NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?

Broken international law to which the USA is a signatory member, made the USA LESS safe, not more, mislead the world and his own people. Is a war monger.. He also went to war with no plan, among other things, but that's the gist of it.
Which international law?

Broken international law to which the USA is a signatory member, made the USA LESS safe, not more, mislead the world and his own people. Is a war monger.. He also went to war with no plan, among other things, but that's the gist of it.

Violated the US constitution, not to mention defiling it by suggesting we add something as degrading as the issue of 'pure' marriage to it.

Violated the US constitution, not to mention defiling it by suggesting we add something as degrading as the issue of 'pure' marriage to it.
Violated what in the Constitution?

read the papers
watch the news
talk to people

but please don't start a new thread on this

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?
It's a trap, get an axe.

You can dispute whether or not I have a beard, but I'd still have a beard. As long as someone is willing to squeeze thier eyes, jam thier fingers in their ears and scream "UH UUHH!!" there will be dispute, regardless of what is real.

We are not better off, we are not safer. It's Ronald's test and Bush failed.

Denounced countries for invading others without UN backing. We all know what happened next...

And as for international law, heard of Guantanemo(sp?) Bay?

It's a trap, get an axe.

You can dispute whether or not I have a beard, but I'd still have a beard. As long as someone is willing to squeeze thier eyes, jam thier fingers in their ears and scream "UH UUHH!!" there will be dispute, regardless of what is real.

We are not better off, we are not safer. It's Ronald's test and Bush failed.
Three years without an attack isn't so bad. Israel would kill for that.

Violated the US constitution, not to mention defiling it by suggesting we add something as degrading as the issue of 'pure' marriage to it.

If you read the first post, he specifically said INDISPUTIBLY wrong. There are plenty of people who agree with his idea (me included).

"Denounced countries for invading others without UN backing. We all know what happened next..."
I like how everyone ignores the resolutions passed on the matter. Just because they made it vague doesn't mean we went in without them.

"And as for international law, heard of Guantanemo(sp?) Bay?"
Yeah, and?

Three years without an attack isn't so bad. Israel would kill for that.
Right. Because Canada is such a hostile neighbour. :rolleyes:

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?absolutely everything

absolutely everything
So you would say giving prescription drugs to the elderly is a bad thing? You're so mean-spirited.

Broken international law to which the USA is a signatory member, made the USA LESS safe, not more, mislead the world and his own people. Is a war monger.. He also went to war with no plan, among other things, but that's the gist of it.
He said "indisputably wrong". Are you sure those can't be disputed? :p

Seriously, though, I happen to think that those assertions are correct, but I don't think that they can't be (or aren't) reasonably disputed.

For example, nobody's going to dispute that the United States sent military forces into Iraq; ev-er-y-one can see them walking the streets of Baghdad. Only a lunatic is going to claim that the United States did not enter Iraq with armed force. What is under dispute is whether or not such entry into Iraq was justified.

"Think about it for a moment." ;)


It's a trap, get an axe.

You can dispute whether or not I have a beard, but I'd still have a beard. As long as someone is willing to squeeze thier eyes, jam thier fingers in their ears and scream "UH UUHH!!" there will be dispute, regardless of what is real.
I think we can safely ignore disputes by people who are not clinically sane. ;)


--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Three years without an attack isn't so bad. Israel would kill for that.
Man, do we really have to go back to the rock that protects from tigers? C'mon, seriously. You know this is silly. It demeans both of us if we have to go through it.

Right. Because Canada is such a hostile neighbour. :rolleyes:
They're just biding their time...

Man, do we really have to go back to the rock that protects from tigers? C'mon, seriously. You know this is silly. It demeans both of us if we have to go through it.
So at worst, we're equally safe. Unless you count attacks that don't happen as making us less safe.

The semantics of whether he may or may not have done anything wrong doesn't mean he's done anything right.

Besides, I really don't care. I don't like him. I don't like his policies. I don't like his party. I don't like his administration. I don't like his class. I don't like his ideology. I don't like his religion. I don't even like his state.

Therefore, I'm not voting for him.

So at worst, we're equally safe. Unless you count attacks that don't happen as making us less safe.
with a reckless warmonger as President we're less safe then we've ever been in our history

So at worst, we're equally safe. Unless you count attacks that don't happen as making us less safe.
I'm sure isolating American Muslims and creating a perfect breeding ground for terrorism makes your troops less safe.

with a reckless warmonger as President we're less safe then we've ever been in our history
I hardly see how losing 1000 soldiers conquering two countries who abuse their own people is warmongering.

Bushs imperialistic war profiteering in the mideast has turned the entire arab world into one giant terrorist breeding ground.

I'm sure isolating American Muslims and creating a perfect breeding ground for terrorism makes your troops less safe.
Only the Muslims who support Saddam Hussein.

...well... killing the suppressed won't make them any happier either, or will it?

Three years without an attack isn't so bad. Israel would kill for that.
Uh, they ARE killing for that

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?

Not really a liberal, but here:

The Bush administration has attempted to politicize and destroy the objectivity of science for their own gains. Even Republican scientists and those who have served under many past presidents agree that Bush has gone way too far. He has fired qualified scientific committees just because he didn't want to hear what they had to say and instead hired yes-men with little or no standing in the scientific community.

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

Bushs imperialistic war profiteering in the mideast has turned the entire arab world into one giant terrorist breeding ground.
"Turned"? It was never some place of peace and prospersity...they've been killing each other for a thousand years. And besides, I don't think Bush made much money profiteering this war, seeing as how he doesn't sell anything.

Bushs imperialistic war profiteering in the mideast has turned the entire arab world into one giant terrorist breeding ground.
Are you you just throwing so many darts in the hope that one of them hits the target?

Only the Muslims who support Saddam Hussein.
Because if someone shot your mother you'd still be happy that they had previously got rid of the tyrant?

I don't think Bush made much money profiteering this war, seeing as how he doesn't sell anything.
I do... isn't it all about oil ( just to bring up all aspects ;))

Uh, they ARE killing for that
I meant more than they are :p

I hardly see how losing 1000 soldiers conquering two countries who abuse their own people is warmongering.
well its not over now is it? Bush abandoned Afghanistan and refused to invade places where al queda would be (in fact giving up the fight against terrorism and finding Osama totally) instead opting to attack a country that posed a threat to exactly no one just to loot it for its resources and in the process turned terrorism into a vast global scourge on a level it has never existed on in the modern world.

"Turned"? It was never some place of peace and prospersity...they've been killing each other for a thousand years. And besides, I don't think Bush made much money profiteering this war, seeing as how he doesn't sell anything.
No they haven't.

And it has been a place of peace and prosperity.

I do... isn't it all about oil ( just to bring up all aspects ;))
Bush doesn't own any Iraqi oil companies; as of this instant, the oil being drilled is being used to pay to rebuild their country.

No they haven't.

And it has been a place of peace and prosperity.
HAH! The Moors burned half the world, Iraq and Iran have been rivals since their inception, the Arabs have been killing Jews for fifty years, Kuwait, Oman, not to mention numerous civil wars...

yes. the oil is sold and with that money they rebuild the country. now. who might they be selling to? The arab countries have - as far as I'm informed- quite a lot of oil already :)

I'm sure isolating American Muslims and creating a perfect breeding ground for terrorism makes your troops less safe.

And it was the model for Care Bear Land before...:rolleyes:

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?


hahaha...thats funny,..pretending like someone has to ask...it's pure comedy.

We could also ask what he has done that is indisputably right.

The answer both is the same, nothing.

This is entirely subjective. The validity to any action can always be disputed; this is what gives us constructive thought.

My opinion is that Bush has been bad for both the US and the wider world. As a citizen of another country I am not entitled to vote him out no matter how much damage he does to the world of which I am a part. I can however state my opinion and would urge all Americans to ask themselves whether the world is really a better place now than in 2000.

Notice I did not state whether it is or not, this is never indisputable.

I think the Department of Homeland Security meets little opposition...except, you know, from terrorists and anarchists...

Only the Muslims who support Saddam Hussein.
Saddam has always been a secular leader--the real terrorist that muslim fanatics support is named Osama,but Bush took him off his radar screen and didnt even mention his name once during the GOP hatefest in NYC

I think the Department of Homeland Security meets little opposition...except, you know, from terrorists and anarchists...

oh please...

"Turned"? It was never some place of peace and prospersity...they've been killing each other for a thousand years. And besides, I don't think Bush made much money profiteering this war, seeing as how he doesn't sell anything.All those million dollar no bid contracts to Cheneys employer and other politically connected businesses rebuilding Iraq isnt looting? Shouldnt the "liberated" Iraqi people themselves be getting these jobs?

Saddam has always been a secular leader--the real terrorist that muslim fanatics support is named Osama,but Bush took him off his radar screen and didnt even mention his name once during the GOP hatefest in NYC

However, Osama has not been able to attack. Furthermore, Osama has been neutralised without being martyred.

Are you you just throwing so many darts in the hope that one of them hits the target?
I always utilize the full frontal assault mode

All those million dollar no bid contracts to Cheneys employer and other politically connected businesses rebuilding Iraq isnt looting? Shouldnt the "liberated" Iraqi people themselves be getting these jobs?

It couldn't possibly be that they've been getting these contracts since the Clinton days and are the biggest construction company in the country...

However, Osama has not been able to attack. Furthermore, Osama has been neutralised without being martyred.
do you really believe everything the newspapers tell you?

wnanna know a thing Bush did wrong? he gave political power to John Ashcroft. excuse me, "reverend" John Ashcroft. Excuse me "reverend" John "big brother" Ashcroft. Yes, the guy who lost an election to a corpse was made an attourney general by Bush. Shortly after... Patriot act, state of emergency health act, TIPS, TIA... well, you get my point. This is the man who plans to leave only one part of the constitution intact...can anyone say "second amendment??""

It couldn't possibly be that they've been getting these contracts since the Clinton days and are the biggest construction company in the country...
That neither justifies a no-bid deal nor the fact that we have a country in need of reconstruction.

well its not over now is it? Bush abandoned Afghanistan and refused to invade places where al queda would be (in fact giving up the fight against terrorism and finding Osama totally) instead opting to attack a country that posed a threat to exactly no one just to loot it for its resources and in the process turned terrorism into a vast global scourge on a level it has never existed on in the modern world.

Here's a hypothetical: what would you think if we had invaded Sudan in 1995?

HAH! The Moors burned half the world,

They were also one of the most advanced civilisations of the time. And one of the richest.
Also, the Moors weren't the only civilisation to come from the middle east.

Iraq and Iran have been rivals since their inception,

Which is what happens if you create regional boundaries with no respect to the indigenous people, and then interfere to an extent that dictators take over.

the Arabs have been killing Jews for fifty years, Kuwait, Oman, not to mention numerous civil wars...
The Europeans had been killing them for centuries.

Using your reasoning the world has always been killing each other and has never been a place of peace and prosperity.

HAH! The Moors burned half the world, Iraq and Iran have been rivals since their inception, the Arabs have been killing Jews for fifty years, Kuwait, Oman, not to mention numerous civil wars...
And Bush recklessly put America right in the middle of this vipers nest

Three years without an attack isn't so bad. Israel would kill for that.

The only reason the US hasn't been attacked is because its isolated from the source of muslims in the old world by two huge oceans and its surrounded by countries who have no desire to hurt americans. Unlike every other nation in europe, the middle east and even in the south pacific who have no such buffer. And since they are small countries who have lots of traffic over their borders its absolutely impossible to secure their borders efficiently. Not like they are doing a great job in the US either on that front.

Israel on the other hand is right in the heart of the beehive. Spain also has no buffer and Russia has been at war for years against the Chechen muslims.

Besides, you are not safe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/25/wfly25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/25/ixworld.html

Al Queda is up and running in America, they are just taking their time; using muslim, and possibly non-muslim, men and women with no criminal record and are therefore hard to track. Trying to figure out where you are weak. They likely won't attack until Bush wins because if they attack beforehand Kerry may win. And we all know who OBL has put his support behind.

do you really believe everything the newspapers tell you?

If I did, would I support Bush?

And it was the model for Care Bear Land before...:rolleyes:
Well, before they were focused on killing each other.

sorry I'm not being that 'constructive'...
this just has been talked about so much. watch michael moore (though you might not like him, he probably could tell you 'why not bush') do whatever it takes, but try to question what other people tell you and don't be afraid to change your mind.
both sides stubbornly hold on to their opinions, no one wants to really understand the other, but instead we all try to convince the other side of our point of view.
sorry to say, but this won't get us anywhere.

I think the Department of Homeland Security meets little opposition...except, you know, from terrorists and anarchists...
actually the flip flopper in the White House initially opposed the creation of Homeland Security

Well, before they were focused on killing each other.

Bin Laden formally declared war on the United States in 1996, as I recall.

However, Osama has not been able to attack. Furthermore, Osama has been neutralised without being martyred.
maybe Osama may just be holding off on any further attacks for the moment to ensure that his best recruiter in the White House gets re-elected

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?

good job on the trolling type act, but it didnt work. Go make out with your boyfriend shrubbert :fluffle:
thank you for whoever first submitted this article
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
LAW ENFORCEMENT:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

MILITARY:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

COLLEGE:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted th! e U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution.
More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.
I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my ! bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
also, he put colin powells son in charge of Fema, and he in turn got rid of radio and newspaper monopoly rules. makinga station called Clear Channel possible, which is run by the Bush Administration and is taking over the radio.
DONT FORGE THE PATRIOT ACT. WHY DO PEOPLE NEVER MENTION IT?!? oops ive said too much i guess im going to execution without a trial now.
:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Bin Laden formally declared war on the United States in 1996, as I recall.
And Bin Laden speaks for all people in the Middle East regardless right?

However, Osama has not been able to attack. Furthermore, Osama has been neutralised without being martyred.

Riiiiiiiiight, Osama's been neutralized. He's not up to anything, and it's not like he's reached folk-hero status with all the people who now dislike America more than ever.

Do you know that the U.S. now has single digit approval ratings in the Middle East? While they didn't exactly like us before, utter hatred was not nearly as rampant.

One might as well ask, "Why not the bubonic plague?" or "Why not kidney stones?" or "Why not have Michael Jackson babysit my children?"

If one doesn't know why Bush is horrible by now, then no amount of evidence or debate will ever change one's intensely blinkered mind. I'm saddened that so much of the country supports him, and I blame our education system for turning out so many people with an inability to think critically and independently.

its surrounded by countries who have no desire to hurt americans. I dunno, I went to a high school with a mostly hispanic student body, and man, those kids from mexico really didn't like the rest of us...

Bush doesn't own any Iraqi oil companies; as of this instant, the oil being drilled is being used to pay to rebuild their country.

What oil? Insurgents keep destroying the piplines :D

It couldn't possibly be that they've been getting these contracts since the Clinton days and are the biggest construction company in the country...yeah thats part of it but it also doesnt hurt to have the Vice President teaching you how to steal from the American taxpayers in the process either

What oil? Insurgents keep destroying the piplines :D
How does one insurge into ones own country?

That neither justifies a no-bid deal nor the fact that we have a country in need of reconstruction.

Halliburton's specialty is in going into areas with little or no infrastructure very quickly and setting up things like food service, laundry's etc.

There is no other company with the kind of experience that they've got in this area.

A standard bid process could take months - they were selected, and sent, because of past contracts that were successful and because they could respond rapidly.

The contracts, now that Iraq has some semblance of infrastructure, are soon going to be going up for bid.

Halliburton's stock is trading at half of what it was before Cheney took over as Vice President.

actually the flip flopper in the White House initially opposed the creation of Homeland Security


you mean...Bush was originaly AGAINST giving john Ashcroft the power to dismantle our civil Liberties??? Wow...Im gonna have to reconsider all of my beliefs.

I dunno, I went to a high school with a mostly hispanic student body, and man, those kids from mexico really didn't like the rest of us...

I think you're just seeing too much into their dislike.

:eek: But then again...hispanics and arabs DO look alike :eek:
:eek: Maybe they were arabs that learned to speak spanish! :eek:

Alright, the big issue is terrorism, it seems.

What will Kerry do better? Hypnotise Jacques Chirac?

George Bush lied to his people, and put the soldiers' lives on the line for reasons that are questionable, at best.

Three years without an attack isn't so bad. Israel would kill for that.
Israel does kill for that every day.

Here's a hypothetical: what would you think if we had invaded Sudan in 1995?
Sudan was and does remain a legatimate target-the war in Iraq is just a very costly quagmire that has won us nothing but the enmity of the world.Bush made America lose the moral high ground with his blind greed

Alright, the big issue is terrorism, it seems.

What will Kerry do better? Hypnotise Jacques Chirac?
you'd call that an improvement??

Sudan was and does remain a legatimate target-the war in Iraq is just a very costly quagmire that has won us nothing but the enmity of the world.Bush made America lose the moral high ground with his blind greed

Greed for what?

Sudan was and does remain a legatimate target-the war in Iraq is just a very costly quagmire that has won us nothing but the enmity of the world.Bush made America lose the moral high ground with his blind greed

Hm, you clearly are working off of Fahrenheit 9/11!

Al Qaeda was based in Sudan in 1995!

Greed for what?
world peace, what else? :D

If I did, would I support Bush?
yes--the corporate media are diehard Bush supporters and facist propagandists

I'm more interested in just how the hell *this* happened :

http://www.unlc.biz/wtf.JPG

How did Arammanar predict exactly what Stephistan was going to say and quote it 1 minute before it was posted?!?!?!

I now ph34r Arammanar.

How does one insurge into ones own country?

Ah...so true...how does one label them?

Terrorists?
Freedom Fighters?

Either way the approaching civil war will make good TV (unless you watch Fox News).

sorry I'm not being that 'constructive'...
this just has been talked about so much. watch michael moore (though you might not like him, he probably could tell you 'why not bush') do whatever it takes, but try to question what other people tell you and don't be afraid to change your mind.
both sides stubbornly hold on to their opinions, no one wants to really understand the other, but instead we all try to convince the other side of our point of view.
sorry to say, but this won't get us anywhere.we must always witness for the truth regardless of whether it changes minds or not

I'm more interested in just how the hell *this* happened :

http://www.unlc.biz/wtf.JPG

How did Arammanar predict exactly what Stephistan was going to say and quote it 1 minute before it was posted?!?!?!

I now ph34r Arammanar.
No, it just got messed up. Arammanar posted after Steph (I know this since I saw her post before Arammanar posted)

we must always witness for the truth regardless of whether it changes minds or not
so it's really all about 'tell me what you think, but it's not like I care'? :(

I think the Department of Homeland Security meets little opposition...except, you know, from terrorists and anarchists...
You mean the Department of Homeland Security that Bush opposed creating?

Right. Because Canada is such a hostile neighbour. :rolleyes:
They are. Haven't you seen the South Park movie? Oh wait, we attacked Canada in that film.

However, Osama has not been able to attack. Furthermore, Osama has been neutralised without being martyred.
Bush didn't seem too concerned about martyring Osama bin Laden when he cried for a manhunt in the days following 9/11/2001.

So you would say giving prescription drugs to the elderly is a bad thing? You're so mean-spirited.

Since when has he given the elderly drugs?

That discount card program he lionized is bullshit.

Seniors find it confusing to follow. Their drugs have gone up. Never mind the fact that when you sign on, you are locked in for a year and yet the drugs you were after can get dropped at anytime. So you end up paying for a card, you can't use.

Reports show that many seniors have stopped taking their meds are can't get them.

No, it just got messed up. Arammanar posted after Steph (I know this since I saw her post before Arammanar posted)

Yeah ... but that's how it came up on my screen ... thought I'd disrupt the thread with it. :D

Halliburton's specialty is in going into areas with little or no infrastructure very quickly and setting up things like food service, laundry's etc.

There is no other company with the kind of experience that they've got in this area.

A standard bid process could take months - they were selected, and sent, because of past contracts that were successful and because they could respond rapidly.

The contracts, now that Iraq has some semblance of infrastructure, are soon going to be going up for bid.

Halliburton's stock is trading at half of what it was before Cheney took over as Vice President.theres many other companies that do the exact same thing as halliburton they just dont have a connection in the white house to get the no bid contracts.Im sure having the VP whose drawing a paycheck from your company isnt itself a conflict of interest either--yeah rite

Halliburton's stock is trading at half of what it was before Cheney took over as Vice President.

Did you happen to note if the stock has split at all. Just curious...

you mean...Bush was originaly AGAINST giving john Ashcroft the power to dismantle our civil Liberties??? Wow...Im gonna have to reconsider all of my beliefs.
No--Bush always supported the Patriot Act and he even wants to expand it with another one. Bush has wet dreams about being a Dictator

Alright, the big issue is terrorism, it seems.

What will Kerry do better? Hypnotise Jacques Chirac?
well if Kerry just stops Bush from recruiting ever more terrorists globally that itself will be a start-But I do think Kerry can restore American credability in the world that Bush wantonly destroyed with his arrogance

:rolleyes:

If John Kerry is reading this: take a stance, man! Your "A President without a stance is a friend to all!" approach makes no sense!

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?

If the question is: Why not Bush? You have already given yourself the answer, you should never have to give a "why not", only a "why"

Greed for what?The Bush family has always been nothing but a pack of thieves-they exist to steal and brag about it-But now their carnivorous greed is endangering the lives of the rest of us

well if Kerry just stops Bush from recruiting ever more terrorists globally that itself will be a start-But I do think Kerry can restore American credability in the world that Bush wantonly destroyed with his arrogance
I think so, too. If you read the news over here in Europe you start to believe that America is pretty much just doomed if Bush gets re-elected.

If one doesn't know why Bush is horrible by now, then no amount of evidence or debate will ever change one's intensely blinkered mind. I'm saddened that so much of the country supports him, and I blame our education system for turning out so many people with an inability to think critically and independently.

I hate to say this...

But having "Republican" ideologies these days IS thinking independently. Especially on this forum, from what I observe.

Don't we still have troops in Afghanistan? If so, my theory about OBL: They're closing in on him - however, a ravenous media would release information about where troops are. Therefore, our troops in Afghanistan, who are after Osama, are simply operating under media silence.

You might think it's stupid... I think it's reasonable.

So, some humor!

<sarcasm>I would rather be called a Fascist than a Communist. ::looks at shirt:: Hey, I'm wearing a black shirt right now! </sarcasm> (That was so certain forumites won't take that seriously... cough cough.)

If the question is: Why not Bush? You have already given yourself the answer, you should never have to give a "why not", only a "why"

Hey, I know why I like George Bush. I might as well humor the rest of you in the interest of freedom and fairness.

HAH! The Moors burned half the world, Iraq and Iran have been rivals since their inception, the Arabs have been killing Jews for fifty years, Kuwait, Oman, not to mention numerous civil wars...

-Buzzer sound-

Sorry the Moors didn't come from the Middle East.

Also, they didn't burn half of the world. In fact they advanced Europe.

"At a time when London was a tiny mud-hut village that "could not boast of a single streetlamp" (Digest, 1973, p. 622), in Cordova "there were half a million inhabitants, living in 113,000 houses. There were 700 mosques and 300 public baths spread throughout the city and its twenty-one suburbs. The streets were paved and lit." (Burke, 1985, p. 38) The houses had marble balconies for summer and hot-air ducts under the mosaic floors for the winter. They were adorned with gardens with artificial fountains and orchards". (Digest, 1973, p. 622) "Paper, a material still unknown to the west, was everywhere. There were bookshops and more than seventy libraries." (Burke, 1985, p. 38)."

The day the universe changed

This thread is growing faster than I can read it, but I have a few words I'd like to shimmy in here...

What I don't understand is how liberals claim that 9/11 could have been prevented had we acted on the very vague intelligence we had at the time, but then turn around and say that Bush acting on the vague intelligence that there might be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was unjustified. Make up your mind, people. He clearly didn't want another 9/11, so he acted on the intelligence he had and sent troops off to Iraq.

I support the war, but I do NOT support how long it has been going on. I think our main priority at this point is to help Iraq develop a police force of its own, and then pull out our soldiers. This isn't necessarily a fault of Bush, however. We all know that it takes time to set up a country before it can stand on its own. I just wish the process would go faster.

In this election, however, I think the political choices we make our based on not who we like, but who we hate less. I highly dislike John Kerry - he signed up to go to Vietnam, self-inflicted his own wounds so he could come home early, and started protesting violently and insulting the returning soldiers. Our soldiers don't need that. They should be coming home to open arms - not media bias and political mayhem.

A lot of the hostilities at this time are coming from both parties, however. People are lashing out against everyone everywhere. I think everyone just needs to take a deep breath and calm down.

What I like about Bush is that he lowered taxes, increased healthfare benefits, and did all he could to help protect our homeland. While I disagree with many of his policies (such as the gay marriage debate), I do believe that, out of the two main candidates, he is the better choice.

I really wish that someone who had a brain would run, though. Colin Powell would be an awesome president, but he's too smart to do it - even if he wasn't assissinated due to the color of his skin, he'd have to dive headfirst into slander and libel, as all presidents do. The people who would make good presidents don't want to have to hear all of the crap surrounding their name.

And that is my two cents.

Hm, you clearly are working off of Fahrenheit 9/11!

Al Qaeda was based in Sudan in 1995!
I agree-Bush was correct in invading Afghanistan and he shoulda went into Sudan from there--why he destroyed Americas credability by invading the helpless Iraq is something he will never be able to live down. Its mindboggling that all the global goodwill and unity in America in the wake of 911 was utterly demolished by Bushs corrupt and evil nature as Bushs lies not only turned the entire world against us but bitterly divided the American people as well

so it's really all about 'tell me what you think, but it's not like I care'? :(
LOL yes because the truth eventually sinks in subliminally

Did you happen to note if the stock has split at all. Just curious...

I was thinking the same thing. You beat me to it :p

I agree-Bush was correct in invading Afghanistan and he shoulda went into Sudan from there--why he destroyed Americas credability by invading the helpless Iraq is something he will never be able to live down. Its mindboggling that all the global goodwill and unity in America in the wake of 911 was utterly demolished by Bushs corrupt and evil nature as Bushs lies not only turned the entire world against us but bitterly divided the American people as well
I'm not sure it is 'correct' to invade another country with the sole reason of being a superpower and kind of a 'world police'. As terrible the situations in said countries were and still are, who is to say we're 'allowed' to invade any of them?

LOL yes because the truth eventually sinks in subliminally
so we might as well post 'blablablas' or empty messages just for the fun of it? ;) just make sure to label them one or the other way... pro-bush or anti-bush :D

it would go something like this:
I don't really agree with [insert random pro-bush argument] because from what I've heard, [insert random no-bush argument] is closer to the truth.
That's why [insert random no-bush conlusion].

In this election, however, I think the political choices we make our based on not who we like, but who we hate less. I highly dislike John Kerry - he signed up to go to Vietnam, self-inflicted his own wounds so he could come home early, and started protesting violently and insulting the returning soldiers. Our soldiers don't need that. They should be coming home to open arms - not media bias and political mayhem.

Kerry did NOT "self-inflict" his wounds. I am having a hard time not cussing at the moment. ALL the hard evidence supports Kerry's version of events. Meanwhile, new, written evidence that Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard pops up just about every day.

John Kerry did not insult soldiers, unless said soldiers were predisposed to be insulted. John Kerry was passing along the tesimony of dozens of soldiers that he represented. To say Kerry insulted soldiers is similar to saying that Jeffrey Dalmer's lawyer was a cannibal.

John kerry wasTrying to save soldier's lives! He was trying to stop the war that he had seen with his own two eyes! How the hell can you criticize that unless you've been programmed with hate?

oooh, it's been 5 min now... typing in bold font really does impress people ;)

How the hell can you criticize that unless you've been programmed with hate?

Okay, this is at least the second time on this thread in which you have blatantly insulted people who did not share your opinion. Just because I dislike Kerry doesn't mean that I have been "programmed with hate."

The media is so screwed up these days that it's hard to sort out fact from fiction. All I'm saying is that I've heard a lot more evidence against Kerry than supporting him.

well, someone up there said something about what kerry would do better. The Middle Eastern people, its not Americans they hate, its George Bush and his poicies. So what Kerry can do better is not make the Mid Easterners hate us.

Okay, this is at least the second time on this thread in which you have blatantly insulted people who did not share your opinion. Just because I dislike Kerry doesn't mean that I have been "programmed with hate."

The media is so screwed up these days that it's hard to sort out fact from fiction. All I'm saying is that I've heard a lot more evidence against Kerry than supporting him.

The reason I saythis is because there is no possible way to think that John Kerry is insulting the soldiers if you read his actual testimony. Do not trust the media to interpret things like this for you. Read the actual original document. I am angry, because I see the misprepresentation of truth becoming pandemic. Whether you agree with Kerry's anti-war efforts or not, read his unadulterated actual testimony, and tell me if he insults the soldiers.

oooh, it's been 5 min now... typing in bold font really does impress people ;)

Sorry Alinania, but the dissemination of lie, especially the repeated dissemination of debunked lies, really makes me angry. How else am I to express my anger except by emphasis? Complex and eloquent prose seems to be ineffective.

Alright, the big issue is terrorism, it seems.

What will Kerry do better? Hypnotise Jacques Chirac?

Well, I posted a more domestic issue, but it got ignored =(

Oh well, terrorism is important too.

Kerry did NOT "self-inflict" his wounds. I am having a hard time not cussing at the moment. ALL the hard evidence supports Kerry's version of events. Meanwhile, new, written evidence that Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard pops up just about every day.

You mean Kerry's versions? Working for Nixon before Nixon was working! :rolleyes:

John kerry wasTrying to save soldier's lives! He was trying to stop the war that he had seen with his own two eyes! How the hell can you criticize that unless you've been programmed with hate?

It's worth noting that Jane Fonda apologised to the veterans in 1988. Anyway, let's get off of Vietnam. The issue is national security.

Sorry Alinania, but the dissemination of lie, especially the repeated dissemination of debunked lies, really makes me angry. How else am I to express my anger except by emphasis? Complex and eloquent prose seems to be ineffective.
that's ok, didn't mean to attack you anyways ;) just thought it was funny, like you said complex and eloquent prose seem to be ineffective :D

Alaska National Wildlife Refuge

He wanted to drill one of the last untouched habitats in North America for oil.
1. Its wrong to destroy nature reserves just because it cna be profitable
2. Distorting evidence to support it is morally wrong. We are supposed to be able to trust government.
3. Oil isnt going to suddenly leave. I could understand going in there for something that is important and momentary, but oil is going to stay in the ground and therefore there is no urgency or reason to do it now.

But this was stopped by congress because it was wrong so I guess the fact he tried doesnt count?

On another note North Korea? Even before Iraq we knew North Korea was seeking weapons. We need some action there. 4 years of nothing is wrong.

You mean Kerry's versions? Working for Nixon before Nixon was working! :rolleyes:

No, I mean the official navy version. The version that no one has any proof Kerry wrote in any way.



It's worth noting that Jane Fonda apologised to the veterans in 1988. Anyway, let's get off of Vietnam. The issue is national security.

Fonda met with the Vietnamese while the war was still going, and visited prisoner of war camps, and alerted the wardens when a prisoner tried to hand her a note. She took her stance way too far and I dislike her intensely for that. She should have apologized, and I understand if people still hate her.

Kerry, on the other hand, became the spokesman for a group of Vietnam Veterans against the war. He testified eloquently to congress, under oath. If he had lied in any way, a Nixon whitehouse that was intensely anti-Kerry would have locked Kerry up and thrown away the key. Right? I mean, lying to congress got Clinton impeached, didn't it? These are facts, pray tell me how you can refute them?

North Korea supports John Kerry, and I can get you some links on that if you give me a few minutes..

Lastly Stem Cell Reaserch

As we speak 100s of excess embryos are being destroyed, but we can't use them for reaserch? Some are eveen being incinerated. And if there is private reaserch then suddenly valuable knowledge is trade secrets.

No, I mean the official navy version. The version that no one has any proof Kerry wrote in any way.

Note the "s".

North Korea supports John Kerry, and I can get you some links on that if you give me a few minutes..
Ahem this is what is wrong with Bush, I dont care about John Kerry right now. If it is how is Kerry better than Bush then maybe.

On another note North Korea? Even before Iraq we knew North Korea was seeking weapons. We need some action there. 4 years of nothing is wrong.
I heard the US has some weapons of mass destruction. why not go invade them.
oops. ;)

This thread is growing faster than I can read it, but I have a few words I'd like to shimmy in here...

What I don't understand is how liberals claim that 9/11 could have been prevented had we acted on the very vague intelligence we had at the time, but then turn around and say that Bush acting on the vague intelligence that there might be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was unjustified. Make up your mind, people. He clearly didn't want another 9/11, so he acted on the intelligence he had and sent troops off to Iraq.


9/11 could not have been prevented. Liberals haven't been saying they should have acted on crappy intelligence; conservatives are because we had that bad info back in the Clinton administration. The conservatives are just trying to divert blame. Since no one could have predicted airplanes to be used at weapons it's moot to point fingers.

Iraq didn't attack the US on 9/11. Terrorists working out of Afghanistan did. He invaded Afghanistan (with too few troops) and so did all of the US's traditional allies (and we are still there!). He invaded Iraq on info no other country was dumb enough to act on. Now Iraq is descending into civil war and terrorists groups have been recruiting many more people since, and because of the invasion in Iraq.



I support the war, but I do NOT support how long it has been going on. I think our main priority at this point is to help Iraq develop a police force of its own, and then pull out our soldiers. This isn't necessarily a fault of Bush, however. We all know that it takes time to set up a country before it can stand on its own. I just wish the process would go faster.


Well, the war was destined to be this long and disasterous. Look at every act of occupation by a foreign military that has occurred in the world. Unless the military is horrifically brutal (and sometimes even if they are) they will be forced to leave due to terrorism ochestrated by citizens to force the foreign army out.

Police won't cut it. A police force can't fight AK47's. Civil war is the inevitable outcome from this scenario. Police are useless here.

Fault belongs to Cheney, Rove, Bush and Rumsfeld...and there is lots of fault to go around.



In this election, however, I think the political choices we make our based on not who we like, but who we hate less. I highly dislike John Kerry - he signed up to go to Vietnam, self-inflicted his own wounds so he could come home early, and started protesting violently and insulting the returning soldiers. Our soldiers don't need that. They should be coming home to open arms - not media bias and political mayhem.



No one has ever said he self-inflicted his wounds, not even on the Swift Boat comercials (that I know of). The doctor who said that ONE wound was a SMALL METAL SPLINTER wasn't even in Vietnam when he was supposed to have examined Kerry. Have more faith in your military. They don't give out medals for splinters. He just made the smart choice to come home when he got the medal requirements to do so.

Protesting violently?!?! Who did he shoot? As I recall it was unarmed protesters who were shot by the National Guard at Kent State and beat by the police at numerous places.

He never insulted the soldiers. That "cut off heads, burned up bodies" (whatever) speech he gave in court was testimony that 150 Veitnam vets have TESTIFIED that they have seen or have participated in during their stint int he war. The Bush commercials take it wildly out of context to make Kerry look like he's saying all US soldiers were butchers, when it was the 150 testimonies who did that. It was a summation, not his personal view.

BTW everyone spat on the soldiers when they returned. Political mayhem was started by the government who didn't want to listen to the people who wanted the war to end and stepped on those who said so. It was that heated a debate when they were gone and Americans hate losers. Both sides stepped on them upon their return. Thank God for Kerry who championed Vietnam veteran rights.



A lot of the hostilities at this time are coming from both parties, however. People are lashing out against everyone everywhere. I think everyone just needs to take a deep breath and calm down.



Good luck. Rare is it when a country can 'calm down' after polarizing like this. Last time something like this happened in America a Civil War broke out.



What I like about Bush is that he lowered taxes, increased healthfare benefits, and did all he could to help protect our homeland. While I disagree with many of his policies (such as the gay marriage debate), I do believe that, out of the two main candidates, he is the better choice.



Lowered taxes for the rich maybe. The small amount the average person got back is a pittance and his tax cuts will cost America dearly economically and socially.

To have Bush's economics explained to you in a fun and complete way play this game:

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

Healthcare is a costly joke. It caused more harm than it helped. The game should have info on that as well.

He did very little to help his country's security and the Department of Homeland Security has the earmarks of a finiancial boondoggle.

[/QUOTE]

I really wish that someone who had a brain would run, though. Colin Powell would be an awesome president, but he's too smart to do it - even if he wasn't assissinated due to the color of his skin, he'd have to dive headfirst into slander and libel, as all presidents do. The people who would make good presidents don't want to have to hear all of the crap surrounding their name.

And that is my two cents.[/QUOTE]

Wow...

I heard the US has some weapons of mass destruction. why not go invade them.
oops. ;)
Well its hypocrittical at the least that one of the axis of evil is trying to blackmail us and Bush isnt doing anything. Im not for it, but I dont know how much more of a crisis you can get.

I heard the US has some weapons of mass destruction. why not go invade them.
oops. ;)

Because the U.S. is not a threat to world peace, that's why!

Because the U.S. is not a threat to world peace, that's why!
right. tell that to the arab countries. aren't they part of this world? ;)

And what about Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge?

right. tell that to the arab countries. aren't they part of this world? ;)

I really see the U.S. invading the oil-rich former Soviet Union, now mainly free republics...

seriously, though. just why is it ok for us to impose our idea of 'world peace' on everyone else?

And also a missle defence program.

If a country is sstupid enough to fire a nuke it will no longer be on the surfaceof the earth about 6 hours later.

That said, the country will try to use it as a defence. But now we have more weapons grade plutonium in countrys that support or attacked by terrorists. More chance for missing materials which could then be blown up in a crate in New York Harbor.

Ive got 4 reasons not to vote for Bush 2 terrorism related 2 domestic, I think that is pretty balanced.

hehe
www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?

Well since I did my Kerry bashing it is only fair I ruffle a few bushes as well.

Things I dont like about Bush (I am a conservative): He vowed during the 2000 campaign that he would leave it up to the states to decide on Medical Marijuana. That obviously turned into a complete 180 because he has had the FBI try to arrest patients in Colorado and California. As well as threaten Doctors that prescribe such medicine.

He wanted a Constitutional ban for queers to marry, again overstepping federal authority and attempting to bypass the states on a non national security issue (I agree i dont care for queers marrying but I will not sacrifice states rights for it). For a party who has been known for states rights they sure have been stepping all over the toes of our Federalist papers and Constitution. However he equaled the losses by letting the defunct awb expire, so I have forgiven him so far.

I think so, too. If you read the news over here in Europe you start to believe that America is pretty much just doomed if Bush gets re-elected.
alot of THINKING people in America believe the same thing

This thread is growing faster than I can read it, but I have a few words I'd like to shimmy in here...

What I don't understand is how liberals claim that 9/11 could have been prevented had we acted on the very vague intelligence we had at the time, but then turn around and say that Bush acting on the vague intelligence that there might be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was unjustified. Make up your mind, people. He clearly didn't want another 9/11, so he acted on the intelligence he had and sent troops off to Iraq.

I support the war, but I do NOT support how long it has been going on. I think our main priority at this point is to help Iraq develop a police force of its own, and then pull out our soldiers. This isn't necessarily a fault of Bush, however. We all know that it takes time to set up a country before it can stand on its own. I just wish the process would go faster.

In this election, however, I think the political choices we make our based on not who we like, but who we hate less. I highly dislike John Kerry - he signed up to go to Vietnam, self-inflicted his own wounds so he could come home early, and started protesting violently and insulting the returning soldiers. Our soldiers don't need that. They should be coming home to open arms - not media bias and political mayhem.

A lot of the hostilities at this time are coming from both parties, however. People are lashing out against everyone everywhere. I think everyone just needs to take a deep breath and calm down.

What I like about Bush is that he lowered taxes, increased healthfare benefits, and did all he could to help protect our homeland. While I disagree with many of his policies (such as the gay marriage debate), I do believe that, out of the two main candidates, he is the better choice.

I really wish that someone who had a brain would run, though. Colin Powell would be an awesome president, but he's too smart to do it - even if he wasn't assissinated due to the color of his skin, he'd have to dive headfirst into slander and libel, as all presidents do. The people who would make good presidents don't want to have to hear all of the crap surrounding their name.

And that is my two cents.the warnings that Bush ignored were anything BUT vague

Bushs imperialistic war profiteering in the mideast has turned the entire arab world into one giant terrorist breeding ground.

The Arab world has been at this for a very long time. The 9/11 destruction of the WTC was the second attack on those buildings, the first being in 1993. Terrorist groups don't really care where you're from, or what you believe, unless it doesn't correspond to what they believe, in which case you're just another target. They do not deserve our sympathy. They are not heros or martyrs for strapping bombs to themselves and walking or driving into public places, killing innocent people and children. And not all terrorists are middle eastern, either. But given what Saddam has been doing to his own people for years, with the UN watching and doing nothing but pass useless resolutions, it is good that he was removed. Now the real trick is helping the Iraqi people get control of their country. With the terrorists (not "insurgents") there trying to prevent that, it's gotta be hard as h*** to "appear" like there's an organized plan of action going on. Whether Bush was right or wrong to go there, I'd be more concerned if he'd gone in with a complete plan of conquest, implying that he'd had intentions of conquering Iraq since, what, his election? :rolleyes: I've never fought in a war, but I'm pretty sure lack of predictability is commonplace.

I'm not sure it is 'correct' to invade another country with the sole reason of being a superpower and kind of a 'world police'. As terrible the situations in said countries were and still are, who is to say we're 'allowed' to invade any of them?
I agree but Afghanistan and Sudan are both nations run by terrorists whereas Iraq was utterly helpless and completely harmless

so we might as well post 'blablablas' or empty messages just for the fun of it? ;) just make sure to label them one or the other way... pro-bush or anti-bush :D
but it cant just be blah blahs cause you gotta push the right buttons

The Arab world has been at this for a very long time. The 9/11 destruction of the WTC was the second attack on those buildings, the first being in 1993.

No it wasn't. That was Al Quaida [sp]. You may as well say that Europeans were responsible for trying to blow up Thatcher in the Brighton hotel in '84.

They are not heros or martyrs for strapping bombs to themselves and walking or driving into public places, killing innocent people and children.

I agree they are not heroes, but 'martyr' is a very subjective term at best.

I agree but Afghanistan and Sudan are both nations run by terrorists whereas Iraq was utterly helpless and completely harmless
Would you say that if you were Iraqi?

9/11 could not have been prevented. Liberals haven't been saying they should have acted on crappy intelligence; conservatives are because we had that bad info back in the Clinton administration. The conservatives are just trying to divert blame. Since no one could have predicted airplanes to be used at weapons it's moot to point fingers.

Iraq didn't attack the US on 9/11. Terrorists working out of Afghanistan did. He invaded Afghanistan (with too few troops) and so did all of the US's traditional allies (and we are still there!). He invaded Iraq on info no other country was dumb enough to act on. Now Iraq is descending into civil war and terrorists groups have been recruiting many more people since, and because of the invasion in Iraq.



Well, the war was destined to be this long and disasterous. Look at every act of occupation by a foreign military that has occurred in the world. Unless the military is horrifically brutal (and sometimes even if they are) they will be forced to leave due to terrorism ochestrated by citizens to force the foreign army out.

Police won't cut it. A police force can't fight AK47's. Civil war is the inevitable outcome from this scenario. Police are useless here.

Fault belongs to Cheney, Rove, Bush and Rumsfeld...and there is lots of fault to go around.



No one has ever said he self-inflicted his wounds, not even on the Swift Boat comercials (that I know of). The doctor who said that ONE wound was a SMALL METAL SPLINTER wasn't even in Vietnam when he was supposed to have examined Kerry. Have more faith in your military. They don't give out medals for splinters. He just made the smart choice to come home when he got the medal requirements to do so.

Protesting violently?!?! Who did he shoot? As I recall it was unarmed protesters who were shot by the National Guard at Kent State and beat by the police at numerous places.

He never insulted the soldiers. That "cut off heads, burned up bodies" (whatever) speech he gave in court was testimony that 150 Veitnam vets have TESTIFIED that they have seen or have participated in during their stint int he war. The Bush commercials take it wildly out of context to make Kerry look like he's saying all US soldiers were butchers, when it was the 150 testimonies who did that. It was a summation, not his personal view.

BTW everyone spat on the soldiers when they returned. Political mayhem was started by the government who didn't want to listen to the people who wanted the war to end and stepped on those who said so. It was that heated a debate when they were gone and Americans hate losers. Both sides stepped on them upon their return. Thank God for Kerry who championed Vietnam veteran rights.



Good luck. Rare is it when a country can 'calm down' after polarizing like this. Last time something like this happened in America a Civil War broke out.



Lowered taxes for the rich maybe. The small amount the average person got back is a pittance and his tax cuts will cost America dearly economically and socially.

To have Bush's economics explained to you in a fun and complete way play this game:

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html

Healthcare is a costly joke. It caused more harm than it helped. The game should have info on that as well.

He did very little to help his country's security and the Department of Homeland Security has the earmarks of a finiancial boondoggle.



911 coulda been prevented because of specific warnings and they did too know that planes would be used

well its not over now is it? Bush abandoned Afghanistan and refused to invade places where al queda would be (in fact giving up the fight against terrorism and finding Osama totally) instead opting to attack a country that posed a threat to exactly no one just to loot it for its resources and in the process turned terrorism into a vast global scourge on a level it has never existed on in the modern world.

When did we pull out of Afghanistan? There are still US soldiers (among others) there. Posed a threat to exactly no one? What do you call taking people who oppose your rule by the truck loads, including children, shooting them, then covering over the mass graves with a backhoe like they were nothing more than garbage? Terrorism has been a "global scourge" for many years now, this is nothing new. The only new thing is they're getting better at it. :mad:

Okay, this is at least the second time on this thread in which you have blatantly insulted people who did not share your opinion. Just because I dislike Kerry doesn't mean that I have been "programmed with hate."

The media is so screwed up these days that it's hard to sort out fact from fiction. All I'm saying is that I've heard a lot more evidence against Kerry than supporting him.
then stop listening to the facist media and start balancing your views out with reliable sources and people wont get mad at your ignorance

North Korea supports John Kerry, and I can get you some links on that if you give me a few minutes..
Just like Osama and the saudi royal family supports Bush

then stop listening to the facist media and start balancing your views out with reliable sources and people wont get mad at your ignorance
excuse me, facist media, ignorance. Since you know so much oh wise one tell me who we should elect for president. Who is the best person in this country for president?

Would you say that if you were Iraqi?
If I was an Iraqi Id want Saddams head on the end of a pole-But like the Iraqis Id be very resentful of foreign looters coming in and pillaging my country in the wake of Saddams overthrow

When did we pull out of Afghanistan? There are still US soldiers (among others) there. Posed a threat to exactly no one? What do you call taking people who oppose your rule by the truck loads, including children, shooting them, then covering over the mass graves with a backhoe like they were nothing more than garbage? Terrorism has been a "global scourge" for many years now, this is nothing new. The only new thing is they're getting better at it. :mad:
Since when has American foreign policy ever cared about human rights?

excuse me, facist media, ignorance. Since you know so much oh wise one tell me who we should elect for president. Who is the best person in this country for president?
since America will fall if Bush gets re-elected the only logical choice at this point is Kerry

maybe Osama may just be holding off on any further attacks for the moment to ensure that his best recruiter in the White House gets re-elected

Or hoping that Kerry gets elected and let the pressure off of him to commit more attacks on us!

since America will fall if Bush gets re-elected the only logical choice at this point is Kerry
So you believe Kerry is the perfect president. There isnt a flaw with him.

yeah thats part of it but it also doesnt hurt to have the Vice President teaching you how to steal from the American taxpayers in the process either

Now there's a conspiracy theory for ya. However, this is totaly unfounded and inaccurate. Get a life MKULTRA!

Ah...so true...how does one label them?

Terrorists?
Freedom Fighters?

Either way the approaching civil war will make good TV (unless you watch Fox News).

Sorry, see no Civil War here and if there was one, Fox News would cover it too! However, I doubt there will be one.

Or hoping that Kerry gets elected and let the pressure off of him to commit more attacks on us!
Wrong, Osama knows that if he attacks people will vote Bush(kinda a reverse Spain). Since Bush administration says there will be a ttack then Osama is rooting for Bush.
Stick it to Osama vote Kerry so Osama doesn't get his way!

So you believe Kerry is the perfect president. There isnt a flaw with him.
no ones perfect but compared to Bush we ALL are

Now there's a conspiracy theory for ya. However, this is totaly unfounded and inaccurate. Get a life MKULTRA!
welcome back FD--I was starten to thinK I ran ya off ;)

welcome back FD--I was starten to thinK I ran ya off ;)

Nope! I, unlike you, have more important things to do than chat on here but someone has to wack you upside the head once and awhile.

Nope! I, unlike you, have more important things to do than chat on here but someone has to wack you upside the head once and awhile.
LOL I can multi-task

Wrong, Osama knows that if he attacks people will vote Bush(kinda a reverse Spain). Since Bush administration says there will be a ttack then Osama is rooting for Bush.
Stick it to Osama vote Kerry so Osama doesn't get his way!

Actually he's rooting for Kerry! He knows that if Bush gets elected, we'll be staying after terrorism on his home turf. If Kerry is elected, then we'll be fighting a two front war. One here and one abroad.

He said "indisputably wrong". Are you sure those can't be disputed? :p

Well any thing can be disputed Cog.. but lets face it, these are the things we know. People can put spin around it , but these to me and the majority of the world are in fact indisputable

Actually he's rooting for Kerry! He knows that if Bush gets elected, we'll be staying after terrorism on his home turf. If Kerry is elected, then we'll be fighting a two front war. One here and one abroad.

It's Bush's policies that Osama particularly hates, and it's Bush that's been Osama's best advertising tool. I'm sure Osama has a big poster of Bush pointing his finger at lookers-on with a caption under it, "I Want YOU to Join the Holy War...Wipe This Smirk off my Face."

Or perhaps even more appropriate, "Bring It On!"

Liberals: what has Bush done that is indisputably wrong?

I'm no liberal, as most NS players could tell you, yet I'm one of Bush's staunchest critics. I can sum up what is indisputably wrong with Bush in seven words: Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, Patriot Act.

theres many other companies that do the exact same thing as halliburton they just dont have a connection in the white house to get the no bid contracts.Im sure having the VP whose drawing a paycheck from your company isnt itself a conflict of interest either--yeah rite


Very, very few, if any.

What Halliburton does is very unique, and they've been doing it for a long time.

No company that does a significant amount of work for the government does not have connections to the government.

Cheney is bound by White House Ethics rules - he can't get a paycheck from Halliburton while he's in office.

I'm not saying that there isn't an appearance of impropriety there. I'm saying that there's no impropriety there - it's just not possible. The Halliburton deal has been heavily scrutinized by the media and Democrats and if there was anything illegal going on there, you can bet they'd be screaming for charges to be brought.

Did you happen to note if the stock has split at all. Just curious...

No. The stock has gone from $50 a share at the start of January 2000, to a low of $10 a share and is now trading around $30 a share.

Or perhaps even more appropriate, "Bring It On!"

Lol :p

May I point out that it isnt any major issue. If an issue is major that means that people disagree with it so its disputable. My 4 things are pretty minor, North Korea, Missle Defence, Stem Cell, Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

Alaska National Wildlife Refuge

He wanted to drill one of the last untouched habitats in North America for oil.
1. Its wrong to destroy nature reserves just because it cna be profitable
2. Distorting evidence to support it is morally wrong. We are supposed to be able to trust government.
3. Oil isnt going to suddenly leave. I could understand going in there for something that is important and momentary, but oil is going to stay in the ground and therefore there is no urgency or reason to do it now.

But this was stopped by congress because it was wrong so I guess the fact he tried doesnt count?

You know who the largest supporters of drilling in ANWR are?

The Alaskans.

Go figure - those dumb Alaskans. Don't they know that we in Washington know better than they do what's good for them?

Actually he's rooting for Kerry! He knows that if Bush gets elected, we'll be staying after terrorism on his home turf. If Kerry is elected, then we'll be fighting a two front war. One here and one abroad.


Wrong! OBL has been quoted as hoping Bush wins because if Kerry were elected America would be able to put on a kinder face and hide its evil nature, etc., etc.

OBL needs Bush to do the war thing to build up his holy army and from all angles it seems to be working since terrorist groups have increased recruitment. Bush is playing into OBL's hands and if Kerry were the prez the war thing would die out. No more army.

since America will fall if Bush gets re-elected the only logical choice at this point is Kerry

Screw that! Let it FALL!

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! BUSH! :D :sniper:

Wrong! OBL has been quoted as hoping Bush wins because if Kerry were elected America would be able to put on a kinder face and hide its evil nature, etc., etc.

OBL needs Bush to do the war thing to build up his holy army and from all angles it seems to be working since terrorist groups have increased recruitment. Bush is playing into OBL's hands and if Kerry were the prez the war thing would die out. No more army.
Don't you think OBL would know that his words would have an adverse (or at least, if there was any effect at all) on the candidate he "endorsed", so an endorsement for Bush would really be trying to bring him down... :p

You know who the largest supporters of drilling in ANWR are?

The Alaskans.

Go figure - those dumb Alaskans. Don't they know that we in Washington know better than they do what's good for them?
They key thing is the N, but fine you dispute it.

3 things.

911 coulda been prevented because of specific warnings and they did too know that planes would be used

I know of the 'OBL determined to strike within america' thing but what evidence was there for knowing they'd use planes specifically?

Link?

Don't you think OBL would know that his words would have an adverse (or at least, if there was any effect at all) on the candidate he "endorsed", so an endorsement for Bush would really be trying to bring him down... :p
Just as if Chirac wanted to scare people he would support Bush, because we all hate the French. :rolleyes:

Just as if Chirac wanted to scare people he would support Bush, because we all hate the French. :rolleyes:
If we hated the French, maybe. :p

Don't you think OBL would know that his words would have an adverse (or at least, if there was any effect at all) on the candidate he "endorsed", so an endorsement for Bush would really be trying to bring him down... :p

Meh. OBL may be a murdering bastard but he hasn't been much of a fibber.

He's always been an honest, righteous man. A murdering bastard...but honest and righteous nonetheless.

I think he thinks too much of his cause and himself in order to lie. So I think he was being forthcoming with his thoughts like he always has been.

Meh. OBL may be a murdering bastard but he hasn't been much of a fibber.

He's always been an honest, righteous man. A murdering bastard...but honest and righteous nonetheless.

I think he thinks too much of his cause and himself in order to lie. So I think he was being forthcoming with his thoughts like he always has been.
Well I disagree, but since we can't really open up OBL's mind it dosen't matter.

I bet OBL supports Nader, he knows he is a peace loving hippee.

I bet OBL supports Nader, he knows he is a peace loving hippee.

"I voted for Nader! I hate everyone!"

:D

http://files.redvsblue.com/NYC2/RvB_NYC2.zip

The reason I saythis is because there is no possible way to think that John Kerry is insulting the soldiers if you read his actual testimony. Do not trust the media to interpret things like this for you. Read the actual original document. I am angry, because I see the misprepresentation of truth becoming pandemic. Whether you agree with Kerry's anti-war efforts or not, read his unadulterated actual testimony, and tell me if he insults the soldiers.

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."-directly from John Kerry Senate testimony

Nobody should rely soleley on the media, from either side, for "factual" information. I have read the entire testimony, and it is insulting to those who fought there who did not commit the attrocities Kerry testifies to.

No it wasn't. That was Al Quaida [sp]. You may as well say that Europeans were responsible for trying to blow up Thatcher in the Brighton hotel in '84.



I agree they are not heroes, but 'martyr' is a very subjective term at best.


My apologies, I should have clarified that comment. I meant terrorists have been active in the Arab world for a long time, not that all Arabs are terrorists. The point I was making was that terrorism is not a new thing by any stretch. And, yes, those that are doing the suicide bombings are thought of as martyrs by those who send and support them.

Since when has American foreign policy ever cared about human rights?

That wasn't the point, MKULTRA. You said "posed a threat to exactly no one". Whether or not American policy has been good at addressing human rights, I'd still say the Iraqi people certainly didn't think of Saddam as not being a threat. And while we're on that topic, how effective do you think the UN is when a fair number of their members are some of the worst human rights offenders?

bush is teh greatest president ever

bush really isn't a hitler. there have been far worse presidents than mr. w., you know. poor red arrow, though; if Kerry gets elected you'll have no one to slander.

Very, very few, if any.

What Halliburton does is very unique, and they've been doing it for a long time.

No company that does a significant amount of work for the government does not have connections to the government.

Cheney is bound by White House Ethics rules - he can't get a paycheck from Halliburton while he's in office.

I'm not saying that there isn't an appearance of impropriety there. I'm saying that there's no impropriety there - it's just not possible. The Halliburton deal has been heavily scrutinized by the media and Democrats and if there was anything illegal going on there, you can bet they'd be screaming for charges to be brought.
repubs dominate congress so they will not investigate another repub (which is yet another reason why we need to restore checks and balances) also the pentagon has already accused Halliburton of vast overcharges

I know of the 'OBL determined to strike within america' thing but what evidence was there for knowing they'd use planes specifically?

Link?
it was posted on these boards before the server change-There was some meeting in Italy where they were re-enacting possible attacks on the USA using airplanes.

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."-directly from John Kerry Senate testimony

Nobody should rely soleley on the media, from either side, for "factual" information. I have read the entire testimony, and it is insulting to those who fought there who did not commit the attrocities Kerry testifies to.
so they want to burn Kerry at the stake for his honesty and reward Bush for his lies?

Kerry / confused about the war

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

WATCH THIS PLZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!111

That wasn't the point, MKULTRA. You said "posed a threat to exactly no one". Whether or not American policy has been good at addressing human rights, I'd still say the Iraqi people certainly didn't think of Saddam as not being a threat. And while we're on that topic, how effective do you think the UN is when a fair number of their members are some of the worst human rights offenders?
thats a good question but Saddam was no worse then any other Arab leader so how do we justify invading just Iraq and not every single other arab country and where does it end? When did we become world cop at a time when we're supposed to be fighting terrorism instead

did you watch the movie ???

bush is teh greatest president ever
for warmongers

bush really isn't a hitler. there have been far worse presidents than mr. w., you know. poor red arrow, though; if Kerry gets elected you'll have no one to slander.
but its not slander if its true

librel WATCH THIS CLIP PLZ

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

The original question of what Bush has done wrong is an interesting one. From a liberal point of view he went to war by confusing the american public about Iraqi links to terrorism. Saddam Hussien did not have weapons of mass destruction nor did he have links to Al Qaeda. In fact, there has only ever been one confirmed Al Qaeda camp within Iraq. This was in Northern Iraq, an area, that the US Air Force has constantly patrolled since 1992. Second, Saddam would never have WMD's because this would give the US a reason to attack him. Say what you will but Saddam was a shrewd political player and knew that giving the US an excuse to attack him would lead to his own downfall.
From a conservitive point of view, George W. Bush has increased the size of government and spent more on government regulation than any president in recent history. Take for instance his plan for prescription drugs for elderday citizens. This program was underestimated by over $100 billion. Not only that, but bush has created the largest government bueracracy in the history of the country known simply as Homeland Security.
Additionally, in foriegn politics Bush has helped to create more terrorist propaganda and make terroism more dangerous than it was in the past. The entire reason why Usama Bin Laden (UBL) declared Jihad on the US was because a foriegn military was in the country of the two holiest mosques. Granted, Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest violaters of human rights in the world today, but they were still our allies. Due to US efforts in the middle east however, terrorists have attempted to disrupt the Saudi economy, which is largely based on foriegn companies and employers. By doing so they have helped to destablize the House of Saud (or Faud, i can't remember which), which has been a supporter of US interests for quite some time.
Domestically, Bush has been the most polarizing president in 20 years. In the past, Congress was not considered a branch of the executive. But today, to disagree with the president is to be considered unpatriotic and indeed, against the United States in general. Though the democratic party pulled some very shady deals while they were in power, the republican party has lashed out with legislation that is designed more to punish the D's than anything else. Take for instance the USA PATRIOT Act (which is one long acronym... don't you feel sorry for that intern?) which, though parts of it were necessary, the rest of it is just one large abridgement of the First Amendment. Also, Guantanamo Bay is the largest breach of Executive power since the Truman administration. To simply say that certain prisoners have no rights because they are not on US soil despite the fact that they are being held by the US is absolutely ludricous. This is a nation that is governed by laws and once we start finding conveniant loop holes where we don't have to follow certain laws, the rest become totally moot.
So when it comes to what bush has done wrong, the answer is not simply 'everything imaginable.' Such an answer is uninspired and does not address the actual question. Rather, Bush has done something that hasn't been done for decades; he has set this country against itself and as the greatest republican in american history once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

librel WATCH THIS CLIP PLZ

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

Damn. How dare Kerry revise his position when better intelligence became available. I hate when politicians do that. Nice job on editing his statements down to sound bites too.

librel WATCH THIS CLIP PLZ

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

5 words and 2 of them are spelt wrong...

Anyway. I really don't understand why the media makes such a big deal of Kerry's change in position. He was misled, like all of us were, by Bush. If not for Hans Blix and the weapons inspections that turned up nothing, I'd probably have believed it too. Most people DID believe it, for a simple reason most people would trust the American president to tell the truth and would take what he said at face value. He is, after all, the most powerful person in the world. The presence of illegal weapons was the cornerstone of the argument for invading Iraq.

But instead, everything Bush and his adminstration said turned out to be absolute lies, and since then it's become increasingly clear that they had decided that they wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, then come up with any reason they could find to get support for it. At that time, no one knew that the invasion would turn up nothing and become a quagmire. No one knew that Bush was lying, and those who, like myself, had doubts were willing to give him the benefit of it because of his position - i.e. "He's the president of the States, he must know something we don't." - even if we disagreed with his politics.

Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time Kerry supported the Iraq war, no one knew for sure what was going on. In his circumstances, I wouldn't blame him, and I'd think it would count as a plus for him that he's able to now say, "I was wrong, I made a wrong decision, I made a wrong vote, but now that I have evidence, I admit my mistake and I have changed my mind." But instead, for that, he gets attacked. Whoever claims the American media has no right-wing bias is either dumb or is a right-winger themselves.

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently:

Real life:
"I never change my position, no matter what" - Stubborn Idiot.
"I change my opinions based on available evidence." - Wise and Responsible.
Politics:
"I never change my position, no matter what" - Strong leader.
"I change my opinions based on available evidence." - Spineless flip-flopper.