| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/02/2006 04:12:25 PM · #1 |
The terrorists want the US to vote democrat, because it will ensure a victory for them.
I think the rest of the world bags on America so much because they view us as a threat...they want to wear us down and make us hate our government so that we will vote in a way that gives them the oppurtunity to be more powerful.
Anwyay, do your part...vote republican.
//www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:14:43 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:16:45 PM · #3 |
I believe I'll go the George Carlin route and stay home on 'voting' day. For the sake of cleanliness in this thread I won't mention the rest of the joke, but needless to say, I'll have something to show for it when I'm done doing basically the same thing you are doing when you vote. :-)
Another four years will go by with another jackass in office, whether that jackass be Democrat or Republican.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:33:22 PM · #4 |
Actually terrorists want you to vote democrat because we all know terrorists were actually republicans before they became terrorists...
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:33:28 PM · #5 |
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:33:55 PM · #6 |
That article has so many flaws it would down DPC trying to post them all at once. I'll pick one:
"First, in summer 2001, when al-Qaeda was an obscure band of extremists hiding out in the Afghan mountains"
Problems with that statement:
1 - they were in no way obscure, having already launched an attack against the world trade center 8 years before, numerous attacks on US embassies around the globe, etc
2 - they were not hiding out in the mountains, they were enjoying a hospitable stay with the ruling Taliban and running training camps around Afghanistan
That's half a sentence out of that article. The rest of it is as flawed. Saying that terrorism is perpetuated by fighting against terrorism is defeatist nonsense. Terrorism existed before we actively fought against its proponents, existed long before W took office, and will continue on long after he is gone.
Anyway, I agree that 'voting' a different thieving, lying, corrupt piece of elitist sh*t into office is a waste of time. A new face isn't going to mean any meaningful change to policy. If/When the Dems take control of one or both houses of Congress, the legislative branch which has already been doing next to nothing for years will be back to do nothing at all outside of setting up committees to 'investigate' a countless number of circumstances that have arisen in the past 6 years. This is a complete waste of energy at a critical time. These 'self'-'serving' investigatory committees accomplish nothing but political ends as evidenced by the WTC Comission, its findings, and their lack of effect on the nations actions in the areas it said were problems. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 04:47:22 PM · #7 |
I trusted the republicans once. They've thoroughly violated that trust by encouraging businesses to send jobs overseas, driving up unemployment, and running up the deficit by starting a War that was based on lies, a War which has evolved into a quagmire without any end in sight. That's not to mention all the secretive, repressive violations of civil and human rights that have tarnished America's standing in the world.
Vote Republican?? No Thanks. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:48:14 PM · #8 |
'Voting' day is not supposed to be a Republican vs Democrat day. It's vote for the person you think will do the best job. If you vote for, let's just say Bush, ONLY because he's Republican....you have missed the point of 'voting' and wasted your vote.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 17:48:23.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:51:02 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
'Voting' day is not supposed to be a Republican vs Democrat day. It's vote for the person you think will do the best job. If you vote for, let's just say Bush, ONLY because he's Republican....you have missed the point of 'voting' and wasted your vote. |
Bravo.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:52:07 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
'Voting' day is not supposed to be a Republican vs Democrat day. It's vote for the person you think will do the best job. If you vote for, let's just say Bush, ONLY because he's Republican....you have missed the point of 'voting' and wasted your vote. |
Um... those are the two main political parties... and they both take different stands on key issues. It makes perfect sense to vote Democrat vs Republican.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:55:50 PM · #11 |
I think ed is referring to 'voting' a straight ticket based on party not candidate.
Here in western north carolina, we have an interesting situation. we have a former pro football player who has never held any kind of public/elected office running against someone who has been in office a long long time. Yet, when interviewed on *key* issues to the area, they agree on all but one or two -- and that agreement is basically a "republican" stance. Yet, the football player is reportedly taking money from some of the "big dog" democratic supporters (ie -- moveon.org) that push for the opposite of what he says he stands for. It's rather confusing here right now.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 05:59:59 PM · #12 |
And I just got a phone call from an Italian-American organization because my name ends in a vowel. They tell me I can't vote for the Democrat because he voted against Sam Alito, who's Italian. Actually, I've gotten two phone calls and a postcard. On the federal level, it makes a LOT of sense to vote a straight Democratic ticket in most cases. If Democrats gain control of Congress, there will be at least some checks and balances in our government, and Bush's psychotic solipsistic agenda will no longer be rubberstamped.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:02:42 PM · #13 |
| I am not at all confused by that. You have identified a lieing SOB who should not be elected. Thats not to say the other feller should be elected either. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:05:19 PM · #14 |
Allow me to clarify..
Here's a hypethetical. You are a Republican. Bush is running for office. He is for keeping the troops in Iraq and raising taxes to pay for it. YOU don't like that point of view.......do you vote for him anyway or someone else? If you vote for him, then you wasted a vote by 'voting' on someone you don't like. If you don't like the Democrat, you vote for whatever 3rd party there is. This would be one
That's what I meant by 'voting' the issues, not the party.
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 18:05:58.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:11:18 PM · #15 |
| Just to clear up for any non-American reader, or confused American, Bush is not up for re-election this year. However, there are many seats in the Congress so it is essentially an election for control of the House of Representatives and Senate. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:13:29 PM · #16 |
Vote for who ever you want... just VOTE! If you don't vote, I don't want to see you complaining about what's going on in the country.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:13:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
the legislative branch which has already been doing next to nothing for years will be back to do nothing |
I tend to prefer this than when they actually DO something. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:15:12 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Vote for who ever you want... just VOTE! If you don't vote, I don't want to see you complaining about what's going on in the country. |
wrong. it's the people that vote, and most specifically the people that voted for those that are in power that don't have a right to complain. you voted for Bush, for example, than don't you dare think about complaining.
that's another part of the George Carlin joke mentioned earlier in the thread :)
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 18:16:41. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:18:52 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by heathen:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Vote for who ever you want... just VOTE! If you don't vote, I don't want to see you complaining about what's going on in the country. |
wrong. it's the people that vote, and most specifically the people that voted for those that are in power that don't have a right to complain. you voted for Bush, for example, than don't you dare think about complaining.
that's another part of the George Carlin joke mentioned earlier in the thread :) |
Hehe :-) Yup ... LOL
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:19:54 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
That article has so many flaws it would down DPC trying to post them all at once. |
I notice you avoided discussing the CIA analysis, which was the reason I posted the link:
On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, bin Laden took the personal risk of breaking nearly a year of silence to release a videotape denouncing Bush. Right-wing pundits immediately spun the videotape into bin Ladenâs âendorsementâ of Democrat John Kerry. Polls registered an immediate bump of about five points for Bush.
However, inside CIA headquarters, senior intelligence analysts reached the remarkable conclusion that bin Ladenâs real intent was to help Bush win a second term.
âBin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President,â said deputy CIA director John McLaughlin in opening a meeting to review secret âstrategic analysisâ after the videotape had dominated the dayâs news, according to Ron Suskindâs The One Percent Doctrine, which draws heavily from CIA insiders.
Suskind wrote that CIA analysts had spent years âparsing each expressed word of the al-Qaeda leader and his deputy, Zawahiri. What theyâd learned over nearly a decade is that bin Laden speaks only for strategic reasons. ⦠Todayâs conclusion: bin Ladenâs message was clearly designed to assist the Presidentâs reelection.â
Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, expressed the consensus view that bin Laden recognized how Bushâs heavy-handed policies â such as the Guantanamo prison camp, the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal and the war in Iraq â were 'serving' al-Qaedaâs strategic goals for recruiting a new generation of jihadists.
âCertainly,â Miscik said, âhe would want Bush to keep doing what heâs doing for a few more years.â
As their internal assessment sank in, the CIA analysts were troubled by the implications of their own conclusions. âAn ocean of hard truths before them â such as what did it say about U.S. policies that bin Laden would want Bush reelected â remained untouched,â Suskind wrote. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:22:35 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by heathen:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Vote for who ever you want... just VOTE! If you don't vote, I don't want to see you complaining about what's going on in the country. |
wrong. it's the people that vote, and most specifically the people that voted for those that are in power that don't have a right to complain. you voted for Bush, for example, than don't you dare think about complaining.
that's another part of the George Carlin joke mentioned earlier in the thread :) |
That's what I meant, it just didn't come out that way. I didn't vote for Bush in either election, so I feel I have a valid right to complain about the crap he's pulled. But, I worked with a guy who did vote for him, who complained on a daily basis. OY, when I asked why he voted for him he said because his church told him to!
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:23:35 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by kdsprog:
... he said because his church told him to! |
and thus his credibility is lost in all matters until the end of time. |
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:25:23 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by heathen:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
... he said because his church told him to! |
and thus his credibility is lost in all matters until the end of time. |
ROFLMAO!
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:27:58 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by heathen:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
... he said because his church told him to! |
and thus his credibility is lost in all matters until the end of time. |
PLEASE, let's not get church involved. THAT's another discussion...
Message edited by author 2006-11-02 18:29:13.
|
|
|
|
11/02/2006 06:31:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
Originally posted by heathen:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
... he said because his church told him to! |
and thus his credibility is lost in all matters until the end of time. |
PLEASE, let's not get church involved. THAT's another discussion... |
no no, certainly not! however, my comment was referring to the "told him to!" part more so than the church part :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 09:59:07 AM EDT.
