Please see my reply to gradin99. I will happily defend all my criticisms of George Bush, you will find plenty if you look. I will happily defend my support of Kerry if you can find any. Other than defending his honorable war record, I don't recall laying it on the line for Kerry. What I won't do is try to defend a position that you posted and mistakenly attributed to me. I'm anti-Bush, not pro-Kerry. The two don't always go hand-in-hand. There was an election with two candidates. I voted for the lesser of two evils because my favored candidates didn't make it out of Iowa (Clark) or didn't run (McCain). The election is over, Kerry's current senate voting is simply irrelevant to me now. That is as honest an opinion as I can give.
red, no matter how many times you say you arent, you are pro-kerry, in the sense that you prefer him to bush, and voted for him. unless you are insane, that means not only that kerry is not bush, but by your standards, kerry is preferable to bush. so you believe kerry is superior to bush, you cant get around that. thats is why you voted for him. so when we make arguments as to why kerry may be terrible, it is cheap to respond with "i am not pro kerry, just anti bush!". that is a half-justification. we are explaining why voting kerry over bush was a mistake. you say kerry is the "the lesser of two evils", and we are explaining why we think he isnt. you cant make your argument unless you demonstrate that kerry is superior to bush, even if they are both awful. so half that argument is that bush is terrible, an argument you are willing to make. the other half is that kerry is less terrible. you won't touch that point. that is what we are addressing.
Red, thanks for the response to me. I now believe that you would have voted for the easter bunny if it was the alternative to Bush on the ballot.
Perhaps if he was an American citizen, of course, but I think he's a Brit. My candidate would have been Bugs Bunny, but he didn't make it out of the Iowa primary. Just because I'm anti-Coyote doesn't mean I'm pro-Roadrunner. :yelwink2: Whatever blows your frock up, martin. You know, I actually voted for George Bush in 2000 because I thought Al Gore was a pussy. And look what I got. I'll never vote for the dumber of two candidates again. Sometime I vote for a guy, sometime I vote against him. A child could understand it. You can twist logic 'till the cows come home, fine with me. This the point in the thread where I must ignore your posts because you are just indulging in your puerile need to get in the last comment, no matter how far from reality you have stumbled. But you can't tell me what I have to argue or believe. I've explained my position, just live with it.
Thanks for the red dot, olvenicedog... I guess thats five red dots I've given you, to your one.... :thumb:
voting for kerry purely because he isnt bush is like eating cyanide because you hate carrots. and when we explain to you that cyanide is worse than carrots, you put your hands over your ears and scream about how you just really really hate carrots. you won't even defend cyanide, only repeat that carrots dont taste good. real smart. that could be difficult, considering you dont vote on a candidate's merit as a candidate, but rather his skill at not being another guy you do not like. again, i thank you for the last word.
I had fun flaming away on this board prior to the election. Guys come on.......99% of these politicians could give a flying phuck about any of us. They say what they need to say in order to receive more votes than their oponent. Most politicians are as crooked as an old sailor's pecker.........
Rumsfeld Sued Over Prisoner Abuse March 1, 2005 (CBS/AP)*Two human rights groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on behalf of eight men allegedly tortured by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility" because he "personally signed off" on policies guiding prisoner treatment, said American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero. A number of other lawsuits also are pending against Rumsfeld, military commanders and civilian contractors in the abuse scandal, which broke last spring with the disclosure of photographs showing American military men and women abusing prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. An independent commission agreed in August 2004 that Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon leaders contributed to an environment in which prisoners suffered sadistic abuse at Abu Ghraib. The members also concluded that the officials could be faulted for failed leadership and oversight. On Monday the U.S. military appointed a three-star general to lead an investigation into abuse allegations at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At a Washington news conference, the ACLU and Human Rights First said the suit was filed in Rumsfeld's home state of Illinois and alleged the eight men suffered physical and psychological injuries while incarcerated in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the suit, the two groups said the men were subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment while in the facilities, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions. The ACLU has also filed three similar complaints against Colonel Thomas Pappas, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski and Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez on behalf of detainees who were allegedly tortured in Iraq. The three additional complaints were filed in federal courts in Connecticut, South Carolina and Texas.
