Kerry Concedes to Bush

[Mr. Pointy]

Non-Americans don't understand what it felt like to have our country attacked so viciously, so of course we are going to retaliate and enforce such things as the Patriot Act.

Try telling that to people who had relatives murdered in IRA (and Loyalist) and ETA attacks on civilian targets in Britain and Spain...I think you'll find that they understand all too well...not to diminish the horror and loss of 9/11 but we have been living with terrorist attacks a lot longer in Europe...

 

[SlayerThe]

Try telling that to people who had relatives murdered in IRA (and Loyalist) and ETA attacks on civilian targets in Britain and Spain...I think you'll find that they understand all too well...not to diminish the horror and loss of 9/11 but we have been living with terrorist attacks a lot longer in Europe...

But you forget that there have been fundamental extremists in Europe a lot longer than the United States. You can date this to as far back as the Crusades.

Then you have the fact that there are extremists who want to retake Spain.

And I do know that there are many other places in the world that have had terrorist attacks and it is not only the United States to suffer from it. Especially certain parts in the Middle East.

But that doesn't mean that our terrorist attacks are any more important than any other parts in the world which is why the United States and its coalition have begun a fight against these terrorists.

I can't debate this issue because it just comes down to the fact that terrorists are bad and thats it.

 

[Kazby]

I don't agree that the United States should be a World Police, but we had to take out the terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Saddam.

I agree. Just because we're 'oh-so-powerful' or whatever (which i think is really dumb...I really don't believe that) doesn't mean we can go bossing around the world. Ooh wow what's so special about us anyway? What makes our country so different than the rest? It's stupid if you think about it. We walk around thinking, oh we're so great, other countries suck...well not all of us think that but I'm sure there's some out there that do. And it's pointless. We can't boss other countries around. It's really not right.
On the Saddam and Osama subject....yes we needed to take them out. Unfortunately, we didn't get Osama yet. But we're on his tail.
And yes, Saddam reportedly had weapons of mass destruction. I agree with our country on that, that we had to capture him anyway because of that. We can't let someone so powerful walking around with nuclear bombs. It just wouldn't work out 😉
As you can see though, I'm a very opinionated person 😛

 

[Faldor]

america lost any and all sympathy it gained from loosing the world trade centre the moment they started murdering people in iraq. more civillians have died in afganistan and iraq then on sept 11.

its just a pathetic excuse to grab power. you don't give a shi* your leader lied to you and is now sending hundreds of your countrymen to their deaths because, hey he can. (besides they were mostly poor and therefore not very nice)

and for gods sake stop this left wing / right wing name calling if you used your brains (instead of eating proppaganda bars) you'd realise there are more than two political viewpoints.

don't worry by 2008 they'll find proof terrorists can vote and gladly vote for everyone to stop any rogue nations getting a say.

go bush. your doing exactly what osama wants

 

[faiths5x5]

what about north korea? i mean its known for certain they've got nukes and such and arent good to their ppl. doing anythign there?
we have embargos and such on cuba. why not on n. korea? cuz i mean, i dunno bout you but..im less worried bout cuba than n.korea.

so BC knew where bin laden was. shouldnt bush have too? didn't the memo tip him off, or was he too busy being on vacation? im sure govts in the past have known where terrorists have been. do they go after all them? no. different reasons.
BC should have started to raise interest rates again to help economy but so should bush.

[QUOTE
Non-Americans don't understand what it felt like to have our country attacked so viciously, so of course we are going to retaliate and enforce such things as the Patriot Act.[/QUOTE]

do you know anything bout ashcroft? im pretty sure this link is biased (aka a warning. feel free to give Your biased site so we can see his view) BIAS :
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/john-ashcroft/

even if its biased, the dudes Still Scary. he goes and makes changes to the Justice system Then After tells the prez.
do you know what the patriot act entails? http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984

never said saddam wasnt a bad man. he was. but..the death toll for the war of Iraqis which im sure yall know seeing as americas oh so concerned with them dying is over 100, 000 and when saddam was in power it was bout 5000 a year, if i remember correctly from cnn..im sure saddams deaths were more painful, but..gee a Whole Bunch of ppl or not so many ppl...i dunno...

so..america isn't going to war with all countries with terrorists. i agree, cuz itd be hell to fight the us and all its allies. cuz theres gotat be someone with those leanings somewhere. but, how is america gonna reduce the threat?
maybe america should yknow apologize for deciding hm, these guys need saving lets go storm into their country using these untrue reasons, attract More terrorists to the country, make it unstable and make things just a lil topsy turvy. and yknow while theyre at it Force Their Way of Life onto another nation. cuz yknow Everyone just Loves having things they dont know or maybe even dont want, Forced on them.. I just love religious propaganda shoved down my throat, makes me all happy. no i dont see why the iraqi's might have a problem, or anyone else in the middle east, americas not interfering that much, are they? they just..yknow took over a country for awhile, i dont think theyd really pick bones about going after terrorists as long as the citizens of those countries didn't get hurt. which yknow..think about it, imagine if this was happening to the us. how would you feel?
reminds me of the native americans. no one should say america treated them right, or most of the countries that came here. of course if you can, and you got proof lay it on me. please. id love to hear it.

saddam did genocide, So do so many others. america dun seem to be doing much bout that do they? iraq had oil tho...most other countries dont, lil interesting huh?
i dun think there'll be a war with saudi arabia, i mean bush is buddies with 'em. why fight buddies even tho, yknow their country did have something to do with 9-11. nah, that dun make No sense.



so just b/c america hasnt really had a terrorist attack on it soil condones this action? what dont pay attention to the Little world you get? internet helps, but..who really knows all that stuff or has any idea? how bout the first world trade center bombing.? its not the first time, i mean, its not totally unconcievable anyone'd hate the us, is it? i mean, if really religious, america bad. could be jealous but..america's not all its cracked up to be, its not as free as it touts itself nor as openminded. you can't be you in america, not everywhere, the President wants to amend the constitution to exclude soemthing from a group of ppl...hm...interesting huh? i doubt itd hold up in supreme court an all, but..he still Wants it. he wants to take rights away from citizens. but its not patriot act like, it wont protect the nation,
which yknow..i dont like the PA either.
and..honeslty, im not so fond of kerry, for me he's the lesser of two evils, he couldnta fixed everything but..could change relly have hurt?

terrorists are bad. but why did america only Really care when It got attacked. it lets all the countries get attacked and sends red cross and such, but..doenst raise a fuss, barely got news coverage before.

im not a left wing or right wing, i might lean more one way, but..to each his own as long as i dont get views shoved down my throat and it dun hurt ppl.
im sure i offended someone, and yknow..i wish i could say i didnt mean to, but...be openminded. Maybe, just Maybe You Aren't right. I mean, its prolly a big shocker, but..yknow..no one's always right. im prolly wrong on some stuff. id be surprised if i wasnt. its my viewpoint. i may not agree with yours nor you mine, but..

 

[Frenchy Faith]

Wow, once again faiths5x5 you showed you were convincing. I wish I could write the way you do, lol.
I totally agree with you, & Faldor.

& the Patriot Act, duh Slayer, The, who would want such a thing? It's just soooo the beginning of the enforcement of 1984 & the Big Brother madness !!!

 

[eponinethen]

Did I say anything about the rest of the world in my post? No, my post was about the piracy in the United States, so anything you say about the rest of the world is irrelevant to this discussion.

Ok I appologise for that but I tend to have more than the US on my mind (my problem)..

And yes the copying of music onto your computer and distributing it is the exact same thing as burning a million CDs and selling them. Because the people who download these songs from you could be just doing that.

Yeah that's npt really what I said either is it. I didn't mention copying onto your computer, I said from the internet. (And even if I did, I still don't agree that it is the same.. cause you can't be responsible for what those people might do with the music they download.)

Are you completely forgetting a little thing called Desert Storm? Where Saddam practically engaged in genocide of the citizens of Kuwait in which he used WMD.

No I'm not and I don't see how that has got anything to do with what I said.
But, you're also wrong. Saddam did not use WMD in Kuwait There was no genocide in Kuwait, what so ever, not many people died. The allegiations that Iraqis raped and killed Kuwatian women were fabricated by an American PR company. The woman who made the accusations, in a so called news flash, were in fact the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador in the US, and had been in the US all the time.. However, Saddam used WMD against the kurds in the north.. Beacuse of that the kurds (and the shia muslims in the south) were encouraged by US officials to revolt against Saddam. But as soon as the revolt started the US troops retreated, leaving hundreds of thousands to be killed by Saddam.

Yes it does feel bad to know that innocent Iraqis were killed by this war, but whose to say they wouldn't have been killed by Saddam, who knows he wouldn't have brought war upon himself.

And that makes it ok? I'm gonna agree with Faiths5x5. And also say that this has got little to do with it. You can't just say "they might have died anyway"! Maybe he would have brought war upon himself, but that makes it ok that you started the war instead? Cause he might have..?

Right before the war, he was trying to get his hands on WMD. What if we hadn't invaded and Saddam would have gotten what he wanted? Would you still continue on with your little liberal rants?

Liberal rants, yeah, thank you.. No I probably wouldn't cause then you wouldn't have invaded and I wouldn't have been able to rant about it. (Ok, lame, sorry.) (Iraq has never had or could never make rockets that would reach the US, not even Europe..)

Not to mention that the three most powerful countries in the world received the same intel that said that Saddam was in fact hiding of WMD destruction. Granted that this information was faulty, it was enough of proof to go to war with him.

Eh, no..? The UN wanted to wait for real proof or give Saddam an untimatum, which means there were not enough proof to start a war.

Although now we know there was no WMD, we admit that. But were creating a new democratic society that used to be overpowered by a foul dictator.

Yeah, lucky for you this country happened to be ruled by a dictator, what false reason for the war would you otherwise have come up with afterwords..? (And please, since when is war the ultimate way to create a democracy..? )

And were not going to start wars with everyone because terrorists are from there countries, were trying to fight a war against these agencies of terror. DUH! If we wanted to start a war with everyone country that had a citizen who was a terrorist, then there would be a lot more wars on our hand.

(Oh, well, I must have been wrong to think it had something to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia is already selling their oil to the US, while Iraq wasn't..)
And, well, DUH, you talked about the importence of the fight against the terrorism, which I btw think of as kind of a joke, and I thought you considered 9/11 to be the big terror thing but I guess I was wrong..


Faldor - I said I wasn't a fan but when I tried agreeing with you it said I had to spread some reputation before I can agree with you again, which kinda prooves I was wrong.. Anyway, I shouldn't even be posting this post since you say everything so much better than I do but.. I just don't seem to be able to shut up.. Anyway what I'm trying to say is thank you, I agree.

 

[Lorne The Host]

Our economy would actually be better if Republicans had been in control of the country sooner (1992-2000), because:

1. 9/11. Bill Clinton actually knew where Osama bin Laden was hiding while he was in office.

Seriously, wow, who'd have thought that considering how Osama was an active CIA asset. I'm sure you know the Afghan-Soviet war thing, so I won't bore with that. During the Balkan Wars, Osama aided the Albanian muslims in Kosovo. It's time to spell things out, the Albanian Muslims are those rampaged Serb towns and were supported by the US.

If you consider knowing where Osama was so evil, I'd suggest you do some reading regarding all those times they had him in hospitals in Middle East post-9/11 and never bothered to "catch him". Don't you find that odd? Not as much as the magical video.

Non-Americans don't understand what it felt like to have our country attacked so viciously, so of course we are going to retaliate and enforce such things as the Patriot Act. And as for the whole Internet Movie/Music Downloading Piracy thing, its 21st century theft, and theft = illegal.

The War on Terror and the War in Iraq was a stepping stone so events like 9/11 and the Holocaust wouldn't happen again.

I don't agree that the United States should be a World Police, but we had to take out the terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Saddam, who notoriously hid terrorists in his country. We have to protect the world from the use of WMD and genocide. Because the UN isn't apparently enforcing it's power as efficiently as it should be.

So oil and corporations had nothing to do with the war on Iraq? Interesting.
To prove you view, let's wait 'till there's an intervention in Africa, you know, with all that ethnic cleansing happening right now. Oh wait, Africa equals zebras instead of oil.

 

[eset]

I would like to appologise in advance for bringing this thread back to the foreground, as it seems to have gradually devolved into a shouting match, but I have recently discovered that my original post was incorrect, so I felt the need to correct myself.

Original Question:

It was just announced that Kerry conceded to Bush. Bush is
now the president of the US, right?

Not technically. Even though the concession speach is generally considered to end the election, it apparently has no legal ramifications. Some states, including Ohio, are still counting out their ballots (even though the winner is pretty much a certainty). The concession means that Kerry and the DNC (Democratic National Committee) will not demand a recount or bring in hundreds of lawyers to contest the results (well, technically they can, but the cancession speach is their word that thewy won't).

Several independent organizations are contesting the results, along with the Green, Progressive, and Libertarian Parties, and they may have some affect. It isn't likely, in fact it would be near impossible to change the final results at this point, but if they want to try they have every right.

Also, remember that whole electoral college thing that you had to learn in fifth grade and have forgotten about since? They don't even meet together until December 13th. The president elect will be officially decided after the electors meet, in time for a mid-January inauguration.

So, to make a long story short: yes and no. How's that for a stumper?