NationStates Jolt Archive

Ill start out with three, you can post up to lets say 6 reasons, (unless you have one that REALLY needs to be said that noone else knows)

1.Patriot act
2.Iraq war
3.Just being an arrogant bastard and listening to noone and trying to ban gay marriage.

He was a college cheerleader.
His middle name is Walker.
He wants to do away with hot raunchy premarital sex.

If you read my posts you'll find that I'm more anti-Bush than most, but Kramers, can you stop with the totally cliched Bush-bashing threads? At least come up with a new way to delgitimise his presidency and castigate his actions.

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

sigh..where to start..i guess with that statement..maybe YOU don't need it, but they do..but alas i don't feel like arguing over this stuff again...

3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink

I don't think so

[QUOTE=Haloman
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
[/QUOTE]
Soviet Narco State thats who!

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

No if he had balls he would have fought in Viet Nam. Iraq is justified if it were being fought for the CEO of Exxon, the Patriot act is not necesary, yeah he would love to get a drink from your house what does that have to do with being president? Yes we do need gay marriage for gay people (idiot)

Just shows you are an idiot, you deserve to be shot right in between your boobs.

They would need marriage...if they were of opposite sex. Give them their own union, call it something other than marriage, and we'll be fine.

sigh..where to start..i guess with that statement..maybe YOU don't need it, but they do..but alas i don't feel like arguing over this stuff again...

Again? It's been like the 12th million time right vs. left has came up. Give it a rest, jesus. No one has changed their mind yet.

1. The war on terrorism.
2. The economic recovery.
3. Appointing Condi Rice as Sec. Sate.
4. Beating that ultra liberal, left wing, war-protesting duffs from Massachusetts.
5. Went to Iraq to see the troops last year and even helped serve the meal.

Pick whichever of three you like best. :p:

1. He's a good president


HAHAHA!!!! No I am being serious take your joking to another thread, this guy cracks me up, hehehe.

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

W00t! Sorry, but I had to -- its good to see some back-up on his side.

Now now, let's not 'misunderestimate' our president.

btw I opened the paper today and saw two articles side-by-side

"Rebel attacks kill soldier, wound 14"

and

"Bush declared healthy, but wants to trim some inches"

when he's not losing weight, maybe he could work out his priorities.

Learning how to chew his pretzels might be a good start.

No if he had balls he would have fought in Viet Nam. Iraq is justified if it were being fought for the CEO of Exxon, the Patriot act is not necesary, yeah he would love to get a drink from your house what does that have to do with being president? Yes we do need gay marriage for gay people (idiot)

Just shows you are an idiot, you deserve to be shot right in between your boobs.

Oh, shit. I forgot that standing for what you believe in qualifies you as an idiot. My bad. And, I forgot that there was an evil dictator in Iraq who was mass-murdering his people. Damn. I hate short-term memory loss. And, shit, I forgot that I had boobs, seeing as I'm a male. I mean, Haloman doesn't give you any hint to my gender at all....jeeze...

:rolleyes:

5. Went to Iraq to see the troops last year and even helped serve the meal.

Well, at least we know he has done at least one days honest work in his life :)

1. The war on terrorism.
2. The economic recovery.
3. Appointing Condi Rice as Sec. Sate.
4. Beating that ultra liberal, left wing, war-protesting duffs from Massachusetts.
5. Went to Iraq to see the troops last year and even helped serve the meal.

Pick whichever of three you like best. :p:

Condi Rice??? She is not good she is actually horrible nice try though. You mean the economy that he destroyed in the first place? There are no terrorists in Iraq, well there are now, but thats only because we invaded, there were none before that. WOW HE ACTUALLY SERVED THE MEAL!!! STOP THE PRESSES RIGHT NOW! DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT? BUSH SERVED THE MEAL, HOLY CRAP, YOU WERE RIGHT, HE IS A GOOD PRESIDENT, SERVING SOME GRITZ AND MACORONI TO DYING SOLDIERS, HE IS A GREAT PRESIDENT! Thank you kind stranger for pointing out that George W. Bush slapped a spoon full of dehydrated apples on some soldiers tray.

Oh, shit. I forgot that standing for what you believe in qualifies you as an idiot. My bad. And, I forgot that there was an evil dictator in Iraq who was mass-murdering his people. Damn. I hate short-term memory loss. And, shit, I forgot that I had boobs, seeing as I'm a male. I mean, Haloman doesn't give you any hint to my gender at all....jeeze...

:rolleyes:

About the boobs, I was insulting your manhood idiot, jeeze, who cares! Let him kill his people its none of our business, we have more important things to attend to.

Condi Rice??? She is not good she is actually horrible nice try though. You mean the economy that he destroyed in the first place? There are no terrorists in Iraq, well there are now, but thats only because we invaded, there were none before that. WOW HE ACTUALLY SERVED THE MEAL!!! STOP THE PRESSES RIGHT NOW! DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT? BUSH SERVED THE MEAL, HOLY CRAP, YOU WERE RIGHT, HE IS A GOOD PRESIDENT, SERVING SOME GRITZ AND MACORONI TO DYING SOLDIERS, HE IS A GREAT PRESIDENT! Thank you kind stranger for pointing out that George W. Bush slapped a spoon full of dehydrated apples on some soldiers tray.

Condeleeza Rice will make an excellent Secretary of state. Bush did not destroy the economy, 9/11 did. Bush pulled us out of the recession, and we are steadily regaining control of the economy. Yes, he served the meal. Obviously the soldiers are not dying. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that soldiers actually eat well, they have 3 hot meals a day. Hell, they eat better than most of us back here. Also, go back to high school english.

It's good to see some people on the right side ;)

Learning how to chew his pretzels might be a good start.

LOL!!!!

I don't think any American President could be described as "cool."

But let me guess, you think Clinton was a great guy, well Bush did something Clinton never did, he got a majority of the popular vote. And before you call me a nutcase Republican or anything, know this, I am a Democrat but Bush was, in my opinion, the better candidate this year.

1. The war on terrorism.
2. The economic recovery.
3. Appointing Condi Rice as Sec. Sate.
4. Beating that ultra liberal, left wing, war-protesting duffs from Massachusetts.
5. Went to Iraq to see the troops last year and even helped serve the meal.

Pick whichever of three you like best. :p:

1. outsourcing the hunt for bin laden to the afganis, who have failed so far, and diverting troops to attack iraq under premises shown to be lies.
2. still a huge net loss of jobs.
3. pumping his cabinet full of yes men/women so his word will no longer be ocntested by rational beings
4. http://politicalcompass.org/ click on "election 2004." kerry is not super left wing.
5. went to iraq for a few hours and served a few meals simply to look good. was never in real danger.

Bush did not destroy the economy, 9/11 did.


Like I said, Bush destroyed it.

Dont forget our econemy still blows. Anyone you ask who lost a job and got one back will tell you, it has lower pay, low/no beneifts, and doesnt have the option of working overtime, and the job is only part time. at least 9/10 would say that.

No. 47: What happened to Afghanistan? Sure as hell not done yet there

Its none of our business, we have more important things to attend to.

Oh my god!!!!! You figured it out!!!! It isn't none of your damn business is it????


Now, why did I have to tell you that? Thats all I want to know.

1. The war on terrorism.
2. The economic recovery.
3. Appointing Condi Rice as Sec. Sate.
4. Beating that ultra liberal, left wing, war-protesting duffs from Massachusetts.
5. Went to Iraq to see the troops last year and even helped serve the meal.

Pick whichever of three you like best. :p:


If you think Kerry is Ultra-liberal, you will not like to meet me, because I'm a Anarcho-Communist (to me, Che Guevara is a moderate, Bush is the antichrist, and I fantasize about torturing you), and I really want to kill a conservative person, it's always on my mind now. The whole hitting you in your inbred face with a baseball bat is just such a nice image.

*Cums on self, goes looking for rag to clean it up with*

I laugh at all right wing republican idiots because George W. Bush has an I.q. of 91... lol mine is 147!

I don't need 100 reasons, I just need one: He won't let me get married to another girl.

No. 47: What happened to Afghanistan? Sure as hell not done yet there
We were distracted by a butterfly.

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

wow. i guess we should elect our government officials because 'they have balls' What the hell is wrong with americans? The four years of bush has been four years of mistakes and arogance. And how is the Iraq war justifiable? Bush is the wrong person doing the right thing in the wrong way at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Here we are with 100+ thousand troops in Iraq who has no threat to us, while we have less than 10000 troops searching for the man who killed thousands of americans on Sept. 11. During a time in which the largest threats to us, North Korea and Iran, are being completely over looked... Bush calls himself a "war-president" but he embodies the passive-aggressive behaviors. To me your post apitomizes the supporters for bush. They have no knowledge on politics, they dont even know what is going on in the world, all they can say is that he has balls, 3 times and that a certain song, displaying the thoughts of educated people, sucks because they took the time and got educated. Please if you want to talk politics, know something.

I don't think any American President could be described as "cool."

But let me guess, you think Clinton was a great guy, well Bush did something Clinton never did, he got a majority of the popular vote. And before you call me a nutcase Republican or anything, know this, I am a Democrat but Bush was, in my opinion, the better candidate this year.

WHAT!!!! CLINTON GOT MUCH MORE POPULAR VOTE THAN BUSH, ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! YOU ARE A MAD MAN!!! BUSH WON WITH 2% MORE OF THE VOTE THAN KERRY HE HAD 51% POP. VOTE, THE FIRST TIME THOUGH GORE HAD MORE POP. VOTE, YOU STUPID FUCK, CLINTON HAD A HUGE MAJORITY OF POPULAR VOTE YOU NUTCASE REPUPLICAN DEMOCRAT!!!

If you read my posts you'll find that I'm more anti-Bush than most, but Kramers, can you stop with the totally cliched Bush-bashing threads? At least come up with a new way to delgitimise his presidency and castigate his actions.

Impossible to deligitimize his presidency! There just isn't anyway to do so. Don't give me the Gore won the popular vote line either. Gore lost the electoral college vote and that is the only vote that matters. Not to mention Bush won re-election in a walk and won both the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

i can't remember what other nation originally posted this, but i smile every time i read it.

-"YEEHAw" is not a sound foreign policy.

Condi Rice??? She is not good she is actually horrible nice try though. You mean the economy that he destroyed in the first place? There are no terrorists in Iraq, well there are now, but thats only because we invaded, there were none before that. WOW HE ACTUALLY SERVED THE MEAL!!! STOP THE PRESSES RIGHT NOW! DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT? BUSH SERVED THE MEAL, HOLY CRAP, YOU WERE RIGHT, HE IS A GOOD PRESIDENT, SERVING SOME GRITZ AND MACORONI TO DYING SOLDIERS, HE IS A GREAT PRESIDENT! Thank you kind stranger for pointing out that George W. Bush slapped a spoon full of dehydrated apples on some soldiers tray.

Are you stupid or something? Of course their were no foreign terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, but their were people in charge who used terror as a tactic to rule their people, so because Saddam used terrorism against his own people rather than against another country he is a swell guy who was the victim in this war? I don't think so, he is a bastard and what the UN could not do in 12 years we did in a matter of months, Saddam should have been ousted in 1991, politics got in the way. Did Bush have other motives for going into Iraq? Probably, was oil one of them? No. But if somebody tryed to kill my dad I would do anything in my power to get that bastard, and that is what Bush did. And besides, everyone knows we invaded Iraq for the sand, they have millions of tons of it and we need it badly, all those sandboxes that now sit empty, what a shame, but Bush is gonna fix that, you watch, we are gonna start making super tankers to ship the sand and then kids all over the country will be able to play in their nice, full sandboxes.

I don't need 100 reasons, I just need one: He won't let me get married to another girl.

While I'm not gay, I can understand that you -erm- are, and I respect your ability to choose to be, I believe in this case Bush is wrong. I mean what could it possibly do to the rest of the world? Absolutely nothing, that could cause harm.

i can't remember what other nation originally posted this, but i smile every time i read it.

-"YEEHAw" is not a sound foreign policy.

Oh yeah I saw that once a long time ago. Those were good times, before the election, when America still had hope.

wow. i guess we should elect our government officials because 'they have balls' What the hell is wrong with americans? The four years of bush has been four years of mistakes and arogance. And how is the Iraq war justifiable? Bush is the wrong person doing the right thing in the wrong way at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. Here we are with 100+ thousand troops in Iraq who has no threat to us, while we have less than 10000 troops searching for the man who killed thousands of americans on Sept. 11. During a time in which the largest threats to us, North Korea and Iran, are being completely over looked... Bush calls himself a "war-president" but he embodies the passive-aggressive behaviors. To me your post apitomizes the supporters for bush. They have no knowledge on politics, they dont even know what is going on in the world, all they can say is that he has balls, 3 times and that a certain song, displaying the thoughts of educated people, sucks because they took the time and got educated. Please if you want to talk politics, know something.

The point I was trying to get across is that Bush isn't scared of defending our country. Most democrats are. Iraq was a large threat to us. IF Hussein didn't have WMD's, he had the capability to. Not only was he a threat to America and to his own country, he was a threat to the the world. Iran and North Korea are not being overlooked, the US is trying to get them to end their nuclear weapons programs. Believe me, I have way more knowledge in politics than most my age. I was merely trying to act like an idiot like the moron who started this thread was. Oh, and American Idiot sucked because it sucked, not because it was anti-Bush.

I don't think any American President could be described as "cool."

But let me guess, you think Clinton was a great guy, well Bush did something Clinton never did, he got a majority of the popular vote. And before you call me a nutcase Republican or anything, know this, I am a Democrat but Bush was, in my opinion, the better candidate this year.


I live in Portland, and I have a friend who moved from your very town! But I have one thing to say to you. Traitor. you and your state. You for posting on internet forums without actually using any of the vast amounts of credible info available to realize that Bush has always been a shitty candidate. And to your state for throwing out their only source of power. Did you ever realize the power that Tom Daschle brought to your state? What are you idiots now? You have no authority! You're one of the least populated states, you mean nothing to the Union! You're like Hawaii, but with more cows! Why in the hell did you decide to give up so much power! It's just irrational! It's just stupid! It doesn't make any sense!

And besides, everyone knows we invaded Iraq for the sand, they have millions of tons of it and we need it badly, all those sandboxes that now sit empty, what a shame, but Bush is gonna fix that, you watch, we are gonna start making super tankers to ship the sand and then kids all over the country will be able to play in their nice, full sandboxes.

:)

Oh yeah I saw that once a long time ago. Those were good times, before the election, when America still had hope.

those were the days... :)

But if somebody tryed to kill my dad I would do anything in my power to get that bastard, and that is what Bush did.

Ok, Bush has killed over 1000 Americans, and has destroyed the lives of the familys of those American familys. Oh but he has to avenge his dad who is in perfect health, the guy was never even hurt.

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

You like Greenday. You totally nullified anything intelligent you have ever said before hand.

Nuff said.

I will name the cool presidents from the last 100 years.

T. Roosevelt
F. Roosevelt
H. Trumen
D. Eisenhower
J. Kennedy
J. Carter
B. Clinton

WHAT!!!! CLINTON GOT MUCH MORE POPULAR VOTE THAN BUSH, ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! YOU ARE A MAD MAN!!! BUSH WON WITH 2% MORE OF THE VOTE THAN KERRY HE HAD 51% POP. VOTE, THE FIRST TIME THOUGH GORE HAD MORE POP. VOTE, YOU STUPID FUCK, CLINTON HAD A HUGE MAJORITY OF POPULAR VOTE YOU NUTCASE REPUPLICAN DEMOCRAT!!!

1992 Election Results:
Presidential Candidate Popular Vote Percentage
William Clinton 44,908,254 42.93%
George Bush 39,102,343 37.38%

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

1996 Election Results:
Presidential Candidate Popular Vote Percentage
William Clinton 47,402,357 49.24%
Robert Dole 39,198,755 40.71%

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

Now that you know the facts are you going to stop talking out of your ass? Probably not, but at least now you should know better and are no longer ignorant of the truth but rather you refuse to accept the truth.

The point I was trying to get across is that Bush isn't scared of defending our country. Most democrats are. Iraq was a large threat to us. IF Hussein didn't have WMD's, he had the capability to. Not only was he a threat to America and to his own country, he was a threat to the the world. Iran and North Korea are not being overlooked, the US is trying to get them to end their nuclear weapons programs. Believe me, I have way more knowledge in politics than most my age. I was merely trying to act like an idiot like the moron who started this thread was. Oh, and American Idiot sucked because it sucked, not because it was anti-Bush.
How was he a threat to America? Please do explain. He did not have the capabilities to make wmd's. I encourage you to go read "The 9/11 Commistion Report." It's the commities report on the events before, during and after 9/11. It even includes details about the war on Iraq/terrorism.

I will name the cool presidents from the last 100 years.

T. Roosevelt
F. Roosevelt
H. Trumen
D. Eisenhower
J. Kennedy
J. Carter
B. Clinton

You're forgetting Reagan ;)

For one thing. I am all for bush. he's a great man. I have no more to say because really the majority is for him. And well. theres nothin you can do or say to change their minds. This thread shouldn't last long unless all them demecrats argue with themselves. I don't get it. why are they all sore losers these days.

I don't think any American President could be described as "cool."

But let me guess, you think Clinton was a great guy, well Bush did something Clinton never did, he got a majority of the popular vote. And before you call me a nutcase Republican or anything, know this, I am a Democrat but Bush was, in my opinion, the better candidate this year.

HERE HERE!!! People here forgot that Clinton NEVER got 50% of the vote. The last president to get that was George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush's father, back in 1988! As for Bush being the better candidate, also agree with you there. Lieberman would've been better as would Dean in all honesty. Kerry was by far the worse candidate. No wonder the states want to take back the Democratic party from the Washington insiders and move it BACK to the middle. The Washington Elite moved way far to the left.

1992 Election Results:
Presidential Candidate Popular Vote Percentage
William Clinton 44,908,254 42.93%
George Bush 39,102,343 37.38%

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

1996 Election Results:
Presidential Candidate Popular Vote Percentage
William Clinton 47,402,357 49.24%
Robert Dole 39,198,755 40.71%

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

Now that you know the facts are you going to stop talking out of your ass? Probably not, but at least now you should know better and are no longer ignorant of the truth but rather you refuse to accept the truth.

My point was that he won a lot more than who he was opposing unlike Bush who has upsetted half the country.

For all of you unsure of Bush's abilities as a president, here ya go:



http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov


And a suitable drinking buddy isn't criteria for the guy who's running our country.

My point was that he won a lot more than who he was opposing unlike Bush who has upsetted half the country.
And 100% of the 6 billion others in the world. The world was shocked at the ignorance displayed of americans. I dont blame them

You're forgetting Reagan ;)

No Im not.

How was he a threat to America? Please do explain. He did not have the capabilities to make wmd's. I encourage you to go read "The 9/11 Commistion Report." It's the commities report on the events before, during and after 9/11. It even includes details about the war on Iraq/terrorism.

*yawn* Been there, done that.

Left-wing propaganda/10

Take your national defense and suck it. Countries get hit by terrorist attacks all the time and they don't get all pissed about it and decide to start something. Yes the world trade center was a huge loss, but we don't need to start messing with the middle east.

I bet they wanted us to come to the middle east. Hell, Bush is Osama's biggest recruiting tool.

WHAT!!!! CLINTON GOT MUCH MORE POPULAR VOTE THAN BUSH, ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! YOU ARE A MAD MAN!!! BUSH WON WITH 2% MORE OF THE VOTE THAN KERRY HE HAD 51% POP. VOTE, THE FIRST TIME THOUGH GORE HAD MORE POP. VOTE, YOU STUPID FUCK, CLINTON HAD A HUGE MAJORITY OF POPULAR VOTE YOU NUTCASE REPUPLICAN DEMOCRAT!!!

NO!! Clinton never got 50% of the vote. The last president to be elected with over 50% of the vote was George H.W. Bush in 1988! Don't believe me? Look it up! What he said was right. As for getting 51% of the vote is OVER 50% of the vote which means more votes than what Clinton got.

PS: Clinton did not get a huge majority.

*yawn* Been there, done that.

Left-wing propaganda/10

What?! :confused: Left wing propaganda? holy shit, wow. um first off, the 911 commision was created and carried out by BUSHES PEOPLE! if anything, it holds back from the complete truth.

The point I was trying to get across is that Bush isn't scared of defending our country. Most democrats are. Iraq was a large threat to us. IF Hussein didn't have WMD's, he had the capability to. Not only was he a threat to America and to his own country, he was a threat to the the world. Iran and North Korea are not being overlooked, the US is trying to get them to end their nuclear weapons programs. Believe me, I have way more knowledge in politics than most my age. I was merely trying to act like an idiot like the moron who started this thread was. Oh, and American Idiot sucked because it sucked, not because it was anti-Bush.


Funny isn't it, that even the chief weapons inspector of the UN, AND the Pentagon said that there were no means for producing any WMD's? The last opportunity that they had, according to the UN, was right before the Israelis bombed the hell out of their fledgling nuclear facility, back in the early 90's. The Economic sanctions were foolproof, as no aid could come in from developed countries, none came through Turkey, and obviously (due to the previous war) none came through Iran. Even that Yellowcake Uranium spin was proved false. You need to look at your sources little boy, and leave the real discussion for people who can actually vote.

No Im not.

I didn't see Reagan in your list, so, yes, you are forgetting him. ;)

My point was that he won a lot more than who he was opposing unlike Bush who has upsetted half the country.

Bush=55 million+ votes.

Clinton=47+ million votes

This means that Bush got more of the popular vote than Clinton

I live in Portland, and I have a friend who moved from your very town! But I have one thing to say to you. Traitor. you and your state. You for posting on internet forums without actually using any of the vast amounts of credible info available to realize that Bush has always been a shitty candidate. And to your state for throwing out their only source of power. Did you ever realize the power that Tom Daschle brought to your state? What are you idiots now? You have no authority! You're one of the least populated states, you mean nothing to the Union! You're like Hawaii, but with more cows! Why in the hell did you decide to give up so much power! It's just irrational! It's just stupid! It doesn't make any sense!

Dude, I am a Democrat, of course I realise how stupid the majority of South Dakotans are, they got rid of Tom Daschle, who was one of the most powerful men in Washington, and put in somebody who over the last two years has been lobbying against South Dakota values, and recieved over half a million dollars for it. Now their is talk about getting rid of funding for the Lewis and Clark Water Project, which we need, badly, and have already started building, and who knows what else is gonna go wrong. But that is ok to the majority because Bush came through and said that Thune was a swell guy, and since most of the people in South Dakota are Republicans, that is OK, who cares if it is gonna take another 80 years to maybe get back the power we had, and the billions of dollars we are gonna lose.

Take your national defense and suck it. Countries get hit by terrorist attacks all the time and they don't get all pissed about it and decide to start something. Yes the world trade center was a huge loss, but we don't need to start messing with the middle east.

I bet they wanted us to come to the middle east. Hell, Bush is Osama's biggest recruiting tool.

How many of them lost 3000 people on one day? I guess someone forgot to tell you that if you mess with the United States, your going to get burned.

Funny isn't it, that even the chief weapons inspector of the UN, AND the Pentagon said that there were no means for producing any WMD's? The last opportunity that they had, according to the UN, was right before the Israelis bombed the hell out of their fledgling nuclear facility, back in the early 90's. The Economic sanctions were foolproof, as no aid could come in from developed countries, none came through Turkey, and obviously (due to the previous war) none came through Iran. Even that Yellowcake Uranium spin was proved false. You need to look at your sources little boy, and leave the real discussion for people who can actually vote.

I thought they bombed that in the 80's, with aid from Iran of all people.

I didn't see Reagan in your list, so, yes, you are forgetting him. ;)
i dont see reagan as that "cool"

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov


People, I felt the need to post the link again because if you watch this and then tell me that Bush is a good president, you are certifiably insane.

i dont see reagan as that "cool"

I don't see Clinton as that "cool"

If Bush wasn't afraid to defend our country, why haven't we gone to war with North Korea?

I know I can't be the only one who can see he's just attacking countries that have no means to effectively counter-attack.

I don't see Clinton as that "cool"
it really depends how you fine cool, and thats fine, but dont go around telling other people (maybe not you but others) to include reagan on thier "cool" lists because its not your damned opinion its theirs

My point was that he won a lot more than who he was opposing unlike Bush who has upsetted half the country.

He got more votes than his chief opponent, yes, but he still did not get a majority, which means that over half the voters did not think he should be president.

Bush on the other hand got more than all the other candidates combined, which means that over half the nation wanted him to be president.

What did you do to contribute to Kerry's presidential campaign?

Let me guess, this describes you well:

"I don't vote or run for office, I just complain."

If Bush wasn't afraid to defend our country, why haven't we gone to war with North Korea?

I know I can't be the only one who can see he's just attacking countries that have no means to effectively counter-attack.

Because he wants to do things right this time. (I don't believe he handled Iraq in the way he should've, but it still would've ultimately ended in war.)

If Bush wasn't afraid to defend our country, why haven't we gone to war with North Korea?

I know I can't be the only one who can see he's just attacking countries that have no means to effectively counter-attack.
because north korea would nuke something on the west coast, japan, hawaii, or south korea and china would rape us

Dude, I am a Democrat, of course I realise how stupid the majority of South Dakotans are, they got rid of Tom Daschle, who was one of the most powerful men in Washington, and put in somebody who over the last two years has been lobbying against South Dakota values, and recieved over half a million dollars for it. Now their is talk about getting rid of funding for the Lewis and Clark Water Project, which we need, badly, and have already started building, and who knows what else is gonna go wrong. But that is ok to the majority because Bush came through and said that Thune was a swell guy, and since most of the people in South Dakota are Republicans, that is OK, who cares if it is gonna take another 80 years to maybe get back the power we had, and the billions of dollars we are gonna lose.


I know dude, I'm sad too. :(

He got more votes than his chief opponent, yes, but he still did not get a majority, which means that over half the voters did not think he should be president.

Bush on the other hand got more than all the other candidates combined, which means that over half the nation wanted him to be president.

What did you do to contribute to Kerry's presidential campaign?

Let me guess, this describes you well:

"I don't vote or run for office, I just complain."

Whoop dee doo. Over half the nation! WOW that's something to be proud of considering that 2/3's of this place is made up of rocks, coyotes, trailer parks, and mullets.

because north korea would nuke something on the west coast, japan, hawaii, or south korea and china would rape us

HAHAHAHAHA!!! This had to be the most rediculus post I think I've ever seen. NK doesn't have that many nukes and if they do use them, rest assurd that there'll be nothing left of North Korea!

As for China, they won't get involved because they don't like North Korea having nukes than we do.

i wonder if kerry would have done better if nader hadn't run? or if that's just something democrats say cuz they're bitter. :confused:

i wonder if kerry would have done better if nader hadn't run? or if that's just something democrats say cuz they're bitter. :confused:

Its something they say because they're bitter. Nader was a non-factor in this election as he was in the last one.

because north korea would nuke something on the west coast, japan, hawaii, or south korea and china would rape us
and north korea has over a million active troops with 5 million in reserves, their country is centered around military. at the time of that stat, 3 years ago, we had 37000 active troops. they also have technology to send a nuclear warhead 1200 miles. enough to hit alaska. they say by 2015 they will have finalized their production of a the Taepo-dong2 which can reach over 7000 miles, enough to hit anywhere in the US. For us to attack North Korea right now would be suicide. and since bush has no international support, i find it hard for him to create a stonger coalition than poland to help us in fighting them

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov


People, I felt the need to post the link again because if you watch this and then tell me that Bush is a good president, you are certifiably insane.

I used to be just like you.

I hated Bush because he could not talk like someone who could win a Pullitzer, but then I wisened up and realised that neither could I so I had no right to judge the President on that score.

And all he did was state that the Tribal Governments and United States Government were two different government bodies. I live in South Dakota, I see the effects of this all the time, unless we have another hostage incident the Feds. will let them be on their own.

Because he wants to do things right this time. (I don't believe he handled Iraq in the way he should've, but it still would've ultimately ended in war.)
there was no reason to go to war with Iraq. WE declared war on them (sry, bush declared war, not congress how its supposed to work) they didnt even declare it back on us, why? because they have nothing against us, so why would it have ultimately ended in war?

I thought they bombed that in the 80's, with aid from Iran of all people.


Not if I remember correctly. It made the news when I was like 5 though, so I didn't really remember. Well, we'll have to agree that they lost their capabilities during the sanction (which also required all vessels entering Iraq to be inspected, making no military goods available, nor any western goods, not even toothpaste!)

Never doubt the power of holding someone by the balls and watching them empty their pockets. That sanction had Iraq by the balls, and pretty damn tight I might add. Their birthrate was even going down because Iraqi men and women stopped having sex, not being able to stand each other's breath! Booyah for Clinton!

i wonder if kerry would have done better if nader hadn't run? or if that's just something democrats say cuz they're bitter. :confused:

Something Democrats would say because they were bitter.

I used to be just like you.

I hated Bush because he could not talk like someone who could win a Pullitzer, but then I wisened up and realised that neither could I so I had no right to judge the President on that score.

And all he did was state that the Tribal Governments and United States Government were two different government bodies. I live in South Dakota, I see the effects of this all the time, unless we have another hostage incident the Feds. will let them be on their own.


Emm...my problem is not that he couldn't speak well, my problem was that he had no freaking idea what tribal sovereignty was.

He was totally spouting shit! Did you never have that experience when on an essay test you have to write an essay on something you have no idea about? That's what he was doing! COME ON. Don't you think our president should be somewhat intelligent??? It worries me that my IQ is higher than the president's.

what about his dumb-ass policies on AIDS etc...?

Something Democrats would say because they were bitter.

i should rephrase that. does anyone have any support for their views on whether nader affected the election or not?

Not if I remember correctly. It made the news when I was like 5 though, so I didn't really remember. Well, we'll have to agree that they lost their capabilities during the sanction (which also required all vessels entering Iraq to be inspected, making no military goods available, nor any western goods, not even toothpaste!)

Never doubt the power of holding someone by the balls and watching them empty their pockets. That sanction had Iraq by the balls, and pretty damn tight I might add. Their birthrate was even going down because Iraqi men and women stopped having sex, not being able to stand each other's breath! Booyah for Clinton!

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html

there was no reason to go to war with Iraq. WE declared war on them (sry, bush declared war, not congress how its supposed to work) they didnt even declare it back on us, why? because they have nothing against us, so why would it have ultimately ended in war?

WRONG!!!!! Iraq violated the Cease-Fire as well as UN Resolutions. Because of this, we had the obligation to go into Iraq and the authority to do so because of the violations of UN Resolutions as well as the Cease-Fire. As for Bush declaring war, all he can do is send troops in for 90 Days without Congressional Approval. After that, he needs their approval to keep'em there. That is the limit of his abilities. It was Congress, not Bush, that authorized the Use of Force on Iraq. As for not declaring war on us back, here's the reason why. WE HAD A CEASE-FIRE, no peace treaty. Just like we're still legally at war with North Korea. We never signed a peace treaty with them either.

If you have proof that states otherwise, provide it and I shall take a look at it.

i should rephrase that. does anyone have any support for their views on whether nader affected the election or not?

Well, when you put it that way.

Did he have an effect on the election? Yes.

Would Kerry have won if he didn't run? No.

north korea has nukes, so does china along with a 200mil man army. so they would hand our asses to us in a war. we may have the bombs but bush is too chicken shit to use em every one says he's crazy apperently yall aint been to the area of texas he's from, i live not to far from crawford texas and i can tell you hes the wimp of texas. a true texan/american would have alreay marched over iran (who also is developin nukes reguardless what people think) and russia too (which putin has just ended the election of govenors and developing new an improved nukes.). dont get pig headed just cause we have nukes we are bad asses. we can take one nation at a time but we cant take different ones at one time. the patriot act need to be thrown out or rewritten and the gays dont need to get married cause that will really cause a civil war if they actually pass a law on alllowing it.

bush aint great but hes better than most people out there in my opinion.

WRONG!!!!! Iraq violated the Cease-Fire as well as UN Resolutions. Because of this, we had the obligation to go into Iraq and the authority to do so because of the violations of UN Resolutions as well as the Cease-Fire. As for Bush declaring war, all he can do is send troops in for 90 Days without Congressional Approval. After that, he needs their approval to keep'em there. That is the limit of his abilities. It was Congress, not Bush, that authorized the Use of Force on Iraq. As for not declaring war on us back, here's the reason why. WE HAD A CEASE-FIRE, no peace treaty. Just like we're still legally at war with North Korea. We never signed a peace treaty with them either.

If you have proof that states otherwise, provide it and I shall take a look at it.
We also went in there without the UN's consent. Being that we are a UN country and went against their rules, is a slap in the face to rest of the country. Thank you bush for hurting our reputation

Well, when you put it that way.

Did he have an effect on the election? Yes.

Would Kerry have won if he didn't run? No.

yes i know your OPINION. are there any FACTS to back it up? poll results?

on the whole Nader thing, I personally am of the opinion that there was a lot more point in voting for Nader than for Kerry, cos his policies were actually significantly DIFFERENT, ie not just phrased slightly differently...
... but I don't think that the independent vote drastically damaged the democrat vote, althouogh I haven't seen the stats...

WRONG!!!!! Iraq violated the Cease-Fire as well as UN Resolutions. Because of this, we had the obligation to go into Iraq and the authority to do so because of the violations of UN Resolutions as well as the Cease-Fire. As for Bush declaring war, all he can do is send troops in for 90 Days without Congressional Approval. After that, he needs their approval to keep'em there. That is the limit of his abilities. It was Congress, not Bush, that authorized the Use of Force on Iraq. As for not declaring war on us back, here's the reason why. WE HAD A CEASE-FIRE, no peace treaty. Just like we're still legally at war with North Korea. We never signed a peace treaty with them either.

If you have proof that states otherwise, provide it and I shall take a look at it.

The War Powers Act would never hold up in the Supreme Court, IMO.

Its something they say because they're bitter. Nader was a non-factor in this election as he was in the last one.


Nader got 9% of the vote in my state in the last election. Is that a non-factor? I think not. My state is Oregon note, and only went blue by 2,000 votes. In Florida, where 512 votes made the difference, I definitely think the blame goes to both the ballot and the splotchy dude (nader, if you don't know what he looks like).

We also went in there without the UN's consent. Being that we are a UN country and went against their rules, is a slap in the face to rest of the country. Thank you bush for hurting our reputation

We did have UN Authorization the minute the Cease-Fire was broken. We had UN Authorization when the UN Resolutions were broken. Its a slap in the face alright that the UN doesn't have the balls to back up there own friggin resolutions. The only time things get done is when the US takes the bull by the horn and does it.

Remember Bosnia? It wasn't UN Sanctioned either. What happened? Nothing. The US stopped the Genocide going on there thanks to Bill Clinton (Something I do praise Clinton on). Of course, we had full NATO backing but we did not have a UN Resolution! Why? China! that's why!

The War Powers Act would never hold up in the Supreme Court, IMO.

Its been used numerous times I believe.

Emm...my problem is not that he couldn't speak well, my problem was that he had no freaking idea what tribal sovereignty was.

He was totally spouting shit! Did you never have that experience when on an essay test you have to write an essay on something you have no idea about? That's what he was doing! COME ON. Don't you think our president should be somewhat intelligent??? It worries me that my IQ is higher than the president's.

Ok, so the President is supposed to be a walking encyclopedia?

Tribal Governments are not even an issue in most of the United States, the only reason I know anything about it is becuase I live in a state with lots of land being reservation land, and seeing the results of that policy, you could probably ask professors all along the East Coast and they would give you about the same answer.

Nader got 9% of the vote in my state in the last election. Is that a non-factor? I think not. My state is Oregon note, and only went blue by 2,000 votes. In Florida, where 512 votes made the difference, I definitely think the blame goes to both the ballot and the splotchy dude (nader, if you don't know what he looks like).

And Oregon went for Kerry AND Gore!

We did have UN Authorization the minute the Cease-Fire was broken. We had UN Authorization when the UN Resolutions were broken. Its a slap in the face alright that the UN doesn't have the balls to back up there own friggin resolutions. The only time things get done is when the US takes the bull by the horn and does it.

Remember Bosnia? It wasn't UN Sanctioned either. What happened? Nothing. The US stopped the Genocide going on there thanks to Bill Clinton (Something I do praise Clinton on). Of course, we had full NATO backing but we did not have a UN Resolution! Why? China! that's why!
Exactly, When we went into Bosnia and Grenada, there were reasons. what were the reasons to go into iraq? for bush and his daddy to get money from iraqi oil?

We also went in there without the UN's consent. Being that we are a UN country and went against their rules, is a slap in the face to rest of the country. Thank you bush for hurting our reputation

Well, as the League of Nations proved, any international organization, like the UN, is powerless without the US. Like it or not, but the facts support my statement.

Ok, so the President is supposed to be a walking encyclopedia?

Tribal Governments are not even an issue in most of the United States, the only reason I know anything about it is becuase I live in a state with lots of land being reservation land, and seeing the results of that policy, you could probably ask professors all along the East Coast and they would give you about the same answer.

No, but he is supposed to know more than a 14 year old freshman in highschool.

The only reason I know what tribal sovereignty is is because I know what tribal means, and I know what sovereignty means. Does that require a PhD?

No. It's common knowledge unless you are an illiterate hick.

Nader got 9% of the vote in my state in the last election. Is that a non-factor? I think not. My state is Oregon note, and only went blue by 2,000 votes. In Florida, where 512 votes made the difference, I definitely think the blame goes to both the ballot and the splotchy dude (nader, if you don't know what he looks like).

But it still went Blue so it did not have an effect in the overall scheme of things.

[QUOTE=West Pacific]Ok, so the President is supposed to be a walking encyclopedia?
QUOTE]
No but they should know a common term that deals with government, since, he is the head of one of the largest countries.

And Oregon went for Kerry AND Gore!

but florida went for bush by 512. i'm not solid on this issue, but maybe, just maybe, if nader hadn't run, 513 people would go with the next-most-left views; i.e. gore. maybe.

No, but he is supposed to know more than a 14 year old freshman in highschool.

The only reason I know what tribal sovereignty is is because I know what tribal means, and I know what sovereignty means. Does that require a PhD?

No. It's common knowledge unless you are an illiterate hick.

But can you define that, out of the blue, on national TV, when millions, wait, it is C-Span 2, hundreds of thousands of people are watching?

yes i know your OPINION. are there any FACTS to back it up? poll results?
Actually, there are facts...
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Even if every single vote for Nader went to Kerry, which is about as likely as you winning the lottery, it wouldn't have made a difference. Nader wasn't on the ballot in Ohio, and Bush's margin in Florida would have only been slimmed to about 350k votes. He wasn't on the ballot in Missouri, New Mexico's margin wouldn't have been covered, and the same with Iowa.

They would need marriage...if they were of opposite sex. Give them their own union, call it something other than marriage, and we'll be fine.


I agree they got "life partners" sounds kinda like a gay marriage concept to me. let's leave it alone all they really want is a tax break anyways.

But can you define that, out of the blue, on national TV, when millions, wait, it is C-Span 2, hundreds of thousands of people are watching?


Dude, stop trying to defend this. You saw it with your own eyes. The guy is stupid. S-T-O-O-P-I-D. And yes, I'm sure, if it rested on the fate of my country, I could.

but florida went for bush by 512. i'm not solid on this issue, but maybe, just maybe, if nader hadn't run, 513 people would go with the next-most-left views; i.e. gore. maybe.

Or it could go the otherway and Bush gets more votes. Not to mention if they hadn't called Florida while the Pandhandle was still voting, Bush probably would've gotten more votes too.

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

"He who sacrifices freedom for security is neither free, nor secure."
-- Benjamin Franklin

It is indeed unnecessary, and the Patriot Act II is even MORE dangerous (and permanent), and guess who wants to sign it into law..

Condi Rice??? She is not good she is actually horrible nice try though. You mean the economy that he destroyed in the first place? There are no terrorists in Iraq, well there are now, but thats only because we invaded, there were none before that. WOW HE ACTUALLY SERVED THE MEAL!!! STOP THE PRESSES RIGHT NOW! DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT? BUSH SERVED THE MEAL, HOLY CRAP, YOU WERE RIGHT, HE IS A GOOD PRESIDENT, SERVING SOME GRITZ AND MACORONI TO DYING SOLDIERS, HE IS A GREAT PRESIDENT! Thank you kind stranger for pointing out that George W. Bush slapped a spoon full of dehydrated apples on some soldiers tray.

no terrorists in iraq and you know this how? ohh thats right you don't just like a can't say that there were. so leave the ass monkey facts pulled out of the ass and stick to the argument in question. and just so you know there is a more than likely chance that there were terrorists in iraq.

And Oregon went for Kerry AND Gore!


yeah, obviously, and what was your point there? My point, is that in at least my state, Nader was a huge issue. In Florida, he won 97,488 votes, more than enough to put a legitimate man into the white house.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

he won 2 million votes overall for god's sakes! How is he a non-issue?

Exactly, When we went into Bosnia and Grenada, there were reasons. what were the reasons to go into iraq? for bush and his daddy to get money from iraqi oil?

Here we go with the War for Oil line! Not surprised that you dragged that up. However, we had ample cause to go in. Humanitarian reasons for one, crimes against humanity for another. Violation of UN Resolutions, Violation of the Cease-fire. All of these were reasons to go into Iraq.

Or it could go the otherway and Bush gets more votes. Not to mention if they hadn't called Florida while the Pandhandle was still voting, Bush probably would've gotten more votes too.

nader is far-left. dems are left. republicans are right. people who would have voted far left, having had their choice taken away, would probably not vote right. they would probably vote left.

but fair enough. and those poll results were in bush's favor. i guess if the people have spoken...

Well, as the League of Nations proved, any international organization, like the UN, is powerless without the US. Like it or not, but the facts support my statement.

But with the league of nations, we weren't the most powerful Militarily. Economically maybe but NOT militarily.

Violation of the Cease-fire.
when?

Here we go with the War for Oil line! Not surprised that you dragged that up. However, we had ample cause to go in. Humanitarian reasons for one, crimes against humanity for another. Violation of UN Resolutions, Violation of the Cease-fire. All of these were reasons to go into Iraq.
us going in there for 'humanitarian reasons' is like iraq invading us to remove the bloods and the cripts.

yeah, obviously, and what was your point there? My point, is that in at least my state, Nader was a huge issue. In Florida, he won 97,488 votes, more than enough to put a legitimate man into the white house.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

he won 2 million votes overall for god's sakes! How is he a non-issue?

Now which election are we talking about? The last one? Bush's margine of victory was more than 2 million votes. With the one in 2000, if Nader wasn't on the ballot, Bush probably would've gotten more votes as well as if the networks didn't call Florida for Gore while the Panhandle was still voting

us going in there for 'humanitarian reasons' is like iraq invading us to remove the bloods and the cripts.

?

Impossible to deligitimize his presidency! There just isn't anyway to do so. Don't give me the he won the popular vote line either. He lost the electoral college vote and that is the only vote that matters. Not to mention he won re-election in a walk and won both the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

UMMM if you lose the eletoral college vote you don't become president. simple as that what most americans can't seem to figure out/understand is that the popular vote does not elect a president it is used by the electoral college to assist in making a decision. look at all the presidents that had been placed in office without winning the popular vote you may be surprised by how many there were.

1. I've lived in a town with 5 miliary institutions at a time where I was as old as many of the younger military people and I became increasingly aware that the reasons for them being sent out where not clear and not parallel with the reasons they joined the military.

2. The current economy and the current job market.

3. All of his views... proposed, suggested and made appointments and signed laws relating to a women's right to chose and sex-ed in schools

1.kyoto
2.kyoto
3.kyoto

all the other reasons are pretty much states.. just gonna emphasise this one..

1.kyoto
2.kyoto
3.kyoto

all the other reasons are pretty much states.. just gonna emphasise this one..
Actually, you can't blame bush for this one. Every senator who voted on this, Republican or Democrat, voted against it, so it didn't even get to his desk...

UMMM if you lose the eletoral college vote you don't become president. simple as that what most americans can't seem to figure out/understand is that the popular vote does not elect a president it is used by the electoral college to assist in making a decision. look at all the presidents that had been placed in office without winning the popular vote you may be surprised by how many there were.

Bah! I knew something didn't look right there! LOL!!!! I ment Gore lost the Electoral Vote! I'll go back and edit that! Thanks for pointing that out to me!

1.kyoto
2.kyoto
3.kyoto

all the other reasons are pretty much states.. just gonna emphasise this one..

Kyoto would've done crap! Besides, it was never ratified by the US Senate.

Now which election are we talking about? The last one? Bush's margine of victory was more than 2 million votes. With the one in 2000, if Nader wasn't on the ballot, Bush probably would've gotten more votes as well as if the networks didn't call Florida for Gore while the Panhandle was still voting


Nader voters don't vote for Bush. There is a varying ladder of liberality. Bush is several rungs below Gore, who is 20 below Nader. My parents both voted for Nader in the last election, though they said they were fine with Gore. Florida would have gone to Gore in any case. 90,000 votes can't be wrong, and there aren't nearly that many in the panhandle. This four years would have been as boring and prosperous as the last eight. Not this political hell we have stumbled into, where it is uncool not to be politically minded. But wait, could that be a good thing?

He's republican

Nader voters don't vote for Bush. There is a varying ladder of liberality. Bush is several rungs below Gore, who is 20 below Nader. My parents both voted for Nader in the last election, though they said they were fine with Gore. Florida would have gone to Gore in any case. 90,000 votes can't be wrong, and there aren't nearly that many in the panhandle. This four years would have been as boring and prosperous as the last eight. Not this political hell we have stumbled into, where it is uncool not to be politically minded. But wait, could that be a good thing?

Actually, I'm studying Political Science. I had to change majors so I became a duel major in both Political Science and History. Next semester, I'm taking an American Presidency Class. It should be interesting.

He DIDN'T choke on that cracker :mad: oh the un-splendidness.

Fuckin right greendays american idiot sucks

Greenday flat-out sucks

BTW. If anyone says we went to Iraq for oil, they need to be shot...at least seven times.

Okay, I'm just going to say this, and I'm just being honest here:

I personally think all of you are stupid asses for arguing about this.

mm.. america produces 1/4 of the world's pollution.. and it is only one nation.. i think not ratifying it- even if its effects would have been minimal- was a terribly selfish and immoral act.. just wait until global warming smacks you in the face before doing anything- at least it is an attempt to do something, when practically the whole rest of the world signs it, does the government really think "ah, they are all gonna try and lower their emmission levels.. so, why don't we just keep ours up? the world can comensate.." :mad:

BTW. If anyone says we went to Iraq for oil, they need to be shot...at least seven times.

AAAAHHH!11!! SEVEN!

( sorry, had to )

Bah! I knew something didn't look right there! LOL!!!! I ment Gore lost the Electoral Vote! I'll go back and edit that! Thanks for pointing that out to me!

cool my work here is done. i have accomplished something for the day. LOL :p :D :cool:

BTW. If anyone says we went to Iraq for oil, they need to be shot...at least seven times.

why?

Okay, I'm just going to say this, and I'm just being honest here:

I personally think all of you are stupid asses for arguing about this.

YAYYYYY for some common sense. wait that makes me a stupid ass... ok i can accept that. :eek:

But I must compliment you all on how amusing you are.

mm.. america produces 1/4 of the world's pollution.. and it is only one nation.. i think not ratifying it- even if its effects would have been minimal- was a terribly selfish and immoral act.. just wait until global warming smacks you in the face before doing anything- at least it is an attempt to do something, when practically the whole rest of the world signs it, does the government really think "ah, they are all gonna try and lower their emmission levels.. so, why don't we just keep ours up? the world can comensate.." :mad:

Has brazil signed the kyoto agreement cause the last i saw they were still cutting down the rainforest (which produces a significant amount of the worlds oxygen) for more grazing land so that way more people can eat beef. i'm all for a cleaner environment but are you gonna convince all these jerk off's that are driving suv's to conserve or give a damn for the environment, nope cause humans are selfish and americans are the most humane people on the planet.

I hate Bush! He went to Iraq for oil! *Does Matrix style bullet dodging* Hey! :sniper: Die, Bush! :gundge: In any way!!! Ok, just reply this message with "I" if you hate Bush, "Not" if you don´t hate Bush, "No way" if you like Bush and you´re a JERK. :( I´m still depressed about the election....

...Yes...the election was indeed depressing...for some. Not all. Which I really think needs to be taken into consideration when people make these threads... It's rather pointless to give 100 reasons why Bush isn't cool, since not even I can think of 100 reasons why. I can think of maybe ten tops.

Here we go with the War for Oil line! Not surprised that you dragged that up. However, we had ample cause to go in. Humanitarian reasons for one, crimes against humanity for another. Violation of UN Resolutions, Violation of the Cease-fire. All of these were reasons to go into Iraq.

Under those same ideals we should already be invading the Sudan and helping those in the Darfur region. We've been pussy-footing around that for almost a year, maybe more. Bush has evaded that issue only until recently (last few months or so). The Sudan has little in profit basis for the US, while Iraq does, and regardless of whether we're actually there for oil or not, to the world that is what it looks like. The first things we secured were the oil fields. Maybe we're not really there for oil, but it looks that way. But Washington is not ready to jump on the Sudan to help those in need there like they jumped on Iraq, why? I want to know. If we can't go in there due to our thin spread of troops, then maybe we should be lobbying for support from the UN. Someone has to do something, since we're talking human rights and all.

Under those same ideals we should already be invading the Sudan and helping those in the Darfur region. We've been pussy-footing around that for almost a year, maybe more. Bush has evaded that issue only until recently (last few months or so). The Sudan has little in profit basis for the US, while Iraq does, and regardless of whether we're actually there for oil or not, to the world that is what it looks like. The first things we secured were the oil fields. Maybe we're not really there for oil, but it looks that way. But Washington is not ready to jump on the Sudan to help those in need there like they jumped on Iraq, why? I want to know. If we can't go in there due to our thin spread of troops, then maybe we should be lobbying for support from the UN. Someone has to do something, since we're talking human rights and all.

Congratulations, you've hit the nail on the head. Your right, we should be in Sudan right now. However, thanks to the French blocking any attempt to do so, don't expect it anytime soon. As for being in Iraq for oil, explain to me why we're still paying astronomical prices for gasoline? If we were in there for oil, doesn't it stand to reason that our prices would be very low?

Back to Sudan! We want the UN to do something about it because it is what the organisation is supposed to do. Help those in need. However, when nations like France and Russia and China block resolutions because it doesn't suit them, then it has rendered the UN useless. China blocked Bosnia when muslims were getting slaughtered. US and NATO stepped up and stopped it. That is just one example of the UN Failing to act. As for going into Sudan, to many nations rely on the word of the UN to do anything. The nations themselves could go into Sudan but they don't want to do that because they want UN Backing. They won't get it. As for lobbying, what do you think nations have been trying to do? They have been lobbying the UN but the UN, most notably France, isn't doing anything. It was a former French Colony so I say let the French deal with it if the United Nations don't want too.

Bush went to Iraq for oil.

All his other reasons for going, have been proven to be invalid.

1) There were no WMD.
2) The 911 commision found that Iraqs only involvement with Osama bin Laden was that Saddam turned down an offer to establish Taliban training camps in Iraq.
3) Iraq never attacked the US. They never even suggested attacking the US, "Opperation Iraqi Freedom" was not done in defense of the US.
4) Yes Saddam was a bastard, but there are many dictators out there that are just as bad if not worse, Uzbekistan(sp?) is rulled by just as bad a despot but they are members of The Coalition of the Willing. Bush doesnt care about dictators or morals he only cares about those who support him.

Other reasons that I dislike Bush:

1) He let Osama bin Laden (the man he swore to get dead or alive) go, and has expressed that he is not concerned about the capture of Osama.
2) His outright Orwellian style of making laws; clean air act (lowered emission standards), forest preservation bill (opened acres of protected forest for logging companies), and the Patriot Act (strips US citizens of many of their rights gaurenteed by the constitution).
3) His relaince on his "faith" as a political device, its despicable in my opinion.
4) His intcistence on being a moral, good citizen; he spent most of his youth as a drunk and used his parents political ties to get him out of legal trouble and Vietnam.

Im a Libertarian and i dont really like the democrats, because of their ties to the extreame left, i dont like the rebuplicans because of their ties to the religious right. But when it comes to politicians I try to judge the individual, not their party, and when I look at Bush I see nothing worthy of being the leader of the worlds most powerful nation.

Bush went to Iraq for oil.

Proof? You have none.

All his other reasons for going, have been proven to be invalid.

Let me see!

1) There were no WMD.
Still had the capacity to make WMD which violated the terms of the UN

Cease-fire as well as UN Resolutions.

2) The 911 commision found that Iraqs only involvement with Osama bin Laden was that Saddam turned down an offer to establish Taliban training camps in Iraq.

And stated that there was a meeting between Bin Laden reps and Iraqi intelligence. Also goes on to say that there was a report that Saddam offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and that Bin Laden turned them down.

3) Iraq never attacked the US. They never even suggested attacking the US, "Opperation Iraqi Freedom" was not done in defense of the US.

No but they have fired on our planes because we were patroling the No Fly Zone due to Operations Northern and Southern Watch to protect the Shi'ites in the South and the Kurds in the North! Granted no UN resolution authorized them!

4) Yes Saddam was a bastard, but there are many dictators out there that are just as bad if not worse, Uzbekistan(sp?) is rulled by just as bad a despot but they are members of The Coalition of the Willing. Bush doesnt care about dictators or morals he only cares about those who support him.

And yet, Clinton didn't do crap regarding Bin Laden. Sudan offered him up to us and he turned them down. Why? Also, the people of Somalia was willing to hand over the main man that we wanted! What did Bill Clinton due? Pull out. We could go on and on about this and both sides have enough ammunition to pound this to death so my advise is to agree to disagree and call it a day.

Other reasons that I dislike Bush:

Let me see!

1) He let Osama bin Laden (the man he swore to get dead or alive) go, and has expressed that his not concerned about the capture of Osama.

Ok true, however, we still have troops looking for him so I guess we're still on his trail.

2) His outright Orwellian style of making laws; clean air act (lowered emission standards), forest preservation bill (opened acres of protected forest for logging companies), and the Patriot Act (strips US citizens of many of their rights gaurenteed by the constitution).

Clean Air Act has made our air cleaner ironically enough! Lumber Companies have been planting trees which cleans the air and there are more of them then when they started so your 0-2 here. As for the Patriot Act, last time I checked, I can still 1) Denounce Bush and the government as long as I don't threaten him, 2) have the right to assemble 3) Right to protest, 4) Right to own a fire arm, etc etc etc.

3) His relaince on his "faith" as a political device, its despicable in my opinion.

That is your right but I for one am glad that he prays to God.

4) His intcistence on being a moral, good citizen; he spent most of his youth as a drunk and used his parents political ties to get him out of legal trouble and Vietnam.

And has repented for that. He straightened out his life and that is an accomplishment within itself. As for using his political connections to get him out of trouble, sorry dude but that is inaccurate. His father let him face the rap for a DUI and he paid the price for that. As for Vietnam, he served his country in the National Guard and thus wasn't called up.

Im a Libertarian and i dont really like the democrats, because of their ties to the extreame left, i dont like the rebuplicans because of their ties to the religious right. But when it comes to politicians I try to judge the individual, not their party, and when I look at Bush I see nothing worthy of being the leader of the worlds most powerful nation.

I don't like the democrats either which is why I'm hoping that the states can regain control of their party from the washington elite. As for the Republicans, I hope they get back to the center as well and that is coming from a republican. Good job on judging the individual and not a person's party. I wish many more will do that.

*Stands up cheering and clapping*

1. He's a good president
2. He's got balls
3. He's the type of guy you could have over for a drink
4. He's got balls
5. Who the hell says he wants to get rid of premarital sex?
6. We don't need gay marriage anyways
7. The patriot act needs to be reformed, but is a necesary evil
8. The Iraq war is very justifiable
9. He's got balls
10. American Idiot sucked. (Boulevard of Broken Dreams is good, though)

Screw that. 'He who gives up liberty for temporary security get niether'.

Bush sucks, he has no balls because he bends over for every corporate doner with more than $100, the Iraq war is only justified if you're a major shareholder in an American oil or armaments company, and he's cool with doing coke in college and getting a DWI, but he's sure quick to ramp up the 'War on Drugs' to an even higher pitch, not to mention his whole ignoring the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th amendments.

Are you sure you live in the US?

And stated that there was a meeting between Bin Laden reps and Iraqi intelligence. Also goes on to say that there was a report that Saddam offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and that Bin Laden turned them down.

So Osama refuses to cooperate with Saddam and it proves that they were working together? According to both of us neither one wanted to work together, my point still holds.

And yet, Clinton didn't do crap regarding Bin Laden. Sudan offered him up to us and he turned them down. Why? Also, the people of Somalia was willing to hand over the main man that we wanted! What did Bill Clinton due? Pull out. We could go on and on about this and both sides have enough ammunition to pound this to death so my advise is to agree to disagree and call it a day.

Clinton was ok domestically, but I always questioned his foriegn policiy. Besides this isn't about Clinton, its about Bush.

Clean Air Act has made our air cleaner ironically enough! Lumber Companies have been planting trees which cleans the air and there are more of them then when they started so your 0-2 here. As for the Patriot Act, last time I checked, I can still 1) Denounce Bush and the government as long as I don't threaten him, 2) have the right to assemble 3) Right to protest, 4) Right to own a fire arm, etc etc etc.

Ok, Im having trouple finding info on changes made to Clean Air Act post-2000 so I cant counter you on the first one. It doesnt matter if Lumber Companies do plant trees, they shouldnt be cutting them down in FEDERALLY PROTECTED forests. Lastly I said many rights not all, if accused by the right people you can be arrested without warrent, you are not allowed to know what you are being accused for, you can be held indefinitly without legal council; Thats fourth, and sixth amendment

You dont have a right to protest, you have freedom of speech and peacable assembly, thats different.

As for Vietnam, he served his country in the National Guard and thus wasn't called up.

He also went AWOL, more than once. Last time I checked that isnt considered serving your country.

Good job on judging the individual and not a person's party. I wish many more will do that.

Thank you. I try my best.

Screw that. 'He who gives up liberty for temporary security get niether'.

Nice Ben Franklin quote! However, last time I checked, we still have our liberties. Care to show me what liberties we lost?

Bush sucks, he has no balls because he bends over for every corporate doner with more than $100, the Iraq war is only justified if you're a major shareholder in an American oil or armaments company, and he's cool with doing coke in college and getting a DWI, but he's sure quick to ramp up the 'War on Drugs' to an even higher pitch, not to mention his whole ignoring the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th amendments.

Care to prove this? I'm really looking forward to seeing your proof of 1) the Iraq War and 2) ignoring the Bill of Rights! As for the DUI, and it was a DUI and not a DWI, yes there is a difference, he faced the music for it.

Are you sure you live in the US?

Are you sure you live in the US?

So Osama refuses to cooperate with Saddam and it proves that they were working toether? According to both of us neither one wanted to work together, my point still holds.

Never said that. Thanks for putting words into my posts. We know they talked. They probably didn't cooperate but I'm sure if we trace the money from 9/11 some of it will point to Iraq. Unless of course you have proof that no money from Saddam went to Al Qaeda to fund this. If you do then I'll take back this comment.

Clinton was ok domestically, but I always questioned his foriegn policiy. Besides this isn't about Clinton, its about Bush.

Your right, Clinton did well domestically but failed miserably when it came to foreign policy. Your right that this is about Bush however, when you level charges against Bush, Clinton is just as guilty and I will say as much.

Ok, Im having trouple finding info on changes made to Clean Air Act post-2000 so I cant counter you on the first one. It doesnt matter if Lumber Companies do plant trees, they shouldnt be cutting them down in FEDERALLY PROTECTED forests. Lastly I said many rights not all, if accused by the right people you can be arrested without warrent, you are not allowed to know what you are being accused for, you can be held indefinitly without legal council; Thats fourth, and sixth amendment

Only if your found to be supporting terror. There still needs to be proof of this so that a warrant can be issued. No matter which way you go, you still need a warrant to arrest someone and to tap his phone and only a judge can do that. So no, the Constitution has not been violated regardless of what the liberal left has said. As for the Lumber Companies, as long as trees are being planted for everyone they cut down, then I see nothing wrong with it.

You dont have a right to protest, you have freedom of speech and peacable assembly, thats different.

No its not different. It all goes back to Civil Rights and Liberties. A right to assemble peacefully is a synanem of a protest. Yea you need a permit and they're normally given. Its when these protests get out of hand is when you run into trouble.

He also went AWOL, more than once. Last time I checked that isnt considered serving your country.

Proof that he went AWOL? There is no proof of this.

Thank you. I try my best.

Your welcome. I'm glad we are having an intelligable debate with no cursing or insulting eachother. To bad there can't be more debates on here like the one we're haveing ;)

Nice Ben Franklin quote! However, last time I checked, we still have our liberties. Care to show me what liberties we lost?

Have you read the Patriot Act? Have you read the 4th Amendment? They are mutually exlusive.

Care to prove this? I'm really looking forward to seeing your proof of 1) the Iraq War and 2) ignoring the Bill of Rights! As for the DUI, and it was a DUI and not a DWI, yes there is a difference, he faced the music for it.

DUI (driving under the influence) and DWI (driving while intoxicated) are the same thing. It just depends on what state you're in.

When they set up that little summer camp in Cuba, and held those people without trial, and when he and his justice dept expanded the asset seizure policies in the drug war they shit on the 5th Amendment and 6th Amendments.

When they passed the Patriot Act and want tot the ability to easvesdrop on citizens for fishing expiditions they shit on the 4th Amendment.

But ignoring California's prop 215 and busting people who were legally using and cultivating pot for medical reasons according to state and local law the shit in the 10th Amendment.

Finally, his super duper death penalty policy and the 'torture light' they condone is a 8th Amendment violation.

Oh, yeah, Bushie has faced the music, when he lost his license for that DWI, or when he went AWOL from the National Guard, or when his multiple businesses failed. Ya, he faced the music of his Daddy Bush saying 'I'll bail you out, but try and do better next time.' I only wish I had to face music like that.

Are you sure you live in the US?

Yep. And I'm paying attention.

Have you read the Patriot Act? Have you read the 4th Amendment? They are mutually exlusive.

Have you? What provisions of the Patriot Act are so objectionable?

When they set up that little summer camp in Cuba, and held those people without trial, and when he and his justice dept expanded the asset seizure policies in the drug war they shit on the 5th Amendment and 6th Amendments.

All prisoners of war are "held without trial." Also, could I have a reference to these drug policies?

When they passed the Patriot Act and want tot the ability to easvesdrop on citizens for fishing expiditions they shit on the 4th Amendment.

Again, what provisions of the Patriot Act?

But ignoring California's prop 215 and busting people who were legally using and cultivating pot for medical reasons according to state and local law the shit in the 10th Amendment.

Again, reference?

Finally, his super duper death penalty policy and the 'torture light' they condone is a 8th Amendment violation.

The death penalty is cruel and unusual? By what standards? I would hold that the goal of justice is to make punishments appropriate to and fitting to the crime committed. The death penalty is the most severe penalty reserved for the most severe crimes.

Oh, yeah, Bushie has faced the music, when he lost his license for that DWI, or when he went AWOL from the National Guard, or when his multiple businesses failed. Ya, he faced the music of his Daddy Bush saying 'I'll bail you out, but try and do better next time.' I only wish I had to face music like that.

DWI: he was convicted and faced penalties.
National Guard: unproven (in fact, in my view, disproven, allegation).
The bailouts: Don't know enough about this to make a judgement. Do you have a reputable source where I can educate myself?

Congratulations, you've hit the nail on the head. Your right, we should be in Sudan right now. However, thanks to the French blocking any attempt to do so, don't expect it anytime soon. As for being in Iraq for oil, explain to me why we're still paying astronomical prices for gasoline? If we were in there for oil, doesn't it stand to reason that our prices would be very low?

We're at war, generally when you're at war and you're needing fuel to run tanks, ships, jets, rockets, missiles, etc etc etc., anything at this point that is moving our troops around, bringing them supplies, whatever. We're using a significant portion of fuel to practically negate the supplies that we're getting from Iraq at this point. And just recently gas prices did drop a significant .30 cents, at least in my area it did. Used to be almost 2.40 and now it is around 2.10 or less depending where you go. There's a reason for that, I forget exactly why, but it was on MSNBC and there was announcement about a surplus of fuel being the cause, and now they're going to lower production, which economically speaking will raise prices when the demand lowers. Idiots. So your prices will go back up, especially if we stay at war and what not.

Back to Sudan! We want the UN to do something about it because it is what the organisation is supposed to do. Help those in need. However, when nations like France and Russia and China block resolutions because it doesn't suit them, then it has rendered the UN useless. China blocked Bosnia when muslims were getting slaughtered. US and NATO stepped up and stopped it. That is just one example of the UN Failing to act. As for going into Sudan, to many nations rely on the word of the UN to do anything. The nations themselves could go into Sudan but they don't want to do that because they want UN Backing. They won't get it. As for lobbying, what do you think nations have been trying to do? They have been lobbying the UN but the UN, most notably France, isn't doing anything. It was a former French Colony so I say let the French deal with it if the United Nations don't want too.

Right, I am in total agreement that the UN is a pile of crap and I'm really really trying to give them the benefit of the doubt in hopes that maybe they'll start doing their damn job. UN unfortunately has proven to be useless. However, to be honest, I don't think the US should give a flying rat's crack what France thinks or any nation for that matter (well maybe China, only because they are big and a war with them would just suck). I'm sure without the UN, the US could form up an alliance among a few nations and get something done about the Sudan. Nations need to start realizing that if the UN won't do anything, then do it on your own. Screw France. I hear all sorts of things about France (such as their involvement with Iraq before we jumped in...something to do with a super cannon or something, not sure, it sounded better when my co-worker brought it up).
Then again, you're saying let the France should take care of it, but then you're also saying they are the reason the UN isn't doing anything, so that makes no sense. That would be like turning a blind eye to genocide. So if we can supposedly see the violation of human rights in Iraq, but can ignore the genocide in the Sudan, how does that make us look? "Hey you over there, all these horrible things are happening and you have oil, we'll help you", "but you over there, you're all dying and stuff from your government but you don't have anything we want, so we'll just let France handle it". That's basically what that looks like. Of course the world thinks we want Iraq's oil, whether we're really there or not for that reason doesn't really matter. It comes down to how we appear. The world isn't dug deep into US politics or diplomacy or whatever, they just look at what we do.

Anywho...if anyting sounds like harsh or like an attack, don't take it that way. Sometimes the way things are worded comes off wrong :P

Never said that. Thanks for putting words into my posts. We know they talked. They probably didn't cooperate but I'm sure if we trace the money from 9/11 some of it will point to Iraq. Unless of course you have proof that no money from Saddam went to Al Qaeda to fund this. If you do then I'll take back this comment.

The only evidence on money exchanging hands is US funding of Saddam and Osama, but that was in the 70's and we were after the commies so it seemed like a good idea at the time. It would be impossible to prove that Saddam gave money to Osama, but Osama didnt really need it he has his own sources for income, he still has connections to his family in Saudi Arabia. Its common sense that if Saddam and Osama weren't willing to work together on simple matters then they wouldn't they fund eath other, why would they fund each other when they have their own agendas for their money?

Only if your found to be supporting terror. There still needs to be proof of this so that a warrant can be issued. No matter which way you go, you still need a warrant to arrest someone and to tap his phone and only a judge can do that. So no, the Constitution has not been violated regardless of what the liberal left has said. As for the Lumber Companies, as long as trees are being planted for everyone they cut down, then I see nothing wrong with it.

It doesnt matter if you believe the constitution hasnt been violated, but the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay have not been informed of their charges and are not allowed contact with family members or lawyers, this is a clear violation of the constitutional rights of the US citizens being held there. I do realize that many of them are not citizens and do not get the same protections but some are and it is a violation against those people. I also realize that the US has done this before, with Japanese Americans in WWII. But just because we've done it before doesnt give us a valid reason to violate the rights of US citizens.

Proof that he went AWOL? There is no proof of this.

This is why I get tired of the internet, half the sources I look up say he did, the other half say he didnt. But so far your right I cant find offical documents mentioning him going AWOL. However, given the time, period joining the National Gaurd was the best way to "serve the country" without putting your self in the real danger of going to Vietnam.

Your welcome. I'm glad we are having an intelligable debate with no cursing or insulting eachother. To bad there can't be more debates on here like the one we're haveing ;)

Me too, its so hard to find people willing to try and defend their opinion intelligently. Its not a matter of a lack of intelligence out there, just to much laziness.

Have you read the Patriot Act? Have you read the 4th Amendment? They are mutually exlusive.

I have read the Patriot Act and so far, my life hasn't changed. I'm still able to speak out against the president, still able to say what I want to say, still have the right to assemble. As for the 4th amendment, you need a warrant to arrest people within the USA! If you don't have a warrant then you can't arrest anyone. As for illegal search and seizure, I can point to a prime example of this but I"m not going to since this is about Bush and not Clinton.

DUI (driving under the influence) and DWI (driving while intoxicated) are the same thing. It just depends on what state you're in.

Gee thanks for telling me the accranums. NO they are not the same thing. Look up the definitions of both. DWI is a much more serious charge than DUI.

When they set up that little summer camp in Cuba, and held those people without trial, and when he and his justice dept expanded the asset seizure policies in the drug war they shit on the 5th Amendment and 6th Amendments.

And all of those people that have been taken to Gitmo are people we halled off the field of battle. They are getting their court dates and being tried through military tribunals. So where is the violation there? If they're found innocent, they're released. Simple as that. So where is the violation?

When they passed the Patriot Act and want tot the ability to easvesdrop on citizens for fishing expiditions they shit on the 4th Amendment.

Still need a warrant.

But ignoring California's prop 215 and busting people who were legally using and cultivating pot for medical reasons according to state and local law the shit in the 10th Amendment.

California Prop 215 violated US Federal Law! Oops! I guess you forgot that!

Finally, his super duper death penalty policy and the 'torture light' they condone is a 8th Amendment violation.

Where the hell did this come from?

Oh, yeah, Bushie has faced the music, when he lost his license for that DWI, or when he went AWOL from the National Guard, or when his multiple businesses failed. Ya, he faced the music of his Daddy Bush saying 'I'll bail you out, but try and do better next time.' I only wish I had to face music like that.

it was a DUI not a DWI! As I said, look up the difference. As for AWOL, proof please? you still have not provided proof.

Yep. And I'm paying attention.

I guess you haven't been paying attention after all.

The only evidence on money exchanging hands is US funding of Saddam and Osama, but that was in the 70's and we were after the commies so it seemed like a good idea at the time. It would be impossible to prove that Saddam gave money to Osama, but Osama didnt really need it he has his own sources for income, he still has connections to his family in Saudi Arabia. Its common sense that if Saddam and Osama weren't willing to work together on simple matters then they wouldn't they fund eath other, why would they fund each other when they have their own agendas for their money?

Actually the US didn't really fund Osama Bin Ladin according to the 9/11 Commission report. As for it being impossible, it really isn't. Everything leaves a money trail. What's hard is finding it.

It doesnt matter if you believe the constitution hasnt been violated, but the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay have not been informed of their charges and are not allowed contact with family members or lawyers, this is a clear violation of the constitutional rights of the US citizens being held there. I do realize that many of them are not citizens and do not get the same protections but some are and it is a violation against those people. I also realize that the US has done this before, with Japanese Americans in WWII. But just because we've done it before doesnt give us a valid reason to violate the rights of US citizens.

And the prisoners at Gitmo are illegal combatants and are getting there day in court, a military one. Since they were taken off the field of battle, they don't have to be read their rights since they're not crooks though I'm sure some of them were anyway. If a US Citizen is down there and are caught in arms against us, they don't have to be read their rights. It is my opinion that if your caught in arms against your own country in support of another, then you forfeit your citizenship. As for Japanese Americans, we know now that what we did was wrong and admitted what we did was wrong.

This is why I get tired of the internet, half the sources I look up say he did, the other half say he didnt. But so far your right I cant find offical documents mentioning him going AWOL. However, given the time, period joining the National Gaurd was the best way to "serve the country" without putting your self in the real danger of going to Vietnam.

However, if your unit is called up, then you have to go!

Me too, its so hard to find people willing to try and defend their opinion intelligently. Its not a matter of a lack of intelligence out there, just to much laziness.

agreed!

Still had the capacity to make WMD which violated the terms of the UN

Anyone with a nuclear power plant as the capacity for WMD's. Define what you mean by capacity? Having actual plants designed to build the weapons, having the materials, what? The US has the materials, the capacity, as far as I know the facilities, and we're the only nation thus far to actually use a WMD on another nation...that's something to think on lol. But really, define what you mean by capacity.

And stated that there was a meeting between Bin Laden reps and Iraqi intelligence. Also goes on to say that there was a report that Saddam offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and that Bin Laden turned them down.

Also was reported that Saddam and Bin Laden were not on good terms. Bin Laden didn't like Saddam for all the pain he inflicted on certain groups in his country (specifically the people that lived in the are he decided to dry up). At the same time I don't think they hated eachother to the same extent as Bin Laden hates the US, but they were in no way friends, or allies, and had no intention of doing so. The two were enemies at one point so who knows really. Reports are useless if action isn't taken I guess.

No but they have fired on our planes because we were patroling the No Fly Zone due to Operations Northern and Southern Watch to protect the Shi'ites in the South and the Kurds in the North! Granted no UN resolution authorized them!

They have every right to with warning. We'd do the same thing to anyone who did the same to us.



Clean Air Act has made our air cleaner ironically enough! Lumber Companies have been planting trees which cleans the air and there are more of them then when they started so your 0-2 here. As for the Patriot Act, last time I checked, I can still 1) Denounce Bush and the government as long as I don't threaten him, 2) have the right to assemble 3) Right to protest, 4) Right to own a fire arm, etc etc etc.

Sure, to an extent. I know numerous people who were given warnings from the FBI because they outwardly denounced Bush. Patriot act basically allows the government to invade your privacy any time they think you may be up to no good. That's the basic idea of it. Someone could easily just say they suspect you to the FBI and you'd have things happen. It sucks, I like the idea of the Patriot act, but I think it desperately needs to be rewritten. They need define specifically what terrorist actions are and just really get it cleaned up. It's a lovely idea in to try to prevent disasters from happening, but it wasn't thought through when created.




I don't like the democrats either which is why I'm hoping that the states can regain control of their party from the washington elite. As for the Republicans, I hope they get back to the center as well and that is coming from a republican. Good job on judging the individual and not a person's party. I wish many more will do that.

I do the same usually. I like Arnold in Cali, he's doing an okay job. I like some Republicans, I just can't stand Bush, for reasons I won't bother getting into anymore because I'm tired of arguing about it and all, as are most people these days, nobody wants to argue lol. But yeah...anyyywho.

Oh yeah and as to all the discussion on the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act doesn't actually make any new laws or provisions, it makes dozens of alterations to old laws. Most of the Patriot Act reads something like this " As to Article XX, Section XX of (some law) change all instances of 'or' to 'and'. " and it goes on and on like that for several pages. This makes reading the actual Patriot Act very difficult for non-lawyers.

Patriot Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)

The first few pages are more clearly written, but go down about a fourth of the way and start reading, it makes little to no sense without a very good understanding of the law.

For all of you unsure of Bush's abilities as a president, here ya go:



http://media.ebaumsworld.com/sovereignty.mov


And a suitable drinking buddy isn't criteria for the guy who's running our country.
I wonder if he went to have a drink with Haloman before making that speech.

Anyone with a nuclear power plant as the capacity for WMD's. Define what you mean by capacity? Having actual plants designed to build the weapons, having the materials, what? The US has the materials, the capacity, as far as I know the facilities, and we're the only nation thus far to actually use a WMD on another nation...that's something to think on lol. But really, define what you mean by capacity.

He never removed the technology that can be used to produce WMD! His duel use facilities had the capacity to make one thing then can be turned around and make WMD! As for the US, we don't have any resolution against us to tear these down. Iraq did and they violated it. He had the capacity to rebuild his wmd when the sanctions were lifted.

Also was reported that Saddam and Bin Laden were not on good terms. Bin Laden didn't like Saddam for all the pain he inflicted on certain groups in his country (specifically the people that lived in the are he decided to dry up). At the same time I don't think they hated eachother to the same extent as Bin Laden hates the US, but they were in no way friends, or allies, and had no intention of doing so. The two were enemies at one point so who knows really. Reports are useless if action isn't taken I guess.

Your right! They didn't like eachother but then again, the enemy of thy enemy is thy friend. Sound familiar? They may not be on good terms but they both didn't like the US.

They have every right to with warning. We'd do the same thing to anyone who did the same to us.

Correct. I will give you this point.

Sure, to an extent. I know numerous people who were given warnings from the FBI because they outwardly denounced Bush. Patriot act basically allows the government to invade your privacy any time they think you may be up to no good. That's the basic idea of it. Someone could easily just say they suspect you to the FBI and you'd have things happen. It sucks, I like the idea of the Patriot act, but I think it desperately needs to be rewritten. They need define specifically what terrorist actions are and just really get it cleaned up. It's a lovely idea in to try to prevent disasters from happening, but it wasn't thought through when created.

How did they denounce him? It makes a difference in all reality. With me, I have to becareful in what I say in public because my dad is in the service. As for it to be rewritten, I can agree with you on that. It does need to be rewritten.

I do the same usually. I like Arnold in Cali, he's doing an okay job. I like some Republicans, I just can't stand Bush, for reasons I won't bother getting into anymore because I'm tired of arguing about it and all, as are most people these days, nobody wants to argue lol. But yeah...anyyywho.

LOL! I can understand that.

Actually the US didn't really fund Osama Bin Ladin according to the 9/11 Commission report. As for it being impossible, it really isn't. Everything leaves a money trail. What's hard is finding it.

We did fund him and put the Taliban in power in the 70's. The USSR was invading Afganistan to gain access to oil and natural gas. The CIA steped in and gave between 250-300 million to the Taliban in a combination of training/weapons/general funding. They turned back the Soviets, and the US promptly forgot about Afganistan and the Taliban. How much fo that money was left by the 1990's is debatable though.

We did fund him and put the Taliban in power in the 70's. The USSR was invading Afganistan to gain access to oil and natural gas. The CIA steped in and gave between 250-300 million to the Taliban in a combination of training/weapons/general funding. They turned back the Soviets, and the US promptly forgot about Afganistan and the Taliban. How much fo that money was left by the 1990's is debatable though.

WRONG!!! The Taliban came to power in 1995. How did we fund him? According to the 9/11 commission report, we didn't fund him. It was muslim charities that funded him. At least according to the 9/11 commission report. Your talking about the Mujahadeen (sp?) who came to power in the 80s after the Soviets were driven out.

Your right the Muja-whoever, both groups were run by Osama.

Your right the Muja-whoever, both groups were run by Osama.

Actually your wrong there again. It was during the Soviet-Afghan War that Al Qaeda actually got started. Muja-whoever was a term that 2 sides took. The one I'm talking about was the one that seized power in 1988 I think it was. I maybe wrong but in 1995-'96 area, the Taliban came to power.

Oh well either way, Im done for the night. It was cool debating with you.

Oh well either way, Im done for the night. It was cool debating with you.

Likewise! Feel free to contact me on any messenger service. I really did enjoy this with you.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&amp
Osama himself said he didn't collaborate with the USA :


Q: The CIA says there was a relationship with you during the Afghan-Soviet war.

[OBL fails to answer question]

Q: Going back to the previous question of you and the CIA and American support for the war against the Soviets . . .

OBL: This is misinformation by the Americans. Every Muslim the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology.

Ever since I can recall I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them. So what they say happened between them and myself is out of the question.



Bush went to Iraq for oil.

All his other reasons for going, have been proven to be invalid.
This is bad logic. Just because there were no WMDs does not mean that the decision to go to war was not based on the fact that we thought he had WMDs. It may mean that our decisions were based on bad intelligence, but not that the decision itself was made off something else.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&amp
Osama himself said he didn't collaborate with the USA :





This is bad logic. Just because there were no WMDs does not mean that the decision to go to war was not based on the fact that we thought he had WMDs. It may mean that our decisions were based on bad intelligence, but not that the decision itself was made off something else.

You are correct on both counts Kwangistar and can put it more eloquently than I could.

Your right! They didn't like eachother but then again, the enemy of thy enemy is thy friend. Sound familiar? They may not be on good terms but they both didn't like the US.

Sounds familiar because it is one of the most prominent foreign relation policies the US follows. Not everybody believes that. However, Bin Laden and Saddam were not on friendly terms. Saddam resented Bin Laden because he hated terrorists, even though in some ways he is one himself. He prosecuted hundreds of people in his own country for terrorist actions, or at least what he considered terrorist acts *shrugs* which is vague to some people I guess lol.

How did they denounce him? It makes a difference in all reality. With me, I have to becareful in what I say in public because my dad is in the service. As for it to be rewritten, I can agree with you on that. It does need to be rewritten.

I know one guy was very outward in his approach to Bush, this was about 3 or 4 months after the PA came about. He would say things like he hoped something bad would happen to him, often he eluded to basically Bush being impeached, but anyone could twist what he said to say something like "I hope a terrorist gets you" or "I hope you choke on another pretzel" for those who like the humor of his inability to eat. Regardless though, unless the guy is actually doing something like rallying people for his cause or buying weapons or whatever, words are just words. Talk is cheap. I think the Patriot Act is okay, I don't mind honestly if the government watches what I buy or what prescriptions I buy, but I do have a problem with them digging in my medical records or my computer, or hacking me, or whatever, anything that is really invading my privacy you know. A credit car is pretty much public once you swipe it anyway, the information travels all over the place, so I dunno.
I don't like forfeiting my rights for security. In fact, I haven't at any point felt that my safety was in jeopardy since 9/11. All the scares on TV, I just laugh. We're too driven by fear. You know what I mean? You can't really live if you're all afraid all the time. If s**t happens, it just happens, that's life, it happens. Not that I don't think we should be cautious about threats to the mainland, threats like 9/11 or something, but we shouldn't be running into locked bomb shelters whenever we get a scare. But yeah, rewrite the damn PA.

Sounds familiar because it is one of the most prominent foreign relation policies the US follows. Not everybody believes that. However, Bin Laden and Saddam were not on friendly terms. Saddam resented Bin Laden because he hated terrorists, even though in some ways he is one himself. He prosecuted hundreds of people in his own country for terrorist actions, or at least what he considered terrorist acts *shrugs* which is vague to some people I guess lol.

Yea it is vague to some people. We had a debate about that in our Great Debate in history class last week.

I know one guy was very outward in his approach to Bush, this was about 3 or 4 months after the PA came about. He would say things like he hoped something bad would happen to him, often he eluded to basically Bush being impeached, but anyone could twist what he said to say something like "I hope a terrorist gets you" or "I hope you choke on another pretzel" for those who like the humor of his inability to eat. Regardless though, unless the guy is actually doing something like rallying people for his cause or buying weapons or whatever, words are just words. Talk is cheap. I think the Patriot Act is okay, I don't mind honestly if the government watches what I buy or what prescriptions I buy, but I do have a problem with them digging in my medical records or my computer, or hacking me, or whatever, anything that is really invading my privacy you know. A credit car is pretty much public once you swipe it anyway, the information travels all over the place, so I dunno.
I don't like forfeiting my rights for security. In fact, I haven't at any point felt that my safety was in jeopardy since 9/11. All the scares on TV, I just laugh. We're too driven by fear. You know what I mean? You can't really live if you're all afraid all the time. If s**t happens, it just happens, that's life, it happens. Not that I don't think we should be cautious about threats to the mainland, threats like 9/11 or something, but we shouldn't be running into locked bomb shelters whenever we get a scare. But yeah, rewrite the damn PA.

I don't much about what your saying so I won't comment on it till I know more but the USAPA does need to be rewritten.

I don't much about what your saying so I won't comment on it till I know more but the USAPA does need to be rewritten.

I'll try to be more specific I guess. Talked about vagueness and I'm being vague myself :P. I was in a chatroom with the guy numerous times and he would very bluntly say things like "I'm surprised the man hasn't died from his stupidity". He never actually stated he would do harm to the President, but he had said things that he hoped harm would come to him and what not. He was like that for about three weeks and he received a call from the FBI, or at least someone who claimed to be the FBI, the knock it off or there would be consequences. I'm not sure what else he did outside of chat, but from what I heard he would go on and on about his hatred. Maybe that doesn't explain it well enough either, but I dunno. All I know is he recieved a call from the FBI (or posers, which would be odd I guess, but possible) telling him to knock it off.
Anywho...

10 reasons why Bush is bad President:

1) Patriot Act
2) Patriot Act
3) Patriot Act
4) Patriot Act
5) Patriot Act
6) Patriot Act
7) Patriot Act
8) Patriot Act
9) Patriot Act
10) Patriot Act
11) Gay Marriage banning

As long as Patriot Act isn't renewed, Bush is OK in my book to be president (even though he's still a moron). War in Iraq, lift of the assault weapons ban, and Pro-life are OK in my book as well, but gay marriange bans aren't. This is a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, NOT of the CORPORATIONS, by the CORPORATIONS, and for the CORPORATIONS. I want to see the rights of the PEOPLE restored.

You may laugh about this now, but when you end up in a prison indefinately without formal charges or jury trial, simply because you were suspected of being a terrorist, you will quickly understand my point.

I leave you with one final quote...
"He who is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither freedom or security" - Benjamin Franklin.

Sorry if I offend everybody on the face of the earth, but I do happen to believe in limited government and thus ,for the most part, President Bush. My only objections are Gay Marrage (let the states take care of it) and NCLB (more testing is not the answer). Saddam sucked, now he's rotting in the joint. Woot! Afghanastan was awesome, too. Patriot Act was pretty cool, it's just that Ashcroft was a creep. No socio-commie liberal hippie run massive federal government for me, no sir!

Sorry if I offend everybody on the face of the earth, but I do happen to believe in limited government and thus ,for the most part, President Bush. My only objections are Gay Marrage (let the states take care of it) and NCLB (more testing is not the answer). Saddam sucked, now he's rotting in the joint. Woot! Afghanastan was awesome, too. Patriot Act was pretty cool, it's just that Ashcroft was a creep. No socio-commie liberal hippie run massive federal government for me, no sir!

Limited governments tend not to run deficits or spend billions on wars. I'd contend that the government was smaller under Clinton. The tax cuts haven't reduced spending at all. They've just put us in red while we're spending it.

I don't get how the right says they feel more secure with Bush when he was the one who was president when 9/11 happened. Am I missing something here?

Sorry if I offend everybody on the face of the earth, but I do happen to believe in limited government and thus ,for the most part, President Bush. My only objections are Gay Marrage (let the states take care of it) and NCLB (more testing is not the answer). Saddam sucked, now he's rotting in the joint. Woot! Afghanastan was awesome, too. Patriot Act was pretty cool, it's just that Ashcroft was a creep. No socio-commie liberal hippie run massive federal government for me, no sir!

Limited government stepping in and micromanaging everything. The Patriot Act (and all that comes with it), No Child Left Behind, increased spending, just about everything getting larger, with less money to spend while we spend more of it. Limited? If you say so.

I'll try to be more specific I guess. Talked about vagueness and I'm being vague myself :P. I was in a chatroom with the guy numerous times and he would very bluntly say things like "I'm surprised the man hasn't died from his stupidity". He never actually stated he would do harm to the President, but he had said things that he hoped harm would come to him and what not. He was like that for about three weeks and he received a call from the FBI, or at least someone who claimed to be the FBI, the knock it off or there would be consequences. I'm not sure what else he did outside of chat, but from what I heard he would go on and on about his hatred. Maybe that doesn't explain it well enough either, but I dunno. All I know is he recieved a call from the FBI (or posers, which would be odd I guess, but possible) telling him to knock it off.
Anywho...

Well that's why then. Wishing harm is almost as bad as doing something, especially when it comes to the President of the United States. I'm not saying what the FBI did was right or wrong but if someone wishes harm on someone else... I can see the FBI doing that, them or the Secret Service! LOL! Now as for the phone call, I really don't think it was from the FBI in my opinion. I"m just guessing here but if he thought it was, then that person should call the FBI HQ to verify it. That is what I would've done. To many people love to make stinks out of something and he could also have been making it up too. I'm not saying he did, but it is a possibility from this end of the computer.

I don't get how the right says they feel more secure with Bush when he was the one who was president when 9/11 happened. Am I missing something here?

Because he took action! Bill Clinton did not! I really didn't feel safe under Clinton because of his lack of action during the terror attacks that took place under him whereas Bush went on the offensive when an attack took place against us.

Bush=55 million+ votes.

Clinton=47+ million votes

This means that Bush got more of the popular vote than Clinton
Even heard of population increase, increase in voter booths, online voting, and other new methods allowing MORE PEOPLE to vote? What matters in this case is the percentage. Which I don't know, so don't ask. I'm British, so I don't particularly care which fuckwit runs America, I just wish he wouldn't stop fucking up our country and politics in the process.

Bush never killed an unarmed kid (after setting fire to the kid's family's hut) in order to get a Silver Star.

Condeleeza Rice will make an excellent Secretary of state.
101,121 Deaths and counting!!! CONDI! CONDI! CONDI!

(Before you try and refute this I actually count human deaths, not US soldiers, and Condeleeza Rice was defacto Sec. of State. To the horror of most liberals, Colin Powell turned out to be a lame duck).

:headbang:

Bush never killed an unarmed kid (after setting fire to the kid's family's hut) in order to get a Silver Star.

I fear the day when you are trusted with any serious responsibilities.

I fear the day when you are trusted with any serious responsibilities.

Too late! I've killed about as many people (or perhaps a bit more) than John Kerry. And all I got was a stupid t-shirt.

101,121 Deaths and counting!!! CONDI! CONDI! CONDI!

(Before you try and refute this I actually count human deaths, not US soldiers, and Condeleeza Rice was defacto Sec. of State. To the horror of most liberals, Colin Powell turned out to be a lame duck).

:headbang:

Back this up with evidence!

Back this up with evidence!

Number of US soldiers killed:

"On Nov. 1 the official death toll stood at 1,121"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq

My count was a little off as I didn't accountfor November deaths (135) but that's what funny about death tolls, they never go down :p

Iraqi death tolls (less reliable I know but still even if the count is 50,000 off still appaling:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/


As for Condi being defcato Secretary of State read Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward... anybody caninfer that from his research.

Number of US soldiers killed:

On Nov. 1 the official death toll stood at 1,121

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq

My count was a littleoff as I didn't accountfor November deaths (135) but that's what funny about death tolls, they never go down :p

Already know this and I could've stated the death toll myself!

Iraqi death tolls (less reliable I know but still even if the count is 50,000 off still appaling:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

Frankly, I don't trust the iraqbodycount.net website. I don't see where they're getting their numbers. Casualties are all over the chart when it comes to Iraqis and it doesn't take into account the Foreigners (terrorists) getting killed as well as the Insurgents that are getting killed. Until we can sort out those numbers from the civilians, then maybe we can begin to get an accuarate count. Frankly, more people died in a single day in WWII and in Vietnam than have died in this whole war.


As for Condi being defcato Secretary of State read Planof Attack by Bob Woodward... anybody caninfer that from his research.

Hence the problem. Sorry but give me a better source than that.

Already know this and I could've stated the death toll myself!
Frankly, I don't trust the iraqbodycount.net website. I don't see where they're getting their numbers. Casualties are all over the chart when it comes to Iraqis and it doesn't take into account the Foreigners (terrorists) getting killed as well as the Insurgents that are getting killed. Until we can sort out those numbers from the civilians, then maybe we can begin to get an accuarate count. Frankly, more people died in a single day in WWII and in Vietnam than have died in this whole war.
Hence the problem. Sorry but give me a better source than that.

First off yes most people should know the death toll. Neither you nor I are special for knowing it.

Terrorist and insurgents still could not make up for those numbers, it simply isn't feasible. I do agree that those do add to the numbers, but the links provided have surveyed homes and done statistical anaylysis and comeout with those numbers, they are not bulletproof, maybe not even seaworthy... but they give an idea. The scale of this is approaching Vietnam it is still far from it yet snowballing occured in Vietnam and could occur in Iraq.

World War II may have occasionally killed more people in a day than the actual death tolls total in Iraq (namely the terror bombing of Dresden by America and the Atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but we are talking about totally different wars. The president declared victory after roughly 100 people died, we now have 10 fold the death count. Furthermore WWII was totally justifiable. In fact over justified war was not declared even when absolute evidence showed that Germany posed a world threat. It took America being attacked by an ally of Germany for us to go to war with them.

Don't you dare say Iraq attacked us. It is an elementary fact that Iraq never sponsored terrorism especially against America, many dictators kill their people daily and we do nothing... The one argument that could say Iraq sponsored terrorism is that they gave $10,000 to Palestinians who died at the hands of Israelis, including to suicide bombers. However, they gave the same amount to children whose parents were killed by Israeli tanks that demolished their homes. It was aide not sponsorship of terrorism.

Furthermore even if Iraq posed a nuclear threat at worst they were a threat to the Middle East as they never had ICBMs. Korea does, why do we not attack them... their dictator is just as crazy and hates the US too :D .

And we were never attacked by Iraq. Even if we wanted to claim that the nationality of the hijackers mattered, no case. There is no relation between Iraq and Al Queda, never was. If we wanted to attack a Middle Eastern country for 9/11 it should have been Sadui Arabia, but instead they received clearance to leave the country while all commercial airliners were grounded in the days following 9/11.

Ask any Poli Sci major and they will tell you Condeleeza Rice schooled Bush on Foreign Policy, thereby making her opinion count more in his mind than Colin Powell. Thereby making her defacto Secretary of State.

Ill start out with three, you can post up to lets say 6 reasons, (unless you have one that REALLY needs to be said that noone else knows)

1.Patriot act
2.Iraq war
3.Just being an arrogant bastard and listening to noone and trying to ban gay marriage.
I'll star with three.

1.Stole his name from Sienfeld.
2.Starts trite threads.
3.Never admidts when he is wrong, which happens more often than not.

First off yes most people should know the death toll. Neither you nor I are special for knowing it.

Though I do know the body count of our fallen soldiers, I also know what we're doing over there. I do know the good that we've done over there that doesn't make the news. I'm sure if you look up all the good news out of Iraq, I'm sure that you'll be surprised at just what is going on over there.

Terrorist and insurgents still could not make up for those numbers, it simply isn't feasible. I do agree that those do add to the numbers, but the links provided have surveyed homes and done statistical anaylysis and comeout with those numbers, they are not bulletproof, maybe not even seaworthy... but they give an idea. The scale of this is approaching Vietnam it is still far from it yet snowballing occured in Vietnam and could occur in Iraq.

Actually, it is feasible. Remember something, they were civilian clothing and thus could be mistaken as a civilian. Take away his gun and ammunition, that is exactly what you have. As for the homes, be advised that some of them were also used by terrorists and we were shot at from them and thus makes them a military target. If there were civilians there, then I fear for them, but I would rather destroy a building from where they're shooting at my nation's troops, then risk casualties by not attacking it. As for it snowballing to Vietnam...Doubtful, very very doubtful.

World War II may have occasionally killed more people in a day than the actual death tolls total in Iraq (namely the terror bombing of Dresden by America and the Atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but we are talking about totally different wars. The president declared victory after roughly 100 people died, we now have 10 fold the death count. Furthermore WWII was totally justifiable. In fact over justified war was not declared even when absolute evidence showed that Germany posed a world threat. It took America being attacked by an ally of Germany for us to go to war with them.

Dresden wasn't America, it was Britian. Nice try! As for two different wars, it is in some ways but not in others. Remember that we were also fighting an Ideology in both Germany and Japan during WWII! It most certainly was between the USSR and Nazi Germany. The President Declared victory when Saddam was taken out of power. That was only PHASE I!!! That mission was accomplished. The next phase was rebuilding Iraq. That is going on as we speak. Next step is elections. They will go on as scheduled. As for WWII being justifiable, how? He was shown as a world threat back in mid 1930s and the world, most notably Great Britain and France did nothing. As for declaring war. Look at our declaration of war. It was only on Japan, not Germany or Italy. It was only after they declared war on us did we declare war on them.

Don't you dare say Iraq attacked us. It is an elementary fact that Iraq never sponsored terrorism especially against America, many dictators kill their people daily and we do nothing... The one argument that could say Iraq sponsored terrorism is that they gave $10,000 to Palestinians who died at the hands of Israelis, including to suicide bombers. However, they gave the same amount to children whose parents were killed by Israeli tanks that demolished their homes. It was aide not sponsorship of terrorism.

If you want to get technical, they actually have attacked us but I'm not going to go down that road again. As for not sponsering terrorism, I guess you didn't get your copy of the 9/11 commission report. I guess you haven't heard whom he has sponsored. Yes he did sponser Terrorism and thus was an actual target in this war on terror.

Furthermore even if Iraq posed a nuclear threat at worst they were a threat to the Middle East as they never had ICBMs. Korea does, why do we not attack them... their dictator is just as crazy and hates the US too :D .

Your right we should attack Kim Jong Il. He needs to be taken down and he will sooner or later. As for Iraq being a nuclear threat. It would actually be a threat to the US! Don't forget that we have bases in Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain I think too. So yea, he would've posed a threat to us. And not just to us, but to our allies too such as Turkey.

And we were never attacked by Iraq. Even if we wanted to claim that the nationality of the hijackers mattered, no case. There is no relation between Iraq and Al Queda, never was. If we wanted to attack a Middle Eastern country for 9/11 it should have been Sadui Arabia, but instead they received clearance to leave the country while all commercial airliners were grounded in the days following 9/11.

There was relationship just not one on any solid ground. As for the Saudis, read the 9/11 commission report on that! It is spelled out clearly. Since I don't have my copy on hand, and I will again in 3 days, I can't tell you what page number or what it says.

Ask any Poli Sci major and they will tell you Condeleeza Rice schooled Bush on Foreign Policy, thereby making her opinion count more in his mind than Colin Powell. Thereby making her defacto Secretary of State.

Dude, I am a Poli Sci major! I changed my major when math was killing me for Meteorology. Not only that, but I'm going to be a duel major with my second major in History. Now I'm going to have to ask you for proof of this.

Bush looks cool in a flight suit. Kerry looked like a geek rustpicker in his Navy uniform.

I have read the Patriot Act and so far, my life hasn't changed. I'm still able to speak out against the president, still able to say what I want to say, still have the right to assemble. As for the 4th amendment, you need a warrant to arrest people within the USA!.

Your life hasn't chaged yet. Really? They do NOT need a warrant if they consider you a terrorist or 'enemy combatant'. Read Patriot again.



Gee thanks for telling me the accranums. NO they are not the same thing. Look up the definitions of both. DWI is a much more serious charge than DUI.

Only Federal law makes a distinction, and either way, it is still operating a motor vehicle while incapacitated by an intoxicant of any type.


And all of those people that have been taken to Gitmo are people we halled off the field of battle. They are getting their court dates and being tried through military tribunals. So where is the violation there? If they're found innocent, they're released. Simple as that. So where is the violation?

*ahem* I belive the 6th Amendment says 'speedy'. Some of those people in Gitmo have been there for more than 3 years. That's not what I call speedy.


California Prop 215 violated US Federal Law! Oops! I guess you forgot that!

Wow, do you not know what you're talking about. Congress only has the power to enforce law based on the 'interstate commerce clause'. Since there was no commerce taking place and that that activity had been voted on and approved by the voters, those peoples 10th Amendment rights wre violated. Federal law is not supposed to supplant state law. Renquist himself has said that state right is civil rights.

Work with me here people...

Wow, do you not know what you're talking about. Congress only has the power to enforce law based on the 'interstate commerce clause'. Since there was no commerce taking place and that that activity had been voted on and approved by the voters, those peoples 10th Amendment rights wre violated. Federal law is not supposed to supplant state law. Renquist himself has said that state right is civil rights.

Work with me here people...

Indeed. As of the mid-1990s, almost all environmental legislation has been rendered unenforceable by SCOTUS. Especially the Clean Air Act. Industry and the EPA have agreed (however unlawfully) to abide by the Act as if it were in force, for political reasons. But you can't hold anyone to it, because of the 10th Amendment and the decisions across 1995-1997.

The bureaucracy still marches on, though it has no legal soul. And no legal leg to stand on.

Though I do know the body count of our fallen soldiers, I also know what we're doing over there. I do know the good that we've done over there that doesn't make the news. I'm sure if you look up all the good news out of Iraq, I'm sure that you'll be surprised at just what is going on over there.
Actually, it is feasible. Remember something, they were civilian clothing and thus could be mistaken as a civilian. Take away his gun and ammunition, that is exactly what you have. As for the homes, be advised that some of them were also used by terrorists and we were shot at from them and thus makes them a military target. If there were civilians there, then I fear for them, but I would rather destroy a building from where they're shooting at my nation's troops, then risk casualties by not attacking it. As for it snowballing to Vietnam...Doubtful, very very doubtful.
Dresden wasn't America, it was Britian. Nice try! As for two different wars, it is in some ways but not in others. Remember that we were also fighting an Ideology in both Germany and Japan during WWII! It most certainly was between the USSR and Nazi Germany. The President Declared victory when Saddam was taken out of power. That was only PHASE I!!! That mission was accomplished. The next phase was rebuilding Iraq. That is going on as we speak. Next step is elections. They will go on as scheduled. As for WWII being justifiable, how? He was shown as a world threat back in mid 1930s and the world, most notably Great Britain and France did nothing. As for declaring war. Look at our declaration of war. It was only on Japan, not Germany or Italy. It was only after they declared war on us did we declare war on them.
If you want to get technical, they actually have attacked us but I'm not going to go down that road again. As for not sponsering terrorism, I guess you didn't get your copy of the 9/11 commission report. I guess you haven't heard whom he has sponsored. Yes he did sponser Terrorism and thus was an actual target in this war on terror.
Your right we should attack Kim Jong Il. He needs to be taken down and he will sooner or later. As for Iraq being a nuclear threat. It would actually be a threat to the US! Don't forget that we have bases in Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain I think too. So yea, he would've posed a threat to us. And not just to us, but to our allies too such as Turkey.
There was relationship just not one on any solid ground. As for the Saudis, read the 9/11 commission report on that! It is spelled out clearly. Since I don't have my copy on hand, and I will again in 3 days, I can't tell you what page number or what it says.
Dude, I am a Poli Sci major! I changed my major when math was killing me for Meteorology. Not only that, but I'm going to be a duel major with my second major in History. Now I'm going to have to ask you for proof of this.

The good we are doing out there is democratization. Read Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom (Get a summary here: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/%7Ehbr/articles/summer2003/fofreedom.htm). He says that democracy is impossible without liberty, backs it up well too. I don't care to go into details but a regime cannot lead to an effective democracy, no matter how much "good" they are doing (and I do not necessarily say that sarcasticly, they do do good, they also do bad though). Look what happened in the American and French Revolutions when soldiers were stationed in their hubs (Boston and Paris), tensions escalated.

I also was not saying that it is infeasible there would be that many misidentifications, of insurgents being civilians that is. I was saying that the sheer number of deaths cannot be accounted for by people who were shooting at us... am I to beleive that even if (assuming the counts are correct that 100,000 non US Soldiers, whether civilian or not) only 1 out of every 100 shots taken by those individuals killed a man? They can get as close as they want in civilian clothes and at close range 1 shot kills. (I admit this is a lame argument but roll with me here, I do not disagree that many insurgents are counted as civilians but you must also realize that smart bombs are only as smart as those who guide them.

Check out this site: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0402-10.htm

And before you flame me for posting Al Jazeera propaganda (which I admit I am posting) Search google for: US bombing of hospitals

Knowing that all propaganda has some truth behind it this is hard to refute, their are hospitals destroyed, Iraq nor terrorists have bombs to do what was done to those places. It doesn't matter if you are being shot at with an AK from a hospital, if that is the case you take over the hospital using the special training that General's always brag about. Bombing a hospital is a completely inhumane action and CANNOT be justified, ever.

The death tolls of American troops is following the same trend Vietnam did, the Domestic rift is even deeper than it was during Vietnam. The Pentagon's policy regarding legitimate targets is looser now which theoreticly would allow us to quell the uprising more easily, but up to this point it still is following the path. Until I see the looser targeting practices making a difference in how many people die I will proclaim this is Vietnam part 2.

The Dresden Terror bombing was thought up by a Brit but carried out by both: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

Furthermore, the fighters that strafed the highways leaving Dresden, killing any refugees who may have escaped the firestorms, which were hot enough to melt the brick of the church in the center of the city, the first night, or the carpet bombings of the Suburbs on the second night, were American Mustangs.

I never said we declared war, I said we went to war. I am not sure what that whole section was refuting, I simply said that WWII was a legitmate war, one that we had to fight for our Domestic Safety. Iraq posed no threat to our Domestic safety.

"My fellow Americans," Bush intoned May 1, 2003. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/speech.anniversary/) This is not saying we are now moving on to pacify Iraq, not saying we ill have 1000+ more soldiers dead. Bush also did not support "naiton building" is his 2000 presidential election (Flip Flop anyone?).

Furthermore US Military bases being at risk is not "The US being in danger." Screw abroad Military bases they are just a way for America to carry out it's America Project (PNAC, read about it here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm check out who signed it... It is Manifest Destiny reborn). Abroad Military bases arguably did serve as a deterant during the Cold War but are now useless and are a catalyst for the hatred of America which breeds terrorists. As for Kim Jong Il I agree he is a threat and needs to be dealt with, diplomaticly if AT ALL possible, and by diplomaticly I mean truly diplomaticly not feigning a resolution in the UN then taking the most drastic measure it allows at first sign of it not being carried out in full.

I am too a Poli Sci and History double major, I am also a trip major in Philosophy.

Your statements concearning the 9/11 Commission Report did intrigue me and I think I now will get a copy; I admit I never have read it.

(take the eyes out take the eyes out take the eyes out.)

sigh..where to start..i guess with that statement..maybe YOU don't need it, but they do..but alas i don't feel like arguing over this stuff again...
Alright, this gay marriage stuff must end. I'l settle this right here, right now.

Marriage is a religious thing. Religion is like a club. If Catholics don't want gay couples in their club, they don't have to let gay couples into their club, and there's no reason to force Catholics to LET gay people into their club. All Bush is doing is keeping gay rights activists from FORCING the Church to marry them. Gay rights activists have no right to force the Catholic church, or any church, into submission.

If you don't want your neighbor in your house, would you like it if the government forced you to let him in?

Besides, Civil unions are just as good as marriage.

By the way, I have no problem with homosexuality, but religious organizations have their fair share of rights, too, y'know.

The good we are doing out there is democratization. Read Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom (Get a summary here: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/%7Ehbr/articles/summer2003/fofreedom.htm). He says that democracy is impossible without liberty, backs it up well too. I don't care to go into details but a regime cannot lead to an effective democracy, no matter how much "good" they are doing (and I do not necessarily say that sarcasticly, they do do good, they also do bad though). Look what happened in the American and French Revolutions when soldiers were stationed in their hubs (Boston and Paris), tensions escalated.

Sorry, but I will trust what the military personnel are saying! They see the joy on the Iraqi faces everyday. Not going to deny there are problems, there are, but its mostly coming from the foreigners and I'm not talking about Americans. Saddam Hussein is a prime example of that. He lead his people into three wars and two of them he lost. Saddam did do some good but his people still suffered from his hand. As for the French and American Revolutions, you really can't use the French revolution but the American one you can. Yea tensions escalated but look at what happened to Boston. Boston had a massacre, a tea party, not to mention a blockade. Yea, tensions would rise there and when cannon appeared suddenly on a hill overlooking Boston, the British fled the city. LOL!!!

I also was not saying that it is infeasible there would be that many misidentifications, of insurgents being civilians that is. I was saying that the sheer number of deaths cannot be accounted for by people who were shooting at us... am I to beleive that even if (assuming the counts are correct that 100,000 non US Soldiers, whether civilian or not) only 1 out of every 100 shots taken by those individuals killed a man? They can get as close as they want in civilian clothes and at close range 1 shot kills. (I admit this is a lame argument but roll with me here, I do not disagree that many insurgents are counted as civilians but you must also realize that smart bombs are only as smart as those who guide them.

And those that created them too. They're not infallible. Never said it was. No technology is perfect. Civilians do die but there is a line. Was it on purpose or accident? Alot of the civilian deaths that have occured came at the hands of terrorists. Yes we have killed some but not intentionally. Also, don't forget that also, the Iraqi militia and police casualties have also been added to the civilian list and not within its own seperate list. So now you have to subtract the insurgents, police, and militia forces from that casualty number. I agree that the number is high regretably but you also have to take alook at who has been killed and were and how.

Check out this site: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0402-10.htm

And before you flame me for posting Al Jazeera propaganda (which I admit I am posting) Search google for: US bombing of hospitals

Here's a thought and something that probably slipped your mind. As I stated before, if they're shooting at me from there, bomb it. Under the Geneva Convention, it becomes a legal target to hit if its being used as shelter to fire on troops. Just like the insurgents using mosques to launch attacks from. They become military targets. Not saying its right but in the eyes of the GC, it does become a target if its being used to fire on troops not your own.

Knowing that all propaganda has some truth behind it this is hard to refute, their are hospitals destroyed, Iraq nor terrorists have bombs to do what was done to those places. It doesn't matter if you are being shot at with an AK from a hospital, if that is the case you take over the hospital using the special training that General's always brag about. Bombing a hospital is a completely inhumane action and CANNOT be justified, ever.

You do have a point but under the Geneva Convention, it becomes a legal military target. Sorry but that is what it states.

The death tolls of American troops is following the same trend Vietnam did, the Domestic rift is even deeper than it was during Vietnam. The Pentagon's policy regarding legitimate targets is looser now which theoreticly would allow us to quell the uprising more easily, but up to this point it still is following the path. Until I see the looser targeting practices making a difference in how many people die I will proclaim this is Vietnam part 2.

Sorry but I will disagree here. The casualty numbers aren't there for that. Look at the casualty rate per day in Vietnam compared to this. Now compare WWI, WWII, Korea, and Nam to Iraq. We're nowhere close to those numbers.

The Dresden Terror bombing was thought up by a Brit but carried out by both: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

So we were both wrong and right! :-p

Furthermore, the fighters that strafed the highways leaving Dresden, killing any refugees who may have escaped the firestorms, which were hot enough to melt the brick of the church in the center of the city, the first night, or the carpet bombings of the Suburbs on the second night, were American Mustangs.

Carpet bombing was standard practice in those days. Berlin, London, Tokyo, Yokohama, Hamburg, etc etc etc, were all carpet/firebombed. Remember, we didn't have precision guided weapons during that war. If we did, I'm sure that the civilian count would've been alot lower than it was.

I never said we declared war, I said we went to war. I am not sure what that whole section was refuting, I simply said that WWII was a legitmate war, one that we had to fight for our Domestic Safety. Iraq posed no threat to our Domestic safety.

My apologies! Misread your statement! LOL! As for posing a threat to domestic safety, that can be tossed up for grabs.

"My fellow Americans," Bush intoned May 1, 2003. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/speech.anniversary/) This is not saying we are now moving on to pacify Iraq, not saying we ill have 1000+ more soldiers dead. Bush also did not support "naiton building" is his 2000 presidential election (Flip Flop anyone?).

And we did prevail. The object when the war started was to oust Saddam Hussein from power. That was the mission object when it started, call it phase I. So yea, the mission was accomplished. Now, I have a question for you! Did you really think that it would be that simple? I knew when we took Baghdad as well as Tikrit that we were in for a long road. Ousting Hussein was the easy part. He also said "Major Combat operations in Iraq have ended." Yes that part was true. Major Operations were over. What came next was a series of operations using smaller groups of soldiers. Those were not major operations no matter how much the media tried to turn them into one. As for nation building, a terror attack will make you change your mind in a hurry. I'm sure if 9/11 didn't happen, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq rebuilding them.

Furthermore US Military bases being at risk is not "The US being in danger." Screw abroad Military bases they are just a way for America to carry out it's America Project (PNAC, read about it here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm check out who signed it... It is Manifest Destiny reborn). Abroad Military bases arguably did serve as a deterant during the Cold War but are now useless and are a catalyst for the hatred of America which breeds terrorists. As for Kim Jong Il I agree he is a threat and needs to be dealt with, diplomaticly if AT ALL possible, and by diplomaticly I mean truly diplomaticly not feigning a resolution in the UN then taking the most drastic measure it allows at first sign of it not being carried out in full.

Actually yes it does mean that the US is endangered. That is considered US Soil. If they were attacked, it means that the USA was attacked thus putting the US endanger. BTW, my dad is currently at one of our overseas bases serving his country. Your right, they did serve as a deterent during the Cold War but both sides knew the other would launch if they struck first hence why we never had a nuclear war. Mutually Assurd Destruction. Now I'll ask you another question, How are they useless? Be advised that we had the bases in Saudi Arabia because the Saudi Government wanted us there to protect them from Saddam Hussien. This pissed off Bin Laden because they didn't turn to him, they turned to us. As for Kim Jong Il, we are trying to deal with it Diplomaticly in 6 way talks with NK, China, Japan, USA, South Korea and Russia. Hopefully something can be resolved.

I am too a Poli Sci and History double major, I am also a trip major in Philosophy.

That explains your mentality :-p (did not mean that as a slam, I pick on all philosphy majors and pschy majors and sociology majors)

Your statements concearning the 9/11 Commission Report did intrigue me and I think I now will get a copy; I admit I never have read it.

Well I hope you find it an enjoyable read. To be honest, I haven't read all of it myself! I was half way through it when I left.

Your life hasn't chaged yet. Really? They do NOT need a warrant if they consider you a terrorist or 'enemy combatant'. Read Patriot again.


Nope my life has not changed at all. The only way my life changed was when I fail calculus and had to switch majors. Other than that, my life has been pretty much normal.


Only Federal law makes a distinction, and either way, it is still operating a motor vehicle while incapacitated by an intoxicant of any type.


No! If your caught drinking beer or anything else alcholic as you drive then your charged with DWI (Driving while intoxicated)! If your caught driving with no beer or anything alchol and failed the breathalizer or whatever test they do, then your charged with DUI(Driving under the influence)


*ahem* I belive the 6th Amendment says 'speedy'. Some of those people in Gitmo have been there for more than 3 years. That's not what I call speedy.


Does not apply to those removed from the battlefield. Care to try again?


Wow, do you not know what you're talking about. Congress only has the power to enforce law based on the 'interstate commerce clause'. Since there was no commerce taking place and that that activity had been voted on and approved by the voters, those peoples 10th Amendment rights wre violated. Federal law is not supposed to supplant state law. Renquist himself has said that state right is civil rights.

And under federal law which trumps state law, it is illegal to have marajuna regardless of reason.

Because he took action! Bill Clinton did not! I really didn't feel safe under Clinton because of his lack of action during the terror attacks that took place under him whereas Bush went on the offensive when an attack took place against us.

There's a huge difference between attacks on US soil in other countries and attacks on US mainland. Clinton was not obligated to take action, he very well could have and would have had probable cause, but because that is a matter of foreign relations and not a direct attack on the US, it is a bit different. Not that his failure to do anything was right, but it is a different beast. This is Bush's only good quality at this point. He acts. He doesn't think about his actions before hand, but he acts. That's better than nothing I guess. Now all we need is an actor who can think before, during, and after acting.

There's a huge difference between attacks on US soil in other countries and attacks on US mainland. Clinton was not obligated to take action, he very well could have and would have had probable cause, but because that is a matter of foreign relations and not a direct attack on the US, it is a bit different. Not that his failure to do anything was right, but it is a different beast. This is Bush's only good quality at this point. He acts. He doesn't think about his actions before hand, but he acts. That's better than nothing I guess. Now all we need is an actor who can think before, during, and after acting.

Oh he had more than probable cause. His failure to act was one of the main reasons why the military didn't like him. However, there is a flaw in your logic. An attack on an embassy or a ship that flies the colors of a nation is regarded as territory of said nation. Thus if that gets attacked, it is considered an attack on that nation. So yea, it wasn't just a matter of foreign relations but of self defense. As for Bush, I like the man. There are somethings I disagree with him on, but in this case, I support him. As for acting, I won't touch this one.

Didnt' read it all. Not going to either. But a few quick points.

1. The "meal serving" in Iraq for bush was just a quick photo op. The turkey wasn't even real.

2. The years Clinton won, there were more than 2 candidates. Look at the numbers and thats obvious. The other 20% in those went to other candidates.

3. Oil companies have made a killing over the past few years. I read an article with the CEO of exxon a few months ago. In it, he said "These are hard times for everyone". In the very next paragraph, it reported that Exxon had more than doubled it's profits over the previous year. And this isn't millions of dollars in more profit. Try about 6 billion. Also, their profits were up again this year as well by another 50%. Been awhile, so numbers aren't exact, but pretty close so you get the picture.

Here's a quick econmics lesson. Lets say your business model is set so that you get a certain % of profit on a product. Your product costs $1 currently. So you make 10 cents profit. Now, move that price to $2 and you now get 20 cents profit. Even if it cost you an extra 80 cents per product, you still end up making more money. And it's even better when you can blame the ones who raised it 80 cents on you for it, as nobody is going to care about the 20 cents.

4. Clinton couldn't have done anything. So quit trying to blame him. He would have been lynched for trying. As would have Bush if he had done anything before 9/11. Even after 9/11 he still only gets 50% support. If 9/11 had never happened, then no way he would have gotten support. If Clinton is to blame, then why did Bush do absoluetly NOTHING in the previous 9 months? It wasn't even an issue.

5. The only things Bush has done right are no brainers. Any president would have went into Afganistan. Although another president might have actually finished it.

Didnt' read it all. Not going to either. But a few quick points.

1. The "meal serving" in Iraq for bush was just a quick photo op. The turkey wasn't even real.

2. The years Clinton won, there were more than 2 candidates. Look at the numbers and thats obvious. The other 20% in those went to other candidates.

3. Oil companies have made a killing over the past few years. I read an article with the CEO of exxon a few months ago. In it, he said "These are hard times for everyone". In the very next paragraph, it reported that Exxon had more than doubled it's profits over the previous year. And this isn't millions of dollars in more profit. Try about 6 billion. Also, their profits were up again this year as well by another 50%. Been awhile, so numbers aren't exact, but pretty close so you get the picture.

Here's a quick econmics lesson. Lets say your business model is set so that you get a certain % of profit on a product. Your product costs $1 currently. So you make 10 cents profit. Now, move that price to $2 and you now get 20 cents profit. Even if it cost you an extra 80 cents per product, you still end up making more money. And it's even better when you can blame the ones who raised it 80 cents on you for it, as nobody is going to care about the 20 cents.

4. Clinton couldn't have done anything. So quit trying to blame him. He would have been lynched for trying. As would have Bush if he had done anything before 9/11. Even after 9/11 he still only gets 50% support. If 9/11 had never happened, then no way he would have gotten support. If Clinton is to blame, then why did Bush do absoluetly NOTHING in the previous 9 months? It wasn't even an issue.

5. The only things Bush has done right are no brainers. Any president would have went into Afganistan. Although another president might have actually finished it.

1) Your right it was a photo op but do you have proof that the turkey wasn't real?

2) Again your right. However, if he was as popular as he was now, he would've done better in the popular vote than he did.

3) They may be doing better but doesn't it stand to reason that it is based on the price of Oil per barrel?

4) He very well could've done something but all he did was launch cruise missiles at an abandoned terror camp and destroyed an asprin factory. He could've done something after the embassy bombings, KOBAR, USS Cole, the 1st World Trade Center bombing but he didn't.

5) As for Bush, we're still in Afghanistan and they just had their first elections. The job is still going on dude so don't say that another president might have finished it since the work is still going on.

Sorry, but I will trust what the military personnel are saying! They see the joy on the Iraqi faces everyday. Not going to deny there are problems, there are, but its mostly coming from the foreigners and I'm not talking about Americans. Saddam Hussein is a prime example of that. He lead his people into three wars and two of them he lost. Saddam did do some good but his people still suffered from his hand. As for the French and American Revolutions, you really can't use the French revolution but the American one you can. Yea tensions escalated but look at what happened to Boston. Boston had a massacre, a tea party, not to mention a blockade. Yea, tensions would rise there and when cannon appeared suddenly on a hill overlooking Boston, the British fled the city. LOL!!!
If you look at the French Rev the Storming of the Bastille could be seen as a response to Louis XVI placing troops in Paris. The Boston Massacre was a direct result of the stationing of the British troops in Boston. The detereoration from there is well known.

Sadam was certainly not a good person, though there are worse alive today.
I feel the truth in Iraq lies between the two stories, obviously soldiers are not killing women and children like in Vietnam. But there are significant difficulties in creating AND maintaining Democracy in a country like Iraq which has just come out of such an oppressive regime.


And those that created them too. They're not infallible. Never said it was. No technology is perfect. Civilians do die but there is a line. Was it on purpose or accident? Alot of the civilian deaths that have occured came at the hands of terrorists. Yes we have killed some but not intentionally. Also, don't forget that also, the Iraqi militia and police casualties have also been added to the civilian list and not within its own seperate list. So now you have to subtract the insurgents, police, and militia forces from that casualty number. I agree that the number is high regretably but you also have to take alook at who has been killed and were and how.
Police are civilians, when we create murder numbers in a year do we disclude officers who died in the line of duty? Different case but police should not have to fight against heavily armed insurgents. They should also not be controlled by a foreign power (whether directly or secondarly controlled), which the Iraqi police force is. They are there to carry out the will of the majority. While this is not the same as the will of the insurgents I can't beleive that Iraqis as a whole like the occupation, they may view it as a necessary evil but if they had control of the police forces I think things would be different with the way they operate.


Here's a thought and something that probably slipped your mind. As I stated before, if they're shooting at me from there, bomb it. Under the Geneva Convention, it becomes a legal target to hit if its being used as shelter to fire on troops. Just like the insurgents using mosques to launch attacks from. They become military targets. Not saying its right but in the eyes of the GC, it does become a target if its being used to fire on troops not your own.
You do have a point but under the Geneva Convention, it becomes a legal military target. Sorry but that is what it states.
The Geneva Convention has been thrown out when dealing with "The War on Terror," which is ridiculous because you cannot successfully declare war on anything but proper nouns (only excption is War on Communism but that was actually War on USSR) (But that is a different argument altogether. Bush has thrown out the convention when he sentenced terrorists to Guantanamo Bay and set up Military Tribunals instead of Trials to try them. I am certainly against this practice but hiding behind the Geneva Convention when you have thrown it out will not protect you from the far more dangerous Convention of Public Opinion (sorry for the lame bit there, couldn't resist).


Sorry but I will disagree here. The casualty numbers aren't there for that. Look at the casualty rate per day in Vietnam compared to this. Now compare WWI, WWII, Korea, and Nam to Iraq. We're nowhere close to those numbers.

American Deaths in Nam were roughly 1000 perday at war's peak and Just Under 50,000 total WWII was 292,131. Casualty rates in all American wars were roughly 3 to 4 times the death toll. Casualty rates in this war are much higher 10,000 official casualties and 1300 Deaths. thats 8 casualties per death. Either way more people have died so far as in a day in Vietnam. World War II is again a different story World War I killed about as many as Vietnam in total although was a shorter war so higher death rates per day= more people died in a day there than in Iraq.

As for total deaths if the numbers of Arabs to American deaths is to be believed (100 to 1... 100,000 to 1,000) then proportionately we have killed more than in Vietnam (where we killed at a 26 to 1 ratio). (In vietnam the POWS/MIA are missing in action though I do not believe this contributes that greatly to total deaths).

Sources:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/casualties_of_war.htm
www.antiwar.com/casualties



So we were both wrong and right! :-p
Certainly.


Carpet bombing was standard practice in those days. Berlin, London, Tokyo, Yokohama, Hamburg, etc etc etc, were all carpet/firebombed. Remember, we didn't have precision guided weapons during that war. If we did, I'm sure that the civilian count would've been alot lower than it was.
Most certainly but there was a fundamental difference in thought in those days, they felt that to bomb enemy cities would "destroy their will to fight." Americans often made daylight raids in order to minimize civilian deaths while putting themselves in a much more dangerous posistion... my how far we have come :( . Aside from that Dresden was an exception. An extreme case designed to show Western Dominance to the East.


My apologies! Misread your statement! LOL! As for posing a threat to domestic safety, that can be tossed up for grabs.
Apology accepted, and yes it can be debated but I believe that my side of the fence has more ammo on it than yours.


And we did prevail. The object when the war started was to oust Saddam Hussein from power. That was the mission object when it started, call it phase I. So yea, the mission was accomplished. Now, I have a question for you! Did you really think that it would be that simple? I knew when we took Baghdad as well as Tikrit that we were in for a long road. Ousting Hussein was the easy part. He also said "Major Combat operations in Iraq have ended." Yes that part was true. Major Operations were over. What came next was a series of operations using smaller groups of soldiers. Those were not major operations no matter how much the media tried to turn them into one. As for nation building, a terror attack will make you change your mind in a hurry. I'm sure if 9/11 didn't happen, we wouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq rebuilding them.
True, a terror attack should change the mind of a nation. But I would argue it turned it the wrong direction, it is quite clear from Al Qaeda tapes and documents that their goals is to end American Dominance abroad.
WE CANNOT BEAT TERROR, not without rethinking our global policy. We can no longer be the "International Policemen." Endoctrinating any country who opposes us with our ideals, a country must turn to democracy not have it thrust upon them, what is wrong with Revolution, we had to resort to it and we became the most powerful nation in the world?
American dominance abroad breeds hatred against America, bombing hospitals, no matter what the justification give Al Jazeera ammunition to breed hate in the Arab world. That leads to new terrorists. Even if we can convert every little Arab boy and girl in Iraq to the American ideal of democracy their is still their counterpart in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. who will be brainwahsed that the US is evil by their media.


Actually yes it does mean that the US is endangered. That is considered US Soil. If they were attacked, it means that the USA was attacked thus putting the US endanger. BTW, my dad is currently at one of our overseas bases serving his country. Your right, they did serve as a deterent during the Cold War but both sides knew the other would launch if they struck first hence why we never had a nuclear war. Mutually Assurd Destruction. Now I'll ask you another question, How are they useless? Be advised that we had the bases in Saudi Arabia because the Saudi Government wanted us there to protect them from Saddam Hussien. This pissed off Bin Laden because they didn't turn to him, they turned to us. As for Kim Jong Il, we are trying to deal with it Diplomaticly in 6 way talks with NK, China, Japan, USA, South Korea and Russia. Hopefully something can be resolved.
What I am arguing is that it shouldn't be considered US soil we no longer have a conceivable reason for having those bases apart from what is outlined in PNAC (see previous post for URL to site... Manifest Destiny in the 21st century :rolleyes: ) We are also in Saudi Arabia to protect our massive oil interests there, and no I am not one of those hippy no blood for oil types... it is vital to the US economy, but it can be carried out differently. The 6 way talks are fine but they are stagnated, there needs to be something new done, the 2 way talks Kerry was proposing would have resolved the conflict nicely, better yet the US should butt out and let SK and NK deal with it on their own, obviously do not allow a hostile takeover of SK by NK but we should not be at the peace table... more ammunition. By the way I have nothing but respect for your dad as he is doing something I would never have the courage to do and these comments are not condeming him; they are condeming the defunct system that sent him there.


That explains your mentality :-p (did not mean that as a slam, I pick on all philosphy majors and pschy majors and sociology majors)
Non taken, Philosophy majors are crazy :mp5:


Well I hope you find it an enjoyable read. To be honest, I haven't read all of it myself! I was half way through it when I left.

I definitely look forward to it. And as a closing thought I would like to admit, I do feel isolationism is the answer for America, at least in the first half of the 21st century. Not the sort of complete and blind isolationism leading up to both world wars, but certainly a much more passive stance than we currently take in world affairs. It may hurt our economy slightly short term but I feel it could end hostile feelings towards America and therefore contribute to an end of terrorism.

This includes a withdrawl of support from Israel by the way.

I would also like to add that the security limitations now on planes are shams. I can do more damage with a broken glass bottle (legal to take on planes) than a fingernail clip any day. Also I feel that 9/11 could never happen again as previous to that day people felt that if they were hijacked they would land somewhere in Maine and eventually be exchanged for palestinian refugees half a world away. 9/11 changed that as evidenced by the actions as the brave men on UA 93, and on the shoe bombers plane (I am sick of taking off my shoes to go through security too by the way, half the time you don't even have to do it :rolleyes: ).

If you look at the French Rev the Storming of the Bastille could be seen as a response to Louis XVI placing troops in Paris. The Boston Massacre was a direct result of the stationing of the British troops in Boston. The detereoration from there is well known.

I can buy this rational.

Sadam was certainly not a good person, though there are worse alive today.

True!

I feel the truth in Iraq lies between the two stories, obviously soldiers are not killing women and children like in Vietnam. But there are significant difficulties in creating AND maintaining Democracy in a country like Iraq which has just come out of such an oppressive regime.

Your right, it does lie in the middle. I'll agree with your second statement but give them credit, they're trying.

Police are civilians, when we create murder numbers in a year do we disclude officers who died in the line of duty? Different case but police should not have to fight against heavily armed insurgents. They should also not be controlled by a foreign power (whether directly or secondarly controlled), which the Iraqi police force is. They are there to carry out the will of the majority. While this is not the same as the will of the insurgents I can't beleive that Iraqis as a whole like the occupation, they may view it as a necessary evil but if they had control of the police forces I think things would be different with the way they operate.

Ok bad analogy. They do count but be advised that most of the ones that have been killed, were killed by terrorists and not by the Americans. I do agree that it could've been handled better and it is slowly changing. We just have to watch and see what transpires.

The Geneva Convention has been thrown out when dealing with "The War on Terror," which is ridiculous because you cannot successfully declare war on anything but proper nouns (only excption is War on Communism but that was actually War on USSR) (But that is a different argument altogether. Bush has thrown out the convention when he sentenced terrorists to Guantanamo Bay and set up Military Tribunals instead of Trials to try them. I am certainly against this practice but hiding behind the Geneva Convention when you have thrown it out will not protect you from the far more dangerous Convention of Public Opinion (sorry for the lame bit there, couldn't resist).

This is where I will disagree. It hasn't been tossed out. Military Tribunals are legal and since the people at Gitmo are alleged terrorists that were takin off the field of battle, they really aren't protected. The Geneva Convention covers soldiers from nations, not terrorists. Also, it protects militia ONLY IF they are wearing a badge identifying them as a unit or something that identifies them as being part of the militia. Since they weren't, they are not protected under the Geneva Convention.

American Deaths in Nam were roughly 1000 perday at war's peak and Just Under 50,000 total WWII was 292,131. Casualty rates in all American wars were roughly 3 to 4 times the death toll. Casualty rates in this war are much higher 10,000 official casualties and 1300 Deaths. thats 8 casualties per death. Either way more people have died so far as in a day in Vietnam. World War II is again a different story World War I killed about as many as Vietnam in total although was a shorter war so higher death rates per day= more people died in a day there than in Iraq.

Americans lost 400,000 in WWII. I don't have the numbers for WWI. So either way you look at it, we're nowhere near the casualties that they saw in Vietnam in Iraq.

As for total deaths if the numbers of Arabs to American deaths is to be believed (100 to 1... 100,000 to 1,000) then proportionately we have killed more than in Vietnam (where we killed at a 26 to 1 ratio). (In vietnam the POWS/MIA are missing in action though I do not believe this contributes that greatly to total deaths).

Actually, I think it does but as I said. the numbers are over the charts so there really is no way to get an accurate count.

Certainly.

:)

Most certainly but there was a fundamental difference in thought in those days, they felt that to bomb enemy cities would "destroy their will to fight." Americans often made daylight raids in order to minimize civilian deaths while putting themselves in a much more dangerous posistion... my how far we have come :( . Aside from that Dresden was an exception. An extreme case designed to show Western Dominance to the East.

I agree 100%

Apology accepted, and yes it can be debated but I believe that my side of the fence has more ammo on it than yours.

Again debateable but not worth the effort.

True, a terror attack should change the mind of a nation. But I would argue it turned it the wrong direction, it is quite clear from Al Qaeda tapes and documents that their goals is to end American Dominance abroad.
WE CANNOT BEAT TERROR, not without rethinking our global policy. We can no longer be the "International Policemen." Endoctrinating any country who opposes us with our ideals, a country must turn to democracy not have it thrust upon them, what is wrong with Revolution, we had to resort to it and we became the most powerful nation in the world?

We resorted to it because we actually had the capacity to do so. Most nations don't unfortunately.

American dominance abroad breeds hatred against America, bombing hospitals, no matter what the justification give Al Jazeera ammunition to breed hate in the Arab world. That leads to new terrorists. Even if we can convert every little Arab boy and girl in Iraq to the American ideal of democracy their is still their counterpart in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc. who will be brainwahsed that the US is evil by their media.

And if you want my opinion, the Arab Nations (most notably the nation that runs it), are guilty of inciting it! They could put a stop to it and some are trying. They know that not all Americans think the way Osama says we do and that is the messege we're trying to get across to them and failing in my opinion.

What I am arguing is that it shouldn't be considered US soil we no longer have a conceivable reason for having those bases apart from what is outlined in PNAC (see previous post for URL to site... Manifest Destiny in the 21st century :rolleyes: ) We are also in Saudi Arabia to protect our massive oil interests there, and no I am not one of those hippy no blood for oil types... it is vital to the US economy, but it can be carried out differently. The 6 way talks are fine but they are stagnated, there needs to be something new done, the 2 way talks Kerry was proposing would have resolved the conflict nicely, better yet the US should butt out and let SK and NK deal with it on their own, obviously do not allow a hostile takeover of SK by NK but we should not be at the peace table... more ammunition. By the way I have nothing but respect for your dad as he is doing something I would never have the courage to do and these comments are not condeming him; they are condeming the defunct system that sent him there.

Ok now state all of that and leave PNAC at the door. I don't buy it as an arguement or ammunition anymore than the UN Charter can be used as ammunition. We went to Saudi Arabia to defend them from Saddam Hussein. Here's a tip, we've pulled out of Saudi Arabia so can you explain how we're defending our so called oil interest since we're no longere there? And as for being at the peace table, we have to be there because if any hostilities break out, the US will get involved since we're still legally at war with North Korea. South Korea is too come to think of it. Also, I know you did not condemn him so your apology isn't necessary.

Non taken, Philosophy majors are crazy :mp5:

LOL!! Yes they are!


I definitely look forward to it. And as a closing thought I would like to admit, I do feel isolationism is the answer for America, at least in the first half of the 21st century. Not the sort of complete and blind isolationism leading up to both world wars, but certainly a much more passive stance than we currently take in world affairs. It may hurt our economy slightly short term but I feel it could end hostile feelings towards America and therefore contribute to an end of terrorism.

This may sound crazy but I can agree with what you say.

This includes a withdrawl of support from Israel by the way.

This maybe settled by all parties involved.

I would also like to add that the security limitations now on planes are shams. I can do more damage with a broken glass bottle (legal to take on planes) than a fingernail clip any day. Also I feel that 9/11 could never happen again as previous to that day people felt that if they were hijacked they would land somewhere in Maine and eventually be exchanged for palestinian refugees half a world away. 9/11 changed that as evidenced by the actions as the brave men on UA 93, and on the shoe bombers plane (I am sick of taking off my shoes to go through security too by the way, half the time you don't even have to do it :rolleyes: ).

Come join the club!

Oh he had more than probable cause. His failure to act was one of the main reasons why the military didn't like him. However, there is a flaw in your logic. An attack on an embassy or a ship that flies the colors of a nation is regarded as territory of said nation. Thus if that gets attacked, it is considered an attack on that nation. So yea, it wasn't just a matter of foreign relations but of self defense. As for Bush, I like the man. There are somethings I disagree with him on, but in this case, I support him. As for acting, I won't touch this one.

Your logic has just as much faults. Firstly, it isn't technically ours. It is land we are using in another nation. Embassies are no permanent. A nation can have the embassy shut down any time they want. They are offering a welcome mat to the US with an embassy. If an embassy is attacked, blown up, whatever, the US has the right to try to act, however we do not have the right to waltz into another nation any time we want and throw our power around, unless that nation deems it necessary. It is a huge matter of foreign relations. It's like if a Chinese embassy was attacked on US soil (just making this up mind you), and China suddenly wanted to send troops and start an investigation and wanted to do all the fighting and interrogating and what not by themselves, we'd sure as hell have a fit about it.
Throw another scenario at you. If we had an embassy in a nation where the majority didn't like us, and people blew down the building or something like that, attacked it, whatever, we have the right to ask the government of that nation to do something about it, to release to us any hostiges, any bodies, any whatever. We can ask that nation to take measures to ensure that those responsible are dealth with. But we can't just waltz in and attack people.
An attack on a ship is wayyyyyyy different than an embassy.
I don't deny his failure to act was a big no-no, but foreign policy/relations is extremely sensitive. If you want to keep allies, and make fewer enemies, you don't act bull headed and thrust your power around. You make compromises so long as they do not overly affect the American people or cause unnecessary problems.
But anyway...

Your logic has just as much faults. Firstly, it isn't technically ours. It is land we are using in another nation. Embassies are no permanent. A nation can have the embassy shut down any time they want. They are offering a welcome mat to the US with an embassy. If an embassy is attacked, blown up, whatever, the US has the right to try to act, however we do not have the right to waltz into another nation any time we want and throw our power around, unless that nation deems it necessary. It is a huge matter of foreign relations. It's like if a Chinese embassy was attacked on US soil (just making this up mind you), and China suddenly wanted to send troops and start an investigation and wanted to do all the fighting and interrogating and what not by themselves, we'd sure as hell have a fit about it.

Incorrect! An embassy and the land it sits on is considered territory of that nation. Therefore, by attacking it, its a direct attack against the said nation. Your right that embassies aren't permanent but for the most part they are unless they withdraw national recognition and leave. Therefore, it reverts back to the nation that was hosting it. If a US Embassy gets blown up, we have full right to attack whoever did it. If it was a nation that did it, then we have full and legal right to attack them because they attacked us. Now we're dealing with terrorists. They attacked us and we knew who was behind it and where he was at. We should've gone after him then because we had full reason to go after him when the Embassies were destroyed in Africa. As for the Chinese embassy, stray bombs do happen (Read up on the Bosnian Air Campaign as well as the Bombing of Tripoli! Stray bombs fell near if not on the grounds of China (bosnia) and France (Tripoli)). They was an investigation and it turned out to be a stray bomb but a dilerbate attack though is a different story. That is an act of war and it must be dealt with.

Throw another scenario at you. If we had an embassy in a nation where the majority didn't like us, and people blew down the building or something like that, attacked it, whatever, we have the right to ask the government of that nation to do something about it, to release to us any hostiges, any bodies, any whatever. We can ask that nation to take measures to ensure that those responsible are dealth with. But we can't just waltz in and attack people.

Iran Hostage Crisis! Right there the Iranian Government should've done something. I don't know much about it but then it was the civilians that did it. It was actual grounds to wage war because the Iranian government never really did anything but it ended when Reagan was elected President.

An attack on a ship is wayyyyyyy different than an embassy.
I don't deny his failure to act was a big no-no, but foreign policy/relations is extremely sensitive. If you want to keep allies, and make fewer enemies, you don't act bull headed and thrust your power around. You make compromises so long as they do not overly affect the American people or cause unnecessary problems.
But anyway...

But when 16 service men and women are killed, and the military on edge to attack someone and they don't....that is when foreign relations should've been tossed out the window. We knew who did it and what organization was responsible and where the head of that organization was at. We didn't do shit when it came to foreign relations to attack who did it.

Incorrect! An embassy and the land it sits on is considered territory of that nation. Therefore, by attacking it, its a direct attack against the said nation. Your right that embassies aren't permanent but for the most part they are unless they withdraw national recognition and leave. Therefore, it reverts back to the nation that was hosting it. If a US Embassy gets blown up, we have full right to attack whoever did it. If it was a nation that did it, then we have full and legal right to attack them because they attacked us.

It's still not the same as attacking US mainland. It's extremely sensitive. Regardless of whether it is considered US land or not, if an embassy is attacked, unless we know for certain that another nation was behind it, we can't waltz in and do what we want. Say a bunch of wackos blow up our embassy and they live in the nation where the embassy is at. Unless that nation is harboring those people, we really can't do anything about it. We can ask the nation to help us find the people behind it, sure, but unless we're asked to help, or the specific nation is found to be behind the attack, we're stuck waiting.

Now we're dealing with terrorists. They attacked us and we knew who was behind it and where he was at. We should've gone after him then because we had full reason to go after him when the Embassies were destroyed in Africa. As for the Chinese embassy, stray bombs do happen (Read up on the Bosnian Air Campaign as well as the Bombing of Tripoli! Stray bombs fell near if not on the grounds of China (bosnia) and France (Tripoli)). They was an investigation and it turned out to be a stray bomb but a dilerbate attack though is a different story. That is an act of war and it must be dealt with.

Woah, now we're attacking another beast of foreign relations here. We're talking a stray bomb, so technically an accident, one not intended to go that direction. That's not a deliberate attack. What we were talking before is deliberate, but if there is a war going on nearby and accidentally (assuming you can prove it an accident) the embassy is hit, that's not an act of war. If our embassy is sitting in China, and war breaks out in China with say Vietnam (making it up) and the US embassy is accidentally hit in a night bombing or something. That isn't war on us. That's an accident. It would be expected that whoever responsible would do best to try to pay for the accident, in some form or another, but we voluntarily left the embassy there knowing full well there was war. That's like a civilian walking outside when he knows there's a bombing raid going on. He gets hit, it's his fault. He wasn't a target, but he got hit by accident.

But when 16 service men and women are killed, and the military on edge to attack someone and they don't....that is when foreign relations should've been tossed out the window. We knew who did it and what organization was responsible and where the head of that organization was at. We didn't do shit when it came to foreign relations to attack who did it.

Foreign relations should never go out the window. That's how we get messes like we have now. You have to always consider those around you that are affected by your actions. We toss foreign relations out, we end up with more problems in the world.

I see what you are saying about taking action. I understand that. And yes Clinton effed up by not doing anything at all. However, the first thing to do was not start blowing things up. Unless there is a verifiable act of war, the military has to be held back. But if a nation were harboring criminals and refused to give them to us, we do have right to do something about it. So if a bunch of wackos attacked us, and we went through the steps with a nation saying "hey, we know they are here, please help us catch them so they can be dealt with" and they said "no, go away we don't like you" and refused, military action would be mandatory. War is always a last options, that's just how it has to be, or we'll forever end up in quagmires of political and military crap.

It's still not the same as attacking US mainland. It's extremely sensitive. Regardless of whether it is considered US land or not, if an embassy is attacked, unless we know for certain that another nation was behind it, we can't waltz in and do what we want. Say a bunch of wackos blow up our embassy and they live in the nation where the embassy is at. Unless that nation is harboring those people, we really can't do anything about it. We can ask the nation to help us find the people behind it, sure, but unless we're asked to help, or the specific nation is found to be behind the attack, we're stuck waiting.

It is the same. Under international law, an attack on an embassy is an attack against that country. That is what the International Law states. Under this, an Embassy is considered part of that nation's homeland, therefore an attack on it is an attack on the homeland of that nation.

Woah, now we're attacking another beast of foreign relations here. We're talking a stray bomb, so technically an accident, one not intended to go that direction. That's not a deliberate attack. What we were talking before is deliberate, but if there is a war going on nearby and accidentally (assuming you can prove it an accident) the embassy is hit, that's not an act of war. If our embassy is sitting in China, and war breaks out in China with say Vietnam (making it up) and the US embassy is accidentally hit in a night bombing or something. That isn't war on us. That's an accident. It would be expected that whoever responsible would do best to try to pay for the accident, in some form or another, but we voluntarily left the embassy there knowing full well there was war. That's like a civilian walking outside when he knows there's a bombing raid going on. He gets hit, it's his fault. He wasn't a target, but he got hit by accident.

No but alas, I was playing on your scenerio. Accidental or not, it could've been considered an act of war and under international law, it actually was. Look at the German sub attacks during WWI! Americans were killed aboard the Lusintania and we warned Germany and they stopped unrestricted warfare. They went back to it and killed a couple of more americans aboard another ship. Between that and various other factors, the US declared war on Germany and attacked. We were an innocent bystandered and got dragged into WWI. An accident can spark a war or a battle for that matter. Gettysburg comes to mind of an accidental engagement. Neither side planned it but it occured none the less. And walking outside in a middle of a bombing raid and he gets hit, he gets what he deserved for being stupid enough to do that.

Foreign relations should never go out the window. That's how we get messes like we have now. You have to always consider those around you that are affected by your actions. We toss foreign relations out, we end up with more problems in the world.

When it comes to national defense, it should. We tossed foreign relations out the window after Pearl Harbor for the most part. When a country is bent on war, you can't negotiate. When a nation is known to harbor terrorists and won't give them up...then they can be accused of abiting the terrorists thus making themselves a target. Afghanistan comes to mind as does Iraq.

I see what you are saying about taking action. I understand that. And yes Clinton effed up by not doing anything at all. However, the first thing to do was not start blowing things up. Unless there is a verifiable act of war, the military has to be held back. But if a nation were harboring criminals and refused to give them to us, we do have right to do something about it. So if a bunch of wackos attacked us, and we went through the steps with a nation saying "hey, we know they are here, please help us catch them so they can be dealt with" and they said "no, go away we don't like you" and refused, military action would be mandatory. War is always a last options, that's just how it has to be, or we'll forever end up in quagmires of political and military crap.

There was an verifiable act of war done by terrorists. That being a Declaration of War by Osama against the US and all the terror attacks committed by them from the 1993 WTC attack to the embassy bombings, to Kobar towers, to the USS Cole! All of these were acts of war and we knew who did it. Clinton did nothing but lob cruise missiles that did little damage. Now on to your statement about doing something if they're harboring criminals. You just made the case for Iraq and Afghanistan. Both nations have harbored terrorists and should've been dealt with alot sooner than 2003 and 2001 respectively.

The majority of Americans are brainwashed losers who voted for Bush coz god told them to. hahaha.

We hate bush cause he is opposed to our aims. One World Government

The majority of Americans are brainwashed losers who voted for Bush coz god told them to. hahaha. :upyours: Shaddap.

We hate bush cause he is opposed to our aims. One World Government

I'm opposed to a one world government!!!

The majority of Americans are brainwashed losers who voted for Bush coz god told them to. hahaha.

I could say the samething about the people who voted for Kerry but alas I won't because that would make me look immature.

The US killed in less than two years more than what Sadam has killed during 30 years. Come on man, do not lie to me and to yourself, we are suppose to be civilized, there is something called UN, there is something called the respect of the world. Just because you got some "smart weapons" you use tem. The famous deplomatic leaders around the world declared that the war on Iraq has made the world not safe. :rolleyes:

The US killed in less than two years more than what Sadam has killed during 30 years. Come on man, do not lie to me and to yourself, we are suppose to be civilized, there is something called UN, there is something called the respect of the world. Just because you got some "smart weapons" you use tem. The famous deplomatic leaders around the world declared that the war on Iraq has made the world not safe. :rolleyes:

HAHAHA!!! More civilians died in the atomic bomb of Hiroshima in one day than have been killed in this war! Don't lie to yourself. The UN does crap and everyone knows it. Saddam knew it which was why he ignored all 17 UN Resolutions. As for respect, the UN lost that and has taken a big credibility hit with the Oil For Food Scandal.

The US killed in less than two years more than what Sadam has killed during 30 years. Come on man, do not lie to me and to yourself, we are suppose to be civilized, there is something called UN, there is something called the respect of the world. Just because you got some "smart weapons" you use tem. The famous deplomatic leaders around the world declared that the war on Iraq has made the world not safe. :rolleyes:

Yes, we should all bow down and respect the UN - the organization that made it possible for Serbs to massacre people in death camps; the organization that made it possible for the Hutus to massacre the Tutsis; the organization that made it possible for the Sudanese government to massacre people in Darfur. The United Nations, to most people in the Third World, is synonymous with "ethnic cleansing" and "total ass-f**king*.

The UN has been responsible for, directly or indirectly, or stood by and watched even though they had the authority to intervene, more massacres than any nation in history.

Kofi Annan had the authority to stop the Rwandan massacre. He had Belgian "peacekeepers" under his authority in Rwanda. The Belgian commander begged to be allowed to stop the killing. And Kofi Annan, acting on his own authority, said that he had made a personal deal with the leader of the Hutus, and that under no circumstances were the peacekeepers to intervene.

On their way home, the Belgian peacekeepers cut the UN patches off their uniforms and threw them on the ground.

The UN is crap. The UN is a f*tard organization.

Yes, we should all bow down and respect the UN - the organization that made it possible for Serbs to massacre people in death camps; the organization that made it possible for the Hutus to massacre the Tutsis; the organization that made it possible for the Sudanese government to massacre people in Darfur. The United Nations, to most people in the Third World, is synonymous with "ethnic cleansing" and "total ass-f**king*.

The UN has been responsible for, directly or indirectly, or stood by and watched even though they had the authority to intervene, more massacres than any nation in history.

Kofi Annan had the authority to stop the Rwandan massacre. He had Belgian "peacekeepers" under his authority in Rwanda. The Belgian commander begged to be allowed to stop the killing. And Kofi Annan, acting on his own authority, said that he had made a personal deal with the leader of the Hutus, and that under no circumstances were the peacekeepers to intervene.

On their way home, the Belgian peacekeepers cut the UN patches off their uniforms and threw them on the ground.

The UN is crap. The UN is a f*tard organization.

I agree with you on most of this, but if the only other option is the US of A i'd rather have the UN. I mean, each time the US intervenes in a crisis, real or imagined\made up they manage to get a lot of people killed. Just take a look at Iraq. Its fucked up.

I agree with you on most of this, but if the only other option is the US of A i'd rather have the UN.

The only reason it's the US is because the rest of the world either doesn't really care if people are killing each other in some Third World backwater, or they don't want to spend the money to be able to project power.

In either case, if they are not willing to do something, then they have no room to complain when things don't work out their way.

Put it this way. If we go out to lunch, and I'm paying, don't complain about the food we end up eating, or where we eat. The moment that you start with your own cash, I'm sure you'll be happier with your choices.

Point of Fact: Under those conditions, the rest of the world should have no say in what the US does to defend itself.

I agree with you on most of this, but if the only other option is the US of A i'd rather have the UN. I mean, each time the US intervenes in a crisis, real or imagined\made up they manage to get a lot of people killed. Just take a look at Iraq. Its fucked up.
just ignore the gun nut, its easier that way

Yes, we should all bow down and respect the UN - the organization that made it possible for Serbs to massacre people in death camps; the organization that made it possible for the Hutus to massacre the Tutsis; the organization that made it possible for the Sudanese government to massacre people in Darfur. The United Nations, to most people in the Third World, is synonymous with "ethnic cleansing" and "total ass-f**king*.

The UN has been responsible for, directly or indirectly, or stood by and watched even though they had the authority to intervene, more massacres than any nation in history.

Kofi Annan had the authority to stop the Rwandan massacre. He had Belgian "peacekeepers" under his authority in Rwanda. The Belgian commander begged to be allowed to stop the killing. And Kofi Annan, acting on his own authority, said that he had made a personal deal with the leader of the Hutus, and that under no circumstances were the peacekeepers to intervene.

On their way home, the Belgian peacekeepers cut the UN patches off their uniforms and threw them on the ground.

The UN is crap. The UN is a f*tard organization.

(Applause)

Death to the UN!

Nope my life has not changed at all. The only way my life changed was when I fail calculus and had to switch majors. Other than that, my life has been pretty much normal.

looks like you failed American Government as well as English. I said 'yet'. That implies at some point in the future that is not now.


No! If your caught drinking beer or anything else alcholic as you drive then your charged with DWI (Driving while intoxicated)! If your caught driving with no beer or anything alchol and failed the breathalizer or whatever test they do, then your charged with DUI(Driving under the influence)

Hmm. Let me see, do I believe you, or the Cornell Law library? Hmm. I'm gonna go with Cornell. See, the differene here, again, is the difference between 'Federal', and 'State' charges. About 99.9% of the DWI/DUI charges and convictions are handled at the state level, and many states have very similar laws, just worded differently. So, the DWI you get in Texas could have the same wording as a DUI you get in Virginia. It's the same offence, it's just worded a little different in the state statutes. Another example would be some states have aggravated assault, while other states would call that 'assuslt with a deadly weapon' or 'injurious assult'. Again, there is a difference between state and federal. If you are caught driving intoxicated on a federal jurisdiction, like say, Washington DC, you would be charged under federal statues, not state ones. This isn't that difficult.


Does not apply to those removed from the battlefield. Care to try again?

Try the news once in a while there, Scooter. Jose Padilla was apprehended in Chicago. That's Chicago IL, not the Chicago, Afghanistan. Illinois is a state in the USA, although I hear that the Chicago Afghanistan has very good falafel.


And under federal law which trumps state law, it is illegal to have marajuna regardless of reason.

Once again, read carefully your Constitution. It says that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and that all powers not explicity mentioned in the Constitution are granted to the States and the people. Since all drug laws enforced by the federal government are based on enforcing the interstate trade. Since in California, there was no commerce, i.e. they were not selling the pot, and not shipping it across state lines, the Federal govt. had no jurisdiction. That's what the 9th Circuit court said. And that's most likely what the Supreme Court will come back with, since the most conservative judges and the Chief Justice are all big states rights advocates.

By the way, I got an A in Calculus.

I agree with you on most of this, but if the only other option is the US of A i'd rather have the UN. I mean, each time the US intervenes in a crisis, real or imagined\made up they manage to get a lot of people killed. Just take a look at Iraq. Its fucked up.

Take alook at Bosnia. It is more of a mess when the UN took that over.

(Applause)

Death to the UN!

I second the motion

looks like you failed American Government as well as English. I said 'yet'. That implies at some point in the future that is not now.

Actually I'm passing it and I passed it in high school too.

Hmm. Let me see, do I believe you, or the Cornell Law library? Hmm. I'm gonna go with Cornell. See, the differene here, again, is the difference between 'Federal', and 'State' charges. About 99.9% of the DWI/DUI charges and convictions are handled at the state level, and many states have very similar laws, just worded differently. So, the DWI you get in Texas could have the same wording as a DUI you get in Virginia. It's the same offence, it's just worded a little different in the state statutes. Another example would be some states have aggravated assault, while other states would call that 'assuslt with a deadly weapon' or 'injurious assult'. Again, there is a difference between state and federal. If you are caught driving intoxicated on a federal jurisdiction, like say, Washington DC, you would be charged under federal statues, not state ones. This isn't that difficult.

Just stating how the law defines it. Everywhere I turned its DUI. It is rare that a person is charged with DWI which is more serious than a DUI.

Try the news once in a while there, Scooter. Jose Padilla was apprehended in Chicago. That's Chicago IL, not the Chicago, Afghanistan. Illinois is a state in the USA, although I hear that the Chicago Afghanistan has very good falafel.

I do know where Chicago is dude. I also know where DC is, Pittsburgh is, NYC is, Sacramento is, SF is, LA is, Austin is, Miami is, and nearly every other major city in the US is at so don't insult my intelligence.

Once again, read carefully your Constitution. It says that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, and that all powers not explicity mentioned in the Constitution are granted to the States and the people. Since all drug laws enforced by the federal government are based on enforcing the interstate trade. Since in California, there was no commerce, i.e. they were not selling the pot, and not shipping it across state lines, the Federal govt. had no jurisdiction. That's what the 9th Circuit court said. And that's most likely what the Supreme Court will come back with, since the most conservative judges and the Chief Justice are all big states rights advocates.

Congress has the power to regulate commerece is the key. Marijuana is an ILLEGAL DRUG!!! Henceforth, any state that has this law is violating US Federal Law. US Federal Law trumps all state laws when it comes to what your talking about.

By the way, I got an A in Calculus.

Who cares!!

I second the motion
Do you mean the Building, the Ideal, or the Nations involved?

Do you mean the Building, the Ideal, or the Nations involved?

Death to the UN!!

just ignore the gun nut, its easier that way

Well, we could ignore the millions of dead in Rwanda put in the ground by Kofi Annan's consent.

But the stench makes that rather difficult, unless you live in a faraway Western country, or your morality on killing doesn't extend to people in the Third World.

I find an interesting racist connection between people who applaud the UN for letting the Hutus commit genocide and the same people who want black inner city people to give up their guns for paltry sums of money (while not asking the white suburbanites to do the same).

Originally Posted by BastardSword
Do you mean the Building, the Ideal, or the Nations involved?


Death to the UN!!

Answer the question dude! Stop dodging and answer.

Just stating how the law defines it. Everywhere I turned its DUI. It is rare that a person is charged with DWI which is more serious than a DUI.

Again, it depends on where, as statues can differ from state to state. I know it's a DUI in Viginia, and I know its a DQI in Texas for the exact same offence.


I do know where Chicago is dude. I also know where DC is, Pittsburgh is, NYC is, Sacramento is, SF is, LA is, Austin is, Miami is, and nearly every other major city in the US is at so don't insult my intelligence.

*ahem* You missed the point. Jose Padilla is being held by the military as an 'enemy combatant' after being arrested in Chicago for 'ties to Al Queda'. They thought he might blow something up, but they found no bombmaking materials or other things needed to do something nasty.



Congress has the power to regulate commerece is the key. Marijuana is an ILLEGAL DRUG!!! Henceforth, any state that has this law is violating US Federal Law. US Federal Law trumps all state laws when it comes to what your talking about.

Only if engaged in interstate commerce. If the people growing weed were not selling it(they weren't), were not transporting it across state lines (they weren't) and were complying with a local or state statute, then the Federal government did NOT have the jurisdiction to confiscate or arrest those people who were complying with their state law. I would like to point out that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me, not you, and that it is very likely, based on previous rulings by the current justices on the bench of the SCOTUS, that they will agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oh, and me, not you.

Answer the question dude! Stop dodging and answer.

Not dodging it at all. I find it funny your asking me this and not Roach-Busters since it was he that wrote it.

The UN is a worthless organisation that is rocked with scandals and has no efficency whatsoever. So its time to shut it down.

Not dodging it at all. I find it funny your asking me this and not Roach-Busters since it was he that wrote it.

The UN is a worthless organisation that is rocked with scandals and has no efficency whatsoever. So its time to shut it down.

Indeed. Anyone who thinks that the UN has done anything good since its inception (except perhaps the intervention in Korea, which was a US idea, and the first Gulf War, which was a US idea) has a farcical view of history.

It does not and has not prevented massacres. And even when its officials are given powers to act, they act in a way most calculated to produce the highest number of civilian casualties.

Remember Somalia? Want to see what happens when the US follows the UN's rules and tries to do things with its hands tied? 300,000 Somalis starve to death.

But I suppose that people that love the UN do so out of a wish for world government, and not out of any real evidence that the UN does anything except get people killed.

I've met people in Kosovo and in Rwanda who told me to my face that the last thing they want to see is a UN vehicle or a blue helmet. It's because they know that death follows soon after.

Again, it depends on where, as statues can differ from state to state. I know it's a DUI in Viginia, and I know its a DQI in Texas for the exact same offence.

Actually, I think it depends on what the cops want to assign it.


*ahem* You missed the point. Jose Padilla is being held by the military as an 'enemy combatant' after being arrested in Chicago for 'ties to Al Queda'. They thought he might blow something up, but they found no bombmaking materials or other things needed to do something nasty.


If he had ties to Al Qaeda then he deserves to be labeled as an Enemy Combatent. Just because they didn't find any bomb making materials is irrelevent. I do remember when the story broke and if they have evidence that he was planning it, then great. One less terrorist off the streets. That is all they need. Evidence that you are planning this. Just because there isn't bomb making materials found doesn't mean a thing. They probably do have evidence to point to him planning it and that is all they need.


Only if engaged in interstate commerce. If the people growing weed were not selling it(they weren't), were not transporting it across state lines (they weren't) and were complying with a local or state statute, then the Federal government did NOT have the jurisdiction to confiscate or arrest those people who were complying with their state law. I would like to point out that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me, not you, and that it is very likely, based on previous rulings by the current justices on the bench of the SCOTUS, that they will agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Oh, and me, not you.

We can go around this all day long and frankly, I really don't have time for it. The Federal Government had the right to do so because Marijuana is an illegal substance in the eyes of the law, regardless of state law. As for the 9th Circuit Court, I don't put ANY STOCk into their decisions because they are the most overturned court in the land.

Indeed. Anyone who thinks that the UN has done anything good since its inception (except perhaps the intervention in Korea, which was a US idea, and the first Gulf War, which was a US idea) has a farcical view of history.

It does not and has not prevented massacres. And even when its officials are given powers to act, they act in a way most calculated to produce the highest number of civilian casualties.

Remember Somalia? Want to see what happens when the US follows the UN's rules and tries to do things with its hands tied? 300,000 Somalis starve to death.

But I suppose that people that love the UN do so out of a wish for world government, and not out of any real evidence that the UN does anything except get people killed.

I've met people in Kosovo and in Rwanda who told me to my face that the last thing they want to see is a UN vehicle or a blue helmet. It's because they know that death follows soon after.

You contradicted yourself.
Anyone who thinks that the UN has done anything good since its inception (except perhaps the intervention in Korea, which was a US idea, and the first Gulf War, which was a US idea)

Right there proves that there is some good in that Organization. Sure it is not 100% perfect but that is more a saying about the other Countries involved. The UN itself is fine just the members aren't.

Indeed. Anyone who thinks that the UN has done anything good since its inception (except perhaps the intervention in Korea, which was a US idea, and the first Gulf War, which was a US idea) has a farcical view of history.

And the only reason why we were in Korea was 1) USSR boycotted the vote and 2) Taiwan, not China, was the permanent member on the Security Council. Something I think most people forget.

It does not and has not prevented massacres. And even when its officials are given powers to act, they act in a way most calculated to produce the highest number of civilian casualties.

I can see that and your right, it hasn't prevented massacres.

Remember Somalia? Want to see what happens when the US follows the UN's rules and tries to do things with its hands tied? 300,000 Somalis starve to death.

To well. My dad was really poed when we pulled out because of 18 military deaths. The marines were ready to take Mogadishu down to the foundations.

But I suppose that people that love the UN do so out of a wish for world government, and not out of any real evidence that the UN does anything except get people killed.

I don't want a world government that doesn't do shit. I want one that'll act in the best interest of humanity.

I've met people in Kosovo and in Rwanda who told me to my face that the last thing they want to see is a UN vehicle or a blue helmet. It's because they know that death follows soon after.

And that is a crime shame. I remember when the US took Baghdad. There was protests against the UN for not backing the Invasion. They will remember who assisted them in their time of need.

Flame, flame, flame, yadda yadda yadda.

I blame asylum seekers.

* munches on a pita pocket *

You know, I'm wondering how long it will take some people to realize that it's possible to say "Bush sucks" and "The UN sucks even more" in the same posting, and not be contradictory.

But, I'm getting the distinct feeling that people that feel Bush sucks think the UN is the best thing since sliced bread and the microwave oven.

The following verdicts have been handed down.

On the charge of Apathy Contributing to the Cause of Genocide, Murder and Erosion of Basic Human (not necessarily western) Rights, we find the UN:

Guilty.

On the charge of War Crimes committed against Sovereign States, Civilian Populations and Prisoners of War, we find the US:

Guilty.

Furthermore, you can add a few thousand years to the sentence of the US for it's very unique and immoral view of what constitutes "Defending itself".


But wait, all the above verdicts are struck from the register as this is just a daydream court. The International Criminal court and / or the UN may have been useful but alas, one isn't accepted by the US and the other IS the UN. Oh well, nice dream.

Actually, if anyone gets a chance there's an interesting little ditty by Pink Floyd called "The Fletcher Memorial Home" - has some reaallllyy interesting suggestions as to what to do with despots.............

* munches on a pita pocket *

You know, I'm wondering how long it will take some people to realize that it's possible to say "Bush sucks" and "The UN sucks even more" in the same posting, and not be contradictory.

But, I'm getting the distinct feeling that people that feel Bush sucks think the UN is the best thing since sliced bread and the microwave oven.
Bush sucks more than the UN. There I've said it. Happy :P

Do you mean the Building, the Ideal, or the Nations involved?

The building, the ideal, and the organization itself.

* munches on a pita pocket *

You know, I'm wondering how long it will take some people to realize that it's possible to say "Bush sucks" and "The UN sucks even more" in the same posting, and not be contradictory.

But, I'm getting the distinct feeling that people that feel Bush sucks think the UN is the best thing since sliced bread and the microwave oven.

LOL!!!! I do believe your right!

I second the motion

You are now officially one of my best friends. :)

The following verdicts have been handed down.

On the charge of Apathy Contributing to the Cause of Genocide, Murder and Erosion of Basic Human (not necessarily western) Rights, we find the UN:

Guilty.

And they are guilty of this unfortunately.

On the charge of War Crimes committed against Sovereign States, Civilian Populations and Prisoners of War, we find the US:

Guilty.

Inaccurate!! To constitute a POW, you have to be part of a militia with proper markings or a member of the army with proper insignia on. This will entitle you to POW status and all rights thereof. If you don't, tough! As for warcrimes against Civilians, what about Saddam Hussein? What about Melosivich? What about Tojo? What about Hitler? What about Stalin? They all committed crimes, real crimes, against Civilians. As for Civilians, did you know that if you use a hospitol or a school or a place of worship as a place to shoot at your enemy, that building can legally be destroyed?

Furthermore, you can add a few thousand years to the sentence of the US for it's very unique and immoral view of what constitutes "Defending itself".

Now you've really shown yourself to be anti-american and this post should be seen in that light.


But wait, all the above verdicts are struck from the register as this is just a daydream court. The International Criminal court and / or the UN may have been useful but alas, one isn't accepted by the US and the other IS the UN. Oh well, nice dream.

Get a better dream because the crimes your accusing the US of is just that, dreams. And the reason its only a dream is because we punish our own forces when they violate the USMJ as well as International Law.

Actually, if anyone gets a chance there's an interesting little ditty by Pink Floyd called "The Fletcher Memorial Home" - has some reaallllyy interesting suggestions as to what to do with despots.............

Great then lets inact them on Hussein and Melosavich.

You are now officially one of my best friends. :)

Thanks :)

Fear the world government, or any large bureaucracy or politician who says that they know what's good for you.

There's even a reason for Democrats to fear Hillary. So to think that making an organization larger makes it better, or one with more power is better, or that the UN is somehow morally and ethically pure because everyone belongs to it, is insane.

Coffee and Cujo Annan are very evil bastards. :mad:

Fear the world government, or any large bureaucracy or politician who says that they know what's good for you.

There's even a reason for Democrats to fear Hillary. So to think that making an organization larger makes it better, or one with more power is better, or that the UN is somehow morally and ethically pure because everyone belongs to it, is insane.
Glad you agree that everyone shiould fear Bush.
He says he knows what is good for you... actually its usually Evangical Christians who say that, but he is one too.

Glad you agree that everyone shiould fear Bush.
He says he knows what is good for you... actually its usually Evangical Christians who say that, but he is one too.

Funny thing is, I never heard him say that I know what is good for you.

Quite agree with you Corneliu, don't be so defensive. Didn't get around to the others, it's a busy court. The list was far from exhaustive - interesting to note it took people that long to mention milosevic by name. He probably deserved a mention earlier - and a place in the home....

Glad you agree that everyone shiould fear Bush.
He says he knows what is good for you... actually its usually Evangical Christians who say that, but he is one too.

It's not Bush I fear. But, I fear people and organizations with too much power. Because they aren't always going to do the things I think are right.

Too many people believe that "if only my party or candidate were in power" everything would be good and great in the world".

It is a lie that parents tell to their children.

I agree with a lot of what Bush has done, and I disagree with a lot of what Bush has done. I don't have the idea that he's "good" or "evil". As a person who thinks bisexuality is great, I'm sure Bush wouldn't like that. But, when it comes to other topics, I like his ideas. That doesn't mean I think he should be given carte blanche to do anything he likes (and you'll notice he doesn't have a 2/3 majority in each House, so that's out).

I think the surprise that a lot of Democrats would get is that if Hillary becomes President, they'll wake up to the revelation that they've elected a secular John Ashcroft in a dress.

-I find he abuses his power to benefit Christian organisations.
-Pushing for abstinence only education. Which in turn, I feel, increases the chance of divorce. Sex playing a good role in any strong relationship.
-His flip-flop attitude to gay marriage. Calling it a state issue before supporting an amendment to ban it.
A marriage can be defined in other countries as simply two people. Why not the US? Homosexuals don't choose to be how they are. Why not allow them to marry? I wouldn't care if a denomination refused to do them, that's not the case. On religious grounds, there are valid religions that are accepting, so that's out, if not already because not all are religious.
As far as I know, civil unions don't carry all the benefits of a marriage, so I really can't support it as much as equality.

-I find he abuses his power to benefit Christian organisations.
-Pushing for abstinence only education. Which in turn, I feel, increases the chance of divorce. Sex playing a good role in any strong relationship.
-His flip-flop attitude to gay marriage. Calling it a state issue before supporting an amendment to ban it.
A marriage can be defined in other countries as simply two people. Why not the US? Homosexuals don't choose to be how they are. Why not allow them to marry? I wouldn't care if a denomination refused to do them, that's not the case. On religious grounds, there are valid religions that are accepting, so that's out, if not already because not all are religious.
As far as I know, civil unions don't carry all the benefits of a marriage, so I really can't support it as much as equality.


Why should any government have any interest in marriage or divorce?

Canada did just fine without any government involvement in marriage until the 1950s.

Why define it at the government level?

We should keep laws regarding child support, child custody, and property settlement (obvious state interests), but religious (or non-religious) organizations should define their own marriages (or social partnerships, or whatever).

Governments that add civil unions, or further clarify marriage as being between "two persons" are just as backwards as the people who believe it's between a man and a woman. Why not polygamy? Or polygyny? Or group marriage?

Bush is a far-left fascist extremist. :mad:

Why should any government have any interest in marriage or divorce?

Canada did just fine without any government involvement in marriage until the 1950s.

Why define it at the government level?

We should keep laws regarding child support, child custody, and property settlement (obvious state interests), but religious (or non-religious) organizations should define their own marriages (or social partnerships, or whatever).

Governments that add civil unions, or further clarify marriage as being between "two persons" are just as backwards as the people who believe it's between a man and a woman. Why not polygamy? Or polygyny? Or group marriage?
Because to allow Polygamy would make the United States have to admit a mistake done back in the 1800's to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday SDaints when they banned it after the Church practiced it breaking the constitutional law.
You cannot make a law against a religion and so forth. So they forced the Church to renounce the practice to join with their state Utah to United States.
America is pig-headed and stubborn.