NationStates Jolt Archive

If a candidate came up to you (candidate X) and said, vote for me, cause I plan to make our defecit higher than ever before, ignore evidence saying that someone could attack us in NYC killing tons of people. export 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, and 1.6 regular jobs, we would get 1.9 million more jobs, but they would be, lower paying, part time, no benefit jobs. I would create wars on a random country, kill thousands of American troops, allow semi-auto weapons. Send the surplus? Make 13 million more Americans slide into poverty, and allow healthcare costs to skyrocket! Would you vote for him.















Hint. Candidate X= George W. Bush

However at least candidate X tells the truth on these issues so he may in fact be better than Bush. Can you believe it!

The True Right, yesterday you were a full fledged Bush supporter, why have you decided Kerry?

No need for this heavy use of sarcasm idiot

y don't you be "better then bush" and tell the truth too hyporcitical dumbass

Almost as ridiculous as the way you spelled ridiculous.

I rather choose a person that know what he is doing, than a Crazy gunman from Texas, who can only think war and doesn't care about anyone who isn't a billionare!

Long live Kerry!

How many threads are you going to start to insult Bush supporters? :rolleyes:

as many as it takes to make the Americans understand what is best for them!

Long live Kerry!

as many as it takes to make the Americans understand what is best for them!

Long live Kerry!
400 milion threads later...
" oh...so war is bad??""

If a candidate came up to you (candidate X) and said, vote for me, cause I plan to make our defecit higher than ever before, ignore evidence saying that someone could attack us in NYC killing tons of people. export 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, and 1.6 regular jobs, we would get 1.9 million more jobs, but they would be, lower paying, part time, no benefit jobs. I would create wars on a random country, kill thousands of American troops, allow semi-auto weapons. Send the surplus? Make 13 million more Americans slide into poverty, and allow healthcare costs to skyrocket! Would you vote for him.
Hint. Candidate X= George W. Bush
1. The defiticit is higher because
a. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton that started in November 2000
b. We suffered an attack on 9/11 that severely damaged our economy
(which was its primary purpose)
c. We had the corporate fraud scandals (perpetrated during Clinton's
administration) come to light causing more financial stress
d. We are fighting active wars on 2 fronts against Muslim extremists
e. Huge amounts are being spent to improve homeland security
2. Preventing 9/11 attack
a. Bush had been in office 9 months. What intelligence was he supposed
to have had that Clinton hadn't had in 8 years? We suffered several
terrorist attacks during Clinton's presidency, including the first Towers
attack, and he only huffed and puffed and slapped a few wrists.
b. When intelligence from numerous sources say that Sadam is a threat
and Bush takes action on that info, he is criticized harshly. Lose/lose?
3. Loss of jobs
a. Legislation rewarding sending jobs overseas was enacted during
Clinton's administration
b. Over 1,000,000 jobs were lost in the first 90 days following 9/11
c. Frivilous lawsuits (ie:John Edwards) have made employee insurance
benefits too expensive. Lawsuits against corporations cost employers
billions of dollars in their defense and in inflated judgements.
d. Most of the jobs lost were lost due to efficiency improvements. It's
like whining that you have lost your job as a smithy who shoes horses
and refuse to retrain in auto mechanics.
4. Random wars
a. See 2b
5. It was built into the legislation on semi-automatics to expire when it did
6. Healthcare costs
a. See 3c

So what does this tell me about President Bush? He's got a job I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Considering all that has happened in the last 4 years I seriously doubt that anyone could have done better...esp if Kerry followed Clinton's tactic of ignoring terrorist threats and attacks.

It's time to flush the johns. :gundge:

1. The defiticit is higher because
a. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton that started in November 2000
b. We suffered an attack on 9/11 that severely damaged our economy
(which was its primary purpose)
c. We had the corporate fraud scandals (perpetrated during Clinton's
administration) come to light causing more financial stress
d. We are fighting active wars on 2 fronts against Muslim extremists
e. Huge amounts are being spent to improve homeland security
2. Preventing 9/11 attack
a. Bush had been in office 9 months. What intelligence was he supposed
to have had that Clinton hadn't had in 8 years? We suffered several
terrorist attacks during Clinton's presidency, including the first Towers
attack, and he only huffed and puffed and slapped a few wrists.
b. When intelligence from numerous sources say that Sadam is a threat
and Bush takes action on that info, he is criticized harshly. Lose/lose?
3. Loss of jobs
a. Legislation rewarding sending jobs overseas was enacted during
Clinton's administration
b. Over 1,000,000 jobs were lost in the first 90 days following 9/11
c. Frivilous lawsuits (ie:John Edwards) have made employee insurance
benefits too expensive. Lawsuits against corporations cost employers
billions of dollars in their defense and in inflated judgements.
d. Most of the jobs lost were lost due to efficiency improvements. It's
like whining that you have lost your job as a smithy who shoes horses
and refuse to retrain in auto mechanics.
4. Random wars
a. See 2b
5. It was built into the legislation on semi-automatics to expire when it did
6. Healthcare costs
a. See 3c

So what does this tell me about President Bush? He's got a job I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Considering all that has happened in the last 4 years I seriously doubt that anyone could have done better...esp if Kerry followed Clinton's tactic of ignoring terrorist threats and attacks.

It's time to flush the johns. :gundge:

Excect that Your savior Dubya ignored a months worth of reports titled "Bin-Laden to attack US by hi-jacking airplanes, too vague for him? Source; Condi Rice. So ha! How many things can you blame on Clinton? Its pretty pothetic, you ignore all the good things Clinton did by attacking terrorism, and the fact that.


To be a Republican you must believe that:
Saddam was good when Reagan armed him
Bad When Bushs daddy made war on him
Good when Cheney did business with him
and bad when Bush needed a "we cant find Bin-Laden diversion"

I could go on and on and on and on.

Excect that Your savior Dubya ignored a months worth of reports titled "Bin-Laden to attack US by hi-jacking airplanes, too vague for him? Source; Condi Rice. So ha! How many things can you blame on Clinton? Its pretty pothetic, you ignore all the good things Clinton did by attacking terrorism, and the fact that.

You must have missed the 9/11 commission's determination on that report. Yes, it reported that Osama wanted to attack the US with hijacked planes. It just didn't specify what the target(s) might be because it wasn't known. Previous attacks, with the exception of the first Towers attack, had not been on American soil. Perhaps if Al-queda had been aggressively confronted by the Clinton administration, we would never have had to suffer 9/11.

[QUOTE=Kramers Intern]To be a Republican you must believe that:
Saddam was good when Reagan armed him
Bad When Bushs daddy made war on him
Good when Cheney did business with him
and bad when Bush needed a "we cant find Bin-Laden diversion"QUOTE]

To be a democrat you must believe everything on both sides of every issue depending on which political group Kerry is trying to please on that particular day at that particular minute. I'll provide links if you care to crawl out of your valley of ignorance as there are too many instances of Kerry flip flopping to list.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096540

To be a Republican you must believe that:
Saddam was good when Reagan armed him
Bad When Bushs daddy made war on him
Good when Cheney did business with him
and bad when Bush needed a "we cant find Bin-Laden diversion".

I knew I had seen that in another thread somewhere. I think right-wing gave you the facts. Changing threads doesn't make the truth go away.

Originally Posted by Right-Wing America
You must understand that Americans never viewed Saddam as a "good" guy. We just helped him at times because Saddam was at war with Iran(which was anti-american at the time of the cold war which wasnt a good position to be in) also Saddam was battling Islamic fundamentalists inside Iraq as well as in foreign countries that he invaded(so you see the way America thought was that we should help Saddam at that time because in that certain situation he is the lesser of two evils) besides America wasnt the only country to arm Iraq. France, USSR, and post-USSR Russia did the same thing as well.

I propose all, left, right, center, ambivalent, ignore Kramers Intern for repeated Spam.

I always hear about Saddam Hussein was not linked to terrorism. I dont know where people get that. Saddam Hussein "was" a terrorist. He murdered his own uncle and killed all his uncles supporters to gain power in iraq, dont they call political assassination a terrorist act?

During his reign, he is responsible for the largest amount of genocide since Adolf Hitler and Holocaust. Somolia, the UN demanded the US provide humanitarian aid and kill the warlords. Bosnia, same thing, Kosovo, same thing, both iraq wars before this one, same thing, the UN told us to lead the way, we went to war twice before this one with Saddam Hussein, so whats so different about now? Saddam Hussein didnt change, neither did his tyrant acts of terrorism. Why wasnt Iraq labeled a humanitarian crisis when it had the largest amount of genocide in the world today? Gets you thinking huh?

I want Kerry and every Kerry supporter to go iraq and tell an iraqi child that his freedom isnt worth dying for because he/she is not american! I want to see one person do that, cuz that is what Kerry is saying, but he doesnt have the courage to go to iraq and tell the iraqi people "this war for your freedom is the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time". How is that? Our war is against all terrorism and ALL who support it. Terrorists are in Iraq, i prefer the terrorists come to us then we bunny hop from country to country because news flash Al-Qaeda is in more places then just Afghanistan and no one could confirm that Osama "was" in Afghanistan. They couldnt confirm it, he was suspected, it was a educated guess, we dont know where he is, so we eliminate his operatives. The only muscle he has left is Zarqawi and IRAQ.

I dont care about WMD's, i would of gone in there without that reason in the first, i would of done it for justice alone. Saddam Hussein was the new-age Hitler and no european argued with us when Hitler was rampaging through europe, but they support the new age Hitler since he's not in europe after all. Saddam murdered his own people, invaded two neighboring countries, broke international law 17 times. This man should of been ousted 14 years ago. You know what happened when we did it the UN's way after the Gulf War in 1991? Every Iraqi rebel fighter that fought alongside US forces was found and mutalated for treason against Saddam. Thousands of US supporting iraqi's were butchered when we did it the UN's way and signed a cease fire. Same thing in Somolia when Clinton withdrew our troops, Warlord Aidid murdered all US supporting somolians when he took back the green zone in mogadishu.

You Anti-war people think about that. You think about the mass graves, but mostly think about how they happened. Kurdish women, shot in the back of the head at point blank range while holding infant children. The children died by being smothered under their dead mothers own body weight or being buried alive. All that just because they were Kurdish, thats the only reason for millions of that kind of brutality. You Anti-war people think on that.

I always hear about Saddam Hussein was not linked to terrorism. I dont know where people get that. Saddam Hussein "was" a terrorist. He murdered his own uncle and killed all his uncles supporters to gain power in iraq, dont they call political assassination a terrorist act?

During his reign, he is responsible for the largest amount of genocide since Adolf Hitler and Holocaust. Somolia, the UN demanded the US provide humanitarian aid and kill the warlords. Bosnia, same thing, Kosovo, same thing, both iraq wars before this one, same thing, the UN told us to lead the way, we went to war twice before this one with Saddam Hussein, so whats so different about now? Saddam Hussein didnt change, neither did his tyrant acts of terrorism. Why wasnt Iraq labeled a humanitarian crisis when it had the largest amount of genocide in the world today? Gets you thinking huh?

I want Kerry and every Kerry supporter to go iraq and tell an iraqi child that his freedom isnt worth dying for because he/she is not american! I want to see one person do that, cuz that is what Kerry is saying, but he doesnt have the courage to go to iraq and tell the iraqi people "this war for your freedom is the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time". How is that? Our war is against all terrorism and ALL who support it. Terrorists are in Iraq, i prefer the terrorists come to us then we bunny hop from country to country because news flash Al-Qaeda is in more places then just Afghanistan and no one could confirm that Osama "was" in Afghanistan. They couldnt confirm it, he was suspected, it was a educated guess, we dont know where he is, so we eliminate his operatives. The only muscle he has left is Zarqawi and IRAQ.

I dont care about WMD's, i would of gone in there without that reason in the first, i would of done it for justice alone. Saddam Hussein was the new-age Hitler and no european argued with us when Hitler was rampaging through europe, but they support the new age Hitler since he's not in europe after all. Saddam murdered his own people, invaded two neighboring countries, broke international law 17 times. This man should of been ousted 14 years ago. You know what happened when we did it the UN's way after the Gulf War in 1991? Every Iraqi rebel fighter that fought alongside US forces was found and mutalated for treason against Saddam. Thousands of US supporting iraqi's were butchered when we did it the UN's way and signed a cease fire. Same thing in Somolia when Clinton withdrew our troops, Warlord Aidid murdered all US supporting somolians when he took back the green zone in mogadishu.

You Anti-war people think about that. You think about the mass graves, but mostly think about how they happened. Kurdish women, shot in the back of the head at point blank range while holding infant children. The children died by being smothered under their dead mothers own body weight or being buried alive. All that just because they were Kurdish, thats the only reason for millions of that kind of brutality. You Anti-war people think on that.

Good post! You know what I would like to see? A thread started by a GI back from Iraq...something like "Ask an Iraq vet". As polls show that over 70% of our soldiers in Iraq support Bush, I don't think they see the war effort the same way all of the Bush-bashers on here do.

Ahh, yet another thread screaming out for attention.

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/phone_call_for_kerry.jpg

i am not a bush supporter. i am just a "anybody but kerry" person. i am probably voting libertarian party.

but what i do find interesting is that people are soo pissed at bush they are willing to vote in a self proclaimed war criminal who will raise taxes to all high hell. side with france.yes france.Lawyers do not belong running the country. thats how bad kerry is. a decent canidate would beat bush in a landslide. dean if given suport would have crushed bush. the dems nominated the wrong guy and if bush does win again they have noone to blame but themselves.

as my mother said "france can take the statue of liberty and shoved up their asses!"

Bush Is An Idiot, I Still Cant Get Over The Fact That The Stupid Retard Lifted The Gun Ban!!!!!!

Hickdumb, that was a n excellent post. Very impassioned, and it summed up my feelings perfectly. I don't consider my own life to be sucha valuable commodity, and in my opinion the only way to give it value is to spend it on a worthy cause. As you pointed out, freeing the Iraqis from the heel of Saddam is a noteworthy cause. My congratulations on such a well thought out post.

Also, Zooke, that was another of the best posts I have seen in a while. It was short, accurate, and to the point. It basically summed up all the arguments against attacks on Bush, and for that I commend you. I myself have written posts to the same effect, but I found it difficult to keep them from being less than half a page long.

Basically, I agree that Kramer needs to be given a good swift kick, since apparently his bigoted point of view does not allow for the truth. Sadly, many people seem intent on thriving off of the media hype, rather than the facts or good common sense.

On another thread, Kramer shot his mouth off about how Bush hasn't caught Osama and went and invaded Iraq.

Here is the answer:

Its pretty easy. If US forces were going capture Osama while he was still in Afghanistan, we would have had to invade with a far larger force than we did. Since Afghans hate foreign armies in their country, all of them would have put aside their differences and destroyed us. Look what happened to the Soviet Army from 1979-1989. It got its ass kicked and went home, and this is when it's right next door. Think about a major US invasion with supply lines stretching all the way back to America. It would be doomed from the start. The US "invasion" and toppling of the Buhdda-destroying Taliban was 99% outsourced because it had to be. Having the courage to do something and the insight to do it in a way that would avoid the disaster the Soviet Army suffered was phenomenal. Anyone who thinks the administration screwed up the Afghan War should read a history of our invasion of North Africa in World War 2. I recommend "An Army at Dawn". Compare and contrast.

After the invasion of Afghanistan, Osama and his pet murderers were deprived of their largest base in the world. Now Osama himself is probably hiding in Pakistan. It was established early on that significant US forces on Pakistani soil would cause two things: first, the idigenous tribes of those areas would immediately fight the US forces, and second, there would be a public upheaval so great that it would probably topple President Musharaff, depriving the US of someone who is at least willing to work with it. The probable third thing would be the replacement of Musharraf with an Islamist fanatic, and then Osama would have a new base, one that the US would have to launch a MAJOR war to destroy. In light of this, the administration chose the absolute best choice: improve diplomatic ties with Pakistan, support Musharaff, send in the Americans that Musharaff can get the public to tolerate, and let him work with his own country. Islamists fanatics are Musharaff's enemies too.

As for people being not worried about Osama anymore, don't think for one second that Osama's death or capture would stop his organization. His organization has to be captured or destroyed cell by cell, individual by individual, like a cancer. By the way, anyone who thinks that Saddam Hussein was not using Iraq as a base for terrorism should check out this link:

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

skip all the quotes from politicians in the beginning, and get to the meat of it. You might find it interesting.

As for why the Bush administration invaded Iraq before capturing Osama, the answer is it doesn't make a bit of difference whether or not Osama is dead or in jail before Saddam is dead or in jail. The argument of those who criticize the kickoff of Gulf War 2 before the prequel has been resolved seems to be that we could better use those troops and resources desperately seeking Osama. Well, we can't, because of Afghan and Pakistani feelings about large foreign forces in their countries. Disposing of Saddam was a big step towards denying Osama another major base.

But what about terrorists in Iraq today? Now there's more than ever!

Some of them were already there as guests of Saddam, like the late Abu Nidal and that Ansar es Whatever base, a wholly owned subsidiary of Al-Qaeda. More easily infiltrated. Add that to the insurgents, who are not terrorists any more than the French Resistance or the Viet Cong, and it looks like Iraq is brimming with terrorists. Iraq is brimming with violent murderers, but most of them are criminals and insurgents, not the terrorists. So, the Iraq War caused a small or moderate increase in terrorists, not the dreaded huge upsurge in terrorist recruiting as predicted by so many. That argument was just a good conscience-salving excuse to do nothing anyway.

Speaking of the Iraq War and the occupation, the administration is doing a good job with that too.

But innocent people were killed! > Alot less than we killed in Germany and Japan. No one shed a tear for those dead millions except their next of kin.

But more than a thousand Americans have died! > Alot less than in Vietnam, Korea, WW1, WW2, and on America's streets every year (about 15,000. Without trauma centers, it would be about 40,000 per year).

But cultural treasures were destroyed! > by Iraqis, who are responsible for their actions, regardless of who tries to make people believe that they're not.

But the prison scandal! > and those degenerates have been arrested and are going to jail where they belong. Hopefully they'll receive the same treatment. Every US soldier, sailor, airman and marine is told in boot camp that if an order violates the Geneva Convention or the UCMJ, it is an illegal order and it is their duty not to obey it.

But Halliburton! > Government pork barrel back room deals, like that's ever going to change, and as if there was ever a time where it didn't exist.

But no WMD! > The administration really screwed up on that one. But you know what? I don't care. Invading Iraq for the express purpose of toppling Saddam is reason enough for me. See the Hussein and terror link above. Besides, he was a huge warmonger. The first thing he did after becoming President of Iraq in 1979 was send people to the firing squad, and then in 1980 he starts the Iran-Iraq war Who cares who helped him (the USA, USSR, and the Arab world), he still did the deed. 1.7 million people died in that war. That war ground to a halt in 1988, and in 1990 he invades Kuwait. During these years, thousands of people were dying at the hands of his secret police. What a guy.

Enough rebuttal for the criticisms. The administration is handling the occupation well, because it keeps going ahead with the plan to restore utilities, turn the country over to Iraqis, and staying the course until its the right time to leave despite the scandals and headline-grabbing atrocities of the insurgents and the terrorists. The administration is not changing course constantly or cutting and running. This is vitally important, and the administration knows that and is acting on it, rather than being weak and caving in to popularity polls or terrorist atrocities. The day will come when all the peoples of Iraq are able to contribute to the running of their country, and the current administration has gone a long way towards helping them do that by getting rid of Saddam. To say the Iraqis are incapable of democracy and that they needed Saddam's violence to govern them is a low insult and pretty damn racist. Freedom isn't free, and cultural changes are always very painful.


P.S. For those of you who are influenced by Osama's latest video, don't be. He's a murderer who is trying to scare you. Why should you be afraid of him? He's been attacking for the last 10 years, and the USA hasn't fallen. All that's happening now is the asskicking that he, his murderers, and his supporters have earned. They are sick sad punks who won't stop killing until they are dead, even if we obey their every command. So why bother giving them what they want? They'll kill people anyway. The only way to stop them is to put them out of their misery.

That's it! :)

Holy crap, the Bush supporters are winning!? Crazy.

the ones who voted "yes" are bitter

Holy crap, the Bush supporters are winning!? Crazy.

When rational people are presented with the entire point-by-point truth, then their favor swings in that direction. Kerry is fighting a dirty campaign, just as he did in all of his campaigns for Senator. These same tactics (similar to kicking someone in the crotch and then running) were evident in his Winter Soldier movement. Do you realize that he was active in that group until investigations started following the O'Neill debate. Then he became MIA.

Hedross- Beautiful! I wish I could present so well.
HadesRulesMuch-Thank you.

Great posts so far.

Anybody want to agrue over this?:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/284402.html

Just want to start some more debate. I'm leaving this topic, but I thought that would make for a good debate.

I always hear about Saddam Hussein was not linked to terrorism. I dont know where people get that. Saddam Hussein "was" a terrorist. He murdered his own uncle and killed all his uncles supporters to gain power in iraq, dont they call political assassination a terrorist act?

During his reign, he is responsible for the largest amount of genocide since Adolf Hitler and Holocaust. Somolia, the UN demanded the US provide humanitarian aid and kill the warlords. Bosnia, same thing, Kosovo, same thing, both iraq wars before this one, same thing, the UN told us to lead the way, we went to war twice before this one with Saddam Hussein, so whats so different about now? Saddam Hussein didnt change, neither did his tyrant acts of terrorism. Why wasnt Iraq labeled a humanitarian crisis when it had the largest amount of genocide in the world today? Gets you thinking huh?

I want Kerry and every Kerry supporter to go iraq and tell an iraqi child that his freedom isnt worth dying for because he/she is not american! I want to see one person do that, cuz that is what Kerry is saying, but he doesnt have the courage to go to iraq and tell the iraqi people "this war for your freedom is the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time". How is that? Our war is against all terrorism and ALL who support it. Terrorists are in Iraq, i prefer the terrorists come to us then we bunny hop from country to country because news flash Al-Qaeda is in more places then just Afghanistan and no one could confirm that Osama "was" in Afghanistan. They couldnt confirm it, he was suspected, it was a educated guess, we dont know where he is, so we eliminate his operatives. The only muscle he has left is Zarqawi and IRAQ.

I dont care about WMD's, i would of gone in there without that reason in the first, i would of done it for justice alone. Saddam Hussein was the new-age Hitler and no european argued with us when Hitler was rampaging through europe, but they support the new age Hitler since he's not in europe after all. Saddam murdered his own people, invaded two neighboring countries, broke international law 17 times. This man should of been ousted 14 years ago. You know what happened when we did it the UN's way after the Gulf War in 1991? Every Iraqi rebel fighter that fought alongside US forces was found and mutalated for treason against Saddam. Thousands of US supporting iraqi's were butchered when we did it the UN's way and signed a cease fire. Same thing in Somolia when Clinton withdrew our troops, Warlord Aidid murdered all US supporting somolians when he took back the green zone in mogadishu.

You Anti-war people think about that. You think about the mass graves, but mostly think about how they happened. Kurdish women, shot in the back of the head at point blank range while holding infant children. The children died by being smothered under their dead mothers own body weight or being buried alive. All that just because they were Kurdish, thats the only reason for millions of that kind of brutality. You Anti-war people think on that.

Let's overthrow all of the evil tyrants in this world. After all it's not like we have our own country to take care of. Think on that.

Bush Is An Idiot, I Still Cant Get Over The Fact That The Stupid Retard Lifted The Gun Ban!!!!!!
You are an idiot:
1) The gun ban lifted itself
2) Bush couldn't have extended it if he wanted
3) It only banned modifications to guns, not guns itself

1. The defiticit is higher because
a. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton that started in November 2000
b. We suffered an attack on 9/11 that severely damaged our economy
(which was its primary purpose)
c. We had the corporate fraud scandals (perpetrated during Clinton's
administration) come to light causing more financial stress
d. We are fighting active wars on 2 fronts against Muslim extremists
e. Huge amounts are being spent to improve homeland security
2. Preventing 9/11 attack
a. Bush had been in office 9 months. What intelligence was he supposed
to have had that Clinton hadn't had in 8 years? We suffered several
terrorist attacks during Clinton's presidency, including the first Towers
attack, and he only huffed and puffed and slapped a few wrists.
b. When intelligence from numerous sources say that Sadam is a threat
and Bush takes action on that info, he is criticized harshly. Lose/lose?
3. Loss of jobs
a. Legislation rewarding sending jobs overseas was enacted during
Clinton's administration
b. Over 1,000,000 jobs were lost in the first 90 days following 9/11
c. Frivilous lawsuits (ie:John Edwards) have made employee insurance
benefits too expensive. Lawsuits against corporations cost employers
billions of dollars in their defense and in inflated judgements.
d. Most of the jobs lost were lost due to efficiency improvements. It's
like whining that you have lost your job as a smithy who shoes horses
and refuse to retrain in auto mechanics.
4. Random wars
a. See 2b
5. It was built into the legislation on semi-automatics to expire when it did
6. Healthcare costs
a. See 3c

1.a. the inherited recession is a myth
b.Administrations have handled World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf war and STILL CREATED JOBS!
c.Ken Lay, CEO of Enron is one of Bush's best buds
d.1 was unnecessary, and see 1b
e.If you mean by huge amounts the $22billion homeland security budget, that ain't big
2.a.What about that Aug. 6 PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S.?
b.The president began exploring military actions on Iraq from day 10 of his presidency
3.a.which legislation?
b.because Bush ignored the Aug. 6 PDB!
c.those lawsuits contributed to LESS THAN 1% of cost increases
d.what on earth are you talking about?
4.Iraq was completely unnecessary
5.He still had the option of extending it
6.Again lawsuits had virtually no effect. President Bush's plan FORBIDS the negotiation of drug pricing from pharmaceutical companies

My brother is a black hawk helicoptor pilot in iraq as of right now. His best friend, and a friend of his ive known for over a decade died while giving candy out to iraqi children, terrorists bombed the place, killing 35 children and killing several american soldiers. Blood for blood, we die alongside them, we never had to, these soldiers chose to.

These people deserve the freedoms we take for granted, the same stuff you anti-war, anti-bush people protest would of gotten your tongues cut out minimum in iraq under Saddam. Thats if you were lucky. We cant oust all tyrant dictators in the world, i wish we could, but we can at least take out the major tyrants. Saddam Hussein is responsible for a death count of "his own" people that rivals that of Adolf Hitlers Holocaust. It runs in the millions and the holocaust took place all over europe, Saddam matched that in his country alone. "Think on that". Me being a Bush supporter sorta makes me right, because i will gladly go to iraq and tell them their freedom is worth fighting for, especially to a child who has lost his mother to rape/murder, and a father who had to watch it and was killed for protesting. Such things happened often, Udae Hussein has a personal raping chamber in the palace, they allowed bathist soldiers to rape women daily. They protest or struggle, they die.

Through all these truth's, Kerry still says "its the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time" just because the UN wouldnt support it. Ironic how the UN now wants our help in Sudan, labeling that country a humanitarian crisis, they want us to lead the way again but when we try to label iraq as a humanitarian crisis "oh no, its nothing" hmmm. See, trying to save people wasnt enough to convince to the UN to go to iraq, so we had to pull up another case, we pulled up all evidence that we could on WMD's that proved a good case that was worth investigating. Still wasnt enough, we knew terrorism was rampant in that country, we knew Saddam was a walking time bomb with a nuclear center, we knew he was just lying in wait, its in his nature to kill and who do you think he wanted to kill the most. He wants a piece of the country responsible for stopping his mission to conquer Kuwait. Its inevitable.

I talk to my brother as often as i can, everytime i hear the same thing, "its a hard fight, but they cant stop us, they shoot, we bomb. We suffered casualties, but they got fucked worse. We're winning and we will because we wont stop, they cant stop us, we wont stop, we're gonna win."

Thats the mentality of troops in iraq 4 to 1 right now. Good odds, also means they trust their commander-in-chief to lead them to victory. No one said it was going to be easy, no one said it would be a breeze, no one said it was going to be quick, but we did say we would win, Bush said that, i, as well as my brother and his unit trust Bush to keep his promise. We're not the only ones.

1.a. the inherited recession is a myth
b.Administrations have handled World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf war and STILL CREATED JOBS!
c.Ken Lay, CEO of Enron is one of Bush's best buds
d.1 was unnecessary, and see 1b
e.If you mean by huge amounts the $22billion homeland security budget, that ain't big
2.a.What about that Aug. 6 PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S.?
b.The president began exploring military actions on Iraq from day 10 of his presidency
3.a.which legislation?
b.because Bush ignored the Aug. 6 PDB!
c.those lawsuits contributed to LESS THAN 1% of cost increases
d.what on earth are you talking about?
4.Iraq was completely unnecessary
5.He still had the option of extending it
6.Again lawsuits had virtually no effect. President Bush's plan FORBIDS the negotiation of drug pricing from pharmaceutical companies

Just as a side note, during the week of 9/11, we lost more money that week alone then the country of Germany has. With all the money we lost, we could of literally bought the country of germany with that money of their leaders were selling the country. That's a lot of money, and their is no liability insurance for the government to get reimbursed, once its gone, its gone, all you can do is work to get it back and it isnt a breeze either.

I am posting here the PDB entitled Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S.?. Please read, and read my comments at the end.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Now--what could you, using the information in that PDB, have done as the Presedent to prevent 9-11? The answer is, NOTHING! There's nothing saying "Osama Wants to hijack planes and use them as missles against the WTC." Stop quoting Michael Moore and get some real facts and arguments!

bumpity bump...

Watch in awe as I go kill more liberal threads...

bumpity bump...

Watch in awe as I go kill more liberal threads...
well, if you plan to kill threads, don't bump garbage like this. :p

http://www.picdump.org/albums/dragmire/Troll_XING.jpg

Wait--was that pointed at me? If it was, I am truly sorry, I didn't realize that was trolling. My bad...

I was just hoping for a response, which I have been waiting for from someone since Farenheight 9-11.

Great posts so far.

Anybody want to agrue over this?:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/284402.html

Just want to start some more debate. I'm leaving this topic, but I thought that would make for a good debate.


I just know Michael Moore's heart was set on having the information in this link in his film, but I guess film industry constraints made it end up on the cutting room floor... Michael probably cried his eyes out.