:wavey: too bad you can't have a rational discussion without getting all butt hurt about it we do this all the time and we all have different views...we just choose to agree to disagree and its just fun for most of us.

As for the drug thread you mention...I posted in there as did most everyone and the thread was titled "What drugs have you done" which is different than continued use.

This is why you have no argument in this subject because you take things out of context and as though it were being directed at you personally, both of these are the wrong view to take as we are not attacking you as a person but simply picking apart your view on politics.

Happens to all of us and we all argue our own points, sometimes we can back them up and sometimes we can't just the way political debate has always gone.

Anyways see ya later and enjoy associating with only people who see things your way...too bad you limit yourself that way though.

 

:werd: well said... btw your opinion is wrong























































h:

 

This is true but at the same time they are two different situations...one avoided the draft which means he hid out and opted not to go when called....the other enlisted and joined the force willingly then was found in deriliction(sp?) of duty which in itself is much more severe than avoiding service all together.

 

Solution- elect Wesley Clark!

 

:werd:


:werd:

Really, who cares. The war is over and done with. Saddam had to go, and thats the end of that.

It seems like this is one thing that couldnt be justified in the normal way of hard facts. It just had to be done, and there was no way around it.

 

Well, now I'm curious... how do draw a line directly between Clinton and this... I always thought of it as a case of no one in the world reacing properly...

 

Here, I'll quote myself from another thread since I have already said the same thing in response to that suggestion.

 

I think Clinton was in a position where by sending US troops, he could have prevented the genocide, but the Somalia fiasco was still in the air, so they decided against it.

All I know is, canada sent troops under the UN, the UN pissed around, and the Tutsi tribe of rawanda got wned:

 

So it was a situation where we weighed the odds, and we decided that we shouldn't mobilize due to another conflict, and a buncha people got fuct cause of it?

 

In fairness, I voted for Bush. Mostly because Gore came off as an asshole during the debates, and Bush's rhetoric of "Compassionate Conservatism" and "I am a Uniter, not a Divider" appealed to me (and I thought he was serious). However, he has let me down miserably. His policies have been anything but compassionate, and ultra-conservative would have been a more correct word. And he has been one of the most unilateral president's in our history, one of the biggest Dividers of the last 100 years.

Clark or Dean in '04!!