Well crap...I said that I wasn't going to get involved in this political stuff anymore on the boards but then I read this topic and it got me all riled up. But I'm just going to say my piece and then try to dissappear out of this heated debate...as best as possible.

S'Il: You, Sir, are quite intelligent and I totally respect your views and what you had to say it was quite eloquently put.

Demosthenes X: Now you talked long and hard about us republicans never providing a source unlike Michael Moore and I had no arguement with that statement because its true, a lot of people don't give sources. But then you started shouting out rediculous numbers that I know cannot be correct because I had just done a thesis paper on Operation Iraqi Freedom only a month ago and the numbers were no where near what you had stated. "Its cost the lives of 20,000 innocent Iraqis. Nearly 900 American Soldiers." So now I raise the question...where's you're source?

Also one more thing...you had talked about how "Gore won the election." Now in a sense that is true, Gore did win the popular vote but that will never get you into the office, its what the electoral college votes that matters. Bush won the majority in the Electoral College.

Dolash02: You made a nice post about how obsurd it was to judge Kerry on his stance in the war, but tell me this. Say a former soldier is running for president and a random reporter asks him his stance on the war he served in, and this presidential candidate enthusiastically recounts his time in service and how it brought him much pride and joy to serve his country and what have you. Would not the liberal media and liberals alike immediately jump on his case for being a warmonger, a man who has no morals, a man that does not value peace?

So then, you must be able to see it from a Republican's point of view, we see video footage of the man who is running to be president firstly tossing his medals (which he claimed were his medals until someone got pissed about it, then he claimed they were someone elses medals) and then footage of him defiling an American flag. We just don't see this man as someone worthy to run this nation.

Dogman2000: "And just for the record, I was against this war the day Bush took office." On the contrary my friend. Lets do a quick timeline thingy. Bush took office in the beginning of 2001, obviously the terrorist attacks were in September, war wasn't declared until the spring of 2002.


In case you're wondering, I just don't like using the quote option. I much rather do it this way.

And there was something else I had to say but I can't for the life of me remember.

Ahnk, if you buy me one I'll wear it. Just watch any wandering eyes; Charley might get mean :)

And Andra, my thanks for your words. Just to let you know, I'm a chick. So of course what I wrote makes sense and is intelligent :p

Isstal, put up or shut up. Rebut my source or concede the point that Kerry has missed an incredibly high amount of votes.

Andra

Dolash02: You made a nice post about how obsurd it was to judge Kerry on his stance in the war, but tell me this. Say a former soldier is running for president and a random reporter asks him his stance on the war he served in, and this presidential candidate enthusiastically recounts his time in service and how it brought him much pride and joy to serve his country and what have you. Would not the liberal media and liberals alike immediately jump on his case for being a warmonger, a man who has no morals, a man that does not value peace?

So then, you must be able to see it from a Republican's point of view, we see video footage of the man who is running to be president firstly tossing his medals (which he claimed were his medals until someone got pissed about it, then he claimed they were someone elses medals) and then footage of him defiling an American flag. We just don't see this man as someone worthy to run this nation.

This does not make sense to me. Firstly, a Liberal would not begrudge someone the right to say serving their country was an honour. Secondly, how does that justify Republicans being upset with someone who served and thought the war an unjust one? Third, does this matter? Is this important? If we're going to get into war records, then I think Bush's is far more incriminating then Kerry's. I mean, Kerry didn't like the Vietnam war, ok, a LOT of people don't and didn't at the time. You can disapprove of something and still be president. Is not liking a war you were in WORSE then dodging a war by getting a National Guard post and not showing up?

Andra: Iraq Body Count (www.iraqbodycount.net) lists a minimum of 11164 civilian deaths in Iraq. The site only lists deaths that are confirmed by two or more accepted sources (accepted sources being ones they choose to accept, they keep a list). Therefor, their numbers reflect the absolute minimum number of civilian casualties in Iraq. Any that have gone unreported are unlisted, and it is generally accepted that around 20 000 civilians had died thus far.

As for the other numbers... 1014 Coalition deaths, 894 American, 60 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, one Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, six Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and seven Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of July 15, 2004. All from CNN, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

And when I say Gore won the election, I mean exactly that. He recieved more votes in Florida than Bush did, and thus deserved that seat in the Electoral College. He is the true and lawful President of the United States.

You made a nice post about how obsurd it was to judge Kerry on his stance in the war, but tell me this. Say a former soldier is running for president and a random reporter asks him his stance on the war he served in, and this presidential candidate enthusiastically recounts his time in service and how it brought him much pride and joy to serve his country and what have you. Would not the liberal media and liberals alike immediately jump on his case for being a warmonger, a man who has no morals, a man that does not value peace?

No... I would see that as someone who has their own opinion. People are allowed to have an opinion. I may not vote for him, but I wouldn't attack him for serving his country and being proud of it. It also depends largely on which war he served in. The Vietnam War was a stupid war that accomplished nothing. World War II was a neccessary war, and anyone who served in it should be proud.

It's funny how Republicans like to assume what we think and then make arguments based on it.

Liberals and Democrats do their fair share of assuming in my experience. Both sides do, which leads to some very interesting arguments.

Originally posted by Samantha Koortyn
It's funny how Republicans like to assume what we think and then get so mad at us about it.

That's an awful broad and somewhat stereotypical statement. Not all of us are right-wing ultra conservatives, you know.

Being a very moderate Republican, I have my own views on how our country might be run better. And true to my nature, those views have their roots in common sense.

I make it a point to not force-feed my beliefs on others, and the same goes for my political views, so I would expect the same courtesy from others. If you think the country needs to be run one way, but I think it needs to be run a different way, I'm not about to yell and scream at you. The key to remember is that everyone has their own opinions, and you can argue as much as you want to nay-say someone else's thoughts, but what would the point be? As much as you'll be unable to sway someone else's views, that's about as successful as they'll be in swaying yours. This is why I'm of the opinion that threads like this aren't really good for much of anything except arguing and nitpicking.

I like Andra. She thinks correctly.

Anyways, Kerry has a tendency to vote every which way possible on a subject. I believe that was brought up at the beginning of the campaiging.

Demosthenes X

Andra: Iraq Body Count (www.iraqbodycount.net) lists a minimum of 11164 civilian deaths in Iraq. The site only lists deaths that are confirmed by two or more accepted sources (accepted sources being ones they choose to accept, they keep a list). Therefor, their numbers reflect the absolute minimum number of civilian casualties in Iraq. Any that have gone unreported are unlisted, and it is generally accepted that around 20 000 civilians had died thus far.

Somehow I knew you were going to use the Iraqbodycount site as your reference, now I have to go digout my thesis paper because...well that site is useless. It's made by anti-war people to make us look like horrible murderers.

Ah yes, in World Magazine they did a small article about www.iraqbodycount.net:

"Iraq Body Count is a plainly biased but highly credentialed team of researchers. Human Rights Watch, which started counting noncombatant bodies in Iraq, but its first-hand research documents that most civilian casualties had been the work of the regime, not coalition forces."

And although CNN is a biased news station I cannot find anything to argue against what you have said, like I said, i'll have to find my thesis paper.

And Samantha...it's funny how liberals like to assume how Republicans think.