Democratic Propaganda

[Japan]

I was watching the news the other day and then a story came on about the political parties and how Bush is not a very good president and what not. The people who are democratic and are trying to win the election with their party to run for president are really making Bush look bad.

It seems that the democratc party knows that they can't win the presidental election by merits alone. They have to put down their competitors in order to win. That method of competing isn't exactly fair. It just seems like a dirty tactic to use.

If Bush wasn't the president, I bet that Sadaam would still be out there hiding. I feel that Bush is doing his job well. Do you agree with me about all of this, or have you noticed what the people who are running as the democratic representive for the presidential election are doing?

[wrist cutter]

Keep in mind the Republicans were pretty much doing the same thing to Clinton the first time he tried to get elected. They spent the majority of their campaign nitpicking his flaws, and as it turned out, he won. Twice.

I'm not saying Clinton didn't have flaws, but the "bash the other party" technique doesn't seem to work to well honestly. It just makes Bush supporters more fervent if anything, because they can see that the liberals really don't have much of their own to stand on.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

Personally, I think that Bush is doing fine. Most of the reasons why people don't like him are from Propoganda and mis-understandings.

But wrist cutter covered what I was going to say.

(scary thing is, the US supported and helped Saddam until very recently).

[Boba Fett]

[color=green]I agree with you 100% Japan.

While I disapprove of several things Bush has done while president, overall I think he?s the best choice in the election next year. The Democrats have begun to put out propaganda, as have the Republicans, in anticipation of the election this November.

I?ll leave you with some propaganda of my own.

[IMG]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17454[/IMG][/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]Scary thing is, the US supported and helped Saddam until very recently.[/QUOTE]No, the scary thing is the US supported most of the people that are out to get them now. That is just bad relations with groups they help which urgently needs to be looked at and should have been when they noticed bin landen going bad ten years or so ago. Now would be a good time to be changing it because the "northern alliance" is doing exactly what osama did after the Russians pulled out with American help, America basically forgot about them, and I'm sure you guys don't need yet another enemy.

Also I'd like to note that there still isn't a good reason why Saddam shouldn't still be out there hiding.

As for Bush I think it's a mixture of his way of control and how he is portrayed by competition/media, it is in no way all his fault but he is also not blameless for how his image is put across to voters.

If Maddox gets into it I will be more interested...

Added: in reply to that picture and please note that I'm not bias for either side of American politics because I just don't know them but; Fidle Castro is a great leader of his country, they have survived for a very long time under US sanctions which would normally reck countries (eg Iraq) yet every citizen has enough food, clean water, health care, security and support to live from the government. Sure it's all second rate but they have it and that's without help from the out side world so I wouldn't sell Castro short as I know a certain US of A that doesn't have this sort of system and why should he be a bad man just because you guys have been spoon feed propaganda since you were in school? (I've seen some of the stuff Americans are shown on this man and I really can't think of another word that fits better than propaganda.) And; Kerry voting for a tax increase? So? Countries need money to run, if they don't have it they collapse. Economic stability is one of the most important parts of a country and if they don't get it right it's not worth being in that country.

[Semjaza]

I don't really see the issue. This is something that has come up in nearly every political race in this country pretty much since its inception... Democratic, Republican or otherwise. Presidential race or a lesser office. Same nonsense every time.

The terms and descriptions of all this even had a section in my government textbook back in highschool. I think it's pretty much expected by now, although obviously not exactly looked highly upon.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='cloricus']No, the scary thing is the US supported most of the people that are out to get them now. That is just bad relations with groups they help which urgently needs to be looked at and should have been when they noticed bin landen going bad ten years or so ago. Now would be a good time to be changing it because the "northern alliance" is doing exactly what osama did after the Russians pulled out with American help, America basically forgot about them, and I'm sure you guys don't need yet another enemy.[/quote]

[color=green]Cloricus, you?re correct about the US having Cold War relationships with its present enemies. That?s about it.

We?ve done nothing to sour our relationships with these people that we ?allied with? during the Cold War. Al Qaeda and Iraq were both pawns in our war against the USSR. The CIA aided the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, much of which later formed into the nucleus of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, under the ?the enemy of our enemy is our friend? philosophy. We knew the Mudjahideen were part of an extremely radical perversion of Islam that feeds on anger and hatred. However, we were more concerned with beating our rival the USSR. We assisted these people in defeating the Soviets and then left.

We did what we promised to do. Nothing more, nothing less. However, Osama only began to attack the United States after the first Gulf War. Sure, we weren?t well liked in the Middle East because of our acceptance of the Shah of Iran, but the arrival of US troops in Saudi Arabia set Osama off. Apparently he feels that the entire Middle East should be off limits to ?infidels?. After Gulf War I, Osama became our enemy.

He didn?t ?go bad? as you claim Cloricus. Osama always was a terrible person. He just needed a new target for his network, a new goal to unite his Al Qaeda network. We, being the new sole world power, were the logical choice.

As for Iraq, we operated under the same philosophy we used with the Taliban. Everyone in the world knew Saddam was a crackpot dictator who was up to no good, but we needed him to fight the Iranians. After the US Embassy hostage situation in Tehran, the Iranians were no friends of ours. Therefore, it made sense to give limited support to Saddam while he fought against the Iranians.

The US doesn?t cut and run on our allies. Iraq and the Mujahideen were [I]never[/I] our allies. We merely made deals of mutual benefit with them. After we?d fulfilled our obligations, they knew we?d leave.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']Also I'd like to note that there still isn't a good reason why Saddam shouldn't still be out there hiding.[/quote]

[color=green]You?ve got to be kidding me. There are several reasons Saddam should be in a shallow grave, his body riddled with bullets.

Regardless of your take on the WMD issue, or the US?s justifications for war, you?ve got to agree that the world is a better place without Saddam in power.

This man killed thousands of people, imprisoned political opponents, allowed his sons to terrorize the country and wrecked the fragile ecosystem of his country.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']Added: in reply to that picture and please note that I'm not bias for either side of American politics because I just don't know them but; Fidle Castro is a great leader of his country, they have survived for a very long time under US sanctions which would normally reck countries (eg Iraq) yet every citizen has enough food, clean water, health care, security and support to live from the government. Sure it's all second rate but they have it and that's without help from the out side world so I wouldn't sell Castro short as I know a certain US of A that doesn't have this sort of system and why should he be a bad man just because you guys have been spoon feed propaganda since you were in school? (I've seen some of the stuff Americans are shown on this man and I really can't think of another word that fits better than propaganda.) And; Kerry voting for a tax increase? So? Countries need money to run, if they don't have it they collapse. Economic stability is one of the most important parts of a country and if they don't get it right it's not worth being in that country.[/quote]

[color=green]Fidel Castro is nothing more than a ball of slime. I?ve not been taught about him in school, yet, so most of this is going to come from the news and books.

He imprisons his political opponents and his country has major social problems. There is a reason why Cubans flee their homeland and take asylum in the United States?

If Castro has built such a great nation, why aren?t liberals and communists in the US flocking to it?

As for Kerry?s voting under the Clinton administration for the biggest tax increase in history, there are other alternatives he could have advocated. Raising taxes isn?t the only way the government can create more revenue. One of these is cutting pork programs from the budget.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=violet]People in politics have been mud slinging eachother since the idea of a democratic election began. This is nothing new, it's never going to be anything new. What'll be really newsworthy is if someone who's running for political office makes a comercial which goes:
[b]This person helps out the homelss, I teach underprivledged kids to read. All and all we'd both be the best candidate for the job, but vote for me anyway[/b]

Of course that's a tad unrealistic, but hey, it was good, ne?

As for Bush, I don't care for him. I didn't vote for him in the first place and I think the budget deficit and the rise in unemployment is thanks to him.

When Clinton left office back in 2000, we had a budget surplus and the economy was booming. Now there are more people than there are jobs.

OF course, that was just my opinion.

Another interesting POV. Many people want to rag on Clinton for being a draft dodger, and his unfortunate episode with Monica Lewinski. Neither of which should be considered in the man's political career, but Republicans can't seem to forget those things.

But what about Bush and the whole National guard thing? Yes, he did join, but his family's money got him a position as a Luetenant (paper pusher) in the National Guard-which BTW [b][i][u]NEVER DEPLOYS TO OVER SEAS AREAS![/u][/i][/b] And even with that position there are questions to where he was the last 2 years of his enlistment. And I think we should all be aware that desertion during war time is punishable by court mashall.

In all fairness, Bush did do a good job during the 9/11 crisis. However, that's all the props I'll give him. Thanks to him, most countries really don't care for us anymore. He's hurting the ties we had with China and Cuba. Along with the state of the nation.

Well, there's my $1.50, do what you will

Okay, I'm ready for my disection Mr. Boba Fett[/color]

[James]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]I think that the original framing of this topic is really naive. The Republicans do the exact same stuff, when it comes to political advertising. When Bush begins to spend his campaign money on re-election, he'll push the same style of attack ads that the Democrats are using.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=dimgray]To imply that this is [i]just [/i]a Democrat thing is simply not factual. The only reason the Democrat messages are more obvious right now is because the Democrats are not in power. So yeah. I don't really know what the point is. Every political party runs propaganda ads. And usually, 99% of propaganda ads are only telling a half truth. Just as you could probably poke all sorts of holes in the Democrat advertisements, the same can be done with Boba Fett's Republican equivalents here. These ads are usually full of catch phrases and out-of-context stuff. But because they're relatively short, they don't take the time to dissect the issues on a substantive level.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2][color=#696969]So I don't know what you expect. Whether it's Democrat or Republican, this is the kind of stuff you see during a campaign.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green]The US doesn?t cut and run on our allies. Iraq and the Mujahideen were [I]never[/I'] our allies. We merely made deals of mutual benefit with them. After we?d fulfilled our obligations, they knew we?d leave.[/color][/quote]I stand corrected; though I'd still raise the question after what we have seen these groups do that this sort of way of dealing with relations and mutual enemies that it shouldn't be continued and a better way found?
[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']You?ve got to be kidding me. There are several reasons Saddam should be in a shallow grave, his body riddled with bullets.[/color][/quote]And there are several very good reasons why he should still be in power, what is your point?
[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Regardless of your take on the WMD issue, or the US?s justifications for war, you?ve got to agree that the world is a better place without Saddam in power.[/color][/quote]I wouldn't be so sure, we still do not know what Iraq's out come will be. For all you/we know tomorrow the rival factions could carry out their threats of civil war and wipe out a few million people in a few weeks; there are several things that Saddam did do for the country and one of them was keep it stable. So until every one is back in their own beds (and graves) and the country has a successful election where the new power is accepted and abided by only then will I say that the world is a better place without him.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']As for Kerry?s voting under the Clinton administration for the biggest tax increase in history, there are other alternatives he could have advocated. Raising taxes isn?t the only way the government can create more revenue. One of these is cutting pork programs from the budget.[/color][/quote]Which would have hurt some other part of the country and could have damaged trade relations with some where? I admit (and did up in my last post) that I didn't know the situation but really you aren't the person making the decision and I assume you wouldn't have had access to the reports and information they would have had and maybe a tax increase was the best way to achieve the goal. I just think that in the case of pointing out some thing some one did that voters normally don't like (eg tax increases/benefits being cut etc) is just cheap as it might have been the best option.

---
Chibi any chance you could please make your text darker as it's kinda burning my eyes while I try and read it. :|

[Brasil]

[quote name='cloricus']And there are several very good reasons why he should still be in power, what is your point?[/quote]

Name them now. I want a full and detailed list in your reply, with totally logical reasoning behind it. I want to see if you can do this, boy.

On with the topic.

The "advertising" disgusts me, yes. It does nothing more than present the process in a negative light. Surprisingly, I am not affected in the desired way when I see the Bush Bashing or Democrat Damagement (heh, fun alliteration).

When I see a campaign ripping Kerry up, or portraying Bush as more or less a fool in power, I don't criticize Kerry or Bush. When I see that propaganda, I view the propagandists in a negative light. They're resorting to mudslinging, which is unfortunate.

My ideal election would not be an election. With all the mudslinging going on, why not just have a wrestling match between two supermodels and bet on the winner? If Tyra Banks wins, Republicans win; if Elizabeth Hurley wins, the Democratic candidate wins.

It'd be a very fun election, I'd say. The country would get a new leader without election fraud and pregnant chads, and the males would get to see two gorgeous women rolling around with each other. ~_^

Kidding aside, the important message here is,

"Don't be blinded by the ********."

There is always going to be bad stuff going down on both sides of the fence pre-election; it is up to the voters to decide whether that is going influence their decision.

If I decide to vote, my vote will be based on what has happened in the past four years, how I feel about it, and which candidate has supported what I want to happen in the upcoming four years.

Elections are a good thing, generally. We get to exercise our right to control something. I'm not that naive to think that we are not influenced at all in what we do, but at least we can step back and realize what's going on. Japan was halfway there, I think. She saw the Democratic faults, but didn't imply that the Republicans have their faults, as well.

It's really a balance...The Force, in a sense. And as I recall, Bob Dole wanted to play Senator Palpatine in the Prequels, and come to think of it, Joe Lieberman looks similar to Palpatine. Hehe.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']As for Bush, I don't care for him. I didn't vote for him in the first place and I think the budget deficit and the rise in unemployment is thanks to him.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]Yes, our current budget deficit is due to president Bush.

However, do you think that any other president could have fought the war on terror and maintained all of the social and economic programs our country enjoys [I]without[/I] expanding the debt?

As for unemployment, that has nothing to do with the president. The government doesn?t have control of the economy. Government can influence the economy, as Bush has done by drastically cutting interest rates, but doesn?t have anything remotely like control. In his few years in office, president Bush has helped the economy recover from an economic slump that began [b]in the last months of the Clinton Administration[/b].[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet'] When Clinton left office back in 2000, we had a budget surplus and the economy was booming. Now there are more people than there are jobs.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]When Clinton left office, we had a trillion dollar national debt. The economy had also taken a downward turn.

As for there being more people than jobs, that is not the government?s fault. During this economic recession, businesses have made fewer people do more work in order to save money. I?d bet that by this time next year, the good economy will have given businesses money to hire people again to meet increased demand for their goods.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']Another interesting POV. Many people want to rag on Clinton for being a draft dodger, and his unfortunate episode with Monica Lewinski. Neither of which should be considered in the man's political career, but Republicans can't seem to forget those things.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]Clinton was a draft dodger? News to me?

As for President Clinton committing adultery in the oval office, that?s terrible behavior for the president. Not only does that discredit America on the world stage, but also it questions the integrity of our commander in chief. What really upset me about Clinton was that he lied about it. He committed perjury; he lied under oath. He wasn?t honest.

Clinton may have been a masterful politician, but he has no integrity.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet] But what about Bush and the whole National guard thing? Yes, he did join, but his family's money got him a position as a Luetenant (paper pusher) in the National Guard-which BTW [b][i][u]NEVER DEPLOYS TO OVER SEAS AREAS![/u][/i][/b'] And even with that position there are questions to where he was the last 2 years of his enlistment. And I think we should all be aware that desertion during war time is punishable by court mashall.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]When was the last time you watched the news? I think that you may have missed the White House releasing documents that proved President Bush served in the Texas and later Alabama National Guard.

You claim he was a paper pusher. You lie Chibihorsewoman. President Bush was a fighter pilot. You also claim that his family?s money got him such a cushy position while others were sent to Vietnam. Are you accusing the Bush family of being corrupt? Not only is that slander, but there is no proof. Let?s stick to the facts.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']In all fairness, Bush did do a good job during the 9/11 crisis. However, that's all the props I'll give him. Thanks to him, most countries really don't care for us anymore. He's hurting the ties we had with China and Cuba. Along with the state of the nation.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]Hurt ties with China and Cuba? We have a great mutually beneficial trade agreement with China, and met with the Chinese to discuss North Korea.

Cuba? Since the Cold war, the US hasn?t had a very good relationship with the oppressive, communist regime to our south. Frankly, nobody cares what Castro thinks anymore.

Some countries [I]were[/I] put off by our war in Iraq, specifically European ones. We went into Iraq with twenty-six other countries. Now we know who our real friends are.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']Okay, I'm ready for my disection Mr. Boba Fett[/color][/quote]

[color=green]Any time Chibihorsewoman.[/color]

[center]--- --- --- --- ---[/center]

[quote name='cloricus']I stand corrected; though I'd still raise the question after what we have seen these groups do that this sort of way of dealing with relations and mutual enemies that it shouldn't be continued and a better way found?[/quote]

[color=green]Absolutely. That?s why when we backed the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan; we kept circa seven thousand US troops there in addition to the UN peacekeepers in order to rebuild that country after the fall of the Taliban.

This will be a slow process, but eventually we hope to get the country stable enough so that terrorists will no longer have safe haven there.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']And there are several very good reasons why he should still be in power, what is your point?[/quote]

[color=green]My point is that Saddam was a brutal and evil dictator who committed terrible crimes upon his people. Whether you support the war in Iraq or not, I don?t see how you could see the freedom of the Iraqi as a bad thing.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']I wouldn't be so sure, we still do not know what Iraq's out come will be. For all you/we know tomorrow the rival factions could carry out their threats of civil war and wipe out a few million people in a few weeks; there are several things that Saddam did do for the country and one of them was keep it stable. So until every one is back in their own beds (and graves) and the country has a successful election where the new power is accepted and abided by only then will I say that the world is a better place without him.[/quote]

[color=green]The US is instituting a scaled down version of the Marshall Plan for Iraq. Nobody?s sure what the future holds; ethnic, tribal and religious tensions will have to be skillfully diffused by any government that arises there. However, it can be done.

The Iraqi people will see that the US has infinitely more to offer them than the terrorists, and a stable government will be formed.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']Which would have hurt some other part of the country and could have damaged trade relations with some where? I admit (and did up in my last post) that I didn't know the situation but really you aren't the person making the decision and I assume you wouldn't have had access to the reports and information they would have had and maybe a tax increase was the best way to achieve the goal. I just think that in the case of pointing out some thing some one did that voters normally don't like (eg tax increases/benefits being cut etc) is just cheap as it might have been the best option.[/quote]

[color=green]You?re right. In some cases, tax increases are justified. I was just merely stating that there are other ways for a government to create more surplus dollars than continually raising taxes. The Democratic Party usually raises taxes to pay for their expanded social programs, while the Republicans tend to cut taxes to benefit businesses and stimulate the economy.[/color]

[quote name='cloricus']Chibi any chance you could please make your text darker as it's kinda burning my eyes while I try and read it. :|[/quote]

[color=green]For once Cloricus, we concur.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkorchid]I hope this is easier for both of you to read.

I'm too lazy to seperate every single oaragraph and then add quote and color to everything-so I'll just say this. George W. was about as much of a fighter pilot as a commercial airline piolot

Boba fett, you completely missed the part about how The NAtional guard never deploys. Tho I''m sure if one of the vietcong LT. Bush would have gotten some SPC to knock him off (I'm just saying what most LT. do in the first palce. You do realize that an officer who is a Lt is basically a private that everyone has to salute?)

You claim that Clinton has no integrity? He's a politician, they sell their morals for votes. Besides that fact I fail to see how his conduct in his private life could have severly affected either the economy or the country in general. Nobody brought up JFK's infidelity during his time in office, or Lincoln's manic depression during the civil war. That's because back then people realized that a person's private life didn't have squat to do with the person's governing skills.

As for purjury, yes, that was wrong, but it's not as bad as going AWOL during wartime for the final 2 years of your enlistment. Bush claims that he was sent to the Ark. Nathional guard, why didn't his commanding officer see him there? You can't just get lost on a military base for 2 years. Even at Ft.Hood TX, the largest military base in the free world (I know that has almost no relation to this topic, but I'm trying to prove my point that there is a great possibility that he did go AWOL) you can't be there for 2 years w/o atleast 30 people knowing you exist.

As for unemployment not having anything to do with the president. I think you're a bit out in left feild with that one (notice that at no point in this did I call you a liar, sound familiar?) You can't in one sentence blame Clinton for the drop in the economy then turn around and say that Bush is blameless. That's being hypocritical. Yes, it's true that he's not completely responsible, but he does decide on the budget in the first place. So you're arguement is a bit flawed there.

My dislike of Bush is mostly personal though in terms of religion and marriage to be exact. Bush wants to pass a law into the constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. And while he was govenor of TX he made quite a few statements about wanting to outlaw paganism, which happens to be my religion. How moral is that?

Well, I've said my peice again and wait disection again. Of course this time I hope we can avoid teh name calling.[/color]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkorchid']Boba fett, you completely missed the part about how The NAtional guard never deploys. Tho I''m sure if one of the vietcong LT. Bush would have gotten some SPC to knock him off (I'm just saying what most LT. do in the first palce. You do realize that an officer who is a Lt is basically a private that everyone has to salute?)[/color][/quote]

[color=green]President Bush got lucky and was assigned to a military unit that didn?t get sent to war. This in no way makes him less of a veteran than any other person who has served in our nation?s armed forces. His service was no less important than that of John Kerry, Wesley Clark or any other military veteran.

I don?t see how you can have issues with someone who hasn?t fought in a foreign war being president. That?s not how this nation works. Some of our greatest presidents didn?t serve in the military.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkorchid']You claim that Clinton has no integrity? He's a politician, they sell their morals for votes. Besides that fact I fail to see how his conduct in his private life could have severly affected either the economy or the country in general. Nobody brought up JFK's infidelity during his time in office, or Lincoln's manic depression during the civil war. That's because back then people realized that a person's private life didn't have squat to do with the person's governing skills.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]You think it?s normal for political figures to have no morals? You think this is acceptable? What kind of America would you have us live in; without our integrity we are nothing. If we can?t trust our commander in chief, whom can we trust?

President Clinton?s private life tarnished the presidency. It affected the world?s view of America. As the president, you?re supposed to set an example that all Americans can follow. Lying under oath and having an affair are terrible examples to set for American children.

JFK?s affairs were terrible. He was simply lucky that his fooling around was not revealed to the public until well after his untimely death. He set no better an example than Clinton did. As for Lincoln?s manic depression, it didn?t affect his presidency. That in no way makes him a bad person or sets a bad example. Lincoln was a fine president.

In the end, a politician?s private life is as much part of the reason we elect them as their politics. Politicians may be called upon to make tough choices in high-pressure situations, where issues of monumental importance are at stake. The president has the power to declare war. I?d like to know that the most powerful man in the country is one of integrity and is someone I could trust. After all, this man could very well get me killed if he declares war on another country.[/color]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkorchid]As for purjury, yes, that was wrong, but it's not as bad as going AWOL during wartime for the final 2 years of your enlistment. Bush claims that he was sent to the Ark. Nathional guard, why didn't his commanding officer see him there? You can't just get lost on a military base for 2 years. Even at Ft.Hood TX, the largest military base in the free world (I know that has almost no relation to this topic, but I'm trying to prove my point that there is a great possibility that he did go AWOL) you can't be there for 2 years w/o atleast 30 people knowing you exist.
[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Did you read my last post? I clearly stated that the White House has provided documents that conclusively prove that President Bush served all of his required time in both the Texas and Arkansas National Guard.

If you don?t believe me, you can locate the payroll records released by the White House by doing a simple google search. They conclusively prove that Bush fulfilled his duties while in the national guard.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkorchid']As for unemployment not having anything to do with the president. I think you're a bit out in left feild with that one (notice that at no point in this did I call you a liar, sound familiar?) You can't in one sentence blame Clinton for the drop in the economy then turn around and say that Bush is blameless. That's being hypocritical. Yes, it's true that he's not completely responsible, but he does decide on the budget in the first place. So you're arguement is a bit flawed there.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]I?d rather you say [b]right[/b] field next time.

I can blame former president Clinton for the souring of our economy because it occurred while he was in office. The economy isn?t easy to fix, but Bush has managed to get it back to where it was during the peak of the 90s tech boom. In fact, the DOW is close to breaking its record for highest number.

As for the federal budget, that has very little to do with the economy.

My argument is not flawed.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkorchid']My dislike of Bush is mostly personal though in terms of religion and marriage to be exact. Bush wants to pass a law into the constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. And while he was govenor of TX he made quite a few statements about wanting to outlaw paganism, which happens to be my religion. How moral is that?[/color][/quote]

[color=green]I?m going to avoid the Gay Marriage topic altogether, as that issue has a talent for getting threads closed.

As for outlawing ?paganism?, I have heard nothing about that. Could you prove that please?[/color]