NationStates Jolt Archive

Why you all hate him? Especially you Europeans

Actually, I don't, seeing how he's doing such a great job of undermining American credibility.

I would hate anyone who perceived war as the only answer.

....the sick bastard.

I would hate anyone who perceived war as the only answer.

....the sick bastard.
To be fair he sees other answers besides war:
War
Bombing
Nuking
Eradicating
Burning
and Demonizing

In that order.

But I don't hate him. I fear that he will wreck America's credibility, cause up to thousands of people maimed, killed, or injured that are not terrorist in his wars, ban civil liberties, ban Roe versus Wade, demonize Democrats, make republicans not be a moral party (just appear as one to get votes), cause massive deficiets, and make Americans look foolish to everyone around the world.

And I was right. We are either already doing that or are soon going to be doing that.

Sometimes I wish I could be wrong...

I would actually like to meet him; I bet hes a great guy in person. Probably really nice too.

But his foreign policies, his alienating us and the world, his homeland policies, his posse of yes-people (minus Powell, he was the man) and his lack of being in touch with reality.

Can't say I like those things too much.

generally because he is an idiot, specifically because he is a fanatic religious idiot

let me provide backing

"Rarely is the question asked 'Is out children learning?'"

some soemthing "on the internets"

quote from some undersecretary about bush's plans for gay marriage he wants to "take the decision out of the hands of 'activist' judges and local officials."

go go big government!

I would hate anyone who perceived war as the only answer.

....the sick bastard.
thats funny, because i hate people who can say that UN sanctions work with a straight face

i worked for President Bush, and i fully support him 100%

I would hate anyone who perceived war as the only answer.

....the sick bastard.

Bush did try diplomacy. He also was going to try to go via the UN but France threatened any Veto that had anything to do with force.

To be fair he sees other answers besides war:
War
Bombing
Nuking
Eradicating
Burning
and Demonizing

In that order.

But I don't hate him. I fear that he will wreck America's credibility, cause up to thousands of people maimed, killed, or injured that are not terrorist in his wars, ban civil liberties, ban Roe versus Wade, demonize Democrats, make republicans not be a moral party (just appear as one to get votes), cause massive deficiets, and make Americans look foolish to everyone around the world.

And I was right. We are either already doing that or are soon going to be doing that.

Sometimes I wish I could be wrong...


Heh. Nuking? Are you serious? No one can defend these claims. The only arguments I have seen are "OMG Bu$h is teh w4rmonger!!!11"
Back this up

Civillians always die in wars. In One bombong run is Dresden, Germany, in WW2, 300,000 people died. During the siege of Leningrad in WW2, 1.5 million people died. In the rape of Nanking, untold thousands were killed. By comparison, there have been 100,000 people in Iraq killed or wounded, with 3/4 of this figure has been related to insurgents

The deficit is crap, I agree, although I do think it was necessary to spend a lot of money to save the post 9/11 economy as best he could. The economy isnt really his fault

I hope he does eliminate Roe vs Wade, or at least partial birth abortions. Abortions should only be allowed in case of rape, incest, or immense danger to the mother.

Europe played a large role in demonizing America. Look at this picture for a second:
Rumsfeld calls France "Old Europe"

Europeans wave banners comparing Bush to Hitler and crying for America to be "liberated"
The Canadian PM calls America "dumb bastards" and says she "hates every one of them"
Chirac threatens to deny Poland EU admitance for helping the USA

Who are the demonizers?


Bush is not a perfect President, but many claims against him are baseless

The man is fights for causes that involve the breakdown of everything America was truly based on and professes to be a Christian while acting in a way that goes against everything that entails. His policies censor and politicize science to a completely unprecedented degree. His administration is ruining my country, my profession, and my religion. I think I have a right to hate him.

generally because he is an idiot, specifically because he is a fanatic religious idiot

let me provide backing

"Rarely is the question asked 'Is out children learning?'"

some soemthing "on the internets"

quote from some undersecretary about bush's plans for gay marriage he wants to "take the decision out of the hands of 'activist' judges and local officials."

go go big government!


i guess you wouldn't like kerry either because he got a lower score on SAT scores, has a lower IQ and does mention god in his speeches.

oh and speaking of big government, you must be thinking of when the democrats are in office (look at what they strive for, controlling your life).

Heh. Nuking? Are you serious? No one can defend these claims. The only arguments I have seen are "OMG Bu$h is teh w4rmonger!!!11"
Back this up

Civillians always die in wars. In One bombong run is Dresden, Germany, in WW2, 300,000 people died. During the siege of Leningrad in WW2, 1.5 million people died. In the rape of Nanking, untold thousands were killed. By comparison, there have been 100,000 people in Iraq killed or wounded, with 3/4 of this figure has been related to insurgents

The deficit is crap, I agree, although I do think it was necessary to spend a lot of money to save the post 9/11 economy as best he could. The economy isnt really his fault

I hope he does eliminate Roe vs Wade, or at least partial birth abortions. Abortions should only be allowed in case of rape, incest, or immense danger to the mother.

Europe played a large role in demonizing America. Look at this picture for a second:
Rumsfeld calls France "Old Europe"

Europeans wave banners comparing Bush to Hitler and crying for America to be "liberated"
The Canadian PM calls America "dumb bastards" and says she "hates every one of them"
Chirac threatens to deny Poland EU admitance for helping the USA

Who are the demonizers?


Bush is not a perfect President, but many claims against him are baseless

Its because many nations are jelous of the many freedoms and the great power America posses. I think we should kick France out of the UN or, just disband the UN totally. If for no other reason, this war was good, because it showed America who their REAL friends and allies are.

The man is fights for causes that involve the breakdown of everything America was truly based on and professes to be a Christian while acting in a way that goes against everything that entails. His policies censor and politicize science to a completely unprecedented degree. His administration is ruining my country, my profession, and my religion. I think I have a right to hate him.
OMG please, for the love of god, give facts, give examples.

How is he breaking down America?
censor and politicize science? just because he doesnt believe in national funding of stem cell research? Or what about NASA and his proposals for expanding space exploration. I guess we can just look over that :rolleyes:.

Or here's a better question.

Do you Bush supporters think he has made any mistakes as a president and if so, what?

I don't think even the US has the power to 'kick france out of the UN, or disband it entirely'. Although the US could leave and make life very difficult for the UN.

I hate Bush because he seems to be dictating British foreign policy, and we are powerless to do anything about it, and then we have to put up with people moaning about us hating him when they don't understand the situation outside of the US

The Canadian PM calls America "dumb bastards" and says she "hates every one of them"


Wow, did the Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin get a sex change recently? o_o

i guess you wouldn't like kerry either because he got a lower score on SAT scores, has a lower IQ and does mention god in his speeches.

oh and speaking of big government, you must be thinking of when the democrats are in office (look at what they strive for, controlling your life).
oh yeah if the government tries to keep big business under control and provide for the welfare of the americans they are evil mother fuckers running big government

but when republicans try to tell the average joe what to do and take away his welfare whiel rgulating his life and telling the big business to knock itself out with whatever it wants they are for small government and peoples rights!

fucking idiots

re: #10

LMAO. What do you think America stands for? Socialism?

Is the mention of stealing from some to give to others anywhere in the constitution?

LOL

America is a free-enterprise country and it SHOULD be. That's the way we started -- economic freedom over forced economic equality -- and hopefully that's the way we'll remain (though sickeningly, there is some degree of socialism today).

If you want socialism, move to Cuba. Or go to Russia and try to convince those people to go back to Communism. Or go to Sweden. Or even Canada. But keep that sh*t out of the United States. Leave my money alone.

Its because many nations are jelous of the many freedoms and the great power America posses.

It's possible. It's more likely, however, that the rest of the world doesn't much like being bullied by a right-wing religious government with a self-serving agenda and vastly different ideology, particularly about how non-Americans should be treated.

The world doesn't need a policeman, and certainly not one with the horrendous track record the US has. Try reading a few international sources for news before making up your mind about how the US acts internationally.

I don't think even the US has the power to 'kick france out of the UN, or disband it entirely'. Although the US could leave and make life very difficult for the UN.


The UN is in the US. We could leave the UN and tell them that they have a week to find a new headquarters, because the building is being destoryed or something. That would put the UN in a pretty pickel.

I hope he does eliminate Roe vs Wade, or at least partial birth abortions. Abortions should only be allowed in case of rape, incest, or immense danger to the mother.

Hmm I guess I have a slightly more cynical view on this subject. The population growth rate of the United States alone is 1.9% Based on the area of dry land on the earth that means there will be 1 person per square meter in roughly 800 years.

I don’t think human life is unimportant but am I the only one that can see 1 person per square meter as a problem? Your views will be appriciated.

oh yeah if the government tries to keep big business under control and provide for the welfare of the americans they are evil mother fuckers running big government

but when republicans try to tell the average joe what to do and take away his welfare whiel rgulating his life and telling the big business to knock itself out with whatever it wants they are for small government and peoples rights!

fucking idiots

A person shouldnt have to live off of welfare. They should get up off of their ass and get a job. I'm tired of having to pay them to sit at home and do nothing.

Or here's a better question.

Do you Bush supporters think he has made any mistakes as a president and if so, what?
of coarse he has made mistakes.

1- no child left behind- good act, not enough support
2- not going into iraq earlier. We waited too long to try to get support, he was afraid earlier to go into war without UN approval because he didnt want to get criticized, then he finally sent us in there, and it was too late (to find the wmds).

re: 17

What are your thoughts on proprietary rights?

If you start a business, do you think you should be able to control it?

Or should others be able to tell you how to run your own business? And if you say "no, go to hell, this is my business...", they all quit and when you try to hire new people, the workers who quit vandalize their cars/homes/harass these new workers... is that right?

I mean, should workers be able to tell owners what to do, really?

Just wondering...

The UN is in the US. We could leave the UN and tell them that they have a week to find a new headquarters, because the building is being destoryed or something. That would put the UN in a pretty pickel.

The UN building is in New York, this is true, it may, however, come as a surprise to you, that there are buildings outside of the USA, I'm sure a suitable alternative could be found.

Why you all hate him? Especially you Europeans
They hate seeing our bustling economic growth rates :p

Who really cares what other countries think of us?

Seriously. The only people that opinion's actually matter are the citizens. And, as if you didn't know, a majority of the people in this country voted for Bush again...

Last time I checked the immigration rate has remained high, and governments still base their currency on our dollar. We are one of the most envied nations in the world.

We are going to be hated for the mere fact that we have it good and others don't. So why care what another country like France and Germany think of us? Are they going to invade us? Are they gonna impose sanctions on us? Are they gonna sick the UN on us? Sick the thought police on us?

Give me a break.

OMG please, for the love of god, give facts, give examples.

How is he breaking down America?

America is not a theocracy, and the founders would turn over in their graves with all of his "my God told me this, therefore it should be enacted" bs.
He is trying to write discrimination *into* the Constitution.
He thinks that spending irresponsibly with nothing to back it up is good fiscal policy.
He claims a "mandate" when nearly 50% of the voting population voted for someone else, and many who voted for him expressed it to be "the lesser of two evils." Of course, he ruled as if he had a mandate even after he lost the popular vote, so what could we expect?
He believes he is the leader of only those who agree with him, everyone else is "not a true American."
He labels protestors as terrorists and un-American, even though this country was *founded* on dissent.

Just to name a few.

censor and politicize science? just because he doesnt believe in national funding of stem cell research? Or what about NASA and his proposals for expanding space exploration. I guess we can just look over that :rolleyes:.

Funding space research has nothing to do with the fact that Bush fires scientific advisors who *might* say something that isn't what he wants to hear (never mind the facts, you know). He then replaces them with yes-men with *no* standing in their field. Stem cell research is just one example out of many on which Bush ignores the science and goes with his preconceived and wrong notions.

Here's an interesting one: Bush has redefined "wild salmon" to include salmon grown in fish ponds. Why? So he can make it look like he saved an endangered population and take them off the list. Never mind that those are not, by any definition, wild salmon.

The USDA, which doesn't do research on any "national security" topics has been banned from publishing anything on topics Bush doesn't like (including nuclear cell transfer) without the express permission of the administration. (Nothing like keeping the masses from information Bush doesn't want them to hear).

The Union of Concerned Scientists has put out *two* reports damning Bush's treatment of science (since the first was met with no response whatsoever).

It is signed by over 5000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

Next time at least look up the words used and at least *try* to research a topic before making yourself look like a complete idiot.

I understand that we needed trade unions back in the day, and m aybe we need them today JUST TO MAKE SURE that American industry doesn't return to practices of the early 20th century...

That said, we also don't need unions whose sole purpose seems to be to gum up the flow of business.

Hey unions, here's a clue:

If you hurt the business, YOU HURT THE WORKERS!

You cannot raise up the poor by bringing down the rich.

1- no child left behind- good act, not enough support

Yes, because asking our teachers to teach to idiotic tests that prove nothing is "good education." Yes, we should teach rote memorization, the basest form of learning, and never actually teach kids how to *think*.

The UN building is in New York, this is true, it may, however, come as a surprise to you, that there are buildings outside of the USA, I'm sure a suitable alternative could be found.

Yes, but it would be a haslte for them to have to move everything from the UN building to another building in another country, espicially if you gave them a deadline.

Bush did try diplomacy. He also was going to try to go via the UN but France threatened any Veto that had anything to do with force.

Which revisionist universe are you living in? The US went, reluctantly to the UN to gain international support for increased pressure on Iraq (Powell's doing). The UN sent in teams of inspectors to find "weapons of mass desctruction". They didn't find any. The US decided they were sick of waiting around, so they attacked, despite it being illegal according to international law (the illegality of it is trivial if you actually read the UN resolutions rather than listening to the propaganda from the US, UK, or Australian governments).

Now, we find that there are no weapons of mass destruction after all. And you're saying France is the one who doesn't respect international institutions and law?

Boggle...

Yes, but it would be a haslte for them to have to move everything from the UN building to another building in another country, espicially if you gave them a deadline.

Yeah I'll agree with that, although I think building arrangements would be somewhat trivial compared too the political ramifications of the USA actually leaving the UN.

re: #10

LMAO. What do you think America stands for? Socialism?

Is the mention of stealing from some to give to others anywhere in the constitution?

LOL

America is a free-enterprise country and it SHOULD be. That's the way we started -- economic freedom over forced economic equality -- and hopefully that's the way we'll remain (though sickeningly, there is some degree of socialism today).

If you want socialism, move to Cuba. Or go to Russia and try to convince those people to go back to Communism. Or go to Sweden. Or even Canada. But keep that sh*t out of the United States. Leave my money alone.
well since you like fascism so much, move to china, you get free enterprise AND fascism

I hope he does eliminate Roe vs Wade, or at least partial birth abortions. Abortions should only be allowed in case of rape, incest, or immense danger to the mother.

See, Bush only wants to pander to people like this - who feel that their personal religious beliefs should be the law of the land.

Never mind that D & X is necessary in some cases. Never mind that this person's personal religious beliefs should not be forced on another human being.

Which revisionist universe are you living in? The US went, reluctantly to the UN to gain international support for increased pressure on Iraq (Powell's doing). The UN sent in teams of inspectors to find "weapons of mass desctruction". They didn't find any. The US decided they were sick of waiting around, so they attacked, despite it being illegal according to international law (the illegality of it is trivial if you actually read the UN resolutions rather than listening to the propaganda from the US, UK, or Australian governments).

Now, we find that there are no weapons of mass destruction after all. And you're saying France is the one who doesn't respect international institutions and law?

Boggle...

This is because Bush waited too long to go into Iraq. He gave Saddam plenty of time to get the WMD out of there. Infact, he could have even done it under Clinton. From 1998-2003, the Weapons Inspectors werent alloud in. What reason would he have for not letting them in Iraq?

A person shouldnt have to live off of welfare. They should get up off of their ass and get a job. I'm tired of having to pay them to sit at home and do nothing.
you think you can LIVE on welfare? ok go do research and come back or better yet dont do research and stfu

there are people on welfare with TWO FUCKING JOBS

See, Bush only wants to pander to people like this - who feel that their personal religious beliefs should be the law of the land.

Never mind that D & X is necessary in some cases. Never mind that this person's personal religious beliefs should not be forced on another human being.

Hehe I totally agree. Look at my post on the population rates ;)

you think you can LIVE on welfare? ok go do research and come back or better yet dont do research and stfu

there are people on welfare with TWO FUCKING JOBS

I guess they aren't too educated then. Because if they had a good education, then they would have a good job, and not need welfare, let alone 2 jobs.

This is because Bush waited too long to go into Iraq. He gave Saddam plenty of time to get the WMD out of there. Infact, he could have even done it under Clinton. From 1998-2003, the Weapons Inspectors werent alloud in. What reason would he have for not letting them in Iraq?

So what you are saying is that by the time Iraq was attacked they had no WMD, because they had got rid of them, but if Iraq had been invaded sooner then they may have been caught in the act of getting rid of the WMD. I'm not sure how this improves the case for war

Yes, but it would be a haslte for them to have to move everything from the UN building to another building in another country, espicially if you gave them a deadline.

I think that the major point is that the UN only works if *all* of the powerful countries are a part of it.

Much like the league of nations, the UN would most likely fall apart on its own if the US were not a part of it.

Of course, the US flying in the face of the world court already suggests that this may happen. And then when we end up in another world war, the supporters of this adminstration won't have any room to complain...

America is not a theocracy, and the founders would turn over in their graves with all of his "my God told me this, therefore it should be enacted" bs.
He is trying to write discrimination *into* the Constitution.
He thinks that spending irresponsibly with nothing to back it up is good fiscal policy.
He claims a "mandate" when nearly 50% of the voting population voted for someone else, and many who voted for him expressed it to be "the lesser of two evils." Of course, he ruled as if he had a mandate even after he lost the popular vote, so what could we expect?
He believes he is the leader of only those who agree with him, everyone else is "not a true American."
He labels protestors as terrorists and un-American, even though this country was *founded* on dissent.

Just to name a few.



Funding space research has nothing to do with the fact that Bush fires scientific advisors who *might* say something that isn't what he wants to hear (never mind the facts, you know). He then replaces them with yes-men with *no* standing in their field. Stem cell research is just one example out of many on which Bush ignores the science and goes with his preconceived and wrong notions.

Here's an interesting one: Bush has redefined "wild salmon" to include salmon grown in fish ponds. Why? So he can make it look like he saved an endangered population and take them off the list. Never mind that those are not, by any definition, wild salmon.

The USDA, which doesn't do research on any "national security" topics has been banned from publishing anything on topics Bush doesn't like (including nuclear cell transfer) without the express permission of the administration. (Nothing like keeping the masses from information Bush doesn't want them to hear).

The Union of Concerned Scientists has put out *two* reports damning Bush's treatment of science (since the first was met with no response whatsoever).

It is signed by over 5000 scientists, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

Next time at least look up the words used and at least *try* to research a topic before making yourself look like a complete idiot.

1. Yes, he spends irresponsibly

2.Not nearly 50%. It was 48 to 52 percent

3.He never said people that dont agree with him are terrorists. he said people who are liberals just love the country in a different way

4. Evidence plz?

5. he funded NASA
6. First President to fund embryonic stem cell research and he supports umbilical chord research. Good argument there, pal

7.I dont know shit about salmon. poor salmon

8.He never ran as an environmentlaist or a scientist. He ran as a conservative and is now a wartime Pres. I think the salmon and pollution take a back seat to terrorism and warfare

I guess they aren't too educated then. Because if they had a good education, then they would have a good job, and not need welfare, let alone 2 jobs.
do you not get dizzy talking in circles?

Why you all hate him? Especially you Europeans

I would refrain from making threads like this, there are too many liberal douches on this site.

Yes, because asking our teachers to teach to idiotic tests that prove nothing is "good education." Yes, we should teach rote memorization, the basest form of learning, and never actually teach kids how to *think*.


Mmm...

Many teachers I've talked with hand us these "learning level assessments" every once in a while. They hate doing it and its costing a load of money to do this mindless work. I've seen the innefficiency at my school and yes, its an interesting concept at school, but when you're there, you're racking your mind why would someone create this.

(This wasn't a negative Dem)

I guess they aren't too educated then. Because if they had a good education, then they would have a good job, and not need welfare, let alone 2 jobs.

So you believe that someone should starve to death because they weren't born with a silver spoon up their ass like you were?

Someone didn't have access to "good education," so they should just starve to death?

Who do you think picks up your trash and makes your food? I hope these people know what type of person you are and throw garbage in your lawn and spit in your dinner.

This is because Bush waited too long to go into Iraq. He gave Saddam plenty of time to get the WMD out of there. Infact, he could have even done it under Clinton.

And yet, despite constant satellite and military air surveillance (illegal according to UN law, but not something the US has ever worried about all that much), no evidence to support your position was ever found. Even Powell's "evidence" to support the US case before the UN has been discredited by everyone, including US sources.

Care to back up your statement with something more than "Fox News said so"?

From 1998-2003, the Weapons Inspectors werent alloud in. What reason would he have for not letting them in Iraq?

Probably the same reason the US doesn't allow UN weapons inspectors in, or why you wouldn't let police install surveillance cameras in your bedroom - they are a sovereign nation after all.

Heh. Nuking? Are you serious? No one can defend these claims. The only arguments I have seen are "OMG Bu$h is teh w4rmonger!!!11"
Back this up

Civillians always die in wars. In One bombong run is Dresden, Germany, in WW2, 300,000 people died. During the siege of Leningrad in WW2, 1.5 million people died. In the rape of Nanking, untold thousands were killed. By comparison, there have been 100,000 people in Iraq killed or wounded, with 3/4 of this figure has been related to insurgents

The deficit is crap, I agree, although I do think it was necessary to spend a lot of money to save the post 9/11 economy as best he could. The economy isnt really his fault

I hope he does eliminate Roe vs Wade, or at least partial birth abortions. Abortions should only be allowed in case of rape, incest, or immense danger to the mother.

Europe played a large role in demonizing America. Look at this picture for a second:
Rumsfeld calls France "Old Europe"

Europeans wave banners comparing Bush to Hitler and crying for America to be "liberated"
The Canadian PM calls America "dumb bastards" and says she "hates every one of them"
Chirac threatens to deny Poland EU admitance for helping the USA

Who are the demonizers?


Bush is not a perfect President, but many claims against him are baseless

For one thing it wasn't are PM it was an MP of which there are 306 we can't keep an eye on all of them at once, plus she never said that she jabbed a doll of Bush with a pin on a T.V comedy show, you guys take everything to seriously. But please check your facts before you start to slander and ally who has always backed you up.

i guess you wouldn't like kerry either because he got a lower score on SAT scores, has a lower IQ and does mention god in his speeches.

oh and speaking of big government, you must be thinking of when the democrats are in office (look at what they strive for, controlling your life).

o wait. except that SAT means jack shit, IQ hasn't meant a thing since 1920, and mentioning God does not make you a religious fanatic

Probably the same reason the US doesn't allow UN weapons inspectors in, or why you wouldn't let police install surveillance cameras in your bedroom - they are a sovereign nation after all.

:rolleyes:

Iraq and the US are different situations. The most important being that the US didn't try to invade a country and then get turned back by a UN-sponsored force.

re: 34

okay, pinko, what was the official NAME of the Nazi Party?

National Socialist Party

rofl

Fascism is LIKE SOCIALISM WHEN IT COMES TO HOW THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO RACH FAR INTO PEOPLE'S WALLETS.

Both are big-government, big-spending... which I am against.

We hate him because we can..its democracy live with it.

What reason would he have for not letting them in Iraq?Er... I think it's called national sovereignty??? By your logic (for lack of a more humourously accurate term) you should have no trouble allowing hostile officials into your research and defense labs. They'll be there Friday, ok?

Seriously, though - attitudes like the one you are displaying are a large contributor to the international stereotype of the ignorant American. This is really sad because I know that very few people in your country are quite as ignorant of international issues as you seem to be but because the ignorant few are so strident they tend to drown out the sane people who live in the US. Thus the steroetype.

BTW, I don't hate Bush, I laugh at his statements (if our PM made such ludicrous statements they'd be in my sig ;) ) and pity the population of the US who have to deal with his policies...

:rolleyes:

Iraq and the US are different situations. The most important being that the US didn't try to invade a country and then get turned back by a UN-sponsored force.

He asked for reasons why Iraq wouldn't allow UN inspectors in - not whether or not there was reason for sending them in.

And you're right - the US hasn't invaded any countries at all on flimsy to no provocation. All 20+ nations that have been attacked since WWII have been completely justified.

Or here's a better question.

Do you Bush supporters think he has made any mistakes as a president and if so, what?
I support him 100%. Obviously, Iraq was a huge problem. They found a chemical weapons lab, but the liberal news media won't show anything good to their veiwers.

re: 34

okay, pinko, what was the official NAME of the Nazi Party?

National Socialist Party

.

So. Just because the Nazi party called itself this doesn't make it so!

Lots of parties have similar names but completely different ideals

Does it ever occur to you small government people that government was created to service the people and that government is not all bad?

A strong goverment with checks and balances to avoid corruption is a good thing!

1. Yes, he spends irresponsibly

Yup.

2.Not nearly 50%. It was 48 to 52 percent

Ok, so would you accept "about 50%" then?

3.He never said people that dont agree with him are terrorists. he said people who are liberals just love the country in a different way

Wrong. Every time he is asked about a view that contradicts one of his, he states "I don't think Americans disagree with me. They are smart and they love America." Anti-Bush protestors have been thrown in jail on suspicion of terrorism. Hell, a 15 year old diabetic on her way to a movie that happened to ride by a protest got batoned off her bike and hauled off to jail for a night on "suspicion of terror."

4. Evidence plz?

For what? His treatment of science? I posted it in my last post, as signed by numerous Nobel Laureates and other well-respected scientists.

5. he funded NASA

I never said he didn't. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. NASA is kissing his ass, telling him whatever he wants to hear to *get* funding.

6. First President to fund embryonic stem cell research and he supports umbilical chord research. Good argument there, pal

Again, this is completely beside the point. Funding for lines that aren't sufficient is no better than no funding at all.

7.I dont know shit about salmon. poor salmon

Neither does Bush, but he ignores intelligent people so that he can look good to those who want to fish for them, despite the fact that they are endangered.

8.He never ran as an environmentlaist or a scientist. He ran as a conservative and is now a wartime Pres. I think the salmon and pollution take a back seat to terrorism and warfare

Neither terrorism nor warfare have anything to do with ruining the objectivity of science. Congratulations on *attempting* to change the subject to something *completely* unrelated.

He asked for reasons why Iraq wouldn't allow UN inspectors in - not whether or not there was reason for sending them in.

And you're right - the US hasn't invaded any countries at all on flimsy to no provocation. All 20+ nations that have been attacked since WWII have been completely justified.
Stop putting words in my mouth, please. I never said the bolded part. The important thing is that Iraq was one of the few times the ineffectual UN has actually acted, which means they get punished while the US dosen't for Vietnam or Grenada.

People shouting off "National Sovereignty" need to be reminded that Iraq as a country did not enjoy the same status as the rest of the world. This was not from the US and UK, but rather from the United Nations.

(funding NASA)
I never said he didn't. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. NASA is kissing his ass, telling him whatever he wants to hear to *get* funding.


Isn't there a push to militarise space at the moment? If so, surely that would have something to do with increased funding.

I guess they aren't too educated then. Because if they had a good education, then they would have a good job, and not need welfare, let alone 2 jobs. You're very young, aren't you?

re: 34

okay, pinko, what was the official NAME of the Nazi Party?

National Socialist Party

rofl

Fascism is LIKE SOCIALISM WHEN IT COMES TO HOW THE GOVERNMENT TRIES TO RACH FAR INTO PEOPLE'S WALLETS.

Both are big-government, big-spending... which I am against.
keep telling yourself that while the conservatives dictate how often and how exactly you can have sex

keep telling yourself that while the conservatives dictate how often and how exactly you can have sex


how are they doing that exactly?

Isn't there a push to militarise space at the moment? If so, surely that would have something to do with increased funding.

Of course there is, but NASA has always been controlled by politics - it is a government agency that was created to win the space race. It has always been politicized.

Bush *wants* to fund NASA, so it has nothing to do with the discussion of Bush censoring and politicizing science in general.

keep telling yourself that while the conservatives dictate how often and how exactly you can have sex
did i stumble upon China's NS forum?

Originally Posted by Thelona
Isn't there a push to militarise space at the moment? If so, surely that would have something to do with increased funding.

Why is militarizing space a good thing anyway? I thought killing was bad based on these posts support for pro-life.

thats funny, because i hate people who can say that UN sanctions work with a straight face

i worked for President Bush, and i fully support him 100%

You... hate people that try to find a working alternative to war...

wow

Stop putting words in my mouth, please. I never said the bolded part.

Apologies. But you did imply that the US is not an aggressor state in violation of international treaties.

The important thing is that Iraq was one of the few times the ineffectual UN has actually acted, which means they get punished while the US dosen't for Vietnam or Grenada.

This doesn't make sense, but I'll try to address what I think you're trying to say. The UN is hardly ineffectual in many areas. I has even had several successful military interventions, including recently in East Timor. But the UN didn't act in Iraq, at least militarily. Economic sanctions were having a significant positive effect, while the Iraqi military was not a threat to anybody.

And you're suggesting the US didn't get punished for Vietnam? I would suggest that's one where they did, as opposed to its constant intervention in Central America or the Caribbean, or more recently the invasion of Afghanistan or attacks in Sudan, for example.

People shouting off "National Sovereignty" need to be reminded that Iraq as a country did not enjoy the same status as the rest of the world. This was not from the US and UK, but rather from the United Nations.

Only in a very limited sense.

BTW, the US does stop UN inspectors from monitoring its activity - it wasn't a theoretical comment. Despite signing up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which I believe they have recently pulled out

Non-proliferation treaty (http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm)

Recent US shift on stance to treaty (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28806-2004Jul30.html)

how are they doing that exactly?

Let's see - sodomy laws were a conservative construct. Too bad those "activist judges" struck them down.

Of course, at least one state still has anti-homosexuality laws in place. They have "Romeo and Juliet" laws for young men around 18 who have sex with teenage girls. But a young male homosexual who happens to have a 17 year old boyfriend gets sent to jail for child molestation. Hmmm......

oh and speaking of big government, you must be thinking of when the democrats are in office (look at what they strive for, controlling your life).

...Unlike the "conservative" republicans we have now that want to outlaw gay marriage and abortion?

EDIT:

Well here's my 2 cents about Bush hating.

Personally I don't like the guy because he lacks credibility to me. He doesn't read stuff handed to him (although I know most politicans don't, but when you are the president, come on...) and doesn't seem to question anything. A tiny bit of investigation into the CIA's intelligence pre-invasion would have revealed gaping flaws in their intelligence. Yet we still went to war on the intel from known compulsize liars, aggrandizers, and a man named "Curveball".

Under Bush's watch we went to war with Iraq to find what? Zero of the four "active chemical munitions bunkers", zero of the unknown amount of antrax filled R-400 bombs, zero of at least seven mobile chem/bio production factories, zero of the 18 truck mounted chem/bio facilities, and zero tons of the conservative estimate of "100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.". This stuff doesn't just disappear. At the beginning of the war Iraq's information technologies were destroyed. Broken. Annuled. There is no way that Saddam would have been able to destroy all his chemical stores and facilities after the start of the war to make him seem innocent. And yet we still draw a blank page.

We went to a war for nothing.

A costly war for nothing. A war that, so far, has cost us around $150,000,000,000. Thats alot of zeros. Thats one hundred-fifty thousand billion dollars. That money could have done something much, much better. How much better? It is estimated that we could have fully funded hunger relief for the whole world for six years. Six years of virtually eliminating starvation from the world? We could have funded global AIDs research programs for fourteen years! We could have provided basic immunizations for every single child in the world for fourty-nine years. FOURTY NINE YEARS!

And a few months later he comes back: mission accomplished?

What mission? We were hunting for WMDs. We found a single empty chemical shell?

And still he doesn't admit the fact that he could have been wrong? His steadfastness is perhaps the most annoying character trait of him to me.

He is "never wrong" in his own mind. But he has been and still is. It took him months after numerous hearings and documents showed that Al-Qeada had no connection to Iraq. Yet he still used Al-Qeada as having a relation to Iraq in his pep talks with US. (He could use that connection now however as Al-Qeada members have now moved into Iraq to fight US.)

I don't like that.

I don't like the fact that he turned the world's sympathy with us post 9-11 into hatred.

I don't like the fact that he is percieved as an asshat to the rest of the international community. You may say that that is an irrelevant opinion of those foreign nations, but guess what, we live with those foreign nations. Our world image is important for our political and economic future. Right now, it doesn't look so great.

I don't like the fact that when I travel out of America I have to put up with so much. The world is not our friend right now. Many people I know put other coutry's flags on their backpacks when they travel so they don't get harassed. I don't like that.

I have mentioned a few things I don't like about Bush. I haven't touched on the "more shady" things. IE: Halliburton and ties to the Saudis. But I feel it is enough.

If you think Bush is great, just for a minute take away Iraq and the war on terrorism. What do you have? A mediocre president at the very best. Now come back to the real world. Now realize that the war in Iraq was a failure. The war on terror has flopped due to poor management. What do you get? A mediocre president at the very, very, very best.

One problem with a thread like this is that this site is plagued by people who do not like Bush. That bieng said, I would like to point out that I am (quite greatfully) not one of these people.

Earlier on in this thread, someone mentioned some verbal slip-ups that Mr. President did in his first few years as President. I recently found an article by Amy Castelli, a teacher, that speaks to many of the points raised here. THis is what she had to say about these so called, "Bushisms."

"As for the verbal slip-ups - everyone has them from one time to another. There are countless politicians from Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, and even Bill Clinton, who made verbal mistakes at one time or another. Therefore, there is really no justification in making a mockery out of Bush's verbal mishaps."

Even among our Founding Fathers, these slip ups were made. There are several mistakes, for example, in the Decloration of Independance. Dr. Benjamin Franklin once printed in a newspaper that a person had "died" at a restoraunt, when he had meant to say "dined." If all you can come up with are these phrases, which have been used COUNTLESS times against him (this is true. These are the same phrases that have been used over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over. Nothing new here) then you are really running out of arguments. People make mistakes when they speak. Have you never stumbled over a word?

Someone also talked about the introduction of religious theories to students (not forcing them, but telling them about them) like Creation. Evolution is a dotrine, just like Creation. Why is it so wrong to teach the theory of Creation in schools, alongside that of evolution? You say that "Bush is trying to force me to think this way," but, in reality, you are trying to force children to believe that Evolution.

To close, I am going to post another section of the article:

"Now I would like to fast forward [from the Reagen era] to 2003 - to the presidency of George W. Bush, the current "moron" among academia. From my observations, a college student cannot sit through a class without being exposed to his so-called idiocy. The "stupidity" of George W. Bush often mentioned is rarely about his policies but just about him as an individual. Professors and students use irrelevant information in an attempt to justify why they think our president is "dumb." I've observed people making fun of the way he looks and talks, but rarely is there any real criticism about his policies other than, "The war is stupid." Sometimes, the college classroom reminds me of kindergarten, when everyone yells, "He's stupid!" with no solid reasons whatsoever. We should all know by now saying someone or something is stupid has no relevance if it is not backed up. I have a friend who is a Democrat, and not particularly a fan of Bush, who cannot sit through her English class because her professor rants and raves about his stupidity. I decided quite some time ago to do a little research on the man to see if what is said time and time again in the classroom is true.

"There's an interesting article by Steve Sailor titled, "Is George W. Bush a Moron?" According to this article, a huge reason academia scoffs at President Bush is because his SAT score was a 1206. What many people fail to remember is since 1996 SAT scores have been inflated, thus a current high school student's SAT score of 1206 is not the same as George W. Bush's SAT score of 1206. In fact, according to the article, "A verbal 566 puts Bush at about the 95th percentile of juniors & seniors ... while 640 on math puts him at about the 98th percentile." From this information, one can conclude President Bush is smarter than the average American. Another criticism I have observed from my professors and peers regarding Bush and his formal education is the only reason he attended Yale was because his father, former President George H. Bush, had the pull to get him into Yale in the first place. My response to this statement is many people get into many colleges because of their parents' status. Even if George H. Bush provided the opportunity for his son to get his foot in the door at Yale, George W. still had to prove himself once he was there. And he did - he graduated from both Yale University and the Harvard Business School. These are two huge accomplishments and should not be underestimated."


I welcome any criticizm.

thats funny, because i hate people who can say that UN sanctions work with a straight face

i worked for President Bush, and i fully support him 100%

Anything to do with the UN needs to be banned and shoved out of this country anyways!!!!!

This doesn't make sense, but I'll try to address what I think you're trying to say. The UN is hardly ineffectual in many areas. I has even had several successful military interventions, including recently in East Timor. But the UN didn't act in Iraq, at least militarily. Economic sanctions were having a significant positive effect, while the Iraqi military was not a threat to anybody.
The UN acted in Iraq in 1991, which is what I meant. Any positive effects by sanctions were cancelled out by the huge negatives. Some people say that the number of people killed directly and indirectly due to sanctions actually are a higher number than those killed by Saddam directly. The sanctions led to huge malnutrition problems, particularly among women and children. The UN is very ineffective in military interventions. A few successes recently does not change that. There have been hundreds of wars between countries since 1945, or inbetween countries, and the UN has done nothing to stop the vast majority of them.

And you're suggesting the US didn't get punished for Vietnam? I would suggest that's one where they did, as opposed to its constant intervention in Central America or the Caribbean, or more recently the invasion of Afghanistan or attacks in Sudan, for example.
We didn't get punshed for Vietnam by the UN or the international community. We took a horrible amount of human casualties, but it wasn't like Vietnamese weapons inspectors were searching around for stockpiles of Agent Orange.

Only in a very limited sense.
At least as far as weapons inspectors go, Iraq's national sovereignty did not entail the right to kick them out.


BTW, the US does stop UN inspectors from monitoring its activity - it wasn't a theoretical comment. Despite signing up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which I believe they have recently pulled out
Did I say they didn't?

re: #10

LMAO. What do you think America stands for? Socialism?

Is the mention of stealing from some to give to others anywhere in the constitution?

LOL

America is a free-enterprise country and it SHOULD be. That's the way we started -- economic freedom over forced economic equality -- and hopefully that's the way we'll remain (though sickeningly, there is some degree of socialism today).

If you want socialism, move to Cuba. Or go to Russia and try to convince those people to go back to Communism. Or go to Sweden. Or even Canada. But keep that sh*t out of the United States. Leave my money alone.
Amen. People have these vague notions that all money should be equal - but doesn't this really make everybody unequal? our economy is based off the concept of getting what you earn. The rich have no obligation to give all their money away to the poor or the government. Corporations have a right to do whatever the hell they please as long as they are not enslaving people or destroying the environment.

Why you all hate him? Especially you Europeans


Because of that stupid smirk he has...


No seriously, I don't like him because of his policies.

how are they doing that exactly?
they've tried it before but luckily for YOUR ass those "evil" "activist" liberal judges saved your ass. look up Griswold v Connecticutt (which is about to happen again) and that one where 2 homosexuals were arrested for having sex in their bedroom in their own homes because polices burst in for a reason i dont even recall

Originally Posted by Pibb Xtra:
You... hate people that try to find a working alternative to war...

wow

right... while they run "humanitarian" scams such as the Oil-for-Food fiasco... gotta love the good ol' UN.

right... while they run "humanitarian" scams such as the Oil-for-Food fiasco... gotta love the good ol' UN.
let me enlighten you, THE WORLD RUNS ON OIL. you think we REALLY gave a damn about iraq invading kuwait? doubt it, what did we REALLY care about? the fact that kuwait has alot of oil and likes to ship it to us

Someone also talked about the introduction of religious theories to students (not forcing them, but telling them about them) like Creation. Evolution is a dotrine, just like Creation. Why is it so wrong to teach the theory of Creation in schools, alongside that of evolution? You say that "Bush is trying to force me to think this way," but, in reality, you are trying to force children to believe that Evolution.

Thank you for setting the record straight with the rest of your speech (I have generally secular Libertarian views, so I'm not quite a Bush supporter, but I'm even less of a Democrat), but I must disagree with you on this point.

Evolution is not a "belief" - it is a proven, indisputable scientific theory. The only "evidence" contradictory to what the theories of evolution say is the Bible. Somehow people continue to use this as a valid scientific argument, which is absolutely preposterous. Furthermore, you also have these "Intelligent Design" people who claim that life is too complex to have arisen on its own and was designed by (an) intelligent being(s). This theory disproves itself: how could life possibly BE the origin of life itself?

This is not to say that you cannot believe in whatever the hell you want, but these theories should NOT be taught as scientific truth, or any truth for that matter, especially in public schools, althought it is certainly acceptable to teach them in the same manner a religions class is taught - inform of existence, but to not affirm to be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pibb Xtra:
You... hate people that try to find a working alternative to war...

wow


Wanna talk humanitarian?

Those "humanitarians" who protested against the Vietnam War may not realize what they have done. I have talked to many Vietnamese families (who were not very happy with the US pulling out, I can tell you that) about what happened to Vietnamese who fought with the US against the communitsts. One story has stuck out in my brain. Everyone but these four people in the family survived the Communists purges. All aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and friends. They were all burried alive, with their heads still above ground. Then, they mowed over all the exposed heads with great, churning blades, killing them all.

Meanwhile these "people who try to find an alternative to war," AKA Hippies, were protesting against the US actions, basicaly saying, "No, we don't want our soldiers dying to stop horrible deaths. Instead, we should pull ourselves inward, and wait for them to attack us."

Guess what.

They did.

Thank you for setting the record straight with the rest of your speech (I have generally secular Libertarian views, so I'm not quite a Bush supporter, but I'm even less of a Democrat), but I must disagree with you on this point.

Evolution is not a "belief" - it is a proven, indisputable scientific theory. The only "evidence" contradictory to what the theories of evolution say is the Bible. Somehow people continue to use this as a valid scientific argument, which is absolutely preposterous. Furthermore, you also have these "Intelligent Design" people who claim that life is too complex to have arisen on its own and was designed by (an) intelligent being(s). This theory disproves itself: how could life possibly BE the origin of life itself?

This is not to say that you cannot believe in whatever the hell you want, but these theories should NOT be taught as scientific truth, or any truth for that matter, especially in public schools, althought it is certainly acceptable to teach them in the same manner a religions class is taught - inform of existence, but to not affirm to be true.


Hmm indisputable theory? Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?

Hmm indisputable theory? Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?

Don't get caught up on little things like "definitions"...

Hmm indisputable theory? Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?

I believe it is infact a whole oxymoron :o)

the Theory of Evolution has not been proved! It is my favourite explaination for how we came to be as we are though!

[QUOTE=Grays Hill]Bush did try diplomacy. He also was going to try to go via the UN but France threatened any Veto that had anything to do with force.[/QUOTE)

In the UN it always looks like were an inch away from making a good decision and then France always fucks it up. when Karzai (the Afghani prez) wanted extra support to back up the upcoming elections in Afghanistan the UN was about to send a few more troops in to safe gaurd the elections and maybe even bust a few more Taliban or Al-Queda bastards. Then some dickhead French diplomat says "We shouldnt use force for any old matter." Then these other countries start supporting French ideas and agree with them. :headbang: We should either boot France from the UN :) or just leavo ourselves because this shit just isnt working

1 more thing: I diddnt support the Iraq war at first because i thought we should have focused more on Iran or North Korea, but now these psycotic insergants are mutilating the shit out of our troops. Doesnt that shit piss you off? Really...I think the American people should be even more involved with the War on Terror instead of selling out and becoming anti-war. In war shit happens and people die, but when you kill some one and carve up their bodies and tie them to a bridge for the rest of the city to see, that's just plain fucked up. It goes against the Geneva convention, and it should just be plain common sense not to do that kind of crap after we just freed the Iraqi people from a pshycotic dictator that killed thousands of people unmercifully and killled the economy. America should be more pissed off than ever to take it to these terrorist bastards and make the world a better place.

Hmm indisputable theory? Isn't this a bit of an oxymoron?

Let's please not go there...
Thanks, EmoBuddy

What is it with the people who patronize NationStates? I'd swear at least 85% of them are liberals. The sheer imbalance of it all disturbs me. Seriously, we need more conservatives here, if only to make it more interesting.

I'm not going to get involved on this one, though I'm strongly tempted. I had enough presidential politics during the election, and don't care to be harrased for my views by some of the ignorant fools here.

I hope the Bushies have the last word.

The fact that the American economy is going to outperform the Euro zone for 2004 probably isn't making them less hateful. :)

[QUOTE=American LibertyStates]

The Canadian PM calls America "dumb bastards" and says she "hates every one of them"


Just a quick comment here. One of the many reasons a large chunk of the world dislikes the United States is the ignorance of most of its citizens.

The Canadian Prime Minister is a Man, not a woman.

Also, the Prime Minister, and Ottawa recently played host Bush, Rice, Powell and others, and has been VERY pro-bush since he (the PM) took office.

Thirdly, it wasn't the PM that said that, it was a Liberal MP (not PM, there's a big difference). By the way, she has since been kicked out of the Liberal party for making such grossly inapropriate statements.

Fourthly, get your facts straight.

What is it with the people who patronize NationStates? I'd swear at least 85% of them are liberals. The sheer imbalance of it all disturbs me. Seriously, we need more conservatives here, if only to make it more interesting.



a Recent poll revealed that around 1/3 of the people using this site were from the US about 1/3 from Europe, and the rest from other parts of the world, this may well explain the predominanting Liberal attitudes

(I may have these numbers slightly wrong, but it was something like that!)

The UN acted in Iraq in 1991, which is what I meant. Any positive effects by sanctions were cancelled out by the huge negatives. Some people say that the number of people killed directly and indirectly due to sanctions actually are a higher number than those killed by Saddam directly. The sanctions led to huge malnutrition problems, particularly among women and children. The UN is very ineffective in military interventions. A few successes recently does not change that. There have been hundreds of wars between countries since 1945, or inbetween countries, and the UN has done nothing to stop the vast majority of them.

The effects of the sanctions are debatable. The Kurds benefitted enormously, for example. In any case, the sanctions could have been stopped at any time if they were doing more harm than good, without war. US sanctions are crippling Cuba, but I don't hear much support in the US for lifting them. A similar situation exists in Myanmar (which is much more justified than the Cuban embargo).

Why is the UN ineffective in military interventions? A better question is why it doesn't get involved in nearly as many as it should, and the reason is at least partly due to lack of support from the international community. The US is a prime example of this, as is Russia.

In Iraq at least, the available evidence suggests that the UN got it right militarily, in both cases.

ban Roe versus Wade.

Fat chance of that. Bush is pro-choice in cases of rape and incest. He's also a close friend of militantly pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter.

thats funny, because i hate people who can say that UN sanctions work with a straight face

i worked for President Bush, and i fully support him 100%


UN sanctions were completely effective in halting iraqs WMD and nuclear programs.

Read the duelfer report at www.cia.gov

The fact that the American economy is going to outperform the Euro zone for 2004 probably isn't making them less hateful. :)

It's not a competition! I'm perfectly happy with my life, and wish all those American businessmen and high earners who have lots of money all the best and I hope you enjoy it!

Ok well I just edited my earlier post to this topic only to find that my post was now 1.5 pages behind... No one will read it probably. So I'm reposting my edit because I think it warrants it.

Here goes.

Well here's my 2 cents about Bush.

Personally I don't like the guy because he lacks credibility to me. He doesn't read stuff handed to him (although I know most politicans don't, but when you are the president, come on...) and doesn't seem to question anything. A tiny bit of investigation into the CIA's intelligence pre-invasion would have revealed gaping flaws in their intelligence. Yet we still went to war on the intel from known compulsize liars, aggrandizers, and a man named "Curveball".

Under Bush's watch we went to war with Iraq to find what? Zero of the four "active chemical munitions bunkers", zero of the unknown amount of antrax filled R-400 bombs, zero of at least seven mobile chem/bio production factories, zero of the 18 truck mounted chem/bio facilities, and zero tons of the conservative estimate of "100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.". This stuff doesn't just disappear. At the beginning of the war Iraq's information technologies were destroyed. Broken. Annuled. There is no way that Saddam would have been able to destroy all his chemical stores and facilities after the start of the war to make him seem innocent. And yet we still draw a blank page.

We went to a war for nothing.

A costly war for nothing. A war that, so far, has cost us around $150,000,000,000. Thats alot of zeros. Thats one hundred-fifty thousand billion dollars. That money could have done something much, much better. How much better? It is estimated that we could have fully funded hunger relief for the whole world for six years. Six years of virtually eliminating starvation from the world? We could have funded global AIDs research programs for fourteen years! We could have provided basic immunizations for every single child in the world for fourty-nine years. FOURTY NINE YEARS!

And a few months later he comes back: mission accomplished?

What mission? We were hunting for WMDs. We found a single empty chemical shell?

And still he doesn't admit the fact that he could have been wrong? His steadfastness is perhaps the most annoying character trait of him to me.

He is "never wrong" in his own mind. But he has been and still is. It took him months after numerous hearings and documents showed that Al-Qeada had no connection to Iraq. Yet he still used Al-Qeada as having a relation to Iraq in his pep talks with US. (He could use that connection now however as Al-Qeada members have now moved into Iraq to fight US.)

I don't like that.

I don't like the fact that he turned the world's sympathy with us post 9-11 into hatred.

I don't like the fact that he is percieved as an asshat to the rest of the international community. You may say that that is an irrelevant opinion of those foreign nations, but guess what, we live with those foreign nations. Our world image is important for our political and economic future. Right now, it doesn't look so great.

I don't like the fact that when I travel out of America I have to put up with so much. The world is not our friend right now. Many people I know put other coutry's flags on their backpacks when they travel so they don't get harassed. I don't like that.

I have mentioned a few things I don't like about Bush. I haven't touched on the "more shady" things. IE: Halliburton and ties to the Saudis. But I feel it is enough.

If you think Bush is great, just for a minute take away Iraq and the war on terrorism. What do you have? A mediocre president at the very best. Now come back to the real world. Now realize that the war in Iraq was a failure. The war on terror has flopped due to poor management. What do you get? A mediocre president at the very, very, very best.

I dont think the republicans will overturn roe v wade.

I do believe they will make it more difficult for people with the misfortune of living in rural and conservative areas to get an abortion, but if abortion was to be banned, it would only serve as a potent rallying point *against* the republicans.

As long as they keep telling their base that they plan to ban abortion, they can maintain the false dichotomy between the pro- and anti-abortion parties.

1 more thing: I diddnt support the Iraq war at first because i thought we should have focused more on Iran or North Korea, but now these psycotic insergants are mutilating the shit out of our troops. Doesnt that shit piss you off?

It must be nice to have such a black and white idea of the world. Both sides have thrown the Geneva Convention out the window, including one that is attempting to portray itself as a model for civilised society. The fact that the US uses similar tactics annoys me more than an outgunned army using shock tactics in a guerilla war.

Let's please not go there...
Thanks, EmoBuddy

And why can't I go there? Don't get me wrong I think the theory of evolution is very reputable but it is still only a theory. Infact I beleive in evolution more than creationism. But assuming that the theory of evolution is 100% correct is just as bad a assuming that the theory of creationism is 100% correct. One must recognize that they are both theories and decide which if either to believe.

If your interested check out the definition of Theory as defined by Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Theory

It must be nice to have such a black and white idea of the world. Both sides have thrown the Geneva Convention out the window, including one that is attempting to portray itself as a model for civilised society. The fact that the US uses similar tactics annoys me more than an outgunned army using shock tactics in a guerilla war.

While there have been a few isolated incidents in which the Convention was breached by the US, we have not "Thrown it out the window," as you say.

Let's please not go there...
Thanks, EmoBuddy
??? Let's not go there??!!

Ok...I'll let my sources do the talking:

2004 Encyclopedia Britannica:

"
evolution

theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory. (See also human evolution.)

The diversity of the living world is staggering. More than 2,000,000 existing species of plants and animals have been named and described; many more remain to be discovered—from 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 according to some estimates. What is impressive is not just the numbers but also the incredible heterogeneity in size, shape, and way of life: from lowly bacteria, measuring less than one-thousandth of a millimetre in diameter, to the stately sequoias of California, rising 300 feet (100 metres) above the ground and weighing several thousand tons; from bacteria living in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park at temperatures near the boiling point of water to fungi and algae thriving on the ice masses of Antarctica and in saline pools at -9° F (-23° C); and from the strange wormlike creatures discovered in dark ocean depths at thousands of feet below the surface to spiders and larkspur plants existing on Mt. Everest more than 19,868 feet above sea level.

The virtually infinite variations on life are the fruit of the evolutionary process. All living creatures are related by descent from common ancestors. Humans and other mammals are descended from shrewlike creatures that lived more than 150,000,000 years ago; mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes share as ancestors aquatic worms that lived 600,000,000 years ago; all plants and animals are derived from bacteria-like microorganisms that originated more than 3,000,000,000 years ago. Biological evolution is a process of descent with modification. Lineages of organisms change through generations; diversity arises because the lineages that descend from common ancestors diverge through time.

The 19th-century English naturalist Charles Darwin argued that organisms come about by evolution, and he provided a scientific explanation, essentially correct but incomplete, of how evolution occurs and why it is that organisms have features—such as wings, eyes, and kidneys—clearly structured to serve specific functions. Natural selection was the fundamental concept in his explanation. Genetics, a science born in the 20th century, reveals in detail how natural selection works and led to the development of the modern theory of evolution. Since the 1960s a related scientific discipline, molecular biology, has advanced enormously knowledge of biological evolution and has made it possible to investigate detailed problems that seemed completely out of reach a few years earlier—for example, how similar the genes of humans and chimpanzees might be (they differ in about 1 or 2 percent of the units that make up the genes)."

This article provides logical proof (though not many Creationists are fond of listening to logic):

"The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in July 2001]

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. To deny evolution (as defined here) is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance. "

Need I say more?

It must be nice to have such a black and white idea of the world. Both sides have thrown the Geneva Convention out the window, including one that is attempting to portray itself as a model for civilised society. The fact that the US uses similar tactics annoys me more than an outgunned army using shock tactics in a guerilla war.

Why? Why limit your capabilities when your enemy does not?

Not saying the US does, but would it be that bad of an idea?

And why can't I go there?... One must recognize that they are both theories and decide which if either to believe.


That is exactly what I said earlier. However, this isn't an evolution vs. Creation thread.

Why? Why limit your capabilities when your enemy does not?

Not saying the US does, but would it be that bad of an idea?

Because stooping down to terrorism looks bad when you are trying to win the heart's of the countrymen.

That is exactly what I said earlier. However, this isn't an evolution vs. Creation thread.
However, it is a thread regarding a religiously influenced political figure, so a limited discussion is still relevant.

Hmm I guess I have a slightly more cynical view on this subject. The population growth rate of the United States alone is 1.9% Based on the area of dry land on the earth that means there will be 1 person per square meter in roughly 800 years.

I don’t think human life is unimportant but am I the only one that can see 1 person per square meter as a problem? Your views will be appriciated.

listen to yourself _800_ YEARS
for all you know we could have colonies on other planets and the moon by then
allotta things change change in 800 years
think before speaking (typing)

Because stooping down to terrorism looks bad when you are trying to win the heart's of the countrymen.

I agree. Was the original comment in reference to civilian deaths? (seriously)

However, it is a thread regarding a religiously influenced political figure, so a limited discussion is still relevant.

Why does it matter if it's a religiously influenced policitical figure? Isn't the problem simply with a "morally" influenced political figure?

I agree with you. I think morals should not be allowed in a governing position. :)

Emo, I was not trying to provoke you or use sarcasm. I was actually thanking you for your comments. Sorry if that got mis-read.

However, it is a thread regarding a religiously influenced political figure, so a limited discussion is still relevant.

Yeah I think we're streaching the limit and should stop.

I just realized I never answered the main question.

I don't hate Bush but I don't agree with his policies and I think he's not exactly the brightest cookie in the batch. I mainly disagree with him because I am liberal and he is conservative.... thats about it.

I agree with you. I think morals should not be allowed in a governing position. :)

If there were no morals in government, there would be no US.

Why? Why limit your capabilities when your enemy does not?

Not saying the US does, but would it be that bad of an idea?



Because then we join the enemy in becoming the enemy of humanity.

There is no dignity or pride in a torture nation, its citizens are criminals against humanity.

Why does it matter if it's a religiously influenced policitical figure? Isn't the problem simply with a "morally" influenced political figure?

I agree with you. I think morals should not be allowed in a governing position.
Just because I said I was secular regarding political matters does not mean I shun morals - without morals, our society would not function. I am against imposing morals that infringe on rights, especially if they are obviously biased towards a particular relgion. Morals are the reason people do not go around killing each other, morals are the reason you pay for goods you receive, morals are why we have laws protecting equal rights for all people under the law, morals are....you get the point.

Europe played a large role in demonizing America. Look at this picture for a second:
Rumsfeld calls France "Old Europe"

Europeans wave banners comparing Bush to Hitler and crying for America to be "liberated"
The Canadian PM calls America "dumb bastards" and says she "hates every one of them"
Chirac threatens to deny Poland EU admitance for helping the USA

Who are the demonizers?


Bush is not a perfect President, but many claims against him are baseless


What???? I`m from Canada and our PM first is a HE not a SHE and I don`t know where you got that but that`s bullshit...your never gonna hear that from a PM of Canada...they lick your ass for god`s sake even "I" am ashame...at least for once whe didn`t follow you in a stupid war. We did support Afgannistan but not Iraq cause they did nothing to you or us for that matter.

And saying that we are jealous of your freedom...Please!!!! I have more freedom than you.

I can drink beer at 18
I can smoke pot on the street(if a cop sees me he will tell me to throw it away that`s all)
I can say I hate Canada and not get crap from 100 people
Abortion is legal, and even paid for by the goverment!!!
Gay marriage is Legal
When I go to the hospital its Free!!!
I`m not gonna get conscripted in the army in 2 year(Ok this one is only a probability)
And + that I have every freedom that you have.

If there were no morals in government, there would be no US.

Yeah, something better.

listen to yourself _800_ YEARS
for all you know we could have colonies on other planets and the moon by then
allotta things change change in 800 years
think before speaking (typing)

Hmmm maybe you didn't see the "1 square meter" part. Would you like to live in the vacinity of twenty square meters of another person in 200 years?

Regardless, its never too early to think towards the future and not leave these environmental problems to our children's children's children ect...

Ok well I just edited my earlier post to this topic only to find that my post was now 1.5 pages behind... No one will read it probably. So I'm reposting my edit because I think it warrants it.

Here goes.

Well here's my 2 cents about Bush.

Personally I don't like the guy because he lacks credibility to me. He doesn't read stuff handed to him (although I know most politicans don't, but when you are the president, come on...) and doesn't seem to question anything. A tiny bit of investigation into the CIA's intelligence pre-invasion would have revealed gaping flaws in their intelligence. Yet we still went to war on the intel from known compulsize liars, aggrandizers, and a man named "Curveball".

Under Bush's watch we went to war with Iraq to find what? Zero of the four "active chemical munitions bunkers", zero of the unknown amount of antrax filled R-400 bombs, zero of at least seven mobile chem/bio production factories, zero of the 18 truck mounted chem/bio facilities, and zero tons of the conservative estimate of "100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.". This stuff doesn't just disappear. At the beginning of the war Iraq's information technologies were destroyed. Broken. Annuled. There is no way that Saddam would have been able to destroy all his chemical stores and facilities after the start of the war to make him seem innocent. And yet we still draw a blank page.

We went to a war for nothing.

A costly war for nothing. A war that, so far, has cost us around $150,000,000,000. Thats alot of zeros. Thats one hundred-fifty thousand billion dollars. That money could have done something much, much better. How much better? It is estimated that we could have fully funded hunger relief for the whole world for six years. Six years of virtually eliminating starvation from the world? We could have funded global AIDs research programs for fourteen years! We could have provided basic immunizations for every single child in the world for fourty-nine years. FOURTY NINE YEARS!

And a few months later he comes back: mission accomplished?

What mission? We were hunting for WMDs. We found a single empty chemical shell?

And still he doesn't admit the fact that he could have been wrong? His steadfastness is perhaps the most annoying character trait of him to me.

He is "never wrong" in his own mind. But he has been and still is. It took him months after numerous hearings and documents showed that Al-Qeada had no connection to Iraq. Yet he still used Al-Qeada as having a relation to Iraq in his pep talks with US. (He could use that connection now however as Al-Qeada members have now moved into Iraq to fight US.)

I don't like that.

I don't like the fact that he turned the world's sympathy with us post 9-11 into hatred.

I don't like the fact that he is percieved as an asshat to the rest of the international community. You may say that that is an irrelevant opinion of those foreign nations, but guess what, we live with those foreign nations. Our world image is important for our political and economic future. Right now, it doesn't look so great.

I don't like the fact that when I travel out of America I have to put up with so much. The world is not our friend right now. Many people I know put other coutry's flags on their backpacks when they travel so they don't get harassed. I don't like that.

I have mentioned a few things I don't like about Bush. I haven't touched on the "more shady" things. IE: Halliburton and ties to the Saudis. But I feel it is enough.

If you think Bush is great, just for a minute take away Iraq and the war on terrorism. What do you have? A mediocre president at the very best. Now come back to the real world. Now realize that the war in Iraq was a failure. The war on terror has flopped due to poor management. What do you get? A mediocre president at the very, very, very best.

A. We did find a few of the mobile chem. plants but they were not in use, but did you ever think that maybe they sold/destroyed the stuff before we got there, we were forced to give quite a warning

B.No matter what we do people will hate people more powerful then them, if we put the war funds into international aid we would have SOME or ALL of the following happen
*People accuse us of meddling in others bussiness
*The UN whines for the US to fight another war instead
*people whine for more aid
*Iraqi people suffer more
*people accuse the US of being ignorant and that we should reallocate our funding
*people whine for the usual reasons ie US too powerful,too rich,electing bush ec

No matter what we do/did people resent those who are more powerful

Just because I said I was secular regarding political matters does not mean I shun morals - without morals, our society would not function. I am against imposing morals that infringe on rights, especially if they are obviously biased towards a particular relgion. Morals are the reason people do not go around killing each other, morals are the reason you pay for goods you receive, morals are why we have laws protecting equal rights for all people under the law, morals are....you get the point.

Excuse me.....without morals simply means amoral, not immoral. "Moral laws" exist. IE: all of labor code, virtually every law governing economic transactions without externalities.........good stuff like that. That stuff shouldn't exist, that's my point.

Excuse me.....without morals simply means amoral, not immoral. "Moral laws" exist. IE: all of labor code, virtually every law governing economic transactions without externalities.........good stuff like that. That stuff shouldn't exist, that's my point.


Without economic laws, our economy would collapse.

And that is FUN for the WHOLE FAMILY.

And saying that we are jealous of your freedom...Please!!!! I have more freedom than you.

Abortion is legal, and even paid for by the goverment!!!
When I go to the hospital its Free!!!

Last time I checked, socialism is not freedom. You are being forced to pay for these services through increased taxes. I'd rather pay $10 a month to a health insurance company of my choice rather than be forced to put my money into the hands of the government for services that may not even benefit me.

Furthermore, abortion is legal in the United States.

Hmmm maybe you didn't see the "1 square meter" part. Would you like to live in the vacinity of twenty square meters of another person in 200 years?

Regardless, its never too early to think towards the future and not leave these environmental problems to our children's children's children ect...

i am pretty sure I will be dead in 200 years, unless a major medical miracle comes out of course
more time is there then you seem to be thinking

Last time I checked, socialism is not freedom. You are being forced to pay for these services through increased taxes. I'd rather pay $10 a month to a health insurance company of my choice rather than be forced to put my money into the hands of the government for services that may not even benefit me.

Furthermore, abortion is legal in the United States.



You mean you arent forced to pay for health care in the US? You can just get it for free, not payed for by taxes or insurance or anything?

If you think that other people in your country deserve to be exlcluded from medical care, it is evident that you have contempt rather than pride for your countrymen.

To be fair he sees other answers besides war:
War
Bombing
Nuking
Eradicating
Burning
and Demonizing

In that order.

But I don't hate him. I fear that he will wreck America's credibility, cause up to thousands of people maimed, killed, or injured that are not terrorist in his wars, ban civil liberties, ban Roe versus Wade, demonize Democrats, make republicans not be a moral party (just appear as one to get votes), cause massive deficiets, and make Americans look foolish to everyone around the world.

And I was right. We are either already doing that or are soon going to be doing that.

Sometimes I wish I could be wrong...
There is extremism on this board; the kind of absurdities that you have spewed, such as 'banning' liberties, wouldn't happen on the watch of the people and overall liberal court system, nor does President Bush want to 'ban' them.
He has no authority to overturn Roe v. Wade, and even if the courts did, it isn't that big of a deal. Most liberals talk about this, but they don't even know what it means. Roe v. Wade federally guarantees a right to abort. Overturning it would just make it a state issue again, not ban abortion completely. Furthermore, a side fact: the main plaintiff in the case later decided that she was wrong and became pro-life.
Democrats are demonizing Republicans, too, and both sides are wrong; this isn't a one-way door. The Democratic Party has grown too liberal and the Republican Party too conservative, especially socially, and we are seeing partisan war as a result.
A deficit was already started as Clinton left. Bush didn't help it, but it isn't all his fault.

Without economic laws, our economy would collapse.

And that is FUN for the WHOLE FAMILY.

And what laws would those be, please do tell.

Excuse me.....without morals simply means amoral, not immoral. "Moral laws" exist. IE: all of labor code, virtually every law governing economic transactions without externalities.........good stuff like that. That stuff shouldn't exist, that's my point.

So you say that "Moral Laws exist," call them, "Good stuff like that," then say they shouldn't exist? I am getting very mixed signals here.

Laws protecting workers and guaranteeing wages and whatnot.


Also of course laws banning monopolies and other such things.

You might want to look up the turn of the century in a history book and read about it.

If you think that other people in your country deserve to be exlcluded from medical care, it is evident that you have contempt rather than pride for your countrymen.

Wait, why do people *deserve* medical care?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmoBuddy
Last time I checked, socialism is not freedom. You are being forced to pay for these services through increased taxes. I'd rather pay $10 a month to a health insurance company of my choice rather than be forced to put my money into the hands of the government for services that may not even benefit me.

Furthermore, abortion is legal in the United States.
[QUOTE=EmoBuddy]


[QUOTE=New Granada]You mean you arent forced to pay for health care in the US? You can just get it for free, not payed for by taxes or insurance or anything?

If you think that other people in your country deserve to be exlcluded from medical care, it is evident that you have contempt rather than pride for your countrymen.


dude he said he pays 10$ to insurance
he does pay for it
please think before you say another idiotic thing again

There is extremism on this board; the kind of absurdities that you have spewed, such as 'banning' liberties, wouldn't happen on the watch of the people and overall liberal court system, nor does President Bush want to 'ban' them.
He has no authority to overturn Roe v. Wade, and even if the courts did, it isn't that big of a deal. Most liberals talk about this, but they don't even know what it means. Roe v. Wade federally guarantees a right to abort. Overturning it would just make it a state issue again, not ban abortion completely. Furthermore, a side fact: the main plaintiff in the case later decided that she was wrong and became pro-life.
Democrats are demonizing Republicans, too, and both sides are wrong; this isn't a one-way door. The Democratic Party has grown too liberal and the Republican Party too conservative, especially socially, and we are seeing partisan war as a result.
A deficit was already started as Clinton left. Bush didn't help it, but it isn't all his fault.



When bush decided that instead of fighting the deficit and working to help the economy he would give truckloads of money in tax cuts to the wealthy (who, in reality, do not fuel the economy because of their MPC) he took culpability for the deficit upon himself.

i am pretty sure I will be dead in 200 years, unless a major medical miracle comes out of course
more time is there then you seem to be thinking

So your going to leave the population problem to our decendants? Thats real kind.

I can just imagine the world 600 or so years from now.

"Dang Sally I wish our ancestors took care of this population problem."

"I agree Joe... Now millions of God's humans are dying of desiese and famane because they failed to plan ahead." :(

"Maybe a simple solution would have been to allow people to have abortions if they so choose."

So you say that "Moral Laws exist," call them, "Good stuff like that," then say they shouldn't exist? I am getting very mixed signals here.

"good stuff" is a sarcastic phrase, sorry.

Excuse me.....without morals simply means amoral, not immoral. "Moral laws" exist. IE: all of labor code, virtually every law governing economic transactions without externalities.........good stuff like that. That stuff shouldn't exist, that's my point.
Without morals, the only way to make decisions is through logic. Because it is nearly impossible to logically prove the correct decision to every choice, we need a more efficient method of making decisions, so we manifest logic in a set of rules to guide our decisions, called morals. If you are thinking that decisions must be made on the basis of idealogy, you forget that idealogy is BASED on morals.

And where do you think the morals behind these laws are gotten from? There is an unwritten Universal Code of Ethics - law must interpret what exactly these Ethics are. "Moral laws" have their foundations in our best attempts to fabricate a system of ethics and morals that can be applied to everyone.

So you propose we abolish every law regarding labor and economic transactions? What are you, an anarchist? (Not to mention that these are generally not called "moral laws" in the first place...)

So your going to leave the population problem to our decendants? Thats real kind.


In the words of Ben Franklin, "Besides, what will future generations think we were? Demi-Gods? We're men, no more, no less."

dude he said he pays 10$ to insurance
he does pay for it
please think before you say another idiotic thing again



Wow, talk about "missed the point."

Follow really closely my boy, I'll explain it slowly for you.

WHoever posted regarding canada and health care made a specific complaint:

'Your health care isnt free, you are forced to pay for it'

to which was responded (as a rhetorical question, look it up in the dictionary)
"you mean you arent forced to pay for health care, it is free for you?'



Since you didnt get it the first time, I'll explain it in detail here:

Regardless of weather your health care is paid for by taxes or paid for through insurance payments or simple direct compensation, the payment is compulsory.

An american is no less 'forced' to pay for health care than a canadian.

Wait, why do people *deserve* medical care?

No one "deserves" it. Some people need it. Granted, you have the odd person who messes around with the system, however, there are some people with seriously messed up lives and, like everyone else, gets sick and flat out cannot afford to pay for medical bills.

Without morals, the only way to make decisions is through logic. Because it is nearly impossible to logically prove the correct decision to every choice, we need a more efficient method of making decisions, so we manifest logic in a set of rules to guide our decisions, called morals. If you are thinking that decisions must be made on the basis of idealogy, you forget that idealogy is BASED on morals.

And where do you think the morals behind these laws are gotten from? There is an unwritten Universal Code of Ethics - law must interpret what exactly these Ethics are. "Moral laws" have their foundations in our best attempts to fabricate a system of ethics and morals that can be applied to everyone.

So you propose we abolish every law regarding labor and economic transactions? What are you, an anarchist? (Not to mention that these are generally not called "moral laws" in the first place...)


I would contend that the 'ethics' which underly morals have proximate causes.

No room for a supernatural 'universal set of ethics.'

Wow, talk about "missed the point."

Follow really closely my boy, I'll explain it slowly for you.

WHoever posted regarding canada and health care made a specific complaint:

'Your health care isnt free, you are forced to pay for it'

to which was responded (as a rhetorical question, look it up in the dictionary)
"you mean you arent forced to pay for health care, it is free for you?'



Since you didnt get it the first time, I'll explain it in detail here:

Regardless of weather your health care is paid for by taxes or paid for through insurance payments or simple direct compensation, the payment is compulsory.

An american is no less 'forced' to pay for health care than a canadian.

THAT IS SOOO TRUE.

Laws protecting workers and guaranteeing wages and whatnot.The economy would not collapse if those were gotten rid of. Just discard a bunch of "pretend" rights that people think they have.


Also of course laws banning monopolies and other such things.You might have a point. I've never understood why people punish monopolies though. If they respect natural rights, I don't have a problem with them...

You might want to look up the turn of the century in a history book and read about it.Oh yes, that extremely high period of growth where our economy was "collapsing" as you put it? And where people were all *willingly* working?

In the words of Ben Franklin, "Besides, what will future generations think we were? Demi-Gods? We're men, no more, no less."

Is this supporting me or refuting me? In any case I kind like it ;)

While we are on the subject of Moral Laws & Bush, here are some interesting factoids:

DID YOU KNOW?

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court
you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and
each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full
frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the
Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where
the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and
Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our
Constitution" made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the
capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all
of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves
according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation
was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on
the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose
salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the
established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

Wait, why do people *deserve* medical care?


For the same reason people deserve not to be starved to death like stalin did in the USSR.

Because of some things, some little ideas like "unalienable rights" to silly little passe idiocies like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

You mean you arent forced to pay for health care in the US? You can just get it for free, not payed for by taxes or insurance or anything?

If you think that other people in your country deserve to be exlcluded from medical care, it is evident that you have contempt rather than pride for your countrymen.
I'm not sure what you are saying so I'll lay down some facts.
[1]I am not forced to pay for health care.
[2]Health care cannot be gotten for free in the US, or anywhere, because it is a service, and therefore requires goods to compensate those who provide it.
[3]My argument is that is better to be able to choose among competing insurance companies than to have my money be put at the mercy of the government - which isn't even necessarily spending the money that I pay on me.

The economy would not collapse if those were gotten rid of. Just discard a bunch of "pretend" rights that people think they have.


You might have a point. I've never understood why people punish monopolies though. If they respect natural rights, I don't have a problem with them...

Oh yes, that extremely high period of growth where our economy was "collapsing" as you put it? And where people were all *willingly* working?

You might consider taking a history class and a number of courses in economics.

Mr.Ninja dude is very right.

Bush declares that you represent your patriotism by putting an american flag on anything you can put one on and by supporting him. There is more than one way too show you patriotism for your country, and that is one way i dislike him.

Did I also hear that Bush is trying to get Canada involved in this war? That's great, get the Canadians, who do kinda keep to themselves most of the time, bombed and have some of them wiped out.

Does no one remember what happened to the Spanish?

And before anyone gives an opinion based on what an American news station said, don't even post. You can't post against this until you've seen WORLD news, not just your local "We love Pres bush" news broadcasting station.

There are some seriously nasty people over in the other side of the world, that is fair enough to say. but Bush is just as nasty as they are.

I'm not sure what you are saying so I'll lay down some facts.
[1]I am not forced to pay for health care.
[2]Health care cannot be gotten for free in the US, or anywhere, because it is a service, and therefore requires goods to compensate those who provide it.
[3]My argument is that is better to be able to choose among competing insurance companies than to have my money be put at the mercy of the government - which isn't even necessarily spending the money that I pay on me.

I'm wondering if you have figures on how much the average canadian spent on health care (ie, portion of tax dedicated to health care) over the last six or so years versus what the average american spent on it.

On a side note, as a moral belief of mine, a person is not entitled to money taken by the government. Each person who benefits from a developed nation has an obligation to fund that nation.

Did I also hear that Bush is trying to get Canada involved in this war? That's great, get the Canadians, who do kinda keep to themselves most of the time, bombed and have some of them wiped out.

Does no one remember what happened to the Spanish?

And before anyone gives an opinion based on what an American news station said, don't even post. You can't post against this until you've seen WORLD news, not just your local "We love Pres bush" news broadcasting station.

There are some seriously nasty people over in the other side of the world, that is fair enough to say. but Bush is just as nasty as they are.


Bush and this sick rat fink shill alberto gonzales.

While we are on the subject of Moral Laws & Bush, here are some interesting factoids:

DID YOU KNOW?

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court
you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and
each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full
frontal view ... it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the
Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

DID YOU KNOW?
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where
the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!

DID YOU KNOW?
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and
Monuments in Washington, D.C.

DID YOU KNOW?
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our
Constitution" made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the
capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all
of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves
according to the Ten Commandments of God."

DID YOU KNOW?
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation
was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on
the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

DID YOU KNOW?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose
salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

DID YOU KNOW?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the
established orthodox churches in the colonies.

DID YOU KNOW?
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:
"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
Your mindless babble continues...

You seem to forget that our country was founded by Christians, for Christians (well, actually white, land-owning, Christian men), so OF COURSE we are going to have a history of Christian morals in government. Furthermore, the morals in the ten commandments have been abosorbed into the Universal code of ethics. Just because religious and secular morals intersect does not mean we should ban them all.

Please, think about what you are saying before you post something.

Why you all hate him? Especially you Europeans

He took my job and outsourced it.

Mr.Ninja dude is very right.

Bush declares that you represent your patriotism by putting an american flag on anything you can put one on and by supporting him. There is more than one way too show you patriotism for your country, and that is one way i dislike him.

No he doesnt! Where do you people get this idea from? It comes from Bush supporters, not Mr Bush himself! The fact is, conservatives, moreso than liberals (there are exceptions of course on both sides), stand for traditional American values, and thats why more people voted Bush than Kerry.

When the Spanish pulled out, they made everything worse. Their actions told the terrorists that if they use extortion and terror, people will do what they want. Note: MOst kidnappings happen after a country leaves Iraq.

Your mindless babble continues...

You seem to forget that our country was founded by Christians, for Christians (well, actually white, land-owning, Christian men), so OF COURSE we are going to have a history of Christian morals in government. Furthermore, the morals in the ten commandments have been abosorbed into the Universal code of ethics. Just because religious and secular morals intersect does not mean we should ban them all.

Please, think about what you are saying before you post something.



You've still yet to defend your contention that there exists a "universal code of ethics." As opposed to ethics which arise from proximate causes.

Without morals, the only way to make decisions is through logic. Because it is nearly impossible to logically prove the correct decision to every choice, we need a more efficient method of making decisions, so we manifest logic in a set of rules to guide our decisions, called morals.I disagree. Some people have "incorrect" morals (I'm sure many think that I do at this point). How can the same source of logic provide such vastly different sets of morals? Whose morals are right? I realize we can never get rid of them, they are human nature. But eliminating them as much as possible(at least in the government) will lead to the most equitable society.

And where do you think the morals behind these laws are gotten from? There is an unwritten Universal Code of Ethics - law must interpret what exactly these Ethics are. "Moral laws" have their foundations in our best attempts to fabricate a system of ethics and morals that can be applied to everyone. I don't believe there is a Universal Code of Ethics. Our best attempts suck?

So you propose we abolish every law regarding labor and economic transactions? What are you, an anarchist? (Not to mention that these are generally not called "moral laws" in the first place...) A maximum work week isn't seen as a moral law? Why else does it exist if not for "morals". Employment is a decision between two willing parties a government should not have a legal limit of how much someone can work.

Your mindless babble continues...

You seem to forget that our country was founded by Christians, for Christians (well, actually white, land-owning, Christian men), so OF COURSE we are going to have a history of Christian morals in government. Furthermore, the morals in the ten commandments have been abosorbed into the Universal code of ethics. Just because religious and secular morals intersect does not mean we should ban them all.

Please, think about what you are saying before you post something.

Separation of church of state is intended to keep the state out of the Churchs' buisness, not the other way around.

When the Spanish pulled out, they made everything worse. Their actions told the terrorists that if they use extortion and terror, people will do what they want. Note: MOst kidnappings happen after a country leaves Iraq.


The spanished excercized real democracy to throw out bad leaders and put in good ones. Leaving iraq was a function of good governance above all else.

It was my understanding that most of the founding fathers were Deists not Christians but correct me WITH PROOF if I'm wrong.

You might consider taking a history class and a number of courses in economics.

That's funny. Two of my greatest passions are history and economics. Funny how I am getting a minor in Economics.

That's funny. Two of my greatest passions are history and economics. Funny how I am getting a minor in Economics.

Funny is the word I suppose does come to mind.

I'm wondering if you have figures on how much the average canadian spent on health care (ie, portion of tax dedicated to health care) over the last six or so years versus what the average american spent on it.

On a side note, as a moral belief of mine, a person is not entitled to money taken by the government. Each person who benefits from a developed nation has an obligation to fund that nation.
I neither figures nor really care about them (different factors in different countries mean they are irrelevant): I care about the freedom to choose which service I pay for rather than be forced to pay an unchallenged institution to provide my needs.

"A person is not entitled to money taken by the government." I don't want to sound like an asshole, but are you stupid? The entire point of taxes is that they are spent for the good of the people....the government is not a black hole that we just pour our money into because it tells us to.

You should take some history and economics classes. The reason monopolies are against the law is because if they were allowed,some businesses in an industry, For instance, Standard Oil once turned into a gigantic company that completely ruled over the oil industry. They then could then make their oil prices as high as they wanted, because there was no competion to stop them! With the amount of money they were racking in they bribed the government to be in their favor also! So nobody could win a trial against them!

Hey, guys, there is a great debate site where stuff like this can go on.

http://logal.proboards27.com/index.cgi

Check it out.

Funny is the word I suppose does come to mind.

You haven't proved the economy would collapse. The burden is on you. :)

I neither figures nor really care about them (different factors in different countries mean they are irrelevant): I care about the freedom to choose which service I pay for rather than be forced to pay an unchallenged institution to provide my needs.

"A person is not entitled to money taken by the government." I don't want to sound like an asshole, but are you stupid? The entire point of taxes is that they are spent for the good of the people....the government is not a black hole that we just pour our money into because it tells us to.



Different factors like what? Please, do enlighten us all.

And as for your response in paragraph two:

To clarify my point, people are not entitled to have their taxes lowered or to have all the money they pay in taxes spent on them personally. Taxes are to benefit the whole, employment is to benefit the individual.

You should take some history and economics classes. The reason monopolies are against the law is because if they were allowed,some businesses in an industry, For instance, Standard Oil once turned into a gigantic company that completely ruled over the oil industry. They then could then make their oil prices as high as they wanted, because there was no competion to stop them! With the amount of money they were racking in they bribed the government to be in their favor also! So nobody could win a trial against them!

Wow, thank you for the history lesson Sherlock. Yes, and why is high oil prices a bad thing? Do people deserve low prices?

You haven't proved the economy would collapse. The burden is on you. :)




America's economy is in large part driven by things americans buy. If the american population was deliberately impoverished (such as by doing away with labor laws) then the demand for services (the bulk, you must be aware of our GDP) would tank.

I disagree. Some people have "incorrect" morals (I'm sure many think that I do at this point). How can the same source of logic provide such vastly different sets of morals? Whose morals are right? I realize we can never get rid of them, they are human nature. But eliminating them as much as possible(at least in the government) will lead to the most equitable society.

I don't believe there is a Universal Code of Ethics. Our best attempts suck?

A maximum work week isn't seen as a moral law? Why else does it exist if not for "morals". Employment is a decision between two willing parties a government should not have a legal limit of how much someone can work.
Seriously, I'm beginning to wonder whether you people can hear the voice of reason or if you have selectively permeable membranes strapped over your ears ; I am getting tired of responding to these inane arguments for the sake of my honor (chuckle).

Your argument is that we should ban all ethics from the law. Need I say more? Apparently so...

Without your so-called moral laws, corporations would manipulate people to the point of slavery and destroy our environment to the point where the earth would be inhabitable (this coming from a staunch right-wing capitalist!), people would murder each other on a whim, bloodthirsty mobs would terrorize innocent people, old women would be raped on the street, and children would be conscripted into mercenary armies. Not to mention all this being legal...

You don't believe in the Universal code of ethics? Meaning we should have no ethics at all? See the above.

America's economy is in large part driven by things americans buy. If the american population was deliberately impoverished (such as by doing away with labor laws) then the demand for services (the bulk, you must be aware of our GDP) would tank.

The marginal cost is lowered for the goods as well. Prices will do a corresponding decrease.

Wow, thank you for the history lesson Sherlock. Yes, and why is high oil prices a bad thing? Do people deserve low prices?


I'm having a great deal of trouble believing you have actually had instruction in economics.

High oil prices means less money spent by consumers on goods which fuel the economy. Simple As That.

Every extra dollar given to the saudis and others in the form of inflated oil prices is a dollar robbed from being spent in the american economy.

DID YOU KNOW!
that Thomas Jefferson stated not in these words but basicly religon and politics should never mix
DID YOU KNOW!
The last two things George Washington said before he left office were, "Don't get involved in world affairs, It will just cause unnecssary war." and "... (oh crap i forgot!)

there was alot of things i misspeld in my last post :(

Different factors like what? Please, do enlighten us all.

And as for your response in paragraph two:

To clarify my point, people are not entitled to have their taxes lowered or to have all the money they pay in taxes spent on them personally. Taxes are to benefit the whole, employment is to benefit the individual.
Let's see...ECONOMY.

You obviously are not reading what I am writing. I am not even going to write a response to the second comment.

ha get it! I mispelled mispelled!

The marginal cost is lowered for the goods as well. Prices will do a corresponding decrease.

Odd, I didnt mention goods.

Goods are a fine story.
Regardless of how cheaply americans could produce goods (and in doing so impoverish themselves) they can still be produced more cheaply in china.


Do you understand why our economy is service based? Please respond with an explanation of why our economy is service based, not a question.

Without your so-called moral laws, corporations would manipulate people to the point of slavery and destroy our environment to the point where the earth would be inhabitable (this coming from a staunch right-wing capitalist!), people would murder each other on a whim, bloodthirsty mobs would terrorize innocent people, old women would be raped on the street, and children would be conscripted into mercenary armies. Not to mention all this being legal...

You don't believe in the Universal code of ethics? Meaning we should have no ethics at all? See the above.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Laws that don't follow natural rights defined as "life, liberty & property." Of course I don't accept natural rights as something that humans have (which can be done very easily), then yes. Then death/destruction/mayhem would be the likely outcome. :)

Let's see...ECONOMY.

You obviously are not reading what I am writing. I am not even going to write a response to the second comment.

What, specifically about our economy versus the canadian economy makes figures on the cost of health care impossible to compare?

Do you have any idea what purchasing power parity means?

but who ever was saying DID YOU KNOW before i, is very likely american.

DID YOU KNOW!
that Thomas Jefferson stated not in these words but basicly religon and politics should never mix
DID YOU KNOW!
The last two things George Washington said before he left office were, "Don't get involved in world affairs, It will just cause unnecssary war." and "... (oh crap i forgot!)
DID YOU KNOW that the world back then was nothing like the world today. DID YOU KNOW that back then the presidents didnt have to face half the issues todays presidents do

Odd, I didnt mention goods.

Goods are a fine story.
Regardless of how cheaply americans could produce goods (and in doing so impoverish themselves) they can still be produced more cheaply in china.


Do you understand why our economy is service based? Please respond with an explanation of why our economy is service based, not a question.
Please tell me you know the answer....this is basic, basic economics.

I´ve a few reasons why a Europeans with the TRUE spirit of Europe should like Bush.

First, he is undermining the United States and their credibility. That gives Europe an edge on the world stage. Second, Bush is promoting Christian values in a otherwise normally secular nation. Europe was one of the main breeding grounds for Christianity to flourish. Third, the more America goes to war, the more its forces and stretched out and the more they diminish. Again, this gives Europeans an edge on the world stage. There are more, but I´m half asleep, so I´ll post the rest later.

I'm having a great deal of trouble believing you have actually had instruction in economics.

High oil prices means less money spent by consumers on goods which fuel the economy. Simple As That.

Every extra dollar given to the saudis and others in the form of inflated oil prices is a dollar robbed from being spent in the american economy.

You don't even have a clue what my rhetorical questions were referring to. Obviously the true price of oil will act as a growth mechanism vs. an inflated price (this has to be even mentioned?). I was just trying to discern the concept of anti-monopoly regulation. Is just from the thought that people deserve lower prices?

I´ve a few reasons why a Europeans with the TRUE spirit of Europe should like Bush.

First, he is undermining the United States and their credibility. That gives Europe an edge on the world stage. Second, Bush is promoting Christian values in a otherwise normally secular nation. Europe was one of the main breeding grounds for Christianity to flourish. Third, the more America goes to war, the more its forces and stretched out and the more they diminish. Again, this gives Europeans an edge on the world stage. There are more, but I´m half asleep, so I´ll post the rest later.


WHy dont you think there has been any genuine resistance to the bush admin's wacko foreign policy?

Spain's corrupt leader tried to drag his country along, but he was put out of office almost immediately.

What, specifically about our economy versus the canadian economy makes figures on the cost of health care impossible to compare?

Do you have any idea what purchasing power parity means?
PPP cannot account for all factors in the economy. For one, you fail to remember that the two systems of healthcare are radically different to begin with, making figures impossible to compare from the start, even if economies were EXACTLY the same (which of the two following countries is the world's economic superpower, and which is not? USA & Canada).

I would continue to refute your defective logic, but to my dismay, I must write a report on a book I have not even finished reading.

You don't even have a clue what my rhetorical questions were referring to. Obviously the true price of oil will act as a growth mechanism vs. an inflated price (this has to be even mentioned?). I was just trying to discern the concept of anti-monopoly regulation. Is just from the thought that people deserve lower prices?


You werent aware that in the absence of competition (communism, monopoly) economic efficiency (read: productivity) plummets?

We have bush because he is a MORON. Foreign policy is crumbling, our economy is in the gutter, and unempoyment is huge. Not only that but health care and education is also a problem. WHO COULD LIKE SUCH A RETARD?

DID YOU KNOW! that Washington was a founding father. He and the others created many laws we still use today.
DID YOU KNOW! that they did have to face issues like todays (except for nuclear warfare)

um... the unemployment rate in america is at 5%

PPP cannot account for all factors in the economy. For one, you fail to remember that the two systems of healthcare are radically different to begin with, making figures impossible to compare from the start, even if economies were EXACTLY the same (which of the two following countries is the world's economic superpower, and which is not? USA & Canada).

I would continue to refute your defective logic, but to my dismay, I must write a report on a book I have not even finished reading.


You have yet to provide a single example of why the average cost of health care per year for americans and canadians cannot be compared, with PPP taken into account.

You claim that the systems of healthcare are "radically different" but fail to provide a single relevent example of how or why, much less one with even a remote bearing on the issue of whether costs are comparable.

One of my main gripes about Bush is his unconditional bigotry. The man goes out of his way to amend the Constitution (THE CONSTITUTION!) to specifically remove rights from homosexuals that they were too oppressed to receive in the first place. So let's waste the government's time and money just so we can push down a group of people and hurt them more. All they want is to be recognized equally as everyone else but they're denied this because this immoral piece of craptastic fecal matter is in the whitehouse. I don't see how attacking non-existant rights is defense of jack crap. Marriage is by NO MEANS a religious institution. If you think that way, then ban atheist marriage as well. Marriage is for procreation? Okay, ban marriage between sterile couples. Last time I checked, an unmarried couple can just as easily procreate. Marry everyone or marry no one. It's moral decency.

Another problem is the fact that our country is divided the way it is. If Bush was not such an extremist radical, he wouldn't be one of the most hated men of the century. I put him right up there with Hitler and Stalin. Our nation is as divided as it was with Lincoln and Douglas (by the way, when Lincoln was around the Republican party was the liberal party so don't take pride in that Repubs). United we stand my foot.

Odd, I didnt mention goods. Ummm, cost of labor is automatically factored into the cost of goods. Saying that labor costs are decreased implies a decrease in cost. Like you say later........CHINA! Low prices are due to lower labor prices.

Goods are a fine story.
Regardless of how cheaply americans could produce goods (and in doing so impoverish themselves) they can still be produced more cheaply in china. I agree.


Do you understand why our economy is service based? Please respond with an explanation of why our economy is service based, not a question.After the drop in manufacturing due to exporting of production to cheaper labor markets Americans had to find other jobs. Service jobs, which generally require cultural skillsets or geographic location then was the area where American workers retrained themselves to work.

I hate to say this folks, but it might be best to bottle up all that Bush hatred and save it to unleash once he isn't a lame duck and starts making inevitably bad decisions again. I guess if you have the stamina to want him dead all the time, more power to you, but I just can't swing that.

let me teach this to you in very small words so you can understand, New Granada.

You are very likely the consumer (say con-sum-er). You are likely to buy oil (gasoline,diesel,kerosine). If the prices of oil are at unimaginable prices, and you need oil. You have to pay the ALOT of money.

OMG please, for the love of god, give facts, give examples.

How is he breaking down America?
censor and politicize science? just because he doesnt believe in national funding of stem cell research? Or what about NASA and his proposals for expanding space exploration. I guess we can just look over that :rolleyes:.

I cant wait till everyone else gets to space so bush can shoot them out of the sky :P :gundge:

You werent aware that in the absence of competition (communism, monopoly) economic efficiency (read: productivity) plummets?

I said this earlier: "Obviously the true price of oil will act as a growth mechanism vs. an inflated price (this has to be even mentioned?)." Ummm, I was aware of the economic inefficiency.


My question is why does economic efficiency need to be gotten rid of? Is it because consumers deserve lower prices?

*pay ALOT of money. excuse me.

You have yet to provide a single example of why the average cost of health care per year for americans and canadians cannot be compared, with PPP taken into account.

You claim that the systems of healthcare are "radically different" but fail to provide a single relevent example of how or why, much less one with even a remote bearing on the issue of whether costs are comparable.
*Writhes on floor in frustration*
Let's See:
Canada: Healthcare paid for by government
United States: Healthcare (usually) paid for by insurance companies

Companies are concerned with making profit, governments are not. I thought this would lead you to the obvious conclusion that because healthcare spending in Canada is determined by taxes whereas healthcare in the US is focused on companies making a profit, it is nearly impossible to objectively amd fairly compare costs, then make a decision about the overall effectiveness of the two healthcare systems based on these data, because the factors influencing the costs of the two are so different.

I said this earlier: "Obviously the true price of oil will act as a growth mechanism vs. an inflated price (this has to be even mentioned?)." Ummm, I was aware of the economic inefficiency.


My question is why does economic efficiency need to be gotten rid of? Is it because consumers deserve lower prices?


If the basis of your quandry is "why do people deserve things" then i'm afraid there really isnt an answer, as whatever debate we enter into will eventually come to rest on epistemology.

I suppose the most functional answer would be "because the majority of people agree that they do."

If the basis of your quandry is "why do people deserve things" then i'm afraid there really isnt an answer, as whatever debate we enter into will eventually come to rest on epistemology.

I suppose the most functional answer would be "because the majority of people agree that they do."

Thank you. I love rhetorical questions. So I still stand by my statement that "morally based" economic laws should be abolished.

*Writhes on floor in frustration*
Let's See:
Canada: Healthcare paid for by government
United States: Healthcare (usually) paid for by insurance companies

Companies are concerned with making profit, governments are not. I thought this would lead you to the obvious conclusion that because healthcare spending in Canada is determined by taxes whereas healthcare in the US is focused on companies making a profit, it is nearly impossible to objectively amd fairly compare costs, then make a decision about the overall effectiveness of the two healthcare systems based on these data, because the factors influencing the costs of the two are so different.


All those ideas are irrelevent to the question of "how much does health care cost the average american versus the average canadian"

The question does not compare the health-care systems, only how much money (ppp adjusted blah blah) is spent each year on health care.

The factor we're comparing is the *cost to* the average american or canadian.

If the average american spends 12,000 PPP adjusted USD and the average canadian spends 18,000 PPP adjusted USD, then it can be stated that the cost of health care to the average canadian is higher than it is to the average american.

Further comparisons can be made whenthat number is taken as a portion of per capita real GDP

do You Understand, New Granada!

We have bush because he is a MORON. Foreign policy is crumbling, our economy is in the gutter, and unempoyment is huge. Not only that but health care and education is also a problem. WHO COULD LIKE SUCH A RETARD?

In case you didn't notice, everyone in this thread is debating this subject intelligently, without resorting to namecalling.

Anyways, I'm a left-leaning Republican. I dislike Bush, mainly because of some of his stances on issues. However, when it came down to him vs. Kerry, it was the lesser of two evils. I honestly think Bush will attempt to fix some of the mistakes he made in his first term. However, the departure of Colin Powell is not a good sign.

DID YOU KNOW that the world back then was nothing like the world today. DID YOU KNOW that back then the presidents didnt have to face half the issues todays presidents do

You would be suprised how similar times back then were like times now. For example, here is a quote from Joseph J. Ellis' book, Founding Brothers.

"Looking back over the full sweep of American history, one would be hard-pressed to discover a presidency more dominated by a single foreign policy problem and simultaneously more divided domestiaclly over how to solve it. "

But, the above quote was not talking about Bush, as the book was published in early 2001, but about John Adams and the issue with France. Again, you would be very suprised how similar those times were to present day.

read My Posts On Page 12!

While we are on the subject of Moral Laws & Bush, here are some interesting factoids:

[...]

DID YOU KNOW?
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose
salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

[...]

DID YOU KNOW?
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the
established orthodox churches in the colonies.

Two points here:

- Congress didn't exist until after the constitution was ratified. This happened in 1789, If I'm not mistaken.

- These figures point out that 5% of the founders were not members of orthodox churches. As a side point, some of them were members of churches with rather non-standard doctrines.

I mean page 13!

Two points here:

- Congress didn't exist until after the constitution was ratified. This happened in 1789, If I'm not mistaken.


You are mistaken. The Continental Congress began before the Revolutionary War.

All those ideas are irrelevent to the question of "how much does health care cost the average american versus the average canadian"

The question does not compare the health-care systems, only how much money (ppp adjusted blah blah) is spent each year on health care.

The factor we're comparing is the *cost to* the average american or canadian.

If the average american spends 12,000 PPP adjusted USD and the average canadian spends 18,000 PPP adjusted USD, then it can be stated that the cost of health care to the average canadian is higher than it is to the average american.

Further comparisons can be made whenthat number is taken as a portion of per capita real GDP

lets note the fact canadians get healthcare paid IN FULL. americans get a fraction off medicine and stuff and set amounts paid for hospital visits, maybe some eye and dentist benefits

All those ideas are irrelevent to the question of "how much does health care cost the average american versus the average canadian"

The question does not compare the health-care systems, only how much money (ppp adjusted blah blah) is spent each year on health care.

The factor we're comparing is the *cost to* the average american or canadian.

If the average american spends 12,000 PPP adjusted USD and the average canadian spends 18,000 PPP adjusted USD, then it can be stated that the cost of health care to the average canadian is higher than it is to the average american.

Further comparisons can be made whenthat number is taken as a portion of per capita real GDP
Last post:
No, they are not irrelevant, because companies and governments do not operate within their own economic bubbles....and AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THE FACT THAT THE SYSTEMS ARE SO DIFFERENT IN THE FIRST PLACE SKEWS DATA REGARDING HOW MUCH IS SPENT PER CAPITA.

Furthermore, the entire point of this was determine how effective the Canadian health system vs. US system is. These figures would mean absolutely NOTHING even if they were accurate.

Thank you for a night of pointless posts.

...Unlike the "conservative" republicans we have now that want to outlaw gay marriage and abortion?

EDIT:

Well here's my 2 cents about Bush hating.

Personally I don't like the guy because he lacks credibility to me. He doesn't read stuff handed to him (although I know most politicans don't, but when you are the president, come on...) and doesn't seem to question anything. A tiny bit of investigation into the CIA's intelligence pre-invasion would have revealed gaping flaws in their intelligence. Yet we still went to war on the intel from known compulsize liars, aggrandizers, and a man named "Curveball".

Under Bush's watch we went to war with Iraq to find what? Zero of the four "active chemical munitions bunkers", zero of the unknown amount of antrax filled R-400 bombs, zero of at least seven mobile chem/bio production factories, zero of the 18 truck mounted chem/bio facilities, and zero tons of the conservative estimate of "100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.". This stuff doesn't just disappear. At the beginning of the war Iraq's information technologies were destroyed. Broken. Annuled. There is no way that Saddam would have been able to destroy all his chemical stores and facilities after the start of the war to make him seem innocent. And yet we still draw a blank page.

We went to a war for nothing.

A costly war for nothing. A war that, so far, has cost us around $150,000,000,000. Thats alot of zeros. Thats one hundred-fifty thousand billion dollars. That money could have done something much, much better. How much better? It is estimated that we could have fully funded hunger relief for the whole world for six years. Six years of virtually eliminating starvation from the world? We could have funded global AIDs research programs for fourteen years! We could have provided basic immunizations for every single child in the world for fourty-nine years. FOURTY NINE YEARS!

And a few months later he comes back: mission accomplished?

What mission? We were hunting for WMDs. We found a single empty chemical shell?

And still he doesn't admit the fact that he could have been wrong? His steadfastness is perhaps the most annoying character trait of him to me.

He is "never wrong" in his own mind. But he has been and still is. It took him months after numerous hearings and documents showed that Al-Qeada had no connection to Iraq. Yet he still used Al-Qeada as having a relation to Iraq in his pep talks with US. (He could use that connection now however as Al-Qeada members have now moved into Iraq to fight US.)

I don't like that.

I don't like the fact that he turned the world's sympathy with us post 9-11 into hatred.

I don't like the fact that he is percieved as an asshat to the rest of the international community. You may say that that is an irrelevant opinion of those foreign nations, but guess what, we live with those foreign nations. Our world image is important for our political and economic future. Right now, it doesn't look so great.

I don't like the fact that when I travel out of America I have to put up with so much. The world is not our friend right now. Many people I know put other coutry's flags on their backpacks when they travel so they don't get harassed. I don't like that.

I have mentioned a few things I don't like about Bush. I haven't touched on the "more shady" things. IE: Halliburton and ties to the Saudis. But I feel it is enough.

If you think Bush is great, just for a minute take away Iraq and the war on terrorism. What do you have? A mediocre president at the very best. Now come back to the real world. Now realize that the war in Iraq was a failure. The war on terror has flopped due to poor management. What do you get? A mediocre president at the very, very, very best.

Well said.. *nods*

:)

Prevelige, i think he's talking about when america became a country, it's that congress.

Canadian's also have insance sales tax rates

i must go now, to bed!

You are mistaken. The Continental Congress began before the Revolutionary War.

I'm not sure you can really compare the two organisations in any real sense. My comment was a bit pedantic though.

Last post:
No, they are not irrelevant, because companies and governments do not operate within their own economic bubbles....and AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THE FACT THAT THE SYSTEMS ARE SO DIFFERENT IN THE FIRST PLACE SKEWS DATA REGARDING HOW MUCH IS SPENT PER CAPITA.

Furthermore, the entire point of this was determine how effective the Canadian health system vs. US system is. These figures would mean absolutely NOTHING even if they were accurate.



The whole point is that the USA and Canada have very different healthcare systems. The question is, which of these systems in adjusted figures costs more, on average, for those paying for it.

Sorry to butt in!

Canadian's also have insance sales tax rates
being what? sales tax rates in america are not static..

Separation of church of state is intended to keep the state out of the Churchs' buisness, not the other way around.

Incorrect, at least the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it over the centuries.

Check out www.religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm)
for information about how it's been interpreted over the years.

I'm not sure you can really compare the two organisations in any real sense. My comment was a bit pedantic though.

No, the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Congress are two rather different animals. For one thing the Constitutional Congress is bicameral (two houses) and the Continental Congress was just a gathering of rich and influential guys to set up the government.

Aye. Personally, I would appreciate it if Bush didn't so blatantly ignore/ repeal all of the environmental laws that he's been destroying. There's also the tax cuts for corporations that outsource jobs... :headbang:

I don't fine-tune my views very often, but these are up there.

No, the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Congress are two rather different animals. For one thing the Constitutional Congress is bicameral (two houses) and the Continental Congress was just a gathering of rich and influential guys to set up the government.

Not all of them were. John Adams was a lawyer who had failed in that extent and had to take up farming. Ben Franklin was a member of the "leather apron class," a 'late patriot,' if you will. Other jobs included coblers (people who make shoes), more farmers, ministers, etc. One was even an alcaholic! Not exactly people who would be considered rich. Granted, people like Rutledge, Morris, and Wilson were relativley comfortable, but most weren't "rich."

The whole point is that the USA and Canada have very different healthcare systems. The question is, which of these systems in adjusted figures costs more, on average, for those paying for it.

Sorry to butt in!

Do you count 'life' as a cost?

I'm sure the people without the money to buy healthcare do.

Er... I think it's called national sovereignty??? By your logic (for lack of a more humourously accurate term) you should have no trouble allowing hostile officials into your research and defense labs. They'll be there Friday, ok?
The U.S. is not subject to such action because we didn't sue for peace and agree to allow weapons inspectors into our country the way Iraq did. Part of the cease-fire conditions at the end of the Gulf War were that Iraq would destroy all its WMD's AND prove that it had done so. Part of that proof was to be allowing UN inspectors into the country to verify this.

While Saddam did allow inspectors into Iraq, he also refused to show much evidence that he had destroyed his WMD stockpiles. He decided to play "maybe I destroyed them, maybe I didn't". This alone was enough to allow the U.S. and other coallition forces to resume armed hostilities with Iraq, per the terms of the original cease-fire.

Add to this Iraq's frequent targeting-of and firing-upon U.S. planes enforcing the two "no fly" zones, and the corruption and illegal activities assosciated with the U.N. administered "oil for food" program and the U.S. had every right to pick up where we left off after Gulf War I.


BTW, I don't hate Bush, I laugh at his statements (if our PM made such ludicrous statements they'd be in my sig ;) ) and pity the population of the US who have to deal with his policies...
I'm willing to bet after four more years of Bush the United States will still have a lower unemployment rate, lower tax rate per capita, higher income per capita, larger GNP, larger military, and more intrenational impact than your country.

You other weak countries wished you had our freedoms and economy.

Suck wind losers.

You other weak countries wished you had our freedoms and economy.

Suck wind losers.
I, like many I know, dislike Bush for the negative influence he's having on the rest of the world and the only other Americans I dislike are the ones that behave like Upper Campbelle, for obvious reasons.

You other weak countries wished you had our freedoms and economy.

Interesting use of the past tense there.

This alone was enough to allow the U.S. and other coallition forces to resume armed hostilities with Iraq, per the terms of the original cease-fire.

How about you try actually reading the UN resolutions. They're not hard to find, and they don't say what you think they say.

I'm willing to bet after four more years of Bush the United States will still have a lower unemployment rate, lower tax rate per capita, higher income per capita, larger GNP, larger military, and more intrenational impact than your country.

As well as a lower life expectancy, more major health problems, fewer political and social freedoms, higher murder rates, and a less happy population. As the old Chinese saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for - you might get it".

Hating Bush is so MTV right now. At least if Bush is president the corporate monster that is the USA has a face which we can all see. It really makes no difference who is president cos America is a nation of sheep, owned by pigs and run by wolves

You other weak countries wished you had our freedoms and economy.

Suck wind losers.

The other countries wish they had our economy. This is true. They also wish they had China's cheap labor. So do we.

As for freedoms, we're not exactly unique in freedom. We still have a lot of freedoms being taken away and messed with, like the freedom from having religion wagged in our faces like a mandril's arse, or being able to marry whomever we choose based on love rather than religious ideals, or being able to protest the leader of the country safely, or being free of censorship, or being free from the draft, if Dubya has his way...

Why would other nations want to LOSE freedom to become more like the US?

You other weak countries wished you had our freedoms and economy.

Suck wind losers.
Your freedoms? You have more people in prisons than any other western country. You have more regulating laws than any other western country.

You other weak countries wished you had our freedoms and economy.

Suck wind losers.
As has been said, economy yes, freedoms no.

Personally, I think the Europeans are a little crazy with the gun-banning, but other than that, they make the US look like China in terms of personal freedoms.


as for the original point of this thread...I don't hate Bush. He seems like a nice guy. I do however extremely dislike the movement, the ideology, the policies that his administration brings.

Suck wind losers.

It's just as shitty a name for a band as any other.

Ladies and Gentlemen, give it up for... the SUCK WIND LOSERS!

(Audience applauds)

You other weak countries wished you had our freedoms and economy.

Suck wind losers.


Flaming now are we?

But anyway. I have a lot of freedom to do as I please. A lot more than you US people can even dream of. Thank God (I´m atheist :p ) that I am Finnish.

Personally, I think the Europeans are a little crazy with the gun-banning

Maybe so but I feel a lot more safe when I know that every nut that I meet has no guns or other weapons in hand.(I am not so stupid that I trusted everyone to abide the Gun-ban though).

And why I hate Bush? He seems to be a dangerous religious lunatic/fanatic or at least tries to be. Especially his administrations eco-politics are something I cannot stand at all. He and his lackeys are harming every living creature on Earth.

People want to know why Bush is hated so much? I tried making a list once, but I soon gave up after I figured it would never be complete. Honestly, this guy has more down-sides in character than Holland has in terrain. The only thing that is wrong with this metaphor is that Bush can't be flooded, for I would have loved to break his dyke.

But since it affects so many people, his foreign policy is the worst. He thinks he can do anything he want, that America is the cop of the world, which it's not. They created the League of Nations and the United Nations for that. Both failed because America won't follow the system it created. And the UN isn't a world cop but a world court, so you UN haters know. While I'm talking of the UN anyway, it was created for TALK, not action! The UN never saw action because USA and USSR vetoed each other to death. When people are getting killed in Africa, people who usually want to see Koffi Annam dead suddenly get off their ass and proclaim in the open that the UN does nothing! All of a sudden they want the UN to do something! While if you knew its purpose and authority then you would know it is more like a conference room than anything else. The real lazy hypocrites are your governments, that does not spark debate in the UN to stop these killings you are so opposed to, even though you might just be a niggah-hating neo-Nazi with an MP40 to mutilate every turd-faced ****** than gets on yer lawn! <--- This is my analysis of Nazis by the way, not my opinion!

So back to Bush's foreign policy. If it's about Europe he wants to maintain the friendship between both continents by making Europe do what the US wants. Blair always falls for it all to easy. Smaller nations like Belgium and Spain can be bullied into cooperating through unspoken bribery and blackmail. "You still got a debt to pay! We could use the money now but we'll give you more time if you'll vote for our war in Iraq" or "We know you need our products, and we hate to place an embargo on you. But if you'll just shake yes next time we call a world-wide meeting we make sure there is a good flow of beef, cars and guns going to your country". Other countries simply have gullible leadership like England or the Netherlands, which would agree to annexation or the nuking of their own countries if the US asked nicely.

Those who cannot be bend will be instantly demonized, like France or Germany. Then all of a sudden the Shrub administration and their controlled mouths say "You guys where wrong in the war anyway, so shut the **** up about Iraq!" or "We helped you creeps, you should be thankful we have been watching after you! And now you deny Iraq the same treatment?". Neo-cons seem to think that just because Franklin decided to bail us out, we are now slaves to the US's will. We're not, Roosevelt fought to free us and give us democracy. We have both, and that means we can say anything about the US without having to fear even the slightest retribution. If Bush and the 'cons don't like that, they should be complaining "We should have been the Third Reich! The power should be to US!" instead. Seeing as they are not stupid enough to just scream it out loud, it is disguised as a clever remark about France and Germany obviously not wanting to spread democracy. And, going off-topic again to delve into a magic word, democracy should not be given. It is a slow process that has cost eons to develop, and it still is. It was given in the Iron Curtain countries, and it succeeds in only about half of the former USSR. I can hardly call Russia democratic, Ukraine is an actual example of how difficult it is to understand democracy when you where never used to any freedoms whatsoever. Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are doing fine, but not perfect. The rest has its problems as well, and the democratic process is being corrected step by step in East Europe and by all of mankind. When democracy is given too soon, people like Hitler, Putin and Berlusconi take power while the confused population runs around like a headless chicken. It's sad, but true: some things should be grown before given.

Returning to Bush again, the support for his Iraq war was shady. Of all the countries that supported him there was none of which I could say "Yes, I believe they honestly think Bush speaks truth and we have to destroy Saddam". Most of them had civil wars that America might have solved if the government was cooperative, or drugs barons that couldn't be stopped unless they got help from, say, the United States. Or sometimes it was a bloody sucker like Blair, Howard or Balkenende (Harry Potter) who said yes while the country itself was screaming NOOOOO!!!!! Countries that had little problems like France and Germany didn't support, strange.

Anyway, I kept this short because I was out of time. I might add more (spam) later.

Yes, because asking our teachers to teach to idiotic tests that prove nothing is "good education." Yes, we should teach rote memorization, the basest form of learning, and never actually teach kids how to *think*.

*thinking* is a health hazard, Bush tried it once, but it hurt head real bad.

Someone also talked about the introduction of religious theories to students (not forcing them, but telling them about them) like Creation. Evolution is a dotrine, just like Creation. Why is it so wrong to teach the theory of Creation in schools, alongside that of evolution? You say that "Bush is trying to force me to think this way," but, in reality, you are trying to force children to believe that Evolution.

Why should we teach bad science in science class? Should we teach students in math class that 2+2=53? I think not. Should we teach students in English that "I be going to the store and got me some can" is proper grammar? I think not. So why should we teach that something that doesn't even follow science methodology, something that requires *ignoring* the majority of the evidence, in science class?

The very fact that you would make this statement proves your utter ignorance on the subject. Evolution is a theory reached through the scientific method according to all available evidence. Creationism is a *religious* conclusion which falls apart with any application of the scientific method.

If Bush died, I would laugh and dance in the streets, when he dies I will laugh dance in the street and scream; "REJOICE EVERYBODY FOR BUSH IS DEAD!!!" Than I would join the parade in NYC!

I quite like being British, but the way my country and the US has treated Afghanistan makes me ashamed. They (and by they I mean we) just carpet-bombed what was already one of the poorest nations on earth, and then just moved along to the next one.
This time, they said, the world will not turn its back on Afghanistan.
Faugh.

Just wanted to reiterate:

A nation of sheep
Owned by pigs
And run by wolves

If Bush died, I would laugh and dance in the streets, when he dies I will laugh dance in the street and scream; "REJOICE EVERYBODY FOR BUSH IS DEAD!!!" Than I would join the parade in NYC!
There are so many things wrong with that fucking sentence that I cannot feel my feet.

If Bush died out of office, or of natural causes, I'd mourn his death as I did with the Gipper-quietly, respectfully, and in a dignified manner.

If he were assassinated, the brittle tensions between the Right and the left would explode in a burst of violence that would soon deteriorate into a civil war. The extremist Right-wingers would shoot the Bush-haters, the left-wingers would retaliate by saying something really shitty, and the whole time, the Greens just stand on the sidelines, twirling their handlebar moustaches, muttering "Excellent."

Just wanted to reiterate:

A nation of sheep
Owned by pigs
And run by wolves

Leave germany out of this. ok.

I guess they aren't too educated then. Because if they had a good education, then they would have a good job, and not need welfare, let alone 2 jobs.


REALLY?! WOW! Clearly, you are bright! Just so you know, the deciding factor in where someone goes to school is the neighborhood in which they live. That also correlates with the funding that a school gets, the neighborhood it is in. So, if you're poor and can't afford to live in a decent neighborhood, you go to a school with poor funding. It's really disparing, the shape of some of these schools. My own middle school, which catered to my entire 20,000 population town, has no air conditioning. And it is probably considered your "normal" school. Also, a child has no choice as to the financial situation he or she is born in to. This is partly why poverty is cyclical. And as far as for your previous post about people on welfare being lazy, just sitting around and eating up "your" money. For every one person that takes advantage of the welfare system (and there will always be those that take advantage of any system) there are 10 people in dire need of it. And I take deep offense to your comments and I'll tell you why. When I was growing up, my mother was working of a first year teachers salary. We lived in a 100 year farm house. My father was hours away working on his MASTERS degree, to try and make a better life for my family. He was working two jobs so our family wouldn't pay off his educational debt. My mother, lucky that she was a teacher and had hours that she could watch us before and after school didn't have to pay for child care, which can be outrageous, by the way. Now, were my parents just lazy and sitting around? HELL NO. Also, we couldn't afford to pay our heating bill in the winter, so we luckily, since we lived in a farmhouse, we were able to breakdown parts of the existing buildings on the property like the chicken coop ( we were too poor to own chickens!) And we were denied welfare because we made "too much" money.

Things must be great with your rose colored glasses on. But WAKE UP! Not everyone is as lucky to have it so great as you apparently do... and with all the republicans buying Shrub's "compassionate conservative" bs, yet our against welfare, because its "their money," need to look at what the word compassion REALLy means.

People want to know why Bush is hated so much? I tried making a list once, but I soon gave up after I figured it would never be complete. Honestly, this guy has more down-sides in character than Holland has in terrain. The only thing that is wrong with this metaphor is that Bush can't be flooded, for I would have loved to break his dyke.

But since it affects so many people, his foreign policy is the worst. He thinks he can do anything he want, that America is the cop of the world, which it's not. They created the League of Nations and the United Nations for that. Both failed because America won't follow the system it created. And the UN isn't a world cop but a world court, so you UN haters know. While I'm talking of the UN anyway, it was created for TALK, not action! The UN never saw action because USA and USSR vetoed each other to death. When people are getting killed in Africa, people who usually want to see Koffi Annam dead suddenly get off their ass and proclaim in the open that the UN does nothing! All of a sudden they want the UN to do something! While if you knew its purpose and authority then you would know it is more like a conference room than anything else. The real lazy hypocrites are your governments, that does not spark debate in the UN to stop these killings you are so opposed to, even though you might just be a niggah-hating neo-Nazi with an MP40 to mutilate every turd-faced ****** than gets on yer lawn! <--- This is my analysis of Nazis by the way, not my opinion!

So back to Bush's foreign policy. If it's about Europe he wants to maintain the friendship between both continents by making Europe do what the US wants. Blair always falls for it all to easy. Smaller nations like Belgium and Spain can be bullied into cooperating through unspoken bribery and blackmail. "You still got a debt to pay! We could use the money now but we'll give you more time if you'll vote for our war in Iraq" or "We know you need our products, and we hate to place an embargo on you. But if you'll just shake yes next time we call a world-wide meeting we make sure there is a good flow of beef, cars and guns going to your country". Other countries simply have gullible leadership like England or the Netherlands, which would agree to annexation or the nuking of their own countries if the US asked nicely.

Those who cannot be bend will be instantly demonized, like France or Germany. Then all of a sudden the Shrub administration and their controlled mouths say "You guys where wrong in the war anyway, so shut the **** up about Iraq!" or "We helped you creeps, you should be thankful we have been watching after you! And now you deny Iraq the same treatment?". Neo-cons seem to think that just because Franklin decided to bail us out, we are now slaves to the US's will. We're not, Roosevelt fought to free us and give us democracy. We have both, and that means we can say anything about the US without having to fear even the slightest retribution. If Bush and the 'cons don't like that, they should be complaining "We should have been the Third Reich! The power should be to US!" instead. Seeing as they are not stupid enough to just scream it out loud, it is disguised as a clever remark about France and Germany obviously not wanting to spread democracy. And, going off-topic again to delve into a magic word, democracy should not be given. It is a slow process that has cost eons to develop, and it still is. It was given in the Iron Curtain countries, and it succeeds in only about half of the former USSR. I can hardly call Russia democratic, Ukraine is an actual example of how difficult it is to understand democracy when you where never used to any freedoms whatsoever. Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are doing fine, but not perfect. The rest has its problems as well, and the democratic process is being corrected step by step in East Europe and by all of mankind. When democracy is given too soon, people like Hitler, Putin and Berlusconi take power while the confused population runs around like a headless chicken. It's sad, but true: some things should be grown before given.

Returning to Bush again, the support for his Iraq war was shady. Of all the countries that supported him there was none of which I could say "Yes, I believe they honestly think Bush speaks truth and we have to destroy Saddam". Most of them had civil wars that America might have solved if the government was cooperative, or drugs barons that couldn't be stopped unless they got help from, say, the United States. Or sometimes it was a bloody sucker like Blair, Howard or Balkenende (Harry Potter) who said yes while the country itself was screaming NOOOOO!!!!! Countries that had little problems like France and Germany didn't support, strange.

Anyway, I kept this short because I was out of time. I might add more (spam) later.

To touch on something posted in there. I agree democracy shouldn't be given, especially from a nation that itself, is NOT a democracy. If anything we're a plurocracy, ran by the wealthy. With capitalism, we put a price tag on everything. Including who can run in an election. No one can run for office unless they have an EXORBITANT amount of money.

So much anger in this thread. I often wonder what it is about politics (as well as religion) that causes this. Mind you, I'm just as guilty of getting over-heated and reactionary as the next left/rightwing advocate out there. I just don't know why I let it get to me as much I do at times. Go figure.

As far as Bush goes, I would probably like guy himself especially if he weren't president but just another good ol' boy from Texas who had invited me to a bubba-q (as long as he's got Shiner Bock to drink, as any good Texan would). But I dislike, and occasionally hate, him as president because he just seems like such a tool of the extreme right. I really don't think he calls all the shots in his administration. Some, yes. But not all. I believe Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and the other hard-line neo-conservatives are running the real show. No doubt - just my opinion. I also don't agree with his extreme religous positions that he only seems to call upon when they suit his causes.

I hate Bush most because he's just another typical two-faced politician. Democrat, Republican - they all pretty much suck ass. It's the reason I DO like Jesse Ventura, he's anything but typical. I hope he runs in '08. He's got my vote already.

OK, to answer the original question, why I don't like Bush. Because the war in Iraq has made us LESS SAFE from terrorism, NOT MORE SAFE... LESS! Secondly, because I'm against the war, I'm automatically un-patriotic and don't support the troops. Wow, and I thought I was supporting someone so that they didn't have to die for un-necessary reasons. Hmm... what do I know, I'm just unpatriotic. :rolleyes:

I guess they aren't too educated then. Because if they had a good education, then they would have a good job, and not need welfare, let alone 2 jobs.

I just had to respond to this one. Having a good education usually means you won't get a good job these days. It's nepotism that gets the good jobs. I'm not even going to try and count the number of times I was told "well, having a college degree means you're overqualified for this position". It's a Liberal Arts degree! (Double major in Anthropology and Archaeology).

The reason I won't stay at the job for very long has much more to do with my lack of tolerance for BS and the crappy paycheck. I've come to the conclussion that I'm over-educated, under employable, and nepotistically challenged. That our economy hasn't recovered from the tech bubble bursting and subsequent attacks of 9/11 hasn't helped. While I blame Bush for some of the lack of return in our economy, there are plenty of other factors that also play into the problem.

GH's statement pissed me off more than just about anything Bush has done.

I just had to respond to this one. Having a good education usually means you won't get a good job these days. It's nepotism that gets the good jobs. I'm not even going to try and count the number of times I was told "well, having a college degree means you're overqualified for this position". It's a Liberal Arts degree! (Double major in Anthropology and Archaeology).

preach it brotha! (sista?) graduating from college was the worst mistake of my life - which is why i'm heading back in for more. beats being unemployed or working at kmart for less than enough to cover my rent.

preach it brotha! (sista?) graduating from college was the worst mistake of my life - which is why i'm heading back in for more. beats being unemployed or working at kmart for less than enough to cover my rent.

Brotha. Going overseas to teach ESL myself. Just can't go back for more college. Not yet. And, yeah. Working at Kinko's, excuse me - FedExKinko's is just the pits! Without the love of a good woman I'd be living in a box by now.

WAHOO! People from Republican states that DON'T LIKE BUSH!

Yeah, there are a few of us out here. A few of us everywhere. That's what makes the whole red state/blue state arguement so silly.

I guess they aren't too educated then. Because if they had a good education, then they would have a good job, and not need welfare, let alone 2 jobs.


My how ignorant of you.

A "good" education?

Well Sweetie I don't even have a bachelor's degree and I am the WAN engineer of a multinational. I beat out kids from very prestigeous schools all the time.

Sorry kiddo, you don't have a clue about the people on welfare.

But if you like showing your ignorance, enjoy.

I don't hate....I dislike with a passion.
Saying that you are a strong Christian and then attacking a sorveign nation? WWJD???
And this modern "morality" BS. Homosexuality is wrong...abortion is wrong....blah blah blah. How about morality as in helping the children who are born into crack pot families and don't have enough money to buy clothing or food and live off of welfare. Should they have to "get off their asses and get a job" at the age of 6? I think the least we could do as a country is stop and help others who have nothing. Sorry if you don't enjoy paying for such social programs. Start seeing that there are people dying b/c they can't get help. Everyone should have the right to live. We are people, not dollar signs.
This administration has taken a step away from helping its own people. We need to solve our own problems here before we go out and try to play world police.

I don't hate Bush but I do hate being lied to, it was for this reason that I think that Clinton should have been impeached and it is for the same reason that Bush should be too. However, I do not hate him, life's too short to go around hating people who you don't know personally. Anyway in another 4 more years Bush will be gone and we wont have to worry about seeing him in office again.

Just wanted to reiterate:

A nation of sheep
Owned by pigs
And run by wolves

Between the Religious Right's "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others" drive to legislate their interpretation of "morality" and the Bush Administration's Big Brother mutation of government, George Orwell must be kicking himself in the afterlife for looking at the wrong side of the Atlantic.

I hate Bush most because he's just another typical two-faced politician. Democrat, Republican - they all pretty much suck ass. It's the reason I DO like Jesse Ventura, he's anything but typical. I hope he runs in '08. He's got my vote already.

Ventura/Schwarzenegger 2008: WE AIN'T GOT TIME TO BLEED (in Iraq)

:D