OT: Who are you voting for

[Like A Mofo]

Hey Jack - Mr Sirius representative. Know where I can get a REALLY good deal on one?

 

Here are my requirements:

 

1) I want it for my car.

 

2) I dont want to have to do any major wiring myself

 

3) I DO NOT want one that plugs into a cassette deck

thanks, let me know.

60766[/snapback]

 

 

OMG.....STEVESTOJAN HAS A YANKEES AVATAR!!!! NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nervous Mullet]

Yes, please spare us the facts and common sense.  Those have no place in deciding who to vote for. 

 

As Sen. Edwards clearly pointed out the other night, it's all about HALIBURTON!

60778[/snapback]

 

Plus flashing that thumbs up every 10 seconds. I wonder if Roger Ebert is his hero !

[RVJ]

Bump

[JoeFerguson]

the 137 views are prolly from a handfull of posters keeping an eye on this topic

 

my vote went to "Other".  I'm leaning towards voting Libertarian this year

60575[/snapback]

 

 

I am pretty positive I will be voting for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for president.

[ajzepp]

I think it's embarrassing that of all the great individuals in this country, we are left to decide between Bush and Kerry.

[mary owen]

i'm more of a Libertarian, but if I vote that way, Kerry gets the advantage. No way I can live with that guilt on my head. The worst Bush is still better than the best Kerry. I say we give Bush 4 more years. stevestojan, the Dems had a sexual predator in office for 8 years who sat by and let terrorists push us around while being a good little doggy for the UN. But Bush is supposed to achieve all goals in 4 years. Don't get me started.

[mary owen]

I think it's embarrassing that of all the great individuals in this country, we are left to decide between Bush and Kerry.

61229[/snapback]

 

more embarrassing than trying to explain to your kids what the hell President Clinton was doing banging anything that moved? The guy couldn't be loyal to his wife, you expect him to be loyal to unknown US citizens??

[ajzepp]

more embarrassing than trying to explain to your kids what the hell President Clinton was doing banging anything that moved? The guy couldn't be loyal to his wife, you expect him to be loyal to unknown US citizens??

61237[/snapback]

 

 

They're both embarrassing.....but I'm no Clinton fan either.

[njsue]

John Kerry all the way.

[flomoe]

I am not surprised by the tally so far, bunch of bleeding %^&*ing hearts in Buffalo!! So many people get brainwashed from birth by the left wingers that they wouldn't understand common sense if it came up and slapped them upside the head. You would think that the people in Buffalo area would have woken up by now, after getting taxed to death and screwed by the liberals for the last 30 years, and tried to change their Democratic liberal voting. I guess not. Geesh!!!!!!!!

[stevestojan]

I am not surprised by the tally so far, bunch of bleeding %^&*ing hearts in Buffalo!! So many people get brainwashed from birth by the left wingers that they wouldn't understand common sense if it came up and slapped them upside the head. You would think that the people in Buffalo area would have woken up by now, after getting taxed to death and screwed by the liberals for the last 30 years, and tried to change their Democratic liberal voting. I guess not. Geesh!!!!!!!!   

61314[/snapback]

 

I honestly think the war is the key issue here. I don't think anyone can see past that. I am one of those. And I'm voting for Kerry. ( I voted for Bush last time, and I apologize to the world for that).

[USMCBillsFan]

Bush. I'm in the military and it's easy for people to sit back and judge. Kerry will NOT be a good leader for this country.

[_BiB_]

I honestly think the war is the key issue here.  I don't think anyone can see past that. I am one of those. And I'm voting for Kerry. ( I voted for Bush last time, and I apologize to the world for that).

61340[/snapback]

 

National Defense is my primary issue as well. Senator Kerry would be a disaster of great proportions. What I fear, as with most things, Kerryites will never go past the soundbites, and the Bush administration for a variety of reasons doesn't market themselves right. They need to be explaining the dynamics of things, and just why Kerry's soundbites are the wrong approach.

 

Anything past this needs to go to the PPP.

[Griz]

Plus flashing that thumbs up every 10 seconds. I wonder if Roger Ebert is his hero !

60794[/snapback]

 

 

Edwards and his little Clintonesque "thumbkin" moves are a riot to analyze. When he really gets torqued, he goes to the dreaded "double directional thumbkin".

 

Here's my hand gesture; :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[stevestojan]

 

Anything past this needs to go to the PPP.

61352[/snapback]

 

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

 

The only thing i think Bush has going for him is that he wont ever make a huge mistake (not waiting for UN support) before going to another war (god forbid). I think even he realizes he fu-ked up.

 

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

[EndZoneCrew]

I'll bite...was it Brewster's Millions?

60565[/snapback]

 

 

good call!

[_BiB_]

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

 

The only thing i think Bush has going for him is that he wont ever make a huge mistake (not waiting for UN support) before going to another war (god forbid). I think even he realizes he fu-ked up. 

 

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

61358[/snapback]

 

Seriously, the major problem here is that the average American has absolutely no clue as to what this war is all about. Kerry is taking advantage of that fact by playing to the masses. He HAS no plan, and what he has suggested as one will have half the world speaking arabic by 2015. Bush's camp can't articulate the situation because it can't be done in soundbites, and many of the successful aspects can't be talked about anyway.

[stevestojan]

Seriously, the major problem here is that the average American has absolutely no clue as to what this war is all about. Kerry is taking advantage of that fact by playing to the masses. He HAS no plan, and what he has suggested as one will have half the world speaking arabic by 2015. Bush's camp can't articulate the situation because it can't be done in soundbites, and many of the successful aspects can't be talked about anyway.

61362[/snapback]

 

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

 

 

But again, now that we KNOW Iraq didnt have any WOMD, don't you think this war was rushed? Do you think we could have waited for UN support? Just askin

 

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

[R. Rich]

I'm not voting for KRC. He's mean.

[KRC]

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

But again, now that we KNOW Iraq didnt have any WOMD, don't you think this war was rushed? Do you think we could have waited for UN support? Just askin

 

Go Bills. Coy Wire Sucks.

61363[/snapback]

 

We could have, if the UN actually showed that they had any desire to enforce their own resolutions. They have repeatedly shown that when things get tough, they run away from the situation. Just in Iraq:

 

Resolution 661 of 6 August 1990 states that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolution 660. Imposes economic sanctions.

 

Resolution 662 of 9 August 1990 states that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolutions 660 and 661.

 

Resolution 664 of 18 August 1990 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolutions 660, 661, and 662.

 

Resolution 665 of 25 August 1990 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolutions 660, 661, 662, and 664.

 

Resolution 666 of 13 September 1990 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, and 665.

 

Resolution 667 of 25 September 1990 states that Iraq has failed to comply with Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, and 666 along with violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961 and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963.

 

Resolution 670 of 25 September 1990 states that Iraq is in violation of 660, 661, 662, 664, 666,and 667.

 

Resolution 674 of 29 October 1990 states that Iraq is in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on 18 April 1961, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, International Law, along with Resolutions 660, 662, and 664

 

Resolution 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677.

 

Resolution 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, and 678.

 

Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.”

 

Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991).

 

Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians.

 

Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773.

 

Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833.

 

Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715.

 

Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

 

Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115.

 

Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

 

Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143.

 

Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions.

 

Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687.

 

Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154.

 

Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154.

 

Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687.

 

Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687.

 

Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

 

Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

 

Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284.

 

Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

 

Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

 

Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.

 

(reprinted courtesy of the Official Ken Crippen For President website)

 

 

 

Now look at North Korea. The IAEA begged the UNSC to address the North Korean nuclear situation. The UNSC refused to even address it.

 

Now look at Haiti. The French were begging the UNSC to address the situation. Well after the US, French and a few others had the situation underway, the UNSC finally got up off of their asses to address the situation.

 

Now look at the Sudan. They have yet to do anything other than pass resolutions that say nothing more than "abide by this resolution, or we will pass another resolution."

 

I could go on and on, but you get the point. The UN refused to do what was necessary. We shall see how things shake out with the Oil For Food scandal. This might shed some light on why they were so intent on delaying things as long as possible.