Hell, Kerry should welcome a comparison of military records. Just look at Bush -- weaseled his way into the National Guard then didn't even bother to show up for most of the time.
"Maybe both sides should stop attacking each others military records. You think?"
Theres a difference here on these mens military records. One man served honorably while the other didn't. One has the means to prove it, the other doesn't.
It's inexcusable to be attacking an honored veteren. That is territory they have no right to infringe.
When Pres. Bush has a role in a war he hasn't started then it wouldn't be excusable to attack him, but he can't even prove where he, ect. during vietnam.
Damn... are Americans so shallow as to vote for someone on what he did in the past? Personally, I wouldn't care whether he was an honorable member or dishonorably discharged. What matters is leadership skills. If a candidate was a general, he'd likely get my favor. But personally, I don't really care if he's a coward or not, just as long as he doesn't let it bother his judgement (like with Blair).
Besides, the Vietnam war was one of those wars that were unjustly fought and very heavily biased in history books (like most of the other wars between USA and 3rd-world nations). Anyone who kills innocent people just because they were told to loses my vote. Much more anyone who was good at killing them .
(Oh, and in case I don't have the time to reply to whatever reply I get from this, yes, I know that soldiers don't count as 'innocent people')
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
" are Americans so shallow as to vote for someone on what he did in the past? "
I don't want to be electing any murderers, or anything crazy like that. Often looking at their past is the only way to determine true leadership skills. Furthermore, look at the leadership skills of George W. Bush.
He was told what was going on, a national emergency; and he sat there and continued to listen to little children read. Surely to some people it seems like he was respecting the youth, and respecting those people. Who gives a shit? There were people dying, c'mon now. National emergencies are priority # 1.
LOL, Bush is one of the worst leaders history will ever know. The only reason he got elected was because his main competitor was Al Gore (and maybe a little help from Daddy) .
What real leader would attack a country, claiming it had weapons of mass destruction when the UN couldn't find any. Heck, they attacked just before the UN would give them the red light. Shame on the rest of the world for slaughtering innocent Iraqis? Do they not know that the other countries (e.g. America, China, North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, France, Germany, etc) also possess weapons of mass destruction? I guess those who did attack did so just to cover up the fact that they too were potential victims.
Seriously though, Saddam was just a strict, tough, yet really nice guy. Kinda like ShadowCaster. The main reason he was so harsh on his people was because they were the chaotic types that didn't like to be ruled. I actually wrote a storyline about how Iraq would fall into chaos after the US won, and strangely enough, it's going almost exactly to plan (though I expected it to start on July and it seems that Spain's going for the democratic communism, not China).
Heck, if Bush stays in power for about another decade and Iraq is quelled, I'm willing to bet 50 DC points that Hawaii and/or Alaska would be nuked.
Either way, John Kerry would get my vote over Bush any day.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
No matter who we elect there just gonna screw it up, so quit your complaining. Were supposed to be electing the best, but this is what we get? These two clowns? I don't think either of them can govern this country well. I usually laugh at people that say they can do a better job, but now I'm not so sure. But is it really they who govern our country? In some parts, yes. But then we also have our "Majority" to blame for being retarded. But what shapes our Majority in to this stupid mass of stupidity? You guessed it, the mass media.
The mass media tells us how bad marijuana can be, but I never read anywhere in the news or anything that tells us the good things that majorly outweigh the bad.
Like for instance they don't tell you that Marijuana contains no addictive substances. People who are hooked on marijuana are hooked because of a mental addiction, meaning they smoke it because they want to, not because they are forced to.
What about the nutritional facts of the seeds?
The hemp seeds contain no THC
22.6% Protein
30% Fat
5.7% Moisture
5.9% Ash
35.8% Carbohydrates
Vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, C, D, and E
503cal/100g energy
The highest total of essential fatty acids and essential amino acids found in one single food sorce
The stalks of the hemp plant can be used to make alot of stuff, such as the strongest rope, the most durable fabric, a very high quality paper, and building materials such as concrete, particle board, paint, insulation, ect. The list totally goes on with what you can make with it.
Here are some other interesting facts:
The first bibles were printed on hemp paper
The first US flag was made of hemp
The US constitution and Declaration of Independence were printed on hemp paper
An Acre of Hemp produces 4 times the ammount of paper than an acre of trees, and it grows back in less than a year
Henry Ford made a hemp-mobile
Birds live 20% longer when the hemp seed is part of their diet
Hemp seed oil has been used in everything from engine oil and paint, to cosmetics and food for man and other animals
in the 1600's, there were places in the US were growing hemp was enforced by law
you could pay your taxes in hemp for 200 years during the 1700's in the US
Hemp seeds have been a staple and a life-saver during many famines and food shortages throughout history [over 60% of third world children are dying everyday because of protien starvation, but MR. GOVERNMENT says they can't grow it, it's bad for you and against the law]
The depleation of the ozone layer threatens to reduce crops by up to 50%, but hemp is immune to the damages of ultraviolet light, in fact, it actually helps it develop!
There are receptors, scientists have found, in the brain will bind with THC compounds alone, and no other.
Hemp requires little to no industry, it grows in the ground [Cleaning the soil of toxins) then is cut, dried, and utilized.
Hemp is a more profilic producer of ethanol than corn.
Taxing the plant would majorly decrease taxes in the US.
Legalizing it would stop marijana dealers from getting rich.
The one place where it is legal, Holland, only 3% of the teens actually smoke it.
"Prohibtion goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appitite by legislation, and it makes a crime out of things that are not crimes" -ABE LINCOLN, 1840
"And God said, Behold I have given you every green herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." -Genesis 1:29
Now I'd say that the benefits of this plants totally outweigh the negative effects, which is just some kids get high off of it. But that's kind of happening already.
Now you tell me, which leader would even consider legalizing hemp? And this is just an argument for one of the many things that should be change in this world, but everyone just assumes that their bad because of something some idiot did. People are so stupid because they believe the first thing they hear, but do the majority of voters actually research what they are voting for? All of the people I know never even heard of a benefit of hemp, they just assume, kid get's high, there done. And if you look at it, do you really know who you are voting for? I want to fucking hit anyone who says they do, but no! You can't find out anything about a person in the media. You have to remember that these are the same heartless bastards who try to smuggle scandles out of every fucking celebrity. In my opinion, your local news brodcast is no different then the retards in the tabloids. And now I'm gonna be quite before I get angry. Sorry, I don't mean to yell or anything, it's just sickening how impossible it is to change someones opinions, none the less the whole worlds. Oh well.
The funny thing is that half of you tools probably aren't old enough to vote. The other half probably aren't smart enough, but I guess that never stopped anybody.
Obviously Bush did not serve "honorably" because DEC Stuff says so. Bush did show where he was during Vietnam but some people don't believe him for obvious reasons. As for John Kerry, he served also, so yes he should not be attacked about it.
"Seriously though, Saddam was just a strict, tough, yet really nice guy. Kinda like ShadowCaster. The main reason he was so harsh on his people was because they were the chaotic types that didn't like to be ruled. I actually wrote a storyline about how Iraq would fall into chaos after the US won, and strangely enough, it's going almost exactly to plan (though I expected it to start on July and it seems that Spain's going for the democratic communism, not China)."
So according to Muz, Saddam was a better leader than Bush.:/ Hmmmmmm.......
99 percent chance that the above post is 100 percent correct.
Advertisement
Post Reply
.
.
Joshtek
GO! 
