2004 Re-Elections [a.k.a. Is Bush a Good President?]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]

I personally don't like the door way the Patriot Act opened, I mean look at it. It is a law aimed at giving the people who hold it more power which they have no need to use now and possibly not in the future. It was snuck in because people were afraid to question it. At the time (just after the attack on WTC/Pentagon) if any one had stood up and said "This is bad!" the government would have just called them unpatriotic which would cut out anything they said after to most Americans like in so many other cases. Just look at its name, the whole thing was put together (as I recall) to act as if it was in the interest of all the people without adverse effects. [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Why do they have no need to hold this power? I don't know why you would think that. Of [i]course[/i] there's a need for measures of this kind.

Had some of these security measures been in place previously, events like September 11 (and maybe even the first WTC bombing) could have been prevented. And, in particular, potential biological attacks and so on could also be prevented.

I also urge you to read through the act itself. Or at least, what I've posted up there. It isn't nearly as subversive as many would lead you to believe. As I mentioned previously, most of it relates to communication between agencies, first responders and international intelligence and financial systems.

Secondly, it wasn't "snuck in". It was [i]voted[/i] in and approved by the United States Congress.

And thirdly...yes, I do disapprove of the idea that you can be called "unpatriotic" for being critical of your Government. I can be critical of my Government, but still be very proud of my nation and her achievements.

But I just don't like these conspiracy theories. This isn't about giving the Bush Administration "more power" in general. Just take a look at the particulars of the act. As I said, most of it relates to functional improvements in security and other civil agencies.[/color][quote][b]

Though back to the implication, if a government can bring some thing in like that it's going to. Don't believe me? Look at the aptly named "Son of Patriot" which gives the American government stupidly large amounts of power over its own citizens and people over seas! Still not convinced; look closer to the Australian Anti-Spam Bill which gives the Government the right to search a victim?s house and take equipment without a warrant and with only consent from basically any one who has something to do with the house all because some one sent them a single spam email. It also without fully explained definitions allows the laws in the act to be used in cases of other offences, even possibly to by pass our "phone tapping guidelines". [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]I found this paragraph difficult to read. It's a bit jumbled. I recommend breaking things up a bit more...or slowing down a little when you type your posts.

My only comment on this is simply, again, there are too many conspiracy theories floating around. If I had one cent for every student who thinks that the Government is harvesting our brains while we sleep, I'd be a very rich man. ~_^[/color][quote][b]

So there might not have been anything to bad in Patriot but it gives an amazing test case to prove that that way of sneaking laws in works and if done right can get anything in.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]So you're not arguing against the Patriot Act...but you're using it as an example that "unwanted" legislation can be snuck through?

Again, the Patriot Act wasn't "snuck" in. Laws don't just sneak in from nowhere and take everyone by surprise. Laws have to be debated and approved by a Congress/Parliament. So, no...that's not at all accurate.

Secondly -- especially in Australia at the moment -- most laws of this nature are [i]unlikely[/i] to get passed, because the minor parties band together to block this sort of thing in the Senate. However, it's interesting that many of those said parties [i]did[/i] support the Anti-Spam bill and others, when they could quite easily have blocked such legislation.

[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]Student who thinks that the Government is harvesting our brains while we sleep[/quote]Oh god? So I'm not imagining it, I get that theory so many damn times! At about 2am people will come on (even people I know) and be convinced that there is a conspiracy theory with some thing to do with our brains and the government. All of which can be destroyed with a simple question, "Why?" I hate and dismiss any theory I can?t answer the question ?why? too so don?t worry I?m not into that sort of thing. Though I don?t really like it when projecting a possible outcome of something is being called a conspiracy, when it?s just a possibility that should be looked at with seriousness.

[quote]Many of those said parties did support the Anti-Spam bill[/quote]Yes the Anti-Spam bill was passed (and to try and define what I mean by snuck) by a group of people that did not take the time to understand it's consequences or they heard the words "Anti", "Spam" and voted for it. When I say snuck I'm not trying to portray some parliament members lucking around and using loop holes in the law system to pass things (excision of thousands of islands, from what I hear that was a bit dodgy?) in the middle of the night, what I'm trying to say is for example the government did not attempt to educate the voting members in any way on what spam was or what effects the bill had, so as I said they saw those words and voted accordingly which can be applied in different ways. If it wasn't for some law computer geeks and the minor parties this wouldn't have even been noticed. And in a way this happened in America with Patriot as voting members were cornered by possible allegations of being unpatriotic; which in the situation was political suicide.
(Don't read into that excision question, I only heard things against it from the democrats so I already know its bias. :P)

[quote]Of course there's a need for measures of this kind[/quote]Australia introduced harsh new anti-piracy laws yet all pirates since then have been found and charged under the old laws which even to now have much more power than they need yet we have another set of laws for piracy that sit on top of these that are a lot more powerful again. What?s the point, really?
I believe it's the same for anti-terrorism which had a new set of laws past after 2001 yet the few people so far have been captured and charged under the old laws.
*I got that last bit from ABC news about half a year ago so I don't know if it's still true.

My main thing I?m trying to point out is why law makers make laws that are over powerful for what?s needed and will most likely never be used and could be open to abuse.

[Transtic Nerve]

So far, my freedoms haven't been violated... but... illegal phone taps, targeting protestors that was stated before, and pretty much everything else the Patriot Act allows I would NOT want to happen to me or anyone else who is a citizen of this country. The Patriot act and its components gives the government the ability to essentially take the rights of any person they feel a threat to the US away without large amounts of evidence against them and without representation, a freedom supposedly given to all Americans. They simply just take them all away cause they feel you may be a potential threat to the safety of the US.... when in fact, you may not be. But they don't care about that. They could ruin someone's life because of a simple "hunch" and I wouldn't want that happening to me, and I don't want that happening to other people.

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]illegal phone taps[/quote]Don't you mean "legal" phone taps? :P

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Don't you mean "legal" phone taps? :P [/B][/QUOTE]

Technically they are still illegal, cause I cannot tap anyone's phone... only the oh-so-powerful government can.

But you were just making a joke :p

[outlawstar69]

Regarding the whole Patriot act issue, and Guantanamo Bay....

Yes, I am at a potential for losing my rights. Did you know that right after 9/11, after the bill was passed (which, by the way, was introduced in a lesser form the day before, when congress looked at it. When they went home for the night, it underwent some "revisions" that no one noticed the next day, when they voted on it. Look here : [url]http://www.michaelmoore.com/takeaction/issues/patriotact.php[/url]),
there were several American citizens who were detained, with no cause at all? They were held without telling thier families, no lawyers, all that stuff.. they were held for months. When one arabian restaurant owner was finally released, with no apologies, his business was shunned. They never charged him with anything, although he had interrigators yelling at him to admit that he was a muslim terrorsit.... I am a muslim, I don't mind saying that here. I look the spitting image of my father, who was from Egypt. I have his last name too, and just based on those I'm likely to be a target to such bills and laws. On a "random" search last year, my sister was the only one in her class on her senior trip who was searched, even though there were other people whom it would have served better to search than her, like the kid exporting and importing drugs as a little side busniess. The fact that an american citizen, who is muslim or is from the areas where there's trouble in the middle east, can be held for months without any reason means that someday YOU might be in his situation.

[the_fizz]

[color=royalblue]I will not say one way or the other if he is a good pres. or not. However, I did not vote for he and I will not vote for him unless he is the lesser of the two evils. As a Texasen, I did not want him for my governor, because he made my high school year harder then I needed them to be. He pass laws saying that if you did not pass the TASP (some government issued test) that you could not graduate. Well I did very well in class even better then my parent thought I would, because I had a read problem in elementary school(which I over came before high school). But never the less I never did well on the time test schools make kids take so I had to take all kinds of retakes and all most did not graduate from school. It was not due to my grades they were A?s and B?s all through out high school. Never the less I think that he is good in some areas of be pres. and lacks in others.
THE FIZZ[/color]:wigout:

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B] Though I don?t really like it when projecting a possible outcome of something is being called a conspiracy, when it?s just a possibility that should be looked at with seriousness. [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]But I could tell you that the possible outcome of flying a commercial airliner is that it will crash. And therefore, we should never fly airliners ever again, because airline pilots are all corrupt and they really want us to die.

There's a difference between making a realistic observation and an observation laced with conspiracy theories. I also think that it is important to [i]understand[/i] what you are actually fighting or complaining about. When you don't understand something (ie: the Patriot Act), how can you legitimately protest it?[/color][quote][b]

Yes the Anti-Spam bill was passed (and to try and define what I mean by snuck) by a group of people that did not take the time to understand it's consequences or they heard the words "Anti", "Spam" and voted for it. When I say snuck I'm not trying to portray some parliament members lucking around and using loop holes in the law system to pass things (excision of thousands of islands, from what I hear that was a bit dodgy?) in the middle of the night, what I'm trying to say is for example the government did not attempt to educate the voting members in any way on what spam was or what effects the bill had, so as I said they saw those words and voted accordingly which can be applied in different ways. If it wasn't for some law computer geeks and the minor parties this wouldn't have even been noticed. And in a way this happened in America with Patriot as voting members were cornered by possible allegations of being unpatriotic; which in the situation was political suicide.
(Don't read into that excision question, I only heard things against it from the democrats so I already know its bias. :P)[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]But you're now saying that the Senators who voted for the bill didn't understand it. I'm not sure I agree with that. If you vote for a bill, you should understand it. If you don't know what you're voting for, you shouldn't be in politics.

While I am sure that there are probably some absent minded politicians out there, I'm not willing to believe that these people were somehow ignorant of what they were doing. Unless you can provide me with some evidence of that, I'm not going to believe it.

As for the Patriot Act...I do know that the act was debated in Congress by all parties concerned. In other words, the act was looked at, it was debated and it was passed. And having read most of the act myself, I don't see it as being the big Government control legislation that some of you are claiming it to be. So, I think that this is mostly just clutching at straws. At first I was told how bad it would be...now I'm being told that it's not bad, but it's an example of something being snuck through. And then I'm told that people were pressured to vote for it and then I'm told that it was snuck through again. Which is it? I don't think that any of these explanations come very close to matching reality. It seems like you guys are jumping from pillar to post on this question.

Oh, and...if you don't want me to take notice of the excise issue, I have some advice for you: [b]don't mention it in the first place[/b].[/color][quote][b]

Australia introduced harsh new anti-piracy laws yet all pirates since then have been found and charged under the old laws which even to now have much more power than they need yet we have another set of laws for piracy that sit on top of these that are a lot more powerful again. What?s the point, really?
I believe it's the same for anti-terrorism which had a new set of laws past after 2001 yet the few people so far have been captured and charged under the old laws.
*I got that last bit from ABC news about half a year ago so I don't know if it's still true.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Wait a minute. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're saying that despite newer anti-terrorism laws, nobody has been captured or charged under [i]old[/i] laws? What kind of logic is that?

If people had been captured and charged, you'd probably only complain and point out that this is an example of the Government controlling everyone. It's a no-win situation.[/color][quote][b]

My main thing I?m trying to point out is why law makers make laws that are over powerful for what?s needed and will most likely never be used and could be open to abuse. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875][i]Why[/i] are they "over-powerful"? You haven't explained that to me. Nor have you explained specific instances of these laws being used unwisely.

More importantly, you're assuming that you know what is needed. You're a senior in high school. Are you privvy to classified intelligence documents or something? Do you meet with the Prime Minister's office on a regular basis?

Do you see what I'm saying here? People don't just sit down and say "Oh gee, let's try and find a way to screw with the public! Oh, I know! Let's curb their civil rights! YAY!"

The laws are created for a reason. And as demonstrated with various specific articles of the Patriot Act, [i]the vast majority[/i] of these laws have absolutely nothing to do with "limiting" anyone's rights. In fact, there isn't even an attempt to limit someone's rights here. The Patriot Act has [i]only[/i] provided extensions to existing security laws and the majority of its reach relates to international security and banking issues. A large portion of the act relates to identity verification as well. Are you going to tell me that these are a bad thing?

Again, I see so many conspiracy theories here and so much needless distrust. If you're telling me that these laws [i]can[/i] be abused, I'd agree with you. Of course they can. Nearly any law can be abused by an individual or a group. But to then say that we should not attempt to develop new laws because they'll "most likely" be abused, is absolutely laughable. It's also naive and overly-suspicious. And it's ignorant. What do you mean by "most likely" be abused? You have absolutely no idea what the chances are that these laws will be abused! It's just such a typical response coming from a student -- I could get the same cookie-cutter response from just about any high school or college student anywhere in the world. It just strikes me as both presumptuous and naive.

In any case, I don't know what else I can say about this subject. If I'm going to be answered (in general) with a link to Michael Moore (knowing full well that he has an axe to grind), I don't know how far I can go. I could then very well sit here and go through Michael Moore's history and the perspective that he comes from. It's not that I completely disagree with everything he says; I think he makes some valid points now and then. But I am definitely aware that he has an agenda with most of what he says.

So, that's probably about it for me. We'll see how it goes. As long as the debate remains civil (regardless of whether I'm posting here or not), there are no problems.[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I'll try to not touch on multiple subjects. That should keep my posts smaller.

No. 1: They improved the medicare system in America for Seniors. I heard this right now. Don't know if all you on the east coast are hearing this, but it is on right now. Said as "One of the largest increase in seniors medicare since *Can't remember exact time. Something like 1969". This drug Benifit will kick in at 2006, but it WILL kick in, and was signed by Bush himself at good ole Vegas.

But I just watched this on the news about a minute ago. News 13.

[b][u]Gross National Product (GNP) has increased by 8.2% over the summer![/b][/u]

This was described as "Warp Speed". All came from spending on defensive technologies, tax rebates, and another one that not one person in my family can remember at the moment.

But these were ALL instated by Bush. So Bushes horrible governing polocies has increased the GNP by 8% over the summer. That isn't something that I would call small... or even medium-sized.

It also raised up 160,00 jobs, and will continue to raise up more jobs each month.

Remember: The GNP of 1996 was 7.6 trillion! If we were close to that, then just take about 7 trillion, give or take half a trillion, and add 8 percent to it. My math came up with .56 trillion. That's 560 billion bucks that our economy raised up over the summer!

[added]How many times did I say that every buisness loses money at first?

I'll say something else on other stuff later

EDIT: Saying stuff.

The patriot act, or atleast the first one is being taken a little too far on it's definition. For instance: every single E-mail you ever send is kept in a super-compy. It is monitered, and read anyway. While pretty much all medical records are kept secret anyway, I really don't see what you would find in there. "Wow... this man fractured his left ulna 2 years ago. Interesting... he must be a terrorist!" And they would break into ones homes, and offices and tap ones phones for one reason: suspicion. They aren't going around saying: "Oh. Lets tap this guys house now." But if they have the right to suspect you, they might tap you. If there is a protestor, then tapping their phone would be almost pointless. So they don't like Bush. Yeah. Real suspicious. So unless you tap about 50% of all phones in the nation, your not going to really get anywhere. Of course, this is forgetting the fact that Bush isn't going to stay in power forever. If he is elected next year, which is a near impossibility, then another president is going into power. So all those protestors have not to worry for long.

And the main reason why people don't want their phone tapped is privacy. But what do you really want to hide? If you got a teenage son, you would hear him talk sweet to his girlfriend, or talk about going to a skatepark on saterday. Teenage daughter, would talk with their friends for a long time about stuff that 99% of all guys don't care about. Or you hear about a mother calling in while she's at work to remind the kids to take the dog for a walk. The only time you would have to worry is if you are breaking the law. Then they would be a little suspicious, and maybe not bored from listening to you watch the Lions play the Cowboys. Most peoples personal information I.E. Social Security number, Credit card Number, can be accessed already by the police, let alone the government. I'm sure that they could easily just pull up my SS anytime they darn well please. What good it will do them, I don't know.

It isn't like you are going to know if your phone is tapped. And what you don't know, won't hurt you. How do you know that your phone isn't tapped already? You don't. How do you know that your phone wasn't tapped BEFORE this act was instated? You don't. So unless you are going around doing stuff you shouldn't be doing, you shouldn't have to worry about a thing, unless you are paranoid.

Finacial records really aren't too important as I see it. "Oh. This guy spent 5,000 on a new car for his son 3 months ago." But if you are spending money rediculessly and frivolessly(sp?), and are obviously spending more money than you are earning, that means that you have either stolen money, or your identity was theived and now their spending money in your name. Then again, as soon as the money that was spent catches up to you, they would've known anyway.

Even if Immigrants can be detained, they have to have a reason to suspect them first. We get a lot of immigrants from all sorts of places every year. We get them from Cuba, Russia, Romania, Czechoslovakia. You name it, they immigrate here. With all these immigrants, 99% of them are legit! Just trying to make a living. The terrorists only acted once. Only like... a dozen or so? Couple dozen? Well, that was all. The rest of the immigrants that had move there from the years they first came to America from the year that they attacked are legit.

With some Muslims being held, most aren't. Most are just either examined for a day or two, or not even looked at. Islamic is the largest growing religion in the world. 1/5 people on earth are Muslim. No doubt, a lot were skipped. After 9/11, we got paranoid from the fact that a small sect was representing the entire muslim religion, and it was painfully obvious that the rest of the Islamic world didn't agree with them. But I do think that we should be a little more laxitive on this issue.

Lets not forget what it takes for a law to be passed. First, a community has to come up with it in their heads, and send it in AS A GROUP. Then, the mayer has to revise it, and approve of it. Then the governer. Then the house of represenatives and Senate and Supreme court have to revise it, then it goes to the president. [b]The president is the [u]last[/u] person to see a bill.[/b] It goes through everyone there. So then he gives the final word on it. But first, someone has to think it up, and then it has to be agreed on by many people as it goes up the latter. Saying that it was all Bushes fault is an un-educated claim towards Bush trying to make him seem worse than he really is. Because even if a president rejects a bill, the house of represenatives and the senate vote on it again, and could bypass the presidents ruling. But I don't know if he accepted it or not.

But the second patriot act I do not support. Why you would need any more information gathering abilities and rights beyond the ones listed is beyond me. Probably won't get passed IMO.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i]
[B] The only real exception is WWI... or was it II? Well, we were in the depression, and the war brought us out of it. But the other WW brought our economy down. It brought down the economy of EVERY country that was involved.
But we do liberate Iraq. Their happy. A few loyal followers and anti-american sects chose to attack us.
You have to cut it from somewhere, and He's not getting it all from Vets. He's got other places. It isn't like ALL veterans are losing their benifits.
[/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=royalblue]Okay, you 've really gotta do something about that keyboard diarreah of yours, it's getting on people's nerves.
Also, I find it quite funny that you act so smart, yet don't really remember which world war was before the Great Depression and which World war was after the Great Depression. FYI-WWI 1914-1918(An assasination got Europe into it, we (the US) got into it around 1917 ended with the signing of the Armistece)
Great depression-1929-around 1941 (FDR and the 2nd World War got the US out of it) WWII 1939-1945. Please note that for the beginnings of the wars I'm using the s\dates they actually started, not when US decided to join.
In the 20's Europe's economy was down, but the US's was up because they owed us money for sending them crops. Then there was the stockmarket crash and Europe couldn't pay us so the economy of civilized world went into decline.
You're a bit off on saying that not [i]all[/i] veteran's are losing their benefits. If VA hospitals close, and he does go through with cutting the budget for veterans you can guarantee that veteran's will lose benifits. Try not to speak (type) before you think next time.
This whole VA budget cut is indeed one of the most foolish and unpatriotic things this man could do during war time. And he;s going to go through with it (don't believe me, I have sources listed in another reply) Never mind the fact that he's creating more and more veteran's every day who are going to need medical assistance. We're going to close the VA hospitals and cut that out of our budget.
And the Iraqi people are not all happy (BTW pls check your grammar when you get keyboard diarreah). Or haven't you read the headlines lately? They're shooting at more of the soldiers and planting more bombs. All we need is a few more years and some kids getting mined and thrown at troops and we've got ourselves another Vietnam.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i]
[B]
History lesson: after a war, even small ones, we always kept troops to help stabelize the country. Fine examples are germany, and Japan. And no one wants to go to war. No one wants to stay in there. But it is necissary. If we left, the entire country would go back to chaos, because now there is no rule over it anymore except for the poor influence that their government has now.[/B][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=blue]Don't try to start with the history lessons on me. If we occupy every nation after every war, why aren't we occupying Vietnam? Why are we occupying Korea since technically the war never ended there? Do you even know the purpose of the bases located in Europe and Asia? I do-mostly becuase my husband told me (he knows because he's a Specialist in the United State's Army).
I can tell you why we didn't occupy Vietnam after the war. First off, it was a conflict and second-America realized that this was a lost cause, we were losing too many lives over there.
We occupy KOrea to basically be a speed bump between North and South KOrea. The major bases (ie Red Cloud Casey ect ect) are up by the DMZ (Demillitarized Zone) If a war (another one) broke out in Korea, these bases would be used to help out until support arrived from the US. Oh, and we're thinking of removing a few of these overseas bases. Did you know that?
As for the rest, did you even read my post before replying to it? Do you even know what ETS stands for? I don't think so.
ETS stands for [b]E[/b]nlistment [b]T[/b]ermination [b]S[/b]tatus. Which is when your enlistment is up in the military. Under normal conditions (ie peacetime) you get out when the paper says you get out. Stop Losses (like the one the military instituted prior to the war in Iraq) make it so you stay in until the stop loss is lifted.
Now, according to Bush, we're in the middle of a cease fire (which mean that these aren't war dead anymore i guess.) So for all intents and purposes there is no more war therefore no reason to institute the stoploss.
However, Bush has now decided that he will turn Iraq into another over seas tour and hard ship tour as well (if you want to know what hardship tour is PM me). Along with this is the fact that he's been seriously thinking about eliminating the Hazardous duty pay and cutting the hardship tour pay in half which means that these men and women put their [spoiler]*****[/spoiler] on the line for even less than they are now. All this and he's having everyone stay over there for a year reguardless of ETS date.
So, is that a good enough reason to dislike Bush?[/COLOR]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i]
[B]....Then the house of represenatives and Senate and Supreme court have to revise it... [/B][/QUOTE]

Since when does the Supreme Court have anything to do with laws being passed?

The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and reviews cases.... it's a court, not a law making body. The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial branch, not the Legislative branch of the government. The Supreme Court only has the power to overturn a law or bill if a case is brought into it. hence why they can deem something as "Unconstitutional"... they have no say in the process of the law being made. And the Supreme Court answers to nobody. What they say is what shall be, not even the president can veto any ruling of the Supreme Court. The only way a decission by the Supreme Court can change is by another Supreme Court ruling.

I heart Chibi Horsewoman.

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]
I heart Chibi Horsewoman. [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] I do as well. I also heart what you've said, TN.

Crimson, before saying something, know [i]what[/i] you're saying and exactly what you're talking about instead of just making "minute-o-the-second-facts." If you don't know enough about something, it should be obvious that you don't talk about it.

Well, at least you got what you deserved. I will say that your last post was better handled. At least it wasn't a vehement argumentive splatter. But I only think you finally tamed down because James came in here.

As for the Patriot Act...all I have to say is I highly doubt it's anything in par with the Sedition Act. So it's not [i]that[/i] much to worry about. But it really depends. Of course the government's going to abuse the powers the Patriot Act gives..but I'd like to hope our government isn't ran by imbicils, and thus I see that they won't completely abuse it all the time.[/size]

[Mitch]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B] [/B][/QUOTE]

[size=1] That is amusing...but so what?

There have been worse presidents than Bush. Anyone can attest to this fact. If you can't say he's at least an okay president, then I don't know. I also don't even think it's your place to really care for Bush, and thus you're off the bat going to label him as stupid and imicilic. Ah well.

My guess is he was handed the book like that, and was talking to the girl over his shoulder and a shot was taken before he realized that the book was upside-down.

This picture really prooves nothing when you think about it, other than you think it's funny to make a mockery of things in the most subtle ways. It's not a bad thing, though. I like it. If you want to totally hate Bush, then do so. I myself think he's an okay president at the least, not an imbicil.[/size]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]That is amusing...but so what?[/quote][quote]Joke [i]n[/i]
# An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
# Informal.
1. Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality[/quote]
You do not need to hate some one to point out an amusing incident. Also I'm not stupid; you have to be able to have a decent level of intelligence to become the head of anything. I have no hate for him and don't think anyone should, the only things you can hate about a person are their actions and I choose to, on the whole, do this in his case. Not that it had anything to do with my reply to your post.
Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not having a go at you so relax and laugh.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[COLOR=deeppink]I love you guys too, but I want to know one thing-Why am I loved?
I'm just stating my opinion. And I'm not voting for BUsh in the next election.[/COLOR]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][COLOR=deeppink]I love you guys too, but I want to know one thing-Why am I loved?
I'm just stating my opinion. And I'm not voting for BUsh in the next election.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

Thats precisely the reason why. lol.

[Genkai]

I'm also prettied angry at Bush for his actions about the Environment..

Bush's Environmental Protection Agency has halted work on sixty-two environmental standards, the federal Department of Agriculture has stopped work on fifty-seven standards, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has halted twenty-one new standards. The EPA completed just two major rules ¡Ý both under court order and both watered down at industry request ¡Ý compared to twenty-three completed by the Clinton administration and fourteen by the Bush Sr. administration in their first two years.

I mean, really....

I'm glad to see that we're such a liberal forum here, but then again, probably 95% of the pepole here, uh, can't vote.


Suggested reading: [url]http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/[/url]

[Orien_Xel]

Y'know what? I don't really care anymore. I've found debating anything over the internet is rather pointless. Neither side will give way, and they will simply call the other side's evidence biased. I'm sick and tired of it, and I'm not going to state an opinion on this one. G'night.

[ktangelprncss]

I don't like Busch at all.
He lied about the whole Iraq war thing, I still don't understand it. Before he went and declared war on Iraq he shoul have at least gotten solid facts, and not made a big cover-up about it. I don't think we should've even had a war. We didn't find any weapons or terrorists did we? Nooooo!!!!! War is bad, I know that sometimes it is nesscary, but this war wasn't! Why are we losing soilders? Why? Busch dosn't have many solid facts, and so why is he letting the lives of our soilders be lost? Even one life lost is one too many.
I'm aginst his tax cuts too. The country needs taxes to survive. Crime rate is higher because our police force has been cut. A homeless shelters are being closed, but where do the people who live there go? Out on the streets? That's unfair!
I do have to comment that the econmy isn't entierly Busch's fault, economy just goes up and down, you just have to let it flow, it'll get better eventually.

[catdemon]

I don't like Bush because he is said that some religons are'y religons and that he will change it if he can. Genkai you rule and so do you Ktangelprncss. I don't like where he's taking the money for the war. He also saying that the people who are helping the Afghanistan women are called terrorist. Mind you thier not all thier doing is helping the Afghanistan women.

[Boba Fett]

[COLOR=green][B]Loud Voice:[/B] "Welcome to yet another political flame war thread, full of extreme bias, lies and utter absurdities. Not to mention terrible spelling. Please leave your brains at the door, you wont be needing them while you're here..."

I personally feel Bush is a good President, and has done what he, and his supporters in the Republican party, feel is in the best interests of the United States of America. He has helped the economic recovery along by cutting interest rates and giving taxes breaks and cuts. I'll support his re-election, too bad I can?t vote...[/COLOR]

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ktangelprncss [/i]
[B]I don't like Busch at all.
War is bad, I know that sometimes it is nesscary, but this war wasn't! Why are we losing soilders?
[/B][/QUOTE]

First, you might want to try spelling your President's name correctly.

Second, what should we have done about all the terrorism going on in the middle east? Should we have just let it slide by? Countless Americans and Middle Easterners were being ruthlessly killed by terrorist. We tried talking it out. It didn't work.

Also, 99% of the citizens in Iraq want our help. They [b]want[/b] us to be there.

[UnsungHero]

The 2002 elections were a lot like an R-rated movie.
It was all just Gore and Bush.

*drumfill*

[Guest cloricus]

Go to [url=www.google.com]google.com[/url] and type in "miserable failure" exactly as you see it there with the "" and click I'm feeling lucky. Enjoy[url=http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog1206,0,2339508.story?coll=ny-business-headlines].[/url].[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm].[/url]

[The Vampire: Ed]

Personally, I don't like my presidents to be dumber than rocks. So I'm hoping he isn't reelected. I never really liked the idea of letting this man run anything, especially since he can just barely read a sentence without screwing it up. He also seems to have a bad case of ADD. I've noticed him, on several occasions, just staring off into space in between words or when he should be paying attention to other speakers.