Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 97

Thread: DO NOT VOTE JOHN McCain

  1. #61
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    I believe that this threat is the biggest threat we are facing today as a free world, an evil power that wants to take the world 1300 years back to a great Islamic empire, and to do it by force if necessary .
    9/11 killed some 3,000 if I'm not mistaken, other terrorist attacks rarely kill more than 50 each.

    AIDS killed an estimated number of 2.1 million people in 2007.
    The UN estimates that starvation and poverty kill 25000 people every day (that's some 9 million in a year).

    What is it that makes the relatively few who die of terrorism so much more important than those who die (mainly) in Africa? You could have one 9/11 every day and still not reach the number of casualties of starvation or aids.
    Last edited by AFKain; 28-09-2008 at 06:58.

  2. #62
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6
    see? this is exactly what I was asking not to do, dont take one quote that I said and start a posting war with me.

    What are you trying to say, AFKain?
    that 9/11 that killed an estimate of 2800 people, 2106 of them being American is a bad thing but daily attacks on Israeli men women children and babys that are so frequent they dont even bother publishing them in the press anymore are ok because each terrorist attack doesnt kill more 50 people each? did you know that in 2001 2594 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks? and in 2002 2348 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks?

    HIV is a big health problem thats true, but its not a religion being practiced by fanatics. its not ruled by people that have to be stopped.
    AIDs doesnt have a headquarters, and its not being paraded around the world, gathering massive amounts of support to take over the world. It is an entire different issue that I have no idea what you thought to gain by bringing it up as a reply for my previous message.

    What makes the few that die from terrorist attacks so important is that this is the main issue regarding YOUR safety and you children's safety in our lifetime. And its an issue that if not dealt with in the near future will affect your children in a way that you dont understand. your children will live under islamic regime. your daughter will have to walk around wearing a veil to cover her entire body and face. youre children will be fighting a religious war that is not supposed to happen because we are supposed to deal with it now and not let it get to that point.

    and do you want me to address the issue as I did on my last post that the foreign money (the money we send) to aid african countries is not going to get them the means to grow their own crops, build their own schools and help create their own militaries.. because the money is funding terrorism.

    A dear friend of mine said, the only thing that Yasser Arafat help is his wife in france, with all the money he recieved as aid.
    after he died it was discovered that his wife's bank account in france held 300 million dollars.
    why isnt there an "Arafat University" in gaza with all that money owned privately by the Arafat family, and do you think that is different with countries in africa?

    of course the issue of people dying in africa is important. as any other issue we're facing with today. But as I firmly believe, we should solve our own immediate threats and problems before addressing other's.
    If you would find yourself in a situation where somebody is holding a knife to your neck and an old lady is being held across the street at gun point. would you fend off your attacker and then help the old lady or would you just rush of trying to show your chivalry by helping the lady first?

  3. #63
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    576
    The majority of your post was about how dangerous the terrorist threat is to the world, I took a section from your post that showed this stance and I commented on that. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you you shouldn't really be posting on a political forum, save your post in word instead and you can come back and look at it whenever you want to.

    The point that I am trying to get across is that terrorism is much less of an issue than starvation and AIDS and that there are bigger challenges that we face which you have overlooked.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    that 9/11 that killed an estimate of 2800 people, 2106 of them being American is a bad thing but daily attacks on Israeli men women children and babys that are so frequent they dont even bother publishing them in the press anymore are ok because each terrorist attack doesnt kill more 50 people each? did you know that in 2001 2594 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks? and in 2002 2348 israelis were killed in terrorist attacks?
    I never said that the attacks on Israelis are ok, I took the number of 9/11 since that is the biggest terrorist attack that I can recall and apparently it was big enough to go to war over. I also mentioned the smaller attacks in order to show that both the spectacular 3000 and more common 50 are small numbers when compared to millions.

    2348 and 2594 every year are 2348 and 2594 too many but it isn't that many when you look at the big picture, more people die from starvation or aids every day (10 times and 2 times as many, respectively). I also would wager that the Israeli military kills more than that every year, but that's a different topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    HIV is a big health problem thats true, but its not a religion being practiced by fanatics. its not ruled by people that have to be stopped.
    AIDs doesnt have a headquarters, and its not being paraded around the world, gathering massive amounts of support to take over the world. It is an entire different issue that I have no idea what you thought to gain by bringing it up as a reply for my previous message.
    There are fanatics in every religion and terrorists aren't taking over the world, I'm sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    What makes the few that die from terrorist attacks so important is that this is the main issue regarding YOUR safety and you children's safety in our lifetime. And its an issue that if not dealt with in the near future will affect your children in a way that you dont understand. your children will live under islamic regime. your daughter will have to walk around wearing a veil to cover her entire body and face. youre children will be fighting a religious war that is not supposed to happen because we are supposed to deal with it now and not let it get to that point.
    So you're saying that we shouldn't care about people who aren't part of our religion family friends or whatever other parameter you wish to use? I should make the selfish choice to decide that 1 person not dying in my country is worth 1000 people dying in another country? And seriously, there is no threat that any religion is going to "take over the world".

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    and do you want me to address the issue as I did on my last post that the foreign money (the money we send) to aid african countries is not going to get them the means to grow their own crops, build their own schools and help create their own militaries.. because the money is funding terrorism.

    A dear friend of mine said, the only thing that Yasser Arafat help is his wife in france, with all the money he recieved as aid.
    after he died it was discovered that his wife's bank account in france held 300 million dollars.
    why isnt there an "Arafat University" in gaza with all that money owned privately by the Arafat family, and do you think that is different with countries in africa?
    I won't comment on what your dear friend told you since I don't know what facts there are, show some unbiased report that supports your claims. Anyway, if you really think that there is no way that aid given in any form will help the people who are in need you are quite cynic and cold hearted. Although to me it sounds more like a poor argument to support your ideas about the value of human lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    of course the issue of people dying in africa is important. as any other issue we're facing with today. But as I firmly believe, we should solve our own immediate threats and problems before addressing other's.
    If you would find yourself in a situation where somebody is holding a knife to your neck and an old lady is being held across the street at gun point. would you fend off your attacker and then help the old lady or would you just rush of trying to show your chivalry by helping the lady first?
    The situation you invented isn't entirely correct if you attempt to describe the current situation in the world. You make it sound like the two threats would be equally threatening. A more accurate description might be that the guy holding the knife is sitting in a wheelchair and that the knife is actually a banana.

    There is one threat that is imminent (this would be other stuff than terrorism, since you didn't invent more than one other threat :p) and one threat that is quite small and not so harmful.
    Last edited by AFKain; 28-09-2008 at 11:21.

  4. #64
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6
    You are very wise, AFKain. But again you fail to see my point.
    Im not saying you should forget about finding a cure for AIDs and letting people around the world die from starvation and let a holocaust happen to the people of africa. This is the last thing I want.
    You said Im against aid to struggling countries in any form, that is not true at all. I am agaisnt corruption and that is what we are fueling. We keep sending money to those countries. Money is the wrong commodity to send, and I hope you agree with me there.
    There are some private organizations that send food and clean water. they help build schools, and not fund them but build them. This is what I believe in, I hope we are together there.

    I get all my Information from research, and this 300 million is the lowest estimate of how much money exactly Suah Arafat held at her bank account in france after Yasser Arafat died. And the fact that money from this form of aid has not been used to help the people of the Gaza strip, the people Arafat fought for and represented throughout his entire career, but to fuel his war machine and his pocket stands as testament that money corrupts weak mind.

    Do you know what the main difference between Achmadinejad and Hitler is?
    It is that Hitler started a war and only then started creating and developing his weapons of mass destruction. Achmadinejad is going the other way around it, he is developing his neuclear capabilities before he starts his Jihad, and this is what I want you to understand. I go back to my quote, When a man tells you he's going to exterminate you, believe him.
    and Achmadinejad is saying openly that he is going to exterminate me. He is using words that mean Holy war and Ethnic cleansing.
    This is what I mean by fight agaisnt terrorism.
    Once Iran has a Neuclear bomb, it will give legitimacy for all arab countries in the region to start a neuclear race. Are you willing to have all muslim countries hold atomic bombs?
    This is what im talking about..
    and the very ends of this war machine is al-quaeda, taliban, hammas and hizbollah. In 2001 we understood that the fact there is an ocean on either side of the USA doesnt mean american citizens are safe at home. And now in 2008 people are starting to forget that fact. If we dont want 9/11 times 100 we have to stop Achmadinejad and his holy war.

    If we go back to our issue, neither Obama nor Mccain talk about eradicating AIDs, because you cant fight AIDs. you can only research and try to find a cure, and this is happening fundings are being invested in this issue as we speak.
    starvation and holocausts in third wold countries are horrible, but sending money over is not the way to solve, build schools, build irrigation systems, send over food, send medicine and doctors.
    Im sure that it will be a big issue in a few years that there was a second holocaust in the world and not one helped, I do believe this is terrible and that we should help. but I also believe that
    1: We should do it in a different way
    2: We should make ourselves safe before we make other people safe.
    once we are safe, send all the help we can, invest all the money you can to help the needy. But you have to make sure that your people are safe first.

    And if you want to talk about the Israeli military and they way that military is dealing with the Gaza strip im willing to open another thread and not do that here.

    Again you are making a good argument about how terrorism is important but not as important as other challenges we are facing with, and I agree that other Issues are also important to deal with. But Im trying to show what will happen to our nation's safety if you turn a blind eye to this issue. Im trying to show how critical this issue is to what will happen to us in the future and how we cant take our eye off the ball now.

  5. #65
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    You are very wise, AFKain. But again you fail to see my point.
    Im not saying you should forget about finding a cure for AIDs and letting people around the world die from starvation and let a holocaust happen to the people of africa. This is the last thing I want.
    Good to hear, you had me worried there for a while :)

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    You said Im against aid to struggling countries in any form, that is not true at all. I am agaisnt corruption and that is what we are fueling. We keep sending money to those countries. Money is the wrong commodity to send, and I hope you agree with me there.
    There are some private organizations that send food and clean water. they help build schools, and not fund them but build them. This is what I believe in, I hope we are together there.
    Sure, it depends who you're giving the money to, in some cases (many perhaps) goods and construction etc can be more appropriate. IMO establishing companies that are devoted to humanitarian aid in the country is a good solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    Do you know what the main difference between Achmadinejad and Hitler is?
    It is that Hitler started a war and only then started creating and developing his weapons of mass destruction. Achmadinejad is going the other way around it, he is developing his neuclear capabilities before he starts his Jihad, and this is what I want you to understand. I go back to my quote, When a man tells you he's going to exterminate you, believe him.
    and Achmadinejad is saying openly that he is going to exterminate me. He is using words that mean Holy war and Ethnic cleansing.
    (...) [had to cut it somewhere]
    I'll testify that I don't know all that much about the Iranian leadership, there has not been too much in-dept reporting about Iran in our news. I don't feel that I can make any judgment about the character of Achmadinejad, so as far as I know it might well be that he is serious about what he's saying and not just trying to capitalize on the antagonism against Israel. However I doubt that anyone who becomes leader of a nation is an idiot (with the possible exception of some inbred royalty somewhere). The difference between Iran and Germany is that Germany had a military force that could match any nation in the world. If Iran ever got "the bomb" and tried to use it they would be obliterated by the US. Not to mention that Israel likely already has nukes of its own which could be used against Iran. Mutually Assured Destruction has always worked so far, I expect that that's what Iran would use a bomb for if they got one.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    This is what I mean by fight agaisnt terrorism.
    Once Iran has a Neuclear bomb, it will give legitimacy for all arab countries in the region to start a neuclear race. Are you willing to have all muslim countries hold atomic bombs?
    This is what im talking about..
    and the very ends of this war machine is al-qaeda, taliban, hammas and hizbollah. In 2001 we understood that the fact there is an ocean on either side of the USA doesnt mean american citizens are safe at home. And now in 2008 people are starting to forget that fact. If we dont want 9/11 times 100 we have to stop Achmadinejad and his holy war.
    Sure spreading nuclear technology is never good, I'd prefer if no nation had nukes. I doubt the Iranian government would be handing out their nuclear technology though, flooding the middle east with nukes would be disastrous and it wouldn't be so difficult to guess who'd be held responsible for that. But I agree, we must make sure that Iran is not developing nukes.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    If we go back to our issue, neither Obama nor Mccain talk about eradicating AIDs, because you cant fight AIDs. you can only research and try to find a cure, and this is happening fundings are being invested in this issue as we speak.
    Of course you can fight AIDS, I'd say the reason they aren't talking about it is that the American voters don't want to hear about increased public spending. There is always room for more money to be put into this industry, you make it sound like there is a finite need for money and that this is already being filled.

    Quote Originally Posted by oded View Post
    starvation and holocausts in third wold countries are horrible, but sending money over is not the way to solve, build schools, build irrigation systems, send over food, send medicine and doctors.
    Im sure that it will be a big issue in a few years that there was a second holocaust in the world and not one helped, I do believe this is terrible and that we should help. but I also believe that
    1: We should do it in a different way
    2: We should make ourselves safe before we make other people safe.
    once we are safe, send all the help we can, invest all the money you can to help the needy. But you have to make sure that your people are safe first.
    This brings us back to the seriousness of the two threats and the value of lives... Many nations who put big money into anti terrorism are hardly exposed to any threat at all. Take the US for example, the war in Iraq has cost what now is it 500 billion $? That's a whole lot of food and a lot of reasearch which would do a whole lot more good than what the war has done. Insane amounts of money have been spent to combat terrorism which is a small threat to US citizens. Spending this money on aid would have given a much better "bang per buck" in terms of lives saved.

  6. #66
    Forum Fanatic freemehul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    noyb
    Posts
    2,500
    what AFK is saying with his downright evil fallacy, is a recipe for inaction

    yeah Malaria has killed more people than any other disease and all the wars combined

    but if you state what you are saying and you are indeed saying just that, than you would agree not to interfere in any war, including WW2.

    That AFKain is suicide!


    Obama was saying the same in the first U.S. presidential debate. At first I figured Obama was just a big gullable and naive fool, now I'm thinking it is worse than that. Not only is he pisspoor strategist (he doesn't even know the difference between a strategy and a tactic), he genuinely believes in Wright's nonsense. He isn't just stupid, he believes in the wrong. McCain was using a euphemism when he described Obama as not ready for office, not only is he ill prepared, he is a National Security Risk.

    I don't get it why people call him the Black Kennedy. Kennedy was not that stupid and that bad a strategist and Kennedy would never leave both his people and his allies behind. Obama on the other hand is stupid, is a bad strategist and Obama will leave both the American people and his allies behind.

    No what both AFKain and Obama are proposing is let people die in concentration camps, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is to let people die of starvation, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is letting people get raped, shot, murdered, mutilated, drowned, suffocated

    that is what AFKain and Obama propose

    and make no mistake, that is beyond stupid, that is evil
    Corruption is a serious impediment to civil liberties.

  7. #67
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6
    Freemehul dont you think you are a bit harsh?
    I dont think Obama is stupid and I dont think AFKain is dumb.
    Obama is a very intelligent person who thinks differently to the way you do, there's no reason to go accusing Obama and AFKain of letting people die and be killed in concentration camps, because they never said that.
    you can take people's views and twist them to such a degree to make them sound evil.
    we all understand the problems we're facing in the world, but we dont agree on how to deal with the problems.

    No what both AFKain and Obama are proposing is let people die in concentration camps, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is to let people die of starvation, what AFKain and Obama are proposing is letting people get raped, shot, murdered, mutilated, drowned, suffocated
    that is just not true, non of them ever said anything remotely close to this, AFKain opposed to this... he talks about it in his posts

    AFKain, Iran is not Iraq. Iran is a power in the middle east, they have an army they have technology. they gave Syria 700 T72 russian tanks only 4 months ago (thats a fact, im not making that up). You dont just go handing out tanks and weapons to other countries.
    Iran has power, it has technology, and most importantly they have many fanatics who believe they are fighting for a just cause.
    now, im not saying Achmadinejad is an inbred with no brain. he is a very smart person who manipulates other nations and plays with the world. It doesnt mean he isnt a madman. A lot of world leaders throughout history are known today to be crazy, this is what drives them to achieve what they believe in.

    I dont believe Obama doesnt know the difference between strategy and tactics.
    I think this is was a good way to show him is less intelligent by Mccain.

  8. #68
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    266
    but if you state what you are saying and you are indeed saying just that, than you would agree not to interfere in any war, including WW2.
    Freemehul showing all once more how dumb he is.

    Give us more than just your opinion Freemehul. Back up with what you have said with facts and links. If you can't then guess what... your wrong. :)

  9. #69
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    "What do you see in McCain? I see 4 more years of Bush."

    i actually see any efforts to relate mccain to bush as vain

    they arent very close on the political spectrum, they just happen to associate themselves in the same party

    i hardly expect 4 more years of bush if mccain was president, in fact, i expect mccain to be more like clinton in a lot of ways. (except adultery of course)

    that said, bush's faults are what he is known for, much like most presidents while they are in office. if you looked at the entirety of what he has done these 8 years, you would find rather good work in many places, along with the tragic mistakes

    ya, we were better off with gore...but still, bush wasnt 'all' bad lol

    im not supporting him, im just saying that you should look at everything, not just what makes headlines, as what makes headlines in todays media is usually only the exaggerated shocking events, things that if read, would cause arguments, and raise support and money and fame for those who paid dearly for it to be written

    you should look more closely at the big picture, not just what the particular interest group that catches your attention has to say

  10. #70
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    266
    i actually see any efforts to relate mccain to bush as vain

    they arent very close on the political spectrum, they just happen to associate themselves in the same party
    Check the voting records. Over 90% of the time he voted in line with Bush. I believe the actual % is 94% or the time... Seems pretty lock-step with Bush. Even want's to continue Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Not much different than Bush... except for maybe a worse temper.

    that said, bush's faults are what he is known for, much like most presidents while they are in office. if you looked at the entirety of what he has done these 8 years, you would find rather good work in many places, along with the tragic mistakes
    19% Aproval rating for Bush... better look very hard for the good things. Can you name even a couple of good things? I can't.

    you should look more closely at the big picture, not just what the particular interest group that catches your attention has to say
    I don't have a party affiliation, I've voted for Republicans, Democrats and Independents. I believe I am looking at the big picture.

  11. #71
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    bush's voting record isnt his problem, so i dont see what the problem there is

    in regard to his beliefs, mccain is definitely out of range of bush, and the majority of his party

    to be more clear, bush's mistakes were how he managed his obligations, not how he voted

    if mccain voted similarly to bush, i can honestly tell you that i dont care

    and even if i did care, i could also ask you what you value in mentioning percentages, while what is important are the issues that they voted similarly on

    and more importantly, what they did not vote similarly on

  12. #72
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    266
    to be more clear, bush's mistakes were how he managed his obligations, not how he voted
    No it's not. It's failed policies, It is Bush policies that McCain voted on. It has nothing to do with not managing obligations.

    while what is important are the issues that they voted similarly on
    Exactly...

  13. #73
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    they voted similarly on several things that the majority of the country would agree with, as many of them are things that he mentioned while running for office, and were reasons why he was elected

    you try to infer that 94% agreement means 94% wrong, as if bush never made a good decision or policy

    you arent seeing the fact that politics, government, foreign policy, and economics have a curve to them, a rotation of good to bad, and back to good again

    while bush has been in, it has gone from good, to bad, to good, to bad, and now its getting good again

    i doubt bush had any real control over public approval, given that public approval largely fluctuates along with those curves, a dynamic that is for the most part unrelated to his actions

    another reality, is that neither bush or mccain is very far to the right on the political spectrum, in fact mccain is almost centered. i would rather see a moderate than obama, a man who is probably the most liberal canidate in the history of the u.s., and would be a better match for sweden

  14. #74
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    266
    they voted similarly on several things that the majority of the country would agree with, as many of them are things that he mentioned while running for office, and were reasons why he was elected
    Ok then, name me 1. And in case you forget the president does not vote on his own policy decisions. McCain does vote on Bush policies. I think your a little confused. If you want to dispute it here is the Fact Check link for you... His lowest point was 77% voting yes on Bush policies.

    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...oted_with.html

    you arent seeing the fact that politics, government, foreign policy, and economics have a curve to them, a rotation of good to bad, and back to good again
    If it is a fact then I suppose you could show me the facts? And what does that have to do with anything we are talking about...

    while bush has been in, it has gone from good, to bad, to good, to bad, and now its getting good again
    It's getting good again? Are you locked in some closet somewhere?

    i doubt bush had any real control over public approval, given that public approval largely fluctuates along with those curves, a dynamic that is for the most part unrelated to his actions
    Public approval is so low because of Bush's failed policies. How can that be unrelated to his actions? Starting to sound a little like Freemehul there...

    another reality, is that neither bush or mccain is very far to the right on the political spectrum, in fact mccain is almost centered. i would rather see a moderate than obama, a man who is probably the most liberal canidate in the history of the u.s., and would be a better match for sweden
    I realize that about them. I never said anything about Bush and McCain being on the far right. Although Bush saying he talks to god might push him a little more to the right. lol.

    Show me how Obama is 'the most liberal' canidate don't just say it. That adds no substance to anything.

    Sweden seems to do alright and you don't see other countries wanting to wipe them off the face of the planet do you.

  15. #75
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    446
    youve made it obvious that your level of liberal-ness keeps you from understanding anything that your political affiliation hasnt told you to believe

    im not required to prove anything, as this isnt the venue for proof. this is a political thread, in which case, all things are based on opinion

    hence the word politics

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •