USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[Kate]

First of all, it's Osama bin Laden. I thought you made a typo in the first post, but you did it twice so I had to correct you.

Originally Posted by forre

Here, he speaks about the war that wasn't necessary in that scale that took place. That is not important. The important thing for the TV-watchers is that the country could have saved 200 billion bucks to catch Usama. It's how the phrase is interpreted in the mind.

That's not how it was interpreted in my mind. They could have used the 200 billion for their health and education issues. The U.S. were very close to catching Osama bin Laden, when Bush suddenly said that he is, and I quote, "not worried about him [Osama] so much".

Originally Posted by forre

Bush could come with the counter phrase as "to spend 200 billion bucks on a project of catching one person is irresponsible. It's like throwing money for probably nothing". Etc.

I'm sorry, you lost me here.

Originally Posted by forre

So at this point we see that Kerry's argument is empty in itself but it may work on the voters as it seems have worked on some of you. It's was a good strategy to gather some points from Kerry's side.

And how did you get to this conclusion?

Olga, you're confusing me. Aaaaaahhh. I want to understand you so I can respond, but you're making it really hard for me to understand what you're saying.

Ok, let's make it easier. Why do you support Bush and don't support Kerry? Give me reasons with quotes. I'll do the same. That should be simple and logical.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

luxxi, so basically a million people should die before you oppose Bush? Because the people and children who got killed as of today don't have families, people that love them, that care about them and so on, is that what you're saying? Terrorism needs to be fought, but US had no right to invade Iraq. Iraqi war was for oil, Bush mentioned invading it even before he became president.

Where did I say that? Freddie said that millions might die as a result of US elections (i.e. if Bush is elected). I asked him how. then he responded that by invading other countries. To which I pointed out that in wars Bush launched in this century less than 100.000 people died. So I don't see how millions could die in next 4 years.

If anybody has any idea how millions could die as result of Bush being elected please enlighten me.

Originally Posted by katbeidar

First of all, it's Osama bin Laden. I thought you made a typo in the first post, but you did it twice so I had to correct you.

Not necessary. When translating non-latin script into latin you can get several variants. None is more correct (or wrong) than other.

[forre]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Ok, let's make it easier. Why do you support Bush and don't support Kerry? Give me reasons with quotes. I'll do the same. That should be simple and logical.

Of course not. None of them is good enough. Kerry just has a very good initial position as he can play on Bush's mistakes but Bush can't do that as Kerry didn't make any yet. Kerry's mistakes are still to come if he wins.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by forre

None of them is good enough.

True. But Kerry is better then Bush, IMO. Both of them are liars, both want to win for reasons that we might never know, but Kerry's politics are more suitable in today's world.

Originally Posted by luxxi

Not necessary. When translating non-latin script into latin you can get several variants. None is more correct (or wrong) than other.

"Osama" is more widely excepted, so I think it's better to use it. Of course, use whichever, I don't really care.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

"Osama" is more widely excepted, so I think it's better to use it. Of course, use whichever, I don't really care.

More widelly accepted yes. But that doesn't make it more right.

[spyretto]

oh common, it's Usama & Osama, it's the same thing. Don't "filter out a mosquito yet shallow a camel."

Don't pretend u care about Iraq, nobody cares about Iraq. And if u were a victim all u'd see is a light and nothing else.
Bush is as bad as Kerry and US policy won't change, that's the bottom line. Whatever the Americans wanna do they do it, we don't have a say about it. ( that is Bush's re-election, by the way )


peace

[Kate]

spyretto, we don't know for sure that Bush will get re-elected. Yes, there's a high chance, but nothing in this world is for sure.

[freddie]

It's fate I tell you! Fate! Kerry's initials are JFK. And he's from the same state as the real JFK even.

What I've seen in the US (of course I've seen less then a 100 people out of 200 million so it's not like it's important, but anyway) is that people are uterly clueless regarding who they're gonna vote. They simply don't care enough. I've seen the debate being shown on a big screen at the Downtown Crossing in Boston and no one even looked up. They just went about their errands. Some colledge girls assured me that they'll vote on a whim... whoever they like better on that day. Then there was this girl who said she'll vote for Kerry cause he's cute.

[Kate]

freddie, that's exactly how I imagined the situation in the U.S. The whole world is holding it's breath until the elections, but the majority of the Americans couldn't care less. As long as they themselves are not being killed, who cares who leads, right? Ignorance is bliss.

Having lost a my dad this year, I can just imagine what kind of pain the relatives and loved ones are feeling when their children, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands etc are being blown up to pieces for no other reasons then "peace". Like the quote in my signature says, "Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity." If you think about it, it's exactly like that. The only way to reach peace is by patiently and diplomatically discussing the issues.

[Kate]

kirillov, WW2 had a stupid cause to it. There's never a good reason to use force and take lives.

[Kate]

kirillov, Hitler was a mentally challenged person, he attacked first with his stupid Nazism, of course people fought back. But that's not the point. No body would have started WWII just because someone decided to attack Germany because Hitler supposedly was a Nazi! And that's exactly what Bush did - killed millions of perfectly innocent people just because his left buttock suggested that there might be WMD in Iraq. He was doing it for the oil, a guinea pig can see that.

[Kate]

kirillov, the quote assumes that if you lost your virginity you can't get it back by having sex with someone.

[marina]

Originally Posted by freddie

They simply don't care enough. I've seen the debate being shown on a big screen at the Downtown Crossing in Boston and no one even looked up. They just went about their errands

Because they would just like to see what each candidate is going to do, and not what each candidate thinks the other did wrong, or what they are going to do wrong .
They are very sick of all the negativity of these stupid campaigns, people on both sides have faults. Also people are sick of picking a candidate that they either hate less, or that they think is less of an idiot .
Should be something better than what they have to choose from.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

No body would have started WWII just because someone decided to attack Germany because Hitler supposedly was a Nazi!

So you would oppose attacking Germany on the basis of Nazis killing one group of people because they belonged to certain religion?

[haku]

Originally Posted by marina

Also people are sick of picking a candidate that they either hate less, or that they think is less of an idiot.

I agree that Bush and Kerry are both bad. Their international policy will be the same.

Today in Ohio, Kerry showed what a gun lover he is, something any candidate must do in the US.
Yeah! I killed something with my cool gun!
Oh yeah, that guy is all for love and peace.

[Kate]

haku, he was hunting there. For your information, invasive species that were brought to America are destroying their natural habitats, like possums in NZ. So these animals are allowed to be hunted and killed. So basically, Kerry showed that he cared for U.S. natural environments and biological conservation.

luxxi, let's not go completely offtopic.

[forre]

When it comes to the finals in the elections of the US President, both Kerry and Bush will claim they even care about mosquitos in Arctics.

Excuse me my sarcastic tone, but when I watch them debating, I can only smile. They are both uber-pathetic.

[Kate]

forre, well tell me what would you do if you were one of the candidates? Tell them that you're a liar and that you have no plans for USA at all? I hardly think that will win you any votes.

The issue at hand is not who is pathetic, but whose ideas for the America are right in general - and that's Kerry's.

[coolasfcuk]

Originally Posted by marina

Also people are sick of picking a candidate that they either hate less, or that they think is less of an idiot .
Should be something better than what they have to choose from.

Exactly. There is not much more to be said... its just too bad that it wasnt Gore the one who won 4 years ago, because it is very clear that Kerry is the WORSE when comparing them (Gore and Kerry)... and of course Bush is ALWAYS bad!

[Kate]

Kerry isn't very charismatic, so there must be a reason why his party decided to sacrifice that quality and still choose him. And I think it's because he is very qualified. The way he carries himself, so presidential.

Bush doesn't carry himself -- he yells during debates, interrupts the moderator etc... he doesn't even know what "internet" is for god's sake. I just can't see why people support him! During the debatres he only put down Kerry, he didn't defend his decisions and mistakes... And when during the second debate a woman asked him what his three big mistakes were during his presidency, he didn't name a single one! The arrogance!!!