Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on March 08, 2004, 11:44:26 AM
-
Apparently Kerry is boasting that some unnnamed foreign leaders are hoping he wins the elections beacuse they dont like Bush...
Two things...
1) Wake up Kohn Kerry!!! You are running for US president not UN president, not president of France... The American people decide who gets to be president of america.
2) I had no idea US senators could call up Baghdad and talk to Saddam in his jail cell. Neat!
-
(http://uploads.offtopic.com/files/kerry_priceless_aig.jpg)
-
I worked for a major competitor of AIG. If he is even remotely related to the outfit there is no way in hell I would vote for him.
AIG is evil. EVIL.
-
"The American people decide who gets to be president of america.":rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
You Canucks have always sucked at putting spin on things.
-
The American people decide who gets to be president of america.
Up until Bush was selected President, I would've agreed with you. Now, it depends on which state you live in that determines which people decide who get to be President.
-
read the constitution, it's the state legislatures who decide.
-
Originally posted by banana
Up until Bush was selected President, I would've agreed with you. Now, it depends on which state you live in that determines which people decide who get to be President.
So if Bush wasnt elected in 2000, does this mean he can be elected in 04 AND 08?
-
When will you smegma dorks evar lurn?
Please get the facts straight FOR ONCE alrighty then......
Bush had 271 votes
Gore had 266 votes
Bush won the election.
Gore tried to steal Florida via a frothy liberal socialist state supreme court hung up on chads but was caught and busted down in rank from Vice President to no consequence frothing liberal idiot.
-
"Waaa we don't like the result so let's change the rules after the fact waaaaaaa."
Geezus didn't you guys get this out of your system in 2000?
And BTW nice hijack attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the DNC and Le Kerrie are just as much a tool of big corporations and special interests as are GOP and Le Chimpie.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
When will you smegma dorks evar lurn?
OMG thats fluff'n gross.
-
Yea, if we all remember 2000 it was Al Gore who turned to the courts to win the election he lost in the voting booths. He lost in the courts too. Al Gore is a loser.
Jean Kerrie isnt even running for the president of the USA, he is running for UN president and president of all the big lobbyists who made sure Jean Kerrie recived more special interest and lobby money in his 19 years of Senate "service" than any other politican there with him during the same period.
Anyway Jean Kerrie is the perfect embodyment of why I dont vote...
-
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il endorses John Kerry!!! NO KIDDING!
http://www.valleystar.com/editorial_more.php?id=52302_0_28_0_M
-
He's not stupid, the Clinton administration paid Kim Jong Il very, very well.
-
lol Rip.
AIG is based here in Bermuda!
-
I see alot more anti kerry posts here.....what are are you republicans gonna do when bush looses and kerry WINS?
One thing is for sure...bush can only do better so perhaps he should be given a second chanse ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
I see alot more anti kerry posts here.....what are are you republicans gonna do when bush looses and kerry WINS?
Same thing you guys have been doing the last 3 years, except we get to have fun slamming Kerry, and you get to defend him.:eek:
-
Originally posted by Udie
read the constitution, it's the state legislatures who decide.
Electorla college sucked here , it suck in the US too :)
Btw GRUN why Jean Kerrie ?
You would better use Jean Querrie ,not Kerrie ,Kerrie doesn't sound french at all :)
If you really want to make his name sound French use a correct French name at least
-
lol rip..
good answer :aok
-
Kerry is a tool. Bush is a tool.
Kerry, however, is an intelligent tool.
-
Err... isn't Bush a Saudi tool?
Vette away ............:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
be sure to look at who (http://www.scripting.com/images/ketchupsmall.gif) has been in bed with. talk about owing payback...
-
President of the UN? More like cooperating with the other countries in the world. What a concept!
The way Bush is treating Kim Jong Il, I'm not surprised he wants Kerry to beat Bush.
-
you care what this clown thinks?
(http://insidemagic.com/artman/uploads/kimjong-il.jpg)
-
This Republican vs Democrat thing is starting to look really really foolish. I'm surely you guys realise that eveything thing you accuse the otherside of doing, your side has done. I mean doesn't that make you feel stuipid or what?
-
Originally posted by irritant
The way Bush is treating Kim Jong Il, I'm not surprised he wants Kerry to beat Bush.
You mean holding him accountable to the treaties he has signed and then broken?
No woners he loves Kerry neither of them mean a single word they say...
The woes of kim jong il in a few words..
Yes I signed the Nuke treaty!
But I really didnt mean it.
ARGHHHHH Bush is making me accountable to my treaty!!!
Bush is Evil!!!
Awww Jong Ke-Rhee!!! He is my man!!!
-
Get real.
Until russia, us, uk, france, china etc..etc.. decides to scrap their nukes they are in no position to ask others to.
you dont agree ha?
and why is that?
-
Yes, Eagler, but last time I checked, Heinz didn't rely on raw materials sitting beneath the most politically unstable region on the planet. :D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Get real.
Until russia, us, uk, france, china etc..etc.. decides to scrap their nukes they are in no position to ask others to.
you dont agree ha?
and why is that?
How can you equate a psychotic dictator like that to countries who have a 50 year track record of safe and responsible handling of nuclear weapons, and who have drastically reduced their arsenals over the last 20 years? The fewer countries with nukes, the better. The more countries with nukes -> the more likely somebody will use them -> the more likely that cockroaches will be the dominant species by 2025.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Get real.
Until russia, us, uk, france, china etc..etc.. decides to scrap their nukes they are in no position to ask others to.
you dont agree ha?
and why is that?
Last I checked these countries were not rattling their nukes like poker chips that were going to be played in a poker game of death. The talk of using nukes went out when the wall went down.
I beg of you to read this entire speech
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/testimonies/1995/1-26.html
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Yes, Eagler, but last time I checked, Heinz didn't rely on raw materials sitting beneath the most politically unstable region on the planet. :D
It's a little known fact that the famous korean cabbage "kimchi" is a vital ingredient in ketchup...
No war for cabbage!!! No war for Heinz!!! :)
-
Die Mauer ist kaput.
-
Has anyone used nukes on someone else?
who was that again?
-
But North Korea doesn't want to do that. It wants to get its economy rescued, and keep its bomb program alive, both at the same time. The light water reactor--because it takes so long to build--meets both those needs. Delay has been North Korea's strategy all along, and still is.
In effect, over the first five years of the agreement, the United States is agreeing to let North Korea keep any bombs it has already made, and is paying North Korea not to make any more. North Korea is the only country ever to join the Treaty and then openly break the inspection obligations under it. This strategy has obviously paid off. Uncle Sam is rewarding North Korea not only with oil and reactors, but by dropping the trade restrictions that are now driving down North Korea's economy.
The message to other countries is clear. If you join the Nonproliferation Treaty, and break it by secretly making bombs, you will receive billions of dollars worth of free nuclear- and fossil- fuel energy. And you will get these benefits even if you are committing human rights violations, even if you have an undisputed record as a terrorist nation, and even if you are developing and exporting nuclear-capable missiles to other terrorist nations.
[/i]
From the article I posted above.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Die Mauer ist kaput.
Yep!
(http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Ronald%20Reagan.jpg)
"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate
West Berlin, Germany
June 12, 1987
Was he right or was he right!!!
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Has anyone used nukes on someone else?
who was that again?
Thats fine. Change the subject if you can't argue the current topic. No worries. (but your age is showing)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
be sure to look at who (http://www.scripting.com/images/ketchupsmall.gif) has been in bed with. talk about owing payback...
Did you get some sauce on your avatar?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Has anyone used nukes on someone else?
who was that again?
F*** Y** my friend. I'm very upset that you said that because I feel it is not a fair comparison. Where NK would use them to terrorize and hold hostage the world and their own pepole the USA used them to end a bloody 10+ year asian world war and to save lives of hundreds of thouysands of american soldiers, millions of japanese and preserve the future of nearly a hundred million japanese who would be spared a terrible and destructive invasion ground campaaign lasting months or years, and they did just that...
-
And, the bottom line: the buck does not stop here:
"I would like to close by saying that the best time to confront the North Korean nuclear threat was during the Reagan and Bush administrations. The program had not yet reached the threshold of success, and there was still time for sanctions to work. Both administrations watched the program grow. But they pushed the problem into the Clinton administration. Now the Clinton administration has made a deal that will probably push the problem into the next administration, since that is when a breach by North Korea is most likely to occur. Pushing problems off to one's successor may be tempting politically, but it is a risky way to deal with the spread of nuclear weapons.
[/i]
Politics is politics. They're all dinks.
-
hehe rip
i know my age is starting to show but you cant stop the clock from ticking ;)
btw..i belive nukes are on the agenda here
No, sorry...not gona **** myself grun :D
How many lives was lost when those 2 nukes hit anyway? You know you are not getting anywhere with that grun.
-
About 150,000.
About the same number of japanse civilans died in the invasion of the small island of Okinawa earlier that year. In the same battle some 120,000 japanese soldiers were killed. They took over 12,000 americans wioth them and wounded 36,000.
I'm guessing you are a racist who hates Japanese and wishes dearly that a land invasion cuold take place so that vastly more of them could have died from gonshots, stabs, slow burning, suffocations, shrapnel, buried in caves, bombs, crushed by tanks instead of a very small number by nuclear bombs the great majority of whom died instatly and painlessly. But I could be wrong?
Perhaps you would argue that Japan be blocaded until surrender? Yes I love the idea of starving civilan people (old men women and choildren) for years on end while the military gets all the rations to sustain the war aeffort!!!!
Or better yet, why not wait for the russians to invade Japan. Not only could those fine young japanese women experience filthy russian rape they could then enjoy 50 years of wonderous soviet rule and prosparity like east germany and east europe.
Or we could just let more americvans keep dieng and blow one up on island while Japanese military laugh at us and sees it as sign of weakness continuing the war with greater vigor
Oh yes, those are all so nice and what the USA did was so evil...
Those were the alternatives....
-
Im not a racist and how you arrived at that conclusion is beyond me.
You said that those 2 nukes saved alot more american soldiers so can i also say that you are a racist beacuse you value americans higher than japanese?
So, how many lives is it ok to take to save X number of americans and japanese civilans?
50? 100? 150? or 200000?
Sorry but that just doesnt work for me...
Think we better drop this issue tho before this gets nasty and skuzz closes this thread :D
Good night grun, better go to bed...we may or may not continue this tomorrow depending on if this thread is still open :)
-
If it takes 150,000 to stop a war or it takes 1,000,000 to stop a war which do you choose?
I was guessing you are a racist because your prefer war ending options that would far more suffuering to far more japanese for a longer period of time comapred to the relatively small number of people who suffered in the 2 bombs. And I'm not degrading the suffering of the nuke bomb victims, rather I am highlighting the extreme level of suffering brought on by WW2 and the extreme suffering that would be cause by a land invasion of japan or even a blocade.
WW2 was so bad that killing 150,000 was the easiest and mosdt humane way to end it... Unfortunately.. :(
BTW the racist comment is bs and I'm sorry. I'm just trying to shock you into seeing how much more painful the other options would have been to all involved but especially to japanese people - civilan and military.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Get real.
Until russia, us, uk, france, china etc..etc.. decides to scrap their nukes they are in no position to ask others to.
you dont agree ha?
and why is that?
are ya kidding me? ol' kim is another fanatic! he has openly stated he would use nukes and that he wants to unify korea...WITH armed aggression if necissary and will use nukes if anyone tries to stop him!
The US and Russia well the rest of the nuke owning world never wanted to use them they were for a "deterent" wich i think worked out pretty well since we didnt nuke each other
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Has anyone used nukes on someone else?
who was that again?
Oh yeah who FORCED us too? Check your history my freind yes the US dropped 2 atomic bombs would the japs have surrendered sithout them? NO Hell their was an ongoing coupe attempt even AFTER we dropped them that is why the Japanese put forth the idea that they really shouldnt have a military cause it would just TRY again.
I really think u should study your history a little better befor making remarks like this
After Hiroshama we demanded the surrender of japan they said Nah we dont wann soooo we dropped on Nagasaki .
Dont fault the US for it Fault the idiot japanese leadership for starting it THEN continuing AFTER it was obvious they would loos AND suffer enormous civillian casuallties wich they did..
We didnt start it but "By GOD" we dang sure finished it and probably "saved" more lives by ending it when we did. If the war had gone on longer alot more people on BOTH sides would have died. so before you go making half concieved remarks like that check your ACTUAL History and try to look at the bigger picture
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you care what this clown thinks?
(http://insidemagic.com/artman/uploads/kimjong-il.jpg)
Kim is a known idiot.
So... why wouldn't he endorse Kerry?
-
I find the lack of logic used on here rather disturbing.
Bush, albeit not entirely bad, has caused a rather sensitive DPRK to feel threatened.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Has anyone used nukes on someone else?
who was that again?
Translation: Nilsen realizes he has lost the argument and is surrendering.
-
Originally posted by irritant
I find the lack of logic used on here rather disturbing.
Bush, albeit not entirely bad, has caused a rather sensitive DPRK to feel threatened.
Umm, no. What he did was discontinue Clinton's policy of blackmail payments. Because Bush's people realized that Kim was not holding up his end of the deal. Kim is developing nukes just like he was when Bubba was paying him off. The only difference is that now he isn't getting his money so he is making a lot of noise.
-
lol FUNKED1, you cant win or loose an argument like this, just like you cant win or loose an argument about what colour looks best. Its all about opinions funked....dont you get that?
:D
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
lol FUNKED1, you cant win or loose an argument like this, just like you cant win or loose an argument about what colour looks best. Its all about opinions funked....dont you get that?
:D
But your opinion is wrong because you were drunk when you posted. :)
-
LOL :D
I have the feeling that this board thinks im drunk all the time....wonder where you got that idea.
I drink 2-4 times a month, but i post 10 times more when im drunk so that may be the reason :o
Wonder if my keyboard floats
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Has anyone used nukes on someone else?
who was that again?
Yeah, the big bad US dropped nukes on defenseless
Japan, in the middle of a shooting war, moron.
-
Rino :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Umm, no. What he did was discontinue Clinton's policy of blackmail payments. Because Bush's people realized that Kim was not holding up his end of the deal. Kim is developing nukes just like he was when Bubba was paying him off. The only difference is that now he isn't getting his money so he is making a lot of noise.
You must have read the article. Thats it in a nutshell.
-
Apparently Kerry is having problems backing up his statements!
Sen. John Kerry refuses to provide any information to support his assertion earlier this week that he has met with foreign leaders who beseeched him to prevail over President Bush in November's election.
The Massachusetts Democrat has made no official foreign trips since the start of last year, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. And an extensive review of Mr. Kerry's travel schedule domestically revealed only one opportunity for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to meet with foreign leaders here.
On Monday, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him.
"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' Things like that."
Aides and supporters of Mr. Kerry have said providing names of the leaders or their countries would injure those nations' ongoing relations with the current Bush administration.
"In terms of who he's talked to, we're not going to discuss that," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said yesterday. "I know it would be helpful, but we're not going into that. His counsels are kept private."
Mr. Kerry has made other claims during the campaign and then refused to back them up, including statements that Mr. Bush delayed the deal with Libya to give up its weapons of mass destruction program for political reasons.
Republicans have begun calling Mr. Kerry the "international man of mystery," and said his statements go even beyond those of former Vice President Al Gore, who was besieged by stories that he lied or exaggerated throughout the 2000 presidential campaign.
"I think it's beyond that level. The results of this week, I think he's going to have a very serious credibility problem with the American people," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, Ohio Republican and chairman of the House Republican Conference.
The Kerry campaign declined to say where or when Mr. Kerry met with foreign leaders and discussed his presidential campaign, which officially began Sept. 2 last year. They refused to give any hints about the leaders such as what region, what continent or even which hemisphere they're from. The Kerry aides also have refused to say how many foreign leaders privately have endorsed their boss.
According to travel records kept by the Secretary of the Senate, Mr. Kerry's last official trip abroad was in early 2002 when he visited the United Kingdom, Jordan, Egypt and Israel. The only other trip noted in Senate records since that time is an October 2002 domestic trip to Charleston, S.C., to appear on MSNBC's Hardball program.
The Washington Times also scoured White House, State Department and other public records for all official trips made to the United States by foreign leaders since the start of last year. During more than 30 such trips, Mr. Kerry was out of town campaigning, at home or in the hospital for a prostate-cancer operation, according to his travel schedules from this year and last.
The only instance found when Mr. Kerry was in the same town as a foreign leader was Sept. 24, when New Zealand Foreign Minister Philip Goff was in Washington meeting with State Department officials. On that day, according to his schedule, Mr. Kerry received the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Fighters in Washington.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush was in New York meeting with the leaders of Germany, India, Pakistan, Ghana and Mozambique on that same day.
Pressed about the lack of evidence for any such meetings, Ms. Cutter said world leaders are weary of Mr. Bush's "go-it-alone" handling of the war in Iraq.
"After September 11, we had an enormous amount of good will from around the world for helping us seek out who was responsible" for the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, she said. "This administration quickly squandered that good will by pursuing a very arrogant foreign policy. It's time to rejoin the community of nations."
It may well be true that leaders are pulling for Mr. Kerry to win.
A survey of world opinion in 2003 for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that in most countries, Mr. Bush ranked lower in popularity than Russian President Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, French President Jacques Chirac and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Other presidential candidates also have been dogged by charges they were not truthful. In 1988, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware Democrat, withdrew from the presidential campaign after news reports that he had lifted whole passages from speeches by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock.
Republicans said they are beginning to see a pattern in Mr. Kerry's remarks.
In a February meeting with the editorial board from the New York Daily News, Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush, for political reasons, delayed closing the deal to have Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi surrender his weapons of mass destruction program.
"There's evidence that we could have had that deal some time ago," Mr. Kerry told the newspaper, saying he had heard "from friends in the British government that the deal was in a slow lock."
But the paper said Mr. Kerry refused to give specifics.
Then earlier this month, Mr. Kerry called for an investigation into whether the U.S. overthrew Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, telling NBC's "Today" show a "very close friend in Massachusetts" had talked with people who had made accusations that Mr. Aristide had been kidnapped.
"I don't know the truth of it. I really don't. But I think it needs to be explored, and we need to know the truth of what happened," Mr. Kerry said.
Republicans said Mr. Kerry's remarks remind them of former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark, who said — and later recanted — that he knew of a secret Pentagon memo listing the next countries after Iraq to be attacked in the war on terror.
In a speech to the Dupage County Lincoln Day dinner in Oak Brook, Ill., last night, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Mr. Kerry has "a more vivid imagination than General Clark."
"Kerry's imaginary friends have British and French accents," Mr. Gillespie said.
Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican and third-highest ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said such a political conversation occurring between a U.S. senator and the leader of a foreign country is hard to imagine.
"It would just be so inappropriate," he said. "I think it would be insulting."
Several foreign leaders denied having any such conversations with Mr. Kerry, including Mr. Schroeder, whose spokesman issued a denial.
And Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer told Australian radio this week that the remarks certainly didn't come from Australian leaders. He said it's not right either for leaders to make those comments or for a candidate to make them public.
"I think it's probably better to keep foreign leaders and the views of foreign leaders out of domestic elections, I mean, certainly we do that here in this country. I mean, people express different views to you, if you're a candidate, I tend not to pass on those kinds of views publicly," he said.
Even if Mr. Kerry's comments are true, several Republicans said, it's hardly something to brag about.
Republicans mocked Mr. Kerry after European newspapers reported that North Korea leader Kim Jong-il would prefer that Mr. Kerry win.
"Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in U.S. policy towards the country's nuclear-weapons program" according to London's Financial Times, which said that Mr. Kerry's speeches are being broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in "glowing" terms.
"The mullahs in Iran probably don't care to have Bush in there because he won't suffer terrorists or the country's that harbor them," said Mr. Allen. "I want a president who cares about what's right rather than the U.N. protocols."
And a poll taken by Andres McKenna Polling and Research found that Americans overwhelmingly believe "the terrorists would prefer" Mr. Kerry to win the election.
The poll of 800 registered voters, taken in February, showed 60 percent thought terrorists would be happier with Mr. Kerry, while just 25 percent said the terrorists would prefer Mr. Bush.
Said Ms. Cutter: "I don't care what the Republicans are saying. The story here is the good will squandered by the Bush administration."
-
Cmon rip it cant be that hard, I mean we allready know one (Dear) Leader who publicly supports Jong Ke-Rhee!
(http://insidemagic.com/artman/uploads/kimjong-il.jpg)
"I am all for Jong Ke-Rhee, he is best #1 candidate for North Korea!"