Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies. Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies. Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies. Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies. by Ghoulman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies. Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies. Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies. Voted for Bush - voted for war, death, and lies.

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Monday, November 22, 2004 16:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4659
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:12 AM

GHOULMAN

What happened?

The rest of the world watched as the 2004 election came to a close and Bush/Cheney gaining a lead on the opposition without performing well on issues or debates.

The main issue was the so called "War in Iraq".

If it weren't so sad it would be a joke. The Democratic side refused to attack the Bush/Cheney White House for exactly what the entire world already knew - the Invasion of Iraq is illegal.

Don't Americans remember what happened only a year ago?

President Bush told the American people that those responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon were helped by Saddam Hussein and that Iraq was creating WMDs like gas and nuclear weapons to attack America.

But that turned out to be completely untrue. Even ridiculous!

It's been shown that the White House created all those lies and that Iraq had no WMDs since 1991. Now, if the American Intellegence people got this wrong for 11 years it isn't a "faulty" intellegence mistake - it's a f*ck up on a cosmic scale. Really, it's obvious the intellegence community knew Saddam wasn't a threat. After all, Powell said so himself in Feburary of 2001.

But the truth will set you free? Not in America. The truth is a casualty.

The Bush/Cheney White House is now determined to rule America with thier "elected" mandate.. a mandate they never mentioned during the election but was, one can only assume, implicitely implied - moving the War on Terror forward.

Wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq; Massive build-up of the military and threats of more attacks; Repudiation of long-standing international treaties and agreements (ABM Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal Court, Land Mine Ban, to name a few); Disregard, antagonism and mockery of the United Nations; Bush's policy of "pre-emption" put an end to the accepted standard of international relations and diplomacy and thrust the United States into the undisputed role of international bully.

World-wide opposition to these policies were arrogantly re-buffed and given no consideration by the newly empowered Bush administration. In the black and white world of GW Bush 'you were either with us or against us.'

If you voted for Bush you voted for more war, death, and lies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:14 AM

GHOULMAN

ooops, I've no idea how I messed up the title like that (thought I pasted the title in but .... but it did 3 times it seems! Ack!). Hopefully Haken will fix it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 8:55 AM

GTHING

Bush will want to invade Iran in a matter of months. You can see it happening. They'll try to make Iraq look like a success story. Then, they'll argue we can take Iran from two fronts: Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's that annoying country in the middle.

This election gave Bush the chance to do this.

Excerpt from My Genre Geek Resume:
~huge Odyssey 5 fan (despite its cancellation)
~dangerously obsessed with BtVS and Angel
~former Andromeda fan

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

One thing I know is this - sooner or later a lot of people who voted for Bush will have their ox gored. It'll be different things for different people: for some they'll be saying 'yes I supported the war, but not to have ALL of my sons in the army all around the globe', or 'I supported the tax cuts, but now I'll have to work till I'm 74', or 'I thought the economy was not an issue but now no one in the family can find work' .... and I'll be waiting to say 'I told you so.'
Only fools think reality will not demand an accounting.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:06 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Only fools think reality will not demand an accounting.

Once again you make the point like a laser.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:17 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by GThing:
Bush will want to invade Iran in a matter of months. SNIP! ...

Nice points.

Well what can I say? Just a little musing... one thing I know about Empires is that when they go beyond thier borders they start to deteriorate. Like England occupieing India.

The USA is bankrupt. It's not widely talked about but things are really bad for the USA economically and a lot of people are wondering just how relevent America will be in the coming century. Kept an eye on your dollar lately?

Now, if the USA continues to spend all of it's money as if it were some crazy modernday Imperial Rome then it will soon find itself destitute.

The USA can't continue the way it's going right now. Any more incursions into sovereign nations is simply not possible for the US right now. God help the USA if the terrorists actually attack from some harbouring nation because the only thing the USA can do about it is to leave a note - "sorry, real terrorist attacks aren't real due to us being otherwise occupieing"

This is a major reason to be against Bush/Cheney... they are already bringing the USA down from being the powerful nation the USA should be. If I'm right the USA will be a banana republic in less than 10 years as corporate money abandons America.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2004 4:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
What happened?

If it weren't so sad it would be a joke. The Democratic side refused to attack the Bush/Cheney White House for exactly what the entire world already knew - the Invasion of Iraq is illegal.

Probably because roughly 30% of Democrats in the House and 60% in the Senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Would they want to admit they'd voted for an "illegal" war? Assuming Bush lied (now don't start, Rue [Grin, Wink, Just Kidding, etc.]), would they want to admit they'd been fooled so easily?

If the Dems in Congress had stood firm on the war resolution and it had passed over their united objections, they could have argued it in the election campaign; but they didn't, so they couldn't.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2004 6:45 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ bunch of hypocrites eh? I wouldn't have voted for the Democrates. I kept quiet but inside I hated Kerry.

Thanks Geezer and BTW don't think I haven't noticed your refusal to take part on the childish troll fest around here. I hope Haken and his little minions appreciate your class act.

Ralph Nader - the last sane man in America!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2004 7:31 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

That is another GOOD point, I also think where that election when wonky was in the nomination process.

Now, how different ( if any differance ) would you have voted ( even if you can't vote ) if say the presidental nominations had gone like :

Republican : Senator John McCain

http://mccain.senate.gov/

Democrat : Ret General Wesley Clark

http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm

Both ( In my opinion anyway ) would have made excellent canidates, far better than Bush or Kerry.
Now with no, I hate Kerry / I hate Bush dynamic, who would be better here... and is their anyone else who might be better yet ?

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2004 8:18 AM

BEENWITHAWARRIORWOMAN

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
SNIP! ...a lot of people are wondering just how relevent America will be in the coming century. SNIP! ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm so glad someone else brings this up - I have been saying for months America has about 50 years (if that) as a world power. We're on our way out. I point to the rest of the world to make my point:
- The EU: everyone's jumping on board - Turkey, Poland, TURKEY... while some dissenting voices decry the loss of independence (much the way the ignorant in the US whine about the UN), it's nice to see some real globalization occuring.
- China: we're seeing a country struggling to rise to its feet - and it will. It's succeeding. Sadly, it wants to model itself after the US (a car in every garage!), but it's a giant with 1.2 billion souls and it dwarfs the rest of us. The US is about to look a lot smaller.
- Russia: also at the end of a decades-long struggle to come into its own. Also talk of interest in joining the... you guessed it... EU.

World government is the way of the future, and the US just isn't on board. Couple that with an economy so bad even the jobs won't stay here and you've got a recipie for third-world casserole.

So... got that to look forward to...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2004 9:28 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Ahh, Ghoulman...I just never tire of your amusing hyperventilations over a situation that you can't affect.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2004 11:24 AM

TETHYS

Here's my out of blue good-point-post of the week.................

Democrats, Republicans, Independents.....
who cares?...the rest of the world will bomb us all equally, not sort us through a line asking "democrat? Republican?" before giving us a nuclear surprise....

"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2004 12:16 PM

AERONSTORM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
One thing I know is this - sooner or later a lot of people who voted for Bush will have their ox gored.

Hmm. Ox gored? I'm not entirely sure what this means. But it sounds like someone wants an assassination, perhaps?

And another point - The Democartic Party, from the presidential race, all the way down to county and city levels, waged ugly, personal campaigns. The Republicans took the high road and showed the facts: the RECORDS of the opponent, not their PERSONAL feelings or whatever.

And they say conservatives aren't rational.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 4:09 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ "Ox gored" is one of those politcal code phrases. I believe it refers to any animal who has gone mad and attacks his own kind.

Really people, if you don't know what your talking about don't advertise your ignorance.

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
Ahh, Ghoulman...I just never tire of your amusing hyperventilations over a situation that you can't affect.

Even athiests believe in the power of prayer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 7:03 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by tethys:
Here's my out of blue good-point-post of the week.................

Democrats, Republicans, Independents.....
who cares?...the rest of the world will bomb us all equally, not sort us through a line asking "democrat? Republican?" before giving us a nuclear surprise....

"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"

??? I'm not sure what you mean here.

... you do know it's impossible to use a nuclear device on the US or it's allies right? You've heard of detente?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 7:16 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
That is another GOOD point, I also think where that election when wonky was in the nomination process.

Now, how different ( if any differance ) would you have voted ( even if you can't vote ) if say the presidental nominations had gone like :

Republican : Senator John McCain

http://mccain.senate.gov/

Democrat : Ret General Wesley Clark

http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm

Both ( In my opinion anyway ) would have made excellent canidates, far better than Bush or Kerry.
Now with no, I hate Kerry / I hate Bush dynamic, who would be better here... and is their anyone else who might be better yet ?

" Don't Blame Me I Voted For Kudos "

I voted for Kudos too!

*WHIP CRACK!*

I love those guys, and Kudos too... but I am not a fan of the current neoconservative/neofascist allience of the Reps and the Dems. Personally, I think they are in ideological cahoots and neither is a worthy party. even with the good fellows you mention above, especially McCain (love that guy!), thier parties are far too in bed with the corporate fascist agenda or Military Industrial Complex (depends) and such.

Ralph Nader is a fantastic candidate who loves America and could take the nation into it's strongest years... instead the American Empire is crumbling before our eyes.

It's funny the right wingers are making so much fun of the various people and POVs against Bush when the signs of the end of the American Empire is plainly here... thanks to Bush/Cheney.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2004 7:28 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Ralph Nader - the last sane man in America!

I'd hate to contradict in a thread that actually tells of... gasp, thought (

), but Nader is no sane man.

I saw an interview with this guy and he wanted to pull out of Iraq. Ok, nothing insane so far, until you look at the time frame... 6 months! What this would do is basically blackmail the rest of the world (especially Europe) to pick the slack and clean up the US's mess.

Yes, he has good ideas, but then he twists them into a horror. Doesn't exactly sound sane to me.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 2:53 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE

Quote:
Originally posted by aeronstorm:

And another point - The Democartic Party, from the presidential race, all the way down to county and city levels, waged ugly, personal campaigns. The Republicans took the high road and showed the facts: the RECORDS of the opponent, not their PERSONAL feelings or whatever.

And they say conservatives aren't rational.

The REPUBLICANS took the high road???

What do they smoke on this planet you're from?
And do the televisions there pick up anything besides the FoxNews channel?

Compare the two conventions and get back to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 7:55 AM

UNICORN

Quote:
... you do know it's impossible to use a nuclear device on the US or it's allies right? You've heard of detente?"

Surely you're joking. You're assuming that the people who'd set off a nuke here (terrorists) would value human life over and above making their point, which we've seen over and over again is not the case. Detente doesn't really affect the fringe groups who'd actually use a nuke, dude.

Besides, at least historically, (apart from the current administration, which just finds somebody with oil --who isn't Saudi Arabia-- to blame) we wouldn't go nuking another country if it was a terrorist organization and not a nation that attacked us.

But it isn't going to be a nuke, anyway. Nukes are expensive and hard to come by even on the black market. It'll be a chemical or biological weapon set off in some large public transportation area, where they can get maximum spreading and affect the largest number of people.

Impossible? You're dreaming, and it's a dangerous, dangerous dream.

Therre is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 10:40 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE

I think they're smoking something they found in Afghanistan.

"Fighting narcotics is equivalent to fighting terrorism,"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041119/ap_on_re_as/un_af
ghanistan_opium_10

Soon enough, we'll have expanded our influence over what we hate to include every country. Our allies are abandoning us. Let's try and focus, America. We are not the moral leaders of the world. I wish we'd stop acting the part.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 10:42 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:

Quote:
... you do know it's impossible to use a nuclear device on the US or it's allies right? You've heard of detente?"

Surely you're joking. You're assuming that the people who'd set off a nuke here (terrorists) would value human life over and above making their point, which we've seen over and over again is not the case. Detente doesn't really affect the fringe groups who'd actually use a nuke, dude.

Besides, at least historically, (apart from the current administration, which just finds somebody with oil --who isn't Saudi Arabia-- to blame) we wouldn't go nuking another country if it was a terrorist organization and not a nation that attacked us.

But it isn't going to be a nuke, anyway. Nukes are expensive and hard to come by even on the black market. It'll be a chemical or biological weapon set off in some large public transportation area, where they can get maximum spreading and affect the largest number of people.

Impossible? You're dreaming, and it's a dangerous, dangerous dream.

I think you make good points. However, it's accepted that should a power use a WMD on the USA... the USA will nuke you.

And it's perfectly legal, accepted, and expected. The USSR knew this as did everyone else. The USA made it very clear they would vapourize thier enemies should they dare.

Now, there is a real disconnect between criminal organizations, like terrorists, who may or may not be associated with a "host" nation. Would you have nuked Afganistan if 9/11 were a Sarin attack or dirty bomb?

So what's the answer?

The end of nuclear proliferation. It's a priority.

Make note that each and every country around Iraq has nuclear material, plants, and some even have working missels (Israel for example). Iraq is the only nation that doesn't have any of these.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 5:15 PM

AERONSTORM

Quote:

The REPUBLICANS took the high road???

What do they smoke on this planet you're from?
And do the televisions there pick up anything besides the FoxNews channel?

Compare the two conventions and get back to me.

It's sad when the general media is so far to the left that it can't see the center.

Since you're bashing Fox, which network do you work for?

I respect your opinion, though I cannot agree with it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 19, 2004 6:59 PM

ILGREVEN

Quote:
It's sad when the general media is so far to the left that it can't see the center.

That's Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, William Safire, Ann Coulter, Don Imus, and all the other conservative media icons bashing the "liberal media" fallacy into your brain.

In reality, it's true the media can't see the center...but that's because it's so far to the RIGHT.

This media finds Ann Coulter to be a reputable source. The same Ann Coulter that's been refused repeatedly by the right-wing Wall Street Journal, and was cut by the right-wing National Review. When the NATIONAL FRICKIN' REVIEW thinks your messages are too right-wing, you have to start re-evaluating yourself.

"Bye now. Have good sex!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2004 6:27 AM

AERONSTORM

Actually, it's my own time spent watching the news since I was little (becoming the news junkie my dad is!)

It's true that I favor Fox news because they report the way I think the media ought to. CNN for example, I feel is irresponsible with many of the things they report (do you remember Gulf War One and the old joke that Saddam got his intel from CNN?)

Anyways, I'm not here to bash liberals or start a fight, I just am tired of people being really ugly and hateful, especially towards the President. I enjoy politics, but this year or so has gotten really nasty and I wish people would just go back to polite debate about issues, not the person.

Here's hoping...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:58 PM

UNICORN

I agree things are nasty and we need dialogue.

But we have to start with facts, and the process for obtaining facts requires reading second and even third independent sources.

It means fact-checking on a regular basis to make sure that the things our leaders are telling us are true and based in fact.

It means understanding the difference between fact (news) and talking points, between fact and spin. (Talking points are nothing more than propoganda, and they rely on the idea that if you repeat something 47 times on 12 different stations, people will believe it, regardless of the reliability of the information being transmitted.)

It means calling out even our allies when they use dishonest tactics, and making sure that our allies know the truth. Mr. Bush failed on this point utterly.

I was driving behind one Bush supporter the day before the election. His bumper sticker said "John Kerry: Viet Cong Vet". Don't talk to me about the negativity of Democrats when your people denegrate a man with an honorable war record by calling him a traitor, simply because in this land of the free he has a different vision for our country than the man currently running it.

Bush didn't personally come out against those dishonest 'swiftboat veterans' ads at all. He had a press secretary issue a weak general statement about negative ads and especially about the fact that they weren't attatched to the campaign. (Because if Bush didn't make them, it's not his responsibility to speak out against them?)

That's totally irresponsible. This wasn't the first time it happened either. Remember John McCain running in a certain Presidential primary 4 years ago? The W.-support attack machine spread vicious and even racist rumors about McCain's stellar war record and about his family.

There's enough negativity to go around.

We the People need transparency in government; transparency is what ensures accountability. The W. Bush administration has fought tooth and nail against transparency, against accountability. They are the most secretive administration, possibly ever, certainly of our lifetime.

But c'mon-- can't you name any important mistakes you've made over the past four years? You're human. I'm human too, and I could name plenty of mine. Our President literally doesn't think he's made a single mistake. That's dangerous. Because if you are wrong, and you can't admit it, then you will stay the wrong course rather than admit error and change course to make better decisions.

I'm not name-calling here. I'm not bashing the President. I disagree with him, and I don't think he's been completely honest with us.

By Bush supporters, I've been called a traitor, because I disagree. I disagree not because I hate America, but because I love it. I love the high aspirations our founders set for us. I love the deliberate openness of the language, which in its day was truly barrier-breaking. When I am called a traitor because my beliefs are different, what does that say about the state of our country? Traitor is the dirtiest name there is, friends.

I am criticizing what I believe to be very dangerous mistakes of this administration, and yes, at times, dishonest ones. This country, this government, is ours-- it belongs to us! Of the people, for the people, by the people. All of us.

You want to know what's un-American? Disenfranchising people who disagree. Non-representation of people who disagree. Refusal to yield basic human rights to certain members of your number who are different from your small, personal idea of "normal." Calling dissenters or peaceful protesters traitors because they disagree with you and dare to exercise their First Amendment rights. Refusing to be accountable, even to the people who put you into office in good faith. That's un-American. All of these are traitorous to the principles on which the US was founded.

Just by the way...
None of my bumper stickers (I have my whole bumper covered) are mean or call Bush a traitor for believing what he believes. The closest I come is my homage to Harry Potter which says "George W. Bush is a muggle!" (which for you non-Potter-fans means he's a non-magical person; I'm a muggle too, when it comes right down to it). In the books, this is a word like "caucasion," not a bad word. Yes, it's name-calling, but that sticker is about as unfounded as I go.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 6:44 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by aeronstorm:
Actually, it's my own time spent watching the news since I was little (becoming the news junkie my dad is!)

It's true that I favor Fox news because they report the way I think the media ought to. CNN for example, I feel is irresponsible with many of the things they report (do you remember Gulf War One and the old joke that Saddam got his intel from CNN?)

Anyways, I'm not here to bash liberals or start a fight, I just am tired of people being really ugly and hateful, especially towards the President. I enjoy politics, but this year or so has gotten really nasty and I wish people would just go back to polite debate about issues, not the person.

Here's hoping...

That's commendable... but we are talking about a President who criminalized entire peoples. Thousands are in US jails, no lawyer, no phone call, perhaps being tortured right now! GWB made it clear when he said "You are either with us, or against us".

That's fascism.

This isn't your everyday politics, this is about the USA being a criminal nation that lied to the world and made war on a people for no reason at all, murdering hundreds of thousands... like the Nazis did.

You might believe the USA would never do such thngs but then there are millians of AMericans who still mistakenly believe WMDs were indeed found in Iraq.

The debate is serious, not academic. The difference is the loss of life. That's why I have gotten mad at people online, people will lie, cheat, and post on fireflyfans.net to preserve thier fragile little view of a God fearing apple pie stained USA. Frightened people are like that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 22, 2004 4:38 PM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE

dig it.

None of my bumperstickers attack the President.
But I do say "Iraq Distracts" and "Regime Change Begins at Home."

But I grow weary of arguing with the brainwash, for they truly do not realize...they do not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE