Bush Versus Kerry Interland Instant Poll

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
How can I say that?

Because the things they are protesting about are blatently wrong. They are not refreshed on the issues and are picketing an area they are clearly wrong about.

If someone picketed saying 1+1 = 3, what would you think? Like the post before...

"Why am I voting for Kerry? Because I want to see this "war" end"

How do you feel about these types of posts? The person said they were voting for Kerry, but they are grossly misinformed on the issues as the war will not end if Kerry wins. It seems popular opinion has taken grasp of some voters.

Who am I? Who are you?
 
People who are voting for Kerry because they hope to end the war in Iraq aren't necessarily misinformed. True, Kerry has not said he would end the war. However, he has said that he would pursue international involvement, hopefully lessening our presence there sooner. People may also support Kerry because he's less likely to start a pre-emptive war that many feel was unnecessary. Also, many hope that Kerry will be more willing to listen to the wishes of those who are against the war rather than ignoring them.
 
odowdpa said:

"Why am I voting for Kerry? Because I want to see this "war" end"

How do you feel about these types of posts? The person said they were voting for Kerry, but they are grossly misinformed on the issues as the war will not end if Kerry wins. It seems popular opinion has taken grasp of some voters.

:bow:
 
Good points taken.

The only area that I would challenge is key words like "hopefully". Bush "hopefully" wants things to happen like that as well. But with insurgents rising almost everyday, I do not feel the administration could let that happen.

Despite how I've posted, Kerry would be good for international affairs, but what makes you think more countries would want to jump in just because of Kerry?
 
odowdpa said:
How can I say that?

Because the things they are protesting about are blatently wrong. They are not refreshed on the issues and are picketing an area they are clearly wrong about.

If someone picketed saying 1+1 = 3, what would you think? Like the post before...

There are some considerable differences between mathematics and politics, so that's perhaps not the best comparison.

Amazingly enough, simply asserting that the protestors are "blatantly wrong" isn't likely to convince many people. You're stating an opinion and you're not even backing it up with a coherent argument. Why is your opinion any more valid than the opinions of those who oppose the war? If you want people to agree with you then you have to do better than a simplistic 'I'm right and they're wrong' argument.
 
Last edited:
Bush has destroyed any chance for true international support. I think that other world leaders would probably be swayed by the "anyone but Bush" sentiment.
 
Everyone who hates us.

I mean, do you think people like France who didn't support the war, and people in the middle east who hate us as 'infidels' are suddenly going to go, oh, it's okay now, they don't have Bush! I'm on their side now! Everything they do now is a-ok with us! :tsk:
 
Last edited:
Well they were on our side before Bush, and after 9/11, so ...yes. Maybe not the ones who see us as "infidels" because there's a lot more we'd have to do to change that perception. But yeah, I do see Europe being more willing to help us out of the mess in Iraq if Bush weren't president.
 
Fizzing, if you are incapable of linking the two examples I mentioned, then thats not my problem. but the educational systems.

You say that I am in a 'I'm right, your wrong argument', but then I read some of your hypocritical posts. here's one gem of yours:

"Besides, it's hardly as though every Bush supporter here has a fantastic grasp of the issues"

Let's not cast stones now...
 
I find it relatively amusing that people are saying Kerry will end the war. Have you listened to him? He has virtually an identical stance as the administration on Iraq. If you heard Edwards last night, the war on terror is not over, nor will it be over under Kerry. You have the wrong candidate if you are basing it on the war. Both Kerry and Edwards voted to give the president the power to wage war.

The anti-war candidate has been defeated by a scream.
 
I don't think that Kerry will end the war. We're in pretty deep, and realistically we can't just pull everyone out immediately. However I do think that John Kerry does have a better plan for winning the peace in Iraq, and that's why I'll be voting for him.
 
odowdpa said:
Fizzing, if you are incapable of linking the two examples I mentioned, then thats not my problem. but the educational systems.

:lol: My intelligence is being questioned by the guy who thinks "idiotness" is a word and doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're?" How will I ever recover?
 
Okay, PLEASE let's stick to the issues. The thread has gone really far afield, but there are still some intelligent postings going on, so I won't close it...yet.
 
I'm trying to touch on the issues and Fizzing hails perosnal insults to make his or her own point, sounds like self-esteem issues... sorry Fizzing to call you out on it

But Taking anything from the pressroom of John Kerry.com is not a good idea. Press rooms are known for spinning the truth to make their candidate (or anything) look good. Damage control is another synonym
 
I don't think this war can be ended - The Invasion in Iraq created something like a second palestine in the mid-east.
I'm affraid it's getting worse, no matter which government tries to do. Maybe it would be just that the neocons who started that thing should move their offices to baghdad and try to solve the problems down there.

BluberryPoptart
I mean, do you think people like France who didn't support the war, and people in the middle east who hate us as 'infidels' are suddenly going to go, oh, it's okay now, they don't have Bush! I'm on their side now! Everything they do now is a-ok with us!

This could be true if Bush not only looses the elections but looses them massively so that the people in the rest of the world can see that Mr. Bushs politic isn't representative for what the US citizens want.
 
odowdpa said:
I'm trying to touch on the issues and Fizzing hails perosnal insults to make his or her own point, sounds like self-esteem issues... sorry Fizzing to call you out on it

:lol: That's actually quite a refreshing change. I'm used to people accusing me of being arrogant, so being accused of having low self-esteem is really the least of my concerns. Anyway, I'm smarter than you, know more about politics than you do, and, unlike you, have the ability to spell and use punctuation and grammar correctly. Do I sound like the kind of girl who has self-esteem issues?
 
Some of the links didn't work for me, but of the ones I did read, Kerry certainly is making some valid points. He speaks about how NATO has to become more active concerning other nations becoming involved. That sounds like a great idea, but the thing is: How will he do that? The answer is not posted in the press room. And perhaps Kerry doesn't know himself. If he was elected, do you think nations that have been pulling out go back in? Or nations that have fewer than 20,000 troops, will they add troops?

We're all on the same side here, but the only difference is how we will go around to fix this situation. And we have to remember that terrorists don't care - they see America as an evil empire. And don't forget that the same terrorists tried to take down the Towers in '93. Its an old problem that has to be dealt with.
 
I think that if Kerry were president we would have a better chance of creating true international support for Iraq, including the countries that do not currently support us.
 
Back
Top Bottom