draw, noted that the camera caught the president frequently looking bored, annoyed, unsettled or distracted during Kerry's attacks on his leadership.

"Bush has been living in a bubble for too long," Richard Reeves, who proclaimed Kerry the winner last week, wrote in the Charleston Gazette.

"What's wrong with him? I would say he has a bad case of Ovalitis - an ear infection endemic to the Oval Office. Sit there long enough, and you don't hear anything you don't want to hear," according to Reeves.

Bush on Wednesday blamed his facial expressions on what he said were Kerry's constantly shifting or even contradictory views on Iraq (news - web sites), saying: "You hear all that and you can understand why somebody would make a face."

But the president rarely hears a discouraging word, as he is largely isolated from critics, reporters, bad news, and a public deeply divided over the March 2003 Iraq invasion to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

One of his reelection campaign's staple events is dubbed "Ask President Bush (news - web sites)," a session in which he takes questions from friendly audiences of campaign aides and carefully screened supporters with nary a heckler in sight.

The first question at one such event on October 4 was a good example of the feedback he typically gets: "Mr President, first, we just want to tell you that we pray for you every night as our President."

Bush has repeatedly declared that he mostly ignores newspaper coverage, telling Fox News television in September 2003 that he prefers to "get briefed by people who probably read the news themselves."

"The best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world," he said in an interview.

Bush's jokes about his facial expressions at a rally in the up-for-grabs state of Pennsylvania Wednesday suggested that his loyal cadre of aides had, in fact, told him about his poor reviews.

-----------

but somehow, while not having the time to effectively challenge those who disagree with your world views, both of you have plenty of time to post lies and simple bullshit.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why should I argue with you,Jiggly.? If you were truly an anti-globalist,as you claimed to be, then you would have no reason to deride me. Your words speak volumes,Jiggly. :rolleyes:

Celeste
Oct 8th, 2004, 12:44 AM
I think everyone's opinion is valid, but as an American, I do take offense to non-Americans claiming that Bush supporters, or those planning to or considering voting for Bush, in America are "stupid" or "white trash" when they don't even live here or know what's going on here. There's this sense that they know what's better for us than we do and we're too dumb to know the difference. And they call Americans arrogant! Coming from people who don't even live here and make their judgments on a few things, that's a little hard to take. If you're not American, you have a valid opinion, the US certainly is the huge and biggest force in the world, but a non-American can't tell me I'm stupid because I'm voting for someone they don't like. They don't live here or know what my life is like based on who is the President. Other countries have an effect here, I would never dream of telling someone French, Russian, Belgian, German, whatever, that they are stupid, "white trash" or the like based on who they are voting for in their own countries' elections. It's not my place and I don't live there.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 12:55 AM
Why should I argue with you,Jiggly.? If you were truly an anti-globalist,as you claimed to be, then you would have no reason to deride me. Your words speak volumes,Jiggly. :rolleyes:

you sure are posting alot for some who claims they have not the time?

never said i was anti-globalism, i did say you like to put worlds in peoples mouths though! thanks for taking the time, which you said you didnt have, to prove my point. :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

i said that it is neither all-good nor all-evil. what in fact,

EDIT: i stated that your idea of "globalism" isnt globalism at all its diplomancy, real globalism is a different story. real globalism is mattel factories in the worlds poorest countries, and of that you mentioned nothing. :) :

Berlin_Calling
Oct 8th, 2004, 12:57 AM
I think everyone's opinion is valid, but as an American, I do take offense to non-Americans claiming that Bush supporters, or those planning to or considering voting for Bush, in America are "stupid" or "white trash" when they don't even live here or know what's going on here. There's this sense that they know what's better for us than we do and we're too dumb to know the difference. And they call Americans arrogant! Coming from people who don't even live here and make their judgments on a few things, that's a little hard to take. If you're not American, you have a valid opinion, the US certainly is the huge and biggest force in the world, but a non-American can't tell me I'm stupid because I'm voting for someone they don't like. They don't live here or know what my life is like based on who is the President. Other countries have an effect here, I would never dream of telling someone French, Russian, Belgian, German, whatever, that they are stupid, "white trash" or the like based on who they are voting for in their own countries' elections. It's not my place and I don't live there.
Amen :worship::worship:

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 01:37 AM
What a load of cobblewash! John Howard is no 'lapdog' of George Bush. John Howard had a tough desicion to make and as a leader and with the intention of strengthening the tie with our allies of Britain and USA he decided to put ourselves into the war. Do you know what would happen if we had not? If we hadn't entered the war and for some reason our Country was attacked do you think those countries which we just abandoned would be inclined to come support us? People are forgetting that whether or not the reason for the war was valid, the fact that Saddam is out of leadership IS A GOOD THING for the entire world!
What is your definition of 'allies'?

My definition of an ally is one that means BOTH parties have a say, an opinion.

Australia has been a staunch ally of the USA from as far back as WW1 - we have basically been there WHENEVER the USA has wanted or needed us there.

So if John Howard had a backbone and said to George Bush " Look we agree with what you did in Afghanistan, we totally support that but my electorate back home is split 50/50 on Iraq, the evidence of WMD's isnt very strong, the UN doesnt support it, the international community isnt very supportive - Id prefer we sit this one out" - do you think that would undo the last 100 odd years of freindship between the USA and Australia??

If Indonesia attacked do you think AMerica would just hold a grudge about Iraq, forget about WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea etc etc and sit back and watch??

Definitely not. And if they did, then what sort of freind does it make the USA? Not a friend at all, but a DICATORIAL REGIME THAT TELLS AUSTRALIA WHAT TO DO AND DOESNT LET AUSTRALIA DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR AUSTRALIA.

The way you've swallowed the absolute bullshit spin Howard has put on HIS erroneous decision to invade Iraq is quite sickening. Do you question anything at all he says, or do you just submit to the fear and scare tactics they use??

ooooooh, Mark Latham said something NEGATIVE about the USA, AARRGHGHHGHGHHG the Alliance is at risk the alliance is at risk - if we get attacked we're DOOMED!!!

That sort of fear is so pathetic, and if the USA is such an AUTHORATIVE 'friend' that it would banish us for diagreeing with them one time then their freindship can go to hell - we should jsut become the 54th state of the USA and vote in their elections.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 01:53 AM
Ayla - Answer my question about what an allie is - dont you think we have the right to choose what conflicts we should get involved in and what ones we shouldnt?

Or are we just at the mercy of USA or Britain and whenever they decide to go to war, we MUST go as well?? Thats just bullshit.

The fact is Ayla that as time goes on, the decision to invade Iraq is being judged more and more harshly.

THe UN believes it was ILLEGAL according to internationa law - the USA thought they would be WELCOMED AS LIBERATORS - laughing my fucking ass off at that one - they've now lost over 1000 troops with no end in sight, the elections will be a farace - the USA's own analyst are saying that civil war is a LIKELY posssibilty and the best case scenario isa very tentative stability with continued attacks against coalition forces.

Iraq may not even be capable of democracy with the different tribes and factions all so full of animosty toward each other.

Ayla you are BRILLIANT at swallowing the spin the warmongers put on their decision - forget the fact that the main REASON for going to war was bullshit, No WMD's?? he No MATTER, he was a bad guy anyway!!!

Nevermind that the USA basically dealt the UN's credibility a HUGE blow and set the standard for EVERY other country to invade another country on the basis of a HUNCH, a SUSPICION of impending danger!!

You must really value your tax breaks etc for you to look past all that and judge Howard as a brave, good leader...

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:04 AM
Jigglypuff,I beg to differ,you did say that you were anti-globalist. Look here, you said, "i have been in major opposition of this globalism since before a good number of the posters here were even born." Go back and look at your first post,Jiggly. Have a great day now,bye!!

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:06 AM
What the hell are you talking about fear? It is called common sense ..... there was nothing wrong with the war, Saddam was a ruthless leader and needed to be brought down. There were no WMD ok fine but Saddam in himself is a bloody threat and needed to go.
John Howard made a decision if he hadn't of gone Australia wouldve been the cowards. Do you honestly think any leader of Australia would not agree to go to war. Latham says he wouldnt but you are obviously buying into his bullshit.
And don't tell me what I fear because I don't at all fear or submit to the scare tactics they use. Your little "waht howard should have done" statement is just stupid. This is one of the biggest world issues of recent time and Howard was meant to say "we are gonna sit this one out" .... whateva ...... Gee maybe we should just elect you, you seem to have a firm grasp of the importance of the situation :rolleyes:

can you please post concrete evidence that hussein was a direct andpresent threat to the us? because i have not seen any... however i am open to new evidence and new ideas.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:18 AM
Jigglypuff,I beg to differ,you did say that you were anti-globalist. Look here, you said, "i have been in major opposition of this globalism since before a good number of the posters here were even born." Go back and look at your first post,Jiggly. Have a great day now,bye!!

HAHA!!! i could go into the idea, that what you call globalism isnt globalism at all. but whats the point, when you partically had a little orgasm over that.

now that you caught me lets talk about all the bullshit and lies ineach of your posts, my fav is how you dont have time to chat but yet you have been replying for some 11 hours. 11 hours is alot for someone who cant reply to any post head onbecause "they dont have time"

you could just say that you didnt know how to face all your shit beening called on.

call me on mine, i will just admitt. (see above).

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:18 AM
There were no WMD ok fine but Saddam in himself is a bloody threat and needed to go.
John Howard made a decision if he hadn't of gone Australia wouldve been the cowards.
Ayla - there you go, thats where you said it... Who was he a threat to?? The USA?? If so please post the evidence..

Oops, thats right..Even Don Rumsfeld disagrees with you now!!

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:22 AM
can you please show me where I said Saddam was a threat to the us? because i so not see where i wrote that ... however i am open to new evidence and new ideas.

there is a qoute post button: USE IT.

also, learn from my mistake :devil: :tape: :lol: :bounce: :devil: :o , reread your posts:

There were no WMD ok fine but Saddam in himself is a bloody threat and needed to go.
John Howard made a decision if he hadn't of gone Australia wouldve been the cowards.

StarDuvallGrant
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:23 AM
I cannot believe the attitude that some american posters have on the election when it comes to non-americans having an opinion! A few posters think people from outside the USA should shut up and stop interfering as if its none of our business.

Well it is our business.

My prime Minister John Howard lead the Australian military into war on the basis of outright lies because he is George Bush's little lapdog - Bush says Jump, Howard asks "How high"?


Your prime minister is the one to blame here. He needed to do more than just listen or be persuaded by Bush and his manipulations. He is after all, prime minister.

I think it is interesting and necessary to read, hear what people from outside the United States have to say. A variety in voice and opinion sometimes can get you to the true picture and nature of reality.

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:24 AM
Let me clarify something for some of you. Firstly, there is a big difference between diplomacy and giving in to the demands of foreign powers. Let's be honest,the biggest beef most of you have with America right now is because we did not play by the "rules" i.e U.N regulations. :rolleyes: Now,that being the case it would seem that most of you are not talking about diplomacy but about America kissing the ass of a foreign power which knows little if anything about America.
Now,I am certainly not going to justify the Iraq war. There is probably no justification for it other than ousting a Dictator. However, when someone says that America should concede to the demands of foreign countries,I don't care if it's one or one hundred and one countries demanding something, I think they are talking directly out of their arseholes. Most of you are from countries which have probably never even had to deal with terrorism.When the bastards are standing at your backdoor, then come tell me what you think should be done.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:27 AM
I think they are talking directly out of their arseholes. Most of you are from countries which have probably never even had to deal with terrorism.When the bastards are standing at your backdoor, then come tell me what you think should be done.
Over 70 Australians died in a bomb attack in bali by Jemaah islamiyah (who are supporters or Al Queda and the main terrorist org in the south pacific), our embassy in Jakarta was bombed weeks ago by Islamic terrorists - so dont act as if USA is the only country that has been affected by terrorism.

StarDuvallGrant
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:27 AM
all I can say is I hope all these people who want Americans to respect their opinions does the same when an American gives their opinion about their country. I've seen many a time when an American tries to give an opinion on another country said people of that country tell them they don't know what they are talking about....Americans don't know nothing about other countries other than America and blah blah blah.


When around 40% of Americans think that Saddam had something to do with the September 11th attacks and has WMD's, I wonder if Americans even know that much about America period let alone politics and news about the rest of the world. The problem I see with American's trying to give opinions on other countries is tone; condescension and the finality of right and wrong. Everyone has an opinion, and they'll give it.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:29 AM
Let me clarify something for some of you. Firstly, there is a big difference between diplomacy and giving in to the demands of foreign powers. Let's be honest,the biggest beef most of you have with America right now is because we did not play by the "rules" i.e U.N regulations. :rolleyes: Now,that being the case it would seem that most of you are not talking about diplomacy but about America kissing the ass of a foreign power which knows little if anything about America.
Now,I am certainly not going to justify the Iraq war. There is probably no justification for it other than ousting a Dictator. However, when someone says that America should concede to the demands of foreign countries,I don't care if it's one or one hundred and one countries demanding something, I think they are talking directly out of their arseholes. Most of you are from countries which have probably never even had to deal with terrorism.When the bastards are standing at your backdoor, then come tell me what you think should be done.

again asked you before to show evidence that anyone was giving up to demands of theUN. hell i asked to show evidence that theUN has any power to DEMAND anything?

2-but lets get one thing straight, the UN has aboslutely no controll over the US, particularly US elections, to say so is just bullshit. posters with both a brain and a solid memory will recall that nearly ever nation in the UN was 100% opposed to this war in IRAQ, did the UN use this magic hibby jibby power to stop that rogue nation from undertaking an unjust war and killing thousands of iraqis and getting hundreds of its own bravest YOUNG, and usually POOR men killed? where was this magic power of the UN then?


as for your ignorant statement WHERE YOU AGIAN JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS AND ASSUME SHIT ABOUT OTHER POSTERS.

i have been in nyc most ofmy life and was here for bothWTC bombings so dont talk to me about "terrah" being at your backdoor

StarDuvallGrant
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:31 AM
Let me clarify something for some of you. Firstly, there is a big difference between diplomacy and giving in to the demands of foreign powers. Let's be honest,the biggest beef most of you have with America right now is because we did not play by the "rules" i.e U.N regulations. :rolleyes: Now,that being the case it would seem that most of you are not talking about diplomacy but about America kissing the ass of a foreign power which knows little if anything about America.
Now,I am certainly not going to justify the Iraq war. There is probably no justification for it other than ousting a Dictator. However, when someone says that America should concede to the demands of foreign countries,I don't care if it's one or one hundred and one countries demanding something, I think they are talking directly out of their arseholes. Most of you are from countries which have probably never even had to deal with terrorism.When the bastards are standing at your backdoor, then come tell me what you think should be done.

Considering September 11th was the first major terrorist attack on US soil what experience are you saying America has with terrorism? The simple fact that America couldn't even fathom the idea of the why's of the attacks leads to the ignorance that America still has to today.

In matters of kissing ass, are personal relations something that is out of order? How do you expect world leaders and countries to deal with each other? Only by insults, demands of actual kissing ass or threats - you are either with us or against us ring a bell? I didn't know that was the American way.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:35 AM
I NEVER said he was a threat to the "US" ...... so maybe you should reread your posts :rolleyes:
:devil: :tape: :lol: :bounce: :devil: :o
:devil: :tape: :lol: :bounce: :devil: :o
:devil: :tape: :lol: :bounce: :devil: :o


..... :rolleyes:
Who were you referring to exactly? The world en general but not the USA?

You've backed yourself into a corner but instead of admitting hey, I might be wrong you are just doing what Bush and howard are both doing - refusing to admit mistakes and hoping the public will believe the bullshit spin.

"hey he was a bad guy anyway"!~!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:37 AM
I am luaghing my ass off at some of you.I have never seen such utter stupidity. Why should America wait to be attacked again? Just because it is only the "first time" for America to be hit proves nothing. What,should we become like Israel and become a setting duck? That certainly is not the American way.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:42 AM
Thats right Ayla, you cant think of anything else to write to explain WHO you referring to when you said Saddam was a threat so instead run away..

Thanks :)

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:46 AM
I am fully aware I said he was a threat :rolleyes: but I never said to USA ..... do you read minds now?

i have already said that SADDAM and a pratical santa clause compared to the leader of china and what he does to people for doing this:

http://www.falundafa.org/images/falundafa_image_header.jpg

i cant even post pictures ofthe abuse but you can look at them here
http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2004/9/1/51972.html

and thats only tip the ice burg, not just in china but in other countries.

how do you decided which unelected dictator to go after? and why?

what makes what the people of china are going through less important?

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

now i am not saying that you personally make these choices,i am asking how you're logic justifies those that do?

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:49 AM
its a pretty easy question for you to answer..Who was Saddam a threat to? Not the USA? * shaking my head in disbelief..*

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:50 AM
I am luaghing my ass off at some of you.I have never seen such utter stupidity. Why should America wait to be attacked again? Just because it is only the "first time" for America to be hit proves nothing. What,should we become like Israel and become a setting duck? That certainly is not the American way.


please qoute the person who said"america should wait tobe attacked again" since, you might not be good at reply when you get called on your bullshit, but you are great at looking up qoutes.

IF SOMEONE SAID IT, I TRUST YOU TO FIND IT!! :kiss: :kiss: :wavey:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:50 AM
I will say this much,I think countries such as North Korea and china are much bigger threat to the U.S than Iraq.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:51 AM
Great post jigglypuff...

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:53 AM
Considering September 11th was the first major terrorist attack on US soil what experience are you saying America has with terrorism?
Right here,Mrs.Jiggly It was not outrightly said,but implied. :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: ;) :rolleyes:

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:54 AM
I will say this much,I think countries such as North Korea and china are much bigger threat to the U.S than Iraq.

Exactly... So why isnt the USA launching pre-emtive strikes on those countries?

The hypocrisy of the USA, Australia, England and anyone else in the coalition is sickening...

Their reason for going to war has been proven to be lies. But they clutch at straws and cling to the line of 'he was a bad guy anyway'...well there are MANY more bad guys...who will they go for next and on what basis will they do that?

John Howard will just wait for bush to decide then jump and say "yes sir' when asked for help...after all, we cant upset the alliance can we Ayla??

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:55 AM
Ayla - You've been soundly dealt with, I bet you wished you never typed that line now hey!!

Just like Bush and howard wishthey'd never told the world the SAME bullshit!!! hehehe

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:56 AM
Oh maybe we should go to war against them too ... I think so ..... Jiggles you can write the letter to the President .... Czechfan .... you can post it .... I will sit and look pretty .... ok ..... set!

thats the reply i excepted: NONE

because you didnt answer it the first time here it is again,only bigger:

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

hmmmm somehow i think the issue wont be addressed head on.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:57 AM
Ayla - ive already shown you where you said Saddam was a threat, considering the overall debate going on here involving the USA, it was pretty logical to assume you meant the USA...

IVe asked you 5 times to clarify what you meant and you cant, cuz you typed it without thinking - just swallowing the crap Georgie and Johnnie feed you...But when taken to ask and asked to prove it, you just run away and say 'ive had enough' but you are still in the thread posting!!

So very transparent....

StarDuvallGrant
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:58 AM
Right here,Mrs.Jiggly It was not outrightly said,but implied. :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: ;) :rolleyes:


Reading and comprehension don't seem to go along in the American way either :rolleyes:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:59 AM
thats the reply i excepted: NONE

because you didnt answer it the first time here it is again,only bigger:

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

hmmmm somehow i think the issue wont be addressed head on.
Obnoxious ass!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:03 AM
since you urself are so good at quoting :rolleyes: Im still waiting for my quote about Saddam being a threat TO THE US .....

IF SOMEONE SAID IT, I TRUST YOU TO FIND IT!! :kiss: :kiss: :wavey:

your brain is on vacation, you have been qouted, and REPLIED

here it is again for your viewing pleasure:

There were no WMD ok fine but Saddam in himself is a bloody threat and needed to go.
John Howard made a decision if he hadn't of gone Australia wouldve been the cowards.
Ayla - there you go, thats where you said it... Who was he a threat to?? The USA?? If so please post the evidence..

Oops, thats right..Even Don Rumsfeld disagrees with you now!!
I NEVER said he was a threat to the "US" ...... so maybe you should reread your posts :rolleyes:
:devil: :tape: :lol: :bounce: :devil: :o
:devil: :tape: :lol: :bounce: :devil: :o
:devil: :tape: :lol: :bounce: :devil: :o


..... :rolleyes:
i have already said that SADDAM and a pratical santa clause compared to the leader of china and what he does to people for doing this:

http://www.falundafa.org/images/falundafa_image_header.jpg

i cant even post pictures ofthe abuse but you can look at them here
http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/articles/2004/9/1/51972.html

and thats only tip the ice burg, not just in china but in other countries.

how do you decided which unelected dictator to go after? and why?

what makes what the people of china are going through less important?

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

now i am not saying that you personally make these choices,i am asking how you're logic justifies those that do?

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:04 AM
Obnoxious ass!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad:

great way to address the topic!! :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

you are around alot for someone who "doesnt have the time"

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:05 AM
Syndil,trust me,you don't want to match wits. My reading comprehension is fine. Maybe you should say what you mean instead of meaning what you say. Huh? :lol: :lol:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:06 AM
your brain is on vacation, you have been qouted, and REPLIED

here it is again for your viewing pleasure:
By the way,Ayla is gone. :lol: :lol:

StarDuvallGrant
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:07 AM
Syndil,trust me,you don't want to match wits.

Who would the other person be considering it obviously isn't you.

My reading comprehension is fine. Maybe you should say what you mean instead of meaning what you say. Huh? :lol: :lol:

Again, reading should be fundamental :rolleyes:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:11 AM
Who would the other person be considering it obviously isn't you
See you have a bit of a reading comprehension problem yourself!!! :lol: :lol: :wavey:

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:11 AM
keep on shaking it ... like I said I will not answer because you will just start some other huge discussion and I don't want to argue with you so just stop.

you wont asnwer because you have no ground to stand on.

yeah you are set inyour ways, ilove, even proved me wrong once (not on anything thing related to the debate at hand either, but because i said something i thought i had not), does that spot me from posting replies toyour question, NOPE. you know why? because i actually know what i am talking about.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:14 AM
LOL ..... I finish the conversation and still u are blabbering on .... perhaps Saddam would be a good PM for Australia .... :lol: ....... seeing as he is such an angel ...... :lol: It is over Czechfan ... i don't want to have this discussion with you any longer .... so stop replying.

Your continueal refusal to clarify what you meant with that line speaks louder than any bullshit explantation could do.

Its okay Ayla, Im satisfied in the knowledge that in the back of your mind you are thinking "shit I wish I hadnt posted that'... your still in the thread posting replies that are more than long enough to explain yourself and what you meant but the cold hard truth is you cannot back it up because its a lie.

Saddam was never a threat - the top US inspector jsut said so yesterday. Saddam was not linked to Al Queda Don rumsfeld now says so..

Maybe you should go read some Murdoch newspapers and update your 'information' cuz the shit you've been fed about Saddam being a threat is outdated and proven wrong.

:lol: :lol:

StarDuvallGrant
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:17 AM
See you have a bit of a reading comprehension problem yourself!!! :lol: :lol: :wavey:

Thanks for the laughs :tape:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:18 AM
Ho-Hum

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:19 AM
He is not a threat to who? China? DUH!!! I KNOW THAT!

China is what you meant right? I mean that was what we were just talking about :lol: :lol:
Well, answer the question..clarify what you meant..

You cant say you've had enough arguing cuz you are still here...

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:22 AM
Ayla - ive already shown you where you said Saddam was a threat, considering the overall debate going on here involving the USA, it was pretty logical to assume you meant the USA...

IVe asked you 5 times to clarify what you meant and you cant, cuz you typed it without thinking - just swallowing the crap Georgie and Johnnie feed you...But when taken to ask and asked to prove it, you just run away and say 'ive had enough' but you are still in the thread posting!!

So very transparent....

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

oh sorri I didn't realise the Question was for me .... maybe next time u should be more clear. I mean I didn't see my name in that post ...

IF SOMEONE SAID IT, I TRUST YOU TO FIND IT!! :kiss: :kiss: :wavey:

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

here it is again since you didnt know it was for you

Just to clear it up because you seem so to not understand:

In these two sentences I did not post the word US or USA or any related equivilent.

IF YOU CAN FIND ..... etc etc(i cant be botherd :lol:) :kiss: :kiss: :wavey:

fine you siad it a threat to someother force now here is my question to you

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?
because you yourself said saddam is not a threat to the US, what about leaders that are?

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:22 AM
Yeeehaw, no more Jiggly!!!! :D

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:24 AM
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:



why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

here it is again since you didnt know it was for you



fine you siad it a threat to someother force now here is my question to you

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?
because you yourself said saddam is not a threat to the US, what about leaders that are?
Who the fuck knows? Why do you repeatedly ask it?? :mad:

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:31 AM
Who da man?

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:35 AM
I dunno? I'm not sure where exactly I said that being a threat to the US was a basis to start a war ..... :confused:


i didnt say that he was a threat to the US here it is again

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

let me explain the question:

-you have said that saddam was NOT a threat to the US,
-you REFUSE to say WHO saddam was a threat to.
-you joked at the idea of holding countries like china, with extreme human rights abuses, responsible. so i GOING OUT ON A LIMB AND ASSUME that human rights abuses is not thegreatest import.
-you admitted early on that you felt that WMD's was irrelant to the reason for going to war.

my question then is twofold
1-why is it that a man who is a threat only to magicly and mysterious place/people, enough reason to go to war but nothing happens to leaders with WMD, who ARE a threat to the US and thier own people, and have extreme human rights abuses?

2-what logic are you using to justify that?

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:38 AM
Well Im not a man .... are you because if u are .... YOU DA MAN!!!!
I am definitely the man!! :lol: :lol:

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:40 AM
Who the fuck knows? Why do you repeatedly ask it?? :mad:

because if you claim know what you are talking about this very basic question should be easy to answer.

i am not the first to ask it. and i wont be the last.

but really because some of you are GREAT at avoiding answering shit directly, but this one deserves an answer.

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

I Love Sharapova
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:40 AM
Just know this,Jiggly,you and your little globalist friends are full of shit!!! Goodnight and please,Jiggly,go read a book or something!! :lol: :lol:

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:43 AM
What are you talking about? who is "he"? Saddam? I never said you did say he was a threat to the US .... what are you going on about?

i know you said he is not a threat.

thats thewholepoint.

saddam is not a threat (according toyou) so why was there a war agaisnt him and not one of the many l;eaders who WERE and STILL are?

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:44 AM
let me say it slowly:

I ...... never ...... said ....... that ........ being ....... a ..... threat ...... to ........ the .......US ....... was....... basis ......... for ...... war ......... slash(/) ....... "something ....... happening"

SO WHAT IS A BASIS FOR WAR IF BEING THREATEN IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:46 AM
Just know this,Jiggly,you and your little globalist friends are full of shit!!! Goodnight and please,Jiggly,go read a book or something!! :lol: :lol:

GREAT WAY TO NEVER ADDRESS A SINGLE POINT HEAD ON.

NOT ONE POINTHAVE YOU ADDRESSED. if namecalling is all you know, you should go back to preschool! POPPYHEAD!!!!!!!!!!LOL


OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 03:48 AM
I dunno? Why don't you tell me :lol:

ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

WAIT ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU HAVE NOW IDEA WHAT GOOD BASIS FOR WAR IS? YET YOU SUPPORT THE WAR IN IRAQ?

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:00 AM
I dunno? Why don't you tell me :lol:

ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


wow thats deep. you can support a war without understand of valid reasons for it!

just wow. i am floored.

Rocketta
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:29 AM
When around 40% of Americans think that Saddam had something to do with the September 11th attacks and has WMD's, I wonder if Americans even know that much about America period let alone politics and news about the rest of the world. The problem I see with American's trying to give opinions on other countries is tone; condescension and the finality of right and wrong. Everyone has an opinion, and they'll give it.and I find it interesting that someone would quote an unscientific poll as proof of justification of his own arrogance and condenscension....:rolleyes:

What's even funnier is your accusation that an American tone when your post drips with a negative arrogant condenscension that you say so many American posters have when they give their opinion. The problem with people like you is that you spend all your time looking at others instead of looking in the mirror cause everything you just accused others of doing u just did. Way to prove my point. I didn't think it was possible for *smart* openminded people like you to be open to American's opinions. :lol:

:yeah:

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:38 AM
Ayla - You are the most pathetic poster in this thread. Its time for a personal attack.

You are so full of shit mate. You speak out your arse, then when your own quotes are thrown back at you to explain them, you simply cant.

Do what you said you'd do hours ago - piss off out of the thread, at least the other posters arguing here have viewpoints with some logical evidence to back it up,

you said Saddam was a threat, but REFUSE to say who he was a threat to.

You are quite simply, PATHETIC.

A perfect drone.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:50 AM
:lol: .... I cannot believe after so long you are still so adament about ur argument .... I have been floored for the last hour laughing my ass off at you :lol:

i had questions for you, not arugements.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 04:58 AM
Ayla - You are the most pathetic poster in this thread. Its time for a personal attack.

You are so full of shit mate. You speak out your arse, then when your own quotes are thrown back at you to explain them, you simply cant.

Do what you said you'd do hours ago - piss off out of the thread, at least the other posters arguing here have viewpoints with some logical evidence to back it up,

you said Saddam was a threat, but REFUSE to say who he was a threat to.

You are quite simply, PATHETIC.

A perfect drone.

i am not usually down for name calling,

however, saying that you believe in a war because itgot rid of a bad guy
then
-being unable to explain why the guy was bad, or even as bad as other guys
-being unwilling toexplain who he was bad too
-being unable to justify getting rid of this bad guy instead of other bad guys
-saying that being threaten is not the only cause for going to war, but being -unable to list what a good cause for war is

well thats just silly. that is in effect saying "we went to war just because and it ok"

sounds like drone talk to me.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:02 AM
Sorry go reread your "question". It was an argument with a question asking me to validate why it wasnt so. You were ARGUING that US attacks Saddam who isnt a threat yet they do nothing about those who are a threat. So yes you were giving me arguments aswell as Questions.
Do you like red? is a questions.
Do you think that just because red is the colour of blood we should still let kids like it? is a question which should be answered once considering the argument that it is the colour of blood and kids maybe should not be able to like it etc.

thanx :)

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

here is the question.

where is the "arguement"? and no asking someone to explain themselves is NOT an arguement. its diplomacy.

as for drawing conclusions between red and blood...WTF? if you need an example to make a point (understandable) use the question itself.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:07 AM
Ok I got sick and tired of arguing with you and therefore I stopped like 2 or 3 hours ago .... yet you two continued arguing so I just sat back and watched the fun ...... :lol:

Those questioned have been answered numerous times before by numerous people yet you have obviously not been affected by any of these answers so like I said ages ago discussion over .... and no it is not because I don't know what to say or regret wat I said (mindreader Czekfan :rolleyes:) it's because I cannot be bothered to argue with you. I don't want to and I won't.
Meanwhile You guys have been so funny and got sooo worked up while Im sitting her writing replies with a big smile on my face :lol:
You say you are sick of arguing, in the middle of an ARGUMENTATIVE post.
You are beyond pathetic.

Jigglypuff - I resisted name calling for as long as I could and tried to debate the topic but when Ayla refused to answer the question and kept saying he was finished at the same time as arguing, I couldnt resist any longer. :)

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:24 AM
Whatever...

But yes, I do find you pathetic..absolutely correct on that one mate...

You really got your ass kicked well and truely in this thread and I know you regret saying Saddam was a threat, but like your idols Bush and howard you will never admit to a mistake..you've followed the example of your hero's perfectly..

StarDuvallGrant
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:30 AM
and I find it interesting that someone would quote an unscientific poll as proof of justification of his own arrogance and condenscension....:rolleyes:

I live her in America it's not hard to hear the same things over and over again. It's your own media. Are your media liars too? I'm neither arrogant nor condescending. I don't need to be on this subject.

What's even funnier is your accusation that an American tone when your post drips with a negative arrogant condenscension that you say so many American posters have when they give their opinion.

:lol: heap more of that tone on there then.

The problem with people like you is that you spend all your time looking at others instead of looking in the mirror cause everything you just accused others of doing u just did.

Is this supposed to pass as your attempt at wit?

The problem is the lack of looking flat out inwards and out by America as a whole.

Way to prove my point. I didn't think it was possible for *smart* openminded people like you to be open to American's opinions. :lol:


I have higher standards, you can keep them.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:44 AM
If you dont give a shit what I think why keep responding? Of course you give a shit or you would have done us all a favour and pissed off when you first realised you were losing the argument and wanted to run away...

I give you credit for hanging around and putting up with more of an ass whippin, you really are a glutton for punishment, I'll give you that much credit.

The thing is, to most observers in this thread, all the posts where you replied without answering who Saddam was a threat to, and backed away from your comment, tap danced around it etc - thats when your ass started to look a bit bruised from the can of whip ass that just got opened on it.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 05:53 AM
Oh come on now Ayla, why dont you just spew forth the homophobic shit thats lurking just beneath your posts...I know you wanna call me fagot etc, I can sense the hate in you, give it to me, I can take it...(and give it lol)

You can insert a few smilies in your posts and act out that you are laughing, but I know you wish youd never opened your mouth, you've been shown up for the fool you are loser.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:00 AM
Okay, I take back the homphobe remark, but your last posts were pretty much passive aggressive towards gays...

Im surprised you have a gay friend, considering you idolise a leader who gives pref's to the Fred Niles of the world over the greens...

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:01 AM
BTW - Read my post above for lesson 101 on how to admit I mistake. I just admitted I was wrong calling you a homphobe, now why cant you do the same thing when it comes to your PROVEN bullshit claim what Saddam was a threat??

its very easy you know!

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 06:08 AM
YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Thank you for answering it!!

It was thin an argument as I expected 'not to the us or anything but in general' - pissweak actually, but at least you attempted it rather more of your day-long tapdancing...

Thanks, i'll let it go now.

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 07:28 AM
You say you are sick of arguing, in the middle of an ARGUMENTATIVE post.
You are beyond pathetic.

Jigglypuff - I resisted name calling for as long as I could and tried to debate the topic but when Ayla refused to answer the question and kept saying he was finished at the same time as arguing, I couldnt resist any longer. :)

fair enough! :wavey: :kiss:

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 07:44 AM
Because Saddam is a threat ... I dont want to get into another argument .... what i was originally referring to was not a threat to the us or whateva but in general as a leader Saddam was ruthless and brutal that is what i was originally referring to but then the conversation was closed and I decided that I wouldnt reopen it at all! ;)

But yeh .... dont start a big thing with me ... we shall agree to disagree ..... and I think you think I hold Howard in a much higher light than I really do ...I am not very passionate about the issue .... :lol: I just got caught up in it this arvo :lol:

see this is why there are wholes in your argument :

(and i am not making any in this section i am pointing out the holes in yours)

saddam is a threat, as you say, so is the leader of china, north korea or other dictators. why go to war i with him? did he have something or was in something the others are not? why him? as i said earlier saddam was a practical santa clause compared with the leader of china, and what he is doing. why not the leader of china?


of course, already said you didnt know, and that being threaten is not a reason for war (does that mean NOT being threatened is a reason for war?)? you said that you didnt know what a reason for war might be.

NOW HERE IS WHERE I MAKE AN ARGUMENT:
i here by make the arguement that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (in fact you admit that you cant answer serious questions about what you are talking) but support the war anyway, and you are doing a disservice to people who do know what they are talking about and support the war.

Philbo
Oct 8th, 2004, 07:50 AM
Bravo Jiggly!

Halardfan
Oct 8th, 2004, 09:34 AM
What happens in the US election will have a potentially profund effect on the world's future, in terms of war, the environment and beyond...we outside the US have a big stake in who wins. Hence our strong opinions.

Add to that, the fact that some of us actually have an affection for the US of A and think the country deserves much much better than GW Bush!

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:03 PM
When I said being a threat was not a basis for war i was being stupid on purpose just to piss you off. I finished my arguments after like 4 posts ... everything else was just humour to me trying to work you up (which worked) ..... so don't go off at me. I have views about those issues ... I don't want to discuss them because like I said before I am finished with this discussion :)

hmmmm hmmm back tracking goodness!

as for "getting someone worked up", all i did was post thesame question over and over again until you answered it. theres really nothing to get worked upover because you never answered the question.

and since you back tracked your past answer (mostly because you know realize how stupid you were being) here it is again.

why are leaders of the countries that DO HAVE WMD AND ARE ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE AND ARE IMMEDIATE THREATS TO US allowed togo unchecked to go after saddam who had not WMD and was not an immedate threat to the US?

Wigglytuff
Oct 8th, 2004, 02:06 PM
by the way, my arguument1-, will hold until you answer the question HEAD ON!

1-posted here for your viewing pleasure:

NOW HERE IS WHERE I MAKE AN ARGUMENT:
i here by make the arguement that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (in fact you admit that you cant answer serious questions about what you are talking) but support the war anyway, and you are doing a disservice to people who do know what they are talking about and support the war.

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2004, 08:51 AM
still waiting for my answer! :lol:

Wigglytuff
Oct 9th, 2004, 02:55 PM
reapply? closed? and yet you kept coming back?

kind of like how I Love had NO TIME to answer some serious questions but was still here debating 11 hours later?

seems to me like you really do have no point and now answer. but its ok i wasnt really expecting on from you. this is really more because you have be sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo OWNED its funny. and i wanted to give that 0WNEDnership a little bump.

again you cant agure that you "should have to explain yourself" when you continue to post, have asked others to explain them selfs, and are, in your own silly way, offer an explaination about why you were so owned right now.

OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !