NationStates Jolt Archive

This is not a flamebait thread. I just can't understand why anyone would vote for Bush. Please tell me why you did so.

This is not a flamebait thread. I just can't understand why anyone would vote for Bush. Please tell me why you did so.

I didn't, but alot of it had to do with the RELIGIOUS right-wing nutjobs out there. :headbang: He's STILL not my president

I didn't, but alot of it had to do with the RELIGIOUS right-wing nutjobs out there. :headbang: He's STILL not my president
With all due respect, I'm asking Bush voters.

With all due respect, I'm asking Bush voters.

Okay, sorry :D

I didn't, but alot of it had to do with the RELIGIOUS right-wing nutjobs out there. :headbang: He's STILL not my president

One reason was this type of nonsense that has been spewed the last four years.
For me it was mostly the devil you know. My main issue is firearms and Kerry has shown his colors more than once on that issue, duck "hunting" aside.

Because he has *one* thing right (namely foreign policy), as opposed to *none* (which is where the moveon.org-fuelled democrats are).

Also, a mediocre Winston Chirchill (Bush) beats the crap out of an excellent Neville Chamberlain (Kerry), every single time.

(Incidentally, the real Churchill was neither as infallible nor as full of statemanship and gravitas as historians make him appear; at the time he was widely perceived as a comical figure, a warmonger, a bungler and a "chicken little" character, much like Bush today. Nazi aggression eventually vindicated him. Even though he did make many catastrophic mistakes, he had the right general idea at a time when nobody else believed it, and that together with his fanatical resolve proved crucial for victory).

Because he has *one* thing right (namely foreign policy), as opposed to *none* (which is where the moveon.org-fuelled democrats are).

Also, a mediocre Winston Chirchill (Bush) beats the crap out of an excellent Neville Chamberlain (Kerry), every single time.

(Incidentally, the real Churchill was neither as infallible nor as full of statemanship and gravitas as historians make him appear; at the time he was widely perceived as a comical figure, a warmonger, a bungler and a "chicken little" character, much like Bush today. Nazi aggression eventually vindicated him. Even though he did make many catastrophic mistakes, he had the right general idea at a time when nobody else believed it, and that together with his fanatical resolve proved crucial for victory).
I have to ask, did you support the descision to go into Iraq? And why?

Because he has *one* thing right (namely foreign policy), as opposed to *none* (which is where the moveon.org-fuelled democrats are).

I didn't realise there were only 2 Presidential candidates

I didn't, but alot of it had to do with the RELIGIOUS right-wing nutjobs out there. :headbang: He's STILL not my president

yes he is. unless you plan on moving somewhere else. we outvoted you and your left-wing nutjobs.

He is president because he holds old-fashioned american values... at least to a greater degree than the party of (cough cough) Clinton.

And because he's not a pussy in the face of a hostile enemy. We were hit on 9/11 and we continue to respond. I wonder if Gore would have responded, or sat on his hands with a plan to place the tragedy in a lock box and re-examine it 50 years from now.

And because he's not a socialist (americans favor free enterprise...)

I don't understand why America still supports such a corrupt and evil system of election. They have to stop the corporations from donating money to morons so they can run for office. Make them raise their own money!

I don't understand why America still supports such a corrupt and evil system of election. They have to stop the corporations from donating money to morons so they can run for office. Make them raise their own money!

They tried that and individuals like George Soros managed to buy enough people to get it so that only certain groups (many sponsored by him) could donate money and hence could buy the election.

This is not a flamebait thread. I just can't understand why anyone would vote for Bush. Please tell me why you did so.

I voted for Bush. My main reason is that I am pro-life. Also, Bush is fearless. I, too, wonder where we would be today with Gore. *shudders* Dang, Drunk! And I've always had a crush on you too. I guess I just blew my chances . . .

They tried that and individuals like George Soros managed to buy enough people to get it so that only certain groups (many sponsored by him) could donate money and hence could buy the election.

They have to go further. NO donations permitted. At all. Make them use their own money.

They have to go further. NO donations permitted. At all. Make them use their own money.

IMHO that won't change anything. That only guarantees that only the rich will hold office.

IMHO that won't change anything. That only guarantees that only the rich will hold office.
Like they arent already? Bah, I guess it would make no difference no matter what we did.

They have to go further. NO donations permitted. At all. Make them use their own money.


Ouch, think that through. If you can only use your personal finances, who do you think will be running the country?

Like they arent already? Bah, I guess it would make no difference no matter what we did.

Pretty much the way I feel. As I said earlier, the devil we know and/or the lesser of evils.

I have my issue that I support but it doesn't guarantee me voting for that person.

Pretty much the way I feel. As I said earlier, the devil we know and/or the lesser of evils.

I have my issue that I support but it doesn't guarantee me voting for that person.

This is why I've lost faith in the system. I don't trust any politician, and I live in the UK. I always vote for Lib Dems as a result in a protest vote of my hatred of the way the world works.

I voted for Bush. My main reason is that I am pro-life. Also, Bush is fearless. I, too, wonder where we would be today with Gore. *shudders* Dang, Drunk! And I've always had a crush on you too. I guess I just blew my chances . . .
:( I guess I'll just have to stay with Ms. Pacman.

:( I guess I'll just have to stay with Ms. Pacman.


dammit!!

Seriously, can you imagine what our country would be like if Al Gore had been president? He has a lithp for God sakes.

dammit!!

Seriously, can you imagine what our country would be like if Al Gore had been president? He has a lithp for God sakes.

I dont know, maybe Al Gore would have taken more heed and actually read a memorandum titled "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack US using planes".

Maybe he wouldnt have given huge tax cuts, all the while refusing to veto anything that came across the presidential desk. The US and the world might be in an entirely different predicament than it is now.

But of course you refer to this hypothetical statement because you feel that it would somehow be worse. As if the terrorists would have control of a few states, and that ol pussy Al Gore might have conceded giving them some more.

dammit!!

Seriously, can you imagine what our country would be like if Al Gore had been president? He has a lithp for God sakes.
I think it would probably be stronger from an economic point of view, and more secular to boot. Not too bad in my eyes. As for military response to 9/11, I think any president would have responded forcefully.

the reason I voted for bush is because he is the best man for the job that was running, that I had any information about. I'm not saying he's perfect, or that he hasn't made mistakes, just that of the options he was the best choice. wether or not people want to admit it, we are in a war, and I trust Bush more than any other candidate to do right by our fighting men and women, and to keep this country safe from further attack.

<begin Kerry rant. If you support kerry and don't have an open mind, read no further. You have been warned>

why I didn't vote for Kerry...
Kerry's reaction (or lack there of) to the swift boat veterans for truth. he never refuted their arguments, nor did he release the records that would have proved his innocense. thats because he knows he was guilty as charged and those records would only prove that. In my book meeting with an enemy of america (he met with leaders of the viet cong in paris, and recived instructions on how to turn public opinion against the war, because the viet cong were loosing and they knew it). the prof is all documented in "unfit for command". these alligations throw his loyalty to this country into question, as these actions could most certainly be called aiding and abbeting a known enemy in a time of war. do we want a traitor to this county in the highest seat of government? also, if it wern't true he would also be sueing those veterans makeing the alligations for liable/slander, which he is making no move to do.

Now, I wasn't yet eighteen when the election took place. And the truth is, I porbably would have voted Kerry as a registered Independent. But, Bush has done a few things right.

1. Afghanistan. We had overwhelming evidence and a good number of foreign allies. Afghanistan was hiding and supporting the organization that coordinated a direct attack on the united states. Bush wasted no time and didn't fool around.

2. Gun laws. Really, gun control laws today have the wrong focus. What's needed is education about gun safety and gun safety devices. Weapons restrictions and bans just makes law-abiding citizens pay more for less effective guns. The criminals don't follow laws, so gun bans just make them pay more for black market goods, and actually increse the illegal gun trade.

Other than that, I see Bush as short-sighted, disrespectful, and a little too much of a Cowboy. He's not actually stupid, but for a president of the most powerful country on earth, we could do much better.

I think it would probably be stronger from an economic point of view, and more secular to boot. Not too bad in my eyes. As for military response to 9/11, I think any president would have responded forcefully.

I'd like to think so too, about and president after 9/11, but what about Mr. Kerry? He wasn't sure from one minute to the next. Even he read the same documentation as Bush and agreed with him initially. As for waiting for the UN to do it's job . . . please. How many times did the President go before the UN? 30 something?

Don't be too hard on me, I don't word things as well as you do.

I'd like to think so too, about and president after 9/11, but what about Mr. Kerry? He wasn't sure from one minute to the next. Even he read the same documentation as Bush and agreed with him initially. As for waiting for the UN to do it's job . . . please. How many times did the President go before the UN? 30 something?

Don't be too hard on me, I don't word things as well as you do.
I'm not trying to be hard on you or anyone else on this thread. I'm just trying to understand because to me it was clear that Bush wasn't the right man for the job, so Bush voters must have seen something I didn't or vice versa.

On paper, if you look at their grades in college, and whether or not they graduated various attempts at various degrees, Gore had one semester that was lower than anything Bush ever got at Yale. Gore flunked out of divinity school and law school while Bush got his MBA at Harvard.

Gore is not smarter. Gore's reputation as being cerebral is false information deliberately delivered by media hacks who like him.

By comparison, Bush makes Gore look like a flunk-out.

So I voted for Bush because of the outright lies I heard during the Gore campaign.

I heard the same lies about Bush being stupid during the Kerry campaign.

Sure, he's not Albert Einstein. But he has something else that Kerry definitely did not have. In this time of war, you need someone with the balls to go do something, even if it's wrong.

Kerry would never have attacked any nation - and I am quite sure that if Gore had been President on 911, he would have wrung his hands and done NOTHING.

Bush seems to be good at kicking ass. Maybe he's not always kicking the right one (one wonders what he was thinking about Iraq). But the terrorists know he's out to kick ass now.

Kerry would have wimped out big time. There's no way his constituency would have done anything except pander to the terrorists and surrender this country to them.

Now, I wasn't yet eighteen when the election took place. And the truth is, I porbably would have voted Kerry as a registered Independent. But, Bush has done a few things right.

1. Afghanistan. We had overwhelming evidence and a good number of foreign allies. Afghanistan was hiding and supporting the organization that coordinated a direct attack on the united states. Bush wasted no time and didn't fool around.

2. Gun laws. Really, gun control laws today have the wrong focus. What's needed is education about gun safety and gun safety devices. Weapons restrictions and bans just makes law-abiding citizens pay more for less effective guns. The criminals don't follow laws, so gun bans just make them pay more for black market goods, and actually increse the illegal gun trade.

Other than that, I see Bush as short-sighted, disrespectful, and a little too much of a Cowboy. He's not actually stupid, but for a president of the most powerful country on earth, we could do much better.

Now, come on! There ain't a damn thing wrong with a cowboy. As long as you are a real one, like from Texas or Montanna . . . and not one of those losers who wears reeeaaally tight jeans with a Skoal ring in the back left pocket, and with a big ass Stetson.

why I didn't vote for Kerry...
Kerry's reaction (or lack there of) to the swift boat veterans for truth. he never refuted their arguments, nor did he release the records that would have proved his innocense.

All you had to do was go to JohnKerry.com. Every single shred of his military career was located there, more then enough to debunk any arguement brought up by SBVT. But of course you took the bipartisan route and bought a bunch of books written by people who have slandered Kerry since the days of Nixon.

I don't understand why America still supports such a corrupt and evil system of election. They have to stop the corporations from donating money to morons so they can run for office. Make them raise their own money!
That's called "Freedom of Speech". When you pass laws restricting campaign contributions, you are abridging that right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't see it that way with this latest campaign reform law.

To answer the question in the thread topic, I voted for Bush because he was the only candidate that was going to pursue the war on terrorism in a practical manner. That means I support the idea that you should go out and kill terrorists where you find them instead of waiting to arrest them for commiting a crime.

That's the executive summary, anyway.

All you had to do was go to JohnKerry.com. Every single shred of his military career was located there, more then enough to debunk any arguement brought up by SBVT. But of course you took the bipartisan route and bought a bunch of books written by people who have slandered Kerry since the days of Nixon.
Wrong. There was no discharge certificate. He was issued several different citations for the same medal. That smells bad. Kerry may have served in Vietnam, but it certainly wasn't worth my vote.

I voted for Bush. My main reason is that I am pro-life. Also, Bush is fearless. I, too, wonder where we would be today with Gore. *shudders* Dang, Drunk! . . .

Bush is not fearless he's fearful, thats why he went to war because he's scared. as for pro life how is war at all pro life? obviously Gore and Kerry would probably have done just as bad a job.. if only there was a greater choice of candidates in the american electorial system.

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]
Bush seems to be good at kicking ass. Maybe he's not always kicking the right one (one wonders what he was thinking about Iraq). But the terrorists know he's out to kick ass now.


Wooo Hooo! That's what I'm talking about--he get's his point across! A Cowboy, I LOVE that man! :fluffle:

That's called "Freedom of Speech". When you pass laws restricting campaign contributions, you are abridging that right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't see it that way with this latest campaign reform law.

To answer the question in the thread topic, I voted for Bush because he was the only candidate that was going to pursue the war on terrorism in a practical manner. That means I support the idea that you should go out and kill terrorists where you find them instead of waiting to arrest them for commiting a crime.

That's the executive summary, anyway.
Normally I will fight tooth and nail for free speech but sometimes the health and wellbeing come first

Bush is not fearless he's fearful, thats why he went to war because he's scared. as for pro life how is war at all pro life? obviously Gore and Kerry would probably have done just as bad a job.. if only there was a greater choice of candidates in the american electorial system.

Huh? I don't think Bush is fearful. He's going up against 85% of the popular opinion in the world!! I am pro-life in the resepct of abortion. War is a totally different matter. I am not pro-war in gereral, but I am pro-finishing- this-fucking-one. Kerry would have had 50% of the troops pulled out by now, with the job left undone.

Bush is not fearless he's fearful, thats why he went to war because he's scared. as for pro life how is war at all pro life? obviously Gore and Kerry would probably have done just as bad a job.. if only there was a greater choice of candidates in the american electorial system.
Fearful, huh? He put his career on the line with his actions after September 11. I call that much bolder than the typical politi-weasel.

For one thing, Gay marriage, another, pro-life. There was one other reason I told my mom to vote for him too :confused:
~WR~

All you had to do was go to JohnKerry.com. Every single shred of his military career was located there, more then enough to debunk any arguement brought up by SBVT. But of course you took the bipartisan route and bought a bunch of books written by people who have slandered Kerry since the days of Nixon.

I read both the site and the SBVT book. The site doesn't come close to refuting the charges they raise.

He never received an honorable discharge until after he had then President Carter intervene after Kerry became a Senator. It was a political gift, as the US Navy had up to then refused to give him one. Refused. That's not slander, it's a fact.

It's a fact that he slandered the American military on national television concerning acts and policy during the Vietnam War. That's a fact.

It's a fact that he met with VietCong officials and was handed instruction on what to say during that hearing. Kerry is, and still remains, one of the top three people honored in the War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City - that's a fact - because of his testimony on their behalf - and they provided him the transcript of what to say. It's in their museum. It's not slander, it's fact.

What kind of President do you think a traitor makes?

Fearful, huh? He put his career on the line with his actions after September 11. I call that much bolder than the typical politi-weasel.
How do you figure that he put his job on the line with his actions after 9/11? The whole country backed military action. Hell, most of the world was in our corner. It was a popular decision.

Most bush supporters are patriots for thier country. There is nothing wrong with that...but most of these people live in the bible states. over in western europe, such parts have become knowen as "Dumb-Fu^k-astan".
when people say they dont like americans (most of them are very nice), they usually mean these wacko's. :gundge:

I didn't, but alot of it had to do with the RELIGIOUS right-wing nutjobs out there. :headbang: He's STILL not my president

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but if you're an American, George W. Bush is your President. Get over it.

How do you figure that he put his job on the line with his actions after 9/11? The whole country backed military action. Hell, most of the world was in our corner. It was a popular decision.
Removing the Taliban was easy. Continuing the war on terrorism into Iraq would count as a big risk, in my opinion.

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but if you're an American, George W. Bush is your President. Get over it.
Has anyone ever called you a dick?

Has anyone ever called you a dick?
Yeah but he happens to be correct

Most bush supporters are patriots for thier country. There is nothing wrong with that...but most of these people live in the bible states. over in western europe, such parts have become knowen as "Dumb-Fu^k-astan".
when people say they dont like americans (most of them are very nice), they usually mean these wacko's. :gundge:

What's wrong with the Bible?

I hear that in Germany, the southern areas of the country have LAWS that MANDATE the display of the Crucifix in the classroom.

Does this make the people of Southern Germany Christian rednecks?

Or can a person who is religious be just as intelligent as someone who is an atheist?

I might have preferred someone more eloquent, someone who had a larger vocabulary, someone who carried himself with a bit more dignity and aplomb, but the choice was between a decent human being who truly would take whatever steps were necessary to defend my country on the one hand, and a lying, amoral, opportunistic, cowardly sack of shit on the other. I choose the former. End of story.

yes he is. unless you plan on moving somewhere else. we outvoted you and your left-wing nutjobs.

Someone should explain that to him, since he obviously believes he is only the president of those who agree with him on every point.

What's wrong with the Bible?

I hear that in Germany, the southern areas of the country have LAWS that MANDATE the display of the Crucifix in the classroom.

Does this make the people of Southern Germany Christian rednecks?

Or can a person who is religious be just as intelligent as someone who is an atheist?
Yup depublicants and personal responsibilit are a great example of that

What's wrong with the Bible?

I hear that in Germany, the southern areas of the country have LAWS that MANDATE the display of the Crucifix in the classroom.

Does this make the people of Southern Germany Christian rednecks?

Or can a person who is religious be just as intelligent as someone who is an atheist?
there is nothing wrong with the bible, i am a christian my self...its just the attitude of the people there:

"outsiders??? we dont have them!!!! Oh-death to black people"

whats wrong with them

-this aint all americans, like i said most of them are real nice

Most bush supporters are patriots for thier country. There is nothing wrong with that...but most of these people live in the bible states. over in western europe, such parts have become knowen as "Dumb-Fu^k-astan".
when people say they dont like americans (most of them are very nice), they usually mean these wacko's. :gundge:
Tell us, why we should care what a bunch of ignorant Eurotrash think? I refer to Alabamastan, but that's okay. I used to live there.

On paper, if you look at their grades in college, and whether or not they graduated various attempts at various degrees, Gore had one semester that was lower than anything Bush ever got at Yale. Gore flunked out of divinity school and law school while Bush got his MBA at Harvard.

(a) An MBA at any school is not really a hard degree to earn.
(b) Yale has some of the highest grade inflation in the country.
(c) Anyone can get a degree pretty much anywhere if daddy is willing to make a sizable donation.

Now, this is not to say that Gore was any more intelligent, just to keep you from deifying Bush.

Tell us, why we should care what a bunch of ignorant Eurotrash think? I refer to Alabamastan, but that's okay. I used to live there.
i repeat:


"outsiders??? we dont have them!!!! Oh-death to black people"

whats wrong with them

-this aint all americans, like i said most of them are real nice

I hate to be the one to spoil all your childhood illusions, but if you're an American, George W. Bush is your President. Get over it.

Great. Now would you please explain that to George W. Bush?

Great. Now would you please explain that to George W. Bush?
i agree

i repeat:


"outsiders??? we dont have them!!!! Oh-death to black people"

whats wrong with them

-this aint all americans, like i said most of them are real nice
Can you put that into a coherent sentence. The kind you used to diagram in Grammar school.

Removing the Taliban was easy. Continuing the war on terrorism into Iraq would count as a big risk, in my opinion.I don't see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. Iraq had relatively few ties with terrorists compared to other regimes. It was largely a secular nation compared with much of the middle east.

I don't see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. Iraq had relatively few ties with terrorists compared to other regimes. It was largely a secular nation compared with much of the middle east.
dont worry about it, americans struggle to understand the difference between the taliban and Iraq. :headbang:

(a) An MBA at any school is not really a hard degree to earn.
(b) Yale has some of the highest grade inflation in the country.
(c) Anyone can get a degree pretty much anywhere if daddy is willing to make a sizable donation.

Now, this is not to say that Gore was any more intelligent, just to keep you from deifying Bush.

Not deifying Bush - I just noticed that the press is quick to call Gore and Kerry "cerebral". Often. And they are very, very consistent. It wasn't until the Washington Post took a look that anyone in the press made a fair comparison of their academic performance - and even then, they were still giving Gore the benefit of the doubt on being more "cerebral".

If Gore is "cerebral", then I am the smartest human on the face of the planet in all of human history.

And if Yale is a place of grade inflation, then Kerry's grades there were inflated as well.

I have a hard time seeing how someone could flunk out of Divinity school.

That, and on paper, Bush's dad at the time had far less money than Gore's, and far, far less political influence. So I don't boil their grades down to influence.

Great. Now would you please explain that to George W. Bush?

It doesn't need to be explained to him. It's the very reason he adopted an assertive foreign policy, and the reason he's trying to salvage the mess Democrats have made of Social Security. He's trying to save the USA of the liberals, despite their best efforts to undermine his efforts. ;)

I don't see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. Iraq had relatively few ties with terrorists compared to other regimes. It was largely a secular nation compared with much of the middle east.
We could recite pro and con arguments over the invasion in our sleep. That's not my point. For whatever reason, GWB did risk a lot when he invaded Iraq. The original justification didn't pan out quite the way I would have liked it to, but the benefits of fighting terrorists in Iraq instead of in Boston are incredible.

It doesn't need to be explained to him. It's the very reason he adopted an assertive foreign policy, and the reason he's trying to salvage the mess Democrats have made of Social Security. He's trying to save the USA of the liberals, despite their best efforts to undermine his efforts. ;)
Invading every other country is going to do that?

dont worry about it, americans struggle to understand the difference between the taliban and Iraq. :headbang:
I'm an American. It's no struggle for me.

I voted for Kerry, but there are some comments here that interested me and I feel almost obligated to post.

I'll admit that I was disappointed to see Bush win. I knew that my one blue vote in Red Utah would not have made a difference, as Bush won with somewhere around 70% of my state's votes. However, once Bush knew the victory was his, he started saying things that made me think he was an okay guy.

He talked about how homosexuals would be able to have civil unions, granting them the rights of a married couple. Legally, they would be equals. If they could find a church that would marry them, by constitutionally granted religious freedom, they would be able to marry, but not in a legal sense.

But now Bush has his :mp5: :sniper: set on Iran? This is too far, at least in my opinion. He claims that we need to stop tyranny across the world. I'm all up for being a good guy and cutting the bullies down, but is it really our place to tell other countries how to govern themselves while pissing of the rest of the world with our policies at the same time? It just doesn't make sense.

At the same time, he needs to realize we just can't go into Iran. Our officials are already complaining that we should have more forces over in Iraq. You know that we'll still be there after elections to protect the officials and we're going to be there for quite some time. We've still got boys in Afghanistan as well. We're spread thinly enough as it is. We don't need to make it any worse.

I'm an American. It's no struggle for me.
your one of the lucky ones then, with an education

your one of the lucky ones then, with an education
I never actually finished college. I therefore have less education than George W. Bush.

That, and on paper, Bush's dad at the time had far less money than Gore's, and far, far less political influence. So I don't boil their grades down to influence.

Far less political influence? How long was Bush Sr. the head of the CIA?

I never actually finished college. I therefore have less education than George W. Bush.
That's amazing!!!! you should be put in the book of records!
ive never met anyone with less education than bush

And if Yale is a place of grade inflation, then Kerry's grades there were inflated as well.

Most likely.

I have a hard time seeing how someone could flunk out of Divinity school.

My theology classes were often rather hard.

That, and on paper, Bush's dad at the time had far less money than Gore's, and far, far less political influence. So I don't boil their grades down to influence.

You don't have to have that much. I know someone whose daddy bought him a degree and the guy isn't well-known at all.

It doesn't need to be explained to him. It's the very reason he adopted an assertive foreign policy, and the reason he's trying to salvage the mess Democrats have made of Social Security. He's trying to save the USA of the liberals, despite their best efforts to undermine his efforts. ;)

Is it also the reason that he has consistently stated, when asked about opposition, things like "Americans don't believe that." (never mind that almost 50% did not back his presidency)?

Is that why he claims, not only a mandate, but that anyone who voted for him agreed with each and every one of his stances?

That's amazing!!!! you should be put in the book of records!
ive never met anyone with less education than bush
You have never met anyone that has not finished collage before? Wow sheltered

Far less political influence? How long was Bush Sr. the head of the CIA?

I'd like to kinda correct myself on this point. Bush Sr. was head of the CIA from 76-77. However, one would have to have been involved with the CIA for quite some time before they could get to such a position, I'm sure. If the CIA isn't a place to gain some sort of influence, then I don't know what is.

That's amazing!!!! you should be put in the book of records!
ive never met anyone with less education than bush

You should meet Al Gore, then. He is on record as having worse grades, and fewer degrees than Bush.

All you had to do was go to JohnKerry.com. Every single shred of his military career was located there, more then enough to debunk any arguement brought up by SBVT. But of course you took the bipartisan route and bought a bunch of books written by people who have slandered Kerry since the days of Nixon.Actually, no, large parts of his record were missing. And John O'Neill, whom you say "slandered Kerry from the days of Nixon a)was a Democrat then, and I think he still is and b) he had good reason. Kerry got a lot of mileage out of claiming to be a war hero and then turnign against the veterans. He was in the leadership of an organization that plotted to kill United States Senators, he met with terrorists in Paris during the Vietnam war while he was still in the Naval Reserve (this is all proven, not baseless slander.) He tried to distance himself from the war with the throwing away his medals (or was it ribbons? get your story straight, Senator) and then he tried to capitalize on his military career in the campaign. He was, and remains, a duplicitous, conniving, panderer, and he simply didn't measure up to Bush. There may be issues people can find wrong with Bush, he is only human, but he is far and away a better candidate, and person, than Senator Kerry.

...snip...

..a duplicitous, conniving, panderer...


See also; politician, pg 198

your one of the lucky ones then, with an education

Apparently YOU'RE not.

I have a Master's degree and I'm a Republican. The "educated people are liberals and dumb people are republicans" assertion is absolutely baseless.

You know how many trailer-trash democrats there are in my neck of the woods?

Or how many poor, uneducated democrats there are in metro areas around the US, voting for the handout promised by Democrats and "donated" by our hard-earned tax dollars?

There!

hehe

Apparently YOU'RE not.

I have a Master's degree and I'm a Republican. The "educated people are liberals and dumb people are republicans" assertion is absolutely baseless.

You know how many trailer-trash democrats there are in my neck of the woods?

Or how many poor, uneducated democrats there are in metro areas around the US?

There!

hehe


And this is why it's not fair to make assumptions based on trend accusations.

If someone is going to argue politics, they should research the claims of their party before throwing them out in online gaming forums such as these. Sure, it doesn't mean anything, but pretty soon you'll just run into a cycle of everyone arguing the same points back and forth. We've all seen it before, and evidence of such happening now has even come up.

Has anyone ever called you a dick?

Of course! You can't have an opinion in the US of A for very long without someone taking almost violent exception to it and calling you all sorts of names, many far worse than "dick." So have at it! :D

Apparently YOU'RE not.

I have a Master's degree and I'm a Republican. The "educated people are liberals and dumb people are republicans" assertion is absolutely baseless.

You know how many trailer-trash democrats there are in my neck of the woods?

Or how many poor, uneducated democrats there are in metro areas around the US, voting for the handout promised by Democrats and "donated" by our hard-earned tax dollars?

There!

hehe

Note that the person you responded to said nothing about liberals, conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats. Congratulations on looking like an ass.

Invading every other country is going to do that?

Sigh. So now "Iraq" is "every other Country" besides the US? You really should have learned to count in grade school, or perhaps that's where you are now?

Of course! You can't have an opinion in the US of A for very long without someone taking almost violent exception to it and calling you all sorts of names, many far worse than "dick." So have at it! :D
Dick! (sorry had to for you being over protective of my peachy!)

Huh? I don't think Bush is fearful. He's going up against 85% of the popular opinion in the world!! I am pro-life in the resepct of abortion. War is a totally different matter. I am not pro-war in gereral, but I am pro-finishing- this-fucking-one. Kerry would have had 50% of the troops pulled out by now, with the job left undone.

85% of the world doesn't agree with what Bush is doing. Shouldn't that say something? For all you bush fans out there, just think about it for a minute. It'll eventually sink in, I know that plenty of you are quite slow.

OMG hes a cowboy I luv cowboys LOL!!!!11!shiftone!!!11
wow, what a reason to vote...

As al gore put it- "Half of the US population has never read a newspaper. half of the population doesn't vote. One can only hope they are the same half."

That's amazing!!!! you should be put in the book of records!
ive never met anyone with less education than bush

You really are seriously reality-challenged, aren't you.

You should meet Al Gore, then. He is on record as having worse grades, and fewer degrees than Bush.

As I see it, the only redeeming quality about Al Gore is that he went to school with the great Tommy Lee Jones . . . even if he is a democrat.

85% of the world doesn't agree with what Bush is doing. Shouldn't that say something? For all you bush fans out there, just think about it for a minute. It'll eventually sink in, I know that plenty of you are quite slow.

OMG hes a cowboy I luv cowboys LOL!!!!11!shiftone!!!11
wow, what a reason to vote...

As al gore put it- "Half of the US population has never read a newspaper. half of the population doesn't vote. One can only hope they are the same half."
I would argue with his stats ... NEVER is a long time ... REGULARLY yes I would think that is a reasonable approximation but NEVER not even the comics

*snip*
OMG hes a cowboy I luv cowboys LOL!!!!11!shiftone!!!11

*snip*


Thanks for the idea. I've done !!11one111....!!11onethousandonehundredandeleven11...

But !!!!11!shiftone!!!11 is my favorite by far :D

Actually, no, large parts of his record were missing. And John O'Neill, whom you say "slandered Kerry from the days of Nixon a)was a Democrat then, and I think he still is and b) he had good reason. Kerry got a lot of mileage out of claiming to be a war hero and then turnign against the veterans. He was in the leadership of an organization that plotted to kill United States Senators, he met with terrorists in Paris during the Vietnam war while he was still in the Naval Reserve (this is all proven, not baseless slander.) He tried to distance himself from the war with the throwing away his medals (or was it ribbons? get your story straight, Senator) and then he tried to capitalize on his military career in the campaign. He was, and remains, a duplicitous, conniving, panderer, and he simply didn't measure up to Bush. There may be issues people can find wrong with Bush, he is only human, but he is far and away a better candidate, and person, than Senator Kerry.

Couldn't have summarized the career of the amoral opportunist any better myself! Great job! :D

85% of the world doesn't agree with what Bush is doing. Shouldn't that say something? For all you bush fans out there, just think about it for a minute.Ok, I thought about it and I figured it out. It means that 85% of the world is wrong. Not hard to believe when you think of all the millions dying of AIDS, the Islamic lunatics blowing up school kids in Israel and blaming it on the "occupation" the other Islamic lunatics plotting the overthrow of the world by violence, the secularist lunatics in Russia trying to outlaw Judaism, the secularist lunatics in Europe slowly outlawing free enterprise. You're right, it did say something. I am glad I thought about that.

I would argue with his stats ... NEVER is a long time ... REGULARLY yes I would think that is a reasonable approximation but NEVER not even the comics

Yeah, back in 2000 I should have voted for the man who just sat there while the woman interviewing him told the audience that he had graduated from Vanderbilt Law School when in fact he had flunked out.

The man who let that little lie stand was Al Gore. And that was the moment that I decided not to vote for him.

Dick! (sorry had to for you being over protective of my peachy!)

LOL! Nahhh. I just talk a good fight when it comes to any of my "family" over the age of 18. They are free to make their own decisions and live with the consequences. Just ask my older son. :)

LOL! Nahhh. I just talk a good fight when it comes to any of my "family" over the age of 18. They are free to make their own decisions and live with the consequences. Just ask my older son. :)
Good cause she is a hottie :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Couldn't have summarized the career of the amoral opportunist any better myself! Great job! :DThanks. Though I forgot to add that it isn't slander if it is true.

You Americans with your silly president :)

No offense, but i regard him as a big joke.

By the way: Im living in southern germany and havent seen a crucifix for years ... in bavaria there was some discussion about this topic and people there are a bit more religious than in the rest of germany, thats true.
On the other hand we are not denying evolution in schools (what a pathetic thought to prefer 2000 years old fairytales over a billion scientific facts ! but no more about this topic in here...) and you will find a much more secularized Society in Germany.

Religious Fanatism, that would have been my reason not to vote for bush, together with his stupidity, inability to hold speeches (they are even for non-Native Speakers a joke), his "bravery" to defend the country in the texas national guard HAHA, his fanatism, his propaganda style (God bless America, Freedom, God bless America, Freedom.... hes not saying anything anymore hes just using the same stupid phrases over and over again).

remember: dont take it as an offense ... I would say the same things about him if he was my president... maybe even alot more... critisism is a vital part of any democracy and i think america should be alot more critical with their leaders.
I dont have to remind you about german history, do I ?

85% of the world doesn't agree with what Bush is doing. Shouldn't that say something? For all you bush fans out there, just think about it for a minute. It'll eventually sink in, I know that plenty of you are quite slow.

OMG hes a cowboy I luv cowboys LOL!!!!11!shiftone!!!11
wow, what a reason to vote...

As al gore put it- "Half of the US population has never read a newspaper. half of the population doesn't vote. One can only hope they are the same half."

I didn't say I voted for him because he was a cowboy, jerk. And as for Al Gore stating that 'half of the US population has never read a newspaper', of course he would want those not to vote since most media is left leaning.

And maybe 85% of the world doesn't have above average intellegence. I'm not saying it has anything to do with how smart a person it, it's just a matter of opinion who you vote for.

Good cause she is a hottie :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Yes she is! And a good person too! :)

You say Bush gives a forceful and decisive response. Certainly he does. But he gave the wrong one. One might call it a very slow kneejerk reaction. I'd have preferred a more thoughtful reaction, even if it came a bit later.

I wouldn't want a 'brave' President or one with balls. I want one capable of making good choices. The only thing a President has to fear is losing votes. You thing going to war with Iraq was brave of Mr. Bush? I think not..

Also, a good way of making elections fairer would be to give every candidate a equal wad of public funds and prevent any donations or private use of money. Then advertising campaigns would have less differential impact.
I'd also force any President-elect to renounce all his wealth and never accept any form of income after his election other than a state pension. This would remove any buisness or financial ethos from the governing body. Only those who wanted the honour of running the country would run, and only those with good, unspun policies would get in.

Germany, as I recall, is not much larger than some US States.

It is within certain school districts, in certain US States, that creationism is getting some exposure.

I don't happen to agree with it, even though in most other respects I am a fundamentalist Christian.

But, they find out soon enough that their university choices are choked off by choosing schooling that involves creationism. No serious university offers a serious science degree that will be helpful in obtaining scientific employment in the US that involves creationism.

It is here in the United States that we allow individual opinions to flower and flourish, as different and as nonsensical as they may be, in different areas. We don't force the whole country to sing one way.

You Americans with your silly president :)

No offense, but i regard him as a big joke.

By the way: Im living in southern germany and havent seen a crucifix for years ... in bavaria there was some discussion about this topic and people there are a bit more religious than in the rest of germany, thats true.
On the other hand we are not denying evolution in schools (what a pathetic thought to prefer 2000 years old fairytales over a billion scientific facts ! but no more about this topic in here...) and you will find a much more secularized Society in Germany.

Religious Fanatism, that would have been my reason not to vote for bush, together with his stupidity, inability to hold speeches (they are even for non-Native Speakers a joke), his "bravery" to defend the country in the texas national guard HAHA, his fanatism, his propaganda style (God bless America, Freedom, God bless America, Freedom.... hes not saying anything anymore hes just using the same stupid phrases over and over again).

remember: dont take it as an offense ... I would say the same things about him if he was my president... maybe even alot more... critisism is a vital part of any democracy and i think america should be alot more critical with their leaders.
I dont have to remind you about german history, do I ?

Just in case that wasn't deliberate flamebait ...

1. President Bush is far, far from being a "religious fanatic."

2. He flew fighter jets, and that alone says something good about his willingness to take calculated risks ( some call that courage ).

3. His speeches are approved personally by him ... every word. It's not "propaganda," he truly believes what he says.

4. Of course I take it as an offense, just as would you if I accused your current leadership of being baby-raping Nazis.

And because he's not a socialist (americans favor free enterprise...)
George Bush is as much a socialist as almost any Democrat. I don't see how massive corporate welfare fits into a free market ideology.

And if you think that (the right-wing) Clinton as that much different from Bush you must be a really blind partisan.

I didn't, but alot of it had to do with the RELIGIOUS right-wing nutjobs out there. :headbang: He's STILL not my president
I'm sorry, but if you are American he IS your president.

They have to go further. NO donations permitted. At all. Make them use their own money.
I don't agree because that only guarantees that only the rich will hold office. I agree with banning corporate donations though, they're just a way fro businessmen to buy their own favourable policy.

Seriously, can you imagine what our country would be like if Al Gore had been president? He has a lithp for God sakes.
Probably less militarist/fascist and generaly calmer.

Hell, Bush can't even pronounce "nuclear" correctly. (See, I can find stupid reasons too.)

I voted for Bush. My main reason is that I am pro-life.
This is an entirely legitimate position, but when the US is fighting a war against terrorism I don't see how the issue of abortion exactly tops the list.

The Republican party was born as the party of big government. It always has been, except when big-government Democrats like FDR and LBJ were in power. Even then, the opposition to big government is mostly rhetoric.
What about the Reps of the 1920s? They actually reduced the size of government.

If it had been Al Gore or Bill Clinton who did these things the Right would being having fits of collective apoplexy.
And since they were enacted during a Republican administration, the Left is crying about too little money being spent.
I wish people would stop saying "the Right" and "the Left" when they mean Republicans and Democrats. It's a very narrow way to think.

1. President Bush is far, far from being a "religious fanatic."

I would have to say that this is certainly up for debate. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wishes to legislate their particular religious beliefs onto others is a religious fanatic.

3. His speeches are approved personally by him ... every word. It's not "propaganda," he truly believes what he says.

...which, in some cases, would be even scarier.

Although I would point to the recent speech in which he stated that our country must do away with all bigotry - something that this president obviously *does not* believe.

Edit: I do find it rather alarming that someone with as much life experience as yourself is naive enough to believe that any successful politician truly believes everything they say.

I wish people would stop saying "the Right" and "the Left" when they mean Republicans and Democrats. It's a very narrow way to think.

Every time I think of big government programs for the environment and labor, I think of Richard Nixon. Hey, who doesn't like the Environmental Protection Agency? Wonder who founded that?

In the same way I think of Clinton as a great Republican President, I think of Nixon as a great Democratic President.

You Americans with your silly president :)

No offense, but i regard him as a big joke.

By the way: Im living in southern germany and havent seen a crucifix for years ... in bavaria there was some discussion about this topic and people there are a bit more religious than in the rest of germany, thats true.
On the other hand we are not denying evolution in schools (what a pathetic thought to prefer 2000 years old fairytales over a billion scientific facts ! but no more about this topic in here...) and you will find a much more secularized Society in Germany.

Religious Fanatism, that would have been my reason not to vote for bush, together with his stupidity, inability to hold speeches (they are even for non-Native Speakers a joke), his "bravery" to defend the country in the texas national guard HAHA, his fanatism, his propaganda style (God bless America, Freedom, God bless America, Freedom.... hes not saying anything anymore hes just using the same stupid phrases over and over again).

remember: dont take it as an offense ... I would say the same things about him if he was my president... maybe even alot more... critisism is a vital part of any democracy and i think america should be alot more critical with their leaders.
I dont have to remind you about german history, do I ?
You Germans and your silly lack of beliefs. :)

No, you don't have to remind us about German history. In fact, I think this is the reason for your opinion. Having gotten in so much trouble over being, shall we say, too strongly opinionated, you now believe that anyone with a position and convictions is suspect. Don't take offense, I don't think you can help it, and I think the rest of the world is happy Germany doesn't take anything too seriously now. We sleep better. But I would probably be even more critical if I was German, and I think Germans should be more critical of themselves and their lack of backbone.

In reply to all the Neocons who still believe the crap that was spoonfed to them by partisan witchhunters:

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Buying a book written by people who are financed by the republican party doesnt make facts.

Edit: I dont come here much. I forgot how to insert a link on this forum. Please forgive.

Well, at least in the willingness to fight for what they believe in, Germany is going French.

Who would have guessed? I bet that after a decade or so, the wussification of the EU by French pantywaists who wear surrender flags as undergarments will be complete.

(a) An MBA at any school is not really a hard degree to earn.
(b) Yale has some of the highest grade inflation in the country.
(c) Anyone can get a degree pretty much anywhere if daddy is willing to make a sizable donation.

Now, this is not to say that Gore was any more intelligent, just to keep you from deifying Bush.

I want to know how you know that "An MBA at any school is not really a hard degree to earn".

Did you earn one? If so, you are entitled to your opinion. If not, go and try to earn one. THEN tell us how hard it was!

hehe

In reply to all the Neocons who still believe the crap that was spoonfed to them by partisan witchhunters:

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Buying a book written by people who are financed by the republican party doesnt make facts.

Or by the democrat party for that matter. Both parties are guilty of the same dirty politics and spin-doctoring.

Congress should hold an orgy one of these days. After everyone gets to know eachother, I'm sure this whole partisan thing will do away with itself.

(a) An MBA at any school is not really a hard degree to earn.
(b) Yale has some of the highest grade inflation in the country.
(c) Anyone can get a degree pretty much anywhere if daddy is willing to make a sizable donation.
Now, this is not to say that Gore was any more intelligent, just to keep you from deifying Bush.In the process you are proving that Gore supporters are deifying him and casting aspersions on Bush from the wallowing mire of their own idiocy.

I didn't say I voted for him because he was a cowboy, jerk. And as for Al Gore stating that 'half of the US population has never read a newspaper', of course he would want those not to vote since most media is left leaning.

And maybe 85% of the world doesn't have above average intellegence. I'm not saying it has anything to do with how smart a person it, it's just a matter of opinion who you vote for.

think about what you just said. an average is exactly in the middle of a 50-50 split, so 85% of anything cannot be below average. I do agree however, that it really is a matter of opinion.

for the rest of you, I won't defend al gore, because I don't think he could have done much better. He does seem to be better at putting together coherent sentences, but I won't defend him or his quote.

In the process you are proving that Gore supporters are deifying him and casting aspersions on Bush from the wallowing mire of their own idiocy.

So?

I liked Bush coz he's NOT Kerry! ^^ (jk, I like Badnarik the best)

In the process you are proving that Gore supporters are deifying him and casting aspersions on Bush from the wallowing mire of their own idiocy.So?Do I actually need to explain? I am not making any point beyond what I said.

You Germans and your silly lack of beliefs. :)

No, you don't have to remind us about German history. In fact, I think this is the reason for your opinion. Having gotten in so much trouble over being, shall we say, too strongly opinionated, you now believe that anyone with a position and convictions is suspect. Don't take offense, I don't think you can help it, and I think the rest of the world is happy Germany doesn't take anything too seriously now. We sleep better. But I would probably be even more critical if I was German, and I think Germans should be more critical of themselves and their lack of backbone.


I have to say that nationalism is highly discouraged here in Germany, and many of my friends look at the government here as merely tradition, with no real meat to it. I can see where you are coming from, but most of Europe is against what Bush is doing, not just Germany.

think about what you just said. an average is exactly in the middle of a 50-50 split, so 85% of anything cannot be below average. I do agree however, that it really is a matter of opinion.

Wrong. Median is exactly in the middle of a 50-50 split, average is not.

Do I actually need to explain? I am not making any point beyond what I said.

I don't see why you seem to think I care.

Couldn't have summarized the career of the amoral opportunist any better myself!
and a lying, amoral, opportunistic, cowardly sack of shit on the other.
If I see you using the words "amoral" and "opportunist" in reference to Kerry again I'll have a fucking migraine. Not that I like him or are offended by these terms, but it would be nice if you get get a new set of abusive lines.

As al gore put it- "Half of the US population has never read a newspaper. half of the population doesn't vote. One can only hope they are the same half."
That was Gore Vidal.

Ok, I thought about it and I figured it out. It means that 85% of the world is wrong. Not hard to believe when you think of all the millions dying of AIDS, the Islamic lunatics blowing up school kids in Israel and blaming it on the "occupation" the other Islamic lunatics plotting the overthrow of the world by violence, the secularist lunatics in Russia trying to outlaw Judaism, the secularist lunatics in Europe slowly outlawing free enterprise. You're right, it did say something. I am glad I thought about that.
Yes, that's the entire non-American world in a nutshell. We're all batshit insane. :rolleyes:

Could you tell me about these "secularist lunatics in Europe slowly outlawing free enterprise"? It's funny, I've never heard of these lunatics before, and I live there. I also notice how you have stupidly equated secularism to socialism. (No, Europe is not being taken over by socialists either.)

most media is left leaning.
Haha, and you're a paranoid rightist too! Gold!

Do I actually need to explain? I am not making any point beyond what I said.I don't see why you seem to think I care.Now don't be any more obtuse than you can help. You did go to the trouble of replying.

think about what you just said. an average is exactly in the middle of a 50-50 split, so 85% of anything cannot be below average. I do agree however, that it really is a matter of opinion.

for the rest of you, I won't defend al gore, because I don't think he could have done much better. He does seem to be better at putting together coherent sentences, but I won't defend him or his quote.

Okay, alright, you got me on the percentages thing. But why are you picking on me? Whether you like it or not, Bush is our president. He got elected. Again. More people voted for him than for Kerry.

Now don't be any more obtuse than you can help. You did go to the trouble of replying.

You were obviously suggesting that I would be bothered by a crack at Gore. Personally, I'm not bothered by cracks at politicians on either side of the line.

Okay, alright, you got me on the percentages thing. But why are you picking on me? Whether you like it or not, Bush is our president. He got elected. Again. More people voted for him than for Kerry.

Don't apologize. It is perfectly possible for 85% to be below average if there are enough people who are much higher than the bulk.

This is not a flamebait thread. I just can't understand why anyone would vote for Bush. Please tell me why you did so.

I did so because he believes in supply side economics, fair/across the board tax cuts for everyone not just the poor, smaller government, less regulation (homeland security is an exception and I disagree with him on that subject), strong military (currently being misused IMO but important just the same), personal responsibility and acountability, anti-abortion (which I consider murder), he is slightly more trust worthy (though I don't consider any politician trust worthy), he at least remains fairly consistant in his positions, and at the end of the day, I see him as the lesser of 2 evils but not by a lot.

Could you tell me about these "secularist lunatics in Europe slowly outlawing free enterprise"? It's funny, I've never heard of these lunatics before, and I live there. I also notice how you have stupidly equated secularism to socialism. (No, Europe is not being taken over by socialists either.)The EU is socialist to its core, so don't give us any crap about socialism not taking over Europe. And also, read what I said, I didn't equate socialism and secularism, it just so happens that many European socialists happen to be secularists as well. And if you don't think the EU beaureacracy is stifling free enterprise, I think you need to read up more on what they are doing. Calling them lunatics is probably what threw you off, since you fixated on that word and immediately stereotyped me. Try circumspection and analysis next time.

You were obviously suggesting that I would be bothered by a crack at Gore. Personally, I'm not bothered by cracks at politicians on either side of the line.It was actually a crack at Gore supporters.

think about what you just said. an average is exactly in the middle of a 50-50 split, so 85% of anything cannot be below average. I do agree however, that it really is a matter of opinion.
.

You need to work on your math. You can very easily have 85% of the population of below average intelligence. Not that I am stating my opinion on the probability of this actually being the case.

Don't apologize. It is perfectly possible for 85% to be below average if there are enough people who are much higher than the bulk.

thanks
*blushes*

No, you don't have to remind us about German history. In fact, I think this is the reason for your opinion. Having gotten in so much trouble over being, shall we say, too strongly opinionated, you now believe that anyone with a position and convictions is suspect.

Yes, you are right. Im not only German, im also studing history and so i might have a very extrem perspective about "opinionating Leaders" and their possible danger.
I also have to add that under no circumstances America should be compared to Germany in the 30s/40s - thats a completly different matter.
Just keep your eyes open , will you ? :D

Don't take offense, I don't think you can help it, and I think the rest of the world is happy Germany doesn't take anything too seriously now. We sleep better. But I would probably be even more critical if I was German, and I think Germans should be more critical of themselves and their lack of backbone.

I also agree with you concerning this point, although i would prefer a strong european union dealing with the international problems of tomorrow...
it would help to keep national interests out of european forign policies and would be also a sign for the peaceful development europe made.
the peaceful development in europe is also an american success, so it would probably help to support american ideas as well

(i wish i would be able to express myself properly in english :p , but expressing my thoughts in english without destroying their meaning is not only time devouring.. i hope nothing crucial has been lost on the way....)

Wrong. Median is exactly in the middle of a 50-50 split, average is not.

Not necessarily true. In a perfect bell curve relationship, the Median is exactly the average value.

Yes, you are right. Im not only German, im also studing history and so i might have a very extrem perspective about "opinionating Leaders" and their possible danger.
I also have to add that under no circumstances America should be compared to Germany in the 30s/40s - thats a completly different matter.
Just keep your eyes open , will you ? :D
Most certainly.

I also agree with you concerning this point, although i would prefer a strong european union dealing with the international problems of tomorrow...
it would help to keep national interests out of european forign policies and would be also a sign for the peaceful development europe made.
the peaceful development in europe is also an american success, so it would probably help to support american ideas as well

(i wish i would be able to express myself properly in english :p , but expressing my thoughts in english without destroying their meaning is not only time devouring.. i hope nothing crucial has been lost on the way....)I think you got your point across. Thanks for the serious reply, so often honest critcisms can turn into flame wars. And your English is far better than my German, though that was my first language. Unfortunately, I haven't spoken it in a long, long time.

It was actually a crack at Gore supporters.

*shrug* One or the other.

Not necessarily true. In a perfect bell curve relationship, the Median is exactly the average value.

However, only median is defined in this way.

Thus, while the average *can* be equal to the median, it is wrong to state that it must be.

Very few things are perfect bell curves, or bell curves at all for that matter.

Not necessarily true. In a perfect bell curve relationship, the Median is exactly the average value.
Thank you :) though does apply to other symetric curves besides bell but they are less likly

I voted for Bush because when I weighed both candidates on the issues, Bush came out ahead.

Also, I definitely didn't want to see Kerry start to pull troups out of Iraq willy, nilly. Right or wrong, we are there and we need to pull out in a manner that won't cause Iraq to collapse into a total war state.

Okay, alright, you got me on the percentages thing. But why are you picking on me? Whether you like it or not, Bush is our president. He got elected. Again. More people voted for him than for Kerry.


True, True, and something I really can't doing anything about. sorry for picking on you, I just happen to be good at nitpicking and pissing people off... you know, if it weren't for all the negative media against him, it looks like Bush would have won in a landslide. No Friggin Idea this is the kind of thing I like to classify as 'Somebody else's problem' although it affects all of us.

bah, I even screwed up the quote I put down. wrong Gore. Thanks for catching me on that one (sorry, I can't remember the name of who it was.)

yes, yes, I screwed up my vocabulary. Math has never been my strong point, but you know what I mean. It is entirely possible, I just didn't think it was probable in this situation. you can all stop making fun of me now, english is my 3rd language.

Wrong. Median is exactly in the middle of a 50-50 split, average is not.
Well, you said median is exactly the middle, whereas average is not. The median is susceptible to outliers and haphazard results. Average is resistant to those factors. I just had to prove you wrong... :)

I have to ask, did you support the descision to go into Iraq? And why?

Yes, I do. To enumerate reasons:

* Saddam's genocidal regime is gone, the Iraqis are better off now than when he was in power, and they will be much better off shortly. That would be sufficient reason by itself.

* We are fighting Islamofascism. It is not (just) Al-Qaeda, it is much bigger than that. Iraq is only one campaign in the wider war. Getting rid of Saddam may not directly hurt Al-Qaeda (just as landing in Tunisia in WW2 did not hurt Japan) but it advances towards the same goal. This is strategy judo, a way of pulling the rug from under your opponent.

* Our long-term safety really does depend on promoting democracy around the world. All the state sponsors of terrorism are oppressive states, and the breeding grounds are failed states. The Middle East is overdue for a few decent governments.

* The flypaper effect: Al-Qaeda *must* fight us in Iraq or they will lose face. That takes up resources they could use to attack us here. Moreover, it reverses the typical guerilla logic of picking the time and place of your attacks, and attacking undefended targets - while they can pick the specific time and place, the general time and place are "Iraq" and "as soon as possible", and Iraq as a whole is hardly undefended since half of our army is in there. It forces them to apply their weakness (hasty attacks) against our strength (concentrated military power). This is a whole lot better than their strength (carefully planned attacks) against our weakness (civilian population at home). Also, we can make it easy to enter Iraq but hard to leave.

* The grand-strategy logic of this is that *we* are engaging in asymmetric warfare against *them*, in picking a symbolic target (Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate) which they must defend, and using that to pin them down and bring them to a decisive battle. The capture of Baghdad had a major terror effect on *them*, since if we could simply walk through Saddam's army and into Baghdad, there is no safe haven anywhere in the world. If we manage to establish a democratic government, that will have an even greater effect: imagine the effect on us if they established an Islamist state in Washington, DC - and we could not dislodge them no matter how we tried. That is what it feels like to be an Islamist today. It feels like despair.

* Iraq is favorable terrain from our point of view. Favorable geography includes flat terrain which maximizes airpower, and easily observed and intercepted travel between cities. Other favorable factors include the presence of oil industry which will provide funds for faster reconstruction; the majority Shia and Kurdish population which is grateful to us for liberating them from Saddam/Sunni oppression; and a very favorable political climate of pro-democracy (if not necessarily pro-American) Shia clerics.

* Forces based in Iraq threaten the flanks of two potential enemies: Syria and Iran. This works both ways since they threaten us and the fledgling Iraq in turn. There is already an undeclared low-level border war against both, fully sanctioned by the Iraqi government, as a means to reduce the flow of support for the insurgency from those sources. Iraq also divides the enemy area of operations in two: now there is no longer an overland smuggling route from (e.g.) Bangladesh to Yemen (which are both Al-Qaeda recruiting and/or training areas).

* Violence does solve some/many problems. If anything, it is our traditional American way of solving problems. We also have an excellent record of wars of liberation and nation building (although it takes a long time). If Iraq in forty years is the "Japan of the Middle East", we would have something to be damn proud of.

I hope that answers the question?

---

Note: I use "Islamist" and "Islomafascist" interchangeably to refer to Islam (the Al-Qtub/Salafi/Wahhabi version) as a political philosophy of seizing power by a terrorist campaign and of government by clerics, and NOT as a religion. The Taliban was an example of Islamist government. Zarqawi and Bin Laden are Islamist. Most Muslims are not Islamist, and most view Islamists as a great danger. Unfortunately due to a successful campaign of intimidation, few of them do anything to oppose Islamists.

Yes, I do. To enumerate reasons:

* Saddam's genocidal regime is gone, the Iraqis are better off now than when he was in power, and they will be much better off shortly. That would be sufficient reason by itself.

* We are fighting Islamofascism. It is not (just) Al-Qaeda, it is much bigger than that. Iraq is only one campaign in the wider war. Getting rid of Saddam may not directly hurt Al-Qaeda (just as landing in Tunisia in WW2 did not hurt Japan) but it advances towards the same goal. This is strategy judo, a way of pulling the rug from under your opponent.

* Our long-term safety really does depend on promoting democracy around the world. All the state sponsors of terrorism are oppressive states, and the breeding grounds are failed states. The Middle East is overdue for a few decent governments.

* The flypaper effect: Al-Qaeda *must* fight us in Iraq or they will lose face. That takes up resources they could use to attack us here. Moreover, it reverses the typical guerilla logic of picking the time and place of your attacks, and attacking undefended targets - while they can pick the specific time and place, the general time and place are "Iraq" and "as soon as possible", and Iraq as a whole is hardly undefended since half of our army is in there. It forces them to apply their weakness (hasty attacks) against our strength (concentrated military power). This is a whole lot better than their strength (carefully planned attacks) against our weakness (civilian population at home). Also, we can make it easy to enter Iraq but hard to leave.

* The grand-strategy logic of this is that *we* are engaging in asymmetric warfare against *them*, in picking a symbolic target (Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate) which they must defend, and using that to pin them down and bring them to a decisive battle. The capture of Baghdad had a major terror effect on *them*, since if we could simply walk through Saddam's army and into Baghdad, there is no safe haven anywhere in the world. If we manage to establish a democratic government, that will have an even greater effect: imagine the effect on us if they established an Islamist state in Washington, DC - and we could not dislodge them no matter how we tried. That is what it feels like to be an Islamist today. It feels like despair.

* Iraq is favorable terrain from our point of view. Favorable geography includes flat terrain which maximizes airpower, and easily observed and intercepted travel between cities. Other favorable factors include the presence of oil industry which will provide funds for faster reconstruction; the majority Shia and Kurdish population which is grateful to us for liberating them from Saddam/Sunni oppression; and a very favorable political climate of pro-democracy (if not necessarily pro-American) Shia clerics.

* Forces based in Iraq threaten the flanks of two potential enemies: Syria and Iran. This works both ways since they threaten us and the fledgling Iraq in turn. There is already an undeclared low-level border war against both, fully sanctioned by the Iraqi government, as a means to reduce the flow of support for the insurgency from those sources. Iraq also divides the enemy area of operations in two: now there is no longer an overland smuggling route from (e.g.) Bangladesh to Yemen (which are both Al-Qaeda recruiting and/or training areas).

* Violence does solve some/many problems. If anything, it is our traditional American way of solving problems. We also have an excellent record of wars of liberation and nation building (although it takes a long time). If Iraq in forty years is the "Japan of the Middle East", we would have something to be damn proud of.

I hope that answers the question?

---

Note: I use "Islamist" and "Islomafascist" interchangeably to refer to Islam (the Al-Qtub/Salafi/Wahhabi version) as a political philosophy of seizing power by a terrorist campaign and of government by clerics, and NOT as a religion. The Taliban was an example of Islamist government. Zarqawi and Bin Laden are Islamist. Most Muslims are not Islamist, and most view Islamists as a great danger. Unfortunately due to a successful campaign of intimidation, few of them do anything to oppose Islamists.
1 Saddam's regime is gone, but it's hard to tell if the Iraqis are going to be better off. They may choose a government that is even worse than Saddam's. Plus their nation is now dotted with armed terrorists.

2 I don't know that invading Iraq helps the war on terrorism. It may become a recruiting tool for Islamofascists.

3 Yes, it would be nice to see democracy take over in the middle east. I'm just pessimistic about it's chances considering that the leaders over there are all against democracy. Will we have to take them all out?

4 They can fight us over there and still hit us over here. All it takes is a handfull of guys and a couple thousand dollars.

5 I'd like to think you're right on this point. I'm just not sure it'll work out that way.

6 See 5

7 Ok, that sounds good.

8 We agree here.

I just think it was a bad gamble. Too costly, and too little chance of paying off. Only time will tell which of us is right.

Well, you said median is exactly the middle, whereas average is not. The median is susceptible to outliers and haphazard results. Average is resistant to those factors. I just had to prove you wrong... :)


You have it backwards, medians are less susceptable to outliers and means are more susceptable. But it really depends on what facet of a sample/population you are trying to understand.

I liked kerry more, but can understand why so many Americans hated Bush but prefered him to Kerry.

I always reverse them, but that's what I meant ...

1 Saddam's regime is gone, but it's hard to tell if the Iraqis are going to be better off. They may choose a government that is even worse than Saddam's. Plus their nation is now dotted with armed terrorists.

Their nation has been dotted with armed terrorists for about three decades. They were the so-called "government", actually ruling regime. We are for the most part talking about the *same people* now as then. The only difference I can discern is that we and the majority of Iraqis are now fighting back. It is certainly possible that more people will be hurt in the crossfire than if we had done nothing, but that is not a good reason to submit to tyranny.

2 I don't know that invading Iraq helps the war on terrorism. It may become a recruiting tool for Islamofascists.

It also subjects them to a terrible rate of attrition. I'm estimating (back of the envelope) that a newly recruited mujahideen from outside Iraq has a life expectancy of three or four weeks of active operations. The locals try to use the foreign recruits as shock troops in order to preserve themselves and any experienced Al-Qaeda personnel, but they are getting hurt, badly, and they are running short of experienced people.

Assuming Iraq becomes somewhat successful in the near future, that will be an anti-recruiting tool. Sort of like Afghanistan now, which is a lost cause for the Islamists. Also it must be terribly disheartening to be fighting fellow arabs who are *just like the Americans*. Like this: http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050123/capt.mac10101231821.iraq_mosul_mac101.jpg (can you tell at a glance which one is which?)

Remember, the enemy is not ten feet tall, bulletproof, and breathing fire. They are human too.

3 Yes, it would be nice to see democracy take over in the middle east. I'm just pessimistic about it's chances considering that the leaders over there are all against democracy. Will we have to take them all out?

The rulers may be against democracy (unless we frighten the crap out of them, like with Ghadaffi). The leaders? I really doubt it. Oppression tends to create groups of people who are disenfranchised, with their leaders having a lot of grassroots support but essentially no power within the system. I imagine most Shia sheikhs are vigorous supporters of democracy. For them it means power commesurate with the number of people that follow them, or in other words a whole lot more power than they used to have. I doubt whether the switch from small feudal lord to politician will go easily or gracefully - but it will happen anyway.

4 They can fight us over there and still hit us over here. All it takes is a handfull of guys and a couple thousand dollars.

Hard to plan when you're always on the run.

In terms of reputation, you can't afford to do a small-potatoes attack - something that could almost be mistaken for street crime. Something big takes millions to tens of millions of dollars and dozens of people. And a number of those plots have been caught and stopped by the FBI... if one is paying attention ;)

I just think it was a bad gamble. Too costly, and too little chance of paying off. Only time will tell which of us is right.

It's a gamble, on that we agree absolutely. I think it's a fairly risky gamble with a huge payoff. Just like the highly unconventional strategy used in the drive on Baghdad which seemed insanely risky at the time but vastly reduced casualties on both sides in the end.

I didn't, but alot of it had to do with the RELIGIOUS right-wing nutjobs out there. :headbang: He's STILL not my president

Then who is your president? A senator from MASS with no major accomplishments in his LIFE???

Then who is your president? A senator from MASS with no major accomplishments in his LIFE???

Dude, Lincoln's only events in his life before becoming president were two failed businesses. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Stalin was little more than a target of ridicule before his rise to power and infamy. Please, find another way to put someone down.

Then who is your president? A senator from MASS with no major accomplishments in his LIFE???
Nah, probably the Senator from Tennessee that couldn't even carry his home state.

Because he has *one* thing right (namely foreign policy),
Bombing the shit out of anything that moves is good foriegn policy. Pulling out of several major international treaties is good foriegn policy. Ignoring others, including central tenants of the laws of war is good foriegn policy. The mans brilliant. :sarcasm:

His foriegn policy is a matter of much debate, and I am inclined to think he foriegn policy is one of his most wrong things.

Then who is your president? A senator from MASS with no major accomplishments in his LIFE???

Or were you talking about my pal Teddy?

Bombing the shit out of anything that moves is good foriegn policy. Pulling out of several major international treaties is good foriegn policy. Ignoring others, including central tenants of the laws of war is good foriegn policy. The mans brilliant. :sarcasm:

His foriegn policy is a matter of much debate, and I am inclined to think he foriegn policy is one of his most wrong things.

I suppose whether that policy is appropriate depends on whether you think we are at war and what the scope of that war is. We did all you describe, and more, in WW2. We won.

The international treaties you refer to (Kyoto and ICC?) are crap, they were designed pretty much to specifically weaken the US. We should have never been part of them. Good riddance.

The "laws of war" are based on the idea of reciprocity. When fighting people who systematically violate *all* of the laws of war, there can be no reciprocity; there can be no laws; everything is permissible. We should still be more civilized than the enemy, but that is a matter of decency, not of law.

Although I am not a Bush supporter, I do know why many people voted for Bush.

Ignorance. http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

People voted for bush because they knew he wasn't a compulsively lying idiot who wants to put america's power in the UN.

People voted for bush because they knew he wasn't a compulsively lying idiot who wants to put america's power in the UN.
I can only hope that that was sarcasm.

I can only hope that that was sarcasm.
I don't know, it kind of resembles my reason for voting against sKerry.

Then who is your president? A senator from MASS with no major accomplishments in his LIFE???
First off I recognize that Bush IS president, I might not like it but he is, but really you say that as if he has acomplished a lot in his life? I mean what had he done before being elected president that was so great? Drive multiple companies into the ground? Drasticaly increase Texas' debt? Get drunk driving convections? Really what did he do that was so great?

...and that was drunk driving in Texas! Do you know how hard it was to get a DUI in Texas at that time? A cop would pull you over, say "You were a little wobbly on the road, are you drunk?" "Yes." "Well you drive home carefully now, you hear?"

First off I recognize that Bush IS president, I might not like it but he is, but really you say that as if he has acomplished a lot in his life? I mean what had he done before being elected president that was so great? Drive multiple companies into the ground? Drasticaly increase Texas' debt? Get drunk driving convections? Really what did he do that was so great?

He DID have a baseball team... :p

He DID have a baseball team... :p
Did they suck or something? I don't know I've never been that into sports, its just when ever I have heard people mention that they never sound like it was a good thing.