to vote or not to vote, that is the question!

[tsukasa_the_quiet]

bluegrass cat

uh.

there weren't any wmd's in iraq.

NONE.

he had chemical weapons that we were aware of ((you might be too young to remember the puppy video. crying if so, count yourself lucky...)), but no nuclear weapons.

he didn't even have weapons grade plutonium or uranium.

i lost all respect for bush when he said "i mean, we're talking about the guy who tried to kill my dad!" rolleyes

cause i was like "uuuh, bin laden, remember? BIN LADEN IS THE BAD GUY! not saddam!"

now, do i think saddam was a bad man who needed to be removed from power? yes. but do i think the FIRST bush should've done it? oh yeah.

do i think its cool that the 2nd bush tried to fix what his daddy had just shoved aside? nope.

welcome to vietnam in the desert, my friends. our children's children's children will be fighting this ******** sad. neutral

edit: @ Knitterz: hey, i do what i can. heart i'm absolutely mad for world politics and american history. cool

You see, I consider chemical weapons to be WMDs because, they can cause mass destruction, I mean, wiping out entire cities of people seems pretty massive to me.

And yes, I do agree that Bush 2 shouldn't have tried to go in and fix his dad's mistakes, but we did, and there is nothing that we can do about it now. Hussein was an evil man, who did have to be removed from power, and why we're still over there is beyond me, we never went into the war to spread democracy, but it's what we're wasting our tax dollars on when we could be actually doing things that aren't complete wastes.

If we want to take out evil in the world, why not go after Iran? It's only going to be a matter of time before that psycho decides it's time to knock the US down a few spots on the totem pole.  

[-iSnug-]

[Tsukasa567]

bluegrass cat

uh.

there weren't any wmd's in iraq.

NONE.

he had chemical weapons that we were aware of ((you might be too young to remember the puppy video. crying if so, count yourself lucky...)), but no nuclear weapons.

he didn't even have weapons grade plutonium or uranium.

i lost all respect for bush when he said "i mean, we're talking about the guy who tried to kill my dad!" rolleyes

cause i was like "uuuh, bin laden, remember? BIN LADEN IS THE BAD GUY! not saddam!"

now, do i think saddam was a bad man who needed to be removed from power? yes. but do i think the FIRST bush should've done it? oh yeah.

do i think its cool that the 2nd bush tried to fix what his daddy had just shoved aside? nope.

welcome to vietnam in the desert, my friends. our children's children's children will be fighting this ******** sad. neutral

edit: @ Knitterz: hey, i do what i can. heart i'm absolutely mad for world politics and american history. cool

You see, I consider chemical weapons to be WMDs because, they can cause mass destruction, I mean, wiping out entire cities of people seems pretty massive to me.

And yes, I do agree that Bush 2 shouldn't have tried to go in and fix his dad's mistakes, but we did, and there is nothing that we can do about it now. Hussein was an evil man, who did have to be removed from power, and why we're still over there is beyond me, we never went into the war to spread democracy, but it's what we're wasting our tax dollars on when we could be actually doing things that aren't complete wastes.

If we want to take out evil in the world, why not go after Iran? It's only going to be a matter of time before that psycho decides it's time to knock the US down a few spots on the totem pole.

Just a question.....why Iran? Why not Afghanistan or Iraq......thats where most of this is happening.  

[tsukasa_the_quiet]

-Crunchy-Sponge-

[Tsukasa567]

bluegrass cat

uh.

there weren't any wmd's in iraq.

NONE.

he had chemical weapons that we were aware of ((you might be too young to remember the puppy video. crying if so, count yourself lucky...)), but no nuclear weapons.

he didn't even have weapons grade plutonium or uranium.

i lost all respect for bush when he said "i mean, we're talking about the guy who tried to kill my dad!" rolleyes

cause i was like "uuuh, bin laden, remember? BIN LADEN IS THE BAD GUY! not saddam!"

now, do i think saddam was a bad man who needed to be removed from power? yes. but do i think the FIRST bush should've done it? oh yeah.

do i think its cool that the 2nd bush tried to fix what his daddy had just shoved aside? nope.

welcome to vietnam in the desert, my friends. our children's children's children will be fighting this ******** sad. neutral

edit: @ Knitterz: hey, i do what i can. heart i'm absolutely mad for world politics and american history. cool

You see, I consider chemical weapons to be WMDs because, they can cause mass destruction, I mean, wiping out entire cities of people seems pretty massive to me.

And yes, I do agree that Bush 2 shouldn't have tried to go in and fix his dad's mistakes, but we did, and there is nothing that we can do about it now. Hussein was an evil man, who did have to be removed from power, and why we're still over there is beyond me, we never went into the war to spread democracy, but it's what we're wasting our tax dollars on when we could be actually doing things that aren't complete wastes.

If we want to take out evil in the world, why not go after Iran? It's only going to be a matter of time before that psycho decides it's time to knock the US down a few spots on the totem pole.

Just a question.....why Iran? Why not Afghanistan or Iraq......thats where most of this is happening.

I feel that Iraq is through with, and no one cares about Afghanistan anymore obviously. Iran's leader does not like us one bit, and it's only a matter of time before he gets the weaponry to make an attack on us.

But, I don't think we should go in there, and should go back to our old school ******** you guys attitude that we had up until the Cold War.  

[tsukasa_the_quiet]

Knitterz

and to think i didnt think this thread would get any attention XD...

Any time something is political in nature, of course it's going to be popular.  

[tsukasa_the_quiet]

Knitterz

[Tsukasa567]

Knitterz

and to think i didnt think this thread would get any attention XD...

Any time something is political in nature, of course it's going to be popular.

I thought so at first when i posted this but the first day this topic was almost like the bottom of the list D: i had like 2 responces

Well, it just takes time. xd  

[WastelandMama]

[Tsukasa567]

-Crunchy-Sponge-

[Tsukasa567]

bluegrass cat

uh.

there weren't any wmd's in iraq.

NONE.

he had chemical weapons that we were aware of ((you might be too young to remember the puppy video. crying if so, count yourself lucky...)), but no nuclear weapons.

he didn't even have weapons grade plutonium or uranium.

i lost all respect for bush when he said "i mean, we're talking about the guy who tried to kill my dad!" rolleyes

cause i was like "uuuh, bin laden, remember? BIN LADEN IS THE BAD GUY! not saddam!"

now, do i think saddam was a bad man who needed to be removed from power? yes. but do i think the FIRST bush should've done it? oh yeah.

do i think its cool that the 2nd bush tried to fix what his daddy had just shoved aside? nope.

welcome to vietnam in the desert, my friends. our children's children's children will be fighting this ******** sad. neutral

edit: @ Knitterz: hey, i do what i can. heart i'm absolutely mad for world politics and american history. cool

You see, I consider chemical weapons to be WMDs because, they can cause mass destruction, I mean, wiping out entire cities of people seems pretty massive to me.

And yes, I do agree that Bush 2 shouldn't have tried to go in and fix his dad's mistakes, but we did, and there is nothing that we can do about it now. Hussein was an evil man, who did have to be removed from power, and why we're still over there is beyond me, we never went into the war to spread democracy, but it's what we're wasting our tax dollars on when we could be actually doing things that aren't complete wastes.

If we want to take out evil in the world, why not go after Iran? It's only going to be a matter of time before that psycho decides it's time to knock the US down a few spots on the totem pole.

Just a question.....why Iran? Why not Afghanistan or Iraq......thats where most of this is happening.

I feel that Iraq is through with, and no one cares about Afghanistan anymore obviously. Iran's leader does not like us one bit, and it's only a matter of time before he gets the weaponry to make an attack on us.

But, I don't think we should go in there, and should go back to our old school ******** you guys attitude that we had up until the Cold War.

lol, yeah, but instead of going after everyone who DOESN'T like us, i think maybe its time we started trying to REBUILD relationships with people who DID like us.

cause, in all honesty, if you don't have allies, you don't have a country. and right @ this very moment, if america was attacked and out-gunned ((although i can't think of a country who COULD out-gun us @ the moment...maybe china in a few years)) RIGHT NOW, i know that our old school allies would rush in, but for how long?

with the whole world being aggravated @ us, i can see them sending people over, and then withdrawing and telling their countries there was nothing more they could do to help us.

and the scary part is, i think they could get away with that...

also, i'm a big fan of diplomacy in the first place. i think we need more talks with iran and work out some sort of relationship. not like, bff's or anything, but a professional "i won't mess with you if you leave me alone and vice versa" relationship.

and we need to KEEP trying until it works, or until iran gets a new president who's more willing to speak with us on friendly terms.

edit: wmd doesn't even have an official definition, so i guess it can mean camel farts if you want...

and the only chemical weapons we actually found were buried forgotten shells from the early 90s. the chemical stuff he used on the puppy was one of many prototypes that were created, and used, only in labs ((or prisons *shudder*)).  

[Arianna Reece]

Knitterz

:/ dude.. wtf are you talking about? Women over stepping their boundaries? what boundaries that havent been set up by ugly power hungry old men? and what you believe that only right now women have begun cheating? where the hell have you been the past oh i dont know... CENTURY?! lying and cheating are the human condition. All human beings lie and cheat, male or female its all the same. People have been lieing and cheating on each other since the dawn of time. Since the first group of cave people drew on caves.

men make decisions a lot quicker than women? Oh yea thats what I want in a president some one who makes decisions fast with out thinking. Look where the hell thats gotten us now? Great deal of help thats been. women analyze things so what maybe thats what we need. Maybe we need some one to set things aside and break things down because right now this country is waist deep in s**t.

I think its god damn ironic that your not willing to vote for a women because they lie and cheat right? but look at our president now! He lied to us and started a war no one wanted and our past president lied to us about something less important but still indeed lied. Explain to me here how a women could be any worse then what we have now?

It's people like you that make me not want a female president ;_;

First off, I'm aware that cheating is an age-old crime. However, with the things going on in our world today, more and more promiscuous women are arising. People look up to slutty women like Angelina Jolie more than they do women like Mother Teresa. It's safe to say that this nation is losing morality faster than we're gaining knowledge. Hollywood is a scandal, and the sad thing is that the celebrities have more of an impact on the people of this nation than anything else. The scandals in Hollywood mirror the s**t that's going on in our own neighborhoods. It wasn't always this bad, and that's what I'm referring to. Not cheating as a crime, but the increase in the number of cheating records. More women cheat than men do these days, and that has been shown many times over.

Maybe if you could analyze things properly, you'd realize what I'm talking about. Hilary would make a great vice president because the vice president has time to analyze things and decide. The vice president supports the president, and an analytical mind is very superficient in that position.

And where the hell do you get off talking about how no one wanted the war? Do you remember 9/11? America was pissed. The people wanted revenge on the terrorists, and yes, we wanted the war. What we didn't want was for it to last this long. But that's just war, in and of itself. War lasts for a while. Deal with it. The people helped push for a war, and so a war is what we got. There was a strong amount of patriotism then, and it seems to have died off a little. You know, for a year or so, we were a united nation, and everyone supported each other. Our country was at it's strongest, and it's kind of sad that a horrible act of terrorism had to be dealt before we got off our asses and stood together like a country should. We wanted that war, and I remember nearly the entire nation supported it. I don't know who the hell you think you are to turn around and say it wasn't wanted.  

[Arianna Reece]

bluegrass cat

uh, margaret thatcher ((prime minister, uk)), soong ching-ling ((president/chairman of the people's republic of china)), vigdís finnbogadóttir ((president, ireland)), elizabeth kopp ((vp of switzerland)), mary robinson ((president, ireland)), ellen johnson-sirleaf ((president, liberia)), pratibha patil ((president, india)), cristina fernández de kirchner ((president, argentina)).

in the world, the following countries have had female heads of state ((excluding monarchies, but i will remind you of the greatest leaders EVER: elizabeth I and catherine the great)):

san marino, switzerland, ireland, liberia, philippines, argentina, bolivia, burundi, chile, ecuador, finland, georgia, east germany, guinea-bissau, guyana, haiti, iceland, india, indonesia, israel, latvia, malta, mongolia, nicaragua, panama, and sri lanka.

if you go to wiki and type in "female heads of government" you get 50 different entries.

the world IS ready for a female leader of the free world.

ALSO, in case you didn't already know, america has already HAD a female president, she was just an unofficial one. wink i'm speaking of course of edith wilson, woodrow wilson's 2nd wife who ran the country on his behalf while he recovered from a stroke so that the vp wouldn't have to take over the presidency.

heart

Might I point out that a lot of the countries you pointed out are older than the United States. I know it doesn't necessarily mean a lot, but America isn't exactly a mature country. Look at some of the things we've got going on around us. We try and fix another country's problems before we even start to really work on our own. I understand there are people dying from starvation and AIDS in Africa, but hell, people are dying here of the same things. I don't completely agree with everything our nation does. But I must say, that with all the s**t we get ourselves into, we have the best of intentions.

I think a female president would definitely bring out a softer side to our country, but I'm afraid it might be a downfall for us. The countries you've listed are not by any means a world power. India, China, Britain, yes those are fairly powerful. But they're also so much more mature than we are at this time. Half of our country isn't ready to take the next step. I understand that we're fully capable, but that doesn't mean we're necessarily ready. We're not Ireland. We're not Britain. We are America, and there's a distinct difference there.

And if we're going to have a female president, I would vote for Condoleezza Rice. I'm not completely comfortable with the idea, but she is a lot better than Hilary. She holds much more respect than the other candidates do. I think the same of Colin Powell. I recognize there have been many great leaders. But women haven't even held the right to vote in this country for a hundred years yet. . .  

[WastelandMama]

Arianna Reece

I recognize there have been many great leaders. But women haven't even held the right to vote in this country for a hundred years yet. . .

neither have african-americans. so "oh noes!" you can't vote for obama OR condi!

i'm not saying the following to be mean or bitchy, BUT:

your level of ignorance on both our nation's place in the world, our history, and the average psyche of the modern american woman is astounding and gravely disturbing.

i highly suggest you educate yourself further before making any more posts in this thread, as you're only enabling others to mock you.

countries younger than america, and more powerful than us, have had female leaders in the past. it wasn't the downfall of their society.

i'm starting to believe that cannot POSSIBLY be a female, or that you've been brainwashed by someone with issues regarding females.

the stereotypical drivel you've posted about women in this thread makes me hope you get psychological assistance asap. because you have some serious issues, lady.

also, and this is almost too ridiculous to mention, but how is angelina jolie a slut? oh, that's right. she STOLE brad. yeah. cause its possible to STEAL a man, right? i mean, they have no brains @ all when it comes to women, amirite? har har har.

grow up, kid.

and if you are grown up, stop getting drunk and then posting.

rolleyes

ps: if this were livejournal, i'd swear you were a troll...but since its gaia, i guess you're just uneducated. stare  

[WastelandMama]

Knitterz

bluegrass cat

Arianna Reece

I recognize there have been many great leaders. But women haven't even held the right to vote in this country for a hundred years yet. . .

neither have african-americans. so "oh noes!" you can't vote for obama OR condi!

i'm not saying the following to be mean or bitchy, BUT:

your level of ignorance on both our nation's place in the world, our history, and the average psyche of the modern american woman is astounding and gravely disturbing.

i highly suggest you educate yourself further before making any more posts in this thread, as you're only enabling others to mock you.

countries younger than america, and more powerful than us, have had female leaders in the past. it wasn't the downfall of their society.

i'm starting to believe that cannot POSSIBLY be a female, or that you've been brainwashed by someone with issues regarding females.

the stereotypical drivel you've posted about women in this thread makes me hope you get psychological assistance asap. because you have some serious issues, lady.

also, and this is almost too ridiculous to mention, but how is angelina jolie a slut? oh, that's right. she STOLE brad. yeah. cause its possible to STEAL a man, right? i mean, they have no brains @ all when it comes to women, amirite? har har har.

grow up, kid.

and if you are grown up, stop getting drunk and then posting.

rolleyes

ps: if this were livejournal, i'd swear you were a troll...but since its gaia, i guess you're just uneducated. stare

Wow I was gana go to town on this girl but youve gone and done the job for me and my what a lovely job youve done XD I think I might be a Bluegrass cat fan girl heart

xd you would be the first and i'm honored to have such a kickass fangirl! heart heart heart  

[Metalic_Noodles]

Females are more likely to be rash. Someone 3 times my size had thier kid over, and he(kid) hit my dog. I slaped the kid back, and this little five-year-old and I were oddly enough evenly matched in our slap fight. (I'm a whimp). Then his mom, come over... I was scared to say the least.

Humans are idiots as a whole, not all men are assholes, not all women are rash, but stereo types aren't created without a reason.

Hilary is more of a man than a woman, because this is such new territory and people don't know what the masses want from her. Few what her to be all pink and prissy, but then people disregard her when she acts just as boring as the other old men. I don't like her because she doesn't know who she is, she's just filling the mold that her advisors tell her the people want, and in effect loosing a lot.

Seriously though, you mess with my dog and I'll kill you. Same with my cats, but you can't get them killed for fighting back, dogs can be killed just for growling. (Which is bull s**t and a sure fire way to get my vote, and anyone's vote I can personally beg for. Even if that person wants to let PETA do whatever they want.)


The person with the pink text is right, just a bit inflexible. Besides, it's all opinions anyway. In my opinion humans will distroy eachother and a much more intellegent spieces will take over. Like cats, who can do whatever they damn well please these days, well, for the most part. If they ere dumb they wouldn't live in houses, have people cater to thier every whim and get free massages and all the sleep time they want, as well as a temperature controled enviroment, time outside to kill birds, and whatever else.

~Metalic_Noodles