Yep. There's no other way to explain how that completely incompetent dolt beat one of the most qualified individuals I'd ever seen for this position, while at the same time Bush won La. handily. I remember someone mentioning that, sometime close to the election, she launched some campaign that was basically an all-out attack on his ethnicity that aired in rural areas of the state. I can't verify this, as I live in BTR, but it wouldn't surprise me.
this is exactly what i was talking about. if you think not having a tv and taking the bus to work are reasons a man is worth voting for, then i think that explains perfectly what i meant about nader voters. everything nader says appeals to children. he rails against corporate america and sees a conspiracy in everything. he acts like the kid in school who realizes he could get attention if he started an amnesty internaional club.
this may be true, but i wouldnt be so sure. my dad is more than happy to be racist, but he loves jindal. and i cant really say because i dont live in louisiana, but i got the impression that racism was not a huge issue with jindal. how do you know that? you say that as if LA does not have a long history of electing total morons and criminals.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html specifically which parts of that are wrong? " Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations. To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations. He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. " - bush and everyone always claims bush only used UN as the justification for the war. well read his speech. he specifically tells the UN exactly what i have been saying, that the war resumes as a continuation of the first war. you cannot argue that saddam kept to the terms of the cease fire. you cant. war resumes. simple. case closed. 'Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence?" - bush
There is one other thing. In the final debate before the election - I believe it was Thursday night - when things were looking desperate for her, she threw a Hail Mary pass and pulled the "I lost a child" card out of the deck. Never underestimate the power of the sympathy vote. I get hammered a lot as being cynical for saying this...but the fact of the matter is, she didn't ONCE mention her dead son during the campaign until the last minute, when a Jindal victory looked like a sure thing. I thought it was a pretty cheap stunt, myself...albeit one that worked for her.
This has been explained to him time and again, Martin. It doesn't matter to him. It doesn't fit in with what he wants to believe.
oops i made a mistake there, i meant to say wmd was the thing everyone said was the only excuse. it appears you knew what i meant anyways. wmd is one thing on a list of reasons to go to war with iraq.
I think this goes to CParso's point about stupid people as much as anything. What in the blue hell does a dead kid have to do with anything?
Um excuse me, sir. I want, more than anything, for the U.S. to be justified for the invasion. I would very much like to know that my friends and family are risking their lives over there for a worthy cause. And I will have you know that I ardently supported the invasion for about the first year of it. What martin listed did nothing in the way of helping his case. This is NOT a continuation of the first war. That us utter, hypocritical, self-serving bull$hit. The UN deemed SH to be in satisfactory complaince with the UN sanctions relating to '91 around '98 or so, at which point a new resolution was drafted. I've explained the complexities of the UN violations, and clearly stated how we were not authorized to use force given the state of affairs. I'm not going to rehash it. Go find it in the other thread if it still doesn't sink it, or if it 'doesn't fit into what you want to believe'. Such a bunch of crap. Israel has committed more UN violations in the past 30 years than any other country. And Saudi Arabia is guilty of at least as many human rights violations as SH was. Did you know that is the only country in the world where women are still not allowed to drive? :dis:
And as I have explained to you before, sir, that when I was in the US Army from 1991-99, we were told that the Gulf War was in a state of cease-fire, subject to resumption of hostilities at such time as the C-in-C should direct. I was actually placed on alert twice, once in 1993, and another time in 1994, when Saddam was playing footsie w/ the inspectors...it really looked like we were headed over there in '94, before Saddam got cold feet and backed down. Since the Gulf War never ended in the first place, how can a resumption of hostilities be viewed as the beginning of a NEW war? Do you presume to know more than the actual people who have to do the fighting? Did you know that the Korean War never ended, either? That any resumption of hostilities over there would NOT be a new conflict, but rather the ending of a cease-fire?
