"See...I think my dear friend, lol, Anthony was trying to convey sarcasm through connecting the trivial issue of gas prices (because SS alone can't fund this war) to the Bush administration to the less educated folk."
i took that as disrespect, excuse me if i'm wrong. and just because i didnt leave all the reasons i dont support kerry doesnt mean my "argument" wasnt well informed, besides the fact that i was not arguing with anyone to begin with, i was just stating my opinion. i would have had no problem with her stating her opinions, had she done it in a more respectful manner.
if you must know why i dont support kerry, it's because i do in fact support the war on terrorism. i think it would have been incredibly irrational to let an attack go without repurcussions, especially one that was so blantantly directed towards innocent people. secondly, the big brother type government your friend referred to is not a result of bush, but a result of the attack. had we not done anything and it happened again, people would ask "why didnt do do something." i dont support a big brother government anymore than any of you, but i don't believe that bush is in the wrong for implementing precautions. this leads into the lack of funding for programs kerry suggested that he would raise the funding for because right now our funds do need to be focused on the middle east in order to come out of this thing as quickly as possible. wars are not fought in 4 years, americans need to realize that. we have become a country dependent on instant gratification and that is not possible when changing an entire governing system in another country. Social Security was a problem long before Bush, and i highly doubt kerry's plan would have fixed it. that's just a sad truth. people just need to open IRA's. anyone who has taken economics knows that the president does not have as much power or control over the economy as the general public would think, much of it has to do with the people. if people are eating dog food when they retire, it's because they did not plan as they should have.
i have no problem with you and i was not trying to create any kind of animosity, it was simply unexpected that someone i considered to be very respectful of other's feelings and opinions would intentionally try to embarrass me by taking something i said and twisting the meaning to be something entirely different. i've always thought of you as open minded and sincerely kind, so it was a bit of a shock to see that comment.
i didn't twist anything. did you or did you not leave me that IM?
in response to your comment on the war on terrorism, as has been said a million times before, iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse to nationbuild one of the more sizable oil producing countries. iraq didn't attack america. iraq didn't even threaten to attack america. this war, regardless of what you've been led to believe, is about oil. not liberation. liberate sudan. the sudanese goverment is systematically killing the black sudanese in darfur through organized starvation and arab militias. they're now looking at over 350,000 dead. what about north korea? they openly and freely admit they have nukes. and they are far far more hostile than iraq. and they're certainly not afraid to use them. why has nothing been done in response to the genocide suspected in morocco? it happens all over the world. why isn't america rushing off to end the slavery of some 100,000 africans in Mauritania. we don't care about that though. the news doesn't report on it. there's nothing to gain. 20,000 iraqi civilian casualties is not justified by 3000 american deaths caused by an independent arab organization completely disassociated with iraq.
i took that as disrespect, excuse me if i'm wrong. and just because i didnt leave all the reasons i dont support kerry doesnt mean my "argument" wasnt well informed, besides the fact that i was not arguing with anyone to begin with, i was just stating my opinion. i would have had no problem with her stating her opinions, had she done it in a more respectful manner.
if you must know why i dont support kerry, it's because i do in fact support the war on terrorism. i think it would have been incredibly irrational to let an attack go without repurcussions, especially one that was so blantantly directed towards innocent people. secondly, the big brother type government your friend referred to is not a result of bush, but a result of the attack. had we not done anything and it happened again, people would ask "why didnt do do something." i dont support a big brother government anymore than any of you, but i don't believe that bush is in the wrong for implementing precautions. this leads into the lack of funding for programs kerry suggested that he would raise the funding for because right now our funds do need to be focused on the middle east in order to come out of this thing as quickly as possible. wars are not fought in 4 years, americans need to realize that. we have become a country dependent on instant gratification and that is not possible when changing an entire governing system in another country. Social Security was a problem long before Bush, and i highly doubt kerry's plan would have fixed it. that's just a sad truth. people just need to open IRA's. anyone who has taken economics knows that the president does not have as much power or control over the economy as the general public would think, much of it has to do with the people. if people are eating dog food when they retire, it's because they did not plan as they should have.
i have no problem with you and i was not trying to create any kind of animosity, it was simply unexpected that someone i considered to be very respectful of other's feelings and opinions would intentionally try to embarrass me by taking something i said and twisting the meaning to be something entirely different. i've always thought of you as open minded and sincerely kind, so it was a bit of a shock to see that comment.
Reply
in response to your comment on the war on terrorism, as has been said a million times before, iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse to nationbuild one of the more sizable oil producing countries. iraq didn't attack america. iraq didn't even threaten to attack america. this war, regardless of what you've been led to believe, is about oil. not liberation. liberate sudan. the sudanese goverment is systematically killing the black sudanese in darfur through organized starvation and arab militias. they're now looking at over 350,000 dead. what about north korea? they openly and freely admit they have nukes. and they are far far more hostile than iraq. and they're certainly not afraid to use them. why has nothing been done in response to the genocide suspected in morocco? it happens all over the world. why isn't america rushing off to end the slavery of some 100,000 africans in Mauritania. we don't care about that though. the news doesn't report on it. there's nothing to gain. 20,000 iraqi civilian casualties is not justified by 3000 american deaths caused by an independent arab organization completely disassociated with iraq.
anyway.
Reply
as far as iraq is concerned, harboring terrorists is the reason i believe they were involved, if you believe it was oil then believe it, but i dont.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment