NationStates Jolt Archive

Local letter t the Editor


I would like to remind voters that the last time we elected a Democrat president, Bill Clinton's first official act was to pass a retroactive tax increase.

And remember how popular we were with the Europeans during the Clinton years, when we ignored repeated acts of violence against Americans and our interests, hoping the terrorists would stop hating us if we just didn't antagonize them? Is that the "Globalist" point of view that Kerry wishes to return to?

I recall how Ronald Reagan was labeled "stubborn" because he insisted on taking a hard line against the Soviet Union, but "that wall" came down, and the world is a much safer place, especially Europe. And they said Reagan was "shallow", because he was plain spoken. Now they say the same things about George W. Bush.


oh yes, bush did an excellent job of protecting us from terrorism as opposed to clinton, lets see 3000+ people died in a singel day, he ignored any and all warnings to what would occur that day. you cant magically stop everything but how many americans died to "terrorists" under clinton in all four years, this is of course ignoring homegrown acts of terrorism by plain normal americans, because captain dumbass here obviously isnt referring to that type of matter

and the retroactive tax increase, oh yeah that was a TERRIBLE idea, it DESTROYED US. we ended up with a SURPLUS, god help us. and our unemployment was the lowest it had been in YEARS. tax increase sure fucked us up.

oh, and the next part is my FAVORITE, the world is a SAFER place because of what REAGAN did, if i do recall Reagan caused the rise of SADDAM and Reagan gave OASAMA BIN LADEN the power he is threatening us with today. oh yeah, reagan sure made the world a safer place with taking down th USSR. there are no more dangerous communsit governments today! oh WAIT, north korea, a communsit government, has NUCLEAR WEAPONS AIMED AT OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and china is one of hte most powerful nations in the world. THANK YOU REAGAN


and reagan being plain spoken is not the same as bush, bush has ZERO grasp of the english language, and reagan was a FUCKING ACTOR, he knew damn well what he was doing, bush is just an incompetent buffoon. does anyone wonder why the question "is our children learning?" rarely asked? BECAUSE INTELIGENT PEOPLE DONT SAY IS OUR CHILDREN LEARNING, its improper fucking english


and thats my rant, im sure the next person to post is biff or eutrusca

I would have responded to this but there is too much shouting in it.

Local letter t the Editor


oh yes, bush did an excellent job of protecting us from terrorism as opposed to clinton, lets see 3000+ people died in a singel day, he ignored any and all warnings to what would occur that day. you cant magically stop everything but how many americans died to "terrorists" under clinton in all four years, this is of course ignoring homegrown acts of terrorism by plain normal americans, because captain dumbass here obviously isnt referring to that type of matter

and the retroactive tax increase, oh yeah that was a TERRIBLE idea, it DESTROYED US. we ended up with a SURPLUS, god help us. and our unemployment was the lowest it had been in YEARS. tax increase sure fucked us up.

oh, and the next part is my FAVORITE, the world is a SAFER place because of what REAGAN did, if i do recall Reagan caused the rise of SADDAM and Reagan gave OASAMA BIN LADEN the power he is threatening us with today. oh yeah, reagan sure made the world a safer place with taking down th USSR. there are no more dangerous communsit governments today! oh WAIT, north korea, a communsit government, has NUCLEAR WEAPONS AIMED AT OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and china is one of hte most powerful nations in the world. THANK YOU REAGAN


and reagan being plain spoken is not the same as bush, bush has ZERO grasp of the english language, and reagan was a FUCKING ACTOR, he knew damn well what he was doing, bush is just an incompetent buffoon. does anyone wonder why the question "is our children learning?" rarely asked? BECAUSE INTELIGENT PEOPLE DONT SAY IS OUR CHILDREN LEARNING, its improper fucking english


and thats my rant, im sure the next person to post is biff or eutrusca
"Inteligent" people "dont" post with the grammar and sentence structure of a retarded five year old either. At least when Bush talks people understand what he's saying.

Hillary Clinton ruined health care, and no Republican will ever bother to fix it.

Hillary Clinton ruined health care, and no Republican will ever bother to fix it.
She hasn't touched it yet...

"Inteligent" people "dont" post with the grammar and sentence structure of a retarded five year old either. At least when Bush talks people understand what he's saying.
who the fuck are you, the grammar police? im not the "leader of the free world" bush is. bush should learn how to speak english before becoming the leader of the most powerful nation in the english speaking world.

why dont you go troll somewhere else and brush your high horse

who the fuck are you, the grammar police? im not the "leader of the free world" bush is. bush should learn how to speak english before becoming the leader of the most powerful nation in the english speaking world.

why dont you go troll somewhere else and brush your high horse
I'm the bullshit police. If you're going to badmouth the President for bad grammar, you should at least try to write HALF as competently as he does. You should have learned English before posting this stupid thread that has no other purpose than to show your own hypocrisy and idiocy.

who the fuck are you, the grammar police? im not the "leader of the free world" bush is. bush should learn how to speak english before becoming the leader of the most powerful nation in the english speaking world.

why dont you go troll somewhere else and brush your high horse
Dude theres no point trolling someone who thinks you were trolling when you started the thread. Quick post some funny pictures before this thread turns into a flamefest.

who the fuck are you, the grammar police? im not the "leader of the free world" bush is. bush should learn how to speak english before becoming the leader of the most powerful nation in the english speaking world.

why dont you go troll somewhere else and brush your high horse

There is much stomping and gnashing of teeth.

I believe his point was that it seemed a bit hypocritical to criticize the language of another by using bad language. A bit ironic, don't you think?

...and Reagan also did a number of very good things for the country...things that are still in effect today, such as the INF treaty (which as already been completed)...and the beginning of START. He did a lot for WMD nonproliferation efforts.

I'm the bullshit police. If you're going to badmouth the President for bad grammar, you should at least try to write HALF as competently as he does. You should have learned English before posting this stupid thread that has no other purpose than to show your own hypocrisy and idiocy.
i cant type, he cant speak proper english, not to mention he is athe PRESIDENT OF THE FUCKING UNTITED STATES, dont you think he might have just a little bit more responsibility to speak proper english than i do to bother typing properly?

Dude theres no point trolling someone who thinks you were trolling when you started the thread. Quick post some funny pictures before this thread turns into a flamefest.
what kind you want, i got one with the wizard from wizard of oz, and soem guy off some roto reuter ad or something

There is much stomping and gnashing of teeth.

I believe his point was that it seemed a bit hypocritical to criticize the language of another by using bad language. A bit ironic, don't you think?

...and Reagan also did a number of very good things for the country...things that are still in effect today, such as the INF treaty (which as already been completed)...and the beginning of START. He did a lot for WMD nonproliferation efforts.
well his "successor" bush is screwing that shit up real good isnt he?

and im pretty sure doing alot of illegal shit just to kill the USSR outweighs his nuclear non proliferation junk, which mainly targeted the USSR anyway


and everyone seems quite intent on criticising me instead of reading, people are selectively illiterate here

what kind you want, i got one with the wizard from wizard of oz, and soem guy off some roto reuter ad or something
Ah listen to your heart and post whatever you think is funny

i cant type, he cant speak proper english, not to mention he is athe PRESIDENT OF THE FUCKING UNTITED STATES, dont you think he might have just a little bit more responsibility to speak proper english than i do to bother typing properly?
i cant cant English athe UNTITED dont English I are just the blatent grammar mistakes in that abortion of a sentence. If you want to get technical, I would point out you express your English in text, he expresses his in speeches, and his is far better than yours. Not to mention the confusing word order in the last sentence, I mean, your only sentence, which runs for 3 lines.

i cant cant English athe UNTITED dont English I are just the blatent grammar mistakes in that abortion of a sentence. If you want to get technical, I would point out you express your English in text, he expresses his in speeches, and his is far better than yours. Not to mention the confusing word order in the last sentence, I mean, your only sentence, which runs for 3 lines.
does anyone know how to report some one for trolling?

well his "successor" bush is screwing that shit up real good isnt he?

and im pretty sure doing alot of illegal shit just to kill the USSR outweighs his nuclear non proliferation junk, which mainly targeted the USSR anyway


and everyone seems quite intent on criticising me instead of reading, people are selectively illiterate here
What's to read? "Bush is single-handedly responsible for the destruction of the entire free-world, blah blah blah...Here's my proof, oh wait, I need none of that, just poorly written inflammatory rhetoric."

does anyone know how to report some one for trolling?
Why don't you PM a mod and not spam in this thread? And while you're at it, look up the definition of trolling.

Ah listen to your heart and post whatever you think is funny
hold on i think ill edit up the saddam picture and post it, or i could just go with a funny saddam pic, which i think ill do (sorry i dont have the fonz one, but i think this is somewhere in the ballpark of it)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/whatchatalkinbout.jpg

Why don't you PM a mod and not spam in this thread? And while you're at it, look up the definition of trolling.
not spam this thread, in case you missed it, this is my thread and you have not said a single contributary thing, you are trolling or spamming, pick one

i cant type, he cant speak proper english, not to mention he is athe PRESIDENT OF THE FUCKING UNTITED STATES, dont you think he might have just a little bit more responsibility to speak proper english than i do to bother typing properly?


His English is spoken properly. It's his pronunciation which is sometimes questioned. Grammatically, he is usually correct.

i'd just like to say that i have very little knowledge of grammar or spelling beofre anyoine yells back at me, but the 'one who yells alot' has a point, Bush- his English does suck- badly!! (< see i told you i cant make any/much sence) but have you not read 'The little book of bushisms' ???

you'll understand more when you do. How little he can speak, or how little the rest of us can understand him!!

not spam this thread, in case you missed it, this is my thread and you have not said a single contributary thing, you are trolling or spamming, pick one
You can name your thread whatever you want, but if you talk about something unrelated and stupid, that's spamming. I've contributed plenty, I've pointed out how you are an example of the kind of person that votes, which should support your argument that people are generally illiterate, belligerent, and uninformed.

His English is spoken properly. It's his pronunciation which is sometimes questioned. Grammatically, he usually correct.
does "Rarely is the question asked: 'Is our children learning?' " ring a bell?

You can name your thread whatever you want, but if you talk about something unrelated and stupid, that's spamming. I've contributed plenty, I've pointed out how you are an example of the kind of person that votes, which should support your argument that people are generally illiterate, belligerent, and uninformed.
no, you have not contributed a single thing to this thread but trolling, which is not contribution at all, leave my thread immediately.

does "Rarely is the question asked: 'Is our children learning?' " ring a bell?
So because he mixed up collective and single-subject verbs, he's suddenly unfit to lead the free-world? Goodness, I hope that none of the other candidates have ever made a misstatement about something important, like voting for something before voting against it....

no, you have not contributed a single thing to this thread but trolling, which is not contribution at all, leave my thread immediately.
Take it to PMs if you want to have a hissy fit, but I like this thread, so I think I'll stay.

does "Rarely is the question asked: 'Is our children learning?' " ring a bell?

Does "usually" correct?

no, you have not contributed a single thing to this thread but trolling, which is not contribution at all, leave my thread immediately.

Begone! Leave this Thread! lol

Bush can't talk for toffee.

oh yes, bush did an excellent job of protecting us from terrorism as opposed to clinton, lets see 3000+ people died in a singel day, he ignored any and all warnings to what would occur that day. you cant magically stop everything but how many americans died to "terrorists" under clinton in all four years, this is of course ignoring homegrown acts of terrorism by plain normal americans, because captain dumbass here obviously isnt referring to that type of matter

9/11 is anti-Bush? It was a horrible day, but it was 8 months into his Presidency and there have been no attacks since. 'Nuff said.

and the retroactive tax increase, oh yeah that was a TERRIBLE idea, it DESTROYED US. we ended up with a SURPLUS, god help us. and our unemployment was the lowest it had been in YEARS. tax increase sure fucked us up.

Here's a Bureau of Labor Statistics table:

http://data.bls.gov/labjava/servlets/graphics/generated_graphs/LNS14000000_85559_1097161859433.gif

The lowest unemployment ever hit under Clinton was 3.8%, and as you can clearly see, we are now headed back in that direction. However, the surplus reduction by tax hikes was one of Clinton's greatest mistakes... (http://www.GrowthDebt.com)

oh, and the next part is my FAVORITE, the world is a SAFER place because of what REAGAN did, if i do recall Reagan caused the rise of SADDAM and Reagan gave OASAMA BIN LADEN the power he is threatening us with today. oh yeah, reagan sure made the world a safer place with taking down th USSR. there are no more dangerous communsit governments today! oh WAIT, north korea, a communsit government, has NUCLEAR WEAPONS AIMED AT OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and china is one of hte most powerful nations in the world. THANK YOU REAGAN

North Korea would have trouble attacking the mainland, so we can safely sit behind our oceans sipping lemonade and yelling at Canada. North Korea is looking at other Asian nations for nuclear disasters.

and reagan being plain spoken is not the same as bush, bush has ZERO grasp of the english language, and reagan was a FUCKING ACTOR, he knew damn well what he was doing, bush is just an incompetent buffoon. does anyone wonder why the question "is our children learning?" rarely asked? BECAUSE INTELIGENT PEOPLE DONT SAY IS OUR CHILDREN LEARNING, its improper fucking english

And, of course, mastery of the language is the making of a great leader. Bush misspeaks occasionally, but so does Kerry.

People generally won't respect such a negative tone. I recommend you check out ProtestWarrior.com (http://www.ProtestWarrior.com) to see what you people really look like...

Cool it please Arammanar, or should i say Mrs Bush!!! :)

does anyone know how to report some one for trolling?

There's always that little red triangle with the exclamation point in it.

Unfortunately, you can't turn yourself in...

I've got a trolling motor on my boat, does that count?

i cant cant English athe UNTITED dont English I are just the blatent grammar mistakes in that abortion of a sentence. If you want to get technical, I would point out you express your English in text, he expresses his in speeches, and his is far better than yours. Not to mention the confusing word order in the last sentence, I mean, your only sentence, which runs for 3 lines.

I'm sorry, you spelled "blatant" incorrectly. Also, you should have made it clearer where your list of mistakes ends and your part of the statement begins - I don't see anything wrong with "English" and "I" but it wouldn't make sense if that were your contribution to the sentence. Ah, and one last thing: what the heck is an "abortion" of a sentence? Perhaps you were looking for "abhorrence" or "aberration"?

A little hypocritical on your part too, n'est-ce pas? For the record, I agree with Chess Squares that the President has a much higher responsibility to speak properly than a NS player has to type carefully. I'm sure Chess Squares, in a situation warranting it, could and would punctuate and capitalize properly. I think the State of the Union address takes a higher priority for lingual correctness than the General forum of a silly online game.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/movies/1/Bush+Has+Trouble+Speaking/stream

I don't know how credible this is but in whatever case it's damn funny... well, actually a little painful...

who the fuck are you, the grammar police? im not the "leader of the free world" bush is. bush should learn how to speak english before becoming the leader of the most powerful nation in the english speaking world.

why dont you go troll somewhere else and brush your high horse

You really, really should see someone about your obsessive/compulsive tendencies.

Local letter t the Editor


oh yes, bush did an excellent job of protecting us from terrorism as opposed to clinton, lets see 3000+ people died in a singel day, he ignored any and all warnings to what would occur that day. you cant magically stop everything but how many americans died to "terrorists" under clinton in all four years, this is of course ignoring homegrown acts of terrorism by plain normal americans, because captain dumbass here obviously isnt referring to that type of matter

and the retroactive tax increase, oh yeah that was a TERRIBLE idea, it DESTROYED US. we ended up with a SURPLUS, god help us. and our unemployment was the lowest it had been in YEARS. tax increase sure fucked us up.

oh, and the next part is my FAVORITE, the world is a SAFER place because of what REAGAN did, if i do recall Reagan caused the rise of SADDAM and Reagan gave OASAMA BIN LADEN the power he is threatening us with today. oh yeah, reagan sure made the world a safer place with taking down th USSR. there are no more dangerous communsit governments today! oh WAIT, north korea, a communsit government, has NUCLEAR WEAPONS AIMED AT OUR COLLECTIVE ASSES, and china is one of hte most powerful nations in the world. THANK YOU REAGAN


and reagan being plain spoken is not the same as bush, bush has ZERO grasp of the english language, and reagan was a FUCKING ACTOR, he knew damn well what he was doing, bush is just an incompetent buffoon. does anyone wonder why the question "is our children learning?" rarely asked? BECAUSE INTELIGENT PEOPLE DONT SAY IS OUR CHILDREN LEARNING, its improper fucking english


and thats my rant, im sure the next person to post is biff or eutrusca

One hundred percent correct. Except you forgot that Bush actually setup the terroist attacks. HE BOMBED THE TOWERS, him the zionists, and the oil companies, and the Warpigs.

Bump

One hundred percent correct. Except you forgot that Bush actually setup the terroist attacks. HE BOMBED THE TOWERS, him the zionists, and the oil companies, and the Warpigs.
riight, i think you looked at the wingdings thing 1 too many times

9/11 is anti-Bush? It was a horrible day, but it was 8 months into his Presidency and there have been no attacks since. 'Nuff said.


Paxania, I've got a special rock to sell you. It repels tigers. Ever since I have it, I've never been attacked by tigers here in Canada. It must be because the rock is doing a great job.

"Inteligent" people "dont" post with the grammar and sentence structure of a retarded five year old either. At least when Bush talks people understand what he's saying.

Actually... People understand what Bush says despite his poor grammar and speaking habits. The man is the single worst public speaker I have seen behind a podium in my life and has so little grasp over the English language that it is truly embarrassing.

Actually... People understand what Bush says despite his poor grammar and speaking habits. The man is the single worst public speaker I have seen behind a podium in my life and has so little grasp over the English language that it is truly embarrassing.
I'd rather have a poor speaker who does what he says he will do then someone with excellent rhetoric and no substance.

Paxania, I've got a special rock to sell you. It repels tigers. Ever since I have it, I've never been attacked by tigers here in Canada. It must be because the rock is doing a great job.
dont forget the fork that repels hyenas

I'd rather have a poor speaker who does what he says he will do then someone with excellent rhetoric and no substance.
1) just because he says he is going to do something, then does it, does NOT make him right. i dont see you bowing down to the people beheading peop.e they saythey are going to behead some one if a condition isnt met, we refuse to meet the condition, the guy is beheaded

2) when does bush have substance? and he is FULL of rhetoric, he is just unable to convey it with proper english

3) some one who has next to no grasp of the english language should not be the head of the most powerful nation in the world. and to add to that, the fact he does whatever the hell he wants.

Paxania, I've got a special rock to sell you. It repels tigers. Ever since I have it, I've never been attacked by tigers here in Canada. It must be because the rock is doing a great job.
Have you ever been mauled by a tiger in Canada before? If not, your statement is a non sequitur.

1) just because he says he is going to do something, then does it, does NOT make him right. i dont see you bowing down to the people beheading peop.e they saythey are going to behead some one if a condition isnt met, we refuse to meet the condition, the guy is beheaded
The fact that you'd compare the President to those animals speaks volumes of your character.

2) when does bush have substance? and he is FULL of rhetoric, he is just unable to convey it with proper english
So you deny that Bush does exactly what he says he's going to do?

3) some one who has next to no grasp of the english language should not be the head of the most powerful nation in the world. and to add to that, the fact he does whatever the hell he wants.
I can understand him, you can understand him. That's enough for me. I want a doer rather than a sayer.

I'd rather have a poor speaker who does what he says he will do then someone with excellent rhetoric and no substance.

I'd agree with the sentiment if I wasn't so thoroughly appalled by the things Bush says he's going to do. It is as silly to think that Kerry would do nothing if elected as it is to think that Bush would do everything he has promised during the campaign if reelected. The sad fact is that honesty just isn't part of politics any more, not since television and radio. It would be wonderful if we could rid ourselves of the threat of terrorist attack, and if the economy was always booming and never recessed and never had bubbles of speculation, and if all people could be perfectly moral and perfectly free, but when you get right down to it, none of those things are going to happen, and certainly none of them are going to happen at the hands of any president, so we have to sit down and say to ourselves, "which of these candidates is the least likely to get everyone on the planet killed during his term?" and the answer should come up the same in every rational, educated mind, Kerry.

The fact that you'd compare the President to those animals speaks volumes of your character.
the fact that you ignore the fact and point says loads about your character


So you deny that Bush does exactly what he says he's going to do?
you deny the only thing bush delivers is republican talking points? and do you deny that doing everything you say you are going to do makes doing the thing right? or is that only in cases that you agree with?


I can understand him, you can understand him. That's enough for me. I want a doer rather than a sayer.
your ignorant is ludicrous

I'd agree with the sentiment if I wasn't so thoroughly appalled by the things Bush says he's going to do. It is as silly to think that Kerry would do nothing if elected as it is to think that Bush would do everything he has promised during the campaign if reelected. The sad fact is that honesty just isn't part of politics any more, not since television and radio. It would be wonderful if we could rid ourselves of the threat of terrorist attack, and if the economy was always booming and never recessed and never had bubbles of speculation, and if all people could be perfectly moral and perfectly free, but when you get right down to it, none of those things are going to happen, and certainly none of them are going to happen at the hands of any president, so we have to sit down and say to ourselves, "which of these candidates is the least likely to get everyone on the planet killed during his term?" and the answer should come up the same in every rational, educated mind, Kerry.
I really don't care if you don't like Bush's policies. In fact you have every right to support whatever candidate you want, and you can argue your case however you might like. However, I do not think you should judge someone's competency and character based on their speaking skills, especially when one's own skills are...lacking. Real debates with questions as to a candidate's ability, vision, and truthfulness are good things, inept ad hominum attacks are another.

Have you ever been mauled by a tiger in Canada before? If not, your statement is a non sequitur.
Exactly as his statement that Bush must be doing a good job because there have been no new attack is. It's the same logic. Even the TV series the Simpsons find fault in his logic.

I'm sorry but the argument that no new attack on the US mainland in two years must mean Bush is doing a good job is simply stupid. What is the average of terrorist attacks per year on the US mainland in the last 100 years? If the average is 2 per year, the you can claim that Bush's plan works. If, like I think, it's more like one every five years, the argument holds no water.

the fact that you ignore the fact and point says loads about your character
I missed your point. Normally I'd assume you would have had one, but after reading many of your posts I realized that is rarely the case.

you deny the only thing bush delivers is republican talking points? and do you deny that doing everything you say you are going to do makes doing the thing right? or is that only in cases that you agree with?

I'm not arguing whether or not Bush has good or bad policy, I'm arguing that you should focus on his policy and not his grammar.


your ignorant is ludicrous
What about my ignorant? I keep him in my closet, and water him several times a day.

Exactly as his statement that Bush must be doing a good job because there have been no new attack is. It's the same logic. Even the TV series the Simpsons find fault in his logic.

I'm sorry but the argument that no new attack on the US mainland in two years must mean Bush is doing a good job is simply stupid. What is the average of terrorist attacks per year on the US mainland in the last 100 years? If the average is 2 per year, the you can claim that Bush's plan works. If, like I think, it's more like one every five years, the argument holds no water.
Assume that terrorist attacks are static forces that never change with the times. Furthermore, most terrorists attacks fall apart for one reason or other before they are acted out, same with any crime. Unless someone here has a security clearance they're willing to betray, I don't see how we'd ever know that.

I missed your point. Normally I'd assume you would have had one, but after reading many of your posts I realized that is rarely the case.


I'm not arguing whether or not Bush has good or bad policy, I'm arguing that you should focus on his policy and not his grammar.



What about my ignorant? I keep him in my closet, and water him several times a day.
the fact is he has bad policy


for the LAST time, maybe you can get it through your thick skull

JUST because you do something that you say you are going to do does NOT make doing it right.


i would think you figured that out when you get disgusted when i bring up the people beheading people. they are saying they will do something, then DOING it. are they right for it? no, they arnt. NEITHER is bush right or a good person for doing things he says he will do.

the fact is he has bad policy


for the LAST time, maybe you can get it through your thick skull

JUST because you do something that you say you are going to do does NOT make doing it right.


i would think you figured that out when you get disgusted when i bring up the people beheading people. they are saying they will do something, then DOING it. are they right for it? no, they arnt. NEITHER is bush right or a good person for doing things he says he will do.
Bush has never authorized anyone to decapitate someone with a rusty knife. All of Bush's policies are approved by Congressmen people like you voted for. You're grasping for straws here.

I really don't care if you don't like Bush's policies. In fact you have every right to support whatever candidate you want, and you can argue your case however you might like. However, I do not think you should judge someone's competency and character based on their speaking skills, especially when one's own skills are...lacking. Real debates with questions as to a candidate's ability, vision, and truthfulness are good things, inept ad hominum attacks are another.

You are correct that speaking ability is not a perfect indicator of the strength of a persons mind, but it is a more reasonable barometer than any other we have to judge the President. In the end it is not only a president that we vote to elect, it is an entire administration. When you cast your vote for Bush you cast your vote both for the man and for everyone he will choose to help him in his office. If you agree with the policies and decisions put in place and supported by the small group of wealthy, unaccountable men Bush has chosen to help him lead, then by all means, vote for Bush come November, but if you find fault with the idea of electing a front-man for a cadre of unelected, unaccountable, powermongers whose policies endanger the safety of Americans and the world far more than they protect it, then you must vote against Bush. I find no particular fault in the man except that he has never shown himself to be of any particular intelligence, vision, or ability. He seems to be a reasonable and decent person, but he is not at all the right person for the office of the President.

Bush has never authorized anyone to decapitate someone with a rusty knife. All of Bush's policies are approved by Congressmen people like you voted for. You're grasping for straws here.

They aren't though all approved by Congressmen though. Congress did not set our position at the UN, nor did it declare war on Iraq. The Bush Administration, despite rhetoric suggesting that a smaller federal government would be benificial to the running of the country, has increased spending and exercised all the power the Office of the President has come to weild without thought or concern to consistency or the opinion of the public or Congress.

Bush has never authorized anyone to decapitate someone with a rusty knife. All of Bush's policies are approved by Congressmen people like you voted for. You're grasping for straws here.
wooo wooo here comes the clue train, last stop before sthu-ville


JUST because some one does something they say they will do, doing that thing does NOT make them good nice people.


just because bush says he will invade iraq and invades it does not make him a good person

jsut because people say they are going to behead some one and do does not make them a good person

They aren't though all approved by Congressmen though. Congress did not set our position at the UN, nor did it declare war on Iraq. The Bush Administration, despite rhetoric suggesting that a smaller federal government would be benificial to the running of the country, has increased spending and exercised all the power the Office of the President has come to weild without thought or concern to consistency or the opinion of the public or Congress.
Congress ceded its power to declare war to the President. That's not his fault. The UN is as irrelevant as the League was, so Bush could drop his pants and take a dump on the podium for all I care. The fact remains that any real decision the President makes is dependent on Congress.

wooo wooo here comes the clue train, last stop before sthu-ville
Ooo, so witty, did your mommy help you come up with that gem?

JUST because some one does something they say they will do, doing that thing does NOT make them good nice people.
Or a bad person. But it makes them better than a person who says one thing and does another.

just because bush says he will invade iraq and invades it does not make him a good person
It makes him trustworthy. So then you can objectively decide if you like his policies, as opposed to if he said he would invade Iraq, and then attacked France.

jsut because people say they are going to behead some one and do does not make them a good person
No, but it lets you see what kind of person they are.

It makes him trustworthy. So then you can objectively decide if you like his policies, as opposed to if he said he would invade Iraq, and then attacked France.

When a person says he will invade a nation and uses shaky premises to justify it, that does not earn any trust in my book.

Or a bad person. But it makes them better than a person who says one thing and does another.
whoah, your way out there in left field arnt ya?


It makes him trustworthy. So then you can objectively decide if you like his policies, as opposed to if he said he would invade Iraq, and then attacked France.
as trustworthy as the insurgents beheading people

whoah, your way out there in left field arnt ya?

I don't even know what that means. Work on your public communication skills.

as trustworthy as the insurgents beheading people
Yes, and I've decided, based on their actions, I don't like them. Bush is trustworthy, but I like him. WOW!!! Guess that explains the obvious difference that you were unable to grasp. Now please go back to embarrassing yourself.

Assume that terrorist attacks are static forces that never change with the times. Furthermore, most terrorists attacks fall apart for one reason or other before they are acted out, same with any crime. Unless someone here has a security clearance they're willing to betray, I don't see how we'd ever know that.
The fact is: it's logical fallacy to assume that since there have been no attack it's because the policy is working. Many variables can affect that statistic. Furthermore, since attack on the US mainland is not that common to begin with, it furthers deepens my scepticism that a specific policy shift is responsible. So excuse me if I am doubtfull that Bush single-handedly stopped terrorist attacks. By the original theory (no new attacks = policy is working), not going to Iraq would have been even better since Canada was not attacked since either on our mainland OR abroad.

Besides, the original poster fell for the non-sequitur once, I tried to make him fall for the same non-sequitur twice and make money out of it.

Yes, and I've decided, based on their actions, I don't like them. Bush is trustworthy, but I like him. WOW!!! Guess that explains the obvious difference that you were unable to grasp. Now please go back to embarrassing yourself.
and how is bush different than the insurgents? i know, hes worse. the insurgents say release or behead, they have released captives the like once that people met their demands. bush said do this or we bomb, we said fuck it and bombed anyway. bush does what he says, but he completely ignores the if or decision and just blows people up. bush is unstable, unstable is bad for a president and unqualifiable for trustworthy

I just hope ya'll gonna vote for Mr. Bush, because I don't like the US and that's the fastest way for your country to fall.
So, make life easier for the fundamentalists and elect Bush and they ain't gonna have problems recruiting new terrorists.

Congress ceded its power to declare war to the President. That's not his fault. The UN is as irrelevant as the League was, so Bush could drop his pants and take a dump on the podium for all I care. The fact remains that any real decision the President makes is dependent on Congress.

Congress never ceded the power to declare war to the President. The actions in Iraq took less than the 90 days allowed for military action without a declaration of war. The President subverted Congress in his actions in Iraq, rather than going to them for an official declaration of war. The UN is far from irrelevant, though it's power is limitted, like all organizations, to that which it is willing to exercise. In his invasion of Iraq the President destroyed old allegiances by acting without UN or Congressional approval.

and how is bush different than the insurgents? i know, hes worse. the insurgents say release or behead, they have released captives the like once that people met their demands. bush said do this or we bomb, we said fuck it and bombed anyway. bush does what he says, but he completely ignores the if or decision and just blows people up. bush is unstable, unstable is bad for a president and unqualifiable for trustworthy

HAAAHAAA!!! I just realized that Chess Squares is just some zit-faced 17 year old punk sitting in his basement trying to piss off as many people as possible. You racked up a lot of posts you naughty little troll. You should get out more. Have you even kissed a girl yet? Jeez, if you put in half the amount of energy into trying to get laid as you put into these little tirades, you'd be a big ol' pimp. Let go of the mouse, stop watching Babylon 5 or whatever geeky show you prefer, get some contacts and try to tap some ass. You'll feel better. Trust me.