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

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]I know and that's stupid, they should hate him [i]because[/i] of his policies. Though if that was aimed at me I'd like to state that it's not Bush that I disagree with, it's the people who create his policies. I'm sure Bush is a great guy and I really wouldn't mind meeting him with a small disagreement of what he allows to happen.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]The problem I have is that too many people seem to hate Bush in a [i]personal[/i] way, as if he's the personification of evil or something.

Whether you disagree with Bush or not, his intentions are noble. It's the execution where everybody differs. Obviously everyone wants to stop terrorism...but we all have different thoughts on how it could/should be done.[/color][quote][b]

James you point out holes in my arguments but hardly ever support it and when you do it's normally from bias sources and you do not present the "other side" of the argument so based on this and my access to large amounts of news sources on the internet plus analytical evidence on tv from people who are in Iraq I base my views. Their views haven't changed so neither have mine, I like to follow reality.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]How do I not support my views any less than you? You never support your views. It's always "I think" or "I'm not sure if" or "that could be wrong but".

Firstly, I do cite sources for my information when it is necessary. Secondly, if you [i]want[/i] me to cite more sources, I'll be happy to. The reason I don't cite more is because nobody else does.

Thirdly...you [i]obviously[/i] aren't consuming a lot of objective news. Either that, or you are misinterpreting the news. I think the latter is the bigger problem. You constantly make erroneous statements about the situation in Iraq. And you constantly spew an extremely biased and unfounded political rhetoric. It sounds like you're simply regurgitating something from ABC or whatever.

And I take issue with that. And it's why I will continue to point out the flaws in your arguments -- not to be mean or confrontational, but to encourage you to see the other side. I [i]do[/i] see the other side and I [i]have[/i] discussed the negatives about Iraq. The difference is that I'm talking about realistic standards...you're not. I'm not trying to be confrontational, as I said. I'm just trying to get you to be more objective.[/color][quote][b]

Also Saddam was a dictator, not a terrorist. I believe the average dictionary should support that? Though really we should keep off this topic considering it lowers Bushs "niceness factor" since there are several worse dictators in the world and he hasn't even thought about (or has rejected) the idea of "removing" them. This shows he?s not doing it for the people.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Well, this is just another Cloricus-esque comment. Do I dare deconstruct it?

Firstly, let's look at the word "terrorist":

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

adj.
Of or relating to terrorism.

This definition comes from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Here's another definition, from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

\Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.] One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke.

Here's [i]another[/i] definition, from Princeton University's WordNet:

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

Now tell me, Cloricus...is Saddam Hussein a terrorist or not? You bet he is.

Secondly, let me briefly mention your comment about Bush not removing "worse" dictators. Do you need me to tell you how utterly sweeping and indiscriminate that comment is?

You are assuming that all dictators are the same, by that standard. That removing each one has the same outcome and that removing each one requires similar resources.

We already [i]know[/i] why the North Korean dictator hasn't been removed -- because he has 30,000 pieces of artillery aimed at Seoul. Within hours, he could murder millions of South Koreans.

I don't even know where to begin with this. There are just so many variations with each situation -- Iraq is a particular set of circumstances. It's not some cookie-cutter operation. For you to make a comment like that only demonstrates a lack of understanding when it comes to geopolitical issues.

[/color][quote][b]

I hope to god that America has some one better than Bush other wise I fear for how such a good country America is could end up...[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Again, a Cloricus-esque comment. Where is your support, Cloricus? Where's your evidence that he's bad for America?

Are you going to debate me on Iraq [i]again[/i], with the same tired "arguments"? Or are you going to clumsily walk me through the state of the US economy?

If you are going to try and debate with me, Cloricus...and [i]especially[/i] if you're going to critique the credibility of my statements, it's worth knowing that you are setting yourself up for a very long discussion.[/color][quote][b]

[added]

Heaven's Cloud's I think you need to take a history lesson, I'm not even American and I know the past events that caused the Muslim world to dislike America, they are simple. America screwed them over in the past and they are still doing it, Afghanistan is a reck now and Bush promised to fund them and help them which he hasn't done, oh wait he officially "forgot to". There are now new very strong people there that are extremely anti-American so now in stead of one osama bin laden you have three to replace him who are all pissed for a very good reason! The simplest way for America to fix this is not to go off and kill these people it's to go to them and see what they want changed because America is the aggressor here; it has been for over 40 years, so they are the ones that have to move on their position. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]America screwed them over and they still are? Give me some facts to back that up, Cloricus.

And what are you talking about with "forgot to"? Are you forgetting the millions of dollars that the United States and its allies have contributed to Afghanistan [b]this year[/b]?

Are you forgetting that America has now committed further troops to Afghanistan?

Apparently so.

Your second contention is absolutely, [i]utterly[/i] careless.

America has been the aggressor for 40 years? What history books are you reading? Do you have [i]any[/i] idea how bizarre that statement is? Again, please support it with facts and examples.

And further...you expect Bush to sit down and have a friendly chat with bin Laden? Do you even begin to understand bin Laden's motivations for attacking the United States?

The [i]reason[/i] -- the primary reason -- why bin Laden is out for the US is because the US used Saudi Arabian soil as a launching pad to [b]expel Iraqi invaders from Kuwait[/b] in the Gulf War. He was offended that Americans had been placed in the Holy Land. And that's where it started.

Did he care that Kuwait was being invaded? No. Does he care about the Palsetineans? No. That is a complete and utter excuse. If he didn't have that, he'd find something else.

bin Laden is a religious zealot -- he's no different from some right wing idiot who shoots a doctor outside an abortion clinic. It's the same deal. It is a question of religious zeal and religious zeal [i]only[/i].

The only difference is that people like bin Laden are able to spread their venomous messages throughout the Middle East -- to people who are often uneducated and impoverished -- and thus, he's able to recruit them. He offers them a head full of propaganda, offers a little warmth and food and he has them.

And that doesn't even begin to mention the hardcore religious schools throughout the Middle East, who teach hate of Jews and western powers.

Cloricus, I think that you are a personification of the naivete that the protestors in London have recently displayed. Your post here completely proves it. You haven't shown a single, cohesive thought that demonstrates an understanding of 20th century history. You've frequently and predictably misinterpreted the news. And you have selective hearing/reading skills.

I'm sorry, but posts like your last one are just so full of error and misnoma that I can't help but feel hopeless about it.[/color]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo]Edit: Dagger, what is your point? I strayed off topic a bit, granted, but I didn't need a history lesson that isn't accurate. The reason why we are attacked by middle eastern terrorists is because we (the US) have a constant habbit of muddling in their affairs and exploiting their economies. We have chosen sides in civil wars and supplied weapons to further our own agendas. That is why terrorists hate us, not because of the Crusades. Sure Bin Laden might reference the Crusades and the injustice that occured at the hands of the infidels, but never once has a terrorrist bombed us because America had anything to do with the Crusades. Sorry to be so harsh but jeez, use some common sense[/color][/B][/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to say that terrorists are motivated solely by the Crusades, because that clearly can't be true. And I don't agree with all of TN's statements, but it wasn't entirely inappropriate for him to mention the Crusades, considering that Bin Laden (as you said) also does so. Radical Muslims are angry at the US not only for its actions in their homelands, but also because it represents all the cultural and military clashes between the West and the Middle East which have taken place over the centuries. America's social environment is almost a caricature of everything that conservative Islam claims to oppose. The Crusades ultimately have very little to do with anything, and I apologize if I made it seem otherwise. However, I think it would be safe to say that most terrorists hate America for the reasons you listed, [i]and[/i] because they harbor a deep grudge--that they have been taught to carry since they were children--against the Western world.... in part for the violent history that it shares with them, which does include the Crusades. They're not a primary factor or anything, just one small reason amidst a whole sea of motivations.

I agree, James--people love to hate Bush. Most Democrats are still [i]very[/i] bitter about his electoral victory. Petty though it may be, they refuse to let go. Bush-hating stems from a certain liberal mob mentality which makes me, as a liberal, very uncomfortable. I wish that people would think more before they speak, and criticize Bush's policies, not his personality.

~Dagger~

[Transtic Nerve]

Hitler did far worse things... and even some of what you mentioned as far as killing and gassing people, yet I've never once seen Hitler called a terrorist.... I've heard Hitler called a murderer, a dictator, and pretty much everything BUT a terrorist. I think anyone considers Saddam as a terroriist is because it seems only Muslims get that title. In fact the only time I've ever heard the word terrorist apply to anyone but Muslim people was in North Korea and the Die Hard movies.

So why don't we call Hitler a terrorist when it's pretty obvious he's been related to Saddam Hussein, done similar things, yet you refer to Saddam as a terrorist and not Hitler. Why not refer to Saddam as you did Hitler... a murderer and a dictator.... I'm very confused on this matter, would someone please tell me?

Anyway, I have no personal vandetta with Bush, just with his crappy brother.... but he's still a bad president... He's no where near Clinton... he's no where near his fathe ror half the other preisdents we've had.

[Raiha]

[color=royalblue]Why are we talking about Hitler? He WAS German. We're talking about Saddam Hussein. He's Iraqui.

Hitler's dead. Saddam is more than likely alive. Therefore, he still has the, pardon the cliche, potential to kill people. We're not worried about dead German dictators, we're worried about living terrorists with extreme hatred against the U.S. And it is on that claim and a few others that we base this war.

So deal.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Raiha [/i]
[B][color=royalblue]Why are we talking about Hitler? He WAS German. We're talking about Saddam Hussein. He's Iraqui.

Hitler's dead. Saddam is more than likely alive. Therefore, he still has the, pardon the cliche, potential to kill people. We're not worried about dead German dictators, we're worried about living terrorists with extreme hatred against the U.S. And it is on that claim and a few others that we base this war.

So deal.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

I was comparing the two and what they've done, which has been similar, and asking why they are considered two different things... I've quite aware Hitler is dead.... but what he's done still remains in our minds.... Saddam is still alive, but what he's done still remains as well, therefor I am comparing the two.... and why does it matter they are from two different countries?.... Hitler was Austrian too, not German.

[Raiha]

[color=royalblue]Oh pfoo. The important part here is that he's from Europe, which we currently have no beef with.

Terrorism in itself is a relatively new term. During WW2, terrorism wasn't a widespread thing. And if you think about it, we didn't even care about racism until it got a bad name from Hitler. Anyways while there is no difference, maybe it doesn't really matter. They're [were] both insane and rather....evil people.[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

So what if he's not a terrorist? He's still a dictator, and a murderer.

It's almost funny how people go on talking about stuff that they have very little to no knoweldge about.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
The administration lied to us about weapons of mass destruction.... none have yet to be found,
[/quote]Too bad they DID find weapons of mass destruction. You see, the traced the uranium that WAS found to a bunch of plants that the Iraqies claimed were power plants. But our investigators found that they were storing war-heads, AND making them.

I laughed when I first heard this. News 13. What happened is that they mentioned it briefly, in like 10 seconds, showing a map with little flashing circles where they factories were located. There was 3 of them, with 2 of them realitivly close, and one kinda north-west of it.
[quote] yet on average, 2 soldiers die every day..... and for what cause? Hussein was also found to have no links to Osama Bin Laden or the 9/11 attacks, or any recent terrorism we've encountered.
[/quote]Besides funding them.

The reason why we have soldiers in there is because that much of the country is still in havoc. It is stupid, mindless people who are lead around by a biased media that attack our army. It is also Sadam followers, and People who think that Sadam will return who attack the American soldiers. Mostly out of fear that Somehow, Sadam will return, and they are PLUM TERRIFIED of him! Sadam was a dictator. When one town spoke out against him, he used chemical weapons on the poor little place, killing almost all the population. Just because that little town's majority didn't agree with him, now they ALL had to suffer. The entire country of Iraq was in fear of him.
[quote] In fact the only logical thing to go into this war was for a humanitary cause to stop Hussien from killing Kurds... but they never mentioned that when we went into this war.....
[/quote] This is a common mis-understanding. The reason why Bush went into Iraq is this one little saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Most people who know little say that we were completely blind to this terrorist attack. This is not true. Back when Bill was president, they knew of Alcada, and the terrorists, and knew that they were trying to make a move. But that was shrugged off as merely people who mindlessly are against America, and wasn't seen. Well, apparently someone in this little group took action, and now we have lost thousands of people and 2 of the most important buildings in the US. Now, knowing that Saddam had chemical weapons, and no hesitation to use them. Saddam has NEVER liked the US, and Bush had very little to no tolerance for it. Last time that a person with resources and power was ignored, we suffered. Making that same mistake again is not an option, especially since he was more vocal in his hatred for America. Not blind fear, nor non-liking, but HATRED: a severe dis-taste with a passion. A passion so strong that he actually went out of his way and tried to fire on America at the end of Clinton's run. That's why he bombed them at the end! That, and to try to take attention away from his many affairs, but he still had a good cause.. The report that uranium, which WAS found, being imported from Africa to Iraq was the last straw. So we made extream demands. He failed to meet them, and then we attacked.

What you don't hear is all the people who are supportive of Bush. Iraq, although many moraless indeviduals are taking advantage of the current situation, is quite happy that someone who would kill them for something such as speaking out against him without hesitation was gone.

[quote]that and the whole oil thing. Which has obviously been a big part in the reasoning for the war... I purely think this war is based on revenge and the fact that Bush needed "something to do" because he doesn't want to deal with our slumpy economy or the fact he can't seem to find Osama Bin Laden.[/quote] While the oil is appealing to some, all the oil that was extraced from Iraq was givin right back to the people! He's not collecting anything! The troops we have over there aren't equiped to bring back oil! It is obvious that we aren't gaining any money off of this. Revenge or not, Saddam hated America ever siince he came to power. Our economy was actually starting to drop before he was elected, and was dropping before he really had any say in the matter. The reason for this is because Clinton thought that our economy was growing way to fast, and tried to slow it down. But what experts didn't predict is that if you slow down something that is rising steeply and rapidly, that it will stall and then plummit, catching itself on the near brink of destruction, and then re-aligning itself very unstabally. If you know aerodynamics, then you'll know what I'm talking about. Good ole Planes do the same thing.


[quote]The economy is bad because of a few things. The 9/11 attacks, and Bush's economic policy. [/quote]
The economy was dropping before he was elected.
[quote]We WERE coming out of a depression, but that all changed after everyone got "affraid" and Bush gave all that money back to everyone, not to mention tax cuts for the rich, and so on.[/quote]
The tax cut for the riches was working. Here's what it would do: the rich people would spend more money on stuff now that they had more money, and then more money is circulating into the nation, and thus the economy rises. It was working fine. But then again, 2 buildings kinda through it off.
[quote] Put it this way, the economy might be in a slump because of some cycle, but Bush has only made it worse with his economic policies. WHich has made the economy worse and not helping it recover.... All he's said about the economy is "spend your money"... lol How pathetic.
[/quote]If you honestly don't know how spending your money would help the economy, then I pity you. I explained above: more money into our workplace, and our services, thus, the economy rises. It's that simple! But NOOOOO. People out of fear take all their money and SAVE instead of spend. If money is sitting in your pocket, it's doing nothing. Thus, it cannot help anyone in anyway. My family bought a house. A house! That means that thousands and THOUSANDS of dollars are now in the workplace, and thus our economy is now Thousands and THOUSANDSANDS richer. Not spending things was what led our nation into a great depression long ago.
[quote]And then he goes off and ignores the problem hoping it to get better and it hasn't. He said we couldn't just ignore Saddam hussien or he'll get worse... well instead he ignored out economy, and looks where his advice got us.[/quote] That's the thing: He isn't. It's said like 100% of everything he ever does is about the war. That is not true. Just because you don't know what he's doing, doesn't mean he's doing nothing. There are 24 hours each day, and you stay awake for about 14. With those little side things aside, he can spend about 4 or 5 hours every day making decisions. And not all those decisions are about war.

[quote]His job as president is to deal with his country first and foremost, and an overseas war about seemingly nothing and ignoring our economy is not doing that job at all.
[/quote]Guess what he is doing and you just don't know it? He's dealing with our country. You just don't know it, and you ASSUME he isn't doing anything.
[quote]He's lied several times to the American people[/quote]I would gladly like to know where you got this info, because I couldn't find anything.
[quote], he took it in his own hands after the world disagreed to go ahead with the use of force on Iraq, gaining us potential enemies in powerful countries, not to mention having the rest of the Muslim world hate us even more. I see nothing good coming from this presidency...[/QUOTE] Too bad only 1 nation didn't agree with him. Out of the UN, it has to be a simultaneous agreement, or no action can be taken. This is being debated. The French, as you might have known I was a little angry towards about a year or so ago, was the only nation that didn't support the war against Saddam. Reason is wine. That's it. Saddam was giving the French a lot of money for their little acomodies. The UN was pretty much the only nations that the US consulted, because most others didn't want to get involved, nor couldn't really take any action. So because one nation didn't agree, no action could be taken by the UN. So this one country screwed it up.

Then theirs the Muslims. The few that don't like America are the liberal bunch. Most don't mind America. They think their just fine. Remember when Osama said that all true muslims were celebrating that day? Well, none were. Or very very few. The actions of few do NOT determin the motives of the all. And considering that we freed them from a dictator who would kill them in an instant, most were very happy. The only reason why they didn't support America when we first invades is fear. But no one liked Iraq. The only reason why any NEW enemies would form is from paranoia.



[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James[/i]
The biggest problem surrounding the war isn't what President Bush is doing; it's the misinformation that exists, particularly on the part of anti-war campaigners. It's fine to be anti-war. Hell, I'm anti-war myself. Who would be "pro-war"? The label itself is a stupid one. The question isn't whether one likes or wants war, but whether or not war is necessary[/QUOTE]

Us republicans are givin a bad name because of this. I said almost the exact same words to my history class on wednesday. What happened was I saw a poster with demorcrats on one side, and republicans on the other. It said that democrats hated war, and Republicans liked war. I was so ticked off that I almost tore down that poster.

But on other things: Most people make judgements on the facts that they know nothing. Lets take the fact that he is going to use about 87 BILLION dollars to help Iraq. Do I think it's too much? Of course! But atleast I know what I don't know. Quiz of the day: why does an educated man come to the conclusion that it would take such a large amount of money to rebuild a country? He knows EVERYTHING that you don't. There are purposes of why he, and a good some of the senate and house of represenatives agree that this money should be used. A purpose that you do not know, and would simply refuse to except if you heard because unless you are there, you understand little. You would have to be the head of a major company, or something like that to grasp an idea.

The law against abortions: media-warped. Originally, he made a law, which was proposed, and the house of represenatives and senate agreed with, to bad [u]Partial Birth Abortions[/u], which was an act of which the mother would partially give birth to the baby, only to have the doctor either gore it with a metal rod or needle, slice it's head open with a knife, or crush it's head with his bare hands while it kicks and screams, and is still in you. WTF? Why would ANYONE support this? This isn't against abortions, but only a certain type of abortion. How it would medically help you besides the more humain abortions is beyond me. Abortion is to prevent a hazardess birth. But if you're already giving birth, then why have the abortion, especially one as emotionally damaging and sickening like this, where you SEE this doctor murder another being, which is helpless, and dies because you rejected it.

There are 3 "inaliable rights": Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness IN THAT ORDER. You can still be happy if you can't have babies anymore. But even then, you are taking away the LIFE, the most IMPORTANT INALIABLE RIGHT way from something that is inside you. There is NO debate on whether the thing that's partially in the mother, which has it's own organs, geder, hair, kicks and screams and struggles because it's now partially outside the mother is a human being or not. This law against partial birth abortians is a law against murdering. Doing so under any circumstance unless the threatening of YOUR life and nothing more is murder. Regardless of what the baby would do, you would be called a vigilanty, and are still murdering something.

The reason why he doesn't support gay marriages is because their unconstitutional. Unconstitutional itself is a poor blanket term that has no definate meaning. Marriage is defined as the legal union between a man and woman. So two men nor two women can get married. What the word can be warped around now doesn't matter. What matters is the bases on which the laws were made. Simple as that! But now this constitution which so many are abiding by is being changed! Why couldn't they just change it for the monument or something else small and meaningless like that? So it's being changed, something that was a minute ago so set in stone is now being re-written to suit the wants of a minority.



Bush isn't perfect people. I don't know if you know this or not, but 9/11 is going down in the history books. Bush had a plan, which was working. He had an idea on what to do, on many issues that could possibly come up. He didn't go into presidency knowing absolutly nothing, as many claim. He thought about it for years, consulted many issues, was prepared for a presidancy, as with praticaly every president we've had so far. They don't just walts into something this big. But guess what? Some rouge muslim decided to get his followers up, and blow up the trade center, and hit the pentagon. That means that your plans that were once working, or could've worked in the future are now smashed. People are scared, media is making up stories to feed off of the fear for ratings. You are know faced with a history-writing decision(s). You have to decide what to do about the buildings, the deaths, the fear, the drop in economy which was barely rising before, the lack of transpertation across the entire nation, costing millions, the terrorist group over in Afghanistan, and the costs to fix all these, and to eliminate the threat of terrorists, who were once thought just as empty-threats and just happend to strike very effectivly, the soldiers, the costs of getting them there, the resources, their families, the calming of the nation. And you have to do it RIGHT NOW! There's not time for years of planning and ideas and gathering of information! You are faced with a decision which will impact the future of more than one nation for a very long time, and a very complicated one at that. You weren't prepaired for this! Nothing you would've researched, or did reports on could help you now. And you have to talk now. You have to inspire courage amongts a large group of people, which as you know a large group of people are very panicky and dumb. You have to GUESS what will sound right, or else you will just be hurting your nation. There WILL be people who will go against any decision you make, just because it's you and you don't know why. There's pointless, dumb rumors that you did this on purpose by Remote control. Your stepping up to the podium now, with a poor speach-writer, your ideas on this, what your going to do, and you have no time to decide. You make one of the most important decisions throughout history right now. You've got about a day or 2 to think while doing other things, and thinking about them. Your economy is plumiting through a very costly disaster, and a natural cycle. Your plans which were barely beginning to work aren't, and people don't see that. You now look into the eys of millions of terrified people, and you have to do it now.

Not so easy, is it? Do you think that being a president under all these circumstances is anywhere near somewhat easy in certain areas? Nope. Very few rulers in existance have ever had to give out such important decisions. And these decisions have impacted nations drastically. And now you MUST make one.

But wait! You take action, and the majority agrees. Then you find that Sadam had funded to a certain extent. You're now ticked off. He's threatened this nation more than once, and even tried to take action a few times. He's a dictator: something that history has NEVER had an account of being anything but horrible. He's got chemical weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons. He threatens you. His nation is scared of their own ruler. No one likes him. He's even more of a canditate to attack you then this little group of people that he had funded. Last time that the issue was ignored, and now you are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Now, an even more potential enemy that has been nipping at your heels for as long as he's been there gets himself a fresh shipment of uranium from Africa, the same metal that is used to make atomic bombs, and has been proven to work *coughheroshimacough*. Your, and many others of the house of represenitives and senate, suspicions can once again effect the entire nation. If you don't take action, the same thing might happen again even more severe since our nation is now weaker than ever. It might not, which is very unlikely, because he tried it before, and would very gladly like to wipe the worlds most powerful, or very close to most powerful nation clean off the map. If it does, and you do nothing, you will be labeld as a coward and an idiot in history for not doing anything. There are instances of little terrorist acts, such as anthrax spores and mail-bombings. Citizens are now in fear, and your words would do little to comfort them, which you cannot voice effectivly due to circumstances. If you do something about it, and DO find stuff, you will not be justified because of the thousands of these tree-hugging peace lovers don't agree with you because of their 70s Flower-child thinking. But regardless, you would've stopped a madman with very destructive weapons. If you do do something, and you find nothing, you will be labeled a pro-war idiot, regardless of your knowledge and intentions on the matter. So now, another decision. Take all the factors I mentioned in the other paragraph, and ADD more to it! Now this is what your dealing with. An impossibility to please everyone. Either way, you will be labeled undesireably. A lose lose situation. So now you must chose. So you send inspectors to find proof. If something is found, then you act on that. While inspectors don't find anything, satelites and spy veichals do. They see trucks filled with who knows what moving each time inspections are going to occur in that area away from it. So now you actually DO have proof. Then you MUST decide. You've got like.. what?... a month? That's not enough! So you go with better safe than sorry. To protect your nation against any perils that it could face in the future, and inevitably will. So you go with being labeled pro-war, agressive, and a grudge holder. Your poor speach writer is not helping. People take what you say out of context. Protestors are now in the streets causing trafic problems. You ask for help from the UN, another powerful group that doesn't like Iraq. But because of the unanimous decision that has to be made, they cannot support because France won't attack him because of money, and probably not much else. Not to mention he's already killing allies in other countries. They are too weak, pheable, and don't want to get involved. Other countries already don't like you, or simply wouldn't be able to support you. Your nation doesn't properly understand the issue. So you attack, people die, your nation starts rumors again, and then Saddam dissapears, and is no longer in command of his nation. The people who once brought on to hate you celebrate that they are now free from fear from Saddam. But now that the laws are now void, the country enters chaos. You now must keep your soldiers in this country to calm it down. Your advisors give all the ideas that they can, and you must decide. No matter what you do, people won't be happy. So your spending money, and trying to manage your own country at the same time. Every liberal dislikes you. You are faced with judges who just plain love to deem everything unconstitutional. Soldiers die every day from rougue Iraqies. And YOU are held responsible. But you are helping Iraq reconstruct itself, and that's what matters. Regardless of their ruler, or their fear of him, there was order in Iraq when Saddam was there. Feared order, but it was in control. Now you come in, and eliminate a dictator. People are now happier, but now the country is in chaos. So if you were to leave, you would be known as a man who threw an entire nation into chaos, and the only reason that would be stated by the liberals who obviously don't like you is that you had your daddies grudge. So you cannot. You try a bunch of diffferent approaches. Most which work, but oh man the rumors! You words are dis-regarded. People make assumptions based off of no knowledge. So now it comes down to cold hard cash. Now the economy is still slowley rising and falling periodically, and then the new-election is comeing up.

Looking at this, can you tell me that he didn't preform to the best of his abilities? Can you say he was laxitive on issues? Can you say that he wasn't fit to be president BEFORE this occured? [i]Can you say that any man that walks the earth now would be fit to handle this very important situation without a shadow of a doubt on it[/i]? Can you say he took it easy? Can you say he didn't try to lift our spirits in dire times? Can you say he just ignored our economy and concentrated on Iraq? Can you say that he was a horrible president during this time? How can you say that he was a bad president, after he handeled these situations. What about if 9/11 never happened? After all that I pointed out that you didn't consider. No one consideres what I've said. Not even me half the time. I didn't even think about half of this stuff until I came here and wrote it.

And if we elect another president, he's gonna have to decide on the issues of the war, FROM SECOND PERSON! Which is a lot harder, mind you, then actually being there. Everything I've said above is now dropped onto another mans shoulders. A man who had no experience with what's going on. A man who wasn't there. Now this NEW person has to face all the psychological stress of being a president. People, George W. Bush isn't the new president that he was before. He's grown. He's experienced. He has time for plans now. Time to go and eat dinner with his wife because he isn't as pressured anymore. He's not new. He's been broken into what a president should be. This, is why I am going to vote for him if he runs again.

That, and Al Gore did lie a whole lot during his campaign.

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]Obviously everyone wants to stop terrorism.[/quote]Do they?

[quote]Now tell me, Cloricus...is Saddam Hussein a terrorist or not?[/quote]No he is not, surely you would not have based that on you?re references [i]if[/i] you had searched for the definition of terrorism. "One who governs by terrorism." What a board generalisation, I?ll specify from your source.

ter?ror?ism
The [b]unlawful[/b] use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property [i]with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments[/i], often for ideological or political reasons.

I know it?s only on technicality but in the interest of protecting what I said and improving my replies I believe you will find that this shows that Saddam was not in fact a terrorist since he [i]was[/i] the government and it was therefore entirely legal and protected by the society. (Even though the Kurds did not consider Iraq to be part of their area the Saddam regime still covered their land so claims that he was a terrorist in that area are still incorrect based on the above definition.)
So don?t you think the following fits him better?

dic?ta?tor
1. An absolute ruler.
2. A tyrant; a despot.

[quote]We already know why the North Korean dictator hasn't been removed.[/quote]Who said North Korea? I?m talking about places that the people are crying out for help and are tiny and powerless compared to a country as powerful as America, most of which would be easier to ?liberate? than Iraq. Or did you forget about Saudi Arabia which has a horrible Islamic dictatorship which even bans dolls because they came from Jews! What about Burma which constantly and blatantly disregards the basic human rights and keeps the major political opponent under house arrest. Should we look at Zimbabwe where whites are killed in the streets and key political opponents are arrested under the orders from the government, which I?ll note isn?t proven but entirely believable, and beaten for weeks at a time which is proven. I think we?ll just leave Chilli, I don?t even want to think about that - if I do I might get shot. Even one that?s [b]yelling[/b] for help [i]now[/i] is being [url=http://www.iht.com/articles/115235.html]ignored[/url]. There are scores of countries around the world all in this position! So why Iraq?

[quote]Where's your evidence that he's bad for America?[/quote]Did I say he was bad for America in the eyes of its people? He might be perfect and for all I care he could be a cat! All I?m saying is what I said, his actions are having a negative effect on [url=http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2003/s874512.htm]certain area?s[/url] and if they don?t have some one or a government team that can balance the load (effectively) they might be in a lot of trouble in the future.

[quote]Are you forgetting the millions of dollars that the United States and its allies have contributed to Afghanistan this year?[/quote]That?s nice, too bad it was a year later than promised and in response to damning criticism of Bush?s team [url=http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/03/11/opinion/7576.shtml]forgetting[/url] it.

[quote]America screwed them over[/quote]Sorry I should have mentioned that it was past tense, though the effects of Bush forgetting the first time are [url=http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/9.html]still[/url] being [url=http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/afghanistan/051403_bush_afghanistan.htm]felt[/url](M). When Bush originally went into Afghanistan he made promise to commit money and troop support but according to the several sources after the media attention left the pentagon denied requested from the Afghanistan council and high ranking American personnel for thousands more troops needed to secure more than the main city, he then started [url=http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2003/01/31/42828.html]removing[/url] them. Though it?s is good to see he finally did carry out his promise to contribute the money and troop?s that the country would need, though looking at some of these links it might be a bit late to convince the people that the original intensions were ?noble?.

[quote]You expect Bush to sit down and have a friendly chat with bin Laden?[/quote]Not at all, he?d be shot in the best case if he could ever find him, lol. Though in a documentary I watched about five months ago on SBS a French team talked to several of the key warlords and they say they are open anything including talking to the US which would seem the smart thing considering that they have a lot of power and sway.


I?ve sorry this doesn?t answer all of your rebuttals James but I haven?t included responses to things you expanded on that did not reflect what I believed I said and I hope that this clear up my points for my original criticism of how Bush?s administration governs.

[Brasil]

I'm going to ignore pretty much everything that has been said, for a few different reasons.

1) I don't have the time.
2) I can't stand reading that crap.
3) I feel dumber when I even glance over some of those page-long paragraphs. (Grammar and structure are your friends, people...just a word of wisdom.)

So, since I'm ignoring the "customary" reasons for disliking Bush...I dislike him because of the No Child Left Behind Act.

This is a recently proposed/enacted "bill" of sorts that requires high schools to maintain a relatively positive testing average, and heavily penalizes schools that "don't make the grade."

It seems that this act stemmed from some inane ideal that every child has the capacity to do well on exams. Anybody that attended any high school anywhere knows this isn't the case.

There are students who just don't get it, who just can't get it, and regardless of how much an instructor tries, or how much the instructor doesn't try, those students will never achieve the kind of testing capacity that No Child Left Behind desires.

It's quite foolish, really, to penalize an [i]entire[/i] high school because of a handful of braindead juniors who consistently fail chemistry exams.

The Bush Administration is inappropriately stepping in here, pushing the teachers and school admins around. It really makes me wonder why politicians think they know everything about what makes a classroom run properly. I would much rather leave school decisions up to admins and instructors, those who [i]are there on a very regular basis, and/or have first-hand experience on a day-to-day basis.[/i]

Do Bush and his cronies feel that they have a grasp on classroom environment because they happen to visit a small handful of schools in the country and have charts telling them what's going on?

I'm really interested to see just what those charts were...because, as we all know, many GPA statistics are drawn from standardized testing, and standardized testing is really not an appropriate grading tool for people to judge a school on. I mean, it discards all forms of human knowledge, just requiring that facts be spewed. There is very, very slim space for actual thought and human interaction. Considering the lack of human element in standardized testing, the lack of deeper thought, how can we accurately portray schools by standardized testing?

Simply?

Students are going to fail. Some are going to fail quite miserably. But does that give the Bush Admin the right to step-in and basically control everything? I don't see No Child Left Behind as a simple testing regulation; I see it as a very disturbing first step in stripping instructors of control.

McGreevey is already doing it. Even though Rutgers' theatre program got slammed with the budget cuts, and a few other programs got scaled back a lot, Rutgers got spared compared to other schools.

And McGreevey's proposal to merge Rutgers with some other local colleges, discarding the Rutgers name and forming a huge conglomerate college really makes me doubt just what politicians know.

Basically, Bush, I say to you, "Let we teachers teach. We know what's best for our students in a classroom. And when one of us is unsure of a course of action, there are other instructors in the school who can advise us. You stay in the Oval Office. We've got the classrooms covered."

EDIT: Being a classic rock 'n' roll fan, I notice the term "70s."

[quote][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider[/i]
[b]and DO find stuff, you will not be justified because of the thousands of these tree-hugging peace lovers don't agree with you because of their 70s Flower-child thinking.[/b][/quote]

Jesus Christ! Grow up! That sentence [i]alone[/i] perfectly illustrates just how much of a rhetoric-spewing fool you are. I mean, Christ! Get a clue! Do you realize how immature that one statement is? Do you realize how much of an idiot you look by saying it? Oh, and I'm sure you're going to reply with [i]another[/i] poorly written, boring, boorish, inane two page paragraph, right? Good for you, CS. You're a monkey on a typewriter.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoisonTongue [/i]
[B]I'm going to ignore pretty much everything that has been said, for a few different reasons.

So, since I'm ignoring the "customary" reasons for disliking Bush...I dislike him because of the No Child Left Behind Act.

This is a recently proposed/enacted "bill" of sorts that requires high schools to maintain a relatively positive testing average, and heavily penalizes schools that "don't make the grade."

It seems that this act stemmed from some inane ideal that every child has the capacity to do well on exams. Anybody that attended any high school anywhere knows this isn't the case.
[/B][/QUOTE]


[color=indigo]Education is usually my biggest qualm with nearly every political administration, whether local or National. It is no different with the Bush administration. He has done absolutely nothing to aide national education except attempt to implement stricter standardized testing laws. The No Child Left Behind Act was originally a decent principle, but it was so twisted and changed during legislation that it became a horrid monstrosity.

The bill was originally intended to provide additional funding to schools that exceeded standardized testing scores while at the same time encourage teacher workshops for schools that achieved at a below average. Granted, it still had some serious problems (namely the ones you mentioned about standardized testing being the bane of the learning process, which I wholeheartedly agree with), but at least it was pro-active. What ended up getting ole? G Dubs seal of approval was a perversion of the bill that didn?t really provide additional funding but, rather, could take away portions of national funds from schools that achieved poorly on the tests. That doesn?t make much sense in my mind.

Unfortunately, besides John Edwards (whose stance I am aware of because he is kind of a home town hero) I am unsure of the rest of the Democratic candidates? viewpoints on Education because it never seems to be worth more than a few blurbs in the papers and in the news. [/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Crimson Spider [/i]
[B]It's almost funny how people go on talking about stuff that they have very little to no knoweldge about. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, you tend to do that alot.

I'm not even going to try to respond to your post cause it's not worth my time to convince you how stupid you really are.

[Guest rttocs77]

Ok, so does everyone suppose we should just try having a tea party with Saddam and to just 'talk' things through.

There is always going to be some type of war going on, it's inevitable. It just so happens that the point of this 'war' happens to be a good one. We are trying to liberate the Iraqi people as a whole to improve the quality of life for them. Democrats notoriously slash army/navy/marine/intelligence budgets. *cough*clinton*cough*

I will only be 17 next election, but if I were 18 I would certainly vote for Bush.


Oh, and the economy is going up.

[Kent]

Well the economy has been on the rise for quite some time (roughly 3 or 4 quarters of growth), so hes got that going for him.

As for the terrorism... Im not sure Im really going to associate that with bush... regardless of who is president, terrorism is going to be a problem. So unless someone like dean gets the nomination and says, "I plan on leaving these people alone altogether." then I doubt terror will be an issue in my vote. (btw, leaving "them" alone is a bad idea as we learned with the uss cole and 9/11)

The main thing I will be looking for is discretion in a candidates views on some of the social issues that come up.

I will not support a socialist candidate, but I wouln't support a candidate that opposses school vouchers. Im also not gonna support anyone who is supporting the hold-up on the current medicare reform bills. (hell even the AARP is airing tv aids to support the bill (aarp is notoriously Democrate) yet, specifically, ted kennedy (D) is oppossing this bill.

So in the end I will be looking at where the candidate stands on the non-popular issues.

Bush still has a good chance with me.

[Transtic Nerve]

Economy going up is one thing..... the economy going up to where it was BEFORE.... thats totally different, and thats what is happening.... The economy was in much better shape BEFORE Bush came into office, it slumped down, and now on the rise back to where it was.... not to above where it previously was...

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]Yeah, you tend to do that alot.

I'm not even going to try to respond to your post cause it's not worth my time to convince you how stupid you really are. [/B][/QUOTE]

First, you are being very rude. I think you symbolize how hypocritical the majority of the Democratic party is. You expect everyone to act civil and polite, but the second someone says something you disagree with (and you are usually wrong about) you jump down their throat.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]Economy going up is one thing..... the economy going up to where it was BEFORE.... thats totally different, and thats what is happening.... The economy was in much better shape BEFORE Bush came into office, it slumped down, and now on the rise back to where it was.... not to above where it previously was... [/B][/QUOTE]

The economy was going down before Bush came into office. Maybe if you were involved in economics or knew anything about the history of the economy, you would know that.

Also, let it be known that I whole-heartedly agree with everything Crimson Spider said.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Do they?[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]Of course.[/color][quote][b]

No he is not, surely you would not have based that on you?re references [i]if[/i] you had searched for the definition of terrorism. "One who governs by terrorism." What a board generalisation, I?ll specify from your source.[/quote][/b]

[color=707875]Okay, we'll go by your own definition:[/color][quote][b]

ter?ror?ism
The [b]unlawful[/b] use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property [i]with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments[/i], often for ideological or political reasons.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Exactly. So? How does this not fit Saddam Hussein's actions in the past? And indeed, if Saddam has anything to do with the current terrorist situations in Iraq (at the very least he's probably bank rolling some of the operations there), then yes...of course he fits the definition.

Moreover, I gave you [i]three[/i] examples from three different sources.

And you've put "unlawful" in bold. How on Earth does this contradict or disprove my contention that Saddam is a terrorist?

Saddam used unlawful and threatened force against people and property. Your definition is as wide open as mine. The bottom line -- by my definition and your own -- is that Saddam Hussein [i]is[/i] a terrorist. All you're doing now is dancing around, playing semantics with me.[/color][quote][b]

I know it?s only on technicality but in the interest of protecting what I said and improving my replies I believe you will find that this shows that Saddam was not in fact a terrorist since he [i]was[/i] the government and it was therefore entirely legal and protected by the society. (Even though the Kurds did not consider Iraq to be part of their area the Saddam regime still covered their land so claims that he was a terrorist in that area are still incorrect based on the above definition.)
So don?t you think the following fits him better?[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Cloricus...this comment only proves that you totally ignored what I mentioned about Saddam's rise to power. Saddam used terrorist tactics to come to power.

Moreover, do you really think that just because he was the ruler of Iraq, that he was also acting legally? His actions in Iraq were often violations of Iraqi law -- murder and genocide aren't "legal" in Iraq afterall -- but that didn't stop him. Who was going to stop him, afterall?

You're now saying "don't you think this definition fits him better?" Yes...Saddam is a dictator. But he is [i]also[/i] a terrorist, by all definitions provided so far.[/color][quote][b]

dic?ta?tor
1. An absolute ruler.
2. A tyrant; a despot.

[/quote][/b][color=#707875]Yeah...again...so? What are you trying to prove? Of [i]course[/i] Saddam is a dictator. I never said he wasn't. I simply said that he is also a terrorist. Whether one definition fits him better than the other is irrelevant; he fits [i]both[/i] definitions.[/color][quote][b]

Who said North Korea? I?m talking about places that the people are crying out for help and are tiny and powerless compared to a country as powerful as America, most of which would be easier to ?liberate? than Iraq. Or did you forget about Saudi Arabia which has a horrible Islamic dictatorship which even bans dolls because they came from Jews! What about Burma which constantly and blatantly disregards the basic human rights and keeps the major political opponent under house arrest. Should we look at Zimbabwe where whites are killed in the streets and key political opponents are arrested under the orders from the government, which I?ll note isn?t proven but entirely believable, and beaten for weeks at a time which is proven. I think we?ll just leave Chilli, I don?t even want to think about that - if I do I might get shot. Even one that?s [b]yelling[/b] for help [i]now[/i] is being [url=http://www.iht.com/articles/115235.html]ignored[/url]. There are scores of countries around the world all in this position! So why Iraq?[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Yes, there are other regimes out there like Iraq. Of course.

But out of all the examples you've brought up, I'd wager than none were as cruel as the dictatorship in Iraq. It is estimated that each year under Saddam, some 30,000+ Iraqis were sent to prison and/or executed.

I'm not trying to downplay other scenarios around the world, but I'm saying that there are very clear reasons why Iraq was chosen. Not only were there concerns about Iraq's ability to threaten its neighbours (as much or moreso than its own citizens), but there was an [i]international mandate[/i] to take action against Iraq.

I'm not aware of any such mandates against countries like Chile or Burma.[/color][quote][b]

Did I say he was bad for America in the eyes of its people? He might be perfect and for all I care he could be a cat! All I?m saying is what I said, his actions are having a negative effect on [url=http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2003/s874512.htm]certain area?s[/url] and if they don?t have some one or a government team that can balance the load (effectively) they might be in a lot of trouble in the future.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Cloricus, you cannot sit there and talk to me about Bush and his domestic politics and then somehow claim that you weren't making certain assertions. That just doesn't seem right to me.

In terms of the international viewpoint...I read the article you linked to. It doesn't surprise me. Is your point simply that a consequence of Bush's actions in Iraq is that America will become less popular internationally?

If that's the case, I agree. But unfortunately, that's often the price you pay when you are involved in a military conflict of this nature. Does it mean that the conflict itself isn't justified, or that a vast majority of "America-haters" are either behaving in a naive fashion or are being fed propaganda? No, I'd say not.[/color][quote][b]

That?s nice, too bad it was a year later than promised and in response to damning criticism of Bush?s team [url=http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2003/03/11/opinion/7576.shtml]forgetting[/url] it.[/quote][/b][/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]There are two points I'd make about this. Firstly, just look at the publications you're pointing me to. Project Censored? Come on! Most of this stuff is insanely biased.

Secondly, the situation in Afghanistan is not one for the US alone; Afghanistan has largely been "internationalised" since the changeover to a provisional government. Again, I'm not trying to paint the US contribution as perfect or even adequate. I'm simply saying that it's not fair to attack the US frequently over these issues -- nor is it fair to question America's motives all the time, particularly when it's being done in a decidedly unfair fashion.[/color][quote][b]

Sorry I should have mentioned that it was past tense, though the effects of Bush forgetting the first time are [url=http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/9.html]still[/url] being [url=http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/afghanistan/051403_bush_afghanistan.htm]felt[/url](M). When Bush originally went into Afghanistan he made promise to commit money and troop support but according to the several sources after the media attention left the pentagon denied requested from the Afghanistan council and high ranking American personnel for thousands more troops needed to secure more than the main city, he then started [url=http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/2003/01/31/42828.html]removing[/url] them. Though it?s is good to see he finally did carry out his promise to contribute the money and troop?s that the country would need, though looking at some of these links it might be a bit late to convince the people that the original intensions were ?noble?.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]That's an incredibly cynical and predictable viewpoint, Cloricus.

So, because the United States hasn't handled everything perfectly, this casts doubt on their original intentions? Give me a break. If you're actually [i]happy[/i] that the Taliban and Al Qaeda had Afghanistan in their venomous grip for so long, that's fine. But I don't share your opinion.[/color][quote][b]

Not at all, he?d be shot in the best case if he could ever find him, lol. Though in a documentary I watched about five months ago on SBS a French team talked to several of the key warlords and they say they are open anything including talking to the US which would seem the smart thing considering that they have a lot of power and sway.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Yeah...that's right. It seems to me that right now, the Governing Council is trying to talk to the warlords and arrange a situation whereby they submit to elections in their own provincial areas.[/color][quote][b]


I?ve sorry this doesn?t answer all of your rebuttals James but I haven?t included responses to things you expanded on that did not reflect what I believed I said and I hope that this clear up my points for my original criticism of how Bush?s administration governs. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Well, Cloricus...I'm only going by what you write here. If you are unable to convey your views clearly, then don't convey them at all.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's a fundametnally flawed position. You consume a huge amount of ABC-esque media tripe and you seem to frequently try to bash America at any stage. But I don't think you've shown much of an understanding of Bush's policies, nor do I feel that you've demonstrated an understanding of International law issues.

So, my opinion on that really hasn't changed. [/color]

[outlawstar69]

Spider, I'm not even going to point out all that's wrong with what you have in your post.... agreeing with poisen toungue; and to quote from a book i've read before (it's not an exact quote, but oh well)

Utopia:
"Why is it that you don't see wise men in counsel with the king, on their courts? Because they know they will not be heard. If all of the village would be standing outside in the rain; they know that going out to tell them to come in only leads to them getting wet as well, from experience. So they stay in, and make their wisdom grow, by themselves."

Hey, why don't you actually post some sources or citations? Where's your proof? If you want some books to read (with, gasp, prooven sources) go read "Lies, And the Lying Lyars Who Tell Them", by Al Franken, and "Dude, Where's My Country?", by Michael Moore. They are both good, witty (michael more than al) and actually have proof to back up what they say. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about here?

[Guest rttocs77]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by outlawstar69 [/i]
[B] If you want some books to read (with, gasp, prooven sources) go read "Lies, And the Lying Lyars Who Tell Them", by Al Franken, and "Dude, Where's My Country?", by Michael Moore. They are both good, witty (michael more than al) and actually have proof to back up what they say. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about here? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, in case you did not know, quite a few conservatives have also written books with *gasp* proven facts!

1) Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism
by Sean Hannity

2) Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First by Mona Charen

3) Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security
by Robert Patterson

4) The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture
by Michael Savage

Just to name a few. You still also didn't state any facts right there so your complete arguement is practically void. :D

Better luck next time.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[COLOR=deeppink]I'm not going to go intothis big speil about how Bush is the dumbest thing to hit the whitehouse since Dan Quaile (of course I was really little when they brought him on board, but hey, I needed a euthamism!)
I Do really want to mention that altho this war may be doing some good for the Shiite muslim tribes in Iraq and everyone is getting new schools and such I really hate it.
I agreed with Natalie Maines when she said she was ashamed that Bush was from Texas and I wish she hadn't taken back such a comment. Yet I supported our soldiers (many of whom I know personally) when they were sent over to Iraq and I will continue to support them. These men and women didn't choose to go over there. Some guy who spent Nam patrolling the skies over Texas did that.
I'm simply going to use a quote that Good ole' George W. Bush told ABC news back in 1999 when he was still govenor of Texas. [quote][b]?I don?t think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military would take a second look at the decision they made.?[/b][/quote]
Yes, it seems rather silly to dislike the guy because of his veiws on a religion that people practice. But think of it this way. He said this when he was govenor, imagine if he did get it in his pinhead to do something like this now that he's commander in cheif.
He's too conservative and too backwards. He wants to outlaw everything he doesn't agree with.
I believe Shakesphere put it best in Julius Ceasare-Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely[/COLOR]

[outlawstar69]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]Well, in case you did not know, quite a few conservatives have also written books with *gasp* proven facts!

1) Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism
by Sean Hannity

2) Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First by Mona Charen

3) Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Endangered America's Long-Term National Security
by Robert Patterson

4) The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture
by Michael Savage

Just to name a few. You still also didn't state any facts right there so your complete arguement is practically void. :D

Better luck next time. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I'd have to say that I didn't post any facts because I didn't post anything that needed them. What I posted was pure opinion there. Now, had I posted something that rewuired facts, like as in a date, or details to a certain event, then yes, I would have posted them. In any case, I said which books to read that actually had FACTS in them. I need not post the contents of an entire book, I believe. (Besides, the one I would post quotes out of, the one bt Michael Moore, was borrowed from a friend. He has it back already.) I wouldn't want to post anything that I could not be sure of the complete validity.

Oh yes, and about your book choice number 3: how is it that you believe Clinton endangered our security? As I recall, the Clinton Admin. left behind when they left several warnings to the new bush admin. concerning Al-Queda (sp?) . While Bush jr. was in office, there were even reports by CIA Director Tenet about how al-Queda could be planning to hijack airplanes, delivered to said president on August 6th of 2001. Do you want to know where the president was? In Texas, on the longest presidential vacation in over 32 years. Doesn't that give you that nice, warm safe feeling?

That's all I'll say for now, because I only have the one book by Al Franken in my temporary possesion at the moment. (Frankly, that's all I feel like saying about this now, unless I'm compelled to defend any of my positions, in which case I may or may not feel like doing so.)

[Transtic Nerve]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by rttocs77 [/i]
[B]First, you are being very rude. I think you symbolize how hypocritical the majority of the Democratic party is. You expect everyone to act civil and polite, but the second someone says something you disagree with (and you are usually wrong about) you jump down their throat.[/quote][/b]

I'm not rude, I'm simply blunt and straight forward (go figure), if you can't handle that, maybe you should go. You should also read what he says... and then read what you say. Judge not less ye be judged.... if you had any smarts, you'd know you're doing the exact same thing CS did, and the exact same thing I did. But ofcourse not, because you are judging their life before your own. I know what I say, and I'm not afriad to say it. And you shouldn't generalize myself and the democratic party... cause we're not all alike. But you wouldn't know that because you're just a kid. You only know what your republican parents anfd FOX news force feed you.

[quote][b]The economy was going down before Bush came into office. Maybe if you were involved in economics or knew anything about the history of the economy, you would know that.[/b][/quote]

The economy was in a regular depression. Because our economy is a capitalistic economy, on regular basis it has depressions. The economy was having a depression, after having the highest boom in years under Clinton. It was therefor due for a depression, which usuaully doesn't last long.... however, when Bush came into office, he came in during the regular depression, with his economic policies and the 9/11 attacks, well that certainly didn't help, and now it hasn't even got to where the depression was when he first came into office. Maybe when you pull your head out of your ***, you'd know that too.

[quote][b]Also, let it be known that I whole-heartedly agree with everything Crimson Spider said. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well then you're just as ignorant and insecure as he is.

You know, I try to look at two sides of an argument (in this case Republican and Democrat), but when your head is so far up your *** where you can't see or hear anything elese but yourself, it's not worth wasting my time. When you two can pull that head out of your *** maybe you both won't look like complete idiots to everyone else on the board, cause if you don't think you do, which I'm sure you don't, you're both very wrong.

I don't hate Republicans.... in fact I like alot of them (had McCain won the Primary I would have voted for him, and not Gore or any Democrat for one example), but you two certainly give horrid names to your party. I wouldn't certainly never want to be part of whatever you two are. I just honestly don't think Bush, or his brother, is doing a good job. I don't expect anyone to know about his brother so I won't go into that, but I have nothing personal against them, I just think they COULD do a hell of alot better if they'd think a hell of alot more. Every poltician lies... every politician doesn't stupid things.... however, with the predicament Bush has been in, I think he could have done alot better than he has or will do. I suppose thats why his approval rating is under 50% last I checked, correct me if I'm wrong. Republicans have their problems, Democrats have their problems.... and they both exploit the hell out of each and every one of them... As far as I see it, one is no better than the other.

If you want to argue with me, then argue with me. But it'll do you no good. I'm listening to you as much as your listening to me, which is pretty much nothing at all. Your words are falling on deaf ears. So why continue to argue about something as useless as this. If Bush wins the election, so be it, but you're not gonna convince me he's a good president, and you're certainly not going to convince me to vote for him....

[Raiha]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][COLOR=deeppink]I'm not going to go intothis big speil about how Bush is the dumbest thing to hit the whitehouse since Dan Quaile (of course I was really little when they brought him on board, but hey, I needed a euthamism!)

Yes, it seems rather silly to dislike the guy because of his veiws on a religion that people practice. But think of it this way. He said this when he was govenor, imagine if he did get it in his pinhead to do something like this now that he's commander in cheif.
He's too conservative and too backwards. He wants to outlaw everything he doesn't agree with.
I believe Shakesphere put it best in Julius Ceasare-Absolute Power Corrupts absolutely[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE] [COLOR=royalblue]Well, it sounds like you did. Even if it wasn't a [b]BIG[/b] Shpeil..... and that's not a euphemism....

Pinhead....Commander in Chief.... Well, if he's conservative, he just might be a *gasp of drama* Republican! He wants to outlaw everything he doesn't agree with. .....really? Where'd you get that 'fact' from? An Anti-Bush website?

He doesn't have absolute power, just incase you didn't notice. He doesn't have control over a few small things....like jurisdiction over the Justice system, Senate, and House of Reps. Maybe you should take a few American Political System's classes...and while you're at it a U.S. History class, just for good measure. And if that isn't enough, I'll link you to a nice website of objective third person encyclopedias.[/COLOR]

[outlawstar69]

Sigh.... too bad that everything has to based on whether you're a conservative, or liberal, (which does not mean republican or democrat retrospectivly either) or anything in between.

Oh yeah, and Transtic Nerve, I agree with you on the forcefed news thing. Unless you watch outside sources of news, (or if you have the ability to extrapolate the "good truths" and the "real truths") you really don't know how much the propganda machine works. Every country has one, but in this country it seems ridiculous. (not in the same way as a communist country's propoganda, I'm not saying that.) For the fact that we are supposed to be free speech country, I'd expect to have certain people who are in charge of the news conglomerate impose their opinions. But still... the amount of information that is left out, or in some cases even contrived, and then displayed on all of our news media sources (and sadly most of them are owned by the same people, in their business merging kind of way).

For all of you who base your opinions soley on what you read and see on tv, please, look into other sources. BBC is a good one, as well as france and germany's news. I am feeling slightly faint so I shall take my leave and get some rest. I'll be waiting for whoever replies next.

[PloKoonDS]

Stupid ***-tards. Honestly, everyone is always b!tching about him. I'd also bet money you are also convinced that Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida. Well boo-friggin'-hoo. It's over and in the past. Besides, so fawkin' what if we still have troops in that far off nation where they some one gets injured/killed every day. HELL, I bet most of you get "injured" everyday. Stubbing a toe or a paper cut counts. If you haven't been able to tell by now, the news companies like to twist there facts and confuse them with opinion. IT's called "yellow journalism", you stupid communists.

Now then, more specific on why our troops are still over in that sandy-hole in the middle of that relatively large... umm.. continent? Yeah, whatever. Anywho, They are still there because they need a government that will work for them, not go "hey, that guy isn't clapping when I shoot a GUN OVER THERE HEADS! KILL HIM!!!" I sure would love to be in that nation when the idiots come for me with a loaded weapon! *sarcasim*
Anyways, another REASON why we went in there was because he made an open and public threat on world broadcast television to America, saying "you will regret the day you decided to try and remove me from my country". Alright, if you people don't see that as a reason to go in there and remove him from power before he makes good on his words, I seriously pity you.

Final statement: Shut the heck up. Weither or not you like him doesn't matter. He is what we've got right now, and in my opinion he is doing a d@mn good job.

Remember, morons and idiots alike, everything is based off of the "eye of the beholder". Dumb bast@rds.

~Plo

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B][/b]

I'm not rude
The economy was in a regular depression. Because our economy is a capitalistic economy, on

regular basis it has depressions. The economy was having a depression, after having the highest

boom in years under Clinton. It was therefor due for a depression, which usuaully doesn't last

long.... however, when Bush came into office, he came in during the regular depression, with his

economic policies and the 9/11 attacks, well that certainly didn't help, and now it hasn't even

got to where the depression was when he first came into office. Maybe when you pull your head out

of your ***, you'd know that too.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Just wanted to make sure you were still with us there... I mean, if some other people have their head in, um, you know, then maybe some of the more vocal people also do.

However, I also wanted to mention 2 other things... 1... your not rude? good, Im glad you mentioned it, cause I might not have noticed if I just read your post for content. :D

2. (a little economic evaluation article from cnn money. *note that this is cnn, a liberal network with no intentions of looking at the current administration in a good light.)

"NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter at the fastest pace in nearly two decades, the government said Thursday, but even President Bush admitted that was unlikely to be sustained.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the quarter after growing at a 3.3 percent pace in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Economists, on average, expected GDP growth of 6 percent, according to Briefing.com.


"This is obviously an extraordinarily strong report, led by the consumer, but also with good signs about the state of the business sector and business confidence," said Lehman Brothers economist Drew Matus.

The burst of GDP growth was led by a 6.6 percent jump in consumer spending, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 1997. Consumer spending grew at a 3.8 percent pace in the second quarter. "

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/[/url]

Hope that clears up the problems with recognizing how well the economy is looking compared to 2 years ago.