Author Topic: If Kerry Were President When The Wtc Was Hit... (Read 14907 times)

Kerrybuster · « **on:** October 24, 2004, 06:06:11 pm »

Open to all opinions at first, then I tell opposing people to me why they're completely, utterly incorrect.

GrEeNdAyFrEaK · « **Reply #1 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:08:04 pm »

I think Kerry would have acted very similar to W because he would have had the same intelligence telling him what's going on

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #2 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:14:12 pm »

I disagree. I think Kerry would have pushed for further talks and tried to go unilaterally with Iraq and Sadaam Husseine. I think we would have had at least another attack and I believe that chaos would have followed his election including, but not limited to:

- Rased taxes
- Divided senate
- No progress made toward overturning Roe v. Wade
- Economic Depression
- Speedier rise of inflation
- Further limitations on firearms and higher taxation of guns and ammo
- Expansion of global terrorism

In fact, I'm certain these things would have happened.

GrEeNdAyFrEaK · « **Reply #3 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:17:24 pm »

And i'll have to disagree with you, I just think with the same intelligence Kerry would've went the same way, except he may have put less emphasis on Iraq

Gideon Brown · « **Reply #4 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:18:04 pm »

but would kerry have listened to osama's threats? cuz osama DID threaten to attack the US...

IZ · « **Reply #5 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:18:53 pm »

It doesn't matter, he WASN'T president during then.

Hannahbal · « **Reply #6 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:29:34 pm »

I don't think we can ever know what would've happened, because it didn't happen.

Starr2k3 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:37:28 pm »

This is completely pointless. We will never find out, so who cares?

Hannahbal · « **Reply #8 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:40:59 pm »

Quote

This is completely pointless. We will never find out, so who cares?

It's just a topic...people can reply to it if they want, or if they don't want to they don't have to. I think that for the most part we come here for a good time. We may as well share our opinions while doing so.

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #9 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:41:52 pm »

Truth be told nobody really knows because, let's face it, he tries so hard to mask who he is. I think he would have gone with the UN though as he has claimed throughout his life to believe in. (In fact, he believes that without UN approval an American life is not worth losing.)

A-to-the quote machine:

April 17th of 1994 on CNN's Late Edition, Frank Sesno hosting:

Dscussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'"

Or, to spell it out more clearly, if we have the UN's support then our cause is worth American lives. Alone, an American life is not worth losing. Certainly this only specifically applies to entering that particlar country, but to believe that at any time in American history is frightening. Just think about some of the evil dictators and empires we've toppled unilaterally (that means us and them, mano a mano) in our nation's great history.

John Kerry believed this to be true when a Civil War occured on the other side of the world. (After Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence in '92, civil war occured).

I believe that in John Kerry's world that having Sadaam Husseine in power at the time we went to war was no more an impending threat than that of this Bosnian conflict, which also took way on the other side of the world. In both cases we were in no imminent danger and in both cases US participation was completely voluntary.

He has said that the focus of this war on terror was Osama Bin Laden. If he believes that only Osama is a threat, then he believed (logically) that Sadaam was no more than a mere nuisance, correct? So you can come to the conclusion that under a Kerry administration, the war on Iraq is one better left to the UN which is far more capable of making a difference in such a large affair.

I think under Kerry we'd have attacked Afghanistan but Iraq would have been out of the question and remained unchecked, undergoing investigations and inspections to this very day.

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #10 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:45:17 pm »

On the other hand, Kerry has expressed serious concerns in a letter to congress that Sadaam should be bombed. I think the scary think here is not that I can tell you what he will do, but that I can't even come close to guessing. I have no clue what this guy will do if he's in office and that's not a safe bet for the Chief Executive Officer of the US.

Hannahbal · « **Reply #11 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:46:55 pm »

Kerrybuster, please do not double post. If you need to add something, go ahead and edit your post. There's a button right above any message that you post.

Megan · « **Reply #12 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:48:27 pm »

Try not to double post. I agree, we will never know how he would have handled it.

Gideon Brown · « **Reply #13 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:50:11 pm »

I think both candidates are horrible. Ugh. This year has been one of those horrible candidate years. Same in Canada. And we voted the idiot in. Ugh.

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:55:58 pm »

Why don't we know what he would have done? Is it because... dum... dum... dum... he's been lying to us? I tell you what I know he would have done right now and you can dispute me if you wish, although nobody seems to have any of their own ideas or thoughts on the subject at this point.

Actual real-life scenario:

Kerry would have announced that we would hunt down and capture Osama Bin Laden and those directly responsible for the WTC attack, a handful of people and then we would have brought them to justice.

Kerry would also go unilateral with North Korea, as he has said.

Kerry would have continued unilateral talks with Sadaam Husseine in a la Bill Clinton and that, my dear comrades, would have been that.

And economically, he raises taxes wide and abroad and spends the money on government programs like his proposed healthcare, resulting in less medication and poorer treatment for everybody... but everyone would be covered.

Essentially, Kerry would have been a move toward a socialist America.

Starr2k3 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:55:59 pm »

Actually, Gore won. Just not in Electoral votes. Gore won by 500,000 votes, he just won the smaller states.

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #16 on:** October 24, 2004, 06:59:16 pm »

What a snooze fest that whole ordeal is.

Pop quiz: How many times did Bill Clinton win the popular vote?

cmonkey · « **Reply #17 on:** October 24, 2004, 07:00:46 pm »

If by won, you mean recieved more votes than any of the other candidates, then he won the Presidency twice.

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #18 on:** October 24, 2004, 07:01:56 pm »

And how many times was that the way we determined him the winner? XD

Gideon Brown · « **Reply #19 on:** October 24, 2004, 07:02:38 pm »

nothing wrong with healthcare till the americans bring up the american dollar AFTER THEY GO IN DEBT...then a country has a problem. Ack. How can YOUR dollar be worth more than ours when YOU have a larger debt?! It makes no sense!

and for the record, four years ago I wanted Bush in. Now I want Nadar in.
And just last spring, I said anyone but Liberal should get in in Canada. If Paul Martin gets in we're screwed. So while my whole family voted Conservative, I vote Green because they haven't screwed up our country yet. But meh. Liberal got in and now we're screwed.
I HATE POLITICS!!!!!!

cmonkey · « **Reply #20 on:** October 24, 2004, 07:03:39 pm »

Note: I don't dispute the election because Gore won the most votes by the American public. I dispute it because of the fiasco that occured in Florida.

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #21 on:** October 24, 2004, 07:05:19 pm »

Not convinced by independent recounts, were you?

cmonkey · « **Reply #22 on:** October 24, 2004, 07:27:19 pm »

Quote

Not convinced by independent recounts, were you?

mmm.... butterfly ballots. Why would 5,300 Democrats vote for a conservative (Buchanan)? Why would there be 3,000 votes for Buchanan in an area with 300 members of the reform party? Pat Buchanan himself said "When I took one look at that ballot on Election Night ... it's very easy for me to see how someone could have voted for me in the belief they voted for Al Gore". The head of the Reform Party (the one Buchanan ran under in 2000) in the area said, when asked how many votes Buchanan would recieve, said, "I think 1,000 would be generous. Do I believe that these people inadvertently cast their votes for Pat Buchanan? Yes, I do. We have to believe that based on the vote totals elsewhere."

Thats not even to mention the disproportionally Democratic counties in which the reject mechanism was disabled on voting machines.

more examples...

MiraclrPlz · « **Reply #23 on:** October 24, 2004, 07:32:05 pm »

Kerry buster is right and you all know it.

Elizabeth Rose · « **Reply #24 on:** October 24, 2004, 08:15:58 pm »

The problem with Florida was that people were too stupid to understand a simple ballot. This year that problem will be solved.

Seriously though, when a ballot is messed up it is supposed to be shredded and a new ballot given to the voter.

MiraclrPlz · « **Reply #25 on:** October 24, 2004, 08:17:07 pm »

NO! BUSH WON FLORIDA! Gore was a whiner who was ungracious in defeat and will be hated in the history books for trying to steal the election! Bush won Florida because he got more votes!

cmonkey · « **Reply #26 on:** October 24, 2004, 08:20:10 pm »

lol. Fisher Price ballot box. So true, though. I forsee a whole load of new problems in 9 days, when there will be use of electronic voting systems across the country. The worst part is that there won't even be a paper trail to look back on when (not if, when) things screw up.

Gideon Brown · « **Reply #27 on:** October 24, 2004, 08:20:32 pm »

I admit Gore was a horrible candidate. Heh...he created the internet...HEHE

Elizabeth Rose · « **Reply #28 on:** October 24, 2004, 08:24:40 pm »

Quote

lol. Fisher Price ballot box. So true, though. I forsee a whole load of new problems in 9 days, when there will be use of electronic voting systems across the country. The worst part is that there won't even be a paper trail to look back on when (not if, when) things screw up.

Yeah, that's bound to cause some problems. Especially for folks like Senior citizens who may not be aquainted with electronical devices.

MiraclrPlz · « **Reply #29 on:** October 24, 2004, 08:31:31 pm »

John Kerry has NO real veiws. He just says what he thinks he must say to get elected. And it's horribly wrong whatever side he's on. Wherever there are Democrats divided on something, he'll flip flop depending on the polls. He is a zombie.

Elizabeth Rose · « **Reply #30 on:** October 24, 2004, 08:36:52 pm »

Quote

John Kerry has NO real veiws. He just says what he thinks he must say to get elected. And it's horribly wrong whatever side he's on. Wherever there are Democrats divided on something, he'll flip flop depending on the polls. He is a zombie.

John Kerry: More positions than any other candidate and the courage to stand by all of them.

MiraclrPlz · « **Reply #31 on:** October 25, 2004, 05:55:24 am »

Exactly. that alone should prove he's a phony that looks like Lurch from teh Addams Family.

Gideon Brown · « **Reply #32 on:** October 25, 2004, 06:50:35 am »

No offense MSP but looks have nothing to do with it. If that were the case, I don't think the Americans would have voted for a man who looks like a monkey.

Hannahbal · « **Reply #33 on:** October 25, 2004, 02:30:25 pm »

Quote

John Kerry has NO real veiws. He just says what he thinks he must say to get elected. And it's horribly wrong whatever side he's on. Wherever there are Democrats divided on something, he'll flip flop depending on the polls. He is a zombie.

Is it just me or are you just repeating exactly what Kerrybuster said? Yeah, it's not just me.

Quote

No offense MSP but looks have nothing to do with it. If that were the case, I don't think the Americans would have voted for a man who looks like a monkey.

Lmao. I know. Whenever I see him I think that he didn't quite make it all the way up the evolutionary chart.

Scilla · « **Reply #34 on:** October 25, 2004, 03:24:00 pm »

Quote

I think Kerry would have acted very similar to W because he would have had the same intelligence telling him what's going on

Exactly. I am a Kerry supporter, but Anyone could have made the mistake of receiving the wrong information.

ssj4gogita4 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 25, 2004, 03:28:17 pm »

We wouldve gone to war either way...it wouldnt matter who was prezident

VulturEMaN · « **Reply #36 on:** October 25, 2004, 03:41:33 pm »

Kerry would have gone to war against Afghanistan rebels, not Iraq.

The reason (atleast I believe and have never heard anyone state this flat out in this context before) that he originally didn't support any of the "war in iraq" stuff was because he was more concerned about terrorists and didn't change his vote, trying to sway the presidents vote to enter the war. However, once they were in the war, he, once again, voted for what he thought best, and that was to increase war spending. A visual for anyone that doesn't understand a word I just said

After 9/11:
Get rid of terrorists
Increase special forces

After Iraq invasion:
Get rid of Saddam
Increase spending
Increase funding for the war
Get troops out quicker

Someone in my math class recently went up to the chalkboard and drew a headshot of Bush(randomly btw)....a very good picture of him. Our teacher asked her how she drew it so well and fast. The girl responded with "Just like drawing a hairy bowling ball"

Kerrybuster · « **Reply #37 on:** October 25, 2004, 07:37:35 pm »

Kerry would have gone to war against Afghanistan rebels, not Iraq.

I agree totally, with the exception that he would have treated this like a police matter, only going after those on the planes and those who helped them get there. (See: BILL CLINTON and the first WTC bombing).

The reason that he originally didn't support any of the "war in iraq" stuff was because he was more concerned about terrorists

The terrorists who masterminded the scheme were already being attacked. The war in Iraq did not, in any way, adversely affect the search for Bin Laden. If you check your facts you'll find that our troops in Afghanistan were actually increased before we went to Iraq. There is no truth to this "taking his eye off the ball" theory. Osama is taken care of.

and didn't change his vote, trying to sway the presidents vote to enter the war.

I don't understand what you mean.

However, once they were in the war,

The war that he authorized the president to go into.

he, once again, voted for what he thought best, and that was to increase war spending.

EGHHH! WRONG! He voted to do no such thing. In fact, when the bill came to increase war spending he voted against it. Thanks for playing, have a nice day!

After 9/11:
Get rid of terrorists
Increase special forces

He would have gotten rid of the terrorists directly responsible, yes. Increasing special forces? What kind of special forces? Navy SEALs? More bomb sniffing dogs? Once again I don't know what you mean.

After Iraq invasion:
Get rid of Saddam
Increase spending
Increase funding for the war
Get troops out quicker

He never would have went to war with Iraq. If he did the things you said here he would do, he would have basically done the same thing that the president has done thus far with the exception of "getting the troops out quicker". No president can guarantee that. Not even John Francois Kerry.

Someone in my math class recently went up to the chalkboard and drew a headshot of Bush(randomly btw)....a very good picture of him. Our teacher asked her how she drew it so well and fast. The girl responded with "Just like drawing a hairy bowling ball"

Charming.

MEEP! · « **Reply #38 on:** October 26, 2004, 10:38:10 am »

Quote

No offense MSP but looks have nothing to do with it. If that were the case, I don't think the Americans would have voted for a man who looks like a monkey.

:laugh: That just made me think of one picture. Here ya go. :laugh:

ssj4gogita4 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 26, 2004, 11:20:27 am »

That's so wrong...but so funny

MiraclrPlz · « **Reply #40 on:** October 29, 2004, 06:50:07 am »

John Kerry looks like Lurch from the Adam's Family.

Hannahbal · « **Reply #41 on:** October 29, 2004, 02:30:41 pm »

Quote

John Kerry looks like Lurch from the Adam's Family.

Yeah, you've said that before.

News:

Author Topic: If Kerry Were President When The Wtc Was Hit... (Read 14907 times)

Kerrybuster

GrEeNdAyFrEaK

Kerrybuster

GrEeNdAyFrEaK

Gideon Brown

Starr2k3

Kerrybuster

Kerrybuster

Megan

Gideon Brown

Kerrybuster

Starr2k3

Kerrybuster

Kerrybuster

Gideon Brown

Kerrybuster

MiraclrPlz

Elizabeth Rose

MiraclrPlz

Gideon Brown

Elizabeth Rose

MiraclrPlz

Elizabeth Rose

MiraclrPlz

Gideon Brown

Kerrybuster

MiraclrPlz