PresidencyMatch-2004 - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/06/2004 10:00:24 PM · #1

dont bother spending all that time researching the canadates on your own. this quick little quiz will match you up in 2 minutes!

:p

Flash

Nikon D700

02/07/2004 09:32:44 AM · #2

Thanks for the link. It helped.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/07/2004 09:54:09 AM · #3

Very tricky quiz. You have to click every link to find out what "they" think the issue means so as not to be mislead.

cbeller

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/07/2004 09:59:49 AM · #4

Thanks. This confirmed my dislike for Kerry. Hopefully Dean or Edwards can surge and get the nomination.

dtouch1

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Canon

02/07/2004 10:23:40 AM · #5

I'm still going to vote for Mickey Mouse!!!

dacrazyrn

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/07/2004 05:33:07 PM · #6

My old roommate always write in my other friends name for president, everytime! I am wondering if he (both of them) have been investigated by the FBI? LOL

02/09/2004 11:56:09 AM · #7

one thing i thought was funny is a guy at my work who claims to NOT be republican or like bush ended up w/ bush as his #1 pic :o

02/09/2004 12:05:51 PM · #8

This quiz is pretty hard to hold truth too... President Bush, Liberman and MAYBE Edwards are the only ones who don't change their minds on what their base belief are every second...

I'm sure all of the possible Dem nomonees are high on the disire list for terrorists. Could anyone else be more friendly to anti-american terrorists than Dean and Kerry!!!

Message edited by author 2004-02-09 12:07:20.

02/09/2004 12:21:03 PM · #9

Originally posted by Russell2566:

I'm sure all of the possible Dem nomonees are high on the disire list for terrorists. Could anyone else be more friendly to anti-american terrorists than Dean and Kerry!!!

what makes you say that ?

02/09/2004 01:24:49 PM · #10

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

what makes you say that ?

Lots of reasons, while not all of the Dem. Nomonees suffer from all of these problems, they all do suffer from at least one of them.
1) The believe we deserved or were asking to be attacked on 9/11. This is kind of like saying a girl deserved or was asking to be raped.

2) Does not have the balls to stand up for what is right/wrong

3) feels the UN/NATO should be in charge of what the US does, hence we would never do anything.

4) All of them, save Liberman, would crumble under miniscule pressure and change their feelings or base beliefs.

If you were able to ask Saddam who his top three choices to be president were he would name in order, Mrs. Clinton, Dean & then Kerry. I dislike a lot of what Bush is doing, but in comparison to the choices, he is a god! And that is quite frankly sad.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/09/2004 01:39:07 PM · #11

im about to walk out the door to go to work so i dont have the time to properly answer to your post but i will later.

but...

if a big bully was picking on the smaller, weaker kids, showing them up with his massive strength. or a rich kid kept showing up to class or work w/ new bigger and better toys that none of his friends or co-workers could possibly afford, and bragging about it. if at some point that guy lossed all his wealth or the bully got beat up.
wouldnt you think "well, they had it coming.." ?

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/09/2004 01:44:16 PM · #12

Who says we deserved to be attacked on 9/11?
Kerry was a Vietnam hero...What did Bush contribute there?
Bush seems to be changing his tune regarding the WMD that he said were in Iraq, now blaming problems with intelligence.
Not that I like the dems all that much either (Kerry takes way too much PAC money) but your allegations are not specific in the least.

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

what makes you say that ?

Lots of reasons, while not all of the Dem. Nomonees suffer from all of these problems, they all do suffer from at least one of them.
1) The believe we deserved or were asking to be attacked on 9/11. This is kind of like saying a girl deserved or was asking to be raped.

2) Does not have the balls to stand up for what is right/wrong

3) feels the UN/NATO should be in charge of what the US does, hence we would never do anything.

4) All of them, save Liberman, would crumble under miniscule pressure and change their feelings or base beliefs.

If you were able to ask Saddam who his top three choices to be president were he would name in order, Mrs. Clinton, Dean & then Kerry. I dislike a lot of what Bush is doing, but in comparison to the choices, he is a god! And that is quite frankly sad.

02/09/2004 03:17:24 PM · #13

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Many democrats or Liberals can be accused of saying we deserved to be attacked, if people don't remember that, it's really just to sad to comment on.

As far as Kerry specifically. He has been for and against war depending on the weather. First he was a war hero, then he threw someone elseâ��s war medals over the white house gates when it was trendy.

He then voted against liberating Kuwait, but then voted for giving Bush the power to attack Iraq for violations of treaties and possible WMDs and because they were a growing threat NOT AN IMMINENT threat. But of course later, when it was no longer trendy, he spoke out against the war, claiming he didn't really think we were going to attack and that Bush didn't use his power correctly. NOW he is comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and some how thinks that anything he gained from being in Vietnam or being a protestor against it later qualifies him to fight terrorism.

So lets profile Kerry. He can't make his mind up about his position and doesn't have enough character to stand up for what he believes in. He isn't smart enough to know that when he votes on a bill that gives the President the right/power to go to war with a country that it might actually happen, he can't tell the difference (which is obvious) between Iraq and Vietnam. He is also so dense that when he refers to Vietnam, he calls it Nixon's War... Last time I checked it was Lyndon Johnson's war???

Kerry has also been in office for some trillion years, yet he has never authored or co-authored a major bill of any kind. He is against gay marriage, and is OK with a legal binding version, yet he has publicly stated that he is not willing to stand up and sign a bill for, or against either? meaning he isn't willing to take a stand or do anything for anyone.

Message edited by author 2004-02-09 15:19:41.

02/09/2004 03:17:52 PM · #14

NOW, on to the intelligence community. Everyone, including France, Russia, Germany, Australia, Spain and England had intelligence that PROVED/SHOWED that Saddam had WMDs and had goals or intentions of getting nuke weapons but was still years away from gaining the later. Saddam him self apparently thought he had WMDs. So if Saddam didn't know the truth about his own military, of course we should have.

In the 1990's when esteemed Clinton was in office, he cut the budget of everything intelligence/military related. Something else he did was put in effect a hiring freeze. This meant that the CIA (which liberals hate) were unable to actually hire human intelligence. They were not allowed to hire anyone with criminal ties or shady backgrounds to be simple. Well guess what, that cuts out 99% of the possible market. Oh ya, lets get record clean Joe Shmoe White guy to get in tight with Alquida.....

So after review my own comments and the facts, I guess your right, President Bush lied and knew the whole time the truth about WMDs and was even privy to the Terrorist attacks, but because he is the devil and worse than Hitler him self, he said f*ck America, this will make me popular and get me reelected in 3 years.

Message edited by author 2004-02-09 15:20:17.

cbeller

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/09/2004 08:30:42 PM · #15

Originally posted by Russell2566:

So after review my own comments and the facts, I guess your right, President Bush lied and knew the whole time the truth about WMDs and was even privy to the Terrorist attacks, but because he is the devil and worse than Hitler him self, he said f*ck America, this will make me popular and get me reelected in 3 years.

The Bush Administration and WMD

Also interesting
Bush & WMD: Assertion vs. Reality

02/09/2004 08:46:45 PM · #16

Originally posted by cbeller:

The Bush Administration and WMD

Also interesting
Bush & WMD: Assertion vs. Reality

Nothing ground breaking there. Most of it is stuff taken out of context or stuff completly re-written with a negitive answer that doesn't even point at the original comment.

Also, so many of those quotes and excerpts are from retired Clinton apointies, and un-named sources from the liberal media... Whether it's bad crap about Clinton or bad crap about Bush, I don't tend to believe either source of information or I at least don't let them hold much water! I certainly would never base any of my arguments off of something from a DEAN website :) The whole thing is just chalked full of so much honesty and integrity, I know I read about 90% of Bush admin & WMDs and I had already read Assertions_vs._Reality. I can poke so many holes in both it's funny!

You should thank your lucky stars Gore didn't make it into office, the world would be a completly different climate right now, and not in a good way.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/09/2004 09:03:00 PM · #17

Scary

Message edited by author 2004-02-09 21:26:49.

02/09/2004 09:24:20 PM · #18

Originally posted by pitsaman:

Scary

You could also read it the other way and translate into common sense:

Instead Of:
Government prob seeks to stifle dissent.... Big brother is comming to get us

How About:
Government subpoenas Drake University in order to find more witnesses in the attack on a Police Officer.

I've seen these so called "peacefull" protests... What a joke... I was in San Fran for business earlier last year where peacfull protestors were hitting a Police Horse trying to get the Mounted officer to reply with force. Did I mention the 3 cameras that were shooting the scene and egging on the police officer with obsenities?

It was disgusting, not only were the people I witnessed arrested, but so were several other groups of people for doing the exact same thing. The mayor of San Fran pardoned all these scum bags with-in a week, citing freedom of speech????

cbeller

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/09/2004 10:45:40 PM · #19

Originally posted by Russell2566:

...I certainly would never base any of my arguments off of something from a DEAN website :)

And why is that?

Originally posted by Russell2566:

The whole thing is just chalked full of so much honesty and integrity, I know I read about 90% of Bush admin & WMDs and I had already read Assertions_vs._Reality. I can poke so many holes in both it's funny!

Then start poking. I'm interested in hear your facts.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

02/09/2004 10:55:49 PM · #20

indeed. also, do you watch cnn?

i think anyone interested in credible information about the bush/WMD issue can find it Here (350mb documentery)
if you need codec to view the movie find them Here

also ive found This website to be pretty fair on comparing the canadates and the issues.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

02/10/2004 01:52:19 AM · #21

[quote=Russell2566] [quote=Olyuzi] Who says we deserved to be attacked on 9/11?

Many democrats or Liberals can be accused of saying we deserved to be attacked, if people don't remember that, it's really just to sad to comment on.

I think your choice of words isn't accurate. I don't think dems/libs were saying we "deserved" to be attacked. No one thought that American people deserved to die. But they were trying to give a rationale as to why we may have been attacked.

Also, I think you confuse democrats with liberals. I don't believe they are one in the same...in fact, most democrats are doing the same things as republicans but couch it differently so that you believe there is a difference. (public relations) And I'll bet that conservatives and liberals have more in common than you realize. We probably have similar values and goals on many issues and want wholesome lives for ourselves and children. We may just disagree on the means to achieve those goals.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/10/2004 12:35:32 PM · #22

bump, watch that movie

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

02/10/2004 02:26:09 PM · #23

Does Kerry support war?
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." (Fox News Channel's "Special Report," 12/15/03)

Against Balancing The Budget: Kerry voted against a bipartisan plan to balance the budget in seven years.

Kerry Has Voted For At Least Seven Major Reductions In Defense And Military Spending Necessary For Our National Security.

Who's he with?
*Kerry Disagrees With Gephardt On Federal Funding Of Abortions.
*Kerry Disagrees With Gephardt On Banning Partial-Birth Abortions.
*Kerry Disagrees With Lieberman And Gephardt On Recognition Of Civil Unions.
*Kerry Disagreed With Lieberman On The 1991 Persian Gulf War. Unlike his Senate colleague, Joe Lieberman, Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War.
In 1994, Kerry Criticized Fellow Democrats For Pushing Health Care Reform.

JOHN KERRY AD, John Kerry speaking: â��Every day good people across New Hampshire are struggling. The MacLellans are school teachers trying to keep up with their mortgage. We shouldnâ��t be raising taxes on them.â��
Kerry Has Voted Against Major Tax Relief At Least 14 Times In His Senate Career. Kerry Voted To Reduce Size Of 2001 Tax Cut. In 1993, Kerry Voted Twice For Clintonâ��s $240 Billion Tax Hike.

Just some more info.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

02/10/2004 04:01:36 PM · #24

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JUNEL 19, 2003 13:02:58 ET XXXXX

Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities

In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.

But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!

MORE

From the official congressional record: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities:

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:

'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD

"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:

"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:

"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

END

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
//www.drudgereportArchives.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2003
Not for reproduction without permission of the author