Stand With Us to Victory

Yes and the examples you presented are opinions of mine. But then again, I support Bush, so I'm not allowed to have an opinion. *rolls eyes*

 

I know that, i was saying Karl was stating on here, that i work for CBS..and i assumed you were remarking on that..

 

LOL, I do apologize. I didn't mean to be so harsh. I guess I needed to pull my head out on that one. Sorry..........

 

lol it's ok

 

As far as talk radio goes, I like to fill my ears with truth. You are the one who gets your facts from biased liberal media stations. I bet you just love tuning into CBS.

Now, if John Kerry doesn't want to put Sadaam back into power, then I guess that means that he agrees that the world is safer witout him in power. Other wise, why wouldn't he want to put him back into power? But if what you are saying is true, about him not wanting to put Sadaam back into power, then I guess it's not the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time after all.

And I do believe Kerry wants to head toward a one world government. He has already made it clear that the UN should decide when America needs to protect herself. Hello John Kerry. Goodbye sovereignty.

 

Oh yea, there is a lot of voter's fraud that goes on. It's sad that we can't be 100% sure that our votes really count. Also, they say it is descrimination to require presentation of a photo ID at elections. We can't even rent movies from Blockbuster without a photo ID, yet we can vote no questions asked. I'll bet that so many people vote twice, and that is just one example of cheating that goes on in our elections. I hope our government eventually cleans this issue up, and protects our wonderful right to vote.

 

Please don't make assupmtions about me. The CBS jokes here are getting pretty tired. And your talk news station, POV, is a christian news station, are you trying to tell me they have no bias?

This is why you get little respect around here. You never have much to say except stupid little scarcastic comments that don't make much sense besides making you look very informed.

 

1. John Kerry has never said that he wants Saddam back in power.
2. He has never said that world was better or safer with Saddam in power.
3. He has said, if you would read his words instead of getting them through conservative interpretations of them, that he wanted broader world support before the U.S. opted to remove a leader of a sovereign nation from power.

Here is an excerpt from what he said on the Senate floor before voting for authorization:

"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.'' It means "America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one
reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough
weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the
commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work
with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution
setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act
with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by
force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do
so with others in the international community, unless there is a
showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to
this country which requires the President to respond in a way that
protects our immediate national security needs."

4. He has never said that we need UN support before we protect ourselves.

Here again are Kerry's words:

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did (emphasis added) it for legitimate reasons."

Please note the past tense "did." This means he is referring to action that we will have already taken to defend ourselves.

Please at least read what each candidate says (without filters from either side) before claiming to understand any of these candidates.

 

It is not called a "facts forum," but when we are discussing the election of the most powerful person in the free world, it would help to get your facts straight.

 

I like to think that I read between the lines. This is where our viewpoints clash: I don't think we need to pass a global test. That's just sad that people feel this way. And if we need to pass a "global test" then excuse me, but I do interpret it that he thinks we need the UNs approval. And I guess the reasons were legit enough for Kerry to vote in favor of the war so... explain that.

I know John Kerry never said that the world is safer with Sadaam in power, but he called the war to remove hiim a diversion. So what does that say?

 

It says, that we should have gone into war as a last resort..he said he backed President Bush that saddam was an evil dictator and he would back him to use force if necessary and as a last resort..if we would have waited for the weapons inspectors we would have seen we didn't need to go to war, because Saddam didn't have any WMD's, he got rid of them in 1991..

 

Kerry called the war a diversion from the war on terrorism, which is very different from just a diversion.

You are entitled to your opinion (and I will defend your right to have it), even when it is contradicted by the words of the man himself. I again point out that Kerry is speaking about after we have already defended ourselves.

Kerry voted to go to war as long as our other options had been exhausted:

"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.'' It means "America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one
reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough
weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

 

Okay, so what would your definition of a "last resort" be? Would it take another Sept. 11 for us to justify going to war?

Now you will say that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11th, and I will proceed by saying *coughbullshitcough* so you can save your breath if you want

And are you suggesting that we should have waited for the weapons inspectors that we tried to send into Iraq to peacefully search for the WMDs? The same ones that Sadaam refused to let go in and look? No wonder it looked suspicious that he still had weapons.

 

Okay so you'd fit in great with the rest of the UN. You would have just turned around and walked away when Sadaam would not let the inspectors in to look for the WMDs? That alone suggested he was hiding something, and gave us a good and nessacery reason to invade. In the vulnerable state we were in after 9/11 George W didn't want to take any chances. For that, I am grateful.

 

Your point is well taken. The mainstream, liberal media is everywhere you look. I do hear it, but then I listen to talk radio to act as a flu shot for the liberal news, so to speak. The difference between my radio station and the mainstream media is that they take things from the mainstream news stations and tell the whole story, or why the story is not the truth. I never hear CBS taking a story from Point of View or a similar station and telling why they're wrong.

People tend to forget that the media is a business. Whatever sells is what gets the most coverage. For example, ratings tend to be higher for news stations the more blood, gore, and horrible things they report. No one wants to hear about the many schools the US has built in Iraq. It's simply not newsworthy.

So the difference is that the hosts of POV and their sister stations are passionate about finding the truth and reporting it to the listeners. They don't have someone over them saying "Report more about Kerry than Bush to make Kerry look better and sway the opinion of the public." They go by facts. Cold, hard truth. The problem today is that journalists are kept from doing their job because there is always someone at the top saying, "Find the disasters, it will make me rich." POV, on the other hand, is listener supported. It's not like they're just rolling in the dough. They are just passionate journalists, and they do have a bias, but to me, it's the right one and that is because they want the truth to be heard. They want Christian values to stand out, because they are the basic foundation of this country. They do not agree with everything Bush does, and they do point out his flaws.

This is why POV is my favorite news source. I hope I cleared that up for you. If you don't mind me asking, which liberal media stations do you get your news from? And if you would, please explain why you trust them. I'm not trying to be ugly here, I'd just really like to hear your response.

 

MoonJava- You listen to Christian talk radio as your main news source? How can you do yourself such a disservice? Don't you yearn for the truth?
What if something awful was learned about Bush, say he did allow the 9/11 attacks, would you rather just not know? I'm curious.

 

Looking at "moonjava" (real name should be "rightwing")'s signature gives me a thought.

What is it with this stupid "W" logo, has the President become a product? I think so. The "W" product is defective, let's take it back this Tuesday and exchange it for something better: John F. Kerry. Not "F" but a real name, John Kerry.