I, for one, think that he dosent deserve anything even close to re-election. He has made a fool out of the great counrty that is America andd he has ruined our economy too. What are your views on Prez Bush and the up coming election?
Printable View
I, for one, think that he dosent deserve anything even close to re-election. He has made a fool out of the great counrty that is America andd he has ruined our economy too. What are your views on Prez Bush and the up coming election?
Prepare yourself for a Bush-bashing/loving debate.
I, personally don't think he warrants re-election for several reasons, which include, but are not limited to, his inability to separate religion from government, his Administrations problem with the "Truth" and indifferent attitude towards the rest of the world.
However, Kerry has not endeared himself to me either. If Kerry shows he has brains and a plan, he'll get my vote. No matter how you slice it though, Iraq is a mess and won't be easily fixed. That, the economy (As always), and our stance with the rest of the world are the issues I'm interested in hearing about.
Take care all.
As pathetic as it seems, I must agree with the "Anybody but Bush" mentality. Though I find Kerry unimpressive, I don't feel that he will be as harmful to the nation as Bush is. Bush must go, he does not, in my opinion, deserve another term. The country has suffered enough under his mismanagement already.
"Anybody but Bush" is foolish. Bush isn't the worst possible leader anyone could imagine. I'd rather he wasn't elected again at this point, mostly on the basis of his religious quackery, but I wouldn't auto-vote for anyone who isn't Bush just because they aren't Bush.
OF COURSE HE DESERVES TO BE RE-ELECTED.
:rolleyes2
I think "Anybody but Bush" more or less can be translated to: Well, the alternative is Kerry, he's not the best but he's certainly better. That or "I could rule the country better". In fact, I'm starting to think I would.Quote:
"Anybody but Bush" is foolish. Bush isn't the worst possible leader anyone could imagine. I'd rather he wasn't elected again at this point, mostly on the basis of his religious quackery, but I wouldn't auto-vote for anyone who isn't Bush just because they aren't Bush.
Then say "Kerry, because he's better than Bush". Not "anyone but Bush". What if the Democratic candidate wants to send more troops to Iraq, and also beats his wife and wants to illegalize kittens?
DON'T TOUCH THE KITTENS!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
Well, in that case vote the green party :D Well, I don't know how many parties are in USA, but in the end it seems like it falls in bipartidism.
Due to my chosen profession, I cannot in sound conscience post my opinion in this thread. Suffice it to say that I support the commander-in-chief.
Watch out, here comes a conservative view........
I believe Bush deserves re-election for many reasons. I'll state my main reason:
~He doesn't skirt around issues, he gets things done. With issues like Iraq and gay marriage he gives clear positions, keeps them, and ACTS on them. Kerry can't seem to stay on one side of an issue. Consistency is important in a leader.
I would rather see Bush re-elected than see Kerry in office. Things could be a lot worse in the US. Be glad they aren't.
Even if I could vote in this election, I wouldn't. I don't like what's happened in Bush's term. I think just about everyone can say that. However, I think that a lot of the trouble that has occurred (such as September 11th), weren't his fault. He was stuck with a lot of Clinton's mistakes that weren't realized until now. I believe that he has been consistent, and he has been direct. I don't like Kerry as a man or a politician, so I do not want to see him elected. I really don't know what will happen with Bush if he is elected. So I just...don't know.
Yes. That is the problem :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Todie
Thanks to the magic of the electoral college, your opinion doesn't matter! Or at least that's how I understand it.
I have a vague feeling Bush will win the election though. His actions for the past few years will probably sway many businesses to side with him, etc etc.
Yes, wonderful. I'm sure we're all happy about legalized bigotry and breaking of longstanding policy to launch an offensive attack against a sovereign country.Quote:
With issues like Iraq and gay marriage he gives clear positions, keeps them, and ACTS on them.
I do not like Bush. I don't particularily like Kerry, but as I feel he is less dangerous, I will vote for him and support him, at least until the election is over. If Kerry begins to screw things up as Bush has, then I will work against him. My loyalty lies with the betterment of the country, not to some rich politician.
"Due to my chosen profession, I cannot in sound conscience post my opinion in this thread. Suffice it to say that I support the commander-in-chief."
How about this, in your opinion, would you rather serve under Bush or Kerry? Which do you feel is more qualified from a military standpoint to be C-in-C?
Take care all.
From a military standpoint, I'm not really sure if Senator Kerry is more qualified than President Bush. I disagree with many of Kerry's policies, as I do with many of Bush's. But, I still have about five months to decide between the two.
You do know why I can't really talk about this, right?
Of course, but I thought perhaps I could find a way for you to state your opinion without putting yourself in a compromised situation.
Take care all.
Well, the economy is not good. I don't see how the war in Iraq is doing much good, now that the soldiers are letting their stress get the better of them. It's not good for our worldly image. Yes, he gets stuff done. But, he's not a good public speaker at all. Kerry might be a bit wishy-washy, isn't the best candidate for the Democrats, and is probably not quite up to par with Bill Clinton in terms of charisma, but he's a better speaker than Bush, so it counts for something. I just don't like the way Bush does things. Al Quida's still out there, yes?
As is Osama, who was, in case anyone forgot, the original suspect behind the 9/11 attacks, which was originally why we were supposed to go to war in the first place. In Afganistan. Which we did.
I believe someone has the actual quotes on their signature, but if I recall Bush once said something to the effect of "You cannot think of terrorism without thinking of Saddam" and yet went on to say that there was absolutely no evidence linking Saddam to the attacks.
Now then, the major question that is brought up by this is why the #$^% are we over there?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is known only to the few, and they've been very tight-lipped about it. Sure, "Liberation" sounds nice, but how far is this going to go?
Side thought: If Bush isn't re-elected and Kerry comes into power, he will HAVE to remain in Iraq anyway. He can't just pull everyone out, because we're in too far. I fear he may be a lame duck President if elected because the Congress is still Republican majority and unlikely to side with him on a lot of policies. It makes you wonder if we're only going from out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Apparently, anyone can make a poll:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...arbecue_poll_1
Take care all.
I know we are in too far deep to get out of Iraq, but I still don't want Bush in office. The first step to returning our country to normal is getting him out of office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
Hahahahah, holy sh¡t, that link is great XD
Really, it sounds like quite an absurd question. Of course, I'd choose Bush. Why? He would be in front of me, and I'd have pointy objects nearby.
I couldn't agree moreQuote:
Really, it sounds like quite an absurd question. Of course, I'd choose Bush. Why? He would be in front of me, and I'd have pointy objects nearby.
I can honestly say that I do like bush with my barbecues ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
And a president who lies on oath and gets caught cheating on his wife is normal? Where as a president who is at war is not normal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
No, no I wouldn't like to see Bush re-appointed. (He wasn't elected.) It's been constant war, for one, and outside of that total mismanagement under Bush. It seems like everything that can go wrong has.
Yeah, that's the problem. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Todie
If the biggest complaint you have against a President is what he does in his private life, it speaks volumes about his skill as a leader. Bush is/was an alcoholic, a drunk driver, and a cocaine user. I can sling mud about the personal lives of our leaders, but I realize that it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
Why would you say that? (Or better yet, can you say why you would say that?) Kerry's been in combat before and has a very real concept of what it's like. Bush, like most Republican war-mongers, hasn't fought and totally avoided military service.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
I'd tell you why I think that, but you or others would probably shoot it down as being conservative propoganda crap. You go ahead and think what you want. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything you don't want to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandmaster LH
I think he just deserves to be taken out back and shot, but I'll settle for him being kicked out of the white house. Can't have everything.
Bert: Well, such a president (liar and cheater in the domestic area) doesn't eat such a big hole in the population and finances as an honest president constantly fighting a conventional war.
Why does everyone make such a big deal about Clinton's infidelity but refuse to acknowledge Bush's warmongering involving untrue or untrustworthy information? To say nothing of Bush's "They have Weapons" speeches, followed later by "There is no evidence that they have weapons" speeches.
Because I like Bush as a president. I agree 100% with the war. I wish we had gone in sooner. If we didn't step up and get sadam out who would? He would still be there hurting his own people while he lived a nice life with his however mant mansions. He would still be killing his own people. Why on earth would you not want to try and get rid of him? I know this will pisss people off but I really don't care but, I for one don't really wanna pay $3 a gallon for gas so if this war saves me some money on gas then thats ok for me.
Ah, if only your president was as sincere... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bert
So, basically, it's all right to oust the dictator in an oil rich country, but the other dictators, some of which could be considered WORSE than Saddam get to carry on with their lives? What's wrong with this picture?Quote:
Because I like Bush as a president. I agree 100% with the war. I wish we had gone in sooner. If we didn't step up and get sadam out who would? He would still be there hurting his own people while he lived a nice life with his however mant mansions. He would still be killing his own people. Why on earth would you not want to try and get rid of him? I know this will pisss people off but I really don't care but, I for one don't really wanna pay $3 a gallon for gas so if this war saves me some money on gas then thats ok for me.
Also, I would like to reiterate that America has long held a policy of not launching offensives against other countries that aren't threatening it. There's also the matter of the fact that we went against U.N. wishes to do so.
You can't go out to tackle all the world's problems at once. That's just unrealistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Nor should you. Declaring the war on every country with an evil dictator with the pretext of...uh...liberation, is just the perfect way to make USA the most hated country of all.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Oh, wait. More hated, I mean!
Thanks Doc I was just about to say that. Iraq harbors Terrorists willingly. These same groups of people kill Americans. In World War I the USA was not directly attacked if I remember corectly yet we still entered the war.
USA also harbors terrorists willingly. Terrorists like Pinochet, Sharon, Batista or Videla and Franco (In a lower degree, this last two). Hell, they even supported Saddam at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
Does this mean Argentina, Chile, Spain, Cuba and a lot of other countires are legitimated to declare the war on USA? Cool! *grabs a gun*
If it truly were all about liberating the Iraqi people from a corrupt despot, then I might be more favorable to the idea of the war. But it isn't, and you cannot convince me that it is. If we had attacked another despot in a country that hasn't had as much emnity with the US in the past, especially with the Bush family, then I might be more inclined to believe that the US is playing the part of the liberators. Since this is Iraq we are talking about, and Saddam besides, I am, at best, extremely skeptical.
There are planes to send troops into N korea fter Iraq.
That makes me even less inclined to vote for him. North Korea is actually what I was expecting, as I know we have a problem with them as well.
As far as the Iraq war goes, let's see... can you come up with some justifications for it? If they're really good, I'm always open to changing my mind.
Weeeeeeee!!! Let's libertate the world! I'm sure people in Korea will love USA after they bomb their houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
I am starting to believe this wars, supposed to end with terrorism, are in fact fomenting terrorism. Well, I am not starting to believe it, I have believed it from centuries ago.
Yea, that's pretty hard to dispute nowadays.Quote:
I am starting to believe this wars, supposed to end with terrorism, are in fact fomenting terrorism. Well, I am not starting to believe it, I have believed it from centuries ago.
Well... I'm not familiar with how good a leader Bush is, not living in America. But even vaguely theocratic leadership isn't a good idea, especially in a nation that has a good deal of religious diversity. (Which I'm guessing the US probably would have...?) A leader should make decisions for the people based on common sense, rather than any religious ideals they hold personally.
Exactly. While at the time there is a definite majority of Christians, usually protestant, the whole nation is not, by any means, entirely Christian. We don't all adhere to one narrow definition of faith, and justification of core decisions with faith should not have a place in political decisions concerning the country.Quote:
Well... I'm not familiar with how good a leader Bush is, not living in America. But even vaguely theocratic leadership isn't a good idea, especially in a nation that has a good deal of religious diversity. (Which I'm guessing the US probably would have...?) A leader should make decisions for the people based on common sense, rather than any religious ideals they hold personally.
Patriot Act.
That's all I really need to say. It may not have been his idea originally but it was someone on his cabinet and he went along with it.
There's more, but that alone is reason enough to vote against him.
Lets see he knowing went against CIA intelligence, multiple times and telling the american people, of WMD and scuds(that can only go 500 miles), and trying to scare the american people into support, by telling them Saddam is trying to create WmDs to give to terrorists, also when the CIA said it was "Highly Unlikely" in other words they said what Pres. (APPOINT) Bush said was BS.
So i dont feel that Kerry is a perfect canidate either but he can beat Bush... So its not electing Kerry its kicking Bush out!
Oh and on the subject of Saddam harboring Terrorists, what about the KKK, huh? They r as Terrorist as they come im sure, but Bush refuses to touch that subject, why? Because they'll vote for him. :mad2:
The biggest problem with Bush is that he's not an honest president, actually. He's far more dishonest than Clinton ever was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Warrior
I didn't think Bush deserved to be appointed in the first place; I certainly don't think he deserves another term in office. He's already succeeded in turning public opinion completely against us, even after we had 9/11 to make everyone go "Poor America" for a short while.
What I've heard from Kerry recently is a large assortment of shrewd policies. He's not the best president we could have, sure, but he'll be a lot better than Bush.
Let's see... Clinton: lied under oath and cheated on his wife. Bush: made a judgement mistake when it came to WMD's in Iraq. Pretty much everyone in the world knew that Saddam had those weapons. When we got there, there were none. Does this mean Bush lied about them? Not necessarily. Could it be possible that they were moved to Syria, or destroyed, or hidden in some other form? Entirely possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
And you say that Bush is more dishonest than Clinton? I think you're biased.
If my memory serves, Bush said there was conclusive evidence that Saddam had nukes, despite the fact that considerable intelligence from virtually every source apart from the CIA said that he had none. We still haven't found any. Granted, it's possible that he moved them. But then he wouldn't have had them in the first place. Odds are, yes, Saddam did possess WMD (although I highly doubt he ever possessed nukes) at one point. But if he destroyed them, the odds are strong he didn't possess them at the time we went to war with him.
He's also changed the reason we've gone to war at least twice. First it was because of an indisputable tie with al-Qaida which we still haven't proven, then it was because they had WMD, then it was to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive dictatorship. I'm sure he gave other reasons as well, but they're not coming to mind right now.
We run the American justice system on an "innocent until proven guilty" system. Is there any reason we should mete out justice to other countries on a "guilty until proven innocent" principle? Because we're going to make a lot more enemies that way. The "war on terrorism" only seems to be encouraging it; just the other day, a report came out saying al-Qaida's numbers had swelled by, I think, 18,000 or some absurd number.
As for the "under oath" bit, I really don't care. His lie still only should have affected the few people concerned. Yes, it was wrong, but the only reason anyone even cared is because he was the President. Bush's lies, on the other hand, have affected the entire course of world history; by garnering support from a war that it seems more and more evident we had scant evidence for, he has turned the tide of world opinion directly against the U.S. and heartily encouraged that which he claims to have been attempting to fight.
It's sad that most people think that the vote essentially boils down to the lesser of two evils.
Kerry is the lesser, in my opinion. I doubt I'd vote if I was an American, because it doesn't seem right to vote just to get Bush out. We should demand more from politicians/ have greater choice.
I find it hard to believe that lying under oath isn't a big deal for you. You're being rather hypocritical by completely dismissing a blatant lie, and then denouncing what you think is a lie based on loose evidence and speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
Look, it's Clintons personal life. If it came down to me being asked how many pieces of toilet paper do I use in the restroom I would have lied under oath too, because I don't want people knowing personal things about me. I'm not going to say what Clinton did was moralistically right or wrong, but the fact of the matter is he was a good president.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
I really don't care about his personal life. What I do care about is whether he's honest about it or not. And a good president would not lie under oath.
A good president would be honest...then we haven't had one in a while, have we?Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
You're right that lying under oath is not as big a deal to me as telling the entire American people that which turns out to be the truth. Bush clearly stated that there was conclusive evidence that Iraq had WMD and that there were tangible ties to al-Qaida; if the evidence he had was inconclusive, then he was lying by saying it was conclusive evidence. It is the responsible of an elected official to act responsibly; by presenting as the unassailable truth that which we turned out to have inconclusive evidence for, he opened himself to criticism for the results of his actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Clinton's lie should really have concerned who? Him, Mrs. Clinton, Monica, and the few other people who actually have just claims to be directly affected by said claims. Bush's lies have drawn us into a war that we had very scant grounds to fight in the first place; they have caused America to lose a vast amount of respect in the eyes of the rest of the world; and they have incited a tremendous amount of recruitment towards the very group this war was, at first, allegedly intended to fight.
You're right that a good president would not lie under oath, but a good president would also not lie to the American people about his evidence for starting a war. While it's true Clinton did other things that are easy to question with hindsight, I find far more to question in Bush's past policies than I find to question in Clinton's policies.
Clinton's trial was a farce and he was lying about his personal life to cover his rear after he screwed up. Particularily admirable? No. Of earth-shaking importance? No. I hate it when people draw parallels between Bush's lies or "mistakes" and Clinton's perjury and act as if Clinton's was the worst of the two. Clinton's lies at least didn't result in the death of a few hundred American soldiers and countless Iraqis.
How do you know Bush wasn't right and the WMD were moved to syria before we came in? Then I could say that you were lying.
Bush said there was conclusive evidence the WMD were there. Since it's come out that a lot of intelligence sources disagreed with the CIA's conclusion that Iraq had WMD (which, apparently, they themselves have admitted they hastily jumped to), it obviously wasn't conclusive by any means. Ergo, Bush either told a lie or was horrifically misinformed, but in the case of misinformation it would be the best for him to sack those responsible rather than carrying on with his ridiculous policy of "keeping the chain of command intact." The fact that he isn't rectifying the obvious flaws in his current chain of command indicates to me that he has no desire to make things better, ergo he won't be getting my vote.
I agree that somwhere along the line something messed up but, I don't think that everyone should blame Bush for the entire war. He was informed by the CIA of WMD also congress voted the war ok. He couldn't send troops unless he had the support of congress. which are supposed to be our representatives.
Bush was surely misinformed; I have enough faith in the man that he wouldn't start a war when all the evidence solidly pointed to there being no traces of WMD in Iraq. What I charge him with is irresponsibility on pushing for war with Iraq when the evidence was hardly solid, and pursuing a war allegedly against terrorism that only ended up bolstering the recruitment for such a force. The fact that he isn't firing, or even severely admonishing, any of his staff for their mess-ups is really what leads me to believe that there's no reason to leave any trust in this administration.
It's also seeming more and more likely that incidents like Abu Gharib may have been encouraged by high-level memos that, as Seymour Hersh wrote:
Whether the intention of these memos was to circumvent the Geneva Convention in cases where it still ought to have applied is not the issue; the fact is that it appears that the wording of these memos led soldiers to believe that such abuse was not merely tolerated but encouraged. The fact that Rumsfeld, who is allegedly the source of many of these memos, still has his position and has received almost no censure for his actions speaks highly poorly, to me, of the administration, although the accusations of Hersh (and many others) still haven't been conclusively proven. Regardless, Bush is still acting as if there's no problem with the chain of command - has yet, as far as I'm aware, to even acknowledge that issues have been raised - when a large portion of the country and an even larger portion of the rest of the world sees there to be a very big problem indeed.Quote:
encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq.
Quite frankly, I see the man to be living in a bubble.
I dont think Bush will get re-elected as being a pessimist of the situation right now. So many young people of the age of 18 are graduating right to register to vote, and most of them are liberal. An in 30-50 years the usa will be so liberal. Ah its just a personal opinion, dont take it seriously now.. :) I hope he does get re-elected though because we have to let him finish what he started, and he's doing a good job on national security. Many of you guys would probably disagree, but without his actions through the fallout of 9/11 Id say we are a saffer country. The only thing I dont like is are Mexican borders are wide open..
America's too heavily controlled by corporations to become as strongly liberal a nation as, say, Canada, I think. It's obvious no matter your viewpoint that the tide of public opinion has been turning steadily against Bush in the past year or so though, there's no denying that, and the natural reaction is indeed for the nation to become more liberal.
It's not like I'd vote for any liberal just on the basis of his being a liberal, tho'. Actually, if it were a Kerry vs. McCain race instead of a Kerry vs. Bush race, I'd probably vote for McCain.
Edit: I fail to see how we're any safer due to Bush's actions since 9/11. If anything, the terrorists hate us more than ever, I think; there's certainly no denying that there's more of them. There've been a few minor steps in airport security that might prevent another 9/11 from happening if all the people involved end up getting caught in the random security checks, but it won't stop people like al-Qaida from trying to pull off something like 9/11 - These people really don't care about their own lives, so putting in randomly active security measures isn't going to stop them from trying to pass through. That can't be attributed to Bush at all though, and I don't think it's enough.
Yeah, well Bush did somthing and that is increasing air port security and what not. An also made a Department of Homeland Security? If Al-Qaida/ Terrorists hate us more then ever wouldnt they still hate us even though still we dont do anything? These terrorist cells are all established around the world, and if we dont get them they will commit a terrorist act. They hate us if we do somthing about it or not. Its like having a snake waiting to bite you. We either eliminate the threat or let it grow. imo.
After 9/11 a woman still made it onto a plane with a massive butcher knife. I feel SO much safer now.Quote:
Yeah, well Bush did somthing and that is increasing air port security and what not. An also made a Department of Homeland Security? If Al-Qaida/ Terrorists hate us more then ever wouldnt they still hate us even though still we dont do anything? These terrorist cells are all established around the world, and if we dont get them they will commit a terrorist act. They hate us if we do somthing about it or not. Its like having a snake waiting to bite you. We either eliminate the threat or let it grow. imo.
Bush isn't doing anything. Paranoia is what's doing it. We are becoming paranoid about terrorist attacks and thus we are taking "preventive" measures to stop them. How well do they work?
Let's just say that I'd prefer to trust the fact that my chances of getting killed in a terrorist attack are extremely slim instead of trusting that my fellow man, especially those that are in the government are going to protect me.
Bush can talk all he wants about fighting terrorists and whatnot, he can talk about all sorts of sweeping new measures to prevent them, he's not actually DOING anything. If people were to do their JOBS terrorism wouldn't that much of a problem. The problem is people get lax, and then something happens, leading to ultra paranoia. Then it dies down, someone gets lax again, and something else happens. It's just the way things are.
Our efforts to eliminate the threat have resulted in al-Qaida growing in size by about eighteen thousand people. Yeah, it's sure been a successful war on terrorism. :rolleyes2
I don't think a war on terrorism can be won - It's as hopeless as the war on drugs, at least. The war on drugs is actually less unrealistic than the war on terrorism, since at least part of the war on drugs is being fought on home soil; the war on terrorism, is entirely overseas.
Increasing airport security was really a no-brainer. It's not going to eliminate the threat of some similar attack happening though. How difficult would it be for al-Qaida to, for example, steal a gasoline truck, drive it into the centre of New York City, spread its contents throughout the city, and light it on fire? Not only would it be easy for them to do that, it would be ridiculously cheap to do it. I just came up with that off the top of my head too - I'm sure there's plenty of other plans that are even more feasible than that, and there's no way we're going to think of them all, much less be able to prevent them all.
Attempting to combat the war by going to the source is only going to encourage the source to continue growing - It's like fighting fire with fire. They hate us not simply because we're the dominant power, but because of the way we're using our power. They've been saying for years we wanted to occupy an oil-rich country, and when we did it was just playing into their hands. The results are obvious; al-Qaida has swollen dramatically in numbers, and the rest of the world lends their rhetoric a bit more credibility (even if they're still regarded pretty much universally as terrorists) now that some of their predictions have come true.
No, I don't feel safer with Bush in office; I feel more in danger.
Pretty much my feelings in a nutshell.Quote:
No, I don't feel safer with Bush in office; I feel more in danger.
So... we should just give up, right? We should just let people fly planes into our buildings just because we can never truly stop them? That's a very fatalist view.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
Who said anything about LETTING them? Why tramp around the desert looking for them and giving them reason to swell their ranks? It's all about effective countermeasures, and I don't see our war as effective in the least. As was said, terrorists can easily kill many people with little cost or even planning. We can take measures to prevent this, of course, but we can't cover everything. The war is just giving them more reason.
Hardly; we should examine why such a thing would happen in the first place, and do whatever we could to prevent it from being likely to happen again. War should only be taken as a last result. We'd hardly exhausted the list of options before we went to Afghanistan, it always seemed to me; I certainly don't think anyone can credibly argue that we'd done so in Iraq's case.
I wouldn't have minded the war on Afghanistan so much if that's what it had remained. Instead, it spread to Iraq and then terrorism in general, and it's being fought now with scant, if any, connections. That's surely going to stop people from flying planes into our buildings when it's the whole reason they wanted to fly planes into our buildings in the first place. :rolleyes2
Edit: 'Kay, I agree with a lot of what Void's saying, as well.
I've come to the conclusion that the Bush Cabinet is what must go, and by default, Bush will be going with them. Frankly, I think if Bush had dependable, honest, upfront people working for him instead of Ashcroft, Cheney, Rove, Ridge, even Rumsfeld, I'd feel a lot safer. Sure, they're smart men, but they're also cunning, and always gaining more power, which is scary since we didn't elect them, but were appointed.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder, really, wonder, and would like to know what Bush the First was thinking when he decided to end the Gulf War without removing Saddam. Did he think that by removing him, the region would indeed fall into chaos and America would have to stay there? Also makes me wonder how much father and son might have talked about this, because I'm not sure Bush the first would have deemed his son's move to be "Prudent".
Take care all.
I think Kerry will win the election because he has amazing resiliancy and toughness. Just like he piloted his boat back into enemy fire to save an overboard soldier, he is amazingly able to stand and absorb very strong political attacks yet emerge victorious. Bush can and will throw the kitchen sink of attacks at Kerry, but Kerry will emerge unfazed just as he did in the primaries, just as he did in 1996 against William Weld.
Since when was killing people not a crime? Don't say that again. ~Gau
...then he quickly racked up three purple hearts for minor injuries, went back home to protest the war, threw those same medals on to the White House lawn as a political move to gain the anti-war vote, and accused every soldier but himself in Vietnam of committing war crimes. Now, thirty years later, when he decided he needed more votes from war veterans, decided to change his story about the medals around to make himself look like a war hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsunami Bren
I'll admit that what I said could easily be stretched out of proportion, or it could just be propoganda. So could the thing about him saving a fellow soldier. I guess it's just up to you to decide which story to believe.
Or you could just agree that both candidates are lying... well... politicians, and pick the one you think will cause the least damage.Quote:
I'll admit that what I said could easily be stretched out of proportion, or it could just be propoganda. So could the thing about him saving a fellow soldier. I guess it's just up to you to decide which story to believe.
Frankly, I think a leader with war experience of any kind would trump one without true combat experience in the times of war.
Let's not forget, both men went to Yale, but only one actually enlisted and fought in Vietnam, Kerry. I personally feel that regardless of what may have happened afterwards, the choice to go into war on his own, because remember, he didn't have to go either, he could have played it relatively "safe" as Bush did, should show that he'd be more than a capable leader.
What Bush did, is what many people from his background have done, enlist in the military but not actually the military you and I enlist in. More of the "Elitist" military where you usually don't see true combat. It's not a slam against Bush for doing what he did, but I think Kerry deserves some credit for actually going to war despite his own privileged background.
What boggles my mind is this:
Kerry has been shown to be someone who flip-flops on issues. In reality, don't ALL politicians do this? Didn't Bush completely change his stance on a wide number of issues between the time he spent as Governor and as President, such as foreign policy? I'd prefer a leader who could make a choice, and later, if he/she realized it wasn't correct or eventually began to disagree with it, change there mind. At the very least, take some responsibility for your decisions. Granted Kerry hasn't really shown to do this much, but Bush has NEVER really shown any sort of apology for his mistakes. He just can't seem to admit being wrong, and that, is not leader material. A leader must be responsible, for better or worse. Clinton didn't do this either, which was what soured his Presidency in my eyes too.
Granted, I don't think Kerry would be a great President either, because it's nearly impossible to fix much of what is going on in the world, but I believe he might allow us to move in the right direction.
The debates are coming soon, and then we'll be able to see where each candidate stands.
Take care all.
I've been doing a lot of thinking, and I came to the conclusion that prior military experience should not be a judging point for presidential candidacy. Clinton dodged the draft, but he was still a good president. Not one of the best, mind you, but not the worst, either.
Who cares what they did in the past? What matters is what they're going to do now and in the future.
Military record is not so important. What is important is Bush's pattern throughout his life of avoiding responsibility and having others do his work for him. Like Republicans have reminded us many times, character really does matter. Unfortunately, Bush has very little. Regardless of politics, Bush has not done very much to deserve re-election.
I could argue that Kerry has a record of dodging responsibility as well, but then we'd be back at typical mud-slinging.
I think we'd all be better off if politicians would just worry about themselves rather than the other guy.
It would be nice if we had candidates who talked about how they plan to make america better and actually presented real plans rather than just talking about how their opponent is worse. That would require politicians with real vision and ideas, though.
Quit agreeing with me. You're scaring me.
:)
I think one of the reasons there is so much in-fighting is that neither party has a real plan for the future. Bush's goal seems to be jst to get re-elected, succeed where his father did not, etc. Kerry just seems to have a strong ambition to be President, but he doesn't have a vision of what to do.
Kerry has a reasonable exit plan for Iraq, it seems, but he's not much for specifics. I honestly don't think anyone really knows where they want the country to go though; it seems like we've been living vicariously through other countries' affairs for a lot of the recent past.
I can agree there, but I'll add that in order for a president to start fighting in more than one country over the course of two years he shouldn't have gone AWOL during his own service, stating through his actions his real opinion on the supposed civic duty to defend your country.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
When you look at how many anti-war folks out there have fought (Kerry; purple-hearted) and how many war hawks, especially those in high places, are nothing but cowards who "had other obligations" (Cheney and Bush both) it's startling. You can't disagree that Kerry understands much better than Bush the real consquences of combat and is more likely to make a better decision. He knows what it's like to be shot at and to have to shoot back, so I value his stance on war much better than Bush's.
:\
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti...rhimanyway.com
that represents my view of the upcoming election. so I have to thank Linus for that link (indirectly). :D
Well over in England we have a LOT of negative publicity about George W Bush. It was said that there would be a war when he came into power...havent you guys had two?
Oh, we took part as well as our Prime Minister is an American lapdog.
From what I've seen of his actions (and I'm aware that the view presented over here is going to be vastly different, as there are no potential votes to be won) I cant say I'd like him back next time. He seems...well, his fundamentalist christian preaching style thing he has going seems bad. America is made up of many non christians and other christian denominations. I think he has a ratehr gung ho attitude towards war, just going in, because it's the right thing to do, supposedly. I have no ieda about the war, it can be argued that Saddam needed removing, and its probably best that he was, from a humanitarian point of view, but American's barging in and saying how it SHOULD be run is wrong. Just because the American system works for the americans doesnt mean it will work for Iraqi's who have a whole rich history of culture and beliefs that differ to Americans.
North Korea: The reason why they hate America is because of Americas actions during the Korean war. Bombing them wont change their views.
Same in Afgahnistahn, if they hadn't pulled out the first time and left no aid none of this wouldnt of happened. Oh, and if they hadn't trained Osama Bin Laden and given him weapons...well, I say no more.
I'm aware this isnt strictly about Bush, i just felt like ranting.
Yeah, i think it's screwy, I have no idea if this Kerry guy will be any better. He's a politician....so I guess not. Hopefully he wont be so hell bent on killing people because its the right thing to do.
And this stuff about Clinton lying and Bush making an error...did Clinton lying under oath cause widespread pain and misery? Don't think so.
www.punkvoter.com Quite a big anti-bush site run by NOFX's Fat Mike. Don't know if any of you have seen it, but it makes for quite interesting reading.
Chaos
That is a very interesting domain name...Quote:
Originally Posted by Denmark
I'm just gonna ramble on for a bit.
I don't think Bush is a liar. I think he and everyone else had bad intelligence, and it's not really his fault. You can't really fault him for changing the reason for being in Iraq. It'd be really stupid to keep saying "We're in there because Iraq had WMD's" when it's been a year and some months and we've found very little. The way I understand it, he's not saying that we originally went there to free Iraqis, but that's why we're in there now. Should we put Saddam back in power and just leave because we haven't found any weapons? While we're in there, we might as well do our best to free the Iraqi people from tyranny, although we're not doin' such a good job at it.
I also don't think that Bush is an idiot. I may not agree with some of his ideas, but calling him an idiot assumes that my view is the absolute correct way to do things and he's too dumb to see it. Christ, people, have some humility. I'm sure everyone feels that's they're right, but the ratio of people who agree with you and those who think you're a jackass is probably not nearly as good as you'd like.
That being said, I don't think I'd vote for Bush. He's involving too much religion in his policies, which I feel is wrong. Now that he's seen what most people think of Iraq, I don't think he'd jump into another war, so that's not really a factor for me. He's learned his lesson. Everything else associated with his administration is tainted by bias, so I haven't been able to form my own opinion, so I don't really care. Except energy. We need to develop alternative sources of fuel, like more efficient nuclear energy, or solar/wind/water/geothermal.
You know, I kinda want Bush to win, just to shut up everyone who makes little remarks like "He was appointed, not elected," or calls him Governor Bush. He WAS elected. Before he was inaugurated, he was called the President-Elect, not, uh, somethin' else. He may not have the popular vote, but our system doesn't use that, so it doesn't matter. I hate it when people say "we", as in "we didn't elect him." A damn lot of people voted for him, enough to put him in office.
I don't feel safer since 9/11, but that's no fault of Bush. I now know how easy it is to blow somethin' up, or poison' somethin', or cause general mayhem. Nothin' any President can do will make me feel safe, because some nut job can get some fertilizer and household ingredients and level a decent-sized building if they felt like it. Even I could get a handgun and walk into, say, a high school football game, and kill loads of people. Boom, terrorism Bush failed to stop.
Generally, I agree with DocFrance. Good stuff.
"You know, I kinda want Bush to win, just to shut up everyone who makes little remarks like "He was appointed, not elected," or calls him Governor Bush. He WAS elected. Before he was inaugurated, he was called the President-Elect, not, uh, somethin' else. He may not have the popular vote, but our system doesn't use that, so it doesn't matter. I hate it when people say "we", as in "we didn't elect him." A damn lot of people voted for him, enough to put him in office."
All I can say in reply to that is that the Courts ended the recount, which in turn elected Bush. Not to beat a dead topic, but had all the votes been tallied, Bush might not have won Florida and hence, not have become President.
Take care all.
I take issue with the word "deserves". No one really deserves to be President. You just kinda earn it. If you think about it, Kerry doesn't "deserve" the presidency anymore than Bush does. They both gotta fight for it. That said, I'll be voting for Kerry, if I can get my ass to the registration office to vote first. I am simply at odds with everything Bush does and does not do.
Good point. If someone "Deserved" to be President, we wouldn't need an election because they'd stand out as the obvious choice.
Take care all.
I am not a US citisen but I think everyone should play this little game it is an anti-Bush game but it has some interesting facts and statistics in it,and its pretty funny and fun also.:D :cool: :love:
http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html
Hulkmania rulzzzzz :D :D :D :D :D
I don't believe Bush deserves to be re-elected. I'd sooner vote for John Kerry or even Ralph Nader. Here's why:
~He hasn't done anything to find Osama Bin Laden and stop Al-Qaida. IMO, Bin Laden is the bigger threat than Saddam ever was, although Saddam did some pretty vile things as well.
~Something should be done about the mess in Iraq, but I don't think it should be treated like a conquest. That's exactly what Emperor Bush is trying to do--he's trying to get the Iraqis to convert to democracy when that goes against everything the Iraqis--who are mostly Muslim--believe in. I say we should let the Iraqis rule their country the way THEY want to be ruled.
~Bush has alienated even historically friendly countries such as Germany, France, Britain...can't think of anymore at the moment, because of this drawn-out "war on terrorism." They are calling us "arrogant," "imperialistic," along with other assorted negative adjectives.
Indeed, the healing must begin sooner rather than later or else the USA seriously runs the risk of some long-term grudges against us.
As of right now, the AP said that Kerry has a 5 or 6 point lead on Bush in the polls. Perhaps more and more people are leaning the other way.
Take care all.
Off Topic: I think I found a Xenosaga quote in that game, or it is just used a lot..Quote:
Originally Posted by HIK248
Anyways, I think we should have more options. I want Bush out, but what if Kerry isn't helpful either? I'll just choose Kerry, because I can't forgive Bush.
it's to bad john kerry is the democratic nominee. dennis kucinich would be such a great president.
Yes, A vegan and a nice guy, what a combination. However, to be realistic, I don't think he'd stand a chance against the sharks in Washington. I don't really even know if Kerry can either, as there are very few who can. Only a few more weeks until the debates. Kerry has been gaining in the polls steadily.
Take care all.
I can't wait for the debates. Although, nothing can quite top the Bush-Gore debates from four years ago in my book.
If Kucinich were pushing a Vegan Agenda that might actually cause me to vote for Nader. I'd have prefered Dean or Clark, I think, but Kerry isn't horrible.
But never Bush. Bush has gone too far and done too much that I am opposed to, he must go.
Bush, statistically, is the single worst president we have ever had. It's rediculous that people are even argueing it. He has plunged us head first into a depression, completely reversed the (estimated) 5.6 Trillion dollar surplus that Clinton had set up, and is only driving us further into debt. He has lost more jobs than ANY president since the depression, hell, even his father made more jobs than this nunce, and he was a devout follower of Reaganomics. It is truly absurd that people would back him because of his religious views, which, if any of them would take the time to pull their heads out of their asses and notice that religion is supposed to be seperate from state business, including, especially including the legal system, they'd realise that he is single-handedly the worst leader in the history of the world. Stalin mass murdered his own people, and he was still a better than Bush. HITLER was a better leader than Bush (then again, Hitler is one of the single best leaders ever, considering he took a third world country that had nothing and made it a super power in little more than 3 years, any leader that can do that, regardless of the methods or reasons, is still, undeniably, a great leader).
On the subject of great leaders, Hitler is again the subject of my example; Hitler was a horrible person, a shell of a man made up of paranoia, delusions, and lies. He was a horrible, horrible little man. But he still was one of the finest leaders ever to have existed on the face of the planet. Clinton may be "morally bankrupt" (as so many people would like to claim *coughcoughcoughconservativerepublicanassholescoughcough*) but he was still one of the finest presidents we have ever had. George Washington would probably give Clinton head for the job he did. His foreign relations were unparalleled, his tax plans and economy boosts were some of the best we've ever seen. It's truly offensive that people would take him getting a :love::love::love::love:ing blowjob so badly. "OMG HE GOT HEAD HE'S A HEATHEN SINNER AND WE MUST ALL STONE HIM TO DEATH ACCORDING TO THE HOLY BOOK WRITTEN BY THE HAND OF GOD HIMSELF TO BE TAKEN AS LITERAL FACT AND A GUIDLINE FOR DAILY LIVING OMGOMGOMGOGMDSNgdpoiuf hapihbe ~!!!!!!!!!!11123234"
Seriously, quit acting like middle schoolers and get over the fact that he got some head. It's rediculous.
Um...Zero, take into account some things Bush has done. Two wars, for example. My father said today he had notice the only thing Bush had done was wars, and asked how the hell people could like him.
I corrected him, Bush has also screwed up a lot in the economy. Yet, some people are in favour of those wars. For me the liberation thing is a fairytale, the whole "fighting for freedom and national security" is not something I believe. However, well, some people believe in those wars. For those people, Bush may be a good president. For me, certainly, he's filthy maniacheist idiot. And many other things, but if I had to make a post entirely done to insult Bush, I'd kinda loose my fingers.
Ok, please, do not, for the love of all that is holy in this thing we call existence, get me started on Bush, let alone 9/11.
I do support a war on Iraq for the sole purpose of taking it's oil and raping it of it's resources, my problem is that he lied about it.
If the muslims of the world decided to start a jyhad, I wouldn't blame them one bit.
But for the record, I could've done a better job of 9/11 with about $150 and enough gas money to get me to New York.
EVEN CONSIDERING IT WAS AN ALIEN CONSPIRACY, AS THIS ANIMATED GIF PROOVES???Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wandering Zero
Oh, yes, and don't forget this one.
It is undoubtely an alien conspiracy. Also, remember the faces in the smoke. Now, every time I see a cloud or smoke that may resemble a face, I instantly predict judgment day or Plan 9 from Outer Space (That movie is wonderful).
Undoubtely, Bush hides a lot of evil things. Or maybe I just wanted to make fun off alien-demon conspiracy theories. OK, I cut the flooding.
The 14 floors above and below where the planes impacted, there was "inadequate" (read: not up to fire safety or building code since the standards when it was built) fire preventative measures. The buildings were barely able to support themselves and had never been fully repaired since the earlier attack...
Let's look at it from another point of view, Rust and Aluminum filings, aka thermite, is what the Military used to disable iraqi armored vehicles (which we sold them, and are leasing to north korea [yes, that's right, we lease tanks, APCs, helicopters, jets, humvees, guns and ammo to the North Koreans... >.> We as in America]) during the Gulf War. A single ounce of this mixture (equal parts iron oxide, aka rust, to aluminum filings, add in a blasting cap or something that ignites at 1500 degrees fahrenheit) burns at around (I think, if I remember correctly) 15,000 fahrenheit, and burns through 6 SOLID FEET OF CONCRETE before it burns itself completely away. One ounce. Seriously, how much can rust and aluminum filings really cost? You can go to fricken Farm King and get blasting caps. Now, assume I have $150, my earlier limit, blasting caps are about $5, $10 a pop, you can probably get 10 pounds of rust for about $5 from any junk yard, and aluminum filings, hell, go to a high school's industrial tech department, and ask them how much it'd cost you to get rid of their aluminum filings for them, you're talking maybe $5 for another 10 pound sack o' aluminum. This gives you approximately 32 charges, and considering you only need one blasting cap per building, you've spent, oh, $30? Leaving you with $120 still in your budget. Now, you get yourself some bleach, and some salt, and some gasoline. You mix them together (in an undisclosed fashion seeing as how I don't want my post edited >.<) and you've got poor-man's C4, ALMOST Military grade plastique. A good 10 pounds of this stuff may run you $100. To add in a chemical agent, go and get yourself two more bottles of bleach, and two bottles of ammonia, and some fire-crackers or M-80s (something to cause enough "explosion" to remove a partition between the two containers of said liquids causing them to mix and allowing the ensuing fumes of Mustard Gas [the leading cause of accidental deaths amongst housewives ^_-] to escape), and you set these up in each lobby. About the middle of the building, you set your poor-man's C4, enough to cause the tower to reverberate. You set the thermite up in the parking garages below, around the main pylons, and you burn them to nothing. Detonate the C4 so the tower shakes, remote detonate the mustard gas bombs, and the towers come tumbling down, the people on the streets are devestated because it's not some slow process of the towers falling, it's they shift, a few floors cease to exist, the supports are gone and the building falls. Anyone trapped in the rubble, chances are, got a good whiff of that mustard gas, and there is no saving them anymore. Not to mention the pockets of it that will be trapped in the rubble, so even the firefighters and rescue teams trying to save people will even have a few casualties.
9/11 was seriously like a middle schooler's fight. All you have to do is get to America. Wow, real fricken hard isn't it?
"I wish to claim political asylum from Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime, if I go back to my country, I'll be executed by his death squads or sympathizers!"
"Awwwww, come, come, here in America, you have 'freedoms' *coughcoughcoughblatantliecough*, we'll keep you safe from that mean ol' dictator."
I wish I were Chinese so I could move to Canada, because they aren't accepting American citizens because we're pompous, violent assholes.
Eeeeh...
...where exactly did you learn all that stuff?
Based on his physical appearance only, I'd say: "No" in answer to this thread.
Plus, his voice irritates me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayren
A pesons voice has no fu**ing difference in the president election.
I'm afraid a president's ability to speak clearly and be understood does, however. :)
I think he speakes clearly. You guys are just democrats and dont want to listen to what is best.
Or you're just a republican and dont want to listen to what's best. Don't make assumptions of people's political stances. The most intellegent voters dont vote just because of a candidate's party, but for the issues they stand for and against.Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm an Independent. Bush is not a good speaker when he is put in front of a live audience. He has a good sense of humor, but isn't as quick on his toes as some of our past Presidents such as Reagan, and Clinton. Oftentimes, he fumbles on words when trying to express himself, which is more a lack of preparation than anything else. A President usually has a mock Press Conference before an actual one to sort of warm him up, but it always seems that Bush hasn't quite gotten the hang of expressing himself.
Take care all.
Yes, Bush has a bad speaking record. He's said a lot of dumb things, whether intentionally or just nervously (hell, I'd be flustered addressing so many people) like "I will not repeat it in French, nor in English, nor in Mexican." The way a President speaks is very important. Whether Bush is a genius or an idiot, the way he speaks has caused many to brand him as the latter.
And as for political parties, I'm Independant as well. I often lean Democratic, but I consider the issues as opposed to party lines, because I cant stand people who do things like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix
I would vote zell miler if he went for preisedent (dont know if the last name is right) and he is a democrat. There is some republican than i can not stand.
"but I consider the issues as opposed to party lines, because I cant stand people who do things like that."
Which in my opinion is the wisest way to go about it. If more people, politicians especially, would focus on issues rather than pleasing their party, I think we'd all be better off.
Take care all.
I consider the issues instead of the party as well. It's just that most of the sides that I agree with fall within the Republican Party. There are a few exceptions, like anything that has to do with religion (I'm a "devout" atheist) and abortion.
I'd vote for Senator Miller just because his first name is Zell.Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
I don't like that George Bush but that Barbara Bush is a hottie so I don't mind who wins the election either way.
Which of course completely invalidates the fact that you just accused us all of not knowing who is best because we are Democrats. /sarcasmQuote:
I would vote zell miler if he went for preisedent (dont know if the last name is right) and he is a democrat. There is some republican than i can not stand.
Partisanship is really getting on my nerves, I absolutely HATE when people will slavishly follow political parties just because of the fact that they are the political party they "identify" with which usually means the political party they were raised to follow slavishly for the rest of their lives.
My particular stance has always been to ask "who will do the least damage?"
Thus I believe Bush has to go.
Wandering Zero: i think you should watch what you say on the internet. if that scary man, John Ashcroft were to have read waht you just said i think you might just "disapear" sometime soon.
also, my father travels around the country every week because of his job. he told me taht from what he has seen, there is no way to prevent a terrorist attack. if someone wanted to commit terrorist acts, there is nothing anyone can do to stop them.
I also know a woman from poland who has lived most of her life under soviet oppression. this woman told my family that the amreican government has FAR MORE control over its citizens tahn the soviets had over them. she also said we had far less privacy. if taht isnt a scary thought, i dont know what is.
"And as for political parties, I'm Independant as well. I often lean Democratic, but I consider the issues as opposed to party lines, because I cant stand people who do things like that."
i whole heartedly agree with you here.
the bush administration is making this country a far worse and more scary place to live. four more years of this man would be a dangerous thing. hell, they are already trying to create a "patriot 2" which will expand the patriot act, thus taking away MORE of our rights.
also, did you know that the way hitler stripped the german citizens of their rights was through an event very similar to 9/11?? the reichstag was burned down and hitler blamed the communists. he instilled fear in the people and offered "safety".
and another thing, you people should check out "the project for the new american century" it was written by a bunch of conservatives (many just so happen to be in bush's administration know, such as dick cheney) and it outlines the plan that the government should take in this new century (2000) to keep the superpower for as long as possible. ONE thing they say we should do is secure middle eastern resources through things like an invasion of iraq. it makes clear that iraq is to be invaded REGARDLESS of whether or not saddam hussein is in power or not. it also says that the european theatre is no longer of much importance, and the asian theatre is now the biggest threat. (the middle east is here, which is why it is important to control it and its oil before china, who's economy is soon to skyrocket) i havent read THIS PART of it myself, but i heard that in the PNAC (project for the new american century) taht it says that it would be difficult to sell an invasion of iraq to the public and that a "pearl harbor like incident" would be necessary to get the people to go along. bush gets elected. boom, 9/11. then afgahnistan and iraq, and if you look at iraq georgraphically, it is right in the center of the middle east, which now allows us to strike at virtually ANY middle easter country from iraq.
also, it states that controlling cyberspace is something taht they should do. the patriot act allows for them to have more control over the internet. another thing in there is actually controlling outerspace itself. wasnt it odd that bush suddenly wanted to go to mars??
now im not saying that george bush has the intellectual capacity to carry something like this out, but peoplel ike Dick cheney, rumsfeld, etc. etc. DO have the intelligence to do this.
anyways, i would check this out, regardless of whether you were a conservative or a liberal. (you can go to its official website so that u dont get such a biased interpretation of it like i gave)
In fact, I listen to Bush speeches when I see them on TV: I like to think he's kidding and laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
I saw one speech of him and
I thought man, this guy must be kiddin'!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Is it just me, or are the conservatives only able to attack the personal lives of Clinton and Kerry? Don't they have anything else? And what does that tell us? Hmm.
On a side-note, accusing Bush of being an alcoholic born-againy dope-headed military deserter is fair game cause they're habits, not one-shot clips from the past. <_< >_>
Bush will do what he thinks is right, even if everyone else disagrees with him. When a person is right, this is a good thing. Kerry will do as little as possible on his own. A vote for Kerry is a vote for congress. The election is a choice between President Reckless, and President Spineless. I think Kerry is the safe vote. Chances are nothing serious will happen (IE: we won't see another 9-11 for a while). If there aren't any big decisions to be made, I'd vote for Kerry because he won't take initiative, so problems that aren't critical won't be made an issue, which on the foreign affairs front would be a bonus. If I believed that the future would be a time of crisis, and 9-11 caliber decisions had to be made, I'd vote Bush. Sometimes, it's not the quality of a decision, but simply that a decision was made that makes the difference. I might disagree with Bush on how he goes about solving problems, but I do believe he's not afraid to solve them. It's really a tough decision. Bad Decisions vs No Decisions. You can't win. My vote will be based on my whim at the moment.
I enjoy people writing off Kerry before he's even given a chance. How do we know how he'll react as President? Being a Senator is much different than being President, so I think one's record in Senate is moot. Being in Congress is all about compromise, and pleasing as many people as possible because you're working in a group. Being President, means you actually make decisions, and rely, or don't rely on Congress and the American People for input and feedback. Show me any Politician who has never changed his or her mind on an issue and I will bow to thee.
The same thing sort of irks me when people say Al Gore would have prevented 9/11. Frankly, I don't think Bush or Gore could have prevented 9/11, and really, unfortunately hindsight is 20/20 whilst everything else is speculation. In my mind, Bush had his chance and blew it, more because of the people he chose to surround himself with than anything else.
Remember American History too: Andrew Jackson was initially viewed as a waste of a Presidency, but during his term, he probably did more to change the face of American politics than anyone before him or after him until Lincoln or even FDR.
Take care all.
The same thing sort of irks me when people say Al Gore would have prevented 9/11. Frankly, I don't think Bush or Gore could have prevented 9/11, and really, unfortunately hindsight is 20/20 whilst everything else is speculation. In my mind, Bush had his chance and blew it, more because of the people he chose to surround himself with than anything else.
i havent heard that before. i always hear the usual "gore couldnt have handled a situation as intense as 9/11" i heard about this one guy who went from making $45,000 a year to only like $15,000 or something like that, but he was voting for bush because, had al gore been elected, america would have been taken over by sadam hussein or bin laden.
I don't speak for everyone else out there, but I can tell you this. I don't care at all what Clinton did in his private life. He could have nailed fifty interns and donkey (he is a Democrat :p ), and then wrapped a cigarette for a smoke afterwards using a miniature American flag, and I still wouldn't care. What I do care about is that he lied about it. When he said, before a grand jury, that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman," he lied to us - the American people. If the President is willing to lie about something so minor - something that wouldn't have had any legal repercussions. Military service is based heavily on trust and honor. I wasn't in the military during Clinton's term, but if I was, I wouldn't be able to trust such a commander-and-chief if he told me to go off to war and die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nait
"I enjoy people writing off Kerry before he's even given a chance."
-The Captain
Isn't that the point of an election - writing someone off before giving them the chance? Unless that is, you never once voted for the incumbant. Since I suspect everyone has, from time to time, everyone is guilty of the above quote. Quite frankly, not everyone deserves a chance.
1) Believe it or not, every single politician lies. I'll give you time to recover from this before you read number two.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
2) Bush lies a LOT.
3) You might think that it's "minor" but to Clinton, that lie was about something very major. Was it in his first term that he was originally accused? Also, in my opinion, if he said that he had sex with Monica then it would have cost him a lot more than if he'd lied. If you're in a lose-lose situation, the option to go with is the one that makes you lose less. I think if he'd have gone outright and said that he had sex then he would have lost more popularity than if he had lied and later revealed that he lied. I don't know what Bush had to gain out of his lies, though. That's just beyond me.
I think if it's to do with his personal life, let him lie. We all do it - don't say you don't, because everyone lies at some point. I don't believe a single person who says they "never" lie. Was it wrong? Yes. But it doesn't matter. It shouldn't, anyway. Bush could screw a girl and tell the truth and I wouldn't give a crap. If he lied, I wouldn't give a crap either. Now, when he takes political action and lies about it - hell, contradicts himself on numerous occasions just to keep his low going for him - that's another story, because it can affect the entire world when the US does something. I'd rather Clinton to any other US president that's been around while I've been alive. Bush not only lied about political actions but I'm pretty sure he based some of his political actions on lies, too. Clinton probably did as well for all I know but not anywhere close to what Bush is doing.
When Clinton was president, he put America in a good place with the rest of the world. Bush has reversed past Clinton's starting point. I'll be glad when he's out of the office, no matter when it is.
I don't really care for politics much, to be honest, but I thought I'd just randomly post or something.
We all would have been better off if Al Gore was elected instead of Bush
Amen. I can say I have never liked USA much for ideological reasons, but I must say that the image of USA in the world (Or at least in Spain) when Clinton was president was much better than the one with Bush. Much, much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Did I mention I'm a Turk and Egyptian? So NO.
Alright, we obviously have differing opinions about the importance of integrity, and I expect that. We're both in radically different situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
To me, integrity takes top priority over everything. If someone asks me a question, no matter what it's about, I give them the full honest answer. The only exception being if I'm joking around with a friend who knows I'm joking around. I trust everybody until they violate that trust. Trust is an absolute requirement for being a leader - if an officer's men can't trust him, will they follow his orders? If I tell even the tiniest lie - even if it's for some stupid question, like, "when did you last have a haircut?" then my future could very well be ruined. Besides, I like being able to trust those around me, and I like them being able to trust me. In my opinion, what Clinton lost by lying vastly outweighed what he had to lose by telling the truth. It just goes to show that his integrity is only worth a few percentiles in an opinion poll. How pathetic.
And as far as I know, Bush has not lied. You can say all you want that all politicians lie, but until you give me complete, inarguable evidence that he has, then I trust him as my commander-in-chief.
Kerry is a shmuck
Bush is an idiot....
We're all :love::love::love::love:ed if you ask me....
I would vote for Kerry, just because I know Kerry's USA would never get itself in a situation where nuclear war is immenant.
What makes you so certain?Quote:
Originally Posted by FleshMask
Quote:
Originally Posted by FleshMask
You think Kerry would talk something out with the deadliest people in the world that would kill anyone.
What does that have to do with nuclear war? And if we have a President who wont talk it out, doesnt that make the US the 'deadliest people in the world that would kill anyone'?Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
Huh? What have the Amish got to do with this?
Yes, it's called diplomacy. Something that seems to be an alien concept to the Bush administration. What happened to war being a "last resort"?Quote:
You think Kerry would talk something out with the deadliest people in the world that would kill anyone.
Well, let's just look at the fact that in 2002, Bush said that there Saddam and Al Qaida were connected. Then in 2003 he said that they weren't. Now, once again, he says that they are. If that's not lying I have no freakin' clue what lying is. Bush's lies, however, have much more effect than Clinton's lies about his sex life.Quote:
Alright, we obviously have differing opinions about the importance of integrity, and I expect that. We're both in radically different situations.
To me, integrity takes top priority over everything. If someone asks me a question, no matter what it's about, I give them the full honest answer. The only exception being if I'm joking around with a friend who knows I'm joking around. I trust everybody until they violate that trust. Trust is an absolute requirement for being a leader - if an officer's men can't trust him, will they follow his orders? If I tell even the tiniest lie - even if it's for some stupid question, like, "when did you last have a haircut?" then my future could very well be ruined. Besides, I like being able to trust those around me, and I like them being able to trust me. In my opinion, what Clinton lost by lying vastly outweighed what he had to lose by telling the truth. It just goes to show that his integrity is only worth a few percentiles in an opinion poll. How pathetic.
And as far as I know, Bush has not lied. You can say all you want that all politicians lie, but until you give me complete, inarguable evidence that he has, then I trust him as my commander-in-chief.
Well, let's just look at the fact that in 2002, Bush said that there Saddam and Al Qaida were connected. Then in 2003 he said that they weren't. Now, once again, he says that they are. If that's not lying I have no freakin' clue what lying is. Bush's lies, however, have much more effect than Clinton's lies about his sex life.
it was common knowledge that al que'da and hussein had no ties. i knew the first time bush said that that it was BS. amazing though, how now bush can say they DONT have ties and people still believe they do. i just dont get it.
First - I don't believe that Bush lied about anything. There's a huge difference between willfully deceiving and making a poor judgement call. Please give me solid evidence that Bush willfully deceived the people by saying he thought there were WMDs in Iraq or that he thought there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Second - you don't seem to understand how highly I place the value of integrity. Clinton sold his integrity for a popularity survey. If a president willfully deceives the people, how is anybody supposed to believe him about anything?
To me, this is just typical political crap - trying to gloss over the faults of one administration while pointing the finger towards the other. I'll admit I'm guilty of it as well. But I strongly believe in the importance of integrity - I believe that nothing is worth my honor.
A politician lied? Stop the presses. :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
In an interview/press conference/whatever Bush was asked what books he was currently reading and he named them. He was then asked what the books were about and he couldn't answer that question. When asked what was his favourite book as a child he named a book that wasn't published until he was in his twenties. That's lying about pretty minor things too I'd say.
I'd rather Bush didn't win, I live in Australia so it won't affect me directly but I don't really trust a man who doesn't know his right hand from his left to have his finger on the big red button.
First - I don't believe that Bush lied about anything. There's a huge difference between willfully deceiving and making a poor judgement call. Please give me solid evidence that Bush willfully deceived the people by saying he thought there were WMDs in Iraq or that he thought there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
I would consider it to be lying when bush says "there is no connection" and then the next day cheney says "there is a connection btwn alqueda and saddam hussein"
Well, I can't say that everything Bush did was bad. (I can, but I'm sure that most people will quickly point out that nearly killing himself eating prezels was a good thing.)
Now, I realize that he has lost millions and millions of jobs.
I understand that we went from a budget that was actually causing the national debt to shrink to a ...well.. I guess you can call it a budget, but it added billions to the national debt.
I can see how the United States has invaded 2 countries, and has publically declaired 2 others to be part of the "Axis of Evil" *including one that "may or may not" (read, does) possess nuclear weapons, which is conveniently placed right freaking next to an ally of the US that has American troops on the DMZ boarder.
I understand Bush says stupid comments, like the "We are goin on a Crusade" idea he publically came up with (whoops)
I see how his vice president happens to be a former member of an oil company that magically made hundreds of millions in Iraq after the war. And isn't a member of his cabinet a former Enron chairperson? And I do like how his Attorney General lost the Senate race in Missouri. To a dead man. The choice was, Ashcroft or Carnahan (dead). The dead man won.
I'm not even going to mention how we went from being the friend to most countries in the world, and all around fairly well liked, to the idiots who everyone now hates.
I will complain about one thing. His stupid freaking white cowboy hat. Who the hell came up with that? You're a grown man, my god. (oh yeah, forgot about the religious problems he created)
But there is good news. Oh yes, my Conservative friends, there is good news. When Bush is out of office, in 1 or 5 years (if he does win, i do see there being a drastic increase in the number of suicides in America), Eventually, everyone will look back and say things like "Well, he couldn't have been THAT bad..." (They will be wrong, but they might say it)
So in answer to the topic of the thread... No, he does not desearve to be re-elected. :choc:
bush inherits the biggest surplus in U.S. history and turns it into the biggest deficet in U.S. history.
Yup, not ever president has been so talented at flushing money down into the sewers (populated by the richest .01% of the world)
Has anyone mentioned he was never "Elected" in the common use of the word to begin with. He was appointed when the supreme court MASSIVELY over stepped their power, resulting in the greatest democracy failure in history.
Clinton lied about having a girlfriend, and the Republicans tried to kick him out of office.
(Before i say this i must say i did support the war on Afganistan because Al Qaida ruled there and they were responsible for 9/11.)
The CIA notified Bush that Iraq ties with Al qaida were "not likely" or as i like to put it "Bull$h*+" and he still went up there and claimed to the American people that they existed. Saddam had no WmDs, there was no yellow cake purchases, and the war wasnt for freeing the Iraqi people. So thats garbage also.
What has Bush told the truth about??? Everything he says is trying to justify his war, that only hurt our country.
He claims we r safer today because of his war, but the report that was REVISED BECAUSE OF 8 PAGES of INACCURACIES!!! Says that this year has had the most terrorist activity EVER. So i dont think we r any safer... Do you? (Uhh... guess he lied again.)
oh yeah i forgot about that one. thats reason enough to not be re elected. think about it... if you were never elected in the first place, why should you be able to run for re-election?Quote:
Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane
I give up. Trying to show you people a different point of view is like herding cats.
You realize this just now?
The same could be said for your side of the argument.
no way man dont give up. never quite, and never stop herding cats either!Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
That's because cats are intelligent, and don't like herding.
EDIT:
Let's take this further.
Cats are liberal because they use the powers that are larger than them, ie. humans = government. They also bring offerings to be shared to the Entity, ie. mouses on doorsteps = taxes.
Dogs are conservatives, who believe that the Entity is superior to itself - but then again, it knows it's superior to all other dogs because it is THIS Entity's dog. The dog never brings offerings to the Entity, except if its trained to do so. Most of them time the dog acts as a guard against all new things that it doesn't like - but it might let a nice burglar with a t-bone in. They keep everyone awake with their barking, and they hate cats.
Rats are libertarian. They scuttle around under the surface, you never know how many there actually are, and they hate the Entity - but they would love it if the Entity dies and leaves them alone, with food and shelter. Of course, most of them would die if this would ever happen, after a while.
And pigs are, of course, communist.
:D
Okay, maybe not.
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." --George Orwell, Animal Farm
Cats are also liberal because the meow and whine until you give them what they want - but they won't tell you exactly what they want. They'll also claw your eyes out if you rub them the wrong way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
While the rabid dog gives you nice disease.
Cats can get rabies as well.
But rabid cats still look cute.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
I'm not saying cats can't have rabies, but it's pretty clear that rabiesity is more common in dogs - or at least more noticeable.
Of course my prejudice about dogs has been coloured by my experiences. We have had two dogs, and both were stupid as boots. On the other hand, our cats (many cats) are very nice, never claw or bite anyone, and I suspect, as any cat owner does, that I'm being used as a giant Pez-dispenser á la Felix.
I don't know much about rats, don't see them. Most of the rodents we see on our porch are mise. Oh, and there was a snake-skin there today.
BUT PIGS. Oh lord, pigs. Pigs are BIG (NO, you DON'T know how huge they are), they are smelly, they are intelligent, and their recent ancestors could gore through you like curry through Grannie. And I don't know about you, but if I were a pig, and I had a chance to gore a human or two, I'd take it. I'd take my pig companions and start a rebellion, and I would sterilise my warders, keep them in pens, and clip the teeth of their young with clippers.
aw cute kitty is foming at the mouth :)
Anyway, Bush is by far one of the worst presidents this country has seen since... he is just flat out the worst. The one thing i can't stand is people who blame all the problems on Clinton. Clinton is the one who nearly halfed the national debt after Ragon tripled it into the trillions and bush is just makeing that worse. With the debt increasing, intrest rates go up and i don't mean the intrest you earn in savings acounts i mean like loans on cars and houses and insurance payments. Thus the economy pitfalls. The tax cuts bush made won't help a damn thing. It may have sounded like a big number but the average working class family got less then $2. How much did the average CEO get? anywhere from $2-$5 million. (don't you love calculators.) As for the wars I will support the war in afgahnistan till the day i die but i can not condone any action that was taken in Iraq. Sure it is great that Suddam is gone but what did he do to us. People retort by saying he tortured his own people. I say to that "pick any third world country". So since we aren't policing the world the next reason that tends to be brought up is weapons, which we have found so many of (I wish there was a way to type my sarcasim into my last statement.) Next (if the person hasn't already given up and started screaming communist) they say he was connected to al-quaeda. I read the report and all the evidence that was presented. The Iraq intelligence had contacted Osoma in the early 90's (before al-quaeda was a terrorist group) trying to get him to goin in an effort with several arab countries to tople the rulling family in Sudan. Osoma never replied. All connections ended there and then. So now we have no reason for the war wich isn't helping gas prices and is only making them worse. Most people dont realize how many oil companyies there are in the US. there are about 5 all the gas stations are either supplied by or subsidiaries of these companies. that is why speedway and marathon always have the same pirce for gas. Now that these conglomerats have exclusive right to the oil in iraq since bush has refused other countries to help in the recunstruction, they have monopolized the resource. they can charge whatever they damn well please. There was an article in the newyork times that quoted Suddam's prosicuters saying they are having troulbe gathering evidence against suddam. The reason is he didn't do any war crimes during the last war. He treated all his prisoners within the goneva convetion while the US has litterally tortured prisoners to death. Not only did we falsify evidence to justify our war, but we never made a declaration of war. People said that Japan did it to us in WWII; however, they did have a declaration of war but due to an incription bug, the declaration arrived a few hours too late. After Peral Harbor the Japanese embassidor to the US nearly committed suiciced for this mistake. That is how important this sort of thing was to people. Bush doen't even think twice. He also said in several speaches that God told him to stike down osama and suddam. Coincidentaly Hitler said that god told him to strike down the jewish race. If anyone would bother listening to kerry they should be able to tell the difference from flip flopping on a stance and not having a stance. And even when he changes his stance on an issue, it doesn't bother me. The worst thing you can do is stubbernly stay by an opinion in light of new information. Sure kerry isn't the best candidate but why would the Democratic party put there best guy on the ballot if they can win with kerry. Politics is a game and never had anything to do with the people. The country has fallen into a state of oligarchy and will only get worse.
Speaking of people and ideologies as animals, has anyone else here ever read Maus?
Take care all.
Ooh, I remember reading Mauschwitz. That was 4-5 years ago, so I don't remember much of it, but it did a good job of catching the essence of the Holocaust (Jews <=> Mice && Nazis <=> Cats, if I remember correctly).
Also, the Slovaks were Pigs, and the Americans were Dogs. Strangely, to me, it says a lot about one's culture. Not sure if I agree with the assessment, but it makes one think as to why these animals were chosen for each group of people.
Take care all.
I read that book. My friend let me borrow it about a month or two ago. Pretty interesting insight on the Halocaust.
Just to point out to the people that argue that Iraq did not have WMDs are not exactly correct. It is a historical fact that Saddam Hussin was given Anthrax and other chemical and biological agents by none other than the US of A. Whoops.
He may not have had nuclear weapons, but there is no doubt that Iraq possessed WMDs.
Major emphasis on the past tense there.
Enjoy voting for a draft dodging, coke head who lets immigrants into the country after promising not to, and steals money from war veteran funds and your grandparents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito
Now now, Pres. Buch II may have :choc: borrowed :choc: all that money from important government programs, but on the bright side, he did give it all to his friends, those rich types who own companies like, oh, Enron and Haliburton. Now that their schemes are starting to come to light, it makes sense that they need :choc: More Money :choc: . Who better to give it to them than the US Government?
Where did he even imply in that post that he was voting for Bush? If you're going to post ineffective rhetoric against the current president (who I agree deserves to be ousted from the office, but not because he used cocaine, dodged the draft, or relaxed immigration laws) you should at least respond coherently to the post you quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7728
Where did he even imply in that post that he was voting for Bush? If you're going to post ineffective rhetoric against the current president (who I agree deserves to be ousted from the office, but not because he used cocaine, dodged the draft, or relaxed immigration laws) you should at least respond coherently to the post you quote.
i agree. i would dodge the draft, and i might use cocain, and i dont think its something you can use to judge a mans character, although i do agree george bush needs to go, and he needs to go now.
How are draft-dodging and cocaine use not a measure of one's character? It says a lot about someone's character when they don't want to fulfill their lawful duty, or choose to violate their nation's law.
I personally wish Bush would not get re-elected, but I believe he will, because people are too lazy to go out and vote. Most of the people voting will be the right winged folks who are voting for Bush to come back in office. The rest of the people will say they will go vote for Kerry, but they wont actually go and put their vote in the ballot box!!!
On the subject of Bush actually deserving to be re-elected: NO!!! Now, I'm not going to blame the US's bad reputation totally on the man. However, a good amount of it does come from him ( well and the clinton scandal). In the beginning of his term he puts the name of the United States to the world as being invinceable, and indestructable, and by the end our economy is at an ultimate low, and everyone hates us! Oh..what a good president *sarcasm*
Now, don't necessarily count Kerry out just yet. A lot of people are extremely angry with Bush and they WILL go to the polls come election day.
I'm not saying they aren't a measure of his character, but they're not necessarily factors that would influence how good a job one could do as president. Either way, though, they're not exactly characteristics of his I'm terribly proud of.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwistedPeace
Who in the world can take the U.S. down?
I think he is saying that whoever bombs us or just messes with the U.S. WILL be brought down to justice like Saddam and his most of his people. WE ARE STILL SEARCHING FOR BIN LADIN. You guys are saying that we found Saddam and we quit looking for bin ladin. That not true. We are still looking for clues that will lead to him. It isnt going to be quick and easy. There is thousands of acrers of land like Mountains, desserts, caves, citys, and a whole that leads to undergrond.
There are so many troll replies to that...OK, OK, I shut up ¬¬Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
I think what it was meant to say the US is not an impenetrable fortress, and well...it is not.
He was never elected in the first place, he was selected by the Supreme Court who were too stupid to look into the fact that Katherine Harris deprived the blacks of their votes. She deleted their chances at voting.
If he gets elected, then it just proves how dumb this country has gotten.
Chemical and Biological weapons don't have a long shelf-life. Read up on what the WMD inspector said about that, the guy who was framed by the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lehteb
Iraq never attacked us. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. But we did nothing to them. Didnt even detain Saudi officials in this country, in fact they, including all of the Bin Laden family over here, got a first class ticket, one way, out of the US. See anything wrong with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
And who in the world could take the US down? The world, that's who. I'm sure the Japanese felt the same way about their Empire before is was brought down.
im sure the nazi's once said "who could take down germany" at one point in time. nobody can fight the world, no matter how many nukes you have.
I wasn't gonna post again in this thread 'cause I actually don't like politics that much (I just read the papers, I got bored of discussing them). But anyway, I think this entry in Manny's LJ is all about the lies Bush has made, although Aaron never said "Bush" so I'm not sure. Either way, if he was talking about Bush, then yay for him doing my lie-homework for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
http://www.livejournal.com/users/aaronfreed/79243.html
EDIT: Yes, it was about Bush, so yay for me not looking dumb for posting something completely irrelevant. This time.
Yeah, it's about Bush; I figured that was obvious from the content. ;) I discovered the list right before I posted it, actually, which is why I didn't bother bringing it up here earlier, and to be nice I'll repost it here. xD
Quote:
This post at the Poor Man is relatively intriguing:He has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells. He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC. He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about his deficit spending, and now my wrist hurts.
That's... one hell of a track record... To say the least... *Vertigo*
You're thinking too simplified. The U.S. is in control of the world and stands supreme in the four decisieve domains of global power: militarily, economically, technologically, and culturally. Germany at the time was surrounded by France and Russia, and the only realistic goals they could possibly achieve was taking control of Europe and absorbing the countries it controlled into Germany, which was impossible to do because of the cultural diversity. The U.S. is hated globally now, so I see how it's easy to believe we're not invincible.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Here's some maps I scanned from a book.
Roman Empire
Manchu Empire
Mongolian Empire
European Influence
British Empire
U.S. Empire
People hate the US because we are successful and widespread. Even if we did everything we could to make people happy, people would still hate us. All we can do is do our best to prevent people from taking violent action against us and our people.
Nah, we hate you because you're widespread, succesful and obnoxious.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
:D
Seriously though: America IS widespread. It's in our tellies, our computers, our rugs and our tv-meals, our soft-drinks and movies. We KNOW you people. We know how tihs-crazy you really are. And we hate you like we hate someone who's close to us, and for the same reason. You leave your droppings all over the place. You don't tidy up. We keep a record on your hypocricies, we know when you haven't done your laundry (cause man, it STINKS), we try to get sleep while you're blaring the TV because of the effin Super Bowl, and you never, ever think you're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakka
George. Double-you. Bush. :D
hahahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Nait
I cant say if I support Bush or not at this time, but I do have to say the majority *was* in favor of the war at 75% at one point.
I guess you didn't read this partQuote:
Originally Posted by Silent Warrior
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
Do you want to suicide or what? :rolleyes2
Bush is the worst thing in the planet!!!!! :mad:
Neither I would vote in him!!! :D
At the beginign I thought well Saddam will be arrest Iraq will be free, there will be no need of violence, but then when i saw those photos I thought 'That ************ liar!'. ;)
Now I don't trust Bush! :p
I just skipped through all these pages, too much to read this early in the morning, but I have to say that I don't think Bush should be re-elected. He can't seperate government from religion and he's so set on bombing every terrorist, that he doesn't want to try anything else. And we went from having a surplus of money to being very much in debt.
In the news for weeks, Bush was so occupied with homosexual marriage and how it's "ruining the sanctity of marriage" that he forgot about the more important issues around the world. Who cares if someone wants to get married to someone of their own sex? As long as they love each other, it's fine.
I agree a bit more with Kerry. He doesn't seem like president material, in my opinion, but if I was old enough to vote, he'd have my vote. He seems more capable of running a country then Bush who pretty much is just running our army.
EDIT: And of course, pratically every country hates us now. Well, hates us even more.
Yeah he should be re-elected to destroy America!
Since when is it our job to keep every country in the world happy? And I wasn't aware that every country in the world hates us. We sure do seem to have a lot of trading partners, don't we? I can assure you that any country that "hates" us would hate us no matter what we do. You're all a bunch of pessimists with nothing better to do than blame the current administration. Grow up, do some research, and realize that not everything in the world is controlled by the president of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rye
We've been in debt or a long time ;) just like every other country on earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rye
Bush is mis-using Terrorist Alerts for political gain to take away public attention from his opponents and his mistakes, and is attempting to disrupt the DNV by putting pressure on Pakistan this month to capture or kill bin Laden. This fart doesn't deserve re-election, he deserves an RPG to the head.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904
Please don't talk about killing the President. I take serious offense to that. That comment is completely unnecessary.
Not to mention the fact that that could be taken as a threat to the president, which could have the CIA banging on your door.Quote:
Please don't talk about killing the President. I take serious offense to that. That comment is completely unnecessary.
I hope you're not being sarcastic, because I am very serious about what I say.
[q=DocFrance]Please don't talk about killing the President. I take serious offense to that. That comment is completely unnecessary.[/q]He talked about the president deserving death, not about wanting or intending to murder him. He stated an opinion. There have been plenty of threads where members have expressed dim views of politicians, I don't believe that President Bush should be exempt from getting exactly the same treatment.
I'm still taking it as a threat. If someone comes up to me on the street and says, "You deserve to be shot," I'm not going to risk anything. I'm going to defend myself by making sure that this man is not able to shoot me.
I understand why this is not such a big deal for most people, but it is for me. If I so much as include the words "shoot" and "president" in the same sentence, I would be dishonorably discharged for conspiring against the government. I'm sorry for trying to enforce my morals on someone else, but this is something I feel very strongly about.
There's a difference between expressing a dim view of someone and saying that someone deserves to die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Please don't think that I'm defending Bush in particular. I would say the same thing if he were talking about any other president - Reagan, Clinton, or even Kerry if he is elected.
Bush is a very polarizing individual. It's not suprising that a lot of people have such strong sentiments against him. People either love the guy or hate him. Is that good? That's hard to say. William Wallace was also a man who refused to compromise, and like Bush, was very polarizing, a love/hate sort of character. History remembers him positively, even though most of his contemporaries wished him dead. I think history will remember Bush well, for being uncompromising. He may be a lot of things, but a lame duck isn't one of them. While I disagree with most of Bush's actions, (pretty much everything except the removal of the Taleban and Saddam from power), and I think his public speaking skills leave much to be desired, I can respect him for doing what he thinks is right even if the rest of the world disagrees. If he did otherwise, he'd be a person who's willing to do what he thinks is wrong to pander to popular oppinion, and that is much worse in my oppinion. I elected a leader, not a follower.
Bush doesn't deserve an RPG at his head, he deserves an RPG up his ****.
I don't. I'd defend any democratically-elected (and don't tell me he wasn't, you sore losers) leader, for the simple fact he was ELECTED, and acts under his democratic authority. I wouldn't want someone I voted for harmed, and I would never conspire or attempt to harm someone other people voted for.Quote:
I understand why this is not such a big deal for most people
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
[Insert person here] was elected! He caused [insert atrocity here], and was the reason behind [the Hooooo. LOGRAM. THE HOLOGRAM].
See, I'm TECHNICALLY not breaking [person's] law.