Civilised world votes for Kerry

[lazysmurff]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

The Patriot Act only began being criticized during the democratic primary so what does that tell you.

oh....my....god.

you're obviously thoroughly confused. long before the democratic primary there were books published condeming the actions of the act, not to mention several lawsuits against actions taken under the act.

educate yourself, then speak

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

ACtually I think that the American people are less educated than they should be..................The Patriot Act only began being criticized during the democratic primary so what does that tell you.

.

The second of your statements confirms your first.If you paid a bit more attention,you would have seen plenty of well-informed opposition to the Patriot Act from the day it was proposed.

[Flatrater]

As an American I am voting for the better of the 2, but if I was a non American I would vote for the weaker of the 2 for my own benifit. If Bush gave the rest of the world everythig they wanted and was a pushover the cizilized world would want him in office again. Its all about getting what you want the world wants a puchover in office for their sakes.

Thank god the rest of the world is not voting for the American president.

[RedLightning]

hmmm, I never thought of my self as a redneck, but then again i have lived in Tx and Pa, oh yea and I drive a truck. well i must say im glad that the "rest of the world" is not voting for my country.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

As an American I am voting for the better of the 2,

Good to see your a Kerry man then.The rest of the world wants an end to terrorism,please vote your terrorist out of office.

If you intend to vote Bush,please don't include God in this.Bush does not understand him,but he likes to play his role.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

As an American I am voting for the better of the 2, but if I was a non American I would vote for the weaker of the 2 for my own benifit. If Bush gave the rest of the world everythig they wanted and was a pushover the cizilized world would want him in office again. Its all about getting what you want the world wants a puchover in office for their sakes.

You have an astonishingly limited and naiive view of the rest of the world. It is not an 'us against them' atmosphere.
You think international relations is a zero-sum-gain, that is if the rest of the world wants something then the US must lose something.
This is not true at all.
International cooperation, trade and diplomacy benefits everyone, Americans and foreigners alike.

[tenguzero]

First off, though I don't like Bush or his administration much at all, comparing them with terrorists and Nazis is most definately going overboard. Hitler was in power for roughly a decade, with no planned end in sight. Even if Bush and his cronies are re-elected, it'll only be another 4 years. The vast majority of the world immediately recognised Hitler for the evil he embodied, despite his great intelligence and presence, and although this vast majority most definately should have acted against him sooner, we acted nonetheless. If Bush was really anywhere near the threat some claim he is, I would like to think the vast majority of the world (apparently in favor of Kerry,) would again, in their apparently unbiased, non-American objectivity, waste little time in acting against Bush. But most people see reality for what it is, at worst, it's only another 4 years. Though with the options presented (either Bush or Kerry) it's my opinion that there isn't any "best" case scenario. I really want to see the next four years over and done with no matter how you cut it. Bush leaves a bad taste in my mouth because I've witnessed the products of his presidency. I find Kerry equally unpleasant, because of what he threatens to bring to the table. Bush claims strength on defense of our country from foreign threats, but he's disturbingly weak on defense of our country from the enemies (in the form of weak social/medical/financial institutions and illegal aliens for instance) that are already burrowed within. Kerry claims strength in both, or is it strength in foreign but not domestic, or maybe it's domestic not foreign? I guess it depends on which direction the winds are blowing.

Bush. Kerry. Bush. Kerry. Bush. Kerry. Bush... AAARGH!
*It's only four years. It's only four years. It's only four years. It's only four years...*

[TRD2000]

i just want clarification...

did you really just say "I do care about the opinions of others outside of the US even if they don't like us. I don't care about the opinions of people who hate us because we fight for what we believe is right, or because their government tells them we're evil."

i wonder if thats how the "terrorists" feel.... sounds like a pretty similar system.

"I wouldn't worry too much about them. It looks like the Supreme Court will probably declare that they need to go to court soon. For now they are well fed, clothed, and aren't shooting at us"

since when has THAT stopped the US military? and why haven't they been in court already? they have been held for years without a reason (no proof/trial). and judging from what we've seen about treatment of people in prison under the US military who wouldn't worry? the US repeatedly refuses to sign on to international human rights agreements and then flaunts it!

"Kerry's reluctance to vote for any of our modern weapons systems that makes him weak on defense."

now you do realise how many military programs that Bush cancelled when he came in for new weapons systems? and you do realise that any that are coming out now or in the last few years were under Clintons policy not Bush's... check out the dates they were initiated if you doubt it!

[YogsVR4]

The issue I have with Kerry voting against the weapon systems was the timing. Many of the weapon systems he was against Cheney wanted to get rid of. Kerry voted against them during the cold war. Cheney wanted to remove them when the cold war was over.

[TRD2000]

yeah but Bush is going for president... what was he doing? or couldn't he understand the topic when he was reading it upside down, on coke...

the cold war is over, and has been for quite a while, the whole MAD concept pretty much meant other weapon systems were just a waste anyway.. I'm glad it's over. The U.S and England actually attacked Russia, when did Russia attack them? I'm disturbed by the amount of conventional weapons systems for troop support that bush has gotten rid of, and then try to take a step back to this whole cold war "star wars" sytem that completely fails to acknowlege or interpret the modern threat! Terrorists do not fire ICBMs! America does... if there was going to be a star wars system put up it should be set to take out ANY weapons like that,,, not just those aimed at the US.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

You have an astonishingly limited and naiive view of the rest of the world. It is not an 'us against them' atmosphere.
You think international relations is a zero-sum-gain, that is if the rest of the world wants something then the US must lose something.
This is not true at all.
International cooperation, trade and diplomacy benefits everyone, Americans and foreigners alike.

Beatiful point. It seems a lot of people fail to understand that. Poor Ricardo he's probably twisting in his grave because of that.


Btw are you an economist by any chance?

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by MagicRat

You have an astonishingly limited and naiive view of the rest of the world. It is not an 'us against them' atmosphere.
You think international relations is a zero-sum-gain, that is if the rest of the world wants something then the US must lose something.
This is not true at all.
International cooperation, trade and diplomacy benefits everyone, Americans and foreigners alike.

I guess you are missing the point! The rest of the world would have more luck getting things from Kerry than they would from Bush. Which means Kerry is a puppet to the world. You speak of trade, cooperation and diplomacy which is a give and take. One time the USA might give and the next time they make take.

[TRD2000]

actually economically Bush would be better, as far as free trade etc. goes. but what point's money when we're all dead or too scared to go outside?

besides, i like the fact the US dollar is crap, i'm saving heaps on car parts!

[zebrathree]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

I guess you are missing the point! The rest of the world would have more luck getting things from Kerry than they would from Bush. Which means Kerry is a puppet to the world. You speak of trade, cooperation and diplomacy which is a give and take. One time the USA might give and the next time they make take.

Well it's not really give and take. You're simplifying a process that just can't be simplifed at all. Diplomacy and International Relations is a very complex subject and one on which you would be advised to read up on.