NationStates Jolt Archive

(Or what will soon become Bush bashing)

Bushies, explain one GOOD decision Bush made in his 4 years in office, one good thing.

Bush didn't get his dick sucked by an intern and then lie about it. Good decision there.

His daughters are hot looking. I'd have to put a bag over Chelsea's head.

Heck, even Bush's wife is better looking than Hillary. (sorry, this whole thread seemed like a troll).

His daughters are hot looking. I'd have to put a bag over Chelsea's head.

Heck, even Bush's wife is better looking than Hillary. (sorry, this whole thread seemed like a troll).

Yes you certainly are doing a good job making this thread all troll.

Bush didn't get his dick sucked by an intern and then lie about it. Good decision there.

No, a couple things Mr. Gun, thats not a decision, because no one came up to him and asked, therefor completely eliminating your theory, that would be like saying Bush name one good decision that Bush has made; he made a good decision not to nuke the world!

Im talking about something he did.

Oh and how does a man getting his dick sucked hurt our country in the slightest, how does it affect it?

What's worse, screwing an intern or screwing a country? Billy did the first one. Bushie did the second one.

Bush nominated more minorities to government positions in four years than Clinton did in eight.

Bush bombed fewer countries without provocation than Clinton (1 vs. 7).

I don't count Afghanistan, because 911 could be considered a provocation...

His daughters are hot looking. I'd have to put a bag over Chelsea's head.

Heck, even Bush's wife is better looking than Hillary. (sorry, this whole thread seemed like a troll).

No, you probably havent seen Chelsea lately, you may have seen her during Clintons first election when she was 12, but you havent seen her lately, again his daughters are not his choice and dont influence the country, except for people like you who like jacking off of presidents daughters. And no, Laura has saggy skin, eewwww.

Hmmm... lets see

Trying to remove the Kyoto Initiave
Upgrading security on airlines
Cracking down on terrorist organizations and terrorist harboring nations
Patriot act
Reparing the damage that Clinton did to the military

He cut back on abortion - which was completely hypocritical and done purely to deceive the American Christians who actually thought he was one of their number.

His worst decision is to be voted again, thus proving the world-wide suspicion that many Americans are gullible fools.

Oh and how does a man getting his dick sucked hurt our country in the slightest, how does it affect it?

It doesn't. It's the lying through his teeth that hurts.
I could care less if he does that. What bothered me was the line, addressed to every American, that he never had sex with her.

Hells bells. Why I would have thought it great, and laughed hard and long had he just said, "hell yeah, I nailed her good."

But the lying. Well, if he's going to lie over something like that, then...

Here you want to say Bush is a liar. But do you have a lie as obvious?

I don't count Afghanistan, because 911 could be considered a provocation...

No Afghan was a good choice but he messed that up by going too late, letting the Taliban peacefully get away, not killing every terrorist, than leaving to early for Iraq.

Hmmm... lets see

Trying to remove the Kyoto Initiave
Upgrading security on airlines
Cracking down on terrorist organizations and terrorist harboring nations
Patriot act
Reparing the damage that Clinton did to the military Iraq - terrorist harbouring? Osama hated Saddam. There are terrorists in America - let's bomb it!


Kyoto initiative - let's see how YOU like New York being flooded and the droughts becoming worse in Africa. Or have you been fooled by the corporations that global warming is all fake?

I've seen the recent pics of Chelsea, and she's still a dog.

Hmmm... lets see

Trying to remove the Kyoto Initiave
Upgrading security on airlines
Cracking down on terrorist organizations and terrorist harboring nations
Patriot act
Reparing the damage that Clinton did to the military

Name one organization he "cracked down" on, seems hes been in Iraq, doing nothing, the only terrorist there now are the ones who moved there after BUSH left the country in shatters. The Patriot act! Youre kidding right? WHo gives a flying FUCKL about the military? If you have a strong military youre more likely to attack thats bad, Bush has done nothing about airlines and...

THATS NOT HIS FUCKING DECISION THOSE ARE PRIVATE COMPANYS!!!

I still have the tape where Michael Moore says that Clinton is the greatest Republican president since Ronald Reagan.

Makes great viewing. He ended welfare as we knew it, and bombed seven countries with no provocation.

If Bush had done this, you would be crowing about it. At least Moore is fair. I don't see you crowing about how Clinton screwed the Democrats who loyally voted for him.

I think that's why Democrats can't mobilize a base anymore - they are too demoralized after the b*ttfucking they got from Clinton.

let's see, I can add the virtual end of the Clean Air Act in 1997, because Clinton didn't want to argue too hard to get SCOTUS to back it up.

shall I continue?

He went to war in Iraq, that was the best decision in the last 10 years of this country.

It doesn't. It's the lying through his teeth that hurts.
I could care less if he does that. What bothered me was the line, addressed to every American, that he never had sex with her.

Hells bells. Why I would have thought it great, and laughed hard and long had he just said, "hell yeah, I nailed her good."

But the lying. Well, if he's going to lie over something like that, then...

Here you want to say Bush is a liar. But do you have a lie as obvious?

First of all, its embarrasing, noone would admit that, and who cares because its has nothing to do with us? Bushs lie, how about "there are going to be no casualties in Iraq."

He went to war in Iraq, that was the best decision in the last 10 years of this country.

Why was it good? To get oil?

Bush didn't get his dick sucked by an intern and then lie about it. Good decision there.


Yes but did any one hear condi when she almost called him her husband??
Republicans have affairs all the time, they don't kiss and tell!

Trying to remove the Kyoto Initiave

Damn those evil environmentalists and their trying to stop us destroying our own planet! DAMN THEM ALL!

in fact, I bet Bush comes in second behind Clinton in terms of doing in the Democratic Party.

Wonder who made it impossible to field another charismatic leader? Why the best they could field was the pasty faced Gore, or the undead Kerry? Who stepped on Dean behind the scenes - a man who could actually excite people? Who called the shot that Edwards would not be "allowed" to run for President, despite his charisma and his Southern origins (a winning combination).

Why, Bill Clinton. The Man Who F**ked the Democrats.

First of all, its embarrasing, noone would admit that, and who cares because its has nothing to do with us? Bushs lie, how about "there are going to be no casualties in Iraq."

I've never seen a reference for that, although people like to bring it up.

No one is so stupid as to believe that combat involves no casualties.

You appoint cabinet members who are good, not who are black.

I'll be sure to mention your opinions at the next NAACP meeting, where they're all about affirmative action. I'll tell them that perhaps they aren't good enough in your eyes, Kramer. After all, a Democrat knows better who is a "good" black and who is a "bad" black.

Very paternalistic of you.

I've never seen a reference for that, although people like to bring it up.

No one is so stupid as to believe that combat involves no casualties.

A strongly Republican Bush following guy bought it up on Fox News!

It wasnt Michael Moore on Dan Rather. I think you can believe that.

"Mission Accomplished"

Bush said that, oh, about a year age.

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" vs. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Which do I give more about? Why, the one that results in the death of people.

meh.

No, I'm not inclined to believe Fox News. Or NPR, or any of them.

"Mission Accomplished"

Bush said that, oh, about a year age.

"Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" vs. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Which do I give more about? Why, the one that results in the death of people.

meh.

In the case of the sexual relations, we can prove it's a lie, since we have the blue dress.

In the case of WMD, even Clinton agreed that Saddam had WMD. It was the intelligence data at the time (bad intelligence!). So it's hardly a lie.

Or are you saying that Bill Clinton was lying about it also?

If you say that Bush lied about the WMD, then you MUST say that Clinton lied about it as well.

Go ahead...

Reparing the damage that Clinton did to the military

Clinton left office with one of the best militaries we've ever seen. In fact, it is Clinton's military that Bush used to take Afghanistan and Iraq. Clinton didn't fuck the military. Thats a right-wing media fallacy.

Bush's best decision was Colin Powell. Too bad he didn't have the sense and intelligence to listen to him, instead of Neo-Cons (cough Nazis) Karl Rove and gang.

Why, Bill Clinton. The Man Who F**ked the Democrats.


True in more ways than one!!!! Come on Bush isn't any better. Republicans have won more times than any democratic candidate. It's not entirely Clintons fault. I think if he were to have run again in 2000 he would have been re elected. The political climate is too different now I 'm not sure he'd be up to scratch! Well we'll just have to wait until 2008 when Hillary is elected and there is a mass ban on straight female interns being hired. This way she can watch Bill and get him back for Monica with her own Monica!!

I never said Clinton wasn't a lying git. In fact, most democrats would feel he's probably the worst person to represent them. I was simply saying that I think people may have placed slightly too much importance on Bill's affair. Yeah, so he lied to the country. But hell, Bill had the WMD information, and made a fairly reasonable decision in not blowing the crap out of Iraq. (He made up for it with kosovo and the like though....)

The thing is, I feel that George declaring war on Iraq was slightly more damaging to the country than Bill inserting a cigar in an intern.

Why was it good? To get oil?

We've been fighting the war for Oil since Vietnam. We need to conquer as much as we can before growing China challenges us for it.

Generally, you could say that anyone who said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was lying. I wouldn't necessarily say that. With the intelligence at the time, it seemed to be true. The biggest thing, though, is that we should have taken more time before galloping through Iraq in Tanks, Humvees, Bradleys, and Commanches. We had intelligence that said weapons of mass destruction was there. I'll take that excuse. However, we knew it wasn't the best intelligence. A lot of it was old, some of it was British, and some of it couldn't be corroborated. We had people on the ground in Iraq looking for the weapons. Those people were continuing to not find anything. Bush should have waited til they were done. Everything isn't black and white. There's huge grey area.

I never said Clinton wasn't a lying git. In fact, most democrats would feel he's probably the worst person to represent them. I was simply saying that I think people may have placed slightly too much importance on Bill's affair. Yeah, so he lied to the country. But hell, Bill had the WMD information, and made a fairly reasonable decision in not blowing the crap out of Iraq. (He made up for it with kosovo and the like though....)

The thing is, I feel that George declaring war on Iraq was slightly more damaging to the country than Bill inserting a cigar in an intern.

Entirely reasonable to believe. But, I can't say that Bush claiming Iraqi WMD was a lie - or else Clinton told us another lie.

You appoint cabinet members who are good, not who are black.

well lets take a look at Clinton's cabinet:
Attn. General - Janet Reno, yay for burning down compounds and killing a hundred American citizens. Glad the constitution applied to them.

Sec. of Defense - Cohen, advocated the expansion of NATO after the soviet union collapsed. Great idea, lets have a huge military buildup against an enemy that no longer existed. Also, not surprisingly he had no experience in the military.

Sec. of Education - Riley, I actually liked this guy. He fought off attempts to eliminate the department and to cut funds.

Sec. of Energy/Transportation - Pena, this dude was a gem. Remember all the Amtrak train crashes and that valuejet crash in Florida - all under his watch. Then in a moment of clarity Clinton switches him over to Energy, this allows companies such as Enron to prosper YAY!

Sec. of Interior - Babbitt, depending on your philosophy this guy was either woefully inept or a godsend to the enviromentalist movement. Unfortunatly for him the states in which his policies had a noticible effect suffered economic recessions. The increase in logging, mining, and public land use laws crippled the agricultural economies of the Northwest. But, like i said this can be either good or bad, me being from Montana view it as bad as it cost my mom her job.

Sec. of State - Albright, the war-hawk brainchild behind Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraqi air raids, and a few other limited strikes against the third world.

In conclusion I think both Bush's and Clinton's cabinet were full of awful choices picked based solely on political favors. Although Riley and Powell shined through the muck of each administration.

p.s. to answer the topic, I think Bush's sending Powell to talk to the UN rather than go himself was a pretty good choice.

We've been fighting the war for Oil since Vietnam. We need to conquer as much as we can before growing China challenges us for it.

No, we need to focus on not using oil so much. We need to focus on alternative engergy. We need to focus on nuclear fusion, hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid motors. No matter how much oil we take, its going to run out one day. The more we use, the faster we lose it. We need to preserve the current oil supply and use less, eventually eliminating it altogether. Whoever does that first will have the upper hand.

One thing I find fascinating is that some (not all) people believe that
a) Republicans tell lies, but Democrats don't
or
b) Democrats lie, but Republicans never do.

The moment I hear this sort of thing, my hair stands on end. Republicans and Democrats lie like dogs. Constantly. Repeatedly. Unashamedly.

For someone to say, "Bush lied" or "Clinton lied" without mentioning that they all lie lets me know that the rest of what I'm going to hear will be skewed beyond reason.

We forgot Somalia during Clinton. The Army asked for AC-130 gunships and armored vehicles, and Madeline NotSoBright and Les Aspin gave an emphatic "NO!".

We all know how many people were killed uselessly after that. Nice going - great cabinet action there.

I can't say that Bush claiming Iraqi WMD was a lie - or else Clinton told us another lie.

I never said Clinton wasn't a lying git

Republicans and Democrats lie like dogs. Constantly. Repeatedly. Unashamedly.

Naturally. They all lie. But some lies are worse than others.

It doesn't. It's the lying through his teeth that hurts.
I could care less if he does that. What bothered me was the line, addressed to every American, that he never had sex with her.

Hells bells. Why I would have thought it great, and laughed hard and long had he just said, "hell yeah, I nailed her good."

But the lying. Well, if he's going to lie over something like that, then...

Here you want to say Bush is a liar. But do you have a lie as obvious?

So no politician lies then? Brush and Blair haven't lied big time? The more powerful a politician is, the more he lies. I can understand and accept the invasion of Aghanistan but the invasion of Iraq was not only illegal, it has spawned thousands of more terrorists. Brush lied, it was a personal vendetta that has cost the lives of what, 2000 + Americans?, tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of foreign civilian workers. Brush is a liar. Fact.

They all seem to get people killed for no good reason with nearly equal facility.

I'm sure the Rangers who died in Somalia would like to know why they died, and who told them they couldn't get the equipment they asked for.

Patriot act
No, they said to say something that he did that was GOOD!

Here is 50 milion good things Bush did.

He freed 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here is 50 milion good things Bush did.

He freed 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh, they're SO much better now.

Here is 50 milion good things Bush did.
He freed 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

correction,

Here are...

I'm still waiting to see about that anyway.


It isn't so much that Patriot Act is as horrible as people make it out to be. It really was how John Ashcroft manipulated it.

So no politician lies then? Brush and Blair haven't lied big time? The more powerful a politician is, the more he lies. I can understand and accept the invasion of Aghanistan but the invasion of Iraq was not only illegal, it has spawned thousands of more terrorists. Brush lied, it was a personal vendetta that has cost the lives of what, 2000 + Americans?, tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of foreign civilian workers. Brush is a liar. Fact.

Personal vendetta? come on, this is foreign relations. Nations dont operate on personal vendetta's it is a bogus idea made up by left/right wing nuts as the situation warrants.

Here is 50 milion good things Bush did.

He freed 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't have a dictionary handy, but i don't think freed can be applied to people who are still being bombed, and still being shot.

No, we need to focus on not using oil so much. We need to focus on alternative engergy. We need to focus on nuclear fusion, hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid motors. No matter how much oil we take, its going to run out one day. The more we use, the faster we lose it. We need to preserve the current oil supply and use less, eventually eliminating it altogether. Whoever does that first will have the upper hand.

The original creation of oil or petroleum is not well understood. There are several theories, but the matter is still one of scientific controversy. It is generally accepted however that the origin of oil begins with plant fossils, just as with coal. The study of fossils is called paleontology. The creation of oil is part of geology.

As scientists dig deeper, they are finding more and more about oil. It maybe possible to someday create oil. Does anyone even know what happens to elements such as carbon when it is exposed to extremely high temperatures reached in the interior earth, then rapidly cooled as it is pushed to the surface???

Everyone just assumes oil is a fossil fuel.

Hmm. I suppose that living in a country where 300,000 people can be shot into ditches execution style in a year is an OK condition to leave them in, and far better than what they're going through now.

Or living in a country where a woman can be shot in the head in a soccer stadium for some perceived offense against the Koran.

Or living in a country where people living in a village can be gassed with chemical weapons just because the leader doesn't like them. And where the leader's oldest son can say to the press, "Fuck the international community!" when asked about it.

Yes, that's eminently preferable to whatever Bush did. Oh, I'm sure.

I don't have a dictionary handy, but i don't think freed can be applied to people who are still being bombed, and still being shot.

They have elections. They don't have to worry about mass graves anymore, They don't have to worry that their dictators want to gun them down. :mp5: That's a lot better

Yes, that's eminently preferable to whatever Bush did. Oh, I'm sure.

Was that sarcasim, gun man?

Yes, it sure was sarcasm.

If that's the case, then why not bomb every country with a tinpot dictator?

North Korea? That's one of several countries who I really don't think should have Nukes, especially with Kim Jong Il at the helm.

Sure, Bush declared them as part of the "Axis of Evil", but what has he done about it?

Whereas in iraq, there have been no WMD found. At all.

Surely we didn't invade on the grounds of some kind of lie, did we?

Why was it good? To get oil?
If he really wanted oil, then don't you think that he would start drilling? FYI, the government has not at all taken over or started any oil wells in Iraq. Go cry to your precious Secretary General Kofi Anan and his son who was becoming a millionare through the oil for food program. Note the fact that most of the countries that opposed us in Iraq did so because Sadam was paying them money.

Does anyone even know what happens to elements such as carbon when it is exposed to extremely high temperatures reached in the interior earth, then rapidly cooled as it is pushed to the surface???

DIAMONDS!



The best science we have today says that oil is a fossil fuel and that the earth takes many many years to make it. Granted, today there are people working on manufacturing oil from raw, living materials. It wouldn't bother me to continue that. I am not against using oil. I'm just saying. Naturals reserves won't be there forever. If we can make oil economically, lets work on that. It'd be a hell of a manufacturing operation though. The point is, we need to focus on becoming independent of other nations for our energy, not tying ourselves to other countries and depending on them for oil.

Personal vendetta? come on, this is foreign relations. Nations dont operate on personal vendetta's it is a bogus idea made up by left/right wing nuts as the situation warrants.

Tell that to the Tutus or the Somalians or the black Sudanese or the Cambodians.
It was a personal vendetta by Brush Jr on behalf of Brush Sr.

Saddam gassed and killed his own people. Even without any WMD, Saddam was evil and deserved to be punished. We will deal with North Korea, but we must be careful.....They already have nukes for crying out loud!!!

I think it's entirely possible that either
a) the intel was wrong - a possibility, since Clinton also believed the WMD thing

or

b) we invaded for another reason. not oil, since the saudis are in our pocket.

I still hold forth the Roach Motel idea. We invade an Arab country, it inflames passions, the inflamed come to the country, and we kill them. Maybe not a bright idea, but it keeps the inflamed busy on *that* side of the world rather than fomenting plots *over here*.

As for North Korea, Clinton already had a plan, which I bet is still in place. They practiced it out of Seymour Johnson AFB, a plan to drop about fifty nukes on North Korea. Clinton came within a hair's breadth of ordering it during his last year in office.

A lot simpler, since we're not likely to attract jihadis to defend Pyongyang.

Every time someone says it was "personal vendetta" or that the terrorism was fabricated... I feel like slapping them.

Seriously... grow up.

Obviously, the world would be extremely resistant to the US just taking over oil wells and drilling. Those who say the war is for oil, which indeed, it is to an extent, are right. We won't just start taking. We've installed a more US friendly government though.

They don't have to worry that their dictators want to gun them down.

No, they don't. Now they just worry about their neighbors gunning them down. There are a lot more neighbors than dictators.

Saddam gassed and killed his own people. Even without any WMD, Saddam was evil and deserved to be punished. We will deal with North Korea, but we must be careful.....They already have nukes for crying out loud!!! There are worse dictators than Iraq. Why didn't Bush sort out countries in a worse state, like much of Africa?...

Every time someone says it was "personal vendetta" or that the terrorism was fabricated... I feel like slapping them.

Seriously... grow up.

It was a personal vendetta, and the war on terror stems from fabrication and connivance.

I am grown up. Seriously.

Now just try to slap me.

If that's the case, then why not bomb every country with a tinpot dictator?

North Korea? That's one of several countries who I really don't think should have Nukes, especially with Kim Jong Il at the helm.

Sure, Bush declared them as part of the "Axis of Evil", but what has he done about it?

Whereas in iraq, there have been no WMD found. At all.

Surely we didn't invade on the grounds of some kind of lie, did we?
Think that 9/11 was bad? If we invaded North Korea, then all of New York City would most likely be destroyed by a nuke from Kim Jong Il. Not to mention the radiation damage to the surrounding communities. Oh, and add 3 or 4 other major American cities into the equation. In the end we will still kick their ass, since we have more nukes and a larger country, but that will be a lot of dead americans. Now, Saddam didn't have any nukes, and the weapons that he was thought to have would not have been a threat directly to the american mainland.

So Dobbs believes that 9-11 was a contrivance, and never really happened? That OBL never wrote any of the documents he published on the web, and that's all a fabrication? That Al Q never existed?

Ok, I believe in the tooth fairy again.

I think whenever people say "Attack NK not Iraq" Well I think we need to look at the facts here:

NK's army is 2 million strong, with about 80% of the country's revenues going towards the military. They have nukes, they are trained, they are professional soldiers, who have limited state of the art weapons, and are technologically advanced considering that part of the world.

Iraq on the other hand.... had an army of about 300,000 most of whom ran away when they saw American tanks. They had stolen Russian tanks/ak47's/rpg's that were still left over from the soviet attack 30 years ago. Oh and on more thing.... no nukes in iraq.

Korea's best nukes can only reach coastal California. Who cares if he bombs all the fags in San Francisco? (I'm kidding).

Think that 9/11 was bad? If we invaded North Korea, then all of New York City would most likely be destroyed by a nuke from Kim Jong Il. Not to mention the radiation damage to the surrounding communities. Oh, and add 3 or 4 other major American cities into the equation. In the end we will still kick their ass, since we have more nukes and a larger country, but that will be a lot of dead americans. Now, Saddam didn't have any nukes, and the weapons that he was thought to have would not have been a threat directly to the american mainland.

My point exactly.

Maybe, just maybe, if we stopped to ask why terrorists are so pissed off, we might get somwhere. C'mon, George is a born again Christian, surely he must know that violence begats more violence. Or something like that...

There is no talking to them. We tried!

The whole idea behind Jihad, is that America "soiled" their holy land... this started during the first geulph war... and it hasn't stopped since.

Jihad, is based on terrorism now, and it's a cowardly thing. Unless you call taking innocent men and cutting their heads off while video taping and then showing it the world... while being masked and standing in a groupd of 5 men, not cowardly.

DIAMONDS!



The best science we have today says that oil is a fossil fuel and that the earth takes many many years to make it. Granted, today there are people working on manufacturing oil from raw, living materials. It wouldn't bother me to continue that. I am not against using oil. I'm just saying. Naturals reserves won't be there forever. If we can make oil economically, lets work on that. It'd be a hell of a manufacturing operation though. The point is, we need to focus on becoming independent of other nations for our energy, not tying ourselves to other countries and depending on them for oil.

Point wins my argument for the day. I'm still not sure about the diamonds, really matters on what elements are used. Do diamonds have any energy potential?? lol....

Always seems like on the older movies the bad guys are after the all-powerful super energy diamonds...

You can't talk to them... they are religious fanatics who are taught since they were born that they must hate america

If we look at Wahabbism, we realize that our very way of life, even if we stay on this side of the world, is a threat to their way of life.

Imagine a country of violent Jerry Falwells, who brook no compromise on ideas and ideals, and you'll get the picture.

Our art, our ideas, our TV and movies, our music (wonder why the Taliban had police to confiscate that?), our books, our newspapers, and our people and society are anathema and a lethal threat to their existence.

Exposure to our culture will destroy their culture, or so they believe. They cannot tolerate that. So they must find first the means to drive us away, and if that fails, the means to annihilate us.

OBL has already explained all of this in writing in public.

If you think they are angry because of Bush, you're way off base. A secular liberal is probably more juicy for them to kill than a Republican, and poses more of a long term threat, and is more worth killing.

You can't negotiate with that. They (not the Iraqis, the OBL team) believe that they are in a war that can have only one outcome. And you want to negotiate with that?

Sure, we'll airdrop you into South Waziristan. Of course, we'll probably see you get decapitated on Al Jazeera.

i like dogs

i like dogs ther loyal and nice and have sharp teeth... wait a miniute!!!

You can't talk to them... they are religious fanatics who are taught since they were born that they must hate america

America? They are brainwashed to hate everyone! They attack everyone!

I have 2 dogs, and I really like them.

That's why Bush claimed we'll never win the war on terror. (persistance of enemy)
Even though he did rescind that statement the next day.
(John Kerry did call him the pessimist).

Originally Posted by Foxstenikopolis
Saddam gassed and killed his own people. Even without any WMD, Saddam was evil and deserved to be punished.
Yes, and perhaps he could've convinced the american populace and the world to enter Iraq on humanitarian pretences....But he didn't. He spend over a year campaigning lies to the people of this country. You see, Bush used a type of data refining that looks back on old data and has people make logical 'guesses' (that's really what it is) as to what might happen. The problem is that you are either 100% wrong, or 100% right. And Bush wasn't right, ladies and gentlemen. He took peoples' interpretations of old data and turned them into facts that WERE NOT PROVEN. And people say it's Clinton's fault for not taking a more active intrest in Iraq...blah blah blah... NO! Clinton had the same info that Bush did. Did Clinton go to war? NO! And the lack of intellegence is EVERYONE'S fault. Every president begining at the Gulf war. Guess who that was? Bush Sr.! (and he should've done the job the first time)
And... Bush was stupid in marching in in the first place. He fired a very good General who happened to say that we need more men than what Bush had planned to go to Iraq..And guess what? He's right!!! 9/10 Active Divisions on JUST the Iraq problem? Wow. So we have 1/10 to cover the rest of the EARTH. Bush's own FATHER wrote a book, and in it it stated that going to Baghdad and occupying Iraq was DUMB....Why? Because there is no effective exit strategy *gasp* That sounds familiar? Oh, that's right, it sounds like what the General that Bush fired said. I could go on for days about all the things just in the war that bush has screwed up, but I won't, because I've already told numerous people this 2 hour speech, and I don't want to again. So I'll just mark that reply and be on my merry way. :p

Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the hell is wrong with the Kyoto Initiave????!!!!

And what the hell damage did Clinton do to the American military?? Seems to me like its still the huge mass of thugs that is has ever been, and is still being used to cover up domestic problems. What the hell has changed?

Name one organization he "cracked down" on, seems hes been in Iraq, doing nothing, the only terrorist there now are the ones who moved there after BUSH left the country in shatters. The Patriot act! Youre kidding right? WHo gives a flying FUCKL about the military? If you have a strong military youre more likely to attack thats bad, Bush has done nothing about airlines and...

THATS NOT HIS FUCKING DECISION THOSE ARE PRIVATE COMPANYS!!!

If you do not have a strong military, it's President Carter all over again.

Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the hell is wrong with the Kyoto Initiave????!!!!

And what the hell damage did Clinton do to the American military?? Seems to me like its still the huge mass of thugs that is has ever been, and is still being used to cover up domestic problems. What the hell has changed?

Clinton didn't like the military. He thought America could do better without it. And America can, right? Wrong! Thats just what the terrorist would love to happen! Without a military, America is defenceless, and you know what that means....

Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the hell is wrong with the Kyoto Initiave????!!!!

And what the hell damage did Clinton do to the American military?? Seems to me like its still the huge mass of thugs that is has ever been, and is still being used to cover up domestic problems. What the hell has changed?

He did cut a lot of spending and about 500,000 senior officers.

You can't talk to them... they are religious fanatics who are taught since they were born that they must hate america

I find this highly unlikely. You know to get something you have to give something, and since you probably have no idea about their religion and are probably a fundamentalist Christian, you'll have a hard time compromising. Do you know why 9/11 happened? There were two reasons; our troops in Saudi Arabia, and our 100% support of Israel in regard to the Palestinians. It's only the radicals and fundamentalist Muslims that want to hate or harm us. Hmmm, reminds me of a lot of fundamentalist Christians I know in regards to other religions...

Again, Clinton did not screw the military over. In fact, he stockpiled weapons and financed research that made weapons cheaper. Also, many field commanders and soldiers received practical training during Clinton's military expeditions. Its the Clinton militart that kicked ass in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dick Cheney said in the early 90's, after the Gulf War, that its the previous presiden'ts army that fights the war for you.

He did cut a lot of spending and about 500,000 senior officers.

Why keep a massively huge army after the fall of the Soviet Union?

Exposure to our culture will destroy their culture, or so they believe. They cannot tolerate that. So they must find first the means to drive us away, and if that fails, the means to annihilate us.

Okay, I wasn't giong to post again, but after reading this, you've left me no choice. Do you want to know where all this hatred statred? Israel. Plain and simple. I could go on for days of the travesties that go on there, but I won't. Plain and simple, Israel. And because of what they do. And because we back them, we back the wall that Israel is making that will cut-off water to Palestinian communities all over Israel; their deaths have already been predicted in the thousands of starvation and dehydration, because Palestinians are second-class citizens inIsrael, because Israel was originally inhabited by Palestinians, because of Israeli bulldozing of homes and people, because we support a government who had ultimatums issued by the UN to pull out from the gaza strip and occupied territories for 30 years and yet we attack Iraq on false pretences, because Israel is and has commited FAAAAR worse acts of terrorism and crimes against its' people, most notably the 1 for 10 law (where if 1 Israeli is killed, the gov't goes out and kills 10 random Palestinians, no joke) because of Israel's massacre's of half-ass rag-tag Palestinian armies that surrendered and still they were killed, and I could go on....That's the main reason why Palestinians hate us. That's what started all the Islam fundamentalists. US!!!!! Oh, and that whole abandoning afghanistan after they fought the reds, leaving only one man powerful enough to get into power: Osama Bin Laden. Yes kids, that's right, we LET him get into power.
Now, unless anyone says anything else incredibly stupid, I'll be on my way...

rying to remove the Kyoto Initiave
Upgrading security on airlines
Cracking down on terrorist organizations and terrorist harboring nations
Patriot act
Reparing the damage that Clinton did to the military

Sorry, dumbass. but for talking about the topic "bush" over the internet, you are being taken from your home without a trial and executed. SAY HELLO TO 1984 EVERYONE. BIG BUSH SHALL RISE! :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Clintons last defense budget and Bush's first defense budget were roughly equivalent.

Of course, at the end of Bill's 8 years he had a surplus. At the end of George's 4 years, he had an $8 Billion deficit.

This bad.

Clinton didn't like the military. He thought America could do better without it. And America can, right? Wrong! Thats just what the terrorist would love to happen! Without a military, America is defenceless, and you know what that means....
You don't know anything, do you? I really hate to flame, but you don't understand a damn thing about this, do you? Not looking at how lowering the military could actually help the situation, I'll look at what it has to offer in protection....Nothing. You can have a billion tanks, and a trillion trained men, but how is that going to help you to stop someone in an airplane? or someone who is in america and has a visa? (which the 9/11 terrorists did) Oh, wait...IT WON'T!!!!!
The military PROJECTS power, not keeps it at home. If you want to solve attacks the direct, non-lower the military way (this way works, but involves a lot of discussion, so i won't detail it), you have to increase the ammount of people investigating and people searching for terrorists. Can a guy in a tank, or a grenade laden m-16 hauling infantry man do that? NO! But (competant)intellegence officers and police can.
Terrorists don't want us to get rid of our military, they want us to stop imposing a sphere of influence over the middle east. Increasing our military only proves otherwise, as that is a military's job: to extend the sphere of influence. WWII? that was the military going in, stopping hitler and the japanese from takingover the earth. replacing one set of ideals with another=increasinf influence=increasing sphere of influence! get it? same thing here!
If you are a bully, and you want to stop getting in trouble because you beat up kids, what do you do? Beat them up more? NO! you STOP! And if you're a student who wants to get an A+, do you not do your homework? No! You know what you're talking about by doing the work and then conveying things you know yourself to be true. Which is exactly what you should've done! :D

The whole idea behind Jihad, is that America "soiled" their holy land... this started during the first geulph war... and it hasn't stopped since.

Jihad, is based on terrorism now, and it's a cowardly thing. Unless you call taking innocent men and cutting their heads off while video taping and then showing it the world... while being masked and standing in a groupd of 5 men, not cowardly.

well thats where we hit a road block huh? cuz as i recall some american troops did something incredibly similar, except w/out the decapitation. oh and that group of five men, it wasnt a group with americans, i think we had the iraqis in a pile or a pyramid or something...

bush is a fool...we should have gone into iraq, sooner or later
but first we should have
1. dealt with real threats(nuke bearing countries)
2. gotten more countries in there with us

Of course, at the end of Bill's 8 years he had a surplus. At the end of George's 4 years, he had an $8 Billion deficit.

This bad.
No, it's more like $300 billion a year—historically high. The national debt is approaching $4 trillion—the greatest debt in the history of the world. Interest on the national debt takes up 29% of the annual federal budget.

Wow. Hey republicans, wanna know where your tax dollars are going? To pay-off the deficit that YOUR president made. What happened to fiscal responsiblity? *flushing sound* Ohhhhh.....

Okay, I wasn't giong to post again, but after reading this, you've left me no choice. Do you want to know where all this hatred statred? Israel. Plain and simple....

Exactly - the Balfour Declaration on 2nd November 1917 was where it all started to go tits up. Dubya's just making things a whole a lot worse.

At least Clinton paid lip service to the Middle East peace process, which is slightly better inernational PR than bombing the crap out of the poorest people on earth.

You don't know anything, do you? I really hate to flame, but you don't understand a damn thing about this, do you? Not looking at how lowering the military could actually help the situation, I'll look at what it has to offer in protection....Nothing. You can have a billion tanks, and a trillion trained men, but how is that going to help you to stop someone in an airplane? or someone who is in america and has a visa? (which the 9/11 terrorists did) Oh, wait...IT WON'T!!!!!


Gee, let's see, how do you bring down a plane? YOU SHOOT IT!!! YOU MORON!!!

I would also like to point out to those b*tching about clinton to SHUT UP because

1. theres nothing you can do about clinton, his time is over
2. bashing on clinton in response to a negative statement about the current president, does not make bush better, but tells me you have no way to defend against the remark, and thus proving the point about bush and that your childish enough to try to bring down clinton with you

Exactly - the Balfour Declaration on 2nd November 1917 was where it all started to go tits up. Dubya's just making things a whole a lot worse.

At least Clinton paid lip service to the Middle East peace process, which is slightly better inernational PR than bombing the crap out of the poorest people on earth.
Oh thank GOD there's someone else here with a brain! :D
*clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap**clap*
And to people who think othrewise, I have only one thing to say:
The power of reason compells you!The power of reason compells you!The power of reason compells you!

Gee, let's see, how do you bring down a plane? YOU SHOOT IT!!! YOU MORON!!!
so... massacreing innocent civilians AND dealing with terrorists...hmm...sounds like a 2-fer for GENOCIDE :D YAY!
No, what you do is stop pissing off the people who are ramming planes into your buildings, and, guess what? They stop ramming planes into your buildings! Genius concept, isn't it?

but first we should have
2. gotten more countries in there with us

Do you know anything or are you just postin crud for the heck of it? We have over 30 nations helping in Iraq! United Kingdom, Poland, Austrailia, Italy, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Romania, Iceland all joined in! And many more among them. You can't put them down like that! Garrett The Idiot!

That said, Mohammad Atta and his pals WERE planning 9/11 while Clinton was on office...

Gee, let's see, how do you bring down a plane? YOU SHOOT IT!!! YOU MORON!!!

gee, lets see, youd be suprised that airplanes do in fact carry innocent people and that the best way to stop em is not to shoot down two terrorists and many innocents with your AA guns but too (drumroll) keep the terrorists from getting on the plane, but how do we do that, intelligience my friend, find them before they get on the plane and force us to shoot at innocents

That's it? Does repairing the military meaning improving weapons/tactics/safety at the cost of our deficit? Or has he censored the word "deficit" from our vocabulary too?

And could refrain from the Bush vs. Clinton references? I would like to see a practical Bush achievement that doesn't include Clinton in the same sentence!

Who was wanted for 8 years before Bush's term? Osama Bin Laden. Who was in at the time? Bill Clinton! That's why we blame him!

gee, lets see, youd be suprised that airplanes do in fact carry innocent people and that the best way to stop em is not to shoot down two terrorists and many innocents with your AA guns but too (drumroll) keep the terrorists from getting on the plane, but how do we do that, intelligience my friend, find them before they get on the plane and force us to shoot at innocents

Good Idea, we should've had tighter security.

And could refrain from the Bush vs. Clinton references? I would like to see a practical Bush achievement that doesn't include Clinton in the same sentence!

Foxstenikopolis already had 50,000,000!

Do you know anything or are you just postin crud for the heck of it? We have over 30 nations helping in Iraq! United Kingdom, Poland, Austrailia, Italy, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Romania, Iceland all joined in! And many more among them. You can't put them down like that! Garrett The Idiot!

Their contributions are welcome. How many of them have standing armies? (Not all of them). How many of them sent more than a few hundred troops? (Not enough). The United States still handled 95% of the invasion manpower and even more of the cost. So, maybe we didn't go alone, we just took our 2 year old sister.

Foxstenikopolis already had 50,000,000!

How temporary is their new "freedom?"
Its only a partial freedom at best as it is.

No, it's more like $300 billion a year—historically high. The national debt is approaching $4 trillion—the greatest debt in the history of the world. Interest on the national debt takes up 29% of the annual federal budget.

Wow. Hey republicans, wanna know where your tax dollars are going? To pay-off the deficit that YOUR president made. What happened to fiscal responsiblity? *flushing sound* Ohhhhh.....
Debt and overall debt being at "record highs" in terms of absolute numbers means almost nothing. $100 in 1982 would be worth about $190 now.

So what is more informative is debt in relation to the GDP. If you look, in the first case it is not the highest ever in a year, for the second, it isn't the greatest deficit in the history of the world.

Their contributions are welcome. How many of them have standing armies? (Not all of them). How many of them sent more than a few hundred troops? (Not enough). The United States still handled 95% of the invasion manpower and even more of the cost. So, maybe we didn't go alone, we just took our 2 year old sister.

The United States was attacked on 9/11, so of course we carried the cost! None of those other countries were ever hit. Now, say if Britain was hit by the terrorist, Then they would be invading, not America! If we lived in Iraq during Saddam, we would all be executed for doing this, (except for me, since I support him, and therefore either be left alone, or rewarded) and I don't mean a fast one....!

Do you know anything or are you just postin crud for the heck of it? We have over 30 nations helping in Iraq! United Kingdom, Poland, Austrailia, Italy, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Romania, Iceland all joined in! And many more among them. You can't put them down like that! Garrett The Idiot!

hey man why the personal attacks? I thought we were above that
ooohh can and will(no offense to you guys)
by joined in do you mean
a. were on the "coalition of the willing"
b. or actually sent some troops in

most of those countrys are barely have troops in there(compared to us), if any and obviously we made quite a few mistakes as things are going pretty badly(in case youve been in a hole in the ground or are one of those extreme bush fans)

The United States was attacked on 9/11, so of course we carried the cost!

When did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

The United States was attacked on 9/11, so of course we carried the cost! None of those other countries were ever hit. Now, say if Britain was hit by the terrorist, Then they would be invading, not America! If we lived in Iraq during Saddam, we would all be executed for doing this, (except for me, since I support him, and therefore either be left alone, or rewarded) and I don't mean a fast one....!

are you just posting crud just for the heck of it. GREAT BRITAIN HAS BEEN HIT BY TERRORISTS. not on 9/11 scale but they have, along with lots of other countries.

hey man why the personal attacks? I thought we were above that
ooohh can and will(no offense to you guys)
by joined in do you mean
a. were on the "coalition of the willing"
b. or actually sent some troops in

most of those countrys are barely have troops in there(compared to us), if any and obviously we made quite a few mistakes as things are going pretty badly(in case youve been in a hole in the ground or are one of those extreme bush fans)

1. sorry about the personal attacks, I was demonstrating a point.

2. True, but any help is good help.

3. Yes, I am a Bush fan, thanks for checking!:D (My older cousin, Philip voted for kerry though).

Their contributions are welcome. How many of them have standing armies? (Not all of them). How many of them sent more than a few hundred troops? (Not enough). The United States still handled 95% of the invasion manpower and even more of the cost. So, maybe we didn't go alone, we just took our 2 year old sister.

thank you, thats kinda the point im trying to make in my last few posts

The United States was attacked on 9/11, so of course we carried the cost!

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq, only with Afghanistan.

Because obviously everyone Arabic is against America. Duh!


(Ignoring the fact that Ol' Saddam and Osama werenot friends. Did not have friendly contact, and were, how shall we say, enemies.

When did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?

Saddam Hussein payed money to the families of people who went onto an Israeli bus, or pizzarea, then detonate a bomb killing about 50 other people and destroying a perfectly good bus. He gave money to terrorist and encoraged them to kill people, (particularly Israelies, Americans, and other westerners.) What part of that can't people understand?:headbang:

1. sorry about the personal attacks, I was demonstrating a point.

2. True, but any help is good help.

3. Yes, I am a Bush fan, thanks for checking!:D (My older cousin, Philip voted for kerry though).

i have nothing against normal bush fans, i just dont like the ones that believe bush has made no mistakes and that kerry would as some republican people i know said "kill us all"

The United States was attacked on 9/11, so of course we carried the cost! None of those other countries were ever hit.

Saddam Hussein payed money to the families of people who went onto an Israeli bus, or pizzarea, then detonate a bomb killing about 50 other people and destroying a perfectly good bus. He gave money to terrorist and encoraged them to kill people, (particularly Israelies, Americans, and other westerners.

Right, so, none of those other countries were ever hit?
Did you just contradict yourself?

i have nothing against normal bush fans, i just dont like the ones that believe bush has made no mistakes and that kerry would as some republican people i know said "kill us all"

I have nothing agaist normal Kerry fans either, it's just the crazy ones that is saying Bush lied to us and wants to kill us etc.

Saddam Hussein payed money to the families of people who went onto an Israeli bus, or pizzarea, then detonate a bomb killing about 50 other people and destroying a perfectly good bus. He gave money to terrorist and encoraged them to kill people, (particularly Israelies, Americans, and other westerners.) What part of that can't people understand?:headbang:

you kinda have a point, though its not well thought through cuz if were going after people who trained or funded the terrorists, then lets take a look at who trained osama bin laden...if i recall it was US!

Right, so, none of those other countries were ever hit?
Did you just contradict yourself?

Many nations were hit by terrorist supported by Saddam. That's what you don't seem to get. I have to watch the Simpsons now, so I will continue this debate in about 20 minuetes.

I'd think that Saddam had slightly less to do with 9/11 than Osama. Possibly we should have focused on catching him raher than invading Iraq.

We would not have captured him before getting to Iraq

Why exactly?

Diverting resouces at a critical point in the hunt for Osama to go off and "free the Iraqis" seems like kind of a waste of time, especially when Osama had actually attacked U.S. soil. (Not personally though...)

you kinda have a point, though its not well thought through cuz if were going after people who trained or funded the terrorists, then lets take a look at who trained osama bin laden...if i recall it was US!

Maybe we should invade ourselves. But then....:confused:

Why exactly?

Diverting resouces at a critical point in the hunt for Osama to go off and "free the Iraqis" seems like kind of a waste of time, especially when Osama had actually attacked U.S. soil. (Not personally though...)

Osama was defeated. He could not have taken power again. Here's something to think....What if you lived in Iraq during Saddam's rigime, then how much longer would we be living if we were talking about Saddam instead. :rolleyes:

Osama was defeated. He could not have taken power again.

So you think that's an acceptable punishment for a guy who masterminded the world trade centre attacks. A guy who helped to kill 3,000+ people.

Fine, whatever.....

"So what is more informative is debt in relation to the GDP. If you look, in the first case it is not the highest ever in a year, for the second, it isn't the greatest deficit in the history of the world."

Yeah, the only time it was higher was say, WWII. And it was so close to our GDP that our country would have been in deep shit hadn't we won and ended up on top. Eisenhauer, a Military general, severely reduced the American military. This was also during a little thing called the Cold War. You know, evil communist reds that could be spying and nuking us at any time.

This was a long time ago in this thread, but we can artificially make oil. Hitler did it during WWII. It's called gassification. You take coal and you can have oil. The problem is that it is less than 10% efficient. Far more inefficient than anything else we do. Also, with our landfill mountains and extreme artificial pressure we put on our refuse, we are extracting quantities of oil that can be refined into fuel.

The solution is simple, consume less. In the 1930's, 1936 I think, an engineer made a carbeurator and put it on a Ford V-8 roadster. He got over 200 MPG solely from that device alone. Proof:

Apr. 30,1936

J1-A,18 CARBURETION, FORD MOTOR CO.

FORD MOTOR CO., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Tests the POGUE Carburetor and is at "a loss to understand" how the carburetor got "25.7 miles on one pint of gasoline"! (That's approximately 205 mpg). Mr. W.J. Holmes and Mr. Purdy conducted the test for FORD MOTOR CO.

My source:
http://www.handpen.com/meg/free.htm

Maybe we should invade ourselves. But then....:confused:

exactly the point i was trying to show

So you think that's an acceptable punishment for a guy who masterminded the world trade centre attacks. A guy who helped to kill 3,000+ people.

Fine, whatever.....

If you cant find him, what are you going to do? Stay in Afghanistan forever? :confused:

....What if you lived in Iraq during Saddam's rigime, then how much longer would we be living if we were talking about Saddam instead. :rolleyes:

That was the 2nd time I asked that, and noone replied. So, tell me why do you keep doging this question? Can't think of anything to say, eh?

If you cant find him, what are you going to do? Stay in Afghanistan forever? :confused:

OR ARE WE GONNA GIVE HIM A SLAP ON THE WRIST AND SAY "BAD DOG"!!!!
YEAH AMERICA ALL THE WAY!!!

What if you lived in Iraq during Saddam's rigime, then how much longer would we be living if we were talking about Saddam instead. :rolleyes:

the same could be said about a lot more countries in africa that we didnt invade...thats where lots of people get that blood for oil thing, or so i would think

Many nations were hit by terrorist supported by Saddam. That's what you don't seem to get.

Any evidence of Saddam directly supporting terrorists past me by

It's Lies! All Lies! Stupid Monosyllabic Politicians!

That's why it's good W was re-elected. He has the balls to go in and clean up those bad African countries, maybe in a few years. If Kerry had been elected, well, anybody see Black Hawk Down? Who was president then? not a Republican.



:sniper:

That's why it's good W was re-elected. He has the balls to go in and clean up those bad African countries, maybe in a few years. If Kerry had been elected, well, anybody see Black Hawk Down? Who was president then? not a Republican.



:sniper:

God bless America and George W. Bush! What those other people don't understand is that cleaning up and helping other nations takes time! :mp5:

That's why it's good W was re-elected. He has the balls to go in and clean up those bad African countries, maybe in a few years. If Kerry had been elected, well, anybody see Black Hawk Down? Who was president then? not a Republican.



:sniper:
cuz we all know that all democrats would have done the same thing cuz they are domcrats, and thus they think all alike, no differnence of opinion...
at all within the democrats...just like all republicans would have handled it one single way, no one doing anything unexpected (does anyone remember what i said earlier about "kerry killing us all" well that applies here)

God bless America and George W. Bush! What those other people don't understand is that cleaning up and helping other nations takes time! :mp5:

LORDY OH LORDY, PRAISE THE LORD, THANK THE LORD. ONLY 4DAYS 6 HRS 10 MIN AND 11 SEC TILL CHURCH EVERYBODY

God bless America and George W. Bush! What those other people don't understand is that cleaning up and helping other nations takes time! :mp5:

time and lives, some of the things that werent realistically considered when preparing for this war

Problem with what's going on in Iraq now is that most of you seem to think that Iraq can be put on the road to democracy, and that it will stay there. Maybe it can, but don't think this hasn't been tried before. If you read these articles you'll probably get a sense of deja vu:

Iraq around 1918....

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/1918.html

Iraq around 1945-1948 (attempts to make Iraq a stable democracy)....

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/4558.html

The situtation in Iraq now is more extreme than these examples, but historically it doesn't look like Iraq can be left alone any time soon.

I'll do you one better. Look up the Sack of Baghdad in 1258, and let me know if that gives you deja vu...

You want to know why Bush won both elections? It's not because his brother in Florida rigged the elections. It's because either 1. People voted him in. or 2. God wanted him to win. or 3. Because the Nader factor. I think it's the second choice because everybody seems to hate both Nader and Bush. You can thank 1.Jeb Bush 2.God or Jesus 3.Nader or 4The American people. I'd thank 2., God and Jesus :D

i'll take choice 5.

5. Karl Rove is a political genius who happens to be Republican and Bush's primary political advisor.

And by genius, I mean, he's the master of political spin.

edit: I wouldn't thank anyone for the re-election of George W. Bush; I'd curse them.

I'll do you one better. Look up the Sack of Baghdad in 1258, and let me know if that gives you deja vu...

It does, though the Mongols killed an estimated 80,000 (not sure how many were civillians, but think quite a lot). Anyone got current figures for non-US deaths in Iraq so far? Didn't someone say that under Saddam 300,000 people per YEAR were killed? As far as I can remember there's about 50 million people in the whole country so it seems unlikely. Will be interesting to see the figures about how many people 'went missing' under his reign though, sure it's 10's of thousands.

Bush... in my humble opinion

after 9/11, the airways were shut down. Who was still flying in planes? I thought it was all of Bush Jr.'s and Bush Sr.'s middle eastern & Saudi friends in the oil companies, flying them back home before they could be prosecuted, or at least investigated, in the states.

isn't bush also cutting down all of the national forests (note, not preserves) in order to sell lumber and timber? granted its not illegal, but the consumption of natural resources without conservation is not generally considered a posotive thing

bush signed up for the airforce reserve then got his daddy to pull him out so he didn't have to do any actual work himself, but still got the credit of serving in the military. a little on the cheap side.

and whatever happened to separation of church and state? sure, hes not directly discouraging other religions, but hes promoting christianity publically enough to, and using his position as the president to do so, enough to say "this is america's religion" without actually saying it.

its okay for him to have a religion, and its okay for him to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but he does not have the right (or at least should not) to make those decisions for other people. isn't the president supposed to represent all of the citizens of the united states, and defend their rights and freedom? we don't need a bully for a president, we need a progressivist (at least in my opinion).

and wasn't it bush who mistook the word, "Fetus", for "Fecies" on television? does this guy know how to speak enlgish? how many times has he botched words, and therefor changed entire meanings of speeches, on national television? at least using the wrong word is better than just making up words...

as for the war... the war can be both good and bad, but he shoudln't have started a war without sancitoning it with the U.N. first, and especially not without the immediate threat, and expecially not with all of the scandals where he's being accused of using the war as a distraction for his other big-business projects. granted, you could say that 9/11 could have proven to be the immediate threat, but 9/11 did happen before the nuking started... its all highly debatable and such, but he still (in my opinion) should have approved the war with the UN first- it's not like nuking them without warning killed any of the intended targets (or at least the major ones)

and, you can't just call him "charismatic". he's only charismatic to people who agree with his ideas. just look at him. he has monkey ears.

He has made many great decisions. All allowing comedians to make fun of him more than any other *cough* president *cough*.

Why should we give a damn what happens in other countrys? I say, they dont like us, leave em alone, if we dont act superior thye wont hate us, we should mind our own business, and work on econemy, not wars to "liberate" Iraqis.

What is the US's motto now?: Liberating you whether you like it or not?

Its quite sad really.

If you cant find him, what are you going to do? Stay in Afghanistan forever? :confused:

Bush: "Gee I cant seem to find Osama! Maybe I shouldnt have given him a three month head start, or sent troops to Iraq, I mean that is sooo random! That would be like, welp, we cant find Osama, how about attacking Canada!

As far as I can remember there's about 50 million people in the whole country so it seems unlikely. Will be interesting to see the figures about how many people 'went missing' under his reign though, sure it's 10's of thousands.

Actually, 25 million people live in Iraq, and 20 million in Afghanistan. 25,000,000+20,000,000=45,000,000. Ok, not exactly 50,000,000, but close.
And the people who "disapeared" are about 500,000 to 700,000 last I checked. :mp5: :mp5: American "atrocities" don't seem so bad now, do they.

Do you know anything or are you just postin crud for the heck of it? We have over 30 nations helping in Iraq! United Kingdom, Poland, Austrailia, Italy, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Romania, Iceland all joined in! And many more among them. You can't put them down like that! Garrett The Idiot!

Yeah more than half the countrys in the coalition have NNNNOOOOOO army!!! many others send in about 134 soldiers, thats why WE THE US OF A ARE SENDING IN 90% OF THE COALITIONS SOLDIERS AND SUPPLIES! YOU IDIOT! NO MATTER WHAT DICK CHENEY MAY SAY!

Bush: "Gee I cant seem to find Osama! Maybe I shouldnt have given him a three month head start, or sent troops to Iraq, I mean that is sooo random! That would be like, welp, we cant find Osama, how about attacking Canada!

My father said something the other day about invading Canada. I wouldn't do that though. :rolleyes:

Yeah more than half the countrys in the coalition have NNNNOOOOOO army!!! many others send in about 134 soldiers, thats why WE THE US OF A ARE SENDING IN 90% OF THE COALITIONS SOLDIERS AND SUPPLIES! YOU IDIOT! NO MATTER WHAT DICK CHENEY MAY SAY!

1. Every nation has a military, idiot, just very small ones, why else are people fighting all the time? Also...THIS IS ABOUT BUSH!!! LEAVE CHENEY OUT OF THIS!!!

They have elections. They don't have to worry about mass graves anymore, They don't have to worry that their dictators want to gun them down. :mp5: That's a lot better

OH PRAISE THE LORD THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!! EVEN THOUGH TENS OF THOUSANDS ARE DYING AND NOW THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MASS GRAVES COMPLIMENTS OF DUBYA ALL IS WELL BECAUSE THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!! AND FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAH ELECTIONS!!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!!!!!!! THEY DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR DICTATOR GUNNING THEM DOWN THEY ONLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OUR DICTATOR GUNNING THEM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT ITS ALLRIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Every nation has a military, idiot, just very small ones, why else are people fighting all the time? Also...THIS IS ABOUT BUSH!!! LEAVE CHENEY OUT OF THIS!!!

Youre post made no sense whatsoever, I mean, wow, you are dumb. Also Bush is the President but Dick Cheney has his fair share of influence on Bush. what does a small military have to do with wars? The smaller the militarys the smaller the wars, not that that has anything to do with this war, were the small militarys call for longer wars because of this huge mess in Mess-O-Potamia. No not every nation has a military idiot. Costa Rica for example, its in our coalition yet it has no military, wow they must really be helping us out!

OH PRAISE THE LORD THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!! EVEN THOUGH TENS OF THOUSANDS ARE DYING AND NOW THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MASS GRAVES COMPLIMENTS OF DUBYA ALL IS WELL BECAUSE THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!! AND FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAH ELECTIONS!!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!!!!!!! THEY DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR DICTATOR GUNNING THEM DOWN THEY ONLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OUR DICTATOR GUNNING THEM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT ITS ALLRIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I found your post hilarious. Saddam had huge mass grave. How many were killed in the whole Iraq war? 10,000 at most? There is a cost to freedom, but it was small compared to Iraq's cost during Saddam. Maybe you need a pretty picture.

Bush Mass grave::sniper:

Saddam Mass grave:gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge:

Sniper=10,000 dead

Machine gun=50,000 dead

gundge=100,000 dead

If he really wanted oil, then don't you think that he would start drilling? FYI, the government has not at all taken over or started any oil wells in Iraq. Go cry to your precious Secretary General Kofi Anan and his son who was becoming a millionare through the oil for food program. Note the fact that most of the countries that opposed us in Iraq did so because Sadam was paying them money.

He did start drilling in the 70's he had his own business founded by his daddy, it was good for digging dry holes.

Youre post made no sense whatsoever, I mean, wow, you are dumb. Also Bush is the President but Dick Cheney has his fair share of influence on Bush. what does a small military have to do with wars? The smaller the militarys the smaller the wars, not that that has anything to do with this war, were the small militarys call for longer wars because of this huge mess in Mess-O-Potamia. No not every nation has a military idiot. Costa Rica for example, its in our coalition yet it has no military, wow they must really be helping us out!

Any nation that fights a war does. Jamaica is also a candidate for no military. Wow, I didn't think anyone could last with no military, lousy UN.... :mad:

Name one organization he "cracked down" on, seems hes been in Iraq, doing nothing, the only terrorist there now are the ones who moved there after BUSH left the country in shatters. The Patriot act! Youre kidding right? WHo gives a flying FUCKL about the military? If you have a strong military youre more likely to attack thats bad, Bush has done nothing about airlines and...

THATS NOT HIS FUCKING DECISION THOSE ARE PRIVATE COMPANYS!!!

Umm..no airline security once planes are off the ground is under the guise of the FAA, and Sky Marshal agency. Pilots couldnt even carry tasers in the cockpit because the FAA wouldnt allow them pre-9/11.

And the USA PATRIOT Act, is no worse than the RICO laws used to dismantle orangized crime.

As for the military, are you trying to tell me the US should further cut its military? Are you out of your mind? A strong military doesnt mean we'll go out and attack people. Thats paranoia. This country has in the past weakened its military and time and again we've been caught with out pants down because of it..look at the situation we're dealing with in Iraq. The US military is stretched. And god forbid a major war breaks out..because if you live in the US, and have a Selective Service number(I do) guess what? You CAN be drafted. The draft NEVER ended. It was suspended by Nixon but it remains on standby for the outset of major global war..(least how Nixon put it)

I found your post hilarious. Saddam had huge mass grave. How many were killed in the whole Iraq war? 10,000 at most? There is a cost to freedom, but it was small compared to Iraq's cost during Saddam. Maybe you need a pretty picture.

Bush Mass grave::sniper:

Saddam Mass grave:gundge::gundge::gundge::gundge:

Sniper=10,000 dead

Machine gun=50,000 dead

gundge=100,000 dead

The arrogance, oh the arrogance, just like when Bush said there would be no Iraqi casualties.

Hmmm... lets see

Trying to remove the Kyoto Initiave
Upgrading security on airlines
Cracking down on terrorist organizations and terrorist harboring nations
Patriot act
Reparing the damage that Clinton did to the military

Yeah, cuz denying Constitutional rights to Due Process and Habeas Corpus based on "suspicion" (which legally means, we say we suspect you, with no evidence in the minimum) is definitely a good thing. Idiot.

Umm..no airline security once planes are off the ground is under the guise of the FAA, and Sky Marshal agency. Pilots couldnt even carry tasers in the cockpit because the FAA wouldnt allow them pre-9/11.

And the USA PATRIOT Act, is no worse than the RICO laws used to dismantle orangized crime.

As for the military, are you trying to tell me the US should further cut its military? Are you out of your mind? A strong military doesnt mean we'll go out and attack people. Thats paranoia. This country has in the past weakened its military and time and again we've been caught with out pants down because of it..look at the situation we're dealing with in Iraq. The US military is stretched. And god forbid a major war breaks out..because if you live in the US, and have a Selective Service number(I do) guess what? You CAN be drafted. The draft NEVER ended. It was suspended by Nixon but it remains on standby for the outset of major global war..(least how Nixon put it)

I wasnt exactly saying that Clinton did leave us with a bad military though, I just hate the idea of a large military, but Clinton left us with an excellent army. Republicans just choose to ignore that side of Clinton and focus on how "He got his dick sucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The whole idea behind Jihad, is that America "soiled" their holy land... this started during the first geulph war... and it hasn't stopped since.

Jihad, is based on terrorism now, and it's a cowardly thing. Unless you call taking innocent men and cutting their heads off while video taping and then showing it the world... while being masked and standing in a groupd of 5 men, not cowardly.

Obviously you have absolutely no idea what a jihad is. This man explains it pretty effeciently and accurately:

A short history of jihad
Jihad means "struggle" and has both martial and non-martial applications. It means to suppress one's own desires in order to follow the true path of righteousness revealed in the Quran. Jihad conceptually has both individual and communal aspects, always oriented toward the triumph of Islam, an orientation that forms the basis for military jihads. According to Farida Khanam, the arabic word, "jihad," by itself,
... does not connote the sense of reward or worship in the religious sense of the word. But when the word jihad became a part of Islamic terminology, the sense of reward or worship came to be associated with it, that is to say, if struggle is struggle in the simple sense of word, jihad means a struggle which is an act of worship, the engagement of which earns reward to the person concerned. As the Quran says: Strive for the cause of God as you ought to strive.(22:78)
Hence, for Muslims to wield weapons in a war in which Islam itself is defended is literally an act of worship. The Muslim jihadi has the right to expect reward proportionate to his sacrificial worship. In military jihad, the ultimate sacrifice is to die, which deserves the ultimate reward, immediate entry by the slain jihadi's soul into Paradise. This belief springs from the words of Mohammed himself, who during the battle of Badr told his soldiers,
"I swear by the One in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, any man who fights them today and is killed while he is patient in the ordeal and seeks the pleasure of Allah, going forward and not backing off, Allah will enter him into Paradise."
Hence, military jihad arose from Mohammed himself, although the word appears in the Quran only four times, none of them in a military context. (Qital is used to refer to combat and war.)
-Donald Sensing, "One Hand Clapping"
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/10/short-history-of-jihad.html

But forced Democracy is a wonderful thing, especially when you get there by dropping millions of tons of bombs on innocent people in order to "shock and awe" them into freedom, right?

During the past few months I've gotten so wrapped up in U.S. politics, and now I'm giving up. Finding reasons to bash Bush is shooting fish in a barrel. He's not Hitler, of course not, but I will say that the reasons that people voted him back into office seem historically very much like the reasons why a demoralized Germany united behind someone like Hitler.
After 9/11, Americans were hurt and pissed off, and we wanted someone to swing, so much that we were willing to forget who actually masterminded the plan in the first place. That's why we went to Iraq. I don't think we would've if 9/11 hadn't occurred.
The point of any justified war is to save lives. Even by conservative estimates, the United States has killed several times more innocence in Iraq than it ever lost on 9/11. No, Bush isn't Hitler, but basically the United States are the bad guys now. We've confused patriotism with nationalism, and if you're a foreigner I apologize on behalf of my jingoistic countrymen blinded by hurt and their own indignance.
Bush subjects Americans to policies that don't work, but are merely in line with a minority's religious beliefs. Consider his decisions about stem cell research and abstinence education. His choices are morally inconsistent.
He wants to promote a culture of life, but he allowed the use of some lines of stem cells gathered before he made such gathering illegal. Even if he did believe this crap, he is allowing the exploitation of the dead as long as their murder doesn't continue.
He values the life of something in a petri dish more than full grown paralytic humans.
His policies make it just as hard for high school pot offenders like myself to get college scholarships as if I'd committed second degree murder.
His policies of corporate welfare actually allow Americans to finanace losing their own job.
He insists on lowering taxes, even when the country needed the money to go to war. If he'd really "learned the lessons of 9/11" then he might've learned how to run a good household. No one would've blamed him for going back on his promises of tax cuts, at least for causes like Afghanistan.
All I can for Bush is that we did not get attacked again. Funny that the areas that were by far the most likely to get attacked again (urban areas) voted overwhelmingly against him.
All right. I'm tired of being a bush basher. Bush bashers: shut the fuck up. You're powerless now. Clinton bashers: shut the fuck up. He's not even our president anymore. I going to just sit back, milk this government for my education, and then move to Ireland, and watch the Christians do what they've been doing best for a millennium and a half: Justify murder with religion.
Well, peace out everybody. Remember: fighting for peace is fucking for virginity.

OH PRAISE THE LORD THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!! EVEN THOUGH TENS OF THOUSANDS ARE DYING AND NOW THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MASS GRAVES COMPLIMENTS OF DUBYA ALL IS WELL BECAUSE THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!! AND FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YEAH ELECTIONS!!!!! YOURE RIGHT!!!!!!!!! THEY DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR DICTATOR GUNNING THEM DOWN THEY ONLY HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OUR DICTATOR GUNNING THEM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT ITS ALLRIGHT BECAUSE THEY HAVE ELECTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That isn't any different then the American Revolution. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands died in that war, do you think we shouldn't have fought it? After all, elections were what it was all about. Ever hear the term "No Taxation Without Representation"? Read a history book, and for christ sakes stop usings caps.

Costa Rica for example, its in our coalition yet it has no military, wow they must really be helping us out!

Costa Rica though isnt a world power...why would they need a military? They dont need to project power anywhere. They dont have neighbors who wish to take them over. And the Cold War is over so they dont need to worry about communists and/or capitalist insurgents attempting to overthrow their government. You want to toss out another red herring though? I mean really now you cant compare Costa Rica to the US in terms of military simply because our two histories, and cultures are entirely different.

Umm..no airline security once planes are off the ground is under the guise of the FAA, and Sky Marshal agency. Pilots couldnt even carry tasers in the cockpit because the FAA wouldnt allow them pre-9/11.

And the USA PATRIOT Act, is no worse than the RICO laws used to dismantle orangized crime.

As for the military, are you trying to tell me the US should further cut its military? Are you out of your mind? A strong military doesnt mean we'll go out and attack people. Thats paranoia. This country has in the past weakened its military and time and again we've been caught with out pants down because of it..look at the situation we're dealing with in Iraq. The US military is stretched. And god forbid a major war breaks out..because if you live in the US, and have a Selective Service number(I do) guess what? You CAN be drafted. The draft NEVER ended. It was suspended by Nixon but it remains on standby for the outset of major global war..(least how Nixon put it)

Right! During WWII, the isolationist policies wanted us to keep our military small, and sit on our hands while Japan is conquering East Asia, and Hitler was killing millions of European Jews. We thought, oh, leave the hungry Tiger alone, and it won't eat you. Then, when we least expected It, The Japanese destroyed Pearl Harbor. Hitler declared war on America. Did the isolationist policies help us then? No! Same thing now! We need a military to ensure our safety, morons!

OK, first of all, the Americans liberated themselves. There were no third parties insisting that they had the solution.

That isn't any different then the American Revolution. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands died in that war, do you think we shouldn't have fought it? After all, elections were what it was all about. Ever hear the term "No Taxation Without Representation"? Read a history book, and for christ sakes stop usings caps.

The American Revolution and the Iraq war were completely different, we fought off England to have rights now we are destroying Iraq so they can have rights, when it appears they dont really give a shit, if they did they would have revolted! Trust me if a very large percentage of the Iraqis revolted Saddam wouldnt have killed all of them.

Facts from Iraq

- 1960's Saddam and Baath party friends assassinate democratecly elected prime minister with the help of the CIA reason: Prime Minister was a socialist.
- 1979-1988 US inlists Saddam's help in dealing with Iran. Saddam is given large stockpiles of chemical and biological and uses them with the approvel of America.
-1988 Saddam gases Kurds who seek independance, America looks the other way.
- 1990 Saddam invades Kuwait and as a punishment a 12 year sanction is slapped on the Iraqi people.
-1991 Goerge Bush Sr tells shiates to rebel and promises them protection from Saddam's army. Protection is never provided when his army crushes the rebellion.

- 1.5 million Iraqis died due to the sanctions that must countries in the world realised was not helping in removing Saddam.
- Mss. Albright is asked on national tv about the 5000 Iraqi children who die each month and says"... its a risk worth taking..."

Now after all this Bush comes around saying we want to help the Iraqi people by giving them democracy, bullshit. Maybe if the US wasn't so crazy about removing nationalist elected leaders in the 1960's and 1970's their lives whould have been much better. :headbang:

sources
-Court Tv, History channel, World on fire by Amy Chua.

Costa Rica though isnt a world power...why would they need a military? They dont need to project power anywhere. They dont have neighbors who wish to take them over. And the Cold War is over so they dont need to worry about communists and/or capitalist insurgents attempting to overthrow their government. You want to toss out another red herring though? I mean really now you cant compare Costa Rica to the US in terms of military simply because our two histories, and cultures are entirely different.

That had nothing to do with what I was saying, I was only saying that our coalition is SHIT because half the countrys have NO army, TAKE COSTA FUCKING RICA FOR INSTANCE!!!!!

During the past few months I've gotten so wrapped up in U.S. politics, and now I'm giving up. Finding reasons to bash Bush is shooting fish in a barrel. He's not Hitler, of course not, but I will say that the reasons that people voted him back into office seem historically very much like the reasons why a demoralized Germany united behind someone like Hitler.
After 9/11, Americans were hurt and pissed off, and we wanted someone to swing, so much that we were willing to forget who actually masterminded the plan in the first place. That's why we went to Iraq. I don't think we would've if 9/11 hadn't occurred.
The point of any justified war is to save lives. Even by conservative estimates, the United States has killed several times more innocence in Iraq than it ever lost on 9/11. No, Bush isn't Hitler, but basically the United States are the bad guys now. We've confused patriotism with nationalism, and if you're a foreigner I apologize on behalf of my jingoistic countrymen blinded by hurt and their own indignance.
Bush subjects Americans to policies that don't work, but are merely in line with a minority's religious beliefs. Consider his decisions about stem cell research and abstinence education. His choices are morally inconsistent.
He wants to promote a culture of life, but he allowed the use of some lines of stem cells gathered before he made such gathering illegal. Even if he did believe this crap, he is allowing the exploitation of the dead as long as their murder doesn't continue.
He values the life of something in a petri dish more than full grown paralytic humans.
His policies make it just as hard for high school pot offenders like myself to get college scholarships as if I'd committed second degree murder.
His policies of corporate welfare actually allow Americans to finanace losing their own job.
He insists on lowering taxes, even when the country needed the money to go to war. If he'd really "learned the lessons of 9/11" then he might've learned how to run a good household. No one would've blamed him for going back on his promises of tax cuts, at least for causes like Afghanistan.
All I can for Bush is that we did not get attacked again. Funny that the areas that were by far the most likely to get attacked again (urban areas) voted overwhelmingly against him.
All right. I'm tired of being a bush basher. Bush bashers: shut the fuck up. You're powerless now. Clinton bashers: shut the fuck up. He's not even our president anymore. I going to just sit back, milk this government for my education, and then move to Ireland, and watch the Christians do what they've been doing best for a millennium and a half: Justify murder with religion.
Well, peace out everybody. Remember: fighting for peace is fucking for virginity.

*raises glass* well said.

We've confused patriotism with nationalism
nationalism

n 1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it [syn: patriotism]

pa·tri·ot·ism Audio pronunciation of "patriotism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr--tzm)
n.

Love of and devotion to one's country.


Doesn't seem to be too different to me....


Oh just one more definition...
id·i·ot Audio pronunciation of "idiot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-t)
n.

1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

The arrogance, oh the arrogance.

Obviously you have absolutely no idea what a jihad is. This man explains it pretty effeciently and accurately:

A short history of jihad
Jihad means "struggle" and has both martial and non-martial applications. It means to suppress one's own desires in order to follow the true path of righteousness revealed in the Quran. Jihad conceptually has both individual and communal aspects, always oriented toward the triumph of Islam, an orientation that forms the basis for military jihads. According to Farida Khanam, the arabic word, "jihad," by itself,
... does not connote the sense of reward or worship in the religious sense of the word. But when the word jihad became a part of Islamic terminology, the sense of reward or worship came to be associated with it, that is to say, if struggle is struggle in the simple sense of word, jihad means a struggle which is an act of worship, the engagement of which earns reward to the person concerned. As the Quran says: Strive for the cause of God as you ought to strive.(22:78)
Hence, for Muslims to wield weapons in a war in which Islam itself is defended is literally an act of worship. The Muslim jihadi has the right to expect reward proportionate to his sacrificial worship. In military jihad, the ultimate sacrifice is to die, which deserves the ultimate reward, immediate entry by the slain jihadi's soul into Paradise. This belief springs from the words of Mohammed himself, who during the battle of Badr told his soldiers,
"I swear by the One in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, any man who fights them today and is killed while he is patient in the ordeal and seeks the pleasure of Allah, going forward and not backing off, Allah will enter him into Paradise."
Hence, military jihad arose from Mohammed himself, although the word appears in the Quran only four times, none of them in a military context. (Qital is used to refer to combat and war.)
-Donald Sensing, "One Hand Clapping"
http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/10/short-history-of-jihad.html

But forced Democracy is a wonderful thing, especially when you get there by dropping millions of tons of bombs on innocent people in order to "shock and awe" them into freedom, right?


Umm..and how does that help clear up any point? Because you just further supported his statement. Bin Laden dislikes the US because we put troops in Saudi Arabia and we were uncomfortably close to Mecca(like being anywhere in the same country close). This "jihad" was called on by Bin Laden to "defend" the muslim world from the evil West(mainly against the Great Satan US).

Now..you do know Shock and Awe was a one time use concept right? You do know shock and awe was used just one during the war and it was to describe when the US pounded Saddams palaces in ministry of information and several other ministiries right? Unless Saddam was using his palaces as homeless shelters then I doubt Shock and Awe killed a lot of innocent people...or maybe it got those human shields..you know those folks who wanted to go stand in hospitals and protect them from being bombed...:rolleyes: but instead got sent to palaces and stuff and military bases..funny how those folks when they returned didnt speak out against the war anymore.

I'll be sure to mention your opinions at the next NAACP meeting, where they're all about affirmative action. I'll tell them that perhaps they aren't good enough in your eyes, Kramer. After all, a Democrat knows better who is a "good" black and who is a "bad" black.

Very paternalistic of you.

That's a cheap shot. He was saying you don't base leaders on their race just because of it. You give them a fair chance, and don't look at race. Appointing people based on race is wrong on either side of the coin. Stop twisting statements you jerk.

During the past few months I've gotten so wrapped up in U.S. politics, and now I'm giving up. Finding reasons to bash Bush is shooting fish in a barrel. He's not Hitler, of course not, but I will say that the reasons that people voted him back into office seem historically very much like the reasons why a demoralized Germany united behind someone like Hitler.
After 9/11, Americans were hurt and pissed off, and we wanted someone to swing, so much that we were willing to forget who actually masterminded the plan in the first place. That's why we went to Iraq. I don't think we would've if 9/11 hadn't occurred.
The point of any justified war is to save lives. Even by conservative estimates, the United States has killed several times more innocence in Iraq than it ever lost on 9/11. No, Bush isn't Hitler, but basically the United States are the bad guys now. We've confused patriotism with nationalism, and if you're a foreigner I apologize on behalf of my jingoistic countrymen blinded by hurt and their own indignance.
Bush subjects Americans to policies that don't work, but are merely in line with a minority's religious beliefs. Consider his decisions about stem cell research and abstinence education. His choices are morally inconsistent.
He wants to promote a culture of life, but he allowed the use of some lines of stem cells gathered before he made such gathering illegal. Even if he did believe this crap, he is allowing the exploitation of the dead as long as their murder doesn't continue.
He values the life of something in a petri dish more than full grown paralytic humans.
His policies make it just as hard for high school pot offenders like myself to get college scholarships as if I'd committed second degree murder.
His policies of corporate welfare actually allow Americans to finanace losing their own job.
He insists on lowering taxes, even when the country needed the money to go to war. If he'd really "learned the lessons of 9/11" then he might've learned how to run a good household. No one would've blamed him for going back on his promises of tax cuts, at least for causes like Afghanistan.
All I can for Bush is that we did not get attacked again. Funny that the areas that were by far the most likely to get attacked again (urban areas) voted overwhelmingly against him.
All right. I'm tired of being a bush basher. Bush bashers: shut the fuck up. You're powerless now. Clinton bashers: shut the fuck up. He's not even our president anymore. I going to just sit back, milk this government for my education, and then move to Ireland, and watch the Christians do what they've been doing best for a millennium and a half: Justify murder with religion.
Well, peace out everybody. Remember: fighting for peace is fucking for virginity.

I propose a toast *lifts wine glass* Bush:Yee-Haw!!! Looks like were havin' a good ol' fashioned hootenany! I bought the Jack Daniels! *watches as Bush gets too druck and dies of alcohol poisening which should have happened in the 80's*

ACTUALLY: Dictionary.com says.
na·tion·al·ism ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(nsh-n-lzm, nshn-)
n.
Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

THE BELIEF THAT NATIONS WILL BENEFIT FROM ACTING INDEPENDENTLY RATHER THAN COLLECTIVELY, EMPHASIZING NATIONAL RATHER THAN INTERNATIONAL GOALS

Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination


Oh yeah, here's another definition for all of you blind party followers out there.
par·ti·san1 ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(pärt-zn)
n.
A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.

Oh just one more definition...
id·i·ot Audio pronunciation of "idiot" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-t)
n.

1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Gee, does Idiot describe Bush, Republicans, Anyone besides yourself, or me?

That's why it's good W was re-elected. He has the balls to go in and clean up those bad African countries, maybe in a few years. If Kerry had been elected, well, anybody see Black Hawk Down? Who was president then? not a Republican.
:sniper:

That is quite possibly the most unimportant and nonsensical comment I've seen on this thread.

Have you seen "Saving Private Ryan"? Read the novel "Hiroshima"? Do you know what political parties THOSE presidents belonged to? :rolleyes:

That had nothing to do with what I was saying, I was only saying that our coalition is SHIT because half the countrys have NO army, TAKE COSTA FUCKING RICA FOR INSTANCE!!!!!

Umm..okay you named 1..name two more. There were about 18 countries who pledged some support..half would be 9..I could say name 9 countries but I doubt you couldnt..

And a smaller army does not equal a smaller war..whoever told you that idea was a moron.

That's a cheap shot. He was saying you don't base leaders on their race just because of it. You give them a fair chance, and don't look at race. Appointing people based on race is wrong on either side of the coin. Stop twisting statements you jerk.

Thank you, these guys are crazy! Here lets exersize our right to bear arms, now we can legally use semi-Auto weapons, just make sure not to shoot some... Oops, my bad, this is fun! I love shooting Bushies! Go Gun nuts! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

The American Revolution and the Iraq war were completely different, we fought off England to have rights now we are destroying Iraq so they can have rights, when it appears they dont really give a shit, if they did they would have revolted! Trust me if a very large percentage of the Iraqis revolted Saddam wouldnt have killed all of them.
It appears they don't give a shit aye? Did you watch them all stand around and cheer while the others bashed the Saddam statue with a sludge hammer?

Thank you, these guys are crazy! Here lets exersize our right to bear arms, now we can legally use semi-Auto weapons, just make sure not to shoot some... Oops, my bad, this is fun! I love shooting Bushies! Go Gun nuts! :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Shoot Kerries! Fun!

:mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5::mp5:

I wasnt exactly saying that Clinton did leave us with a bad military though, I just hate the idea of a large military, but Clinton left us with an excellent army. Republicans just choose to ignore that side of Clinton and focus on how "He got his dick sucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


No..he didnt. Clinton cancelled military projects across the board for the army, cut back on manpower and shut bases down. Thats not leaving the Army in good shape. The problems we're encountering now are due to manpower decreases which took place in the Clinton administration.

It appears they don't give a shit aye? Did you watch them all stand around and cheer while the others bashed the Saddam statue with a sludge hammer?

Yeah, notice how it was about .000001 percent of the Iraqi poulation, screw this shit, there is no reasoning with these idiots, goodbye, Ill leave it at that. Sorry to all the anti-Bushies in this forum, but now, I must go and buy a gun (the kind Bush loves), than take a little unplanned trip to Washington DC

Yeah, notice how it was about .000001 percent of the Iraqi poulation, screw this shit, there is no reasoning with these idiots, goodbye, Ill leave it at that. Sorry to all the anti-Bushies in this forum, but now, I must go and buy a gun (the kind Bush loves), than take a little unplanned trip to Washington DC

If you do that, we'll give you to Saddam for torture! How many Iraqis can you fit in one place huh? Not many!

Yeah, notice how it was about .000001 percent of the Iraqi poulation, screw this shit, there is no reasoning with these idiots, goodbye, Ill leave it at that. Sorry to all the anti-Bushies in this forum, but now, I must go and buy a gun (the kind Bush loves), than take a little unplanned trip to Washington DC

If I wanted to be really mean..I would do my legal obligation and report you to the Department of Treasurary or did you seem to forget that since the 50s its been illegal to say your going to go out and kill the President...but hey.

How many Iraqis can you fit in one place huh? Not many!

I don't know. The government never gives us the bodycount.

Political Simpsons quote:

Bill Clinton: "Lisa, you tought kids everywhere a valuable lesson today, If you're not getting what you want, just keep pestering until your dreams come true"

Marge: "That was a lousy lesson"

Bill Clinton: "Well I am a lousy president" :p

If I wanted to be really mean..I would do my legal obligation and report you to the Department of Treasurary or did you seem to forget that since the 50s its been illegal to say your going to go out and kill the President...but hey.


Well, he never explicitly said he was going to kill the president. Why would you report him to the Department of the Treasury?

ACTUALLY: Dictionary.com says.
na·tion·al·ism ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(nsh-n-lzm, nshn-)
n.
Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

THE BELIEF THAT NATIONS WILL BENEFIT FROM ACTING INDEPENDENTLY RATHER THAN COLLECTIVELY, EMPHASIZING NATIONAL RATHER THAN INTERNATIONAL GOALS

Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination


Oh yeah, here's another definition for all of you blind party followers out there.
par·ti·san1 ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(pärt-zn)
n.
A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

A member of an organized body of fighters who attack or harass an enemy, especially within occupied territory; a guerrilla.

Actually www.webster.com says:
Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country

Put it in different colors so its easier to read (aren't I nice?). Merriam Webster is a legit dictionary. Dictionary.com just shows a bunch of different definitions from other sites, which are more often then not a load of shit.
Oh, and i found this to be kinda funny...

Main Entry: ker·ry
Pronunciation: 'ker-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural kerries
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: County Kerry, Ireland
: any of an Irish breed of small hardy black dairy cattle

"And a smaller army does not equal a smaller war.."

The absolute most asinine sentence I have seen in a while. Ever hear of WWI? Who started it? Austria-Hungary and piss-ass Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both countries were on the brink of collapse. Many people can't even point these countries on the map.

Well, he never explicitly said he was going to kill the president. Why would you report him to the Department of the Treasury?

1) Well..comments made about Bush definately doesnt mean he'd be going to Washington D.C. for the fun of it, with a rifle.

2)The Treasury Department is the Home Agency of the Secret Service.

No..he didnt. Clinton cancelled military projects across the board for the army, cut back on manpower and shut bases down. Thats not leaving the Army in good shape. The problems we're encountering now are due to manpower decreases which took place in the Clinton administration.

Yeah cuz spending billions and billions more on the military than even the second leading nation of military spending is such an excellent use of money. Perhaps we could take even 1% of that and spend it on education. It would do wonders.

Here you go. This is the website for the Secret Service. I've got some contact info for you.

http://www.ustreas.gov/usss/contact.shtml

If you want to report him, just giving you the heads up.

"And a smaller army does not equal a smaller war.."

The absolute most asinine sentence I have seen in a while. Ever hear of WWI? Who started it? Austria-Hungary and piss-ass Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both countries were on the brink of collapse. Many people can't even point these countries on the map.
I can :D , but now they are pretty much insignificant little nobody countries.

"And a smaller army does not equal a smaller war.."

The absolute most asinine sentence I have seen in a while. Ever hear of WWI? Who started it? Austria-Hungary and piss-ass Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both countries were on the brink of collapse. Many people can't even point these countries on the map.


Right...so those 14 million servicemen the US recruited in WWII werent needed? I suppose if the Polish decreased there army from 1 million to 30,000 they could have held off the Germans? OH! And the millions of Soviets..it would have been a much faster for the Germans to conquer Europe...or the Japanese to have that Pacific Empire.

Smaller armies dont equal smaller wars..they equal more numerous wars because humanity is selfish, and expansionist, and if history serves right you can be as politically moral as you want, but your government is going to have one or two bad apples and bingo instant war.

Yeah cuz spending billions and billions more on the military than even the second leading nation of military spending is such an excellent use of money. Perhaps we could take even 1% of that and spend it on education. It would do wonders.
A big army lasts longer then an educated people. Greece was by far a smarter country, but Rome still owned their asses.

Oh, whadya know: the Secret Service is under the department of the treasury.

I wouldn't have guessed.

Right...so those 14 million servicemen the US recruited in WWII werent needed? I suppose if the Polish decreased there army from 1 million to 30,000 they could have held off the Germans? OH! And the millions of Soviets..it would have been a much faster for the Germans to conquer Europe...or the Japanese to have that Pacific Empire.

Smaller armies dont equal smaller wars..they equal more numerous wars because humanity is selfish, and expansionist, and if history serves right you can be as politically moral as you want, but your government is going to have one or two bad apples and bingo instant war.

Isn't that the trueth.

Yeah cuz spending billions and billions more on the military than even the second leading nation of military spending is such an excellent use of money. Perhaps we could take even 1% of that and spend it on education. It would do wonders.

You should read the Constitution again, the US isnt obligated to give funding to education. You've got a problem with Education in your state? Then thats the Govenors fault. Not the Federal Governments. Carter is the one who started the idea of giving Federal funding to public schools. But it isnt the job of the Federal government.

Yeah cuz spending billions and billions more on the military than even the second leading nation of military spending is such an excellent use of money. Perhaps we could take even 1% of that and spend it on education. It would do wonders.

Well said. Think about the cost of one stealth bomber. There are not any significant countries that we have to worry about stealth for. Cost, about 1.3 billion dollars. Think about how many schools, teachers, educational facilities, etc we could have. Maybe even a place to develop new fuels that has been talked about! :p

http://members.lycos.co.uk/aerospace21/stealth-bomber/B-2.html

Right...so those 14 million servicemen the US recruited in WWII werent needed? I suppose if the Polish decreased there army from 1 million to 30,000 they could have held off the Germans? OH! And the millions of Soviets..it would have been a much faster for the Germans to conquer Europe...or the Japanese to have that Pacific Empire.

Smaller armies dont equal smaller wars..they equal more numerous wars because humanity is selfish, and expansionist, and if history serves right you can be as politically moral as you want, but your government is going to have one or two bad apples and bingo instant war.
Well if the Pols would have mobolized, they would of at least had a chance, but if France and Britain wouldn't have been such pussies, WW2 wouldnt even be a though.

A big army lasts longer then an educated people. Greece was by far a smarter country, but Rome still owned their asses.

Would you like the figures? There is an insane amount of difference in US military spending and that of the second nation with the most spending on military. If you're interested, I'll look up the figures just to show you how much of a threat these people Aren't.

Well if the Pols would have mobolized, they would of at least had a chance, but if France and Britain wouldn't have been such pussies, WW2 wouldnt even be a though.

This is true, The French and British needed to be tougher against Hitler. The French has always been cowards.

"And a smaller army does not equal a smaller war.."

The absolute most asinine sentence I have seen in a while. Ever hear of WWI? Who started it? Austria-Hungary and piss-ass Bosnia-Herzegovina. Both countries were on the brink of collapse. Many people can't even point these countries on the map.
The word asinine seems so funny to me. I don't know why, it just makes me laugh whenever anyone says it.

Would you like the figures? There is an insane amount of difference in US military spending and that of the second nation with the most spending on military. If you're interested, I'll look up the figures just to show you how much of a threat these people Aren't.

Yeah, show us, I have nothing better to do than listen to you lie.

one GOOD decision Bush made in his 4 years in office,
THIS (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm)

I find this highly unlikely. You know to get something you have to give something, and since you probably have no idea about their religion and are probably a fundamentalist Christian, you'll have a hard time compromising. Do you know why 9/11 happened? There were two reasons; our troops in Saudi Arabia, and our 100% support of Israel in regard to the Palestinians. It's only the radicals and fundamentalist Muslims that want to hate or harm us. Hmmm, reminds me of a lot of fundamentalist Christians I know in regards to other religions...

what? religious fanatics just wake up one morning and go hey i'm going to hate and kill someone, BAH they are indoctrinated from an early time (youth, young men/women, and so on) its not a spontaneous process. there is no compromising with fanatics of any kind christian,muslim, what ever. their reasons are unimportant, if you kill someone else you deserve to be punished, and if you do it in a cowardly way then you need to be put down like a rabies infected dog. :sniper:

Actually www.webster.com says:
Main Entry: na·tion·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'nash-n&-"li-z&m, 'na-sh&-n&l-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country

Put it in different colors so its easier to read (aren't I nice?). Merriam Webster is a legit dictionary. Dictionary.com just shows a bunch of different definitions from other sites, which are more often then not a load of shit.
Oh, and i found this to be kinda funny...

Main Entry: ker·ry
Pronunciation: 'ker-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural kerries
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: County Kerry, Ireland
: any of an Irish breed of small hardy black dairy cattle


Thank you for putting it in different colors.

The official dictionary of the associated press is Webster's New World College Dictionary. Nationalism is defined in it as:
1) a) a devotion to one's nation; patriotism b) EXCESSIVE, NARROW, OR JINGOISTIC PATRIOTISM; CHAUVINISM 2) the doctrine that national interest, security, etc. are more important than international considerations

Obviously, there are some connotation differences. I don't really want to pull out the Oxford English Dictionary, but please take my word that it will be along the same lines of all that we've said. This in consideration, I don't consider the lives of South Carolinians more important than Iraqis. I love my country, but I love the whole world just as much. This is why Bush is a psychopath.

By all means, make fun of Kerry. I agree with you on that. I'm no Democrat, either. You party worshipping fucks make me want to puke.

Then, technically, the government's only purpose is to maintain a militia (not navy, army or airforce) and regulate interstate commerce. Tarifs would be the gov'ts only revenue. "W" would blow our economy to shit if we took the constitution verbatim. Then again, if we were so fundamental, the president would be little more than a figurehead.

Would you like the figures? There is an insane amount of difference in US military spending and that of the second nation with the most spending on military. If you're interested, I'll look up the figures just to show you how much of a threat these people Aren't.


You want to know why the US spends so much on its military?

Its not because we've got large numbers of anything..its because we've got advanced tech with EVERYTHING..its got to the point were our soldiers will be walking computers in 15-20 years if the Land-Warrior system ever gets finished. Aircraft costs millions, and further hundreds of thousands to maintain. I wont even talk about the costs to maintain 10 carriers(active) and keep 4 in ready reserve(mothballs)

Umm..and how does that help clear up any point? Because you just further supported his statement. Bin Laden dislikes the US because we put troops in Saudi Arabia and we were uncomfortably close to Mecca(like being anywhere in the same country close). This "jihad" was called on by Bin Laden to "defend" the muslim world from the evil West(mainly against the Great Satan US).


If you think that Osama bin Ladin was defending Islam from the United States, then you must not have been paying any attention to the world in the past ten years.

...although the word appears in the Quran only four times, none of them in a military context. (Qital is used to refer to combat and war.)...

My point was that it is not really a Jihad at all, and, thusly, the Iraqi people's reaction to the invasion of their country should not ever be refered to as such. And by bringing al-Qaida and bin Ladin into a discussion of Iraq, one has completely changed the subject. The two are not related. The people in Iraq are not fighting a Jihad, they are fighting an army that invaded their country and refuses to leave. Since we like to attempt comparing the Iraqi Invasion to the American Revolution, let's look at it this way: The British considered the Founding Fathers to be "insurgents".

And if you are a United States citizen, you live in the U.S.
'US' should only be used to refer to yourself and a friend using all-caps.

"Right...so those 14 million servicemen the US recruited in WWII werent needed? I suppose if the Polish decreased there army from 1 million to 30,000 they could have held off the Germans? OH! And the millions of Soviets..it would have been a much faster for the Germans to conquer Europe...or the Japanese to have that Pacific Empire.

Smaller armies dont equal smaller wars..they equal more numerous wars because humanity is selfish, and expansionist, and if history serves right you can be as politically moral as you want, but your government is going to have one or two bad apples and bingo instant war."

You misunderstood my comment. Someone said wars are small when the opposing sides have relatively few troops. I was showing that two small, rather unimportant countries with a weak military caused an enormous world war.

Okay, I wasn't giong to post again, but after reading this, you've left me no choice. Do you want to know where all this hatred statred? Israel. Plain and simple. I could go on for days of the travesties that go on there, but I won't. Plain and simple, Israel. And because of what they do. And because we back them, we back the wall that Israel is making that will cut-off water to Palestinian communities all over Israel; their deaths have already been predicted in the thousands of starvation and dehydration, because Palestinians are second-class citizens inIsrael, because Israel was originally inhabited by Palestinians, because of Israeli bulldozing of homes and people, because we support a government who had ultimatums issued by the UN to pull out from the gaza strip and occupied territories for 30 years and yet we attack Iraq on false pretences, because Israel is and has commited FAAAAR worse acts of terrorism and crimes against its' people, most notably the 1 for 10 law (where if 1 Israeli is killed, the gov't goes out and kills 10 random Palestinians, no joke) because of Israel's massacre's of half-ass rag-tag Palestinian armies that surrendered and still they were killed, and I could go on....That's the main reason why Palestinians hate us. That's what started all the Islam fundamentalists. US!!!!! Oh, and that whole abandoning afghanistan after they fought the reds, leaving only one man powerful enough to get into power: Osama Bin Laden. Yes kids, that's right, we LET him get into power.
Now, unless anyone says anything else incredibly stupid, I'll be on my way...

:headbang: HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA they hate us because we do not follow their religon we are infidels and thus are not worthy to live as it states in the koran, (various interpretations anyways) and palestinians have been car bombing, suicide bombing and killing isrealis just as fervently as the isrealis have been killing them so what our problem is we stated at the begining that we were their allies and we have stuck to it, and that makes it ok to fly planes full of innocents into buildings just cause they are mad over palistenians what ever. terror can only be fought with overwhelming force or more terror, i vote for overwhelming force cause only a pussy coward uses terror to get his way.

Then, technically, the government's only purpose is to maintain a militia (not navy, army or airforce) and regulate interstate commerce. Tarifs would be the gov'ts only revenue. "W" would blow our economy to shit if we took the constitution verbatim. Then again, if we were so fundamental, the president would be little more than a figurehead.

Even the most liberal presidents of the 20th century(FDR who by all means was socialist) didnt bother spending money on education. They did spend money everywhere else though. Also income tax was an initative brought about by an act of Congress...which folks already tried todeclare unconstitutional after the law was first past and it was ruled Constitutional by the Supreme Court..the ultimate arbitrator of the law.

Also again, try reading your constitution. The President is more than a figurehead even with a strict interpetation of the article. He's suppose to enforce the law of Congress. HE not Congress is the Commander and Chief of the Armed forces. Checks and balances.

lets see the airline security had to be upgraded we were attacked that way common sense a 2 yr old could have been in office and that would have happend so bush gets no credit there hmm attacking iraq i agree with kerry stupid move wrong country lets see he secretly flew 144 saudis and 24 of osama's relitves out of the country after 9/11 with out speaking to them we've attacked only 2 nations and one is not aplicable and you want to talk about lieing clinton lied about getting his dick sucked bush lied about wmd's and now over 1000 amercians are dead lets thats just a few things bush has done off the top of my head

It humors me that a Bush-bashing thread turned out to be more pro- than anti-. GO BUSH!!!

The French has always been cowards.

This alone makes me think you are extremely ignorant of history. Nothing about their stand at Verdun was cowardly in 1916, nothing about the assault at the Marne was cowardly, France lost 1.3 million men from 1914-18 because they werent cowards. They made choices in the 30's that you deem cowardly but at the time were humanitarian. Grow up and read a history book instead of listening to the mindless French bashing that goes on.

Well if the Pols would have mobolized, they would of at least had a chance, but if France and Britain wouldn't have been such pussies, WW2 wouldnt even be a though.

This is not in any way a personal attack, but that was the most asanine and completely idiotic (not to say offensive) comment I have seen on this thread.

I say idiotic, not because I call people who disagree with me idiots, but because you are so historically inaccurate it is disgusting.

Thank you for putting it in different colors.

The official dictionary of the associated press is Webster's New World College Dictionary. Nationalism is defined in it as:
1) a) a devotion to one's nation; patriotism b) EXCESSIVE, NARROW, OR JINGOISTIC PATRIOTISM; CHAUVINISM 2) the doctrine that national interest, security, etc. are more important than international considerations

Obviously, there are some connotation differences. I don't really want to pull out the Oxford English Dictionary, but please take my word that it will be along the same lines of all that we've said. This in consideration, I don't consider the lives of South Carolinians more important than Iraqis. I love my country, but I love the whole world just as much. This is why Bush is a psychopath.

By all means, make fun of Kerry. I agree with you on that. I'm no Democrat, either. You party worshipping fucks make me want to puke.

Yah Im an independant too, but liberals seem to piss me off more then conservatives, so I appear conservative. BTW has anyone on this forum actually read "Jennifer Government". I saw it in a bookstore the other day and was like woooo that the book on the site. I read the back of it, and it seemed alot like "Brave New World".

Johnson and Kennedy both had major implications with regards to education. Equal rights, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Yep, nothing at all.

This is true, The French and British needed to be tougher against Hitler. The French has always been cowards.

I would be curious to know if you have ever been to France, or if you even know a single French person?

so... massacreing innocent civilians AND dealing with terrorists...hmm...sounds like a 2-fer for GENOCIDE :D YAY!
No, what you do is stop pissing off the people who are ramming planes into your buildings, and, guess what? They stop ramming planes into your buildings! Genius concept, isn't it?

and would you like to inform us how you are going to get them to stop give them everything they want maybe? stupid idea terrprists are nothing more than bullies you give a bully what he wants and he wants more if you hurt him bad ehough he doesn't bother you again very simple concept hunh?

This alone makes me think you are extremely ignorant of history. Nothing about their stand at Verdun was cowardly in 1916, nothing about the assault at the Marne was cowardly, France lost 1.3 million men from 1914-18 because they werent cowards. They made choices in the 30's that you deem cowardly but at the time were humanitarian. Grow up and read a history book instead of listening to the mindless French bashing that goes on.

I've been brainwashed! I've always been taught that France was cowardly, and that everytime Germany wants to invade, they step aside. More recently they were afraid of other cowards, terrorist.

I would be curious to know if you have ever been to France, or if you even know a single French person?

I've never been anywhere outside the United States. The closest I ever got to a foreign border was when I was in New York or once. I've also been to Florida, which is close to Cuba, and the Bahamas.

It humors me that a Bush-bashing thread turned out to be more pro- than anti-. GO BUSH!!!

I think you can thank me for that. Hail Bush!

This is not in any way a personal attack, but that was the most asanine and completely idiotic (not to say offensive) comment I have seen on this thread.

I say idiotic, not because I call people who disagree with me idiots, but because you are so historically inaccurate it is disgusting.
I actually do know my shit asshole. I had to do a whole report on "appeasement" alone. Perhaps you need to pick up a history book. If France would of so much as sent one troop to resist the German takeover of the Rhine, Hitler would have pulled back. Britain and France had many opportunities to stop Hitler, but they just let him slip so war wouldn't break out(that sure worked). I don't see how it was offensive at all, maybe the other guy calling the French cowards was offensive(though i dont exactly disagree with it), but stating a well known, and accepted, theory is not. Do you know how many rules of the Versailles Treaty Germany broke before France and Britain did anything? THEY were the head of the League of Nations, THEY were the superpowers, its was THEIR responsibility, and THEY failed miserably.

This is not in any way a personal attack, but that was the most asanine and completely idiotic (not to say offensive) comment I have seen on this thread.

I say idiotic, not because I call people who disagree with me idiots, but because you are so historically inaccurate it is disgusting.


Umm..so the French and English opened up a vaunted second front to help keep the pressure on the Germans so the Polish could organize a defense? They didnt hide behind the Magionat line? Okay, the British and French gave some token soldiers to the Polish...but frankly they didnt do a single thing.

History repeats itself! We must destroy the terrorist!

If you think that Osama bin Ladin was defending Islam from the United States, then you must not have been paying any attention to the world in the past ten years.

My point was that it is not really a Jihad at all, and, thusly, the Iraqi people's reaction to the invasion of their country should not ever be refered to as such. And by bringing al-Qaida and bin Ladin into a discussion of Iraq, one has completely changed the subject. The two are not related. The people in Iraq are not fighting a Jihad, they are fighting an army that invaded their country and refuses to leave. Since we like to attempt comparing the Iraqi Invasion to the American Revolution, let's look at it this way: The British considered the Founding Fathers to be "insurgents".

Well then you should go tell those terrorists that they're fighting for the entirely wrong reasons..and see how far you get. Sometimes when a person gets an idea stuck in their head on an issue they wont change their minds no matter what..but if you delved deeper into my comments you would see I'm being critical of both sides of this arguement. Bush and the Arabs..but folks on this board dont like seeing beyond their own narrow points and making ad hoc attacks, and putting up fruitless strawman arguements.


And if you are a United States citizen, you live in the U.S.
'US' should only be used to refer to yourself and a friend using all-caps.

Umm..you obviously knew what I was refering to. I'd be sorry for not adding . . but I'm not. And you can keep your technically prick attitude to yourself.

Why even start these damn troll threads in the first place? It just breaks down from any possible legitimate debate to baseless personal attacks and all around stupidity. Well at least Kramers Intern was honest and up front about the threads purpose, but I still think we can do without this sort of trolling.

And the French are not all cowards, the people in Paris France are all cowards. Sadly, it is Paris that speaks for that nation and gives it the image it has today. There are plenty of folks living out in the countryside who will fight even when they have no hope of winning, but Paris just said to the Germans "table for 500,000?"

French=not cowards
Paris French=COWARDS!

more on bush he had an anti terrorism advisor same guy who worked for clinton who met with clinton at least once a month who was put on the back burner by bush until sept 4th then again on the 10th so maybe they wouldn't have gotten the planes so easily if bush would have listened to who he had appointed in office the only other guy i can say in his whole cabinet that was half way decent was colon powell and he's gone now and whoever thought the patriot act was a good idea needs to get the head checked because that is the biggest threat to civil rights in american history we had americans held with out charges for like a yr and a half we are going back to the days of the salaam witch trials o shes a witch get only now it is o hes a terorist we need to examine this law which bush will put back into power but hes gonna do away with the automatic gun reform what kind of decision is that.

I have to sleep now. I will continue this political debate tomorrow.

Those who are willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither. Ben Franklin.

If the American public is that worried about security, then let them take up arms (using the second amendement for something besides shooting little furry creatures that can't shoot back), and be in a position to do something about it. What we should be looking at is the Israeli's a nation that's armed to the teeth, where the citizens are willing to take the losses inflicted by the terrorists because it is a war, and as a citizen of a country in a time of war, sacrafices must be made. The Israeli experience also shows that beating the crap out of the other side doesn't do anything for peace or security, though I'd advocate the Roman model which I do think would work, put all the men to the sword, sell the women and children into slavery, and salt the land so nothing many grow...but in today's climate that kind of stuff just isn't done anymore.

Clinton did not cut the pay/dismiss or do anything to 500,000 senior officers in the army. Our army including the reserves isn't much more than a million troops, and having 1 senior officer for 2 privates is not how armies are made up. The core of the army are the non-com's and they are not officers.

Iraq was a collosal mistake. If the Iraqi's weren't willing to fight for their freedoms, then they don't deserve any. They've shown themselves to be quite capable of shooting at the American army...the same army that beat the Iraqi army in less time than it takes lance armstrong to win the Tour de France.

Futher mistakes, the reimplementation of trickle down economic theory in order to simulate the economy. It frankly does not work...ask any economist...ask Ben Stein (a republican). The rich are rich because they have large gobs of money lying around doing anything...if they spent all of their money...they wouldn't be rich anymore...having rich people become richer decrease the money supply and wouldn't stimulate the economy as say giving money to the people making from 33,000-56000 a year.

Osama been forgotten is a mistake...That bastards head should be on a pike with a sign on his forehead that says...thou shall not f*** with me. Actually instead of making him a martyr. I'd just settle for him getting his ass whopped by some woman in the Marine corp. Have al jazzera broadcast that..

Sending in less troops per capita into iraq than LA has cops per capita...

Not canning rummy after Abu Gharib which he can't pronounce....

Forcing troops to stay past their terms of enlistment, shipping troops into Iraq without sufficent body armor, shipping hummers into iraq without armor plating, listening to rummy about how the army should be transformed. (I actually agree with rummy, but I think that the army should be all about blowing stuff up and killing people, not peace keeping. If we're going to be doing peacekeeping, we need a lot more infantry) I would have actually not had the tax cuts, and used it to fund 2 or 3 more infantry divisions.

Well then you should go tell those terrorists that they're fighting for the entirely wrong reasons..and see how far you get. Sometimes when a person gets an idea stuck in their head on an issue they wont change their minds no matter what..but if you delved deeper into my comments you would see I'm being critical of both sides of this arguement. Bush and the Arabs..but folks on this board dont like seeing beyond their own narrow points and making ad hoc attacks, and putting up fruitless strawman arguements.

Well, I greatly enjoy seeing beyond my own viewpoints, and I put a considerable amount of effort into my responses, so I wouldn't go so far as to say all of us here are that extreme...

I'm glad that you're critical of both sides. That means you're actually reading the posts and thinking about them, instead of spouting off whatever rederict you subscribe to without addressing or even understanding other posts. Bravo.

Umm..you obviously knew what I was refering to. I'd be sorry for not adding . . but I'm not. And you can keep your technically prick attitude to yourself.

Just because you managed to get your point across does not mean that you were correct. I was simply noting that you spelled a proper noun incorrectly. I work for a newspaper, and such things vex me greatly. We prefer to be called 'sticklers', not 'pricks', O master of diplomacy. Please read Lynne Truss' Eats, Shoots, and Leaves for further clarification.

I have to sleep now. I will continue this political debate tomorrow.

Debate? Seems pretty one sided. I'm more liberally biased, and certainly a Bush detractor, why not bounce some stuff of me?

That's a cheap shot. He was saying you don't base leaders on their race just because of it. You give them a fair chance, and don't look at race. Appointing people based on race is wrong on either side of the coin. Stop twisting statements you jerk.

Ah, but aren't Democrats the upholders of the idea of affirmative action? The very people who make me choose from one of seven race categories to put myself in? Better step up and defend affirmative action if you're a Democrat. Or has the Democratic Party finally abandoned the idiotic idea that people should be categorized by "race"?

Well, I greatly enjoy seeing beyond my own viewpoints, and I put a considerable amount of effort into my responses, so I wouldn't go so far as to say all of us here are that extreme...

I'm glad that you're critical of both sides. That means you're actually reading the posts and thinking about them, instead of spouting off whatever rederict you subscribe to without addressing or even understanding other posts. Bravo.



Just because you managed to get your point across does not mean that you were correct. I was simply noting that you spelled a proper noun incorrectly. I work for a newspaper, and such things vex me greatly. We prefer to be called 'sticklers', not 'pricks', O master of diplomacy. Please read Lynne Truss' Eats, Shoots, and Leaves for further clarification.

The you should know it is rhetoric, not rederict.

The best thing Bush will ever do is die. But by then it's too late.

The best thing Bush will ever do is die. But by then it's too late.

Not so good if he dies before Cheney, friend...not so good at all. Perhaps only marginally so, Bush is the lesser of two evils nonetheless...

(Or what will soon become Bush bashing)

Bushies, explain one GOOD decision Bush made in his 4 years in office, one good thing.


And Libs claim to want bi-partisan relationships and efforts. I guess that is just rhetoric.

Good decisions include aid to NY after 9/11, lowering taxes for everyone (not just the rich as Dems. propagandize), going after Osama and going through Afganistan to get him (even Canada was with us on that one), appointing Colen Powell, not surrounding himself with people that would persue a ethical breach the likes of which would get most anyone fired (Monica).

That isn't to say he's been perfect by any stretch. I'm very against Iraq and a few other policies, but he has made good decisions and bad ones too. To say that he hasn't made any good decisions you have to disagree with about 98% of the population. How quickly people forget...

(Or what will soon become Bush bashing)

Bushies, explain one GOOD decision Bush made in his 4 years in office, one good thing.Very good decision!

To say that he hasn't made any good decisions you have to disagree with about 98% of the population. How quickly people forget...
Now THATS an exageration!

Probably like, oh, 51%

Now THATS an exageration!

Probably like, oh, 51%

Or wishful thinking

LOL