Jump to content

Bush gets a second term...


tyjet3

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
But bush is trying to paint the war on Iraq as an extention of the war on terror

 

rational people understand that it wasn't... bush just tried to make it look like that... and it's sad that people beleive it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was a debate about Bush getting re-elected, or not getting re-elected. This election is already smeared with scandal, especially if you consider the huge slip up on the part of CBS and the memos of Bush's Lt. I think the two candidates are blowing up the Vietnam issues way out of proportion to what's actaully happening right now in the world. I, as an semi-informed voter, so not peronsally care what happened 30 years ago.

 

Bush lied to Americans about WMD's in Iraq, and all we have to show for it are internet videos of American, Britsh, Korean and Turkish civilians getting beheaded. America is loosing the war in a Iraq, and it's on Bush's watch. The media is doing a good job of conveying how out of control the situation in the middle east is but for some reason people aren't picking up on the fact that his policies are the ones that are producing the body count.

 

Before I go on does anyone know what Kerry's attitude towards the UN is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where he stands with the UN, i would say he approves of them and respects them...

 

You know, i started this post thinking that Bush was a goner... but i came to realize that the only way Kerry will lose is if he keeps trying to cover up things like the war record thing... his worst enemy in this election is himself. He just needs to be careful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to Peregrine's list of Presidents who have started wars and been re-elected:

Abraham Lincoln

Thank you.

I got your back, buddy.

 

Here's an example of something that is not a lie:

GameInformer publishes pictures of the new TES game, and those pictures look great. In fact, they're exactly that great, because GameInformer told us that they are in-game play, not just pretty cinematics. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume those pictures are fakes, that they are in-game cinematics rather than in-game play. BethSoft told GameInformer that these pictures were from in-game play.

Now, obviously BethSoft lied to GameInformer in this scenario. However, did GameInformer lie to us, or were they just reporting the facts?

 

There's a point to all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did GameInformer lie to us, or were they just reporting the facts?

 

but if gameinformer admits that they ignored or reinterpreted the information they were given about the game then they are still at fault.

 

 

ps - I am not a democrat or republican. I'm a realist. the reality of it is that bush is an evil person that doesn't even need to be in charge of a Burger King, let alone the nation. The further reality is that he is going to win the election because kerry doesn't have enough personality to win people over. I don't like it but Bush is going to take this one. Tyjet3 was right about one thing though; it's not gonna be close. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an example of something that is not a lie:

GameInformer publishes pictures of the new TES game, and those pictures look great. In fact, they're exactly that great, because GameInformer told us that they are in-game play, not just pretty cinematics. Just for the sake of argument, let's assume those pictures are fakes, that they are in-game cinematics rather than in-game play. BethSoft told GameInformer that these pictures were from in-game play.

Now, obviously BethSoft lied to GameInformer in this scenario. However, did GameInformer lie to us, or were they just reporting the facts?

 

There's a point to all this.

For this to be analogous to Bush and the intelligence re WMD in Iraq, GameInformer would have to have one of the development Xbox 2s sitting there with a copy of the unfinished TES IV: Oblivion. Bush had access to the intelligence. If he had checked this 'intelligence' (as he should have done as the evidence presented by Blix was directly contradicting it), he would've seen how weak this intelligence was. Same with Blair and the UK intelligence.

 

Either:

 

1) Bush and/or Blair made these checks, were aware of the extreme weakness of the evidence and out-and-out lied about the strength of it, or;

 

2) Bush and/or Blair did not make these checks and are therefore incompetent.

 

Take your pick - either way, Bush (and Blair) should not be re-elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most every polls point Bush's direction.

 

The lead is by far superior to that he had to Gore at this point - even the polls you know are always slightly bias to the republican party are far enough away to be taken seriously.

 

In all likelihood, Bush will be reelected. Kerry needs to pull some serious stunts to get back in the game at this point - he is a much better debater, his debates are a study in psychology really but... at this point, it doesn't really matter. Most people that matter don't really listen to the debates, or if they do - don't let it influence them all that much.

 

Spin and slander is the Republicans' trademark this election. Kerry has inadequately responded to the allegations the Reps have made this election - and it has hurt him, big time. Bush has had greater funding, though the democratic convention actually did alright in gathering funds this year... but Bush has used it well. He's run a spin campaign from day one - and it's paying off.

 

Though it saddens me to say so - I think unless Kerry pulls something out of his sleeve... this election's a goner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...