George Bush

[john silver]

I was rereading the d-day thread trying to figure out why everyone took my comments so seriuosly and why it got a little malicious when i stumbled upon clawda saying that we, the U.S. elected GW. No, no, no, no, and NO. We did not elect GW. The majority of Americans voted for Gore. So I thought I'd set that one straight.

[claWda]

dude I know all about the election, and all the cheating jadajada (we in sweden actually know stuff about you, but it doesn't go the other way around, sad isn't it?)

BUT,fact remains, Bush is your president, even though Gore should've won, there were votes for Bush, and to say that those votes were so few they shouldn't count, is, well, stupid and you are actually saying this indirectly by leaving it outside...

listen man, why did you start a new thread?? ´send me a pm or whatever, do you HONESTLY give a **** what an 18yo swede thinks about you and your country? don't start that crap about you wanting to clear stuff up, I said ONE thing, noone else listened anyway, so basically, you just started a thread based on one sentence from ME.

you have way too much time on your hands, just wait til you get some real problems in life and you'll be too busy starting these bull****threads...peace brother

[dhin]

Personally I think Bush was the lesser of two evils in that election. Anyway the MAJORITY of votes is not what decides the presidency, it is and always has been the electoral college. The two normally comply with one another but they don't need to. (Didn't you pay attention in US government back in high school, Taft was elected the same way.) Anyway as far as Bush bashing goes, just think about the out come of these past 4 years if it had been Gore in office (after 9-11 and other events. KNowing his stands on things I sudder to think what other builds would lie in runes lithe the WTT.) Personally though I don't agree with many of Bushs policies and think the least he could do is not to insult our intelligence by his claims about Iraq, with that aside though he has been a good president. The economics of the counrty is alright (we were coming down from a boon anyway and so blaiming him for slump is stupid, especially when it was Clintons doings,) and his forgien policy hasn't been half bad (not great mind you, but I live out side the US and his press in Europe hasn't really ever been pro-Bush but in truth he's done better than I think most expected.) The fact that some many people want to compair him to Hitler or Stallin is laughable. And though I know it's socially unpopullar I think that voting Bush this election isn't that bad a thing, (and I'm not Republican.) Frankly casting blame and pointing fingers isn't getting any one anywhere. This is why you don't talk religion or politics at the dinner table. Some one is going to be offended.

I can foresee this post getting flamed, especially by Europeans, asking where I have been and what oriface I have my head stuck up, but I just see commints like that as signs of low intellect and lack of the ability to think for ones self. Anyway I care what people think about me and my country. I'm proud of being American, I hate being steriotyped though. AND that has become the problem the world view is refusing to look past the steriotype. The steriotype that Bush ogt early on was that he was stupid, when in fact he just isn't a very good public speaker, I'd like to see anyone of you do better in those situations. Then because he goes after Saddam he's a warmonger (may that is true) that just wanted to do what his dad couldn't. Oh please give that one a rest. I do think he lied on his reasons for going into Iraq, but I don't think anyone can disagree that removing Saddam was bad for the people and the world (now the issue is stablizing the government in Iraq, which though not handle great up til now is a situaltion where there is very little different that could be done.)

Steriotyping is the main problem people had in the other thread. Steriotype of Germans during WW2 and now. It nevers changes, and unfortunatly until it does these kind of ignorant attacks and Flamewar threads will pop-up. So PLEASE everyone agree that everone else is entitaled to their opinion just as you are and respect it. . . I didn't say you have to like it, just respect it.

[novoAlias]

okay we have two options here, keep it intelligent and the thread might not be closed :) (i shall proably get this thread closed with this post anyway -.-)

Dhin: there are some good points there, America hasnt actually fallen apart under bush, although it has come fairly close at times.
As far as i know, unless the facts have been screwed with - he has conducted two wars with little proof of why.

Was Osama connected with Sept 11th? i have heard little proof of that. There are some great leaps between reason and action, for instance. the two towers were felled, someone was to blame. administration decided it was the taliban - more importantly it was osamas fault. disregarding the fact that the suicide pilots actually came from saudi arabia and not afghanistan - theres an entire persian gulf and Iran inbetween the two! and yet no mention saudi arabia was even made by Bush. notice how afghanistan isnt even being mentioned at the moment - whos cleaning up the mess? Bush is busy with iraq still.. shouldnt he finish one thing before starting the next or is that an attention span thing =/

and wtf was up with freedom fries and freedom toast - or was it freedom coffee, i forget. anyway i bet the french laughed when they started steamrollering cds in american streets.. from what i learned it was basically because the french simply refused to do what bush wanted and send troops to die in Iraq - reaction being to diss the french for not playing Americas game

The second war was fought apparently because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then because Saddam was a bad man to be put away & then because the Iraqi people should be liberated. is it just me or is this sounding like making up stories, they got the bad guy = or so they say - and they still want control over the iraqi government it would seem. The french have at last joined in on the game when america and britain changes the treaty to what the french considered more sensible. OIL OIL OIL! did i just say that? sorry it just kinda blurted out =/. its obvious though, otherwise why is the price of oil (in america) going up and down like a greased superball?

so there is why i think Bush, while possibly the lesser of two evils (i have no idea what gore could have done worse tho) is still not all that great

so what if america didnt elect him - millions of people didnt want the war... so how the @#$% did he get into presidency then? and how the @#%$ are people being forced to accept every new war? i will never know..

more information on sept 11th and following factshere (http://members.fortunecity.com/911/september-eleven/unanswered-9-11.htm)
interesting quotes from Mr Bush here (http://supak.com/bush.htm)

in the end i think this describes the situation best:

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.


ps. im 16 and live in NZ, ive only ever been to america once and the only idea i have of whats going on in iraq comes from the news/gleaned off websites - therefore im probably working from totally screwed facts anyway - but then so is everyone else.. :D

my $0.02.. maybe i should charge per word =p

sorry for going off topic and a little overboard there

[LittleFish]

Dhin was correct in his comments on the election (Bush did win, yes we have an electoral college and that's just how it works. live with it). And no, you apecifically don't talk religion or politics at the dinner table because there are too many knives present (and forks). Anyway, I pretty much agree with the whole of your post.

BlackWolf -- Wow. What do you do with your spare time? And yeah, the first part of your post isn't very good (someday, probably 40 years from now, or when Bush dies, you may figure it all out, but for now way too much information is classified, and we don't get any better or more informative propaganda than you), but the last part does sort of sum it up.

My turn:
Bush is not stupid, but he is not a public speaker. Due to the fact that he is almost 60 and he's not going to go back to college, he's going to be a poor public speaker for the remainder of his life. (Maybe he should take a poetry class at a senior center or something.) So, his speeches are written for him, and he does his best. (Seriously, how many people out there feel qualified to do more than faint onstage when giving a speech in front of a huge crowd and 100 million people watching on TV, and thinking that there is a 1 in 2 chance that someone out in the audience could assassinate you at a moment's notice?) However, he still cannot change that he is a poor speaker, so the Democratic party decided way back in 2000/2001 to degrade him for it. From there it got worse. Maybe the party was sore that Gore didn't win. (Though it may not be for the last time, I feel I must say this. Bush won the election fair and square through the processes long established in this country that have already been used the EXACT SAME WAY to elect 42 presidents whose elections we don't contest. If the people of the United States really wanted Gore so badly, then they should have actually SHOWED UP at the polling places.) Anyway, anything you here about George Bush or anyone else is virtually all political in origin (so much for the death of partisian politics, but frankly, no one is even trying). Any news you get outside or inside the U.S. is simply what someone else wants to say to you, true or not, whether it makes a difference or not, and... we are on a 3D forum, and look at us, we are arguing politics. Why? Does it help us? at all?

[novoAlias]

i was bored, i know first part was poor, i was writing it!

good points anyway - maybe a better use for this forum would be critiquing essays like that :p

could the forum be used to help with tests and stuff ya think?

[invert]

I couldnt have said this better myself. pretty darn accurate.
Originally posted by BlackWolf
in the end i think this describes the situation best:

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

and so on and so forth

[/B]

[dhin]

invert - did you have to quote the WHOLE thing? couldn't the first line with a ". . ." done just as well? - edit ( thanks :D )

Anyway I'll say this little bit more and then leave it alone. Like I said before I don't agree with the Iraq thing. (I really couldn't call it a war, it was pretty one sided.) I do agree it was about oil, at least in part. (They aren't even trying to hide that fact very well.) BUT that said I think more countries should have stepped up after the war ended to try and help rebuild a government there instead of sit back and criticize the US and it Allies there about the poor job they are doing at it. I don't agree with the US approach with the UN or the German and French bashing that happened when they blocked the motion in the UN. (thus the Freedom fries and what not, really dumb stuff that made Americans look even worse. BUT ask why where France and Germany so against removing Saddam?) I do understand that countries don't want to spend a bunch of money to clean up a mess they didn't make, but when they complain about how poorly the Iraqi people are being treated and how unjust every thing is, just remember they had a chance to do something about that and DIDN'T which I think is just as bad. But that isn't really the topic.

Tony Blair has had bad press about this whole thing also but no where near what Bush has gotten. . . and the intelligence that was used for the case about Iraq came from English sources. But who gets the brunt of the character attacks and blame for the situation and problems? The President of the USA, supposable the most powerful free country on the planet. He isn't the only one to blame in this, but then no one really looks at anyone else but the US when they are involved in these conflicts.

As far as Afghanistan goes, yes the Taliban was pretty much proven to be the ones behind the attack because Alkida (spelled wrong I'm sure,) was funding them and they where sheltering Osama and his Alkida groups. When the Taliban was asked (told, either way that is a mater of opinion) to give up Osama or at least allow troops to come get him, the said "screw you" (well not a direct quote it was the main message,) and I don't recall ANYONE saying anything negative about taking the Taliban out of power. . . until more that 2 years later. (And fighting is still going on there, the government is more or less stable, but only in part of the country, and it has requested continued help in stabilizing the rest of the country.) But again I'm off the point.

I was going to address Gore's political views and action in his political life from all the way back in the 80's and then ask who you though would have handled things better, but I think that would just be a mute point now. Since I've been goaded into discussing the two "Bush Wars," I thought I should just point out that both of them where viewed very differently at the time they were going on, but now people seem to hold that they were both his fault. I really don't understand why though. In the first there was overwhelming support and every one seamed to agree that it was a good thing. In the second, though not popular or justified, a mad man was removed from power (this was a guy that killed millions of his own people cruelly and without trial or reason, and launched missiles at neighboring counties with the treat [and perhaps with] chemical and biological agents - a very illegal thing according to international laws.) I ask if his removal is something that we should see as being a bad thing? The area was already unstable and it was kept in control through the terror of Saddams regem. So the resulting problems while not farvorable or nice would most likely have occurred anyway when that government was overthrown or collapsed. . . again I'm getting off the point. Bush did what I think needed to be done, even if not for the reasons we've been told, or the reasons they should have been done for. In the end history probably will not be kind to Bush (not unless something major changes world opinion about him,) but I don't think that is quite fair.

Okay so maybe it was quite so little. But that is all I'll say about this. PERIOD, I'm not responding to any replies to what I've said. I mean it. . . unless. . . nope I'm not gonna'.

[claWda]

I can't believe I'm reading this, I TOTALLY agree with Blackwolf, he makes a lot of good points, you Dhin, make a few, come on man, a good president doesn't start a major war unless he's sure of his cause, didn't you hear they found NO weapons of massdesctruction after the war? the UN got pissed for this, yet what could they do? nothing, cause it is America after all...

this was the public reason for the war and yet it was completely untrue...and no I don't stereotype you americans, for the last time I know some americans personally, my experiences have been nothing but positive, so please stop accusing me for that, I don't like Bush, and no matter what you say, he sadly isn't a good president.

want a good public speaker? look at Göran Persson, there you go...or Joseph Blatter, Bill Clinton, whoever you want, but I laugh my ass off watching Letterman and they show these clips of him screwing up, sure he's only human and it's only fun to watch, but there isn't much that man is doing right...

anyway, I really don't get you dhin, in the D-day thread sure I said bad things about americans but I apologized cause I really shouldn't have said those things but have I said anything bad about americans now? NO, yet you come here with your super huge posts bringing up all sort of things, stay to the topic man

[dhin]

Okay I'll reply to that. I never said he was a GOOD president (at least not in the way you imply.) I just ment he's getting a bad rap. And people are judging the whole of the US though his presidency (I never named you or ment to imply you claWda, sorry if you took it that way, but perhaps you feel guilty for what you said there and so took offince, so anyway I wasn't pointing fingers.) Being American and living in Europe I grow tired of definding my country and president from stupidity and steriotyping. It happens quite allot. "SO, what do you think about what Bush is doing now? <<searching for an opertunity to bash the US President and Americans>>" It's quite the intellectuall treat the millionth time you do it.

Since you mentioned President Bill though, I wouldn't call him a GOOD president either. In fact there have been very few GOOD US presidents in a very long time. True some of them can talk good and get you to believe $h!t is really yummy candy (Bill,) but is that a good thing?

Blackwolf did make good points I don't deny that. In fact some of it is dead on, but most of it wasn't Bushes doing it has been former Presidents pollicies that was mentioned. . . and the Topic of the thread is Bush. Which I would argue implies those wars, and just about anything else because it only says Goerge Bush.

[invert]

are you implying that most of this **** that bush is getting a bad rap for is because of Bill Clinton...OMG...ROTFLOL.......you need a reality check mate. Clinton was a far greater president then Bush, man gets his ****er sucked and all of a sudden hes the cause for bushs problems. lets see whats worse. Getting your ****er sucked and creating the best economy america has experienced in a long time where almost every single american had a job, or a president who starts a war with false facts, almost every american is struggling to find a job, and when they do it dont pay great due to the presidents desicions as well. Id rather pick the guy who got lucky over the idiot.

[MonteCristo]

Originally posted by LittleFish
My turn:
Bush is not stupid, but he is not a public speaker. Due to the fact that he is almost 60 and he's not going to go back to college, he's going to be a poor public speaker for the remainder of his life.

Wow, It blows my mind that you are content with that. The president of the most powerful country in the world should be a brilliant man. You sound like you are apologising for him.

And public speaking is one of the most important jobs for any speaker. A good speaker doesn't drop crap into their speeches like "crusade," or "axis of evil". The man is an idiot and that doesn't make people feel very good or safe.

[novoAlias]

he wuld be better off with a crusade on obesity in Texas :D :D :D

[john silver]

Reagan just died, and I see on CNN and newsweek over and over that he was an awesome public orator,and used terms like evil empire, star wars, and reaganomics, well maybe not reagnomics but still.

Anyways I have always found it a little, hmm...dumb to blame Bush for the economy in the states, first he is just a leader and by no means can he magicly make the economy better. Second the economy was on it's way down before he was in office. Third the economy in america was only in recession for a month in 2000, and has been growing ever since. So really this time has been cutting the fat so to speak. Let me explain, more s--t has been made every month since that one month in 2000. But there has been less jobs. 2 reasons, one outsourcing(don't worry about it, corporate america is figuring out that it sucks, substandard work) and second they are making themselves more efficient, why hire 2 people to do one job when you can have one do it.
So this is a natural phase in the economy, don't sweat it, really no matter who is elected this fall the economy will bamm(not boom) for the next four years here in the states.

As far as Bush's smarts are concerned, he is again one man, most decisions and policy's are formed by he and his cabinent, formally thought of as bright people. I can't believe no has been fired for the huge intelligence blunder in Iraq. I mean Tenet quit(CIA director), and major reforms are under way but no one has been thrown into the fire. The US admins seem to want to blame chalabi for the whole bad intelligence thing, but retards in the intelligence community believed him. Well we'll see how this mess turns out.

[novoAlias]

so the economy was on its way down before bush was in power... then why isnt he doing anything about it? war is a huge drain on resources of any kind, about the only good thing about it is reducing unemployment of 18-30 year olds..

[RickStefani]

If this is fun to you I would like to direct all of you over to the closest wall to smack your skull into it because it will be just about as productive.

[LittleFish]

MonteCristo -- Hmm, I actually do sound like that. Maybe I should leave my comments around a day and read them again before posting. Oh well. And no, I am not content with that. Bush does have some serious problems, one of the most crucial, yet least heard, being that he doesn't stand up for himself for anything . (Heard it a little bit in English class. it really does make sense if you look at his policy decisions. Why did he ask the U.N. if he wanted to go exercise foreign policy? And what about his "faith-based initiative"? That was dropped without a fight. Oh, the shame.) I don't know about his being a idiot; I really have no idea who he is. Just a picture, like Big Brother, he might as well be to me right now. And with that, I'm done.

[Zergling]

Okay, now you've done it. You've made me want to contribute...

First of all, I personally think Bush is an idiot. After he made all the illegal aliens in the country legal, thereby giving them basically every advantage over me, the hard working average joe who is getting taxed heavily just to pay for some moron's next fix, my respect for the man took a serious plunge (from already negative values).

I've seen videos of his speechal blunders, and I laugh so hard every time I see 'em. It's crazy that such an uneducated guy can be president (anyone seen the pic of him looking through binoculars that have the caps on 'em?). But all this Bush policy bashing is the result of the liberal media's Bush bashing.

If the US was in Iraq for the oil, how come we haven't taken it yet? How come our troops have been ordered to stand around like pansies and be targets for all the resistance groups in Iraq? How come I have to pay $2.00 a gallon for the lowest quality gas over here? How come we have turned over the oil mines to Iraqi authorities?

Also, if you look back on US history, this country has had to make several moves simply to flex it's muscles. When we were trying to get the Philipines, we sent our fleet over to Japan (most powerful country near our intended acquisition) to show them how much power we had. Think about it. In the general scheme of things, the US is a young country. Before WW1 our power was unproven. After WW2 we were considered the most powerful country in the world. After joining the UN, losing the Vietnam war, wasting our countries resources in ... lets see, how many skirmishes was Clinton involved in? Somalia was one ... did we do well in that? We hardly even tried. What about that time we bombed what turned out to be a pharmacy? What was that about? I'll tell you. It was to distract the people's attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And the media played along. For days all that was in the papers was pictures of shattered medecine bottles. So far that's 2 little strikes, costing us millions of dollars and resulting in nothing.

This 2nd Gulf war is even more wasteful. We've lost more men in this war than we did in the first... and what for? France backed Bush's move once Bush and Tony Blair had already risked their reputations to do what they thought was right (ever hear about how Saddam tested his chemical weapons?). France only backed Bush's move because they wanted part of the oil they were sure we were gonna get... Now the UN is backing Bush...

You see the pattern? The US flexes it's muscles, the rest of the world responds. Now the UN is involved. This whole war might only be an attempt at boosting the US's reputation as a country not to be trifled with.

And on the unfounded war... If there were weapons of mass destruction, once we invaded, how much time did Saddam have to relocate the weapons? plenty. But he didn't need that time... he had 8 years (Clinton's presidency) during which nothing over there was being watched. He could have done anything, and Clinton would have looked the other way for the right .... female compensation.

Also, what would you do if your country had just been maliciously attacked by terrorists? Would you sit back and say "well, we had it coming," or would you try to get the folks what done it to ya? What did the US do after Pearl Harbor? An attack with the same amount of human death cannot go ignored.

So seriously, if you were president of the United States on September 11 ... what would you have done? I have my response, but it's too insensitive to post here...

I'll leave it at that cuz I have other stuff to do.

And you know, we shouldn't talk about things like this in this forum. Too many different opinions due to geographical diversity... And too tempting to get involved in...

[john silver]

Yes I must say many of the problems that have plagued the Bush admins was caused by Clinton. Heck, I'd go as far to say that most of Americans problems today have been caused by Liberalism. More Liberal policies and thinking isn't going to fix it. Also has far as saying Bush has no balls you are correct Littlefish, neither did Reagan, and it's all because of Nixon. Most conservatives are irratated with Bush because he has'nt done what we most want him to do. Atk abortion, big government, and defend our freedoms as Americans. he hasn't really done that. I want a Republican with some balls, but perhaps after Bush get's relelected he'll start really running through some hardcore conservative legislation.

NOT AUTHORITARIAN BULL**** which is why most people see both Repubs and Demos as the same. People end up choosing the lesser of 2 evils. It's lame!!!

[LittleFish]

Aw, and there were only 25 more days until the thread dropped off.

*sits staring at computer with wild eyes, mumbling, "only 30 more days... only 30 more days..."*

no more for me to say, but here:

edit: okay, maybe one last thing: liberalism is simply the departure from tradition. a liberal is "liberal", or free to act apart from a moral structure or something that existed before. do you understand the strip?

[novoAlias]

Originally posted by john silver
Yes I must say many of the problems that have plagued the B.... etc

My opinion: you are an odd person

[Zergling]

First of alll ... you should've just let John Silver's reply alone... that way I wouldn't be replying, and BINGO! here we go again. Reset at 30 days.

ahem.

The abolition of slavery was imminent before the start of the Civil War. Many people were realizing the barbarious nature of slavery due to the increase in technology. Soon slaves would become obsolete. That's a fact. Many Southerners were freeing their slaves before the war even began. 'course, if you know History and have any kind of common sense, you should be able to figure out that the War Between the States did not start because of slavery.

Moving on...

The right of women to vote, Civil Rights and other such issues were not started by liberals. They were started by reformists. Same mentality of the Great Awakening. More of a "hello? this is frikkin' DUMB" than a push of a few people's beliefs onto an entire country.

Modern liberalism is much worse than a lot of people think. For example, liberals want every woman in the world to be able to have an abortion. Then they gripe about how many homeless people are dying because they're too lazy to get a job and get off the liquor. Look at the stats. How many homeless people die every day? How many babys are killed every day? Oh yeah, babys aren't people, are they? Nope, just masses of flesh shaped like perfect little replicas of human beings. Okay, so why do people at abortion clinics stick scissors into the back of the baby's head and suck the brains out before the baby gets a chance to scream? Also, do you know what abortion clinics do with the tiny bodies of babys they've murdered? They put 'em in an oversized garbage disposal system. And we thought the holocaust was bad. That's a modern liberal's idea of a better world.

I could go on and on ... what's next? Oh yes, banning guns. Ahem...

You might have heard that a world where everyone has a gun would be a very dangerous place indeed. Well, yes and most defenitely no.

Sure, if everyone could get a gun then there would be a lot more jealous husband killings, and a lot more killings based on immature things. Road rage gone showdown, a son fed up with his mother's demands... or would there?

What if 18-year-old Johnny comes after his mom with a 9mm pistol he got from a gun shop. He says "Prepare to die!" and his mom pulls out a .38 from under her apron. What now? Stalemate. In my opinion, that's better than a gun pointed at an unarmed woman...

Also, how motivated would a few criminals be while lookin' to rob a store if they knew everyone in the store, as well as the shopkeeper, has a gun? Would you waltz into a gun shop and try to rob it?

On the other hand, if we were all perfect citizens and had no guns, we would be completely at the mercy of our government and criminals. What happened in Waco, Texas in ... can't remember if it was 1993 or 1994. What about Ruby Ridge? The U.S. government will not hesitate to use tanks and tear gas against it's own citizens.

Also, what if joe criminal K.O.s a police officer who's writing him a trffic ticket. Well, he's god of the whole block cuz he's the only one with a gun.

But of course, that doesn't matter, cuz that's a LIBERAL point of view. It's RADICAL, it's WORLD-CHANGING, and it can't possibly be a bad idea, because it IS liberal...

I'm gonna stop now because I'm wasting time here.

[claWda]

dude I know I have a choice of not reading, but come on, your posts are like articles, you can make your point keeping it relatively short, just like this one, get it?

[novoAlias]

Originally posted by Zergling
First of alll ... you should've just let John Sil.....

my opinion: you are odd



























































:halo: :halo: :halo: :halo:

[Zergling]

hehe

yeah, so? What's that prove? :D :D :D

[RickStefani]

Die thread DIE.

I just revived it, dddddooooooohhhhhhhh

[Chris-3DT]

And another thread closed. Why? Because I am fed up readin the kind of foolish, generalizing poop some of you ppl post here.

Go stick your head in 3D and leave politics alone if you don't know the first thing about it.