Vote and shave America's BushFollow

I am going to vote for Bush. Kerry is a sneaky little ******* that I cannot help but believe has ties with terrorism. After that whole Spanish Bombing event, and them backing Kerry... No, I think I will stick with Bush. He may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but atleast he has the balls to fight. Kerry? No, he is a pansy. We could sit here and ignore world happenings, that is what we did with Hitler. Sure, why not? We will just isolate ourselves. Bah! I say lets just turn it into one big glass parking lot and be done with it. ***** what the rest of those yellow bellied, tail between their legs, hands in each others pockets, soap opera loving europeans think.

Proof of these allegations? Whay do you think that?



You do know that the U.S. was involved with WWII, and the eventual downfall of the **** regime, right?

So what you have now is a group of individuals saying Howard is ok to listen to and vice-versa. Shouldn't this be left up to the people? If the populace determine that Stern's material is harming their community then should you have to remove him from the public air waves? This is where private industry is supposed to take over isn't it? If Stern's following is strong enough then they'll continue to listen to him even if they have to pay a monthly service charge.

What is happening is you have an amdministration that believes in morality, or at least that's the illusion they present. This being said all the degenerates and crooks and generally people of poor character are now under attack, as opposed to people like gates that were continuously attacked under clintons administration.

p.s. I also think it's ironic that people can say bush is pro business and in their back pocket when the biggest privately owned companies have been really hit under bushes administration...i.e. enron and wal-mart.

Varus


On a side note Tare wrote


Well how about Kerry's sworn testimony immediately following his term in Vietnam where he was seriously wounded lol. Kerry is actually in the North Vietnam library as a testimony to the evil atrocities committed by america, mind you he never actually saw any of these atrocities.

Varus


Edited, Mon Jun 28 15:24:20 2004 by varrussword

Here's a brilliant idea I want you to write down: Don't turn on radio programs you don't like.

Number of times I've been forced to listen to Stern: Zero.

Really, I don't even like the guy and I don't listen to him (does he even have a Chicago market?) or the Sterm wannabes but I don't cry and throw a fit because they're on the airwaves.

Jophiel wrote


I quite agree...take out the radio if you like as well. But this doesn't solve the quesion of what is and isn't questionable in the public domain. If your solution were applicable to the radio then why not hold the same true for television. Let there be all kinds of **** channels etc...and if the parents don't like it they can choose to get rid of their tv.

But what I was talking about is what is and isn't acceptable in the public domain.

Varus

You can't blame her...she's from Texas.

Yee haw!

It's a good thing there isn't an intelligence qualifier to become a dem or they'd have trouble getting any members at all lol.


Mindspirals wrote


So now with the Hitler comparisons again for lack of substance of any real issue. As for the UN goes the US should end any and all association with the UN. The UN is not interested in defending this country and if someone gives a damn what some drunk frenchman thinks well that says it all. Also remember Europe was united against any action to oppose Hitler right up to the point when the ***** were marching through Paris and dropping bombs on Britain. And these are the same people you're saying we should listen to this time around especially regarding the safety of our own country.

You should call yourself mindless it would be more suiting.

Varus

It's a good thing there isn't an intelligence qualifier to become a dem or they'd have trouble getting any members at all lol.


Right, that's why the "Nascar Vote" is so critical to the Republicans. Because they're aiming at the educated voter.

Yanari wrote


This is where we differ. Morality is not subjective, there are certain universal standards in any civilized society for instance murder, theft, fraud, etc...

The great misconception that's being pawned by modern so called intellectuals is that morality, like anything else, is subject to opinion.

Varus

Of course it's subjective.


What about stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving man?



What constitutes murder? Is abortion murder? Is capital punishment murder?



Besides, the problem with "morality" in the government isn't the those broad, obvious issues. It's things like Gay marriage, which conservatives view as immoral, yet many do not. That's subjectivity.

Forget it, EQDom. This is someone who equates changing the radio station to throwing away your television because it might show ****. No doubt the same mindset who opposes gay marriages because then we'll be over run with people marrying their sisters, cats and Chevy Impalas.

You said: "If someone gives a damn what some drunk frenchman thinks well that says it all"

Nice stereotype...real open-minded, promotes discussion...I like it.

The whole point, which you've obviously missed, of the Hitler comparison and the lack of U.N. support, is that the Bush administration doesn't even care what other countries think. (What if they had something good to say. Something that might lessen our chances of attacking for money??? Oh no!!)

You say:

"The UN is not interested in defending this country"

I'm curious what you are referring to. Do you mean defending the U.S. from Iraq? A country that we attacked pre-emptively? The same Iraq that didn't have any chemical weapons hordes, or nuclear weapons, like our good 'ole Bush Admin. said they did? (But they sure did have a whole lot of oil fields for us to defend).

OR

Did you mean defending us from the terrorists. Oh wait. No, that can't be right. Who woulda thought that the number of terrorist attacks would increase due to this war-for-money?* Hmm...now we really need protection. Wonder who we'll need to "defend ourselves" from next? Answer: Whoever the Bush Administration says we do.

* Yes Afghanistan (remember that) was also a war-for-money - you think we did it to get Bin-Laden? Heh - nah gave up on him anyway. Check out the oil pipeline we installed not a minute after we secured the place, or the corporate oil connections the new Afghani President WE instilled is surrounded by.

Thanks Varus. You're gonna need to do some research before your next post I think. That or go to the Kiddie forum.

Oh, but I'm sure you have.

Eb