NationStates Jolt Archive

so are you for or against?
i would appriciate it if everyone could vote as im am using the results in a college project to gauge a mass public perception of G.W.

Thanks for your participation

The Constitutional Monarchy of Hudsonville

so are you for or against
Damn you for starting this thread. Damn you to hell. *scurries off to hide

against

1 2 3 4 theres gonna be a flame war

attracted to

Anti-Bush. I don't hate him as a man, but I do as a politician.

I like it. It's not quite a tree, it's not quite a weed, but something in between.

:sniper: Pro.... very Pro :mp5:

My wife shaves.

Pro.

If by pro-bush you mean Im pro-doingsomethingabouttheterroristbastardswhoareblowinguplittlekids

:sniper:

If by pro-bush you mean Im pro-doingsomethingabouttheterroristbastardswhoareblowinguplittlekids

:sniper:
yeah lets blow up little kids in Iraq instead so long as they're not americans. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

to be fair, i think he meant he supported bush in stopping iraqi children being killed innocently by dictatorship in iraq

I think Bush will go into the history books as one of the greatest Predidents.

If you are using the results of this ploe for a college project, remember it isn't a scientiific pole. Good luck with the project.

I think Bush is a very unintelligent man. Not a bad one, just not meant for politics.

I'm definitely anti- Bush. He has led our country to hell, and hasn't done much to stop the morass that is Iraq. And he hasn't even attempted to do anything about other terrorist threats. Iraq is his little war, and he obviously doesn't care if other terrorists exist as long as they don't involve themselves in Iraq or in America in a significant way. He made terrible decisions when this whole thing started, and frankly, I think someone else could have done much better.

God that felt good!

Very against

I'm radically anti-bush. I enjoy pissing off the like...7 republicans in my town.

pro very

If you are using the results of this ploe for a college project, remember it isn't a scientiific pole. Good luck with the project.

Thanks Celtlund

Anti

I'm definately anti-Bush, both for Iraq, AND for this abstinence-only bull shit he's trying to integrate into the schools. Does the term "separation of Church and State" mean nothing to this man?

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: As you can see, I can't stand him. He may be sincere, may EVEN be intelligent (for a Neanderthal, that is), but Dubya is a total loss, in my opinion.

I think Bush is a very unintelligent man. Not a bad one, just not meant for politics.

Agreed

I support the president.

He has guts, its seems like everyone forgets that day 9/11.

Some of the same people calling for blood then, are now bashing the president. I'm not saying everything was done 'properly' if there is such a thing in war. But c'mon WTF what would YOU DO????

The division in this country and lack of support for the president, NO MATTER WHO IT IS, is sickening, and sad. :(

Heeeeeey . . . wasn't it Bush Sr. who actually aided Saddam in the first place?

dissention is patriotic

I support the president.

He has guts, its seems like everyone forgets that day 9/11.

Some of the same people calling for blood then, are now bashing the president. I'm not saying everything was done 'properly' if there is such a thing in war. But c'mon WTF what would YOU DO????

The division in this country and lack of support for the president, NO MATTER WHO IT IS, is sickening, and sad. :(

I haven't forgotten, and neither has anyone else I know. However, I do not see how we are making an improvement by bombing the hell out of Iraqi civilians. Terrorists? Most of the people dying in that country are either the guys on our side, or innocent people who have nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam, Al Qeida, and whatever ELSE is slinking around the back alleys of Iraq.

dissention is patriotic

That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a while.

I think Bush will go into the history books as one of the greatest Predidents.

That is probably because you speak the same red-neck english. I am very anti-bush. I wish he would die. (puts on fake bush accent) I dun good diddint I daddy? where is there guns? fool me once... shames on mes, fool... ya cant fool them again.(end voice) The war was approached netirely wrong!

i really appriciate all the feedback, if people dont mind, i'd also liek to use quotes in my work, if anyone has a problem with me doing this just let me know and i wont use anything you say, thanks again

That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a while.

How so? It's actually quite true. If you look back on history, you'll realize that pretty much all of our freedoms come from a disagreement. We fought the English to rid ourselves of taxes and George III's greedy hands around our throats. Then we freed the slaves (sort of) after the "War between the States." Sound familiar?

I support the president.

He has guts, its seems like everyone forgets that day 9/11.

Some of the same people calling for blood then, are now bashing the president. I'm not saying everything was done 'properly' if there is such a thing in war. But c'mon WTF what would YOU DO????

The division in this country and lack of support for the president, NO MATTER WHO IT IS, is sickening, and sad. :(
he has guts? How does he have guts? Wow he showed disregard to the international community and said he can do what he wants, thats wonderful maybe next time he wont even have done it when he's completely wrong.

I dont get that. To me it sounds like you live in a dictatorship but you dont its a democracy where you dont have to fall in line and can question your leaders as much as you want. Disagreeing with the president how shameful. I mean what does he have to do for you to think that just maybe people souldn't agree with him?

Ps. I'm european (and yes I do like cheese thank you very much)

Uhhhhh . . . what does cheese have to do with anything? :rolleyes:

Not complaining; I love it, too!

Uhhhhh . . . what does cheese have to do with anything? :rolleyes:

Not complaining; I love it, too!
some crazy people call europeans (especially france) cheese eating surender monkeys

goes perfect with the whine...

I still fail to see an answer of what would you have done.
(this part is for anyone to respond to)

some crazy people call europeans (especially france) cheese eating surender monkeys
Well the French are for the most part.

Uh, okay . . . .

Lol, sorry; I'm not up-to-date on all the derogatory slurs.

People need to get lives, and stop hating.

to be fair, i think he meant he supported bush in stopping iraqi children being killed innocently by dictatorship in iraq

And instead kill them himself, through occupational forces. I recommend you read this. Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com).

I think Bush will go into the history books as one of the greatest Predidents.

Unless being a "predident" is a newly defined position that involves ruling a secular government in the name of religion, refusing to read newspapers, talking in empty slogans when interviewed and refuse to answer any questions inferring criticism or to acknowledge mistakes on his part, then no, I do not believe he will. Rather, I cherish the thought that if humanity still exists in twenty years, we will have recognized him and his entire administration for the fascist regime it is, have set his first election down in our history books as the greatest disaster to strike the United States and his reelection the greatest embarassment on the American people.

If you are using the results of this ploe for a college project, remember it isn't a scientiific pole. Good luck with the project.

It is neither scientiific nor a pole. It is most decidedly a poll, however, and whether it is scientific is subjective and depends on your intentions. For a clinical study, it would be useless. For a political survey, it is very useful.

These are the arguments contra: It samples a certain target group (politically interested young computer gamers), it is self-selecting (anyone who feels sufficiently strongly about it will vote), and it does not outrule fraud (though I suspect anyone sad enough to mess with a poll on an online forum needs help, and a life).

All these points are good arguments for it not being "scientific". However, from your post I induce that your main argument for calling it "unscientific" is none of these, but rather the unpalatable outcome. You would not have said it was unscientific if it had supported your views.

That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a while.

People who flock to a flag and a leader without question aren't patriots. They are called mindless idiots. Patriotic people help their country by standing up to it when it is in error.

Back in the thirties, round here a man could raise his right arm in the air and praise the leader to avoid being arrested, or he could get a bomb, strap it to his belly and try to blow himself and this leader up. Who was the patriot?

Well the French are for the most part.
really! french monkeys never heard of any outside of zoos!

really! french monkeys never heard of any outside of zoos!
They have betrayed the Truth with their surrender, do not doubt it.

Do I have to start posting libel against Americans on this board to even the score? I'll do it; what's sad is that I LIVE here. :(

I support the president.

He has guts, its seems like everyone forgets that day 9/11.

Some of the same people calling for blood then, are now bashing the president. I'm not saying everything was done 'properly' if there is such a thing in war. But c'mon WTF what would YOU DO????

The division in this country and lack of support for the president, NO MATTER WHO IT IS, is sickening, and sad. :(




Wow. Is there any point to that beyond lying and sucking on Bush's cock?

And what is this "forgetting about 9/11" bullshit? What would've I done? I dunno, Afghanistan was a good start. I wouldn't go into Iraq though.

You're the kind of idiot who would've spouted out nonesense about loyalty to the crown before the revolutionary war. Protest is patriotism, remember that.

They have betrayed the Truth with their surrender, do not doubt it.
which Truth? It wasn't really a choice, its not like they didn't fight they just lost, they didn't just shout "I surrender" when the germans set foot in france.

Think how I'm troubled. I have a US and a German passport. I grew up thinking of myself as American, not having to feel that shame when I learned history. Now I'm not sure anymore which shame I'd rather feel. But I'll go with the present here. Currently, I'm less ashamed to be German 60 years after the Germans caused sh*t, than I am ashamed to be American right now.

I really did not need that image in my mind, Goed Twee.

And Aerullin, don't blame yourself for crimes committed by your country before your time. You had no more part in it than Seosavists had in the invasion of France. It's in the past, boys and girls; the only people who are to blame are the people who were there at the time.

I really did not need that image in my mind, Goed Twee.

Don't watch Fox much, eh? :D




For the record, I dunno, I'm not too keen on bush. I mean, nicely trimed, no problem. But too much? Meh.

...Oh, and I don't like the president :p

I still fail to see an answer of what would you have done.
(this part is for anyone to respond to)
Well proper funding and troops to afganistan for one thing.
(if I bothered with it at all)Would have given the UN inspectors more time in Iraq, when they found nothing would have tried to gather some up to date intelligence. If I found out that the weapons where gone, then I wouldn't have enough justification to go to war. (no him killing his own people isn't considered enough)

Militantly pro-Bush. :sniper:

which Truth? It wasn't really a choice, its not like they didn't fight they just lost, they didn't just shout "I surrender" when the germans set foot in france.
They surrendered to the Jewish propaganda campaign, thus siding with Masons Roosevelt and Churchill. To this day, this "coalition of the wicked" of the USA, UK, and their slaves go around fighting wars for Jewish causes.

Don't watch Fox much, eh? :D




For the record, I dunno, I'm not too keen on bush. I mean, nicely trimed, no problem. But too much? Meh.

...Oh, and I don't like the president :p

LOL!

No, I'm not really a TV person; on occassion I'll turn on Discovery for Mythbusters, but that's about all.

Don't sound like the average American Teen, do I? ;)

LOL!

No, I'm not really a TV person; on occassion I'll turn on Discovery for Mythbusters, but that's about all.

Don't sound like the average American Teen, do I? ;)

That is really a travesty.

I mean, no Family Guy? :p

I really did not need that image in my mind, Goed Twee.

And Aerullin, don't blame yourself for crimes committed by your country before your time. You had no more part in it than Seosavists had in the invasion of France. It's in the past, boys and girls; the only people who are to blame are the people who were there at the time.
*sirens* Oh no someone thinks I'm British. :D
I'm Irish by the way.

Wow. Is there any point to that beyond lying and sucking on Bush's cock?

And what is this "forgetting about 9/11" bullshit? What would've I done? I dunno, Afghanistan was a good start. I wouldn't go into Iraq though.

You're the kind of idiot who would've spouted out nonesense about loyalty to the crown before the revolutionary war. Protest is patriotism, remember that.

I said nothing negative about you. I surely don't suck cock, and am surely not an idiot. HATER.

They surrendered to the Jewish propaganda campaign, thus siding with Masons Roosevelt and Churchill. To this day, this "coalition of the wicked" of the USA, UK, and their slaves go around fighting wars for Jewish causes.

What?

You know, I read this very interesting story about a man with views similar to yours. It's called The Rubber Room, by Robert Bloch. Very good read for any who enjoy twisted realistic horror.

*sirens* Oh no someone thinks I'm British. :D
I'm Irish by the way.

Sowwie; I heard the negative comments aimed at you and your response, so I kinda assumed you were French. *sheepish grin*

That is really a travesty.

I mean, no Family Guy? :p

I didn't say THAT; I just wait until eleven when comes on Cartoon Network.

Glad to meet another fan. ^______^

I said nothing negative about you.
So? I said something negative about you, because you're little more then a deaf horse with his blinders on, staring at Bush's rabbit and chasing it.

I surely don't suck cock,
Metaphorically chief. I meant metaphorically.

and am surely not an idiot.
That one's debatable. By the way, might you try responding to my actual points? Or will you just ignore this post like you ignored the LAST time you posted and I made very similer comments?

HATER.
Oh please, I don't hate you. You're not nearly that important to me.

That's the most retarded thing I've heard in a while.
I agree. "Dissention" is not even a word, is it?

They surrendered to the Jewish propaganda campaign, thus siding with Masons Roosevelt and Churchill. To this day, this "coalition of the wicked" of the USA, UK, and their slaves go around fighting wars for Jewish causes.

Please bear in mind that to accuse an ethnic group or a religion is almost always going to end in a mistake, whatever the situation. So while I do think Sharon is a militant idiot, I would advise anyone thinking likewise to criticize "Israel", not "the Jews". The former is justifiable criticism, the latter verges on anti-semitism (though Sharon's propaganda campaign enjoys equating the two).

OOOH I can't stand these threads, because I HAVE TO say something on them.

Okay, here's the thing. "President" Bush, is quite simply, our worst president since Harding.

His international policy was pissing everyone off that didn't agree with us whole-heartedly, and is making us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks (WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME HOW A MISSLE DEFENSE SHIELD WILL PROTECT US FROM SUITCASE BOMBS AND PLANES).

His environmental policies have basically screwed us over. I just love the fact that my water might have arsenic and every spot of virgin soil will be drilled for oil.

His economic and fiscal policies will leave a scar in our economy that, even with constant improvement, probably won't heal for another twenty years, at least. It's really nice to know that a "fiscal conservative" has brought record-defecits and has given my generation the biggest bill ever. Thanks a lot, asshole!

His constant slashing of scientific funding and his social policies are comparable to Pol Pot or the ayatollahs in Iran (why don't you damn pro-lifers tell my 4 year old cousin that he has to live with Children's diabetes because using embryos that can never be used to create life to save lives is sinful).

His administration is more corrupt than Harding's and Grant's combined. He favors the wealthy buisness elite than the middle-class, if you can't see that, either you're blind or you have your head up your ass.

The constant spreading of propoganda by his fellow war criminal Karl Rove is worse than the Communist Pravda (the Soviet's propoganda station). All Democrats are traitors, my ass. My grandfather (RIP) was a devout liberal Democrat, and he flew bombers in WWII. MY dad was in the Navy, and so was my other grandfather. Oh yeah, we're traitors who hate America.

He wants to completely disregard the seperation of church and state, which is one step closer to a goddamn theocracy. I'm an atheist, and I sure as hell don't want anyone's religion being opposed on me.

He's a slippery worm, making him seem like the common guy when it benefits him, a civil rights defender when he's talking to Libertarian Republicans, a devout Christian when he wants the fundamentalist's vote, or a war hero when he wants to strut around on an aircraft carrier with a flight suit he probably never wore to make himself look more then the spineless chicken hawk he really is.

He's cheated in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 election.

He refuses to take responsibility for the lies that his administration set out to convince America to go to war with Iraq (WHAT IN THE HELL HAPPENED TO "The Buck Stops Here". Maybe that just applies to Democrats).

He's a serial liar, a thug, a bully, a war criminal, and I hope that him and all of his cronies will have to testify to the Hague for all of the crimes that they have committed against humanity.

If I ever was face-to-face with that horrible man, I would spit in his face. I don't give a shit if that gets me taken away to Gitmo or some other political prison Rummy's established. It's my freedom of speech, and words can't do justice to how much I loathe him for what he's done to my country. I rest my case.

Sowwie; I heard the negative comments aimed at you and your response, so I kinda assumed you were French. *sheepish grin*
french! I aint no surender monkey (joking!). No its ok I don't mind.
I'll for give you (some day)

Please bear in mind that to accuse an ethnic group or a religion is almost always going to end in a mistake, whatever the situation. So while I do think Sharon is a militant idiot, I would advise anyone thinking likewise to criticize "Israel", not "the Jews". The former is justifiable criticism, the latter verges on anti-semitism (though Sharon's propaganda campaign enjoys equating the two).
"Jews" is a more precise term, as "Israel" could be misconstrued to be the Israelites of the Bible. The Jews fully support having total control over the West.

french! I aint no surender monkey (joking!). No its ok I don't mind.
I'll for give you (some day)

Well, at least it gives me something to look forward to AFTER graduation.

"Jews" is a more precise term, as "Israel" could be misconstrued to be the Israelites of the Bible. The Jews fully support having total control over the West.
please explain why you think that?

please explain why you think that?

Cuz he's nuts.

please explain why you think that?
The Jews control your governments and your media...

The Jews control your governments and your media...

Will I be serevely reprimanded if I burst into uncontrollable hysterical laughter at the audacious lucridity of the above statement and the idiocy of its composer?

Will I be serevely reprimanded if I burst into uncontrollable hysterical laughter at the audacious lucridity of the above statement and the idiocy of its composer?

Here's what I don't understand:

The jews control everything, they rule the world, the run the media, and they've enslaved the minds of the white person...yet they're inferior

Am I the only one who finds that a bit odd?



Is it the foreskin? I think it's the foreskin. The foreskin must be some kind of kryptonite to the human race that dumbs them down. That solves it.

Will I be serevely reprimanded if I burst into uncontrollable hysterical laughter at the audacious lucridity of the above statement and the idiocy of its composer?
You live in Hell, so you must be well-acquainted with the Jewish authority there.

Model Democracy,

You forgot about "There's no place he (Osama bin Laden) can hide that we won't find him". Fast Forward two years to "its not about one man". Hmmm, waffles anyone? Flip Flop?

How about let's revamp Social Security to the tune of 2 trillion dollars, all of which we'll borrow! Forget about the current debt, deficit and current account deficit.

Why anyone is still pro Bush is a complete mystery to me. :confused:

You live in Hell, so you must be well-acquainted with the Jewish authority there.

Actually, the majority of my location is composed of right-wing, conservative, racist bastards who are ready to make a scapegoat out of anybody who diverges off their chosen path of acceptable mores.

Sound familiar, DF?

That one's debatable. By the way, might you try responding to my actual points? Or will you just ignore this post like you ignored the LAST time you posted and I made very similer comments?

Didn't see a valid point... 'chief'

Oh please, I don't hate you. You're not nearly that important to me.

Now that I can be glad of.

It would help to remember that the "Masons" you referred to earlier are less Jews than Christians, and less Christians than most of the sects out there.

As soon as you get into the world conspiracy stuff, be careful where you tread, and where you put the blame. It's a secret movement, so you don't know what they're doing and who they are, exactly. The most you can do is theorize.

It's quite educational to do so, and even entertaining, as long as you don't make accusements toward people who are proven to exist. Face it, there are Christians who don't hate gays or go on crusades, Muslims who don't blow themselves up and Jews who (oh wonder!) don't belong to some super secret world conspiracy.

The Jews control your governments and your media...
...my mind :p

. . . And Bush is Christ-reborn to save our race from the evils of Christianity's forefather!

Now that I can be glad of.

You fail at teh quotinggs and teh intarweb.


Secondly, my points were the following:

1) Protest is patriotism-blindly following a president is unamerican
2) 9/11 is not in any way connected to what our soldiers are now doing in Iraq; saying people have forgotten about it is pure bullshit
3) Seriously, you're just giving fellatio to the president. Stop already. Think for yourself.

. . . And Bush is Christ-reborn to save our race from the evils of Christianity's forefather!
El Presidente Boosh is a communist Zionist and Christ-hater.

El Presidente Boosh is a communist Zionist and Christ-hater.

So . . . so Jesus DOES have respect for women? :confused:

So . . . so Jesus DOES have respect for women? :confused:
Huh? :confused:

Huh? :confused:

We CAN choose whether or not to have children, especially in rape cases? Unca Bush says, "no, abortion is an abomination to Christ," but if Bush hates Christ, then he could be lying . . .

*performed in voice of innocent six-year-old*

We CAN choose whether or not to have children, especially in rape cases? Unca Bush says, "no, abortion is an abomination to Christ," but if Bush hates Christ, then he could be lying . . .

*performed in voice of innocent six-year-old*
El Presidente supports the abomination that is abortion.

El Presidente supports the abomination that is abortion.

Uh, do you LIVE in this country? He's doing everything he can to STOP abortion. He's even intergrating "abstinence-only" sex-ed courses in high schools! Tell me that means he supports abortion.

Uh, do you LIVE in this country? He's doing everything he can to STOP abortion. He's even intergrating "abstinence-only" sex-ed courses in high schools! Tell me that means he supports abortion.
Boosh has not done one thing against abortion in his "presidency." He has promised not to use abortion as a "litmus test" for court nominees and has never indicated any actual opposition to abortion other than through politically-motivated one-liners and a symbolic "partial birth abortion ban." Abortion has only gotten worse under the evil Boosh.

Boosh has not done one thing against abortion in his "presidency." He has promised not to use abortion as a "litmus test" for court nominees and has never indicated any actual opposition to abortion other than through politically-motivated one-liners and a symbolic "partial birth abortion ban." Abortion has only gotten worse under the evil Boosh.

Partial-birth is different; a woman should not just wake up one day and decide, "you know what? I don't think I want to have a baby anymore." But what about the morning-after pill, or other methods for women for whom the ACT was not a choice? Should a fourteen-year-old drop out of school to raise the child of a man she never even knew, and that she never wanted? Listen to Bush-boy's speeches, see who he's electing to offices; apparently she should.

against. as a politician the guy is an egotistical tool. as a person, he's a lame, uneducated bumbling fool. back in the day, he would be a village idiot. instead, he's a national idiot

Partial-birth is different; a woman should not just wake up one day and decide, "you know what? I don't think I want to have a baby anymore." But what about the morning-after pill, or other methods for women for whom the ACT was not a choice? Should a fourteen-year-old drop out of school to raise the child of a man she never even knew, and that she never wanted? Listen to Bush-boy's speeches, see who he's electing to offices; apparently she should.
Yes, his speeches... He's a very good deceiver... Look at Iraq...

Yes, his speeches... He's a very good deceiver... Look at Iraq...

I'm beginning to worry about you; all this "Zionist" and "communist" and "Jewish conspiracy" crap you keep posting seems only a short step away from raving schizphrenia. Are you SURE you're lucid right now?

I'm beginning to worry about you; all this "Zionist" and "communist" and "Jewish conspiracy" crap you keep posting seems only a short step away from raving schizphrenia. Are you SURE you're lucid right now?
You hate the Truth...

You hate the Truth...

No, just the people who have come to their own, personal conclusions about it and try to shove it down my throat.

Against. Big time.

No, just the people who have come to their own, personal conclusions about it and try to shove it down my throat.
The facts are there.

You hate the Truth...

I have to agree with Kislet...you are one of those random, paranoid people who for some strange reason believes theirs is the ultimate truth.

Never mind.

The facts are there.

Where?
Show me some FACTS that support your argument that aren't conjecture / paranoia.

Can't really argue with an irrational person.

Akka-Akka . . . thy name kicks ass.

Can't really argue with an irrational person.

Akka-Akka . . . thy name kicks ass.

That's true.

Cheers dude...I like it - it had to be something random as all the other names I wanted were taken :mad:
Even the random place in England where I live!

That's true.

Cheers dude...I like it - it had to be something random as all the other names I wanted were taken :mad:
Even the random place in England where I live!

Lol, too true. Even the mad alliterations and internal rhymes I came up with were stolen from under my feet!

so are you for or against?
i would appriciate it if everyone could vote as im am using the results in a college project to gauge a mass public perception of G.W.

Thanks for your participation

The Constitutional Monarchy of Hudsonville
George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime, and I'm old enough to remember Nixon. Any questions?

George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime, and I'm old enough to remember Nixon. Any questions?

I have one!

Do you think he's a communist follower of the Zionist conspiracy? SOMEBODY sure does.

George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime, and I'm old enough to remember Nixon. Any questions?

That's reassuring. I can only remember back to Bush Snr. where I actually knew what was going on. Nice to know someone who remembers more hates the guy too!

I have one!

Do you think he's a communist follower of the Zionist conspiracy? SOMEBODY sure does.

It would be interesting if someone could explain how a right-wing conservative is somehow a communist?!?!
In China, even the most liberal of CCP leaders don't come anywhere near Bush

It would be interesting if someone could explain how a right-wing conservative is somehow a communist?!?!
In China, even the most liberal of CCP leaders don't come anywhere near Bush
Are you calling El Presidente Boosh a "right-wing conservative?"

Are you calling El Presidente Boosh a "right-wing conservative?"

I believe he is, Defensor Fidei.

Are you calling El Presidente Boosh a "right-wing conservative?"

err...yes. He is imo, and in the opinion of the vast majority of political commentators. At worst, he's a conservative.

err...yes. He is imo, and in the opinion of the vast majority of political commentators. At worst, he's a conservative.
He is a left-wing communist, Zionist, and judaizer. Woe to you and your "political commentators..."

He is a left-wing communist, Zionist, and judaizer. Woe to you and your "political commentators..."

Woe unto thee and whomever is providing thee with thine medication and healthcare.

He is a left-wing communist, Zionist, and judaizer. Woe to you and your "political commentators..."

As yet, you don't seem to have produced any evidence for this. Would you like to give us some? Then we maybe wont think you are a total noblet. Maybe.

As yet, you don't seem to have produced any evidence for this. Would you like to give us some? Then we maybe wont think you are a total noblet. Maybe.
War in Iraq... Jewish control over the media... Universal Amnesty.... Zionist extremism...

War in Iraq... Jewish control over the media... Universal Amnesty.... Zionist extremism...

My God...my God...I see why you have forsaken this man.

1) War in Iraq...strongly interventionalist, conservative policy.

2) Jewish control over the media...I'm sorry, are we in 1930s Germany again. You're a fool.

3) Universal Amnesty - what?

4) Zionist extremism...where?

Anti-Bush.

Lock him up for War Crimes, and throw away the key.

*snip*
Pay no attention to this thread-hijacking Nazi

I'm opposed to Bush in much the same way that I was opposed to Kerry.

I'm opposed to Bush in much the same way that I was opposed to Kerry.

Care to explain?

Care to explain?
I'm guessing that he opposes them both (like I do - go Badnarik!)

Pay no attention to this thread-hijacking Nazi

You are extremely (and amusingly) paranoid. I am in no way a Nazi - no more so than Bush is a communist. Indeed on most issues I lean to the left.

You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertions...where's the proof for Jewish control of the media. Here's a point for you. If the Bush-loving Jews control the media, how come around half of the US media supported Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election?

And if I was a Nazi...I'd be agreeing with your claims against the Jews & Zionism...which I'm not.

I'm Pro-Bush, but not as our president. He is a good man that is only trying to do what he thinks is right, and despite some of his horrid policies it doesn't change the fact that he is a good father and a nice guy. Sure he needs to rethink his bringing religion into the leading of a nation, but in the end we can always overturn what he does next term. I know we shouldn’t have to do that, but is gay marriage (I believe they have just as much right to marry as any strait person), abortion, and the like really worth ripping our country apart?

For further info: I’m all for the war ending right now, I’m not some insane bible trotter, and I’m technically more Libertarian than Republican (even though that’s what I registered as).

"Go Badnarik!!"

You are extremely (and amusingly) paranoid. I am in no way a Nazi - no more so than Bush is a communist. Indeed on most issues I lean to the left.

You still haven't provided any evidence for your assertions...where's the proof for Jewish control of the media. Here's a point for you. If the Bush-loving Jews control the media, how come around half of the US media supported Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election?

And if I was a Nazi...I'd be agreeing with your claims against the Jews & Zionism...which I'm not.

Uh, he meant ignore the other guy. Not you.

Lollerskates!

Uh, he meant ignore the other guy. Not you.

Lollerskates!

oh. he quoted me, so I assumed he meant me. never mind. well my point stands, but to the other guy :rolleyes:

lollerskates? funny word. what does it mean?

I would guess it is a stronger form of "lol".

That said, I have enough problems with those who support Bush for being as "right-wing" as they are. When I see people who hate him for being too "left-wing", I grow cold at the thought of "how right can you go?".

That said, at first sight there is a consensus between Defensor and me because we both think Bush is an idiot who will ruin the world. The thought, however, that there could be any one person thus that the average between him and me would be Dubya, sends me screaming.

I am completely against the man.

so are you for or against?
i would appriciate it if everyone could vote as im am using the results in a college project to gauge a mass public perception of G.W.

Thanks for your participation

The Constitutional Monarchy of Hudsonville
This is definitely not the place to conduct any sort of poll or "mass public perception" of President Bush. There are more rabid, irrational, enraged anti-Bush dweebs here per square inch than anyplace else on the entire planet!

It does not matter if you are pro Bush or anti Bush, the election is over and he will be the President for the next four years. What we should be asking ourselves is what this will mean to the USA.

Expect the dollar to continue to slide. With our mounting debt, other countries are becoming very reluctant to finance us. Since we shipped practically all our manufacturing off shore there's no longer a silver lining to a weak dollar. All this means to you is inflation.

Iraq will become steadily worse. The US will keep throwing in arms, men, and money. The Iraqis will keep throwing hundreds of metric tons of nuclear weapons grade high explosives, (Bush didn't bother to have the Army guard) in one kilo packages.

According to Amnesty International the US Armed Forces and "Private Contractors" tortured, murdered, and raped a sizable portion of the Iraqi populace in the rush to find Saddam, WMDs, and terrorists. So we're behind the old 8 Ball in the old hearts and minds game.

Let's not forget that the rest of the World hates Bush so much that the US will not only get very little real cooperation, but is likely get the exact opposite.

It's going to be a long four years

You'd think people in the States would realise the fact they are doing something wrong when five billions and three quarters of people disagree with them.

This is definitely not the place to conduct any sort of poll or "mass public perception" of President Bush. There are more rabid, irrational, enraged anti-Bush dweebs here per square inch than anyplace else on the entire planet!

Excuse me for having an opinion, which, I'm guessing unlike you, is educated. I know what I'm talking about, and I do not care for a complete stranger insulting me for having different opinions than him.

Excuse me for having an opinion, which, I'm guessing unlike you, is educated. I know what I'm talking about, and I do not care for a complete stranger insulting me for having different opinions than him.
LOL! Um ... when did I address anything I posted here to you?

don't hate the player,
hate the game

don't hate the player,
hate the game

Being the President of the United States isn't a game .... thats what
Mr. Bush needs to learn.

People who believe that Bush is one of the more far-right Presidents we've had are lacking in basic political and historical knowledge. I would say that he is the most 'leftist' Republican President we've ever had, although the term 'leftist' loses meaning as you go back farther and farther.

Bush pushed for a reform in Healthcare which costs billions of dollars and helps out many senior citizens. There were minor complaints by Democrats that it wastes too much money by not gouging drug companies, but the real issue was that they didn't come up with it. That's what most things in politics are.

Bush also supports a worker-program for Mexican citizens. This is to the left of the right's traditional 100% anti-amnesty platform.

Bush also supports civil unions for gay couples. This is in direct contravention of his party's stated platform.

It is also not a far-right thing to support and go to war. Let's look briefly at which Presidents in the last century took either started a war or took military action.

Roosevelt: Republican
Wilson: Democrat
Roosevelt II: Democrat
Truman: Democrat
Kennedy: Democrat
Johnson: Democrat
Reagan: Republican
Bush, George H.W.: Republican
Clinton: Democrat
Bush, George W.: Republican

Bush isn't far right on abortion--he believes it should be legal except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life (a position that 60-70% of Americans support) and hasn't said he'd have a 'litmus' test of abortion for Supreme Court nominees.

Bush also didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, which makes him far-right. Only thing is, neither did Clinton. Is he far-right? For that matter, Clinton at the time of the Iraq war said he supported the idea because he believed, as did all the other leaders of the world, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Is Clinton far-right on this, too?

Bush isn't to the far right on taxes, although this tends to be his more conservative position. But just look at the Libertarians, who want eradication of all income tax, for some perspective.

Bush is actually more of a moderate, but people like to say that he's far right and fascist basically because he disagrees with them. But that's the way politics work. 10 years ago a Democratic position is now a Republican position, but it was called 'communist' then, and 'fascist' now.

Personally, I put myself down as Pro-Bush because I voted for him, but I'm not really that Pro-Bush. I'm more for the environment, and I disagree with war as an option. I also am against the death penalty, and dislike the implementation ability of the Bush administration. I'm not too concerned about the national debt at this moment, as Bush has not been that remarkable in increasing it (yes, it has increased the most in his term as a number, but not as a percentage.) The main reason I voted for Bush is that I'm a one-issue voter-- and that is abortion.

All in all, were Kerry a complete Catholic instead of a cultural Catholic, I probably would have voted for him. I think all life should be protected by law, and I certainly don't believe that taxpayers should be funding underage children to have abortions without their parents' knowledge, something that would come true if Kerry were to have his way.

I think Bush has too little regard for the rest of the world. Yes, he is the President of the United States, and it is his job to make sure he does what is right for the country, but does that give him the right to bomb the ever-loving hell out of a third world country and destroy the lives of hundreds of civilians in an attempt to hit a bad guy or two? Sure, maybe the Iraqi people ARE better off with Saddam out of office, but can we honestly say they have benefitted at all with our troops shooting up their homes and destroying the food and water supplies? Thus far, the only "free from tyranny" Iraqis I've seen have been freed vertically.

I think it has been Bill Clinton's secret pleasure to cum between two Bushes.

) The war was approached netirely wrong!

What was that? Blue neck English?

Bush is my home boy! Those damn Iraqis deserved what they got! A free land with out the tyrannical rule of a dictator! And besides Kerry was a loser, literally! Pwned!

Heeeeeey . . . wasn't it Bush Sr. who actually aided Saddam in the first place?

Do you mean by helping Saddam remove his troops from Kuwait? Yeah I think he did help Saddam with that...

If your talking about aid given to Saddam during the Iran Iraq war, Reagen was president (September 1980 till August 1988 ) in that time frame.

It does not matter if you are pro Bush or anti Bush, the election is over and he will be the President for the next four years.

if you bothered to read my first post and not just skip to your reply, this poll does have a purpose, im trying to gauge other peoples perception of bush

dissention is patriotic

Depends on what you mean...

Is the dissention of a constructive nature?
Does it assist in the rational debate on national issues?
Does it calmly and with independently verified facts point out the inconsistancies of policy?
Is it designed to achieve a consensus or to broaden the divisions in the US?
Is it a discussion of an alternative approach to the issues at hand?

Is it more like Tim Robbins on a Nationally televised press corp discussion saying how his right to free speech has been stiffled......National TV...He is being stiffled...He is not allowed to speak out...for what 10 uninterupted minutes?
When was the last time you had ten minutes to speak to the National Press Corp and have excerpts of your words played over and over again?

In other words is it dissention, distortion or subversion your speaking of?

And please, try to remain calm and explain your points rationally.

I think Bush has too little regard for the rest of the world. Yes, he is the President of the United States, and it is his job to make sure he does what is right for the country, but does that give him the right to bomb the ever-loving hell out of a third world country and destroy the lives of hundreds of civilians in an attempt to hit a bad guy or two?

Please give examples of indiscriminate firing on the population, give the names of the units involved, dates and numbers of victums.

Indisriminate firing on civilians is in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is punishable by imprisonment or death.

If the actual perpatrators can not be determined then the commanding officers are to be held accountable for the actions of their troops.
This could result in the imprisonment the commanding officers.



Sure, [/B][/FONT][/U][B]maybe[B][U]the Iraqi people ARE better off with Saddam out of office,

Do you honestly think so? Why?


but can we honestly say they have benefitted at all with our troops shooting up their homes and destroying the food and water supplies?

And here I thought the major debate was the spending of Billions to build the infractructure of Iraq when social programs here in America are suffering from lack of funding ?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/fct_2.xls

Health Services 246 Billion ( row 258 )
Medicare 259 Billion ( row 295 )
Was always curious why are these two seperate items....maybe because between them they are over half a trillion dollars?
Income Security 325 Billion ( row 690 )
Social Security 497 Billion ( row 709 )


Thus far, the only "free from tyranny" Iraqis I've seen have been freed vertically.

You mean they were standing up?...Well yes people do tend to stand up...particularly when walking....how observent of you.

How many months did you personnally spend in Iraq in the past year?
How many Iraqis did you personally speak with?
Can you speak their language?
Did you have an interpreter?
Where you part of a NGO? Which one?
Did you get your opinions from personal observation or from someone else?
If from someone else how long did they spend in Iraq?
Do you know them well?
Are they a personal friend or part of an organization?
If part of an organization such as a news service how free of bias is the organization that provided you this information?
Did this news organization recently claim that forged documents were real even against the advice of their own experts?
Did this news organization ever "dramatize" stories to increase their ratings appeal?

In short how many Iraqis have you asked if they would rather have Saddam back and what were their answers?

Think how I'm troubled. I have a US and a German passport. I grew up thinking of myself as American, not having to feel that shame when I learned history. Now I'm not sure anymore which shame I'd rather feel. But I'll go with the present here. Currently, I'm less ashamed to be German 60 years after the Germans caused sh*t, than I am ashamed to be American right now.

Dont feel shame for things done by others....You were not to blame fro the German actions...and unless your in a Cabnet post and urged a war in Iraq your not to blame for that either.

I wish you well

Well proper funding and troops to afganistan for one thing.
(if I bothered with it at all)Would have given the UN inspectors more time in Iraq, when they found nothing would have tried to gather some up to date intelligence. If I found out that the weapons where gone, then I wouldn't have enough justification to go to war. (no him killing his own people isn't considered enough)

If killing his own people were not enough justification why is the UN consiering intervening in Sudan?

Why did the US intervene in Rwanda? Or Serbia?

Wow. Is there any point to that beyond lying and sucking on Bush's cock?

Wow!..Descending into namecalling and verbal abise...what class...what style...how irrelevent. Hopefully he will reposnd with simular words and you can get a good flame war started. Why not try calm and rational debate?...or is it as I have heard...the first to start casting slurs is the one who is losing a debate? Since they have no facts to ground their arguements they use the tactic of trying to deligitimise their opponent in order to distract from the facts at hand...

And what is this "forgetting about 9/11" bullshit? What would've I done? I dunno, Afghanistan was a good start. I wouldn't go into Iraq though.

Even if you had parctically every intellegence agency including the UN telling you that WMD did exist in Iraq and evidence that Saddam had ties to terroist groups. Saddam DID pay $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers...or are those not acts of terrorism in your world veiw?

You're the kind of idiot who would've spouted out nonesense about loyalty to the crown before the revolutionary war. Protest is patriotism, remember that.

Those were British patriots.....kind of kicks the feet out from under your arguement that protest is patriotism when you degenerate patriots that have veiwpoints other than your own...The british patriots were wrong of course....but it doesnt lend you credibility to descend into insulting people with opposing views....yes I know I mentioned this before...but I thought perhaps a repreat of the statement was required since you made the same type of statement twice.....

I think Bush will go into the history books as one of the greatest Presidents.

If you are using the results of this ploe for a college project, remember it isn't a scientiific pole. Good luck with the project.

I bet if Hitler had succeeded he would have gone down in history as one of the world's greatest leaders. But then the world came together and took him down (figuratively speaking, of course). Eventually, the same will happen ith the US. Bush wants what he wants, and the rest of the world be damned.

Oppression under the guise of freedom is a dangerous thin, because the oppressors have an excuse for their actions. I wouldn't say that Americans are "free". Just ask if any of them are allowed to vacation in Cuba to get a prime example.

dissention is patriotic

Patritism is overrated. Very overrated. Too many people are blindly patriotic, and don't see the cliff their leader is marching them over. Open your eyes to what the man says and does, not just to "He's the prez and I love America so I must follow him". Loyalty is a good thing, but temper it with decency and common sense.

I would guess it is a stronger form of "lol".

That said, I have enough problems with those who support Bush for being as "right-wing" as they are. When I see people who hate him for being too "left-wing", I grow cold at the thought of "how right can you go?".

That said, at first sight there is a consensus between Defensor and me because we both think Bush is an idiot who will ruin the world. The thought, however, that there could be any one person thus that the average between him and me would be Dubya, sends me screaming.

*chuckles*...I support Bush...but I think he is a bit too far to the right...but not so far as to be unelectable obviously...

Ruin the world??...Nah....The world has been through much worse than Bush and has thus far survived....even thrived in the long term....Take the nazi's...they were a political movement...much like comunisium was a political movement...both killed Millions in their reigns....and both were defeated...or closed up shop on their own when it became obvious that the people didnt want them anymore...

You have something to look forward to.....if he is as bad as yoou say ...well...the pendulum swings in human events...and if it is at a Far Right pitch now you can be certain it will swing back to the left again soon.

So dont bother hating Bush....just work FOR your political party....Support your candidates......Press your agenda....

Hate is negitive....and destructive...and does no one any good...at best it mearly blinds them to the positive things that are happening....at worst it rules them...

Be positive and do something constructive to support your own political veiws....Start working torward the 2006 electrions and help the candidate of your party get elected....get out there and build support for your party...find a republican and calmly DISCUSS the issues....you might not sway them entirely to your own veiwpoint...but perhaps you will make them think twice about supporting their own candidate...

In whatever you do...Good Luck

Oppression under the guise of freedom is a dangerous thin, because the oppressors have an excuse for their actions. I wouldn't say that Americans are "free". Just ask if any of them are allowed to vacation in Cuba to get a prime example.
Lol, you know, you're right. I see the light now. All these years I've been living a lie, believing that I am 'free', when in reality, I can't vacation in Havana! :rolleyes:

In reality, the only two ways a person could be free would be to live in complete isolation from everyone else, or to be able to totally oppress everyone else. Otherwise, something's going to get in the way of a person's 'freedom.'

Wow!..Descending into namecalling and verbal abise...what class...what style...how irrelevent. Hopefully he will reposnd with simular words and you can get a good flame war started. Why not try calm and rational debate?...or is it as I have heard...the first to start casting slurs is the one who is losing a debate? Since they have no facts to ground their arguements they use the tactic of trying to deligitimise their opponent in order to distract from the facts at hand...
**shrugs** I'm sick of this guy. Several times I've attempted to debate with him, but as soon as actual points come up he dissapears. So I figure I'll cut through the crap and just insult him.



Even if you had parctically every intellegence agency including the UN telling you that WMD did exist in Iraq and evidence that Saddam had ties to terroist groups. Saddam DID pay $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers...or are those not acts of terrorism in your world veiw?
Only, he didn't. He had intellegence tailored to say that Iraq was a threat, that there were WMDs. If there were connections leading from Saddam to Al Qaeda then I'd be all for the war-but there arn't. And there's no WMDs. And more and more information has come out that there never were any.

Secondly, I'd be a bit more lenient if the inspectors had said "there's weapons" instead of "shit guys, the bombs are comming, lets get out of here!"


Those were British patriots.....kind of kicks the feet out from under your arguement that protest is patriotism when you degenerate patriots that have veiwpoints other than your own...The british patriots were wrong of course....but it doesnt lend you credibility to descend into insulting people with opposing views....yes I know I mentioned this before...but I thought perhaps a repreat of the statement was required since you made the same type of statement twice.....
That's right, they were british patriots, and the others were american patriots. And we're talking about america right now-a country founded on radical beliefs and decisions. Funny how it fits together like that, eh? And really, I don't care if I insult him. Notice how-once again-he didn't answer me? This isn't an isolated event.

Alright so he is putting all sorts of effort overseas and yet one question goes on unanswered: "is our children learning?"

**shrugs** I'm sick of this guy. Several times I've attempted to debate with him, but as soon as actual points come up he dissapears. So I figure I'll cut through the crap and just insult him.

Well....as you can tell I am relatively new here...so I dont know the history between anyone here...I just reacted to what I was seeing...My appologize for misunderstanding the relationship between you two


Only, he didn't. He had intellegence tailored to say that Iraq was a threat, that there were WMDs. If there were connections leading from Saddam to Al Qaeda then I'd be all for the war-but there arn't. And there's no WMDs. And more and more information has come out that there never were any.


Then why did the UN state in their resolution that Saddam had Failed to fully disarm?

resolution 687
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

There were NEVER WMD's in Saddam's hands?...Obviously the UN thought so in 1991 ...you can read paragraphs 8 - 13 in the link above but here is 8 and 8. a. for you

"8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities; "


Obviously the UN felt he still had these materials in November 2002

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

In this report the main thrust was that Saddam had never provided proof that those weapons had been eliminated

Why would the UN nations accept this resolution unless their own intellegence systems were telling them the same things? Particularly when France, and Russia were making Huge profits in the Oil for Food program?

Could it be that they also believed that Saddam still had weapons and/or was in the process of developing his capabilities?

Ties to Al`Quida

Here is what President Clinton had to say back in 1998
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp

The senior intelligence officials who briefed reporters laid out the collaboration. "We knew there were fuzzy ties between [bin Laden] and the plant but strong ties between him and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Sudan and strong ties between the plant and Iraq." Although this official was careful not to oversell bin Laden's ties to the plant, other Clinton officials told reporters that the plant's general manager lived in a villa owned by bin Laden.

Did you want video of Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands and agreeing to form a military alliance? Just what would you consider proof?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
Dang....Saddam gave an Al`Qaeda member a house and a salary...wonder why?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html
Or maybe we should have attacked Iran instead? Since by your statement you would have supported the attack on Iraq if ties had been found....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/16/iraq/main573517.shtml

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm

Basically there was contact between the two, but proving an alliance which both parties denies is difficult as best. Intellegance gathering isnt exactly a science where you can provide fundemental and repeatable proof.

http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-6.html#contacts

While none of these contacts *seem* to have resulted in *significant* aid can anyone say for certain that No aid was given?

the 9/11 commission acknowledged that "Friendly Contacts" did in fact take place but could not prove that those developed in to an operational relationship....

The word covert comes to mind...the whole idea is to ensure that you leave no evidence behind to uncover your involvement isnt it?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041005a.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/fullreport911.pdf

page 62, 66, 119, 125, 134, 336,


And yes, there are as many if not more sources that state there was no ties between the two....unfortunately as the 911 commision stated in chapter 11 of their report "we have tried to remember that we write with the benefit and the handicap of hindsight. Hindsight can sometimes see the past clearly—with 20/20 vision. But the path of what happened is so brightly lit that it places everything else more deeply into shadow. Commenting
on Pearl Harbor,Roberta Wohlstetter found it “much easier after the event to sort the relevant from the irrelevant signals.After the event,of course,a signal
is always crystal clear; we can now see what disaster it was signaling since the disaster has occurred. But before the event it is obscure and pregnant with conflicting meanings.”1


Secondly, I'd be a bit more lenient if the inspectors had said "there's weapons" instead of "shit guys, the bombs are comming, lets get out of here!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

http://www.medialens.org/articles_2002/NPR_Threat_Iraq_United_States.html

"During the spring of 1995, the inspectors were actually on the verge of declaring that Saddam's programs to develop chemical weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles had been fully accounted for and shut down. Then Saddam's son-in-law suddenly defected and began sharing information. Within days, the inspectors were led to an Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq's most secret weapons programs."

Now the inspections started in 1991....4 years of inspections and they were fooled..Why should inspections be trusted this time around...and after 9/11 dont you think the level of caution on the side of error should be greater than before 3000 people were murdered?

How long do you think it would actually take a group of lets say, 400 inspectors to inspect an area the size of Iraq? When the materials they are looking for could be hidden in an area the size of a garage?

And what of the design plans for a crude nuclear weapon buried under a rose bush? How long to dug under every rock?

How many decades would you have been willing to wait?

And while this was happening would Saddam continued to kill off is opponents or dissedents in Iraq? I believe he would have, after all what would have prevented him?

And lastly, we are there....so we must do the best we can to help Iraq to make the transistion to at the very least a stable humanitarian government, one that isnt killing off its citizens in the thousands per month.

Respectfully

AAhhzz

he believes it [abortion] should be legal except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life

That's a... novel standpoint, certainly.

*chuckles*...I support Bush...but I think he is a bit too far to the right...but not so far as to be unelectable obviously...

Ruin the world??...Nah....The world has been through much worse than Bush and has thus far survived....even thrived in the long term....Take the nazi's...they were a political movement...much like comunisium was a political movement...both killed Millions in their reigns....and both were defeated...or closed up shop on their own when it became obvious that the people didnt want them anymore...

You have something to look forward to.....if he is as bad as yoou say ...well...the pendulum swings in human events...and if it is at a Far Right pitch now you can be certain it will swing back to the left again soon.

So dont bother hating Bush....just work FOR your political party....Support your candidates......Press your agenda....

Someone... who... uses... ellipses... is... just... too... lazy... to... figure... out... punctuation... >_<

It's certainly nice to say all that about being positive and constructive, but it grows pretty meaningless considering the massive, insurmountable smear campaign engaged in by the Right.

Why should the democrats allow the repubs to choose the battleground? The republicans took the campaign war to the democrats by smearing Kerry; why should they just ignore this and allow Kerry, rather than Bush, to be the focus here?

Of course he's not perfect as a candidate. Who is? He supports the War on Terrah, he's against gay marriage and against abortion. To call him Liberal would incite laughter anywhere but the US and maybe North Korea. In Europe he'd pass for Moderate Conservative.

So, two evils.

People say this crap about "voting for a lesser evil is still voting for an evil". There's rarely been a more twisted argument. If "voting for the lesser evil is still voting for an evil" - what does this make "voting for the greater evil"? Or "allowing through inaction the greater evil to be elected"?

What do people hope to accomplish by refusing to vote for either evil? Magical fairies come and produce the perfect candidate?

1) War in Iraq...strongly interventionalist, conservative policy.

Actually, interventionism is very anti-conservative. That's why Roach-Busters hates Bush. Interventionism is a characteristic of neoconservatism which is derived partially from old American left-wing thought. For example, left-wing FDR was an interventionst war hawk, and the conservatives of the 1930s and 40s hated him for it.

I just find it ironic that the country that has more WMDs than any other country in the world, and the only one to have actually used the heavy stuff (ie. nukes) - aimed very specifically at civilian targets, I might add - has invaded another country, on the grounds that "they may have WMDs".

Someone... who... uses... ellipses... is... just... too... lazy... to... figure... out... punctuation... >_<

Actually its just a habit, one that I should probably eliminate, but I figure that most people will know it for pauses. :)

It's certainly nice to say all that about being positive and constructive, but it grows pretty meaningless considering the massive, insurmountable smear campaign engaged in by the Right.

Why should the democrats allow the repubs to choose the battleground? The republicans took the campaign war to the democrats by smearing Kerry; why should they just ignore this and allow Kerry, rather than Bush, to be the focus here?

I doubt that the word Liberal is that horrendous of a smear, and if it is, why haven't the liberals used the attacks as an oppertunity to point out the good qualities of liberal policys?

And while Kerry openly questions Bush's service in the National Guard I believe that Bush praised Kerry's service in Veitnam did he not?

It was only his actions after he returned from Veitnam that were called into question.

Hummm...Which candidate was compared to Hitler? Refresh my memory on that one please.

If you wish to talk about the Swift Boat Veterans, can we not also mention MoveOn.org or America Coming Together or ANSWER? They were not particularly subtle with thier characterizations of Bush were they? Swift Boat Vets at least never compared Kerry to Hitler

Of course he's not perfect as a candidate. Who is? He supports the War on Terrah, he's against gay marriage and against abortion. To call him Liberal would incite laughter anywhere but the US and maybe North Korea. In Europe he'd pass for Moderate Conservative.

Very likely, however, please note this is not Europe.

And if I recall correctly Kerry stated that he would not bring his religious convictions into office to urge a limitation or a ban on abortion. This caused for one Arch Bishop (Sorry I am not Catholic and do not recall his name ) to urge that politicians supporting abortion be denied the eucerist (spelled that wrong). Is this not an important part of the Catholic religion?

He did however say that his religious convictions would cause him to press for tightening environmental regulations ( one of the things I did like about him ) But I found the discrepancy of him choosing which religious convictions to bring into office rather disturbing. It made me question his veracity on both statements, which of course led me to question all of his statements.

So, two evils.

People say this crap about "voting for a lesser evil is still voting for an evil". There's rarely been a more twisted argument. If "voting for the lesser evil is still voting for an evil" - what does this make "voting for the greater evil"? Or "allowing through inaction the greater evil to be elected"?

What do people hope to accomplish by refusing to vote for either evil? Magical fairies come and produce the perfect candidate?

I considered neither of the candidates Evil, true they were, and are, far from perfect men, but hardly evil.

And there is always this quote (paraphrased)
While there may not be a person you want to vote for, there is always a SOB you want to vote against. - Robert Hienlien

So I agree with you, always vote for the candidate of your choice. Even if that is the choice of last resort.

Truthfully, of the Democratic candidates I thought Lieberman, Gephart or Dean ( if for nothing else being proud of being a liberal ) were the best choices. If the Democratic candidate were one of those I might not have supported Bush.

But they were not, and I could not in good conscience vote for Kerry. For a multitude of reasons.

And as for the positive comments? I meant them wholeheartedly. It is only by giving the electorate reasons to vote FOR a candidate ( as well as against the opponent ) that a party can win an election. Trying to base your canidacy on just the fact your not your opponent is a losing proposistion.

Good Luck in the future, and there will be a future.

AAhhzz

And there is always this quote (paraphrased)
While there may not be a person you want to vote for, there is always a SOB you want to vote against. - Robert Hienlien

So I agree with you, always vote for the candidate of your choice. Even if that is the choice of last resort.


I'm so glad I live in a multiple-party country. Two parties isn't nearly enough choice. It virtually guarentees voting against rather than voting for.

I'm so glad I live in a multiple-party country. Two parties isn't nearly enough choice. It virtually guarentees voting against rather than voting for.

Oh that would definetely be interesting. A Third Major party would change the dynamics of elections completely.

We actually have a multi-party system here as well, its just the two major parties have such vast majorities that the other parties have no chnace at actually winning. At best they syphon off some of the support for one candidate or the other ( Nader and Ross Peroet (spelling?). Unfortunately its always the candidate they would rather see win, other than themselves, that they syphon off support.

I think Linden Larouch is still running for the 1980 Presidency, I wish someone would give him his pills.


Libratarians have a good base, but still rather small, I think perhaps 4% max? Can someone of the Libratarian party give a more accurate figure??
http://www.lp.org/ They at least have a good webmaster.

oh and here was something interesting
http://www.lp.org/tour/index.php?screen=0

According to them I scored

The highest possible rating, given the importance you assigned each issue, is 450.

You rated the Democratic stances 286. Democratic Platform

You rated the Green stances 240. Green Platform

You rated the Libertarian stances 128. Libertarian Platform.

You rated the Republican stances 359. Republican Platform

So sway me Democrats, appearently I am not totally closed minded to your policies....here a chance to do a good work type thing I was talking about

Respecftully

AAhhzz

Dislike, but supported him in 2004 because I hated Kerry even worse.

Oh, gosh, I never said it before.

I detest the lying retarded son of a Barbara.

yeah lets blow up little kids in Iraq instead so long as they're not americans. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah...we should have left Saddam there so little kids could be raped tortured and imprisoned before being blown up for the beliefs of their parents. Isn't it terrible how Americans work to kill terrorists and rebuild schools and hospitals? And let's take down the wall in Israel while we're at it so Palestinians can blow up Israeli children.

Any one with a conscience is obviously Anti-Bush!

Isn't it terrible how Americans work to kill terrorists and rebuild schools and hospitals?


Question: why is the US Army building schools in Iraq?
It should be working overtime building gibbets in SaudiLand.

People of the United States of America, I'm here to tell you that you are unable to form a correct image of your president. You're being brainwashed by your gouvernement. Can't you people see that mister Bush is the guardian angel of the greedy. Can't you see that your country is destroing the world. Your Army is using weapons with neuclear waste in Iraq.

Don't forget by fighting terrorism aggresivly you make it stronger.

You could use my quote...start quote- Bush never did anything for our country untill September 11, 2001. After this day the only thing that he did to our country was divide by doing stupid things like letting out all of the people that were potential suspects of the attacks and claim that Iraq was more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden. Iraq had no weapons and we still have not caught or even attempted to go back after Osama Bin Laden. Ok, so he wants to focus on other nations rather than individuals. Why not go after North Korea, where the US KNOWS FOR A FACT that they have nuclear weapons and are ready to use them. Mabey not even "go after" them but rather use diplomicy instead of just ignoring them. You can't say that he doesnt know what he's doing because he probably knows very damn well what he's doing. I, myself, believe that he is one of the most corrupt presidents this country has seen yet. I say this because thounsands of people died because of his greed. Other presidents may have been corrupt but nothing to this scale.

I think Bush is a very unintelligent man. Not a bad one, just not meant for politics.

I agree, but he was still a better choice than Kerry.

If you have to pick between two men who are both rich, Yale graduates who were members of the most exclusive frat on campus, who are both self-aggrandizing zeppelin-sized egos, you have to pick some other criteria.

I went on "who is the less assholish?"

I used a fair determinant. Since I never met either one, I had to go on their personal reputation.

In Bush's case, no former co-workers ever stepped forward uncompensated and said he was an asshole.

In Kerry's case, 33 out of 34 former co-workers stepped forward uncompensated and said he was an asshole.

In addition, his current wife said that she would give up her billions in inheritance and everything else if she could have her first husband back. Gee, that makes the current guy sound like a pile of crap...

Made the choice quite easy.

I went on "who is the less assholish?"

I used a fair determinant. Since I never met either one, I had to go on their personal reputation.

In Bush's case, no former co-workers ever stepped forward uncompensated and said he was an asshole.

In Kerry's case, 33 out of 34 former co-workers stepped forward uncompensated and said he was an asshole.

In addition, his current wife said that she would give up her billions in inheritance and everything else if she could have her first husband back. Gee, that makes the current guy sound like a pile of crap...

Made the choice quite easy.

Oh My! Never thought if it that way but DAMN if you didnt hit the nail on the head there!

Thanks My Gun Not Yours,

Don't forget by fighting terrorism aggresivly you make it stronger.

I see, killing them makes them stronger.

By that logic we should have never intervened in any war, anywhere, because if we had, we might have pissed off the "civilian population" of that country. Once pissed off they might rise up in arms and would have wiped out our Armies by sheer numbers alone.

How many attacks on US soil since 9/11?

How many attacks in Spain since the Madrid massacre?

Appeasement makes them stronger, killing them makes them dead. Dead people dont threaten anyone.

would appriciate it if everyone could vote as im am using the results in a college project to gauge a mass public perception of G.W.

How about you just shelve the entire project with this poll and use the election results?

I see, killing them makes them stronger.

By that logic we should have never intervened in any war, anywhere, because if we had, we might have pissed off the "civilian population" of that country. Once pissed off they might rise up in arms and would have wiped out our Armies by sheer numbers alone.

How many attacks on US soil since 9/11?

How many attacks in Spain since the Madrid massacre?

Appeasement makes them stronger, killing them makes them dead. Dead people dont threaten anyone.
You'll be sorry you said that when Al-Queda's Zombie army arrives. :P

You could use my quote...start quote- Bush never did anything for our country untill September 11, 2001. After this day the only thing that he did to our country was divide by doing stupid things like letting out all of the people that were potential suspects of the attacks and claim that Iraq was more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden. Iraq had no weapons and we still have not caught or even attempted to go back after Osama Bin Laden. Ok, so he wants to focus on other nations rather than individuals. Why not go after North Korea, where the US KNOWS FOR A FACT that they have nuclear weapons and are ready to use them. Mabey not even "go after" them but rather use diplomicy instead of just ignoring them. You can't say that he doesnt know what he's doing because he probably knows very damn well what he's doing. I, myself, believe that he is one of the most corrupt presidents this country has seen yet. I say this because thounsands of people died because of his greed. Other presidents may have been corrupt but nothing to this scale.

Most presidents don't do anything in their first year or two. That's why so many people say that a president's second term is when all the things that need doing get done.

No he didn't divide. Look at the election of 2000. The election was divided before then. Then again you like to ignore anything that makes you wrong, don't you?

No he didn't let out all the suspects. General Wesley Clarke, former candidate for the democratic ticket, told the world himself that it was him who ordered to let Osama Bin Laden's family leave the US.

The move to Iraq was never claimed to be more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden. It was claimed that it was part of the war on Terrorism (which is true because Saddam was a terrorist dictator to his own people). And we still have plenty of soldiers in Afganistan searching for Osama Bin Laden, as well as the Pakistani military. If we had all 130+ thousand troops in Afganistan, you'd bitch we were wasting money and tons of economic resources in trying to catch one person. And technically yes, Saddam was more of a threat than Osama because Osama's Al Qaeda was decimated, while Saddam continued to allow his people to suffer or allow his sons to go out and terrorize people.

Iraq didn't have weapons when we entered. That doesn't mean he didn't have them before and moved them into other countries like Syria. Saddam spent time getting cash through oil for food, cash that could be used for anything (supposed to be for food or things to better the lives of his people. He decided instead to buy weapons). It was also shown that he had full intentions of getting nuclear weapons in the future. Wait for the threat to manifest or nip it in the bud? If we waited you'd bitch that we took too long to take him out.

We're working with the UN in diplomatic relations with North Korea to stop them. We're proving the pathetic and almost useless entity that the UN has become. The UN is dealing with North Korea. Let's see what happens. Then again if we invaded you'd bitch about that too.

As for corruption, you're an idiot. Prove something. Haliburton? Cheney forfeited millions of dollars to become Vice President. Cheney has no chance of even getting back into the Haliburton company because it's now run by the man who was pretty much his arch enemy during his time there. Haliburton and many other corporations are being discovered for occasions of frauds and other incidents. Your mad that it's happening yet you'd bitch almost impossibly loud if government regulated every corporation.

I swear so many of you say the president is stupid and then can turn around and say he's an evil mastermind. You're all just bitchy because he's a person who disproves all the stereotypes of republicans as you people like to envision. Bush has more minorities on his cabinet than Clinton (Your "black" president). He got less big business money and more average person money than Kerry during the presidential campaigns, proving democrats are more big business than Republicans.

Face it. You wanna bitch and bitch and bitch. Shut the hell up and come up with something better.

Undecided, for a reason that will surprise most people:

Bush is good for Europe (where I live).

Explanation:
it has been said that letting a random Frenchman and a German debate on any subject would result in 3 vehemently different opinions. No more. Say the name Bush, and both will probably snigger, agree that is he not one of the world brightest and that by re-electing him the American people have shown either an enormous amount of stupidity, or a complete lack of understanding of what is happening outside US borders. So in a sense Bush is creating a feeling of unison in Europe - something which others have tried in vain for centuries.

Furthermore many non-european countries are unhappy with the current foreign policies of the USA. Especially the Arab countries more and more turn to Europe for support and start using the Euro instead of the dollar as main currency, strenghtening it's position. Meanwhile the USA is isolating itself by closing its borders. Instead of "protector of the free" the USA gets the reputation of being the worlds bully - or at least the arrogant self-rightious prick. The USA is replacing friends with allies and "coalitions of the willing".. which in the long run are worth far less.

So in short: Bush is destroying the USA, but strenghtening Europe. And I'm not sure if i should be happy or sad about that.

anti

!ATTENTION!!
!Contains shoking images!!

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

Why am I not surprised by the results... lol :rolleyes:

You'll be sorry you said that when Al-Queda's Zombie army arrives. :P

ACK!....LOL....Didnt know they had one...dang they think of everything dont they...cunning bastards...
:D
Thanks for the laugh BastardSword....I needed one today

No he didn't let out all the suspects. General Wesley Clarke, former candidate for the democratic ticket, told the world himself that it was him who ordered to let Osama Bin Laden's family leave the US.
<snip>
Face it. You wanna bitch and bitch and bitch. Shut the hell up and come up with something better.

Agreed....but it was Richard Clark ( the one that promoted his new book at the 9/11 commision ) that released all of the Bin Laden family leave the US.

Oddly enough he was also the one that stated that when briefing Condiliza Rice on Al'Qaeda that she looked like she had never heard of them before.....unfortunately for him there was a press conference a few months before the Election where she was being challenged on her her qualifications where she described the treat by Al`Qeada in a very detailed manner....so much for Richard (I have a New Book to Sell ) Clark's credibility.

Ok, so he wants to focus on other nations rather than individuals. Why not go after North Korea, where the US KNOWS FOR A FACT that they have nuclear weapons and are ready to use them. Mabey not even "go after" them but rather use diplomicy instead of just ignoring them.

Maybe BECAUSE they have the weapons and a madman for a leader that has stated he is willing to use them to kill millions of people? Even over sanctions, much less any military incursion onto their lands.

Can you say "America is insisting on Multi-lateral talks with the North Korean Government"....I knew you could

Now why would the US insist on such talks?
Maybe because the Chinese government is just as worried about an atomically armed North Korea as the rest of us?
Maybe because the North Korean leader is, well frankly, unstable?
Maybe because the previous administration made a treaty with the North Koreans to halt their weapons program in exchange for billions of dollars of aid. Oddly enough once the aid started flowing the North Korean government contunued to build their weapons program.
Maybe because they think the US isnt willing to use military force that close to China? They probubly have a point there, relations are not exactly the most friendly in the world, and considering the current world opinion of the US thats really saying something isnt it?

However by making it Multi-Lateral talks and geting the Chinese government involved its no longer a proposition of a superpower far away that might bomb the ever loven shit out of them, its their next door neighbor, whose toes they will be stepping on...and frankly I dont think North Korea wants China involved because China can put real economic pressure on them. Our economic ties with North Korea are practically nil compared to China's

As for North Korea using atomic weapons against China?
North Korea would glow for Decades afterward, and they know it.

People the election is over, you can't be pro or anti Bush. Bush is elected and confirmed by the Electoral College, he's going to be President for the next four years. He's a fact of life, like the weather. You can't be pro or anti weather you either like or dislike it.

Do I like the fact that Bush is President? Well, no. I guess with all the great men this Republic has been given during some perilous times, sooner or later we'd get stuck with a real hambone. But that's OK, because America is a great country that can even manage the odd Hambone at inopportune times. Yes America can survive even Bush.

Yes even if Al Qaeda manages to nuke Washington DC because President Dumbass sent our Reserve and Guard to Iraq instead of assigning them to go over every container with a Geiger counter in our ports, America will survive. We'll just relocate the capital and go on. Hell the British burned it to the ground back in 1812.

America is the home of mile wide F5 tornados, massive hurricanes, earth quakes, floods, fires, and the worlds largest active volcano the Yellow Stone National Park. It blows up every 66,000 years and destroys most of the life on the planet. Americans are used to rebuilding. Now that we've gotten over our patriotic pity party we're going to rebuild the World Trade Center.


I say to America and the world. Yes we can survive a bad President. We can survive a truly awful President. By God, we can even survive Bush.

Bush should be shaved off.

Bush should be shaved off.

I keep trying to convince my wife of that but she says its too itchey...and then comes back with "I will if you shave too!".....dang nabbit....its not right bringing fair play into this!

I say to America and the world. Yes we can survive a bad President. We can survive a truly awful President. By God, we can even survive Bush.

I support Bush, but even if I thought he was the raving madman/evil genuis /drooling idiot some folks around here try to claim he is I would agree with your statement

We could even survive Kerry, or Kennedy (Ted), or really practically anyone. If they get through the primaries they are at least not brain dead. and have had a rectal exam from the news corps just to be certain of it.

Thanks for giving a voice of reason in this debate

yeah lets blow up little kids in Iraq instead so long as they're not americans. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
yeah lets abort innocent babies because the parents were too stupid to use a condom [insert clever rolleyes emoticon]

pro bush, i campaigned for him, and support him 100%

and if you want to talk about wartime presidents, lets have a discussion about how much of a success kosovo was :rolleyes:

For...

by the way, if you guys would like to see an amusing website, go to:

http://www.communistsforkerry.com

that site is hillarious...