NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH??

Because he's still alive.

The end of the election is not an end to dissent. It's the responsibility of every person in a democratic society to speak out when they see their government doing something wrong. In the eyes of many good patriotic Americans,me included, Bush has done a lot of things wrong. If you want to live in a country where criticism of the ruling party is not tolerated, may I suggest China?

Bash other people for once!!. bash those NBA guys who love to pick fights with people.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

First of all, to stop criticizing him just because he's still the president is just rolling over and dying. If people want to make a difference, they need to shout it. Yes, the election is over, but if you only wake up every four years to vote, then go back to political hibernation, then you don't deserve to vote.

Secondly, the reason no one is still criticizing Kerry is because, very simply, he's NOT the president. The republicans have dodged his threat to their leadership, now they don't need to assassinate his character anymore, except in passing when justifying their own position as current party-in-charge.

They bash him because there's nothing else they can do.

1. They lost the election (let's let them say it was a conspiracy).
2. Their party is in disarray, so the next election is bound to be more of the same.
3. They lost seats in the House and Senate, so all they can do is filibuster.
4. They don't generally own guns, so insurgency is out.

So they're going to cry about it.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!


Although the bashing is the mark of small minds, it is not wrong to challenge his ideas. If you believe he hasn't made mistakes in office you are as blind as those who believe every decision he's made was wrong. It is okay to discuss his failings, people should just have the courage to face his successes as well.

1. They lost the election (let's let them say it was a conspiracy).


If Kerry were elected, would you rally and stand behind him just because he was President? How about if Hillary were President ... or Farrakhan ... or Bin Laden? Just because someone is President doesn't mean we cow. We're Americans, for God's sake!

2. Their party is in disarray, so the next election is bound to be more of the same.

No it isn't. Temporary setback. Look at history.

3. They lost seats in the House and Senate, so all they can do is filibuster.

Soon we'll lose that thanks to the majority Republicans. When the Republicans are in the minority again (and they will be ... history has proven so) they will want the filibuster back.

4. They don't generally own guns, so insurgency is out.

Actually ... we do ... and many of us are trained how to use them.

There are a few reasons to be critical of Gee Whiz Bush. First, it was under his watch that terrorists succeeded in strikes on New York and the Pentagon.

Second, there's a heap more, including a national debt that has never been higher, and millions of people without health care, and Americans starving to death every day, and Americans dying from exposure -- because they are homeless.

Lately, his launch of a war against Iraq has resulted in more than 1,200 dead American soldiers. Bush is the only President to launch a Pre-Emptive war.

Im not saying that you cant voice what you want. Im just saying it gets annoying seeing the same thing over and over....

Bush-Bashing is for life, not just the election.

Im not saying that you cant voice what you want. Im just saying it gets annoying seeing the same thing over and over....
So don't read the Bush threads.

Bush bashing... It's not just a sport. It's an adventure.

Actually ... we do ... and many of us are trained how to use them.

Keru, hate to break it to you, but 90 percent of gun owners in the US are not Democrats. They are Republicans.

In combat units in the Army, it's also around 90 percent. Same in the Marine Corps.

I was laughing when the people on Democratic Underground were asking each other how they would buy firearms - then finding out that they had voted for restrictions in their urban area that prevents them from buying them.

Some were asking who knew about how to use them - and I was the only one who seemed to know anything at all.

Ooops!

Bush-Bashing is for life, not just the election.
It will stop as soon as he is out of office, just like Clinton bashing lol(Repubs still do that)

I'll add that I spilled the blood of incompetent foreigners so that Democrats could exercise their free speech. So they should be free to bash all they like.

While I am neither Democrat nor Republican (Libertarian), I cannot help but think of how every time Republicans get uptight about dissenting voices it reminds me of the good old First Amendment. What a pity that the "other side" has a constitutionally protected voice as well! Although the movie itself is quite lame, The American President (1995) accurately summed it up best:

"Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.' Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

Keru, hate to break it to you, but 90 percent of gun owners in the US are not Democrats. They are Republicans.

In combat units in the Army, it's also around 90 percent. Same in the Marine Corps.

I was laughing when the people on Democratic Underground were asking each other how they would buy firearms - then finding out that they had voted for restrictions in their urban area that prevents them from buying them.

Some were asking who knew about how to use them - and I was the only one who seemed to know anything at all.

Ooops!
Democratic Underground but you voted for Bush?
Geez, sheep in wolves clothing?

There are a few reasons to be critical of Gee Whiz Bush. First, it was under his watch that terrorists succeeded in strikes on New York and the Pentagon.

Now there's a fair, respectable, nonpartisan assessment.

Second, there's a heap more, including a national debt that has never been higher,

an economy that's never been bigger,

and millions of people without health care,

It's irrelevant whether people have healthcare. It only matters whether people have health.

and Americans starving to death every day, and Americans dying from exposure -- because they are homeless.

The streets are filled with death? Not in my part of the country. Source, please.

Lately, his launch of a war against Iraq has resulted in more than 1,200 dead American soldiers. Bush is the only President to launch a Pre-Emptive war.

One could make an argument about World War I.

Less than 1% of U.S. troops in Iraq have died (and may they rest in peace). It's not an issue.

Hey, I am a Democrat. I earned a marksman ribbon, and I could have gone to sharpshooter if I just put in the extra minutes of target shooting. I used to hunt, but I quit. Not because I don't eat venison. It was just too easy. Anyway, I still say guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Ban the bullets. Ha!

Democratic Underground but you voted for Bush?
Geez, sheep in wolves clothing?

If my conversations on other forums are any indication, I think that about 1/4 of the people on DU are NOT Democrats.

I would have voted Democrat if Dean had been nominated. But the Clintons put the fix in for Kerry. I'm not voting for Hillary, either.

If there are any democrats trying to get guns to be an "insurgent", I have to say that I am very, very glad they didn't get them. In fact, I would be very happy to see them leave the country.

Now there's a fair, respectable, nonpartisan assessment.



an economy that's never been bigger,



It's irrelevant whether people have healthcare. It only matters whether people have health.



The streets are filled with death? Not in my part of the country. Source, please.



One could make an argument about World War I.

Less than 1% of U.S. troops in Iraq have died (and may they rest in peace). It's not an issue.

It's like when I quit hunting. It's too easy. I quit here. Some of you folks are just too funny.

If there are any democrats trying to get guns to be an "insurgent", I have to say that I am very, very glad they didn't get them. In fact, I would be very happy to see them leave the country.
They are getting guns to be minutemen. Our forefathers said that in order to create a more perfect nation we must overthrow the current one.

So if such a conflict occurred it is the patriotic duty to do so ifd one chooses.

Keru, hate to break it to you, but 90 percent of gun owners in the US are not Democrats. They are Republicans.


I'd love to see where you pulled that statistic out of.
Link please.

And I will bash Bush as long as I like and however I like. Nothing short of forumbanning will stop me. Rights are there to be used and enjoyed.

While I am neither Democrat nor Republican (Libertarian), I cannot help but think of how every time Republicans get uptight about dissenting voices it reminds me of the good old First Amendment. What a pity that the "other side" has a constitutionally protected voice as well! Although the movie itself is quite lame, The American President (1995) accurately summed it up best:

"Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest.' Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk

an economy that's never been bigger,

Our economy is big for the benefit of our corporations, and at the expense of the working class. The current tax benefits given to corporations are so rediculous that the WTO has authorized world wide tariffs on American goods. The actual mean wages of the nation are extremely low as the jobs created were low paying non-unionized jobs. The dollar-level wages have been falling off for the last 25 years. The dollar is being artificially lowered to help our corporations export, and effectively lowering how much the working class can purchase. So yes the economy is huge right now, but it only grew on the corporate sector.

It's irrelevant whether people have healthcare. It only matters whether people have health.

:confused:


The streets are filled with death? Not in my part of the country. Source, please.

I think it is generally accepted that we have a large amount of homeless and underprivileged.

One could make an argument about World War I.

Less than 1% of U.S. troops in Iraq have died (and may they rest in peace). It's not an issue.

WW1, a preemptive war?!!

So as long as only 1% of the troops have died based on a mistake (or faulty information, whatever) its ok?

They are getting guns to be minutemen. Our forefathers said that in order to create a more perfect nation we must overthrow the current one.

So if such a conflict occurred it is the patriotic duty to do so ifd one chooses.

Shaaddupp

This is the most illogical line of thinking I have ever heard. Call me when the US becomes totalitarian and the "minutemen" get some tanks.

History will judge Goerge Bush much better than his contemporaries.

Our economy is big for the benefit of our corporations, and at the expense of the working class. The current tax benefits given to corporations are so rediculous that the WTO has authorized world wide tariffs on American goods. The actual mean wages of the nation are extremely low as the jobs created were low paying non-unionized jobs. The dollar-level wages have been falling off for the last 25 years. The dollar is being artificially lowered to help our corporations export, and effectively lowering how much the working class can purchase. So yes the economy is huge right now, but it only grew on the corporate sector.

Usual Communist tripe.

:confused:

"Healthcare" refers to insurance. Buy buying it, you're essentially Betting that you'll fall ill.

I think it is generally accepted that we have a large amount of homeless and underprivileged.

See first comment.

WW1, a preemptive war?!!

Yeah! Admiral Hall and his Zimmerman Telegram!

So as long as only 1% of the troops have died based on a mistake (or faulty information, whatever) its ok?

1) Not a mistake
2) When they entered the military, they made a conscious choice to put their life on the line for their country. Their deaths are not statistics to be exploited for political purposes.

They bash him because there's nothing else they can do.

1. They lost the election (let's let them say it was a conspiracy).
2. Their party is in disarray, so the next election is bound to be more of the same.
3. They lost seats in the House and Senate, so all they can do is filibuster.
4. They don't generally own guns, so insurgency is out.

So they're going to cry about it.

1. I will continue to Bash, insult and in general despise all the Bushes until they are no more, eleceted or not.
2. The country is in disarray, the time for compramise is over down with the right.
3. True, untill 2006.
4. Not true, have you ever been to MT (we elected a democratic governor and over half the population hunts).

To those who Bash the Bush, carry on my friends. It only annoys them because it is true.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

^^ Anti-American.







;-)

Paxania:
Calling Vittos Ordination a Communist does not negate his argument. Address the issue, not the person.

And I'm fairly sure that "pre-emptive" means in this case "US shot first"
The war in Iraq was definitely a case in which the US shot first, whereas in WWI, Germany had already sunk American ships (unrestricted submarine warfare) and was inciting Mexico to attack.

And healthcare is a big issue. Without healthcare, when you fall ill, you have two choices: Remain untreated (very bad idea) or become indebted to the medical community (bad idea). Neither particularly helps the economy. Debt never helps and death/lingering illness never helps either.

Oh, and both of you (Paxania and Vittos Ordination) should find sources. (Note my post is opinion/obvious knowledge)

In combat units in the Army, it's also around 90 percent. Same in the Marine Corps.

Are members of the U.S. military allowed to be members of a political party?

Just asking, 'cos in the Finnish military, hired soldiers (officers, enlistees etc, not conscripts) are not allowed to run for the parliament or the Euro-parliament, nor are they allowed to be members of a political party. They can run for a position in the municipal elections, but only as independents.
Good compromise IMHO, between "civil rights" and the credibility of the military. I don't think it's good for the unity or the defence will of the people, if the military would be politically labeled (in any direction).

They bash him because there's nothing else they can do.

1. They lost the election (let's let them say it was a conspiracy).
2. Their party is in disarray, so the next election is bound to be more of the same.
3. They lost seats in the House and Senate, so all they can do is filibuster.
4. They don't generally own guns, so insurgency is out.

So they're going to cry about it.

3) That was brilliant of the Repubs. They got moderates tossed and are left with he diehards. So filibuster is not guaranteed.
4) You really want to think so? I know many with guns.

Are members of the U.S. military allowed to be members of a political party?

Just asking, 'cos in the Finnish military, hired soldiers (officers, enlistees etc, not conscripts) are not allowed to run for the parliament or the Euro-parliament, nor are they allowed to be members of a political party. They can run for a position in the municipal elections, but only as independents.
Good compromise IMHO, between "civil rights" and the credibility of the military. I don't think it's good for the unity or the defence will of the people, if the military would be politically labeled (in any direction).
Yep, US troops can be members of any political party they want. I don't think they can run for office though until they leave the military.

3) That was brilliant of the Repubs. They got moderates tossed and are left with he diehards. So filibuster is not guaranteed.
4) You really want to think so? I know many with guns.

4 pretty sure. Never met one at any shooting range, and I go to a lot of matches.

When I was in the military, to give you an idea of the attitude difference, there was open talk of sedition on a daily basis during the Clinton administration, nothing but admiration for Bush, and talk of sedition if Kerry got into office.

Do you think that Kerry could use the military to put down a rebellion?

Not in a million years.

Could Bush?

You bet.

Keru, hate to break it to you, but 90 percent of gun owners in the US are not Democrats. They are Republicans.

In combat units in the Army, it's also around 90 percent. Same in the Marine Corps.

I was laughing when the people on Democratic Underground were asking each other how they would buy firearms - then finding out that they had voted for restrictions in their urban area that prevents them from buying them.

Some were asking who knew about how to use them - and I was the only one who seemed to know anything at all.

Ooops!

Site your numbers lad.

I know many repubs that don't have guns and I know many demos that do.

My ranger buddy is a lifelong demo.

My in-laws are hunters(real ones as they head out in the middle of no where rather then the weekend warrior types.

To think there can be no insurrection for lack of guns? There are many countries that seems to have done that.....

Well, a democracy is one with several opinion,friend thread starter.

I'm tired of Bush and his supporters' attitude.

"Kerry actually listens to the people, he's weak!"
"Move to Canada!"
"You're a chicken if you don't wanna invade Iraq..."
And so on and so on.

You sound like a little kid, friend. Democracy is a thing which encourages debate. Bush does not promote a healthy democracy or debate at all, but it's still right.

You'll find that most anti-Bushers out there debate in a civilized manner (unlike NRA nuts, religious fanatics, and people who have been scared by Bush to be terrifyed of terrorists).

If you're in doubt, visit North Korea or another dictatorship where pepople aren't allowed to "bash their leaders".

Bush:
1. Critizises Kerry for changing his mind to the popular opinion of the people (ever heard of democracy?)
2. Insults people who disagree with him.
3. And now insults people who oppose his ruling party.

"So they're going to cry about it."
Thanks for proving my point on Republicans acting like kids :rolleyes: .

4 pretty sure. Never met one at any shooting range, and I go to a lot of matches.

When I was in the military, to give you an idea of the attitude difference, there was open talk of sedition on a daily basis during the Clinton administration, nothing but admiration for Bush, and talk of sedition if Kerry got into office.

Do you think that Kerry could use the military to put down a rebellion?

Not in a million years.

Could Bush?

You bet.

Sedition by the military? Well know. Really honorable soldiers we have these days.

When the shrub tames Iraq, then we will talk about it......

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

Because America has made a horrible mistake, and as an American it is my duty to remind us of it every day.

Ok heres what people are misconcepting about me. I would say the same thing if Kerry was presdint only with kerrys name in the title. I dont support either one of them i just think the bush bashing is so reptive. Its like being reminded about something every second of your life. It just gets annoying.

Do you think that Kerry could use the military to put down a rebellion?

Not in a million years.

Could Bush?

You bet.

Usually the militarys job is to put down any rebellion against the lawful, elected government. Guess not in the American Wonderland. :\

Ok heres what people are misconcepting about me. I would say the same thing if Kerry was presdint only with kerrys name in the title. I dont support either one of them i just think the bush bashing is so reptive. Its like being reminded about something every second of your life. It just gets annoying.

Meh; if Kerry had been elected, our friends like My gun would be bitching and talking about sedition. Other's would be gloating and poking them.

It will happen no matter who is in office.

People bash Bush because he's still president of your god-forsaken country.

4. They don't generally own guns, so insurgency is out.

So they're going to cry about it.
So would you prefer if "they" stopped "crying about it" and went out and shot a bunch of people over it?

Meh; if Kerry had been elected, our friends like My gun would be bitching and talking about sedition. Other's would be gloating and poking them.

It will happen no matter who is in office.

My point exactly.

The question I have is, what can really be done? If the Democrats don't get a cohesive plan together to prevent a repeat, it's going to be far, far worse the next time around.

And so far, there doesn't seem to be a cohesive plan.

Usually the militarys job is to put down any rebellion against the lawful, elected government. Guess not in the American Wonderland. :\

Don't egg him on.

Any President, even Clinton would send troops if there was an armed revolt in progress.....

:(

My point exactly.

The question I have is, what can really be done? If the Democrats don't get a cohesive plan together to prevent a repeat, it's going to be far, far worse the next time around.

And so far, there doesn't seem to be a cohesive plan.

Time will tell. There was talk about Mr. Eyaaaa! running it ;) He would have new ideas. Dean caught many people by surprise so that would be a change.

Gay marriage was a disaster. They should asked them to hold off till after the election. It got the evangalistas out in force.

Ahh well. It's over and done.

But that means we can't stop knocking the shrub! ;)

Yeah! Admiral Hall and his Zimmerman Telegram!




WW1 wasn't a preemptive war, the Telegram didn't preempt anything.

Also, on the whole bashing Bush. People will bash whoever's in power, in any Country that they can, especially if they are legally entitled to do so.

America is the Rebel Nation. The day we forget that is the day we cease to be American. While Rebellion in and of itself is hardly required, being physically and mentally willing to do so if the country fails as a democracy is what the nation is about. It's not nearly that bad right now, of course, but speaking out and, if you can afford it*, protesting when you feel something is wrong is part of America. That you're allowed to not do that is also because of that rebel aspect (Like all those people who didn't vote).

*After the Kent State era, protesting became an officially deadly idea in the US, aside from the time and money aspect, which are also held down since democrats, on average, aren't as comfortable economically.

And please, don't assume that everyone who's against Bush is a democrat. Bush Jr. is why I stopped being a republican, for crying out loud (His Terra and Axis of Eval speech made me physically ill...). I'm a supporter of the NRA's official ideals (If not their methods, which are as bad as any other organization), and I ascribe to the 'Cold dead hands' theory of gun ownership. I despise descrimination (Including affirmative action), and how the Native American groups have such screwed up rights (If you're an attractive woman, stay far away from the reservations.), despite having TWO Native American bloodlines. I'm also against the constant adding of laws (which is what being conservative is SUPPOSED to be about -- these days they want to change the fricking constitution... oy).

I'm a solid moderate. I still consider Bush to be the closest thing to the anti-Christ, considering he's using the Christian religion as a weapon to screw the world up.

Ok heres what people are misconcepting about me. I would say the same thing if Kerry was presdint only with kerrys name in the title. I dont support either one of them i just think the bush bashing is so reptive. Its like being reminded about something every second of your life. It just gets annoying.

It may get annoying, but dissent is patriotism. Attempting to oppress dissent is wrong. If you dont like reading it, don't read it.

Keru, hate to break it to you, but 90 percent of gun owners in the US are not Democrats. They are Republicans.

In combat units in the Army, it's also around 90 percent. Same in the Marine Corps.
Source for these claims? I heard that the armed forces were about 70% Republican.

It's irrelevant whether people have healthcare. It only matters whether people have health.

Lol, another classic quote.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk
Free speech has been a protected right for even longer in the UK than in the US.

When I was in the military, to give you an idea of the attitude difference, there was open talk of sedition on a daily basis during the Clinton administration, nothing but admiration for Bush, and talk of sedition if Kerry got into office.
Sedition because they were Democrats?

Soldiers are supposed to be loyal to their country, not just one of the political parties. Shame on you.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

People will continue to bash Bush until his State funeral. If you're so easily displeased, perhaps you should choose to ignore the threads that so prompt your displeasure.

There are a few reasons to be critical of Gee Whiz Bush. First, it was under his watch that terrorists succeeded in strikes on New York and the Pentagon.

Second, there's a heap more, including a national debt that has never been higher, and millions of people without health care, and Americans starving to death every day, and Americans dying from exposure -- because they are homeless.

Lately, his launch of a war against Iraq has resulted in more than 1,200 dead American soldiers. Bush is the only President to launch a Pre-Emptive war.

Are you truly that ignorant? Do you even listen to the words that you are saying? If so, then you are more stupid than those obsessive compulsive religious fanatics that are STILL insisting the world is flat. Let's see.. Where were you wrong? Everywhere.

1. He knew there was a threatfor an attack. Oh, whoopity-do, another third world country threatens to attack America, that's new. If every threat was taken to heart, we would mock the president for being gullible and paranoid, and sending his troops to every threat. Not to mention they didn't say where they were going to attack. Do you know what that means? That means the only way he could have stopped it would be to attack Iraq with nothing more to go on than a threat. Wouldn't you jack-asses love that to cry about? The fact of this is he had no idea where, or even if, they were really going to strike. Be realistic.

2. There were always people homeless and starving. What are you going to blame on the man next, the black plague? Sure, we are in debt. That happens around war time. Look at the economy durring Nam and think about those words.

3. Yeah, sending the troops over there was a mistake, but it was not his mistake to make alone. The president may have the power to suggest and push war, but must I remind you of how many millions were protesting shortly after 9-11 that he wasn't moving fast enough? How many people were on the streets and TVs saying he needed to get men over there and get us 'our vengeance' for our grieving families of that terrorist attack? First you cry because he doesn't have troops over there, then they start dying and you cry because he did what the people wanted. Well guess what, people die in war, you can't have the cake and eat it too.

Stop being so immature, put down your picket signs, and don't take everything some fat unshaved guy with a camera says to heart. "Oh, but he had witnesses" you say? Yeah, but they had scripts. For those that didn't, have you ever heard of film cutting/editing? Yeah, it's something newscasters do all the time- cut the film so the person says precisely what they want them to, and drop the rest that might make the point that 'witness' had completely different.

Well, if the military stays the way it is now, and a Democrat is elected President, you won't be able to conduct *any* military operations anywhere, unless they happen to agree with it.

People will continue to bash Bush until his State funeral. If you're so easily displeased, perhaps you should choose to ignore the threads that so prompt your displeasure.
What makes you think people will stop there? After Reagan died we had a monthlong spamfest of anti-Reagan threads.

Well, if the military stays the way it is now, and a Democrat is elected President, you won't be able to conduct *any* military operations anywhere, unless they happen to agree with it.
And this is supposed to be something to be proud of? Have you any idea how dangerous a partisan military is? This is the stuff military coups and dictatorships are made of.

Well, if the military stays the way it is now, and a Democrat is elected President, you won't be able to conduct *any* military operations anywhere, unless they happen to agree with it.

No people learned from Carters Administration. It came time to act and they couldn't.

Stop bashing bush! Bush is good! He freed 2 contries for crying out loud!!!

They bash him because there's nothing else they can do.

1. They lost the election (let's let them say it was a conspiracy).
2. Their party is in disarray, so the next election is bound to be more of the same.
3. They lost seats in the House and Senate, so all they can do is filibuster.
4. They don't generally own guns, so insurgency is out.

So they're going to cry about it.

They they they... you make it sound as if all of us who despise and distrust Bush are sad little democrats. Sorry, man, but it's not that black and white. I think both parties are a crock, as neither has offered up a candidate worth voting for in over a decade.

People still badmouth Bush NOT because they're democrats, but because he's proven himself to be a sneaky, bigoted, fanatical, hypocrytical, lying sack of crap who couldn't care LESS that he's eroding any goodwill or credibility that America has left with the world, who couldn't give a shit that he's used the bill of rights to wipe his tyrranical behind with, who obviously cheated to swing the election for his first term and who has purposely and WILLFULLY used fear and terror against we, the people of America to trick enough of us into throwing away more of our rights and to hoodwink enough of us into voting for his dispicable ass this year that he could get another four years to line his pockets, help his friends and fuck both us AND the world while giving the lot of us a moronic smile and the middle finger while he's doing it.

Oh... and for the moron a ways back who mentioned wishing the man dead... that's really ignorant, kid. Grow up. Or keep making statements like that and see how long it takes the secret service to start pounding on your door and threatening YOU. The following link leads to an example of what happens today in America when you even JOKE about wishing that bastard dead.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html

Pardon my language, but Fuck George Jr AND the dad he rode in on.

Stop bashing bush! Bush is good! He freed 2 contries for crying out loud!!!

He is also systematically destroying *my* country, *my* religion, and *my* profession. I think I have a right to bash him however much I want.

And, considering the current state of Iraq, we cannot declare it "freed" yet.

Stop bashing bush! Bush is good! He freed 2 contries for crying out loud!!!

Yes, "freed" them into USian subservience.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

You mean stop exercising the freedom, in this case of speech, that Bush supporters claim to love so much? F**k you, no-one is forcing you to read any Bush bashing, if you see a post start to say something you don't like, just stop reading it and pretend it isn't there (you'll notice this is a policy adopted by certain people). Also, if he wasn't such a f**king no brained idiot then he wouldn't get bashed so much, I mean what do you expect?! Idiot.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html

Pardon my language, but Fuck George Jr AND the dad he rode in on.

Hey why not have everybody make comments. We could bankrupt the goverment by having them SS visit everybody.

It's a sad day.

Freedom of Speech has to include the ability to say stupid hateful things.

He is also systematically destroying *my* country, *my* religion, and *my* profession. I think I have a right to bash him however much I want.

And, considering the current state of Iraq, we cannot declare it "freed" yet.

The'yr pretty dang free compared to under Saddam. Here's a picture I made in a Bush bashing forum:

Deaths in Iraq:

Bush: :sniper: <---At very, very, most

Saddam: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: <---At very, very, least

Snipper=10,000 or less

Green guy=100,000 or more

The'yr pretty dang free compared to under Saddam. Here's a picture I made in a Bush bashing forum:

Deaths in Iraq:

Bush: :sniper: <---At very, very, most

Saddam: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: <---At very, very, least

Snipper=10,000 or less

Green guy=100,000 or more

Yeah, sure. And notice how you said nothing as he was doing all that killing with weapons you gave him as long as he was your ally?

You are not the good guys in Iraq, and history will never see you as such.

Yeah, sure. And notice how you said nothing as he was doing all that killing with weapons you gave him as long as he was your ally?

You are not the good guys in Iraq, and history will never see you as such.

And, did you notice that Clinton was in at this time?

Edit: Clinton stoped what was going on in Yugoslavia, but did nothing about Iraq. I guess Arabs are less important than Europeans...

Lol, another classic quote.

Really? I just made it up, but it'd be great if I came up with a classic on my own...

So many times I've thrown down a book, yelling, "Curse you, Hayek/Friedman/Smith/Orwell! You've taught me nothing I don't already know!"

Free speech has been a protected right for even longer in the UK than in the US.

So has the right to keep and bear arms.

Any President, even Clinton would send troops if there was an armed revolt in progress.....

His point was that, if ordered in, the soldiers wouldn't go.

*After the Kent State era, protesting became an officially deadly idea in the US, aside from the time and money aspect, which are also held down since democrats, on average, aren't as comfortable economically.

The Leftist protestors are well-funded, if they can't scrounge together enough money to buy some paper, a box of markers, and a tank of gas.

You'll find that most anti-Bushers out there debate in a civilized manner (unlike NRA nuts, religious fanatics, and people who have been scared by Bush to be terrifyed of terrorists).

Check out http://www.ProtestWarrior.com.

What makes you think people will stop there? After Reagan died we had a monthlong spamfest of anti-Reagan threads.

Yes, well I know that will most likely be the case, but I didn't want to overstate it.

If something continues to go wrong, you continue to try to fix it somehow. With the election over, the only thing left is to continue to point out, loudly and clearly, just what an idiot is in charge, and all the stupid things he and his cronies are doing.

the slim majority of Amewricans clearly voted for Bush, thus they deserve him, but god, OR or whover you look to, help the rest of the world.

And, did you notice that Clinton was in at this time?

Edit: Clinton stoped what was going on in Yugoslavia, but did nothing about Iraq. I guess Arabs are less important than Europeans...

I do not care who the president was (even though the killing and the US support started under republican watch - Reagan anyone?) - it was the US. I bashed Bush I, I bashed Clinton and will bash Bush II as well for the evil they did and do in the world.

The slim majority of Americans clearly voted for Bush, thus they deserve him, but god, OR or who ever you look to, help the rest of the world.

"Im just saying it gets annoying seeing the same thing over and over.... "

What the hell are you talking about? You see it over and over cause a lot of people feel that way. Do you get pissed off cause a lot of people wear their seatbelts? or throw away milk past the expiration date?

Be realistic man, some people don't like him. Accept it.

Don't take it so personally. I used to bash Clinton too. ANd Bush Sr. I was too young to bash Reagan. But I'd laugh at 'Ron Headrest' in Doonesbury comic strips. :)

And, did you notice that Clinton was in at this time?

Edit: Clinton stoped what was going on in Yugoslavia, but did nothing about Iraq. I guess Arabs are less important than Europeans...
Actually, it was Reagan who sold him the weapons, IIRC.
But don't let me stop you putting everything wrong in the Us on Clinton.

The'yr pretty dang free compared to under Saddam. Here's a picture I made in a Bush bashing forum:

Deaths in Iraq:

Bush: :sniper: <---At very, very, most

Saddam: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: <---At very, very, least

Snipper=10,000 or less

Green guy=100,000 or more
Yeah, we all know that 10,000 or less = over 100,000. If you actually used credible totals for the civilian deaths in Gulf War II, I'd listen to you. And if you realized that Bush killed that many in less that 2 years, while Saddam has had well over 20 years to kill people.

His point was that, if ordered in, the soldiers wouldn't go.


Then we have a really bad problem with the military. "Enemies foreign and domestic...."

Honor is a fading quality.....

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

Oh, ok. The election is over. I'll just go sit quietly and cooperatively in my little corner and watch Bush screw up my country.

_Nik

I think it is generally accepted that we have a large amount of homeless and underprivileged.
Compared to most nations, it's not large at all. It is miniscule.



WW1, a preemptive war?!!
Yes. The Brits told us that the Germans were getting the, of all things, Mexicans to attack us.

So as long as only 1% of the troops have died based on a mistake (or faulty information, whatever) its ok?
As has happened in every war on the planet, so yes. They're acceptable losses in war time.

But then again, soldier's should not become a tyrant's puppets.

Let's see, in every Bush-bashing thread I've seen, someone pro-Bush has bashed Clnton.
So why should we stop insulting the current president when you won't quit bashing one who went out of power 4 years ago?

Huh?

the slim majority of Amewricans clearly voted for Bush, thus they deserve him, but god, OR or whover you look to, help the rest of the world.

But what about the rest of us who *didn't* vote for him? Shouldn't we get *some* sympathy? Pretty please??

Compared to most nations, it's not large at all. It is miniscule.

Compared to most Western, comparably developed nations, it's huge.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

No

If you don't like it stop reading them, second, he's alive, that's reason enough to continue...third, it's called freedom of speech.

They bash him because there's nothing else they can do.

1. They lost the election (let's let them say it was a conspiracy).
2. Their party is in disarray, so the next election is bound to be more of the same.
3. They lost seats in the House and Senate, so all they can do is filibuster.
4. They don't generally own guns, so insurgency is out.

So they're going to cry about it.

Amen to that Oh, and critizing the goverment is fine, but only when IT DOES SOMETHING WRONG!!!!! Not to say he's perfect, but they critize him for no reason. It really is sorta sad that they have nothing btter to do.

But then again, soldier's should not become a tyrant's puppets.

But to his argument.

Clinton and Kerry are tyrants?

Soldiers are to defend this country. Period.

The goverment can remove a tyrant President.

The problem with the shrub is the fact he hasn't acted Tyranical to the Americans.

If he started mass roundups, it would be a different matter.

But we can only speculate because we have not really had a tyrant.

(Yea southerners we have heard the Lincoln commnets but lets just leave it to the nation as a whole).

"Im just saying it gets annoying seeing the same thing over and over.... "

What the hell are you talking about? You see it over and over cause a lot of people feel that way. Do you get pissed off cause a lot of people wear their seatbelts? or throw away milk past the expiration date?

Be realistic man, some people don't like him. Accept it.

It's one thing to hate his ideas, its entirely different to hate the man personally. And this Bush=Hitler crap is complete nonsense

But what about the rest of us who *didn't* vote for him? Shouldn't we get *some* sympathy? Pretty please??
That's like saying give the Nazis sympathy because Hitler killed himself

Yes. The Brits told us that the Germans were getting the, of all things, Mexicans to attack us.


The war wasn't preemptive. Yes, the US was sent a copy of the Zimmerman Telegram, but this was only part of the reason the US got involved in the war. It was not preemptive as ships containing US citizens had already been sunk by German Subs.

That's like saying give the Nazis sympathy because Hitler killed himself

Eh?

How so?

Eh?

How so?
Because I don't think Hitler was such a great fellow. They were sad that their evil leader was dead. But we in America weren't. Would you give sympathy to evil leader's countries? No. But just to clear one thing up, Hitler is much, much more evil than Kerry could ever have been.

Because I don't think Hitler was such a great fellow. They were sad that their evil leader was dead. But we in America weren't. Would you give sympathy to evil leader's countries? No. But just to clear one thing up, Hitler is much, much more evil than Kerry could ever have been.

ANd this has what exactly to do with those of us who **OPPOSE** Bush?

Yeah, we all know that 10,000 or less = over 100,000. If you actually used credible totals for the civilian deaths in Gulf War II, I'd listen to you. And if you realized that Bush killed that many in less that 2 years, while Saddam has had well over 20 years to kill people.
That civilian deathcount was crap. There was an expose, and they talked to about 10 families, and used a best fit line. The real civilian deathcount could be as low as about 2,000. Plus a lot of deaths are thanks to the insurgents.

ANd this has what exactly to do with those of us who **OPPOSE** Bush?
God damnit. You know what, just forget it.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

Where did you get the idea that participation in American politics and the great debates of our day was supposed to end when the election was over?

Learn what it means to be an American and join in the discussion. Silence and conformity are for fascists.

God damnit. You know what, just forget it.

You are the one comparing those who oppose Bush to Hitler supporters.

Amen to that Oh, and critizing the goverment is fine, but only when IT DOES SOMETHING WRONG!!!!! Not to say he's perfect, but they critize him for no reason. It really is sorta sad that they have nothing btter to do.

Ahh so he hasn't done anything wrong?

Because he's still alive.

right on!!

mobey its just a little thing called freedom of speech...

Usual Communist tripe.



"Healthcare" refers to insurance. Buy buying it, you're essentially Betting that you'll fall ill.



See first comment.



Yeah! Admiral Hall and his Zimmerman Telegram!



1) Not a mistake
2) When they entered the military, they made a conscious choice to put their life on the line for their country. Their deaths are not statistics to be exploited for political purposes.

If you never get sick, you'll never need healthcare, yes -- that is correct. Unfortunately, many people do get sick. That's why we have healthcare, doctors, etc. If I remember correctly, one prominent American politician was hospitalized after a pretzel attacked him and made him sick.

The old "You're a Communist" jab doesn't work very well anymore. The Cold War is over. Find a new line. Even calling someone a Socialist is a little better (but not really, considering how many of our European allies are Socialist in part or whole).

"On top of the 3 million who were homeless or marginally homeless there are an additional 5 million poor people that spend over half of their incomes on housing, leaving them on the verge of homelessness. A missed paycheck, a health crisis, or an unpaid bill can easily push poor families over the edge into homelessness." -- http://www.homeless.org/do/Home

And I really love the way you call military death statistics something that should NOT be exploited, yet you were the one who first used a statistic about them to defend Bush's War. Really good move, there. Of course statistics need to be used for political purposes. What the hell is the point of them otherwise? Are we just supposed to IGNORE the death toll in Iraq? And it's not just the fact US soldiers are giving their lives for their country in a needless war, it's that they are underfunded, undersupplied, and undersupported by the very politicians who sent them there! (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/12/08/rumsfield-kuwait041208.html)

Yes, soldiers that enter the military (like my dad, my brother, and my sister's fiance) put their lives on the line for their country, but guess what? All they ask in return for their great service is that we don't send them to their deaths needlessly. Just because they're willing to die for their country doesn't mean they should.

And guess what else? Last I heard, Iraq isn't the USA -- so why the hell should any American soldiers be over their dying for it? They're supposed to protect OUR freedom!

Just because the election is over doesn't mean he's not a bad person anymore.

The real civilian deathcount could be as low as about 2,000..
Yeah, because as we all know, 2000=12000. That's the bare minumum number of civilian deaths, based on reliable media accounts, that have been researched to ensure that they are accurate.

Because I don't think Hitler was such a great fellow. They were sad that their evil leader was dead. But we in America weren't. Would you give sympathy to evil leader's countries? No. But just to clear one thing up, Hitler is much, much more evil than Kerry could ever have been.


Jury is still out on Bush, though:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031222&s=stam

1. He knew there was a threatfor an attack.... Do you know what that means? That means the only way he could have stopped it would be to attack Iraq with nothing more to go on than a threat.

3. The president may have the power to suggest and push war, but must I remind you of how many millions were protesting shortly after 9-11 that he wasn't moving fast enough? How many people were on the streets and TVs saying he needed to get men over there and get us 'our vengeance' for our grieving families of that terrorist attack? First you cry because he doesn't have troops over there, then they start dying and you cry because he did what the people wanted. Well guess what, people die in war, you can't have the cake and eat it too.


iraq/saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 dumbass.

Fellow countrymen and patriots,
This is useless. Wouldn't you have had contempt if those minutemen had stopped fighting the British to quarrel about who the general should be? We are in a WAR. It's far away, but real. If they had refused to fight together because of beliefs, wouldn't we have scorned them? Of course! However, during a war, one sets aside one's private, petty grievances - we choose a capable commander. Would you like to know that Eisenhower was protecting you? Or some politician? In light of this, shouldn't we instantly decide, that, whatever our personal feelings may be, it is right to support the most able military commander, or the one who will get the most out of our troops? 80% of our soldiery voted the Republican ticket. This is of course, based on a Gallup poll. It might be 90%. It might be 70%. But, it still shows a majority. If the soldiers are going to serve under the president, and they are risking their lives, I'll bet a million that they know what they're saying. Meanwhile, at home a bunch of grinning, faceless, beaureaucrats say catchprases and mumble about incompetence!
An over-enthusiastic patriot

That civilian deathcount was crap. There was an expose, and they talked to about 10 families, and used a best fit line. The real civilian deathcount could be as low as about 2,000. Plus a lot of deaths are thanks to the insurgents.

That was Frisbee Freak's point that Bush caused very small casualties, compared to Saddam's huge massacres.

Of course, in the case of the revolutionary war, it was quite clear who the enemy were. It was the British, actually invading. It is quite difficult to equate that situation with a conflict over 100 years later in the middle east, in a country that has done nothing to America.

But hey, what do I know?

hmmm yes revenge 4 the griving famly by sacrificing other ppl famly yea that makes a lot of fu(|<!/\/g sence

iraq/saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 dumbass.

Saddam supplied money to terrorist, and terrorist were our enemies? Why can't dumbasses like you get that right! It is so frustrating that there are so many stupid people in the world, how are you guys going to learn? :headbang:

Fellow countrymen and patriots,
This is useless. Wouldn't you have had contempt if those minutemen had stopped fighting the British to quarrel about who the general should be? We are in a WAR. It's far away, but real. If they had refused to fight together because of beliefs, wouldn't we have scorned them? Of course! However, during a war, one sets aside one's private, petty grievances - we choose a capable commander. Would you like to know that Eisenhower was protecting you? Or some politician? In light of this, shouldn't we instantly decide, that, whatever our personal feelings may be, it is right to support the most able military commander, or the one who will get the most out of our troops? 80% of our soldiery voted the Republican ticket. This is of course, based on a Gallup poll. It might be 90%. It might be 70%. But, it still shows a majority. If the soldiers are going to serve under the president, and they are risking their lives, I'll bet a million that they know what they're saying. Meanwhile, at home a bunch of grinning, faceless, beaureaucrats say catchprases and mumble about incompetence!
An over-enthusiastic patriot

First reasonable thing I've heard on this thread. amen to that. If the very people who are fighting in Iraq would sooner have their current Commander-in-chief who sent them there, why do we feel fit to say that the war is such an incredible failure, the homefront Americans who have not the slightest idea about real combat having greater say than the soldiers fighting it? Just an opinion about foreign policy. I don't want anyone to brand me anything, and its certainly okay to disagree with Bush on domestic issues, but I overwhelmingly trust our president in foreign policy.

Saddam supplied money to terrorist, and terrorist were our enemies? Why can't dumbasses like you get that right! It is so frustrating that there are so many stupid people in the world, how are you guys going to learn? :headbang:


Thank you. You beat me to it. I don't know how idiocy can reign so supreme, that people call me a dumbass for saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Saddam even openly admitted it. Even if he was just doing it for publicity, that was stupidity on his part.

Not to mention, there were more people screaming to bomb Iraq in the days prior to the bombing than there were ordering the govt. to track down Osama.

:sniper:

Saddam supplied money to terrorist, and terrorist were our enemies? Why can't dumbasses like you get that right! It is so frustrating that there are so many stupid people in the world, how are you guys going to learn? :headbang:

Every Middle Eastern country supplies money to some extremist organization or another, including Israel.

Ok lets get this all back to the original question at hand. Why not stop bashing Bush.

Because he's a stupid pathetic dribbling moron. He gets America into wars to hide the fact that he can't govern his own country. He's also the biggest hypocrit alive - in a single term he removed two regimes, both of which the US Republican governments have supplied with arms, and in the case of Saddam Hussein, actually supported in getting into power. He also deserves bashing because he wants oil so badly that he's prepared to kill Iraqi civilians, American troops and generally irritate the far East.

Also, he should be bashed because he has financially supported Isreal over Palestine and made no effort to stop Isreali atrocities yet blabs on about how bad the Palestinians are when they are forced to blow themselves up to make their point. Also, he illegalised the gay/lesbian union. Not only this, he single-handedly, as governer of Texas, sent more men to their death via execution than any other. He also refuses to support the rest of the world over such trivialities as protecting the environment by limiting fossil-fuel consumption - thus entirely degrading the whole scheme even though America uses up 25% of all of the world's energy and not nearly as high a population. He is also the man who has created more divisions between the US and Europe than ever before, and says things like "we have the best educated Americans in the world" and "the French don't have a word for entrepreneur". And yet he's the most powerful man on earth.

Looking at America domestically, he has plunged the US into recession. He has caused even larger gaps between the rich and the poor, and he has failed to address the needs of the misfortunate in his society, instead uses his Fox News channel to churn out rubbish about how superb the Republican party is (incidentally, most major Republican players are also CEO's of major corporations - many of them oil-based) and how, for some unfathomable reason that manages to escape everyone but Republicans, accuses Kerry, a centre-right candidate, of being anti-American. He has managed to stir up more racial hatred than America has done for terms and terms, and uses fear to drive his politics and convince Americans that he is doing the right thing, when in fact he is aggrivating every single issue that the average American is concerned about.

ALL this, and the fact that if people don't bash politicians, they can do whatever they fucking like.

Originally Posted by Dempublicents
But what about the rest of us who *didn't* vote for him? Shouldn't we get *some* sympathy? Pretty please??

That's like saying give the Nazis sympathy because Hitler killed himself

???

Okay, that's even less intelligable than an angry Neo Cannen post. Those of us who voted against Bush don't deserve the lying dirtbag that got himself into office through the usual cycle of crappy opponents, voter apathy, and political cheating that our two-party system is so steeped in these days. We also don't deserve being treated as if we support the man and his stupid, greedy agenda by ignorant airheads who don't have a real clue about WHY it sucks so much that the facist wanna-be got back into power for a second term, but still insist on blowing the popular "fuck America, you Bush-loving twats" horn. You think Bush sucks? You don't even have a clue.

Because AMERICANS are the ones who feel the repercussions of his actions and decisions most of all. Not just from stupid wankers who bash Bush just because their mates in the school caffeteria have made it trendy to do, but from the EDUCATED members of the global community who know full well that Bush has nothing but contempt for any nation that refuses to go with his bullshit, moneygrubbing attempts to gain control of the oil in the Middle East AND most painful of all, from the enactment of his petty, sneaky and backwards opinions and religious beliefs into laws that have and will continue to weaken this nation's people's freedoms.

So you want to liken those of us who tried to keep Bush out of a second term of presidency to Nazis when we're already being bent over the barel and raped of our rights and freedoms by some jackass who can't keep religion and law seperate and who thinks it's keen to enact laws that remove our rights to due process whenever it's convenient for him? Go ahead. Ignorant jackass.

Bush is the only President to launch a Pre-Emptive war.

Yeah, those damn mexicans basically threw themselves on our guns when we annexed texas. and manifest destiny? we merely meant negotiating people out of their homeland and shipping them to Africa. I mean, come on, who doesnt want us to control all of this great continent?

So you want to liken those of us who tried to keep Bush out of a second term of presidency to Nazis when we're already being bent over the barel and raped of our rights and freedoms by some jackass who can't keep religion and law seperate and who thinks it's keen to enact laws that remove our rights to due process whenever it's convenient for him? Go ahead. Ignorant jackass.

I only have one point to make about everything you just said. In God We Trust. Religious? I think so. This country's laws were founded on religion, and he is trying to keep it that way. The rest of what you said is not worth the effort and mental stress to try and respond.

Do not take the last part of what I said out of context, either. The intended message (I realize how it sounded) was that arguing politics is pointless, because every "fact" is based only on what opposing factions/sides tell us. For all we know, they're ALL lying, so there is no reason to argue over something so unimportant. Nothing we can do about it except vote, and spreading propaganda (on EITHER side) is just helping the sides to get torn apart even more. Every last one of us are hypocrites, talking about how Bush (or Kerry) are so wrong and trying to seperate the houses more, when we the people are sitting here doing the same damn thing.

I only have one point to make about everything you just said. In God We Trust. Religious? I think so. This country's laws were founded on religion, and he is trying to keep it that way. The rest of what you said is not worth the effort and mental stress to try and respond.
Bullshit. In God we Trust was did not exist on anything until the mid 1800s. It was even put on our money until the McCarthy Era. Read up on some history.

Bullshit. In God we Trust was did not exist on anything until the mid 1800s. It was even put on our money until the McCarthy Era. Read up on some history.


The fact of the matter is, Bush didn't put it there now did he? You forget who came over here and "founded" this nation, my friend. Pilgrims were among the first, religious pilgrims at that. What came of it? How did this nation become "a free country"? Why of course, fuck the indians day. :rolleyes: This whole nation is built on the murderous blood of others, as every nation is. So there's more killing, get over it. In a hundred years, or even fifty, those who come after will simply shake their heads in shame at us all and just move on. It's the way it has always been. You read up on some history.

I only have one point to make about everything you just said. In God We Trust. Religious? I think so. This country's laws were founded on religion, and he is trying to keep it that way. The rest of what you said is not worth the effort and mental stress to try and respond.

Actually "In God We Trust" was not consitently on currency until 1956.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

This was Washington's administration and it went to the Senate during Adams.

It passed by unanimous vote and there is no record of debate.....

The fact of the matter is, Bush didn't put it there now did he? You forget who came over here and "founded" this nation, my friend. Pilgrims were among the first, religious pilgrims at that. What came of it? How did this nation become "a free country"? Why of course, fuck the indians day. :rolleyes: This whole nation is built on the murderous blood of others, as every nation is. So there's more killing, get over it. In a hundred years, or even fifty, those who come after will simply shake their heads in shame at us all and just move on. It's the way it has always been. You read up on some history.

This is true. But still, you can't just move on like that, most Americans don't realise that their ancestors managed to wipe out almost an entire race and then proceed to take the moral highground over other conflict, pretending America is saintly and has done no harm to anyone that didn't deserve it.

The fact of the matter is, Bush didn't put it there now did he? You forget who came over here and "founded" this nation, my friend. Pilgrims were among the first, religious pilgrims at that. What came of it? How did this nation become "a free country"? Why of course, fuck the indians day. :rolleyes: This whole nation is built on the murderous blood of others, as every nation is. So there's more killing, get over it. In a hundred years, or even fifty, those who come after will simply shake their heads in shame at us all and just move on. It's the way it has always been. You read up on some history.

Yes a great society. A quasi theocracy that meant total obidence to the elders lest you find yourself tossed out of the community.

If what they did was so magical then why didn't in endure.

The myth of Religious freedom that will not die!

Actually "In God We Trust" was not consitently on currency until 1956.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

This was Washington's administration and it went to the Senate during Adams.

It passed by unanimous vote and there is no record of debate.....

See? This person made his point in a much more civilized manner. Thank you, and once again I didn't say when it was placed where, I simply made the point that it is in existance and was around long before Bush had anything to do with it. Why even argue it anyway?

See? This person made his point in a much more civilized manner. Thank you, and once again I didn't say when it was placed where, I simply made the point that it is in existance and was around long before Bush had anything to do with it. Why even argue it anyway?
I wasn't blaming Bush. I was addressing an error that you made.

38 years is not a long time.

That's over half a lifetime for some. We all judge 'long' in different measures.

I wasn't blaming Bush. I was addressing an error that you made.

I'm human. I'll admit you were correct, you just seemed to be really pissy about it, which in turn made me even more pissy about it. Like I am trying to say here, arguing is only causing more arguement. I'm guilty of it too.

The reason I mentioned Bush with that:

People seem to be trying to accuse him of ruling America with a strict religion. I was just stating that the religion has had a part of this country since quite a while before him.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure – reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

- Some President Guy

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

The reason I mentioned Bush with that:

People seem to be trying to accuse him of ruling America with a strict religion. I was just stating that the religion has had a part of this country since quite a while before him.

But he is the first to be outwardly acting on it.

It is one thing to be Relgious but it's another to give one Religions philosophy over all others.

The goverment is supposed to be Relgious Neutral; not Christian.

But he is the first to be outwardly acting on it.

It is one thing to be Relgious but it's another to give one Religions philosophy over all others.

The goverment is supposed to be Relgious Neutral; not Christian.

No arguement.

We democrates are going to bash bush until he gets us out of war and is dead. I think that would make everyone happy. If you republicans dont like us bashing him you shouldnt of voted for him.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure – reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.

- Some President Guy

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm


George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

Always remember John Leland:

. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .

Bush still maintains is reckless, dangerous, utterly selfish and self centered policies. As long as he does that, he will be a target for rath.

I will Bash Bush. I will speak my mind. If you don't want to read it, then don't. I will complain about him, regardless of whether more people voted for him or not. Number of votes does not mean he is more qualified, more capable, or governs in a more effective manner. It means that his campaign people were better at tearing down the other guy.

Bush is not a traditional conservative. He creates war when none existed. He failed at every business venture he ever engaged in, and now he is building the US debt to record levels. His social policies are ill-conceived, his military prowess is about equal to all the politicians who ran the Vietnam war, or the war in Afghanistan for the Soviets. Remember Afghanistan? Do you remember what happened to that country in the first place? It was invaded, ruined, and lacks any meaningful central government. And that was just the Soviets. This is what Iraq will become, if it doesn't become part of a New Islamic conglomerate. I have no problem with Muslims, just with fanatics of any stripe.

I complain because I can. Because it's my right. And because people around the world should know that this US citizen, born on September 11 in NYC, hates the fascist governings that are being done in his name.

Hey, look on the bright side. In ten years, noone will even remember Nixon anymore. His legacy is being surpassed even as we speak.

L D C

I only have one point to make about everything you just said. In God We Trust. Religious? I think so. This country's laws were founded on religion, and he is trying to keep it that way. The rest of what you said is not worth the effort and mental stress to try and respond.

Respond to this.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Those are the 4th and 6th amendments set forth in the Bill of Rights. Bush wiped his ass all over those with the Patriot Acts.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's the 10th Ammendment. Bush spit on it by overturning pro-medical marijuana laws passed in the state of California and threatening to jail doctors who prescribed medical marijuana to patients suffering glaucoma and AIDs.

Now on to the FIRST amendment. Granted, while its wording is very sparse and is admittedly shaky ground to stand on, as seperation of church and state was originally intended to keep a boatload of people from being too afraid of Jefferson's rather radical ideas on Christianity... many legal precendents and the manifested will of/interpretations of the division of church and state implied in the article have made it the VERY important, and perhaps even most loved principle of the people of the United States of America.

One has to understand that while no one thought much about religions OTHER than Christianity at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights was drawn up, that the many different sects of that religion might as well have not been part of the same faith to begin with, considering how people governed at the time. In todays multi-cultural and extremely diverse American society, it all amounts to the same basic idea behind that one little shaky sentence -- that we have the garanteed right that the government will not force any one religious belief or any one man's religious beliefs into the lives of the entire nation's citizens -- as Bush Jr has done.

The will of the people to strike Christian iconography from the halls of government has been manifested loudly and clearly in such cases as the Alabama courthouse being made to remove the big bible statue, mandatory prayer being removed from public schools and other such cases of modern seperations both physical and perceptual from our institutions of government. This is not to say that all of us are not free to hold our own religious beliefs, but that we are not free to force them on others, nor is our government.

Your mental stress limit used up yet?

I Don't know if this is been said i just didn't feel like wading through 10 pages of argueing...but anyway i as a right-wing teen in our society would like to say it is American citizens (hell, and citizens of other countries, too) right to bash, ridicule, and downright attack everything ANY president says, does or thinks...
2 Cents in the jar

Usual Communist tripe.

"Healthcare" refers to insurance. Buy buying it, you're essentially Betting that you'll fall ill.

I am a fifth year senior, pursuing degrees in Finance and Economics. In my opinion Bush is offering too much help to corporations, if you truly believed in a free market capitalism, you would say that he is offering too much help also.

I believe in capitalism, but I don't believe it is perfect, as I feel that no man made and ran system can be perfect, I feel that the government needs to regulate big business, or corporations will become too powerful. If corporations become to powerful you will see huge conglomerate corporations that will branch out into all industries and effectively wipe out competition. If we see a continued growth in the cooperation between big business and the government we may be unable to distinguish between the two in the future. You know what you call a system in which one group controls most of the money and politics in a nation? Communism.

And healthcare refers to being cured when you get sick or injured. Insurance is simply a way of paying for it. If we had universal healthcare, insurance wouldn't be necessary.

I suppose you suggest we get rid of illness and injuries so that we won't need healthcare?

George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
Its true that Washington wasn't very Christian, if Christian at all.

I was just noting that Washington stated that :
A.) Morality comes only via religion
B.) A democratic government needs morality

It would seem, to me, at least, that if Washington believed that those rules were applicable to Deism, they would be applicable to Christianity as well. If I'm not mistaken, New Jestopia's original point was that the laws of this country have always been founded on religion. Washington himself says that the laws of a country with popular rule need to be based in morality.

Amen to that Oh, and critizing the goverment is fine, but only when IT DOES SOMETHING WRONG!!!!! Not to say he's perfect, but they critize him for no reason. It really is sorta sad that they have nothing btter to do.

*shakes head* why don't people get it? YOU might not think Bush's administration is doing anything wrong, but OTHER people do. So why the FUCK should't they say so? Just because it doesn't line up with your views?

I Don't know if this is been said i just didn't feel like wading through 10 pages of argueing...but anyway i as a right-wing teen in our society would like to say it is American citizens (hell, and citizens of other countries, too) right to bash, ridicule, and downright attack everything ANY president says, does or thinks...
2 Cents in the jar

Alright, someone on the right who will agree that dissent is a good thing!

And to the all the people (I haven't read the entire thread just the first two and last page) who have said that this country was founded on Christianity, neither God or Christianity is mentioned in the constitution, and our principles were founded on pre-Christianity Roman and Greek society.

Its true that Washington wasn't very Christian, if Christian at all.

I was just noting that Washington stated that :
A.) Morality comes only via religion
B.) A democratic government needs morality

It would seem, to me, at least, that if Washington believed that those rules were applicable to Deism, they would be applicable to Christianity as well. If I'm not mistaken, New Jestopia's original point was that the laws of this country have always been founded on religion. Washington himself says that the laws of a country with popular rule need to be based in morality.

Ahh just making sure where you were going.

I have seen his address get used before but with this line of thought
1) Morality comes only from Religion.
2) A decocratic goverment needs morility.
3) The primary Religion at the time was Christianity
4) The Goverment is supposed to be Christian based in it's approaches.

People wanting Religion. Good
Goverment by Religion. Bad.

;)

Bush-Bashing, it's not a habit, it's a hobby.

The fact of the matter is, Bush didn't put it there now did he? You forget who came over here and "founded" this nation, my friend. Pilgrims were among the first, religious pilgrims at that. What came of it? How did this nation become "a free country"? Why of course, fuck the indians day. :rolleyes: This whole nation is built on the murderous blood of others, as every nation is. So there's more killing, get over it. In a hundred years, or even fifty, those who come after will simply shake their heads in shame at us all and just move on. It's the way it has always been. You read up on some history.
Nice. I notice how you completely ignored his argument that the United States wasn't founded on Christianity. (You know it's true.)

What have pilgrims or indians or war got to do with the religion argument?

People seem to be trying to accuse him of ruling America with a strict religion. I was just stating that the religion has had a part of this country since quite a while before him.
Obviously Bush didn't invent Christianity. He is just more overt about making laws based on it than any other president. He shouldn't impose his faith on those that don't share it. That is our argument. We're not about banning religion or any such thing. We're just in favour of religious freedom.

First off, to address the general issue of Bush-bashing:

Are we going to stop all voices of dissent? I haven't seen Ann Coulter go into retirement after the Republicans' election victory - and she is as virulent a spewer of incendiary polemic as Michael Moore or the most rapid MoveOn Bush-hater. And as much as I despise many of the viewpoints she puts forward in her columns, you don't hear me calling for her to be publicly muzzled and thrown in the stocks. (Heck, I find it informative -- if more than a little scary -- to find out what she, and the far-right, are actually presumably thinking.)

If you don't like Bush-bashing, Michael Moore, Ted Rall, conspiracy theories, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, or Alan Keyes, you know what? No one is forcing you to listen to/read any of them. That's part of our system - people have a right to say what they like (within fairly broad limits), but you can't go around at gunpoint forcing people to listen to far-right or far-left screamers.

That civilian deathcount was crap. There was an expose, and they talked to about 10 families, and used a best fit line. The real civilian deathcount could be as low as about 2,000. Plus a lot of deaths are thanks to the insurgents.

Specifically, on the Iraqi civilian casualty count... well, part of the problem is that no one really knows what the civilian deathtoll is. The US (and coalition) forces seem to be actively disinterested in even trying to estimate what the numbers might be, much less what fraction of the casualties are direct or indirect results of US troops.

So someone tried to do a study to guesstimate the change in civilian deaths in Iraq. Given that there weren't any official numbers, they had to come up with their own sampling technique. The sample included 988 households and a mostly informal survey technique, though for a subsample the interviewers did ask after death certificates.

The full article is at the journal The Lancet, and is titled "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey." (You'll either need to register for free, or be part of a subscribed institution, educational or otherwise, to view the article.)

The upshot is in the raw data, the number of violent deaths from their survey sample in the 14.6 months before the invasion is 1, while in the 17.8 months after the invasion the number is 73 (52 of which took place in Falluja). The paper reports that extrapolating their total numbers of deaths does result in a predicted 98 000 civilian deaths above the pre-invasion death rate, NOT counting data from Falluja. On the other hand, the paper also reports that their 95% confidence interval runs between 8 000 and 194 000 for that sample, presumably because of small-number statistics. The point of the paper, at least as I read it, is NOT that there have definitely been 100 000 civilian casualties due to US (and presumably coalition) forces, but that there is a very good chance that the number could be a lot, lot higher than the ~15 000 *reported* civilian casualties (e.g. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ ). Of course, news outlets seized on the result without reporting on the possible sources of error - this is the way all science is reported (if a scientific paper states the possibility of X, news reports SCIENTISTS DISCOVER X). Even the plausible possibility that the civilian death toll is much, much higher than 15 000 should be disturbing, however. (Heck, even if it is "only" 15 000 civilians, shouldn't that in and of itself be something to be concerned about?)

The shocking thing is that no one in the US administration seems to care, in the sense of attempting to actually quantify this number. Maybe it IS wrong! But why aren't we trying to actively find out using military records we already have, instead of letting some academics go risk their lives in a still-chaotic country in an admittedly imperfect survey to try and find out what their government won't tell them?

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!

Why do we continue?
It's because we want you to figure out WHY were pro kerry.
We want you to figure out the TRUTH

Were not really making fun of Bush, were just attempting to educate you so you realize your mistakes, and you do some research before you start voting in 4 years.

Ok im pretty ticked off here. WHY DO PEOPLE CONTINUE TO BASH BUSH?? The election is OVER. Nothing you say about Bush matters anymore. its all over!! For god sakes man almost every thread i read is bush bashing and its ticking me off. also with Kerry. though i found little kerry bashing still. Just stop!! If you want to complain about the presdint do it 4 years from now!! Bashing bush is really getting old. It was fun at first but then just got annoying after awhile. SO PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THATS SANE. STOP MAKING THREADS THAT BASH BUSH!!!


Because bush is a bad leader and a bad man and has made america a bad country.

Refraining from being vocal in our opposition to his wrongdoing would be both unpatriotic and morally degenerate.

Remember, all that is needed for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.