NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear plenty of people state that the reason to vote for Bush is that he will be better in the area of defense. People seem to think that, whatever disagreements they have with Bush, if defense is their number one priority, then he is the one to vote for.

Now, here is the problem that that brings up. We are talking about a man who, while in office, has reversed environmental protections. He has unduly politicized science and has only allowed yes-men as science advisors. He has tried to inject his own personal religion into our government. He is attacking homosexuals and essentially denying medical care to women, not only in our own country, but around the world. He has used an atmosphere of fear to push through a bill that allows him to deny anyone he determines thinks might possibly maybe be a terrorist their Constitutionally granted civil rights. He has surrounded himself with incompetent advisors and then pretended to be surprised when he ended up with "bad intelligence."

My question is this, if the administration in power is systematically tearing down all of the things that make this country great, why defend it? I would rather see America go down, and go down with all of her ideals as intact as possible, than see her give up all her freedoms in the name of "freedom."

Ever read Animal Farm? They thought they were better off too, but they weren't.

"Would you trade your words for freedom? That's a barter for a blind man." Indigo Girls

Now, here is the problem that that brings up. We are talking about a man who, while in office, has reversed environmental protections. He has unduly politicized science and has only allowed yes-men as science advisors. He has tried to inject his own personal religion into our government. He is attacking homosexuals and essentially denying medical care to women, not only in our own country, but around the world. He has used an atmosphere of fear to push through a bill that allows him to deny anyone he determines thinks might possibly maybe be a terrorist their Constitutionally granted civil rights. He has surrounded himself with incompetent advisors and then pretended to be surprised when he ended up with "bad intelligence."

Wow, you are really good a parroting the talking points for the leftist 527 nutjobs. Keep up the good work.

Wow, you are really good a parroting the talking points for the leftist 527 nutjobs. Keep up the good work.

I haven't said anything that can't be backed up with plenty of sources. If you question anything that I put up there, just look into it.

Of course, you didn't answer the question I asked - which is the purpose of this thread.

one man's pundits are they next man's nut jobs. face it, both parties are the slaves of zog so in the end it makes very little difference.

I haven't said anything that can't be backed up with plenty of sources. If you question anything that I put up there, just look into it.

Of course, you didn't answer the question I asked - which is the purpose of this thread.
Your question is a joke, your thread is a joke, so here is a joke for you.

People take you seriously.

HAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

Kerry Fled

Give me plenty of sources. Show evidence of detrimental impact.

one man's pundits are they next man's nut jobs. face it, both parties are the slaves of zog so in the end it makes very little difference.

...

And here come the Nazis!

Sieg Heil!
Uberalles America!

Eh... I'm bored.

I hear plenty of people state that the reason to vote for Bush is that he will be better in the area of defense. People seem to think that, whatever disagreements they have with Bush, if defense is their number one priority, then he is the one to vote for.

Now, here is the problem that that brings up. We are talking about a man who, while in office, has reversed environmental protections. He has unduly politicized science and has only allowed yes-men as science advisors. He has tried to inject his own personal religion into our government. He is attacking homosexuals and essentially denying medical care to women, not only in our own country, but around the world. He has used an atmosphere of fear to push through a bill that allows him to deny anyone he determines thinks might possibly maybe be a terrorist their Constitutionally granted civil rights. He has surrounded himself with incompetent advisors and then pretended to be surprised when he ended up with "bad intelligence."

My question is this, if the administration in power is systematically tearing down all of the things that make this country great, why defend it? I would rather see America go down, and go down with all of her ideals as intact as possible, than see her give up all her freedoms in the name of "freedom."

Ever read Animal Farm? They thought they were better off too, but they weren't.

"Would you trade your words for freedom? That's a barter for a blind man." Indigo Girls


*pats Dempublicents on shoulder* There, there. I agree with you. Although I don't think Bush is wholly responsible, it does seems as though America has lost touch with its ideals. To use a D&D term because I'm that much of a geek, we're a Lawful Neutral nation. Who cares what's right when we have the letter of the law? I too say let America burn.

Ever read Animal Farm? They thought they were better off too, but they weren't.


well of course some animals have to be more equal than others.

...

And here come the Nazis!

Sieg Heil!
Uberalles America!

Eh... I'm bored.


california uber allies! uber allies california!

california uber allies! uber allies california!

I've been hanging out with too many Germans :headbang: that or I see too much History channel.

Sieg!

Give me plenty of sources. Show evidence of detrimental impact.

Science - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320

Women's health -

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010123-5.html (This effectively means that any world health organization that used to receive government funds lost them if it performed abortions even as a small part of what it was spending.

And, of course, the partial birth abortion ban - which includes no clause for the health of the mother and has already been struck down in courts.

Religion -

The above is part of it - doing all he can to ban abortions despite the fact that they are legal. His decision on embryonic stem cell research and the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage are also religion-based.

As for the Patriot Act, just read it.

Your question is a joke, your thread is a joke, so here is a joke for you.

A joke, eh? So the idea of freedom is a joke to you? That's fine, it's your opinion. But if it is all a joke, what is there that needs defending?

Again, from the law itself...
"`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment."

*Sigh* Ask a serious question from some that disagrees with you on a forum and expect a serious answer? Guess the idea is hopeless. For what it's worth, I really would like to know how defense can continue to be important when you have to tear down the ideals you are fighting for in the process. Anyone with an answer, feel free to give it to me.

Good night.

Again, from the law itself...
"`(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the enactment."

And yet almost the *ENTIRE* bill is devoted to saying "There is no medical need whatsoever for this process." Seems a bit contradictory to me. Besides, more than one court has struck it down for exactly the same reason I posited.

And, of course, the partial birth abortion ban - which includes no clause for the health of the mother and has already been struck down in courts.
As for the Patriot Act, just read it.

Partial birth abortion should be banned. It is the killing of a viable BABY. If the pregnancy is that much of a threat to the mother's health, it can usually be determined earlier in the pregnancy, when the fetus is not yet viable. (By the way, I hate talking about babies like they're little more than parasites.) I can understand abortion in certain situations, but the fact is some women DO use it as birth control. It was never meant for that.

As to the Patriot Act...agreed. It's wrong because they don't really need any evidence at all to decide someone is a potential "terrorist". But Ashcroft likes it, so...

But to the point of your thread; why defend America? Because if we don't at least try to, it really will burn. We can't give up just because our politicians are twits. Dem, you know I favor Bush over Kerry, but only because there's no better choice. Most politicians are lying, self-serving jackasses. It becomes a question of degrees, sadly.

And yet almost the *ENTIRE* bill is devoted to saying "There is no medical need whatsoever for this process." Seems a bit contradictory to me. Besides, more than one court has struck it down for exactly the same reason I posited.
It might be contradictory, but there is a clause allowing for the abortions if the mother is in need of them nonetheless.

Wow, you are really good a parroting the talking points for the leftist 527 nutjobs. Keep up the good work.

:rolleyes:

But to the point of your thread; why defend America? Because if we don't at least try to, it really will burn. We can't give up just because our politicians are twits. Dem, you know I favor Bush over Kerry, but only because there's no better choice. Most politicians are lying, self-serving jackasses. It becomes a question of degrees, sadly.

So you would truly rather see a gutted America than a burned one? If your house was going to be attacked, would you start chopping it down yourself?

I hear plenty of people state that the reason to vote for Bush is that he will be better in the area of defense. People seem to think that, whatever disagreements they have with Bush, if defense is their number one priority, then he is the one to vote for.

Now, here is the problem that that brings up. We are talking about a man who, while in office, has reversed environmental protections. He has unduly politicized science and has only allowed yes-men as science advisors. He has tried to inject his own personal religion into our government. He is attacking homosexuals and essentially denying medical care to women, not only in our own country, but around the world. He has used an atmosphere of fear to push through a bill that allows him to deny anyone he determines thinks might possibly maybe be a terrorist their Constitutionally granted civil rights. He has surrounded himself with incompetent advisors and then pretended to be surprised when he ended up with "bad intelligence."

My question is this, if the administration in power is systematically tearing down all of the things that make this country great, why defend it? I would rather see America go down, and go down with all of her ideals as intact as possible, than see her give up all her freedoms in the name of "freedom."

Ever read Animal Farm? They thought they were better off too, but they weren't.

"Would you trade your words for freedom? That's a barter for a blind man." Indigo Girls
personally i would rather fight to restore what has been lost than to give it all up to pessimism.

bush is bad for america but he is not permanent. we can defeat him THIS year. (get your friends to vote, its all gonna come down to who gets out their core voters) if he *shudder* wins this year, its 4 years of fighting against him then he really is out.

i dont consider a man who manipulated a grieving and frightened country into war using lies and scare tactics to be good on defense.

He has surrounded himself with incompetent advisors and then pretended to be surprised when he ended up with "bad intelligence."
How do you know that they are incompetent. Wolfowitz clearly said that the WMD were just the "bureaucratic" argument for the war. Regime change was the aim and having a good base in the Middle East since Saudi-Arabia is more and more becoming insecure. Also in order to sent a warning shot to Iran, North Korea and Syria for the WMD programs and for their support of terrorism. Well: you can argue that was not pointed out that clearly. But for that you should more blame Blair. Bush just wanted to help him by focusing on that point to help Blair to secure a majority for the policy of regime change.
Cheney clearly pointed out in August 2003: Inspections are not enough, we need regime change.

My question is this, if the administration in power is systematically tearing down all of the things that make this country great, why defend it? I would rather see America go down, and go down with all of her ideals as intact as possible, than see her give up all her freedoms in the name of "freedom." Wasn´t it Lincoln who said that the constituition is not a contract to make suicide? It is possible to suspend parts of it to secure the entire thing. Like it is sometimes necessary to amputate a leg or something to secure the life of a patient. I wouldn´t go so far that the US has done such a thing yet. But the law has to be able to adress the thread of terrorism. By the way: no country of the world gives non-citizens grants non-citizens the same rights than citizens. Most of the laws affect foreign nationals who are affiliated with the islamists movement and who are from problematic countries.


Ever read Animal Farm? They thought they were better off too, but they weren't.
"Would you trade your words for freedom? That's a barter for a blind man." Indigo Girls
The question is who is blind here. I anybody has to run the world I would prefer Bush over bin Laden for shure.
Or in other words: If a country has to lead a world (an unilateral world - a world dominated by one power) it can only be the US and I would prefer it towards all other theoretical candidates like China or Russia.
As a non-American I have of course a problem with the idea that one country alone is leading the world. That is an anti-roman reflex. Sorry: belongs to our history. But actually: an unipolar world would certainly be better than a world of rivaling powers like in 19 th century Europe. This system of rivaling powers led to World War I. And World War II was in a way only the logical consequence of World War I because the losers didn´t accept the dictated peace at its end.
Probably it is the bests that the US tries to force the Middle East to comply and dictates solutions to them - which would however mean a long occupation of the region, a prolonged guerilla war and the readiness of the US to fight it.
A pax americana could stand at the end like the pax romana of the Roman Empire. I somewhat doubt that the US is able and ready to stand this challenge. But if it is it would make the world more secure under American leadership.
In the long-run that may even pave the way for the democratisation of the world and on a world order which is not based on a mulit-polar world of rivaling powers but on a multi-polar world based on cooperation of free and democratic nations likely under US leadership. But that is rather a vision for the 22nd century and not the 21rst century. The 21rst century would be the century of wars: the US would need to be ready to fight for the establishment of this order: And those fights would take mainly place in the muslim world, in Africa and potentially in East Asia (China). Is the US able to go for that?

I've got a question for you--if the Republicans are so strong on defense and national security, why couldn't they manage to keep their convention secure from protestors infiltrating and disrupting the proceedings, especially during the two most high profile speeches? The Democrats managed to make it happen.

It's a petty little matter, I know, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I hear plenty of people state that the reason to vote for Bush is that he will be better in the area of defense. People seem to think that, whatever disagreements they have with Bush, if defense is their number one priority, then he is the one to vote for.

Now, here is the problem that that brings up. We are talking about a man who, while in office, has reversed environmental protections. He has unduly politicized science and has only allowed yes-men as science advisors. He has tried to inject his own personal religion into our government. He is attacking homosexuals and essentially denying medical care to women, not only in our own country, but around the world. He has used an atmosphere of fear to push through a bill that allows him to deny anyone he determines thinks might possibly maybe be a terrorist their Constitutionally granted civil rights. He has surrounded himself with incompetent advisors and then pretended to be surprised when he ended up with "bad intelligence."

My question is this, if the administration in power is systematically tearing down all of the things that make this country great, why defend it? I would rather see America go down, and go down with all of her ideals as intact as possible, than see her give up all her freedoms in the name of "freedom."

Ever read Animal Farm? They thought they were better off too, but they weren't.

"Would you trade your words for freedom? That's a barter for a blind man." Indigo Girls
I know you disagree with Bush, but this has gone too far. Comparing him to a tyrant is just irrational paranoia. Now we can debate back and forth about all other issues, but why the hell does Bush appear to you as a destroyer of civil rights? It's not possible to rewrite the constitution without the Supreme Court getting involved, and no, they don't have a fetish for Bush. Ask them why they made that ruling about Florida if you feel so strong an urge, I'm not in the business of questioning judges.

I hear plenty of people state that the reason to vote for Bush is that he will be better in the area of defense. People seem to think that, whatever disagreements they have with Bush, if defense is their number one priority, then he is the one to vote for.

Now, here is the problem that that brings up. We are talking about a man who, while in office, has reversed environmental protections. He has unduly politicized science and has only allowed yes-men as science advisors. He has tried to inject his own personal religion into our government. He is attacking homosexuals and essentially denying medical care to women, not only in our own country, but around the world. He has used an atmosphere of fear to push through a bill that allows him to deny anyone he determines thinks might possibly maybe be a terrorist their Constitutionally granted civil rights. He has surrounded himself with incompetent advisors and then pretended to be surprised when he ended up with "bad intelligence."

My question is this, if the administration in power is systematically tearing down all of the things that make this country great, why defend it? I would rather see America go down, and go down with all of her ideals as intact as possible, than see her give up all her freedoms in the name of "freedom."

Ever read Animal Farm? They thought they were better off too, but they weren't.

"Would you trade your words for freedom? That's a barter for a blind man." Indigo Girls

You raise very good points. On the defense subject: Republicans like to talk about what a nightmare Clinton was for the military. Well....

Clinton:

Somalia (Objectives partly accomplished, roughly 30 Americans killed)
Iraq (Objectives wholly accomplished: hell, they blew up the WMDs Bush blathers on about. 0 Americans killed)
Serbia (Objectives wholly accomplished: they ended a genocide. Again, no Americans killed.)

Bush:

Afghanistan (Country liberated, Taliban largely pwned, but Osama escaped. Mostly a success. About 100 Americans killed)
Iraq (People liberated from dictatorial, despotic regime, and placed under martial law. Constant terrorist attacks. No WMDs found. Almost 1000 Americans killed, and climbing.)

So Clinton accomplished just as much, for 30 dead, as Bush did for 1000+. Smooth, Georgie boy.

I am not an american, but I do have a question:
Has the war in Iraq made the the U.S, or the world, a safer place?
Let me play with the cards open. A regime change is something that was justified to do in Iraq, and in the long run, it might help the international security. I am no supporter of Saddam Hussein.

Yet it seems the Bush administration read the map upside down. While the real danger layed no in Iraq, which had no WMD and quite a joke of an army considering the size of the country, but in Iran, this war was a very serious mistake. Iran might be stopped by its tracks concerning its nuclear program, but it's much more close to getting a bomb than Iraq has ever been.
Concerning the funding of terror, Iran IS the main player in this game, with Syria being behind it. Again, not Iraq.

I think a smarter move by Bush could have been to press those two countries in those matters. Why is there a decrease in Palestinian terror in Israel? It's not the regime change in Iraq (how blessed it might be), and it's not only the seperation fence. it's the blocking of funding from private sectors in europe and the U.S.

By pressing on Syria, the U.S may recreate the cooperation with europe. It might free Lebanon without any military involvement (which we all remember how it ended in the last time), and it might convince Iran to take a better route. Besides, Bashar el Assad's grip in his country is not that strong. He is considering all the time to turn to west if he can only retrieve the Golan heights in return.

It doesn't seem the Bush administration understands how complexed the situation is. It doesn't seem the administration works in any other ways besides military force. Above all, the lack of plans to the "After-day" in Iraq showed how much They didn't bother to read the map.

If your house was going to be attacked, would you start chopping it down yourself?
Meh. More like shooting someone out your window to keep them from breaking the door down. Sure, they won't get in, but it'll still be awfully damn cold come winter.

Partial birth abortion should be banned. It is the killing of a viable BABY.

most of the time it's done, the fetus is already dead.
a lot of the rest of the time, it would die shortly after birth.

If the pregnancy is that much of a threat to the mother's health, it can usually be determined earlier in the pregnancy, when the fetus is not yet viable.

actually, hydrocehpalus doesn't show up until partway through the third timester.

I can understand abortion in certain situations, but the fact is some women DO use it as birth control. It was never meant for that.

i'm pretty sure the case in the states that pushed the right to choose into law was because the lady didn't want to have a kid...

Your question is a joke, your thread is a joke, so here is a joke for you.

People take you seriously.

HAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
Wow, you're so mature.