NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?
There's a surprising number of people here who love him dearly and are perfectly happy to let him piss all over their civil rights and ramp up the national debt to pay for a war nobody wanted in the first place.

There's a surprising number of people here who love him dearly and are perfectly happy to let him piss all over their civil rights and ramp up the national debt to pay for a war nobody wanted in the first place.

...if he were actually pissing all over our civil rights, I'd be angry.

Alas, he's not...

(*someone will say "But what about the Patriot Act? What about those NSA phone taps of terrorists?" To which I reply, "How has the Patriot Act negatively affected your civil rights exactly? And what rights should terrorists have to plan attacks on this or other countries?)

as for the "war nobody wanted in the first place", lmao... most IRaqis seem to be pretty happy that we took down Saddam... unless, of course, you thought Saddam was a jolly good leader who deserved to remain in power (still can't believe some people don't understand the good that's been done in Iraq).

There's a surprising number of people here who love him dearly and are perfectly happy to let him piss all over their civil rights and ramp up the national debt to pay for a war nobody wanted in the first place.
Easy now... I didn't want to start a flame war.

First, the government and everyone in it is fundamentally untrustworthy. It doesn't matter who's in power or what form of government we are talking about.

Second, Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, the gravest risk to the United States in it's entire history.

Third, he got us into a war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought with evidence that didn't stand up to scrutiny. To be fair, I don't think that was entirely his fault, but the buck stops with the guy in the round office.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Something to note: I voted FOR Bush in the last election. I'd rather have an untrustworthy idiot than an incompetent moron.

as a person I have very little against George bush. It's his policies that make me sick

...if he were actually pissing all over our civil rights, I'd be angry.

Alas, he's not...

(*someone will say "But what about the Patriot Act? What about those NSA phone taps of terrorists?" To which I reply, "How has the Patriot Act negatively affected your civil rights exactly? And what rights should terrorists have to plan attacks on this or other countries?)

as for the "war nobody wanted in the first place", lmao... most IRaqis seem to be pretty happy that we took down Saddam... unless, of course, you thought Saddam was a jolly good leader who deserved to remain in power (still can't believe some people don't understand the good that's been done in Iraq).Why can't more people think like you?

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?

There are still a few conservatives around that like him, but this is a leftist / gay forum so you can't reallly expect anything other than what you see. Bush is a fairly religious person and frankly gays don't usually get a lot of play from them.

First, the government and everyone in it is fundamentally untrustworthy. It doesn't matter who's in power or what form of government we are talking about.

Bingo!

First, the government and everyone in it is fundamentally untrustworthy. It doesn't matter who's in power or what form of government we are talking about.

Second, Bush created the Department of Homeland Security, the gravest risk to the United States in it's entire history.

Third, he got us into a war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought with evidence that didn't stand up to scrutiny. To be fair, I don't think that was entirely his fault, but the buck stops with the guy in the round office.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Something to note: I voted FOR Bush in the last election. I'd rather have an untrustworthy idiot than an incompetent moron.

Third, he got us into a war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought with evidence that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

So... was Saddam just going to step down? Saddam is precisely why the war needed to be fought -- to get him out of power, to give Iraqis a chance at freedom. They showed up to vote, validating our expectation that most IRaqis were against Saddam and for freedom to elect their leaders.

There's a surprising number of people here who love him dearly and are perfectly happy to let him piss all over their civil rights and ramp up the national debt to pay for a war nobody wanted in the first place.

That's pretty much it. And it goes hand in hand with the pure evil and corruption of his party.

I know, I know, that's going to bring a bunch of "corruption happens on both sides. Blah blah blah," and other half-assed defence of the repugnant-can party. But, let's look at the facts: Blatant cronyism getting people into jobs they're not qualified for. Bribery on a massive scale that's already taken down two congressmen and is lining up more. That's just the tip of it.

And to those who will be invariably arguing about Byron Dorgan. He recieved money from indian tribes, with not one shred of real evidence that Jack Abramoff told them to give it to him. And, if ONE instance of dubious validity involving ONE democrat makes you feel better about repug corruption then there's nothing that can be done for you, you have succumbed to the dark side, and forever will it dominate your destiny...

I'll end with a recent quote

You're reading a lot about a corruption scandal in Washington. Some people are trying to tell you that "everybody does it" and that both parties are involved and that whenever you try to take the money out of politics it finds another way in. These are smokescreens designed to make you think this is not as bad as it sounds. These are smokescreens designed to make you think there is nothing you can do about things like that, that you have no power, and that you should just let the politicians take care of these things for you.

Don't be fooled. See the forest, not the trees. This corruption scandal is about people breaking existing laws. This is about Republican Congressmen and White House officials indicted for illegally taking bribes. They took payments in exchange for abusing their power, providing favors to cronies, and for using their power to block investigations and oversight.

Why can't more people think like you?

i don't know. i just see a whole lot of overreacting when Lefties talk about things like the Patriot Act and phone-tapping, which only affect terrorists and/or suspected terrorists. To become a suspected terrorist, I'd imagine you'd have to be up to some mischief (the baby notwithstanding, though likely no harm came to the baby. hehe).

IE, unless you're a terrorist, these security measures -- yes, they're meant to PROTECT YOU -- wil not affect your rights in any way.

as for the "war nobody wanted in the first place", lmao... most IRaqis seem to be pretty happy that we took down Saddam... unless, of course, you thought Saddam was a jolly good leader who deserved to remain in power (still can't believe some people don't understand the good that's been done in Iraq).
No bastard outside of Iraq and the GOP appeared very keen on it, however, and there are now rather more terrorists (all these insurgents) in the country than there were previously. Hussein was not a nice man, but until something gets done about Syria or Korea, claiming that the exercise is justified because the happy Iraqis have been liberated from oppression isn't much of an excuse. I've also yet to see an explanation of how (given the current fuss about extremist Muslim terrorists) putting a government that's likely to convert itself into a shi'ite theocracy like the one next door is making the middle east any more stable or the world a safer place.

There are still a few conservatives around that like him, but this is a leftist / gay forum so you can't reallly expect anything other than what you see. Bush is a fairly religious person and frankly gays don't usually get a lot of play from them.
Yes, I'd say both those groups are disproportionately represented on this board, but you don't need to be liberal or gay to dislike many of Bush's policies. On the flip side, he hasn't screwed up *everything*, which many people both on this board and in my country generally seem to forget. If I were a US citizen in November of 2004, I would have voted for Bush, if only because Kerry sucks even more.

but this is a leftist / gay forum

Bwahahahahah!

No bastard outside of Iraq and the GOP appeared very keen on it, however, and there are now rather more terrorists (all these insurgents) in the country than there were previously. Hussein was not a nice man, but until something gets done about Syria or Korea, claiming that the exercise is justified because the happy Iraqis have been liberated from oppression isn't much of an excuse. I've also yet to see an explanation of how (given the current fuss about extremist Muslim terrorists) putting a government that's likely to convert itself into a shi'ite theocracy like the one next door is making the middle east any more stable or the world a safer place.

from a terrorist-killing standpoint, it's probably good to have them concentrated in one general area... draw them out of their caves in Syria, Iran, etc... shoot them like fish in a barrel. IF they're not going to face the fact that Iraqis showed their support of democracy by voting for their leaders and lay down their arms and become positive/productive human beings, then the best thing for the rest of us is for them to die. As long as they're hiding, it's probably harder to find/hunt them.

also, freedom is never wrong... to me, it is plenty of justification -- look, if terrorists are angry at what we did, then we probably did a good thing. it'd be nice if the brainwashed and starving North Koreans could see it but they've been brainwashed and probably would be helpless for a while if given the gift of freedom.

As for a possible Shi'a theocracy in Iraq, yeah, that's the risk you take when you allow people to vote for their leaders. That's why it's important for some Sunnis, at least, to get into that government, and for safeguards to be set up to prevent oppression of Sunnis (call it reverse discrimination, Iraq-style -- the 20% ruled the 80% under Saddam).

i got nothing against bush. Except that hes a monkey.

i got nothing against bush. Except that hes a monkey.

What did monkeys ever do to you? Take that back!

Third, he got us into a war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought with evidence that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

So... was Saddam just going to step down? Saddam is precisely why the war needed to be fought -- to get him out of power, to give Iraqis a chance at freedom. They showed up to vote, validating our expectation that most IRaqis were against Saddam and for freedom to elect their leaders.

Hey, I'm no Saddam apologist. Getting rid of him was clearly an act of good. But "eliminating a dictator" simply isn't sufficient reason to risk our troops and our economy.

If I were to draw up a list of dictatorships that needed to fall, I'd have Burma and North Korea at the top of the list - Iraq would have come somewhere in the middle. The US is only snapping at NK because of the Nuclear issue, and is doing basically nothing at all against SLORC in Burma - or the Syrian dictatorship, or Nigeria, or the ongoing disaster that is the Congo, or - well, you get the picture.

The US has a right to act if it feels there is national interest. There was no such interest in Iraq, so it was a war the US had no need to fight.

So... was Saddam just going to step down? Saddam is precisely why the war needed to be fought -- to get him out of power, to give Iraqis a chance at freedom. They showed up to vote, validating our expectation that most IRaqis were against Saddam and for freedom to elect their leaders.

Is freedom to give america your oil really freedom?

There are still a few conservatives around that like him, but this is a leftist / gay forum so you can't reallly expect anything other than what you see. Bush is a fairly religious person and frankly gays don't usually get a lot of play from them.


LOL :D

Third, he got us into a war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought with evidence that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

So... was Saddam just going to step down? Saddam is precisely why the war needed to be fought -- to get him out of power, to give Iraqis a chance at freedom. They showed up to vote, validating our expectation that most IRaqis were against Saddam and for freedom to elect their leaders.
I'm getting really tired of having to keep repeating this over and over, but these were not the reasons given for starting the invasion when it happened. Neocons have just started claiming this (while doing fuckall about unelected juntas elsewhere) since it became clear that calling the claims that Hussein had WMDs and connections to al queda bullshit would be lending them too much credibility.

There are still a few conservatives around that like him, but this is a leftist / gay forum so you can't reallly expect anything other than what you see. Bush is a fairly religious person and frankly gays don't usually get a lot of play from them.
Perhaps you should piss off and find another board to post on that isn't full of gay lefties, then. Maybe Fred Phelps website has a messageboard...

Hmmm. Why don't I like a right wing authoritarian? Could it be because his views are diametrically opposed to mine?

Personally, I've voted for him 3 times and would vote for him again if I could.

The facts that he won't veto anything, lets lies and smears about him/the military/the Republican agenda go unchecked, and mangles the English language (I cringe everytime he says 'nucular') are why I find myself annoyed with him.
If he would be like Clinton (relentlessly promote his presidency and agenda) I'd be more comfortable.

Perhaps you should piss off and find another board to post on that isn't full of gay lefties, then. Maybe Fred Phelps website has a messageboard...

Lyric! Is that you Lyric? I knew it. How ya doing buddy. I see the meds are still given ya problems. Don't sweat it, just take a few more.

Hey, I'm no Saddam apologist. Getting rid of him was clearly an act of good. But "eliminating a dictator" simply isn't sufficient reason to risk our troops and our economy.

If I were to draw up a list of dictatorships that needed to fall, I'd have Burma and North Korea at the top of the list - Iraq would have come somewhere in the middle. The US is only snapping at NK because of the Nuclear issue, and is doing basically nothing at all against SLORC in Burma - or the Syrian dictatorship, or Nigeria, or the ongoing disaster that is the Congo, or - well, you get the picture.

The US has a right to act if it feels there is national interest. There was no such interest in Iraq, so it was a war the US had no need to fight.

fair enough

when you include the expectation of WMD/terrorists, that pushed Iraq to the head of the list. Now we know that there were terrorists in IRaq -- there's Al Qaeda in Iraq for crissakes -- but thus far, no WMDs have been found (though I still wonder if we've searched everywhere in Iraq, under Iraq, etc.).

So we at least have democracy-building/despot-cleansing as something to fall back on. hehe

as for those other countries, yeah, there are a lot of bad people leading countries. I don't know if the people of NK could handle life without their human god KJI.

It remains to be seen if taking down Saddam could have positive ramifications for Joe American... of course, to know that, we'd have to know whether or not Saddam would have messed with us in the future or supported terrorists who woulda messed with us... which would be conjecture.

maybe a democratic Iraq will help (Somehow... won't get into all possibilities here) the US's image (and by association, the image of the West) in the Middle East. This would be best be measured per decade... won't know for some time prolly.

from a terrorist-killing standpoint, it's probably good to have them concentrated in one general area... draw them out of their caves in Syria, Iran, etc... shoot them like fish in a barrel. IF they're not going to face the fact that Iraqis showed their support of democracy by voting for their leaders and lay down their arms and become positive/productive human beings, then the best thing for the rest of us is for them to die. As long as they're hiding, it's probably harder to find/hunt them.
It's not a barrell, it's a sewer, and the fish are breeding down there. This is the best advert there's been for the Jihadists in a long time.

also, freedom is never wrong... to me, it is plenty of justification -- look, if terrorists are angry at what we did, then we probably did a good thing. it'd be nice if the brainwashed and starving North Koreans could see it but they've been brainwashed and probably would be helpless for a while if given the gift of freedom.
It hasn't been sufficient justification to do a bloody thing anywhere else in the world under Bush, I've noticed, though. Falling back on moralism when all other arguments collapse is truly disgusting behaviour, and I am not having it.

As for a possible Shi'a theocracy in Iraq, yeah, that's the risk you take when you allow people to vote for their leaders. That's why it's important for some Sunnis, at least, to get into that government, and for safeguards to be set up to prevent oppression of Sunnis (call it reverse discrimination, Iraq-style -- the 20% ruled the 80% under Saddam).
You've just contradicted yourself here: free elections and forcing a quota of the former elite into government are slightly at odds.

Listen, Bush started yet another Vietnam, and most Americans who arent blinded by patriotism (which by the way, is really outta fashon since.....the 1940/50's) are well aware of!! This is taken from a Northern Irish point of view and we (Britain) was dragged into a war 73% of us objected against! And there is no point in denying that the Iraq War was not for Libertaion, but for the exploitation of the Iraqi ppl and their oil

Third, he got us into a war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought with evidence that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

So... was Saddam just going to step down? Saddam is precisely why the war needed to be fought -- to get him out of power, to give Iraqis a chance at freedom. They showed up to vote, validating our expectation that most IRaqis were against Saddam and for freedom to elect their leaders.

Ruled by Dictator.
Has weapons of mass destruction.
Oppresses own people.
Inflammatory speech against the US.
Sponsor of terrorism.

Try tell me what country I'm talking about. You can't. You know why? There are at least five countries that fit all of those criterias. Heard the US do anything to oppose them lately?

Because it tickles your nose.

First, the government and everyone in it is fundamentally untrustworthy. It doesn't matter who's in power or what form of government we are talking about.
A-frickin'-men brother!

There are still a few conservatives around that like him, but this is a leftist / gay forum so you can't reallly expect anything other than what you see. Bush is a fairly religious person and frankly gays don't usually get a lot of play from them.
I've heard NS previously described as a leftist forum, as a liberal forum, but this is the first time I've ever heard it described as a gay forum! Well done.

I don't think Bush is really all that religious. He just uses it to whip up a few votes from actual religious people. Contrary to the more hysterical of liberals, I don't think that his religion really influences his policies. It's in his speeches, maybe a few superficial acts; but on the serious issues, he's pretty secular.

Is freedom to give america your oil really freedom?
Iraq's ownership of her own oil reserves is in the constitution, you troll. Not to say that I trust Halliburton and Cheney, but what you posted is blatant misinformation.

I'm getting really tired of having to keep repeating this over and over, but these were not the reasons given for starting the invasion when it happened.
I wonder if it really matters now, what the original reasons given were. Iraqis are better off and the Middle East is beginning to change for the better. I think that the results are what ultimately matters, even if the original reasons sucked.

Lyric! Is that you Lyric? I knew it. How ya doing buddy. I see the meds are still given ya problems. Don't sweat it, just take a few more.
No it isn't, and don't patronise me you retarded little mouthbreather.

I've heard NS previously described as a leftist forum, as a liberal forum, but this is the first time I've ever heard it described as a gay forum! Well done.
.


It's a very happy forum as you can see.

There are still a few conservatives around that like him, but this is a leftist / gay forum so you can't reallly expect anything other than what you see. Bush is a fairly religious person and frankly gays don't usually get a lot of play from them.
Did you seriously type this? My god man.

fair enough

when you include the expectation of WMD/terrorists, that pushed Iraq to the head of the list. Now we know that there were terrorists in IRaq -- there's Al Qaeda in Iraq for crissakes -- but thus far, no WMDs have been found (though I still wonder if we've searched everywhere in Iraq, under Iraq, etc.).

So we at least have democracy-building/despot-cleansing as something to fall back on. hehe

as for those other countries, yeah, there are a lot of bad people leading countries. I don't know if the people of NK could handle life without their human god KJI.

It remains to be seen if taking down Saddam could have positive ramifications for Joe American... of course, to know that, we'd have to know whether or not Saddam would have messed with us in the future or supported terrorists who woulda messed with us... which would be conjecture.


That's fair, though the question of whether al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the invasion is as yet unresolved (I suspect the answer is no - Saddam had a very low tolerance for anyone having a power base outside of himself and close family).

Why don't I like Bush???

Because the last time I checked, breaking federal and constitutional law was illegal, whether or not it only affects terrorists.

It's a barrell, it's a sewer, and the fish are breeding down there. This is the best advert there's been for the Jihadists in a long time.


It hasn't been sufficient justification to do a bloody thing anywhere else in the world under Bush, I've noticed, though. Falling back on moralism when all other arguments collapse is truly disgusting behaviour, and I am not having it.


You've just contradicted yourself here: free elections and forcing a quota of the former elite into government are slightly at odds.

i didn't say "quota" ... it would be nice if there were some Sunnis in it, but I didn't say they should be forced to have Sunnis -- if they're voted in, then they're voted in. I'm not for fixing the vote.

and

f-r-e-e-d-o-m FREEDOM! It's worth fighting for! Woo hoo! hehe

Alas, he's not...

Au contraire. I now can by arrested and questioned by CIA agents without being able to speak to my lawyer or even tell anybody I've been taken. And I can be taken for up to three days.

And you know what? I don't even live in America.

That's the effect the "War on Terror" is having on a country five thousand miles away.

Don't get me wrong. Bush didn't write that piece of legilslation. But he set the tone and provided the examples that led to it. That's why I hate him.

I've heard NS previously described as a leftist forum, as a liberal forum, but this is the first time I've ever heard it described as a gay forum!

It's nice to see I haven't been typing my fingers bloody for naught.

It's nice to see I haven't been typing my fingers bloody for naught.
I knew you'd either try to claim, or be afforded the credit. Shame on you all.

...if he were actually pissing all over our civil rights, I'd be angry.

Unless you were just too locked into your partisan way of thinking that you didn't even notice it.


(*someone will say "But what about the Patriot Act? What about those NSA phone taps of terrorists?" To which I reply, "How has the Patriot Act negatively affected your civil rights exactly? And what rights should terrorists have to plan attacks on this or other countries?)

And so unless it affects my PERSONAL civil rights, it's not a problem? Interesting viewpoint you have there considering you are all for championing the rights of Iraqis brutalized by their dictator.


as for the "war nobody wanted in the first place", lmao... most IRaqis seem to be pretty happy that we took down Saddam...

Oh, so that's what we're doing there in Iraq today? getting rid of Saddam... again?

You've created a typical false dilemma. Either you're for Bush and his war, or you're for Saddam Hussein. Yawn.

Yes, I'd say both those groups are disproportionately represented on this board, but you don't need to be liberal or gay to dislike many of Bush's policies. On the flip side, he hasn't screwed up *everything*, which many people both on this board and in my country generally seem to forget. If I were a US citizen in November of 2004, I would have voted for Bush, if only because Kerry sucks even more.

No of course you don't have to be liberal or gay to dislike a lot of the things he has done. I am neither and I absolutely hate some of them, but to expect anything better than what you see here is really asking more than what the bulk of the participants are capable of giving. The users here in no way reflect the majority of the U.S. population. They tend to reflect what the media projects and the California perspective of what government should be. These are beliefs that are soundly rejected by most of the U.S. which I am sure is very frustrating to them, hence, everything Bush does is wrong no matter what.

You've created a typical false dilemma. Either you're for Bush and his war, or you're for Saddam Hussein. Yawn.
I'm so sick of that argument. Christ.

The users here in no way reflect the majority of the U.S. population.
Perhaps because a healthy proportion of us are not USians? Hmmm. Perhaps indeed.

I knew you'd either try to claim, or be afforded the credit.

With merit, I dare say!

Shame on you all.

On the contrary, pride on us all!

On the contrary, pride on us all!
INTO THE CLOSET WITH YOU!!!!

Perhaps because a healthy proportion of us are not USians?

Fortunately.

f-r-e-e-d-o-m FREEDOM! It's worth fighting for! Woo hoo! hehe
No, that is merely being used as an excuse to justify an action that has been undertaken for a completely different agenda.

INTO THE CLOSET WITH YOU!!!!

Yay! Then I can get all dressed up in your clothes and do a Sinuhue drag.

Did you seriously type this? My god man.
Maybe it was some stoned, stealthy moderator looking for a laugh.

They tend to reflect what the California perspective of what government should be.
In fairness, I don't think that most regular NS posters are insane!

bush combines the worst of the democrats and the worst of the republicans.

he cut taxes, bloated the budget, created mindbogglingly high deficits, started a war prematurely, bungled the running of the war, decided to give tax money to religious charities, appoints both ultra conservative and unqualified people to the courts, expanded government, curtailed our freedoms, breaks the law claiming he has no need to follow the constitution,

oh isnt that enough? do i really need to continue?

Maybe it was some stoned, stealthy moderator looking for a laugh.

Melkor?

Melkor?
Well, he meets the criteria of

1) being a stoner
2) being an NS addict
3) having a cruel sense of humour

Bingo.

Did you seriously type this? My god man.

What!? Is gay a dirty word now or something? ...or would you contend that the two groups are not the predominate participants in NS general? ...or are you going to contend that religious groups give gays a great deal of play?

In fairness, I don't think that most regular NS posters are insane!

Are you sure? Is that your final answer? You don't want to phone a friend or something?

bush combines the worst of the democrats and the worst of the republicans.

he cut taxes, bloated the budget, created mindbogglingly high deficits, started a war prematurely, bungled the running of the war, decided to give tax money to religious charities, appoints both ultra conservative and unqualified people to the courts, expanded government, curtailed our freedoms, breaks the law claiming he has no need to follow the constitution,

oh isnt that enough? do i really need to continue?

He's also the modern day Engraved Idol that is worshipped by too many in America, the central figure of a Personality Cult that believes he is incapable of doing wrong. Despite having bankrupted 3 businesses Daddy handed over to him to operate, the Busheviks still believe he is capable of running the nation.

He went AWOL during Vietnam even in the Texas Air National Guard's Champagne Unit. Yet he has the gumption to send thousands of our soldiers to risk getting maimed or killed in Iraq over a war which needed three different excuses to attempt justifying to the world as a whole. And which has created a terrorist training school that teaches Jihadists skills that they can apply to future attacks to America. Busheviks also believe in the myth that we're safe because we haven't been hit since 9-11. The terrorists are smart; they're biding for time, experience and materials.

What!? Is gay a dirty word now or something? ...or would you contend that the two groups are not the predominate participants in NS general? ...or are you going to contend that religious groups give gays a great deal of play?
I shall contend that straights make up the majority of posters. I would also contend that lefties are not a huge majority. Just a slight one.

What!? Is gay a dirty word now or something? ...or would you contend that the two groups are not the predominate participants in NS general? ...or are you going to contend that religious groups give gays a great deal of play?
No, I don't think that gays are all that dominant on NS. Fass is just a very regular poster! And there are probably as many libertarians as there are leftists.

Alright. One specific (for now) is that Bush cracked down on Cuba again, strengthening the embargo, and issuing much fewer visas for Cubans than in the Clinton years. He's been a real bastard towards Cuba, just when things were starting to thaw between the US and that nation.

Why do people hate Bush so much? Because they have such fine upstanding idols themselves, such as Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, and Dean. :D

Alright. One specific (for now) is that Bush cracked down on Cuba again, strengthening the embargo, and issuing much fewer visas for Cubans than in the Clinton years. He's been a real bastard towards Cuba, just when things were starting to thaw between the US and that nation.
Yeah, damn him for not propping up Castro's regime with U.S. dollars! Damn him for not wanting to fund Castro's crooked ass government. Damn him because he doesn't believe that all of the corporations and businesses that Castro stole from people when he took power should be well funded by American wealth. Your right, he's such an ass. :rolleyes:

Au contraire. I now can by arrested and questioned by CIA agents without being able to speak to my lawyer or even tell anybody I've been taken. And I can be taken for up to three days.

And you know what? I don't even live in America.

That's the effect the "War on Terror" is having on a country five thousand miles away.

Don't get me wrong. Bush didn't write that piece of legilslation. But he set the tone and provided the examples that led to it. That's why I hate him.

until it happens to you, it hasn't affected you.

like i said, as long as these hit those they're intended for -- namely terrorists or those who hang out with terrorists -- then they're not hurting you at all.

Yeah, damn him for not propping up Castro's regime with U.S. dollars! Damn him for not wanting to fund Castro's crooked ass government. Damn him because he doesn't believe that all of the corporations and businesses that Castro stole from people when he took power should be well funded by American wealth. Your right, he's such an ass. :rolleyes:

YEAH, how dare he not deal with a Communist dictator?!

No, I don't think that gays are all that dominant on NS. Fass is just a very regular poster! And there are probably as many libertarians as there are leftists.

Point taken! But without being able to know who's puppet is who's one can only judge by the disproportinate number of threads and replies that address the topic. Quite frankly, any reasonable person just dropping in here and browsing around is going to come to that conclusion every time.

I really don't know about the libertarians. They are kind of hard to put a finger on sometimes and it seems they can go either way, left or right.

There are still a few conservatives around that like him, but this is a leftist / gay forum so you can't reallly expect anything other than what you see. Bush is a fairly religious person and frankly gays don't usually get a lot of play from them.

This is an interesting way to look at things. I mean, i can see how you think everyone is left or gay but im definitely not a leftist or gay but i dont like bush because of his irrational way of trying to go into iraq. WMDs? Where? I mean yay Saddam is gone but what evidence did we have besides our imaginary WMDs? Well i must say our economy, is bad, but economy isnt always stable, but when approval ratings are down, when mistake after mistake needs to be covered, and all we have to show for it is dying soldier in iraq and Saddam being tried in court. I mean i support our troops but i support troops staying alive.

YEAH, how dare he not deal with a Communist dictator?!

Yes, how dare he not tighten the embargo more... nevermind that it will only crush the Cuban people and not Castro who's well off to begin with. Oh wait, you didn't hear that part.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, damn him for not propping up Castro's regime with U.S. dollars! Damn him for not wanting to fund Castro's crooked ass government. Damn him because he doesn't believe that all of the corporations and businesses that Castro stole from people when he took power should be well funded by American wealth. Your right, he's such an ass. :rolleyes:
Oh please. All Bush has done is increased Cuban nationalism, continued an immigration policy than encourages people to risk their lives in order to step foot on US soil and magically obtain residency, (if you gave the same option to everyone else, you'd be much more swamped than you are now), decreased the 20,000 visa max for Cubans wishing to leave Cuba to about 500 annually (so much for trying to help...instead it's increased immigration pressures), tried to toss Cuba into the pot with North Korea and Iraq as part of the Axis of Evil, eliminated 70% of legal travel by USians (students, athletes, scientists etc) to Cuba, tossed out 14 Cuban dipolmats for vague bullshit reasons, and so on. His hardline stance against Cuba is ridiculous...as such a stance has always been. Since 1992 the UN General Assembly has voted by an incredibly overwhelming margin to condemn the US embargo against Cuba. The last Pope called you asses for it. Not in so many words of course...much popelier ones. Go pick on someone that deserves it. Or just frick off altogether. That'd be the better choice.

until it happens to you, it hasn't affected you.

like i said, as long as these hit those they're intended for -- namely terrorists or those who hang out with terrorists -- then they're not hurting you at all.

If the threat of such foul and draconian measures makes you rethink sending one e-mail with your honest appraisal of the situation - it has affected you.

If one person you know is caught up in a sweep and "disappeared" for a few days before being released - it has affected you.

If you look differently at the police and security apparatus now that they can use these new powers against you - it has affected you.

These powers were put in place to be used against terrorists, yes. But that gives no guarantees as to who they WILL be used against.

Go pick on someone that deserves it. Or just frick off altogether. That'd be the better choice.

That'll never happen while Castro is still alive unfortunately. The United States is a spiteful, petty nation especially against countries and leaders who manage to continue existing and even thrive after giving it the middle finger.

... there are now rather more terrorists (all these insurgents) in the country than there were previously...

There are more terrorists in Iraq. True. But overall there seem to be fewer active insurgents in the middle east. As for Iraq, the insurgents saw an opportunity to make war with the U.S. (for the second time in a few short years) and that is the sole reason they are there. Not because they disagree with the disposal of Saddam, not because they feel the Iraqis are under foreign occupation, but only because they want to make war with the U.S. and Iraq is convenient. If not Iraq then it would be only a matter of time before they found another more destructive way to attack America. Would that be better than combat in an already war-torn region?

YEAH, how dare he not deal with a Communist dictator?!

http://ted.coe.wayne.edu/sse/links/Taiwan/website%20pics/2_21_120903_bush_china.jpg


http://newsfromrussia.com/images/newsline/bush_vietnam.jpg

If the threat of such foul and draconian measures makes you rethink sending one e-mail with your honest appraisal of the situation - it has affected you.

If one person you know is caught up in a sweep and "disappeared" for a few days before being released - it has affected you.

If you look differently at the police and security apparatus now that they can use these new powers against you - it has affected you.

These powers were put in place to be used against terrorists, yes. But that gives no guarantees as to who they WILL be used against.

It's all but officially certified that these "anti-terrorist" powers will be used on whoever the authorities damn please with an application of the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine.

until it happens to you, it hasn't affected you.

Are you fucking serious?

I was never murdered, so the murder of others shouldn't bother me?
I was never molested as child, so child molestation shouldn't bother me?

Is that seriously the point that you're trying to make?

That'll never happen while Castro is still alive unfortunately. The United States is a spiteful, petty nation especially against countries and leaders who manage to continue existing and even thrive after giving it the middle finger.
To be fair, the Helms Burton Act prohibits any president from discontinuing the embargo until Cuba has a transitional government. But still...there is a soft embargo, and there is Bush's embargo. An embargo, by the way, that has FAILED TO TOPPLE CASTRO in the over 40 years it's been around...sheesh...when do you just finally say, "well THAT didn't work"?

There is no decent reason for the war in Iraq. If it were simply about freedom then there are a few dozen countries in Africa were genocide happens daily. I think they could have used the help alot more, and we would have lost more soldiers. Buuut there would have been nothing in return for the war going to us.

Why be anti-Bush?
Well, Bush is anti-me, so I figured that was the kind of relationship he was going for.

I don't like Bush as a person, like when he was mocking a lady who was being put to death "Oh please don't kill me?", he said as he wiped a fake tear from his eye. Nor do I like his policies concerning the environment, corporate welfare, faith-based policies, foreign policies.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :mp5:

Yeah, damn him for not propping up Castro's regime with U.S. dollars! Damn him for not wanting to fund Castro's crooked ass government.
I don't think that Sinuhue wants Bush to subsidise Catro's government. She just wants Americans to have the same freedom to go to Cuba and spend their money that the rest of us do.

Are you fucking serious?

I was never murdered, so the murder of others shouldn't bother me?
I was never molested as child, so child molestation shouldn't bother me?

Is that seriously the point that you're trying to make?

Busheviks often have symptoms of the "It's Not Happening to Me" Disease, especially in regards to civil rights curtailment and violations. He's probably thanking God he's not a dirty brown Muslim.

Are you fucking serious?

I was never murdered, so the murder of others shouldn't bother me?
I was never molested as child, so child molestation shouldn't bother me?

Is that seriously the point that you're trying to make?

i think it's more of a "first they came for the darkies, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the darkies. then they came for the gays, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the gays. then they came for the lefties, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the lefties. and then everything will be peachy, i'm sure" thing.

I really don't know about the libertarians. They are kind of hard to put a finger on sometimes and it seems they can go either way, left or right.
Libertarians are right wing. They are a separate group from the conservatives and from the assorted varieties of leftists.

i think it's more of a "first they came for the darkies, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the darkies. then they came for the gays, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the gays. then they came for the lefties, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the lefties. and then everything will be peachy, i'm sure" thing.
Don't forget about how "they also came for the womenfolks, which is okay because my ex-wife was all uppity and it's nice to see broads like her learning who the real men are around these parts."

I don't think that Sinuhue wants Bush to subsidise Catro's government. She just wants Americans to have the same freedom to go to Cuba and spend their money that the rest of us do.
And to lift the embargo, which actively prevents food and medical supplies from reaching Cubans (no ship that has been at a Cuban port can dock in the US for six months, US foreign subsidiaries are forbidden to trade with Cuba, thanks Torricelli). The WHO has also condemned this move as actively causing the rise of suffering and death in Cuba. Cuba loosened up in the early 90s and legalised some private business (yes, that's capitalism), and tourism is helping to take the pressure off the sugar crop (being one of the only other major incomes) but these embargoes are not going to topple Castro. If anything, it gives Cubans a compelling reason to support him, and hate the US. Hmmm...was the Helms Burton act passed during Clinton's presidency? I think it was 96...anyway...US reps in international financial organisations are required by this act to oppose loans to Cuba as well. Jerks.

Libertarians are right wing. They are a separate group from the conservatives and from the assorted varieties of leftists.
I dunno about that..."right wing" and "left wing" mean different things in America, maybe? From what I understand, the "pure" definition of libertarian refers to a person who wants minimal government interference in both social and economic spheres, but in America the right wing is all about government interference in social affairs (while the left is more about interference in economic affairs). That would mean that "classic" libertarians aren't really compatible with either "wing" in American politics.

Don't forget about how "they also came for the womenfolks, which is okay because my ex-wife was all uppity and it's nice to see broads like her learning who the real men are around these parts."

good point. i'm sure there are others that deserve to be added too.

Thats the problem with the teenage generation, and all the liberal democrats who have nothing better to do then gripe and wine about the Honorable President Bush. He has done an excellent job in office and will continue to do so. Its a good thing that the wining hasn't really done anything, he won everything his second term, popularity, electoral, etc. The Republicans have regained power, thank God, once again, and finally the democrats left along with all of their shinanigans. I have tried to hold my vulgarity and profane thoughts about liberal democrats in this thread so bare with me. There should be no such thing as Gay Rights, Defend the sacred privelage of marriage between man and woman. Our tax money should not be going to abortions, if women really want to kill their child that bad, its their choice, but it should come out of their pocket as well. Last but not least, the War on Terror, support it, support bush, and support our troops. Freedom isn't free, and if you want to get blown up somwhere or you don't agree with ridding of terrorists, get out of our country it isn't yours, you gave that right up.

Bush/Cheney support 100 percent.

...if he were actually pissing all over our civil rights, I'd be angry.

Alas, he's not...

(*someone will say "But what about the Patriot Act? What about those NSA phone taps of terrorists?" To which I reply, "How has the Patriot Act negatively affected your civil rights exactly? And what rights should terrorists have to plan attacks on this or other countries?)

as for the "war nobody wanted in the first place", lmao... most IRaqis seem to be pretty happy that we took down Saddam... unless, of course, you thought Saddam was a jolly good leader who deserved to remain in power (still can't believe some people don't understand the good that's been done in Iraq).

Someone seems to have forgotten that civil right of being innocent until proven guilty. Where are these alleged terrorists whose phones were tapped? If they had any evidence surely they'd have said "look, these wiretaps caught these terrorists". But they haven't have they.

Iraqis? Did they vote Bush in? I thought it was Americans that voted Bush in. 30,000 dead Iraqi's is good?

Then there's the general lies about the war, lies about the economy, lies about his cheating cronies...

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm

Reasons I dislike Bush:
1) The 2000 Election was a sham, so right away we were off on the wrong foot.
2) Largest surplus in history quickly turned into the largest deficit in history.
3) Bush also has created quite a division between blue staters and red staters.
4) The Iraq war: The first reason was because of WMD, which werent there. Then it was to get rid of Saddan the butcher, then it was... You get the idea...
5) Bin Laden; still around. Still alive, still leading and GW "Isn't concerned about him."
6) NSA wiretaps
7) Wanted to ammend the constitution to include descrimination...
8) This one could prolly go along with the deficit one but; expanding government to a size that hasn't been seen since FDR.
9) Thanks to GW and Repubs; More American jobs are being outsourced.. And don't give me that crap, "Well XXXX Amount of jobs were added." Take how many have been lost over his entire presidency vs how many he's added and guess what? We've lost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
10) Destroyed the trans-atlantic alliance. Made the US amockery in the world....

Well thats enough for now...

Perhaps my viewpoint is caused by being overtly exposed to European "propaganda" (note: JOKE) or, perhaps, by having been overtly exposed to the now non-existent propaganda of my former (now non-existent) Soviet homeland. Who knows. However, I'll shortly explain my point.

My arguments for disliking (to put it mildly) the Bush administration are the following:

1) It declared war on Iraq and literally forced a quite substantional number of European countries to send their troops into Iraq - note that the war had been declared on the basis of a claim which has proven to be a straightforward lie. And, I can assure you, American troops will not find any WMD's on Iraqi ground, even if they dig up every square centimetre of desert sand in order to search "under Iraq", as some user had posted.
In addition to that, the official UN stance on that issue had been a strong opposition to the war - but the US of A has been known quite a long time for completely ignoring the institution in the founding of which it has played a major role itself.

2) The only result that can be described as ethically "good" that the war has brought was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. However, there is no sign of the “democracy” which has been promised the Iraqi people. Instead, 2 years after the war, Iraq is still in a constant emergency state, with martial law – not governed by the fake “provisory government” but rather by a sort of military dictatorship.
The situation of the Iraqi people has NOT improved, contrary to what American official propaganda might state. They are still being tormented and humiliated (see the Abu Gureib scandal, and it seems to be proven now that a substantial number of former inmates have been innocent). The situation in the Middle East has NOT improved: instead of becoming a stable region, Iraq and most of its neighbors have been plunged into chaos. Note that the recent escalations in the Iranian government have taken place after the war – might that be a result of Iran fearing an American invasion? The situation has NOT improved for Israel: in fact, I fear that the whole region might collapse due to a large-scaled war.
And I am saying this as an ethnic Jew, so of course there is some sort of personal touch to my worries.

3) To speak in global terms / to be more general: frankly, I believe that it is not America’s business what goes on in other countries. An act of war on such a great scale can only be justified as a response to another act of war – not to an act of terrorism which, most likely, has not been connected at all to the attacked country (note that Saudi Arabia is still considered an ally of the USA, although Al-Quaida seems to have it’s principal base in that country).

The U.S. , which has itself helped to establish numerous dictatorships in the course of history (mostly in Latin America during the Cold War) AND which has supplied weapons to numerous terrorist groups (e.g. the former Mujaheddin, who had fought against the Soviet forces during the occupation of Afghanistan - part of whom became the Taliban), has absolutely no moral right for a military intervention in order to “democraticize” a country – especially if the rest of the world opposes that intervention.

4) I am opposed to the domestic policies of Mr.Bush – even though I don’t live in America.

5) I am opposed to the ultra-capitalist free-market system of the United States. While certainly having been no supporter of the stalinist Soviet Union, I am a Marxist in the literal sense of the world, and I embrace it.


Let's see how you deal with that...

Thats the problem with the teenage generation, and all the liberal democrats who have nothing better to do then gripe and wine about the Honorable President Bush. He has done an excellent job in office and will continue to do so. Its a good thing that the wining hasn't really done anything, he won everything his second term, popularity, electoral, etc. The Republicans have regained power, thank God, once again, and finally the democrats left along with all of their shinanigans. I have tried to hold my vulgarity and profane thoughts about liberal democrats in this thread so bare with me. There should be no such thing as Gay Rights, Defend the sacred privelage of marriage between man and woman. Our tax money should not be going to abortions, if women really want to kill their child that bad, its their choice, but it should come out of their pocket as well. Last but not least, the War on Terror, support it, support bush, and support our troops. Freedom isn't free, and if you want to get blown up somwhere or you don't agree with ridding of terrorists, get out of our country it isn't yours, you gave that right up.

Bush/Cheney support 100 percent.

Thank you for the trollage. I give it a 6/10. Extra points for the iconoclastic offensiveness, but I docked you for persistence, since it's unlikely you'll post again here with your current name and equally unlikely this post will see much attention after the first few replies.

i don't know. i just see a whole lot of overreacting when Lefties talk about things like the Patriot Act and phone-tapping, which only affect terrorists and/or suspected terrorists. To become a suspected terrorist, I'd imagine you'd have to be up to some mischief (the baby notwithstanding, though likely no harm came to the baby. hehe).

IE, unless you're a terrorist, these security measures -- yes, they're meant to PROTECT YOU -- wil not affect your rights in any way.


Your assumption about what it takes to be suspected of terrorism may be a little shy of reality. I thought as you did, until just a couple of weeks ago.
And then I found out that a friend of mine was recently hauled in by the FBI for extended questioning as a possible domestic terrorist. She is of swedish descent, a vegan & a stripper by profession. Granted, she spends alot of time as a street medic at demonstrations & is an active protester, but totally harmless. Everyone who knows her is both amused (BIG waste of tax dollars) & a little unnerved.
So, it looks to me like the government might be starting to use those laws to pull in anyone who shows up to a protest. Or perhaps they were trying to kill two birds with one stone, now that we have a "war on porn" as a follow up to the war on drugs.

Thats the problem with the teenage generation, and all the liberal democrats who have nothing better to do then gripe and wine about the Honorable President Bush. He has done an excellent job in office and will continue to do so. Its a good thing that the wining hasn't really done anything, he won everything his second term, popularity, electoral, etc. The Republicans have regained power, thank God, once again, and finally the democrats left along with all of their shinanigans. I have tried to hold my vulgarity and profane thoughts about liberal democrats in this thread so bare with me. There should be no such thing as Gay Rights, Defend the sacred privelage of marriage between man and woman. Our tax money should not be going to abortions, if women really want to kill their child that bad, its their choice, but it should come out of their pocket as well. Last but not least, the War on Terror, support it, support bush, and support our troops. Freedom isn't free, and if you want to get blown up somwhere or you don't agree with ridding of terrorists, get out of our country it isn't yours, you gave that right up.

Bush/Cheney support 100 percent.


Get out of YOUR country? HAHAHA.. It's people like you who are the real threats to America. Sacrificing your rights for some sad form of security.. Forgetting that your duty as a citizen isn't to support some moron in a suit, it's to make sure the constitution is protected at all costs. You pledge alliance to the United States not the President...

Thats the problem with the teenage generation, and all the liberal democrats who have nothing better to do then gripe and wine about the Honorable President Bush. He has done an excellent job in office and will continue to do so. Its a good thing that the wining hasn't really done anything, he won everything his second term, popularity, electoral, etc. The Republicans have regained power, thank God, once again, and finally the democrats left along with all of their shinanigans. I have tried to hold my vulgarity and profane thoughts about liberal democrats in this thread so bare with me. There should be no such thing as Gay Rights, Defend the sacred privelage of marriage between man and woman. Our tax money should not be going to abortions, if women really want to kill their child that bad, its their choice, but it should come out of their pocket as well. Last but not least, the War on Terror, support it, support bush, and support our troops. Freedom isn't free, and if you want to get blown up somwhere or you don't agree with ridding of terrorists, get out of our country it isn't yours, you gave that right up.

Bush/Cheney support 100 percent.

you created a puppet just to post THIS??!!

wow you must have alot of time on your hands

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security."

Benjamin Franklin, unless I am much mistaken.

Ruled by Dictator.
Has weapons of mass destruction.
Oppresses own people.
Inflammatory speech against the US.
Sponsor of terrorism.

Try tell me what country I'm talking about. You can't. You know why? There are at least five countries that fit all of those criterias. Heard the US do anything to oppose them lately?

Poor argument. Sounds like you're saying that if you can't stop all of it, you shouldn't try to stop any of it.

Honestly, I haven't woken up ONCE and said "Gee, I miss Sadam. Remember the good old day's when he jerked the UN around like a puppy on a leash and routinely ignored the terms set down after Desert Storm? Shucks, I miss that!"

As for Bush, he's kind of a 'meh' president really. I voted for Frankenstein's Monster (a.k.a. Kerry) because I liked his stand on illegal immigration more than Bushes. I never thought I'd see the day where a Democrat had tighter reigns on illegal immigration.

I've watched business fold because they couldn't compete with companies who hired illegals to do the work. And the government does nothing to stop the companies OR the flow of illegals and then sits dumbfounded when stupid redneck vigilantes line up at the border.

I couldn't care less if the Mexican President doesn't like the idea of a fence along our borders. 'F' him. And comparing it to the Berlin wall was a hoot. But ok. Let's not build a fence. Just do SOMETHING.

On a side note. My sis went to Germany recently. Evidently they're all stressed because there are "Soooo many Turkish Immigrants" and they're getting a culture clash... The Turkish population is like 10%.

That's TEN percent.

Laughing my ass off.

That's the problem with your country, you should pledge allegiance to the head of state. Then you can just shoot all the dissenters and there are none of these silly arguments.

Get out of YOUR country? HAHAHA.. It's people like you who are the real threats to America. Sacrificing your rights for some sad form of security.. Forgetting that your duty as a citizen isn't to support some moron in a suit, it's to make sure the constitution is protected at all costs. You pledge alliance to the United States not the President...
No need to feed the troll.

That's the problem with your country, you should pledge allegiance to the head of state. Then you can just shoot all the dissenters and there are none of these silly arguments.
Give us time. King George is well on his way.

That's the problem with your country, you should pledge allegiance to the head of state. Then you can just shoot all the dissenters and there are none of these silly arguments.

If we had a uniter instead of a divider as President, we wouldn't be having these silly arguements... But Bush and Co. would rather the rest of fight over petty crap instead of watching what they're doing.. Cause if we were paying attention, Bush and the like would've been arrested by now....

Give us time. King George is well on his way.
Sorry, the title 'King' has been taken by the Premier of Alberta. And no, you can't borrow it. Try 'Duke' or something.

Sorry, the title 'King' has been taken by the Premier of Alberta. And no, you can't borrow it. Try 'Duke' or something.
Dude, King George doesn't borrow. He sends several thousand troops to die for what he wants.

But you can feel free to take it up with him. I hear he's planning to change his last name to The Conqueror, so it will probably all be moot at that point.

if we were paying attention, Bush and the like would've been arrested by now....

If Bush were paying attention, YOU'D have been arrested by now! This is treason! This is behaviour likely to result in the spread and furtherance of terrorism! I demand that all you damn Arab-loving pinko peaceniks stop these activities immediately!

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/US-Election-IQ2004.htm

That has been proven to be bullshit around fifty times on this forum alone.

This is an interesting way to look at things. I mean, i can see how you think everyone is left or gay but im definitely not a leftist or gay but i dont like bush because of his irrational way of trying to go into iraq. WMDs? Where? I mean yay Saddam is gone but what evidence did we have besides our imaginary WMDs? Well i must say our economy, is bad, but economy isnt always stable, but when approval ratings are down, when mistake after mistake needs to be covered, and all we have to show for it is dying soldier in iraq and Saddam being tried in court. I mean i support our troops but i support troops staying alive.

You mentioned that our economy is "bad," how can you say something such as that. Witht he exception of the inverse yeild curve, all economic indicators are pointing upwards. The most significant of which are productivity, jobless claims, and gdp. The economy on a whole is performing succesfully and is set to improve over 2006.

Secondly, corresponding to multiple mentions that the Patriot act sqaushes our civil libeties, what are you all thinking? The Patriot act takes specific aim at known terrorists, or those who have come into direct purposeful contact with terrorists. If you all are concerned for the rights of terrorists over the rights of the innocent masses, ie 99.99% of the population that would care to be protected from terrorists, than you need to reconsider your priorites. If I have to deal with civil rights that many of you classify as supressed, to be safe and know that my government is doing all they can to stop those that wish to do harm to us, than that is alright by me.
-BRH

If we had a uniter instead of a divider as President, we wouldn't be having these silly arguements... But Bush and Co. would rather the rest of fight over petty crap instead of watching what they're doing.. Cause if we were paying attention, Bush and the like would've been arrested by now....

hey, he's a uniter. he's united power into the hands of himself and his cabal. exactly like they said they intended to.

Poor argument. Sounds like you're saying that if you can't stop all of it, you shouldn't try to stop any of it.

Honestly, I haven't woken up ONCE and said "Gee, I miss Sadam. Remember the good old day's when he jerked the UN around like a puppy on a leash and routinely ignored the terms set down after Desert Storm? Shucks, I miss that!"


Not really. I am actually pro-war and anti-Bush.

I am very glad the Saddam is gone. I cannot stand it, however, when Bush claims that he is standing up for freedom while he cosies up to dictators.

Iraq was not chosen because there were terrorists there or because it was the old anti-west dictatorship with weapons of mass destruction. There was some other reason that made it special. Can you guess what it was?

than you need to reconsider your priorites.

No. Civil rights are much more important than safety.

If you all are concerned for the rights of terrorists over the rights of the innocent masses, ie 99.99% of the population that would care to be protected from terrorists, than you need to reconsider your priorites.
-BRH

Really? What ever happened to "as long as one man is in chains, no man is free"?

Also: define terrorist. I'm reasonably certain I can twist your definition around to include YOU. And I'm not a lawyer - they get trained and paid to twist definitions until they squeal.

Finally, if we don't protect the rights of the most hated group, then when will we? The next most hated? The one after that? Maybe we'll only protect the rights of the least hated group - so, if you're not a WASP, you're shit out of luck.

when you include the expectation of WMD/terrorists, that pushed Iraq to the head of the list. Now we know that there were terrorists in IRaq -- there's Al Qaeda in Iraq for crissakes -- but thus far, no WMDs have been found (though I still wonder if we've searched everywhere in Iraq, under Iraq, etc.).
.

There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, there was no WMD in Iraq. No Al Qaeda according to Powell, or Rumsfeld, along with the Brits, and the Senate commission. No WMD according to the Brits and the Iraq Arms Survey group. Nothing there, and hadnt been for some time. Go look it up.

I wonder if it really matters now, what the original reasons given were. Iraqis are better off and the Middle East is beginning to change for the better..

Whether they are better off is yet to be seen, and the middle east just looks rather more unstable that it did beforehand.

But overall there seem to be fewer active insurgents in the middle east..

Overall, "terrorist" incidents are up, according to the US state department

"The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week."

Full article here (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)

If Bush were paying attention, YOU'D have been arrested by now! This is treason! This is behaviour likely to result in the spread and furtherance of terrorism! I demand that all you damn Arab-loving pinko peaceniks stop these activities immediately!

LOL!! Typical response... However, if you support Bush so much why aren't you fighting his war????

LOL!! Typical response... However, if you support Bush so much why aren't you fighting his war????

Good God. I was being ironic. Do people actually say that crap?...
Of course they do.

Have any of you seen the definition of a terrorist according to the PA?? It's pretty much anyone who makes a threat of any kind in any public place... Hence the kids in elementary school getting arrested for making terroristic threats... But a police state is ok by right wing standards..... Hey, it's all good... We can be become the United States of Bush.... Or how about.... The United States of Oppressed Peoples...

You mentioned that our economy is "bad," how can you say something such as that. Witht he exception of the inverse yeild curve, all economic indicators are pointing upwards. The most significant of which are productivity, jobless claims, and gdp. The economy on a whole is performing succesfully and is set to improve over 2006.

Secondly, corresponding to multiple mentions that the Patriot act sqaushes our civil libeties, what are you all thinking? The Patriot act takes specific aim at known terrorists, or those who have come into direct purposeful contact with terrorists. If you all are concerned for the rights of terrorists over the rights of the innocent masses, ie 99.99% of the population that would care to be protected from terrorists, than you need to reconsider your priorites. If I have to deal with civil rights that many of you classify as supressed, to be safe and know that my government is doing all they can to stop those that wish to do harm to us, than that is alright by me.
-BRH

What many conservatives seem to fail to understand is that the problem liberals have with the Patriot Act and such things is that the government has been given the ability to unconstitutional things. Even if the law is intended for terrorists, the government could make plenty of mistakes (or "mistakes") that result in non-terrorists being subjected to searches or detainment or whatever. I certainly don't trust any government with such power, much less our own government.

LOL!! Typical response... However, if you support Bush so much why aren't you fighting his war????

I think that was a joke. And if it wasn't, I really am worried about the makeup of this country.

Good God. I was being ironic. Do people actually say that crap?...
Of course they do.

After seeing your local.... You are fighting Bush's war.. :-)

I think that was a joke. And if it wasn't, I really am worried about the makeup of this country.

Sorry, coffee hasn't kicked in yet.. Brain is still on standby...

Have any of you seen the definition of a terrorist according to the PA?? It's pretty much anyone who makes a threat of any kind in any public place... Hence the kids in elementary school getting arrested for making terroristic threats...

How do you know those kids wouldn't have gone through with it?
It should be compulsory for every US citizen to carry a gun to deal with this deadly threat stalking in your midst...

What many conservatives seem to fail to understand is that the problem liberals have with the Patriot Act and such things is that the government has been given the ability to unconstitutional things. Even if the law is intended for terrorists, the government could make plenty of mistakes (or "mistakes") that result in non-terrorists being subjected to searches or detainment or whatever. I certainly don't trust any government with such power, much less our own government.

Just ask anyone who's been denied boarding onto a flight because their name happened to be on the Terrorism Watchlist. And then spent months trying to get their names removed from the list.

After seeing your local.... You are fighting Bush's war.. :-)

Your chimp had a word with our poodle. The rest is history.

How do you know those kids wouldn't have gone through with it?
It should be compulsory for every US citizen to carry a gun to deal with this deadly threat stalking in your midst...

I'll talkin about 6 yr olds.... I highly doubt that these American born children have been trained by terrorists...

i cant not post a few comments on this one

1) It declared war on Iraq and literally forced a quite substantional number of European countries to send their troops into Iraq - note that the war had been declared on the basis of a claim which has proven to be a straightforward lie. And, I can assure you, American troops will not find any WMD's on Iraqi ground, even if they dig up every square centimetre of desert sand in order to search "under Iraq", as some user had posted.
In addition to that, the official UN stance on that issue had been a strong opposition to the war - but the US of A has been known quite a long time for completely ignoring the institution in the founding of which it has played a major role itself.
no european countries were forced to send troops to iraq, explaim to me for example, how britain was 'forced' to be involved, this is simply anti - american rhetoric with little basis in reality.


2) The only result that can be described as ethically "good" that the war has brought was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. However, there is no sign of the “democracy” which has been promised the Iraqi people. Instead, 2 years after the war, Iraq is still in a constant emergency state, with martial law – not governed by the fake “provisory government” but rather by a sort of military dictatorship.
The situation of the Iraqi people has NOT improved, contrary to what American official propaganda might state. They are still being tormented and humiliated (see the Abu Gureib scandal, and it seems to be proven now that a substantial number of former inmates have been innocent). The situation in the Middle East has NOT improved: instead of becoming a stable region, Iraq and most of its neighbors have been plunged into chaos. Note that the recent escalations in the Iranian government have taken place after the war – might that be a result of Iran fearing an American invasion? The situation has NOT improved for Israel: in fact, I fear that the whole region might collapse due to a large-scaled war.
And I am saying this as an ethnic Jew, so of course there is some sort of personal touch to my worries.
you havnt even mentioned the kurds. contrary to your beliefs, i would say the situation in iraq has improved on these grounds alone, and although yes you can point to a great number of instabilities in the middle east, you can point to countless in the 90s, your telling me isreal isnt in a better situation politically (in terms of stability with its neighbors and palestine) than it was is 97/98?

3) To speak in global terms / to be more general: frankly, I believe that it is not America’s business what goes on in other countries. An act of war on such a great scale can only be justified as a response to another act of war – not to an act of terrorism which, most likely, has not been connected at all to the attacked country (note that Saudi Arabia is still considered an ally of the USA, although Al-Quaida seems to have it’s principal base in that country.

The U.S. , which has itself helped to establish numerous dictatorships in the course of history (mostly in Latin America during the Cold War) AND which has supplied weapons to numerous terrorist groups (e.g. the former Mujaheddin, who had fought against the Soviet forces during the occupation of Afghanistan - part of whom became the Taliban), has absolutely no moral right for a military intervention in order to “democraticize” a country – especially if the rest of the world opposes that intervention.).
ok, this i agree with entirely

4) I am opposed to the domestic policies of Mr.Bush – even though I don’t live in America.
this one too, i disagree with his statist policies that run against the spirit of the constitution, but i disagree with these policies of every president since the mid 19th century (and i havnt spent enough time studying those before then)


4)5) I am opposed to the ultra-capitalist free-market system of the United States. While certainly having been no supporter of the stalinist Soviet Union, I am a Marxist in the literal sense of the world, and I embrace it.
'ultra-capitalist free-market' system are not accurate adjectives with which to describe the united states. things like public health insurance (USA spends more p capita of public dollars on health than canada), subsidies, tarrifs (see canadian softwood lumber), mandatory health insurance for employers of certain sizes/under certain conditions (in california with over 50 employess you must by law provide health insurance), and a million other things i could point out could not be called 'capitalist' (a marxist term). the united states does not have a free market, though they also dont have a command economy, the marketplace is thoroughly controlled through regulations/legislation. your claim is simply unsupportable.

also a nation that is truly based on capitalism/freedom/classical liberalism and free markets would not invade another nation. there is only 1 reason invasions ever occur in the modern nation (these rules dont always apply to monarchies, dictatorships, empires etc, only to nation-states) and that is nationalism and the striving for autarky within that nationality. this is the same reason for which nazi germany looked to expand its territory at the outset of the second world war, as is the case with more other wars.

I'll talkin about 6 yr olds.... I highly doubt that these American born children have been trained by terrorists...

Have another coffee.

The US has a right to act if it feels there is national interest. There was no such interest in Iraq, so it was a war the US had no need to fight.

There was some national interest in Iraq, Oil for example.

I shall contend that straights make up the majority of posters. I would also contend that lefties are not a huge majority. Just a slight one.
They're not any kind of majority I'd have thought. It's just a few posters who seem opposed to the American religious right are present on this board, so the board must be infested with gays and/or liberals, just like the American media is controlled by gays and liberals.

No. Civil rights are much more important than safety.
Thomas Jefferson pretty much said as much.

They're not any kind of majority I'd have thought. It's just a few posters who seem opposed to the American religious right are present on this board, so the board must be infested with gays and/or liberals, just like the American media is controlled by gays and liberals.
You forgot the jews. I'm sure the jews are in there somewhere too.

You forgot the jews. I'm sure the jews are in there somewhere too.
I knew I'd forgotten somebody. And the masons.

You forgot the jews. I'm sure the jews are in there somewhere too.

Of course we are! We have infested every level of society and we secretly rule your world! Ergo: you are all my slaves ;)

(for those of us who haven't had enough coffee ;) : IRONY WARNING!!)

BTW: I shall answer Free Miseseans post in a few minutes, just gotta take a quick shower

Whoops, didn't read Cahnt's post properly, thought it was serious... I'll get meself a coffee.

I knew I'd forgotten somebody. And the masons.
Ah the Masons. How could I leave them out? The lefties, the gays, the jews and the masons. Oh, and the illuminati. But aren't some of those groups competing against one another?

After doing two ironic posts myself, that was really a bit stupid.

Reasons why I dislike Bush oh so much.

1. tax cuts for the rich
2. giving buddies high ranking positions
3. passing along false information or just not bothering to do any fact checking
4. starting a war few people wanted, granted getting Sadam out of power is good, but inforcing our government on them because we deem it best.
5. his maiming of english speech and inability to form basic sentances properly
6. his position on abortion
7. treatment of the enviroment
8. his shifty ties to oil companies

Reasons why I dislike Bush oh so much.

1. tax cuts for the rich
2. giving buddies high ranking positions
3. passing along false information or just not bothering to do any fact checking
4. starting a war few people wanted, granted getting Sadam out of power is good, but inforcing our government on them because we deem it best.
5. his maiming of english speech and inability to form basic sentances properly
6. his position on abortion
7. treatment of the enviroment
8. his shifty ties to oil companies

"Babooshka"

...if he were actually pissing all over our civil rights, I'd be angry.

Alas, he's not...
Well, if he hasn't yet been, he seems quite willing to. Remeber his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment?

i think it's more of a "first they came for the darkies, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the darkies. then they came for the gays, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the gays. then they came for the lefties, and that was ok by me cause i hates me the lefties. and then everything will be peachy, i'm sure" thing.
"I did not speak up for the homosexuals, the trade unionists, the weirdos, Kate Bush, that bitch next door who likes Sparks, or the rest of the freaks when some twerp came to smack them upside the head until their eyes popped out and their tongues turned to paste, so who now is left to speak up for me?"
That pastor Neimoller knew what he was on about. Rum cove terribly misserved by his memory and history, mind. And there's little wrong with Sparks.

i cant not post a few comments on this one

no european countries were forced to send troops to iraq, explaim to me for example, how britain was 'forced' to be involved, this is simply anti - american rhetoric with little basis in reality.

Well, to some extent through a form of political pressure. I live in Germany, one of the countries commonly classified as U.S. allies which have opposed the war most strongly. Luckily, we did not go to war, but nevertheless some people voiced their fear of the consequences of Germany's denial - such as fears that America, due to the difficult relations with Germany (which indeed were difficult during that period) would exercise economical pressure on the country. Now, a substantial number of Germans had been quite paranoid during that period, and the possibility of the U.S. really sanctioning Germany was very unlikely - I realize that. Note, however, that those fears did have something of a real basis - then-National Security Advisor Rice and VP Cheney (don't care if I spelled that right) has made several remarks about Germany's (and France's) position on the war, which did to some extent contain a sort of "subliminal" political threats.


you havnt even mentioned the kurds. contrary to your beliefs, i would say the situation in iraq has improved on these grounds alone, and although yes you can point to a great number of instabilities in the middle east, you can point to countless in the 90s, your telling me isreal isnt in a better situation politically (in terms of stability with its neighbors and palestine) than it was is 97/98?

I don't live in Israel, but I have several relatives and friends there, and the real issue seems to be that it has never been significantly better or worse, because Israel is in a constant emergency situation. However, the end of the nineties seemed to be RELATIVELY stable - not considering the Iraqi disarmament scandal, but then: Iraq has not been a dangerous enemy of Israel during Hussein's reign because the religious component was missing. Iran, on the contrary, is, and now they seem to feel threatened and thus behave in a more aggressive manner. Concerning Palestine, there has been no Intifada during the latter nineties, that only started in 2000 and is still going on...

As for the Kurds, I have not thought of them, that's true. But even if their situation has become better on a whole, that of the Iraqi people has not, since AFAIK the Kurds form at about 20% of the Iraqi population. Even more important: even if the Kurds are doing better now, that cannot be a direct result of the campaign against Saddam, but rather a byproduct. If the U.S. had specific intentions to improve the Kurdish situation, why hasn't it tried to diplomatically interfere with the Turkish persecution of Kurds. I am not an expert in that area and so I may be wrong on the Turks, as I am sure that they might have their reasons...but concerning the U.S. it does seem a trifle strange to help a part of one people in one country and to completely ignore them in another country, which is even a NATO member and American ally.
Please don't get me wrong: I am not critizing TUrkey in any way but rather trying to show a (perhaps) existent discrepancy in U.S. positions.


'ultra-capitalist free-market' system are not accurate adjectives with which to describe the united states. things like public health insurance (USA spends more p capita of public dollars on health than canada), subsidies, tarrifs (see canadian softwood lumber), mandatory health insurance for employers of certain sizes/under certain conditions (in california with over 50 employess you must by law provide health insurance), and a million other things i could point out could not be called 'capitalist' (a marxist term). the united states does not have a free market, though they also dont have a command economy, the marketplace is thoroughly controlled through regulations/legislation. your claim is simply unsupportable.

also a nation that is truly based on capitalism/freedom/classical liberalism and free markets would not invade another nation. there is only 1 reason invasions ever occur in the modern nation (these rules dont always apply to monarchies, dictatorships, empires etc, only to nation-states) and that is nationalism and the striving for autarky within that nationality. this is the same reason for which nazi germany looked to expand its territory at the outset of the second world war, as is the case with more other wars.

OK, I did not know about Canada, because (please do not take personal offense) I have never had any interest whatsoever in this country. But, come to think of it, I have never heard of Canada trying to influence world economy or exercising economic pressure on other nations - as the U.S. frequently do. But that is a bit beside the point, I admit.

Perhaps the term I used was inaccurate. However, when I deemed the U.S a "free-market-state" I was referring not to theory but to world reality. I agree that the U.S. does not correspond with the definition of a theoretical "free market state" as you gave it - but then, what country on Earth does? I do not know any (perhaps due to my limited knowledge, I admit economics has never been a great interest of mine).
If you analyze the U.S. position regarding other countries (apart from Canada ;) ) in the real economic world, however, I do feel that my statement is true TO SOME EXTENT. IF COMPARED to many significant European nations, the U.S. is certainly a "free market state".
Sure, the U.S. does have a social welfare and public insurance system - but nowhere as extensive as ours (Germany), the French or the Swedish one. Sure, the companies receive subsidies - but here in Germany every second company receives state subsidies!
In real economic terms, compared to most developed / industrial countries in Europe / Asia, the U.S. certainly can bear that name.

I noticed as well that you used the words "capitalism" and "freedom" hand in hand at the end of your post. Why so? That creates the impression that those two things have a sort of symbiotic relationship, or belong together in some way. This does not have to be the case at all, although it CAN be in a few cases.
In addition to that, your argument stating that a capitalist/liberal nation would not invade is based on ideal conditions which do not exist in the real world. No nation is like that, not even "comparably" capitalist ones...

There's a surprising number of people here who love him dearly and are perfectly happy to let him piss all over their civil rights and ramp up the national debt to pay for a war nobody wanted in the first place.
Harriet Miers was cloned?

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?


Its not that I feel as though Im a Liberal, and must automatically hate Bush.
Its isnt that hes made one mistake that I cant let go.
Its the fact that weve never had such a shady President in office.

His first election was so shady, and decietful, in a few years, will be talking about how Bush stole an election.
Bith sides will agree that he did it, and it will be accepted fact.

His spending policies that turned the largest surplus, into the the largest defecit in history, un-nerves me.

His foreign policy, is almost non-existant.

He gives cruciallly important jobs...to his friends, not people who are qualified to have them.

And then theres the war.

Bush gave exscuse after exscuse for the logic behind it, and every person on the fence, and that leans to the right, swallowed each one, without thinking.

We had to get Saddams weapons of mass destruction before he used them on Isreal.....or someone...maybe us!
He made several references to Al-Qeada, and Saddam having ties to each other...they didnt.

He claimed Iraq was the most dangerous nation in the world, and yet, after invading, we knocked over that terrible, terrible threat.......in two weeks.

Boy, they sure were dangerous.

Hows the search for Osama coming again?

Hmm..didnt find those WMD's did we?

So, it isnt that I hated Bush from the very outset, its that hes lied, scammed, devieved and misled his people from the very first day in office, and the total sum of his failures, make his the worst President weve ever had, and no one with an ounce of sense can really argue against that.

Clinton was a lying pervert, and Bush makes him look like Jesus by comparison.

Harriet Miers was cloned?
Okay, it's an exaggeration: word is the main reason he was so keen to keep Terri Schiavo alive was because he thought she was the only woman alive who wouldn't laugh at him when he dropped his pants.

I dunno about that..."right wing" and "left wing" mean different things in America, maybe? From what I understand, the "pure" definition of libertarian refers to a person who wants minimal government interference in both social and economic spheres, but in America the right wing is all about government interference in social affairs (while the left is more about interference in economic affairs). That would mean that "classic" libertarians aren't really compatible with either "wing" in American politics.
America doesn't really have a left wing. Right-wing means capitalist. All notable American political groupings are capitalist and thus right-wng. Conservatives and libertarians are more right-wing than the liberals. The two former groups differ on some semi-important and unimportant social issues and upon the very important foreign policy issues. B ut the central point is that right-wing = capitalist, so both conservatives and libertarians are right-wing. Us the words "libertarian" and "authoritarian" to denote positions on social issues. It's not as if you have to support socialism to support abortion, that's obviously ridiculous.

Whether they are better off is yet to be seen, and the middle east just looks rather more unstable that it did beforehand.

Its kind of "stability" (read: theocratic cultural stagnation) wasn't really much of a good thing in the first place.

They're not any kind of majority I'd have thought. It's just a few posters who seem opposed to the American religious right are present on this board, so the board must be infested with gays and/or liberals, just like the American media is controlled by gays and liberals.
I know I'm going to be set alight for this one, but the religious right are "straight", by my understanding of the word only tangientally! You can't spell 'heterosexual' without 'sexual'. Waiting until after marriage for sex? You want a woman frigid anough to keep your beer cold? :p

I notice that for the most part the anti-Bush posters are more articulate and have better thought out arguments than the pro-Bush posters. Come on, Bush supporters! You can do better than that!

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?
Why?

1) His invasion of Iraq, IMHO, was counterproductive in the war on terror.

2) His faith based initiatives marry church and state to a degree never before seen in this country since the Constitution was ratified.

3) His economic policies seem like a prescription for economic troubles in the future to me.

4) He's not willing to do anything to actually stop illegal immigration.

5) He's arrogantly alienated our allies overseas.

6) Judge Alito is way too conservative to be appointed to the supreme court.

7) Bush don't care about black people.

8) Bush thinks that a couple of gays getting married is more of a threat to the US than international terrorism.

The US has a right to act if it feels there is national interest.
No it hasn't. The US, like every other country, has an obligation to observe international law, and that does not include the right to engage in a regime-changing war for national self-interest when the target nation was not threatening your nation directly.

If a nation has the right to attack another nation for whatever it's government unilaterally deems to be a matter of national interest, then, in effect, any nation has the right to wage war on any other nation any time it likes.

There was no such interest in Iraq, so it was a war the US had no need to fight.
There was such an interest if it is defined as giving access to Iraqi oil to US corporations.

i don't know. i just see a whole lot of overreacting when Lefties talk about things like the Patriot Act and phone-tapping, which only affect terrorists and/or suspected terrorists. To become a suspected terrorist, I'd imagine you'd have to be up to some mischief (the baby notwithstanding, though likely no harm came to the baby. hehe).

IE, unless you're a terrorist, these security measures -- yes, they're meant to PROTECT YOU -- wil not affect your rights in any way.

that's never entirely true. as soon the terroris attacks end, do you think, the department would be dismissed? no, it would still be there, "just in case". and if you look for terrorists, you have to check lots of civilians. and lots of data about civilians is not save in the hands of any department or organization, because they are humans too, and they WILL abuse it sooner or later. it's like bribery, - too alluring. sometime one will fall for it.

my opinion about the war on irak is: it's all about distraction* (more about that later).

first, of course saddam hussein deserves to be held responsible for his horrible actions. it's ok for me the u.s. took him down. but i'm not ok with the method or with the justification.
my hope in the first place was, the u.s. tries to build a stable u.s.- and democracy friendly state in the near east, as a base of more democratisation later. but that failed, because the people are NOT so happy to got ridden of saddam. and why (-> method)? because the u.s. troops got there, eleminated everyone hostile (as for saddams army; so far so good), and then? what about peacekeeping? about helping the civilians? they did, but not nearly enough to make people trusting them. it was their big chance, but they gambled it away. they neglected the things saddam did, so people didn't see lots of the good chances they did. and in the first place, its all about living in safety. the u.s. didn't even care about rebuilding the water supply (they destroyed), the more important thing was dividing the raffinerys between rep-friendly corporations. of course they didn't make a lot of friends with this tactic, and that was what they have should done. people were safe from robbery etc. walking the streets at night, after the conquest they weren't. people were relativley safe from the raving warlords, because they were held at bay by saddam, now they aren't. you can expand that list as long as you want.

* as for distraction, read george orwells 1984. theres always war, to justify the alltime surveillance. same with the us. since bush is prez, there was war all the time. as soon one is ... uhm ... "won", they move on to the next. even more, surveillance is increasing more and more. it's a disturbing pattern ...

so, i do not make bush responsible for that, but the men in the background. bush is only the dressman that stands in front and lets others do the work and the position (you can see every time, he is not the brightest one, but i'm sure he's easy to manipulate by his "friends"). for me it seems, everything they do is widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and that is one of the most evil things a government can do. driving the state into the direction of a banana republic. for the govs its ok, because the all belong to the "rich" caste.

why i don't like bush is his christian fundamentalism. i'm atheist, but i think most of the christian values are good for our society. nevertheless religion and state have to be separated, in my humble opinion that's one of the more important inventions in the last centuries. religions have pros and cons, on the pro side they give you relief through a predefined set of standards to live by, so you don't have to worry all the time, on the other hand it's a method for the mighty to control the masses. see for j.c. saying he's the sheperd of man (hey, that's a joke!). it's ok to be religious as long you stay critical. but it's still important to choose your religion freely. and i think the u.s. is steering in a different direction, to get rid of those that have another belief, and they are - by coincidecy - often poor or otherwise unfitting.

i'm a litte bit drunk, so i drifted off a lot. my main point is my fear of the u.s. turning into a banana republic by allowing the gap between the poor and the rich to widen more and more, and bush even encouraging it (remember, he, his family and all his friends are on the rich side, so why should he prevent it?).
to conclude my ramblings, i want to say following: here in old europe (in my case austria), some people say, "americans are dumb". people who say this are dumb themself. they are not the majority, but they are only the one shouting loudest. i'm sure the u.s. is great in a lot of ways, - even if i was there only once. the u.s. is the birthland of so many great inventions, e.g. democracy. i don't want to see it crumble to dust, let alone because europe would go down with it.

excuse my poor english, it's not my mothers tongue.

ps: i'm neither gay nor commie.

for that matter, who would entirely trust any form of govenrment?

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?
It all stems from the inability of Algore to steal the election in 2000, and the sad inner rage of liberals in America and thier inability to assist in that theft.

Come on, Bush supporters! You can do better than that!
I very much doubt that. Unless there's some place online where they can cut-and-paste apt wit, we'll simply have to endure their usual brand of unclever pedantry laced generously with elementary errors in spelling, conjugation, grammar and sentence structure.

Unfortunately.

I don't like bush for several reasons.

1. All he's done is lost money.
2. He preaches morality and family values. I'd be A LOT happier if Bush said we invaded Iraq for Oil (Operation Iraqi Liberation. Though it doesn't mean anything, I figured it was worth a few good laughs). Honestly, don't preach this morality crap with me, I have my own set of them, however twisted they may be.

Why be against Bush?Bush is a NeoCon.


enuff said :D

Why don't I like Bush,
A Rant Penned by a Man Who Once Considered Himself a Republican: I Didn't Leave the Party, the Party Left Me.

When Bush was first elected, I had nary a problem with him. Indeed, for the first half of his term I was quite pro-Bush. And then came Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was fine by me. Al Qaida launched an attack against the US, we struck back at their home, hoping to wipe them out once and for all. And things went relatively swimmingly until late 2002, when Iraq started to rear its ugly head.

I was against the war in Iraq (imagine that. A pro-Bushy against the war in Iraq). Why? Partially because of things I knew to be outright lies based on shakey evidence at best (WMD, al Qaida), because the mere thought of going to war in Iraq was drawing way too much attention from our efforts in Afghanistan, and because the reasons President Bush gave for attacking Iraq that rang true were also true about Saudi Arabia and North Korea (among others). Neither of which was drawing any such threats from the President.

Added on top of that was Bush's rather fool-hardy handling of the budget, his piss-poor management of North Korea (he undid in less than four years what Clinton spent his entire presidency achieving: keeping nukes out of North Korean hands), the USA PATRIOT Act, and the fact that, well, let's say his religious views just don't agree with me. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with a man's religious views, I just have a problem when he uses them as an excuse to crush liberties others deserve (I'm still waiting for a rational arguement for why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to wed, why it is that although sex happens anyway, he pushes a sex-ed program of abstinance-only, and why it is that he cut funding for an international women's rights group because among the options they list in family planning is abortion).

I've seen the Dark Side of the Bush. And it utterly disgusts me.

We went into Iraq to get WMDs, oil, and Saddam.
So far we only have Saddam.

We went into Afghanistan to break the Taliban, get Osama, and create a democracy.
So far we've established a democracy. In one city.

Bush is a NeoCon.


enuff said :D

Trite.

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?

Well, for better or for worse, Bush is a representative of his party and has commited many actions that are somewhere in between dispicable both in his personal actions and in his support of his party's actions.

1) Environmental Policy: Between the "Clear" skies act and his refusal to sign the Kyoto accords, Shrub-man has shown his reluctance to support environmental protection. This alone is enough to make me dislike the man, as he is putting my life in considerably greater risk than it might otherwise be in, and quite possibly condemning me to any one of a number of very unpleasant diseases that air pollution causes.

2) Budget Bungles: Like more Repubs, Shrub talks small-government and serves up heaping masses of debt. Don't worry though, you'll get a tax break (as long as you're rich).

3) Foreign Policy: Anyone who has managed to engender such complete dislike in the rest of the world with his "Bring Em On" attitude and his cavalier war probably isn't the sorta guy you want representing you to the world at large.

4) Assault against Civil Libertys: Yeah, they're quite real. Between violating the 4th Ammendmant, passing the PATRIOT act (Angry Librarians, anyone?), attempting to force "Protection of Marriage" down American throats, the statement that he opposed reform of the Pledge (In the town-hall debate) and would avoid appointing judges who would uphold civil rights (in fewer words), and his torture and illegal abduction of "Suspects" (without even public knowledge, no less!), I think that this one is fairly obvious.

I can go on.

...if he were actually pissing all over our civil rights, I'd be angry.

Alas, he's not...

(*someone will say "But what about the Patriot Act? What about those NSA phone taps of terrorists?" To which I reply, "How has the Patriot Act negatively affected your civil rights exactly? And what rights should terrorists have to plan attacks on this or other countries?)

as for the "war nobody wanted in the first place", lmao... most IRaqis seem to be pretty happy that we took down Saddam... unless, of course, you thought Saddam was a jolly good leader who deserved to remain in power (still can't believe some people don't understand the good that's been done in Iraq).

I agree with you, so the the U.S. government has lisend to my phone conversations, lets see, I called my cousins in Chicago to wish them a
merry christmas and a happy new year, a locked my self out of my car,
so I called the auto club, to come open my car door and they opened it
in a few seconds, but it was all in code actually.

I notice that for the most part the anti-Bush posters are more articulate and have better thought out arguments than the pro-Bush posters. Come on, Bush supporters! You can do better than that!
Come off it: if they were smart enough to construct a coherent argument or set it out clearly and eloquently, they'd hardly be stupid enough to make excuses for Bush, would they?

from a terrorist-killing standpoint, it's probably good to have them concentrated in one general area... draw them out of their caves in Syria, Iran, etc... shoot them like fish in a barrel. IF they're not going to face the fact that Iraqis showed their support of democracy by voting for their leaders and lay down their arms and become positive/productive human beings, then the best thing for the rest of us is for them to die. As long as they're hiding, it's probably harder to find/hunt them.
Yep, great thinking. That's why there's been less terrorist attacks in other places in the world since the Iraq invasion.
No, wait.
There's been MORE. The last couple of years, there's been more terrorist attacks worldwide than ever before.
Kinda blows a hole in your justification, don't it?

I agree with you, so the the U.S. government has lisend to my phone conversations, lets see, I called my cousins in Chicago to wish them a
merry christmas and a happy new year, a locked my self out of my car,
so I called the auto club, to come open my car door and they opened it
in a few seconds, but it was all in code actually.http://www.technofile.com/images/dude_car.jpg

Ah the Masons. How could I leave them out? The lefties, the gays, the jews and the masons. Oh, and the illuminati. But aren't some of those groups competing against one another?

Now, I'm not quite sure that there really exist any jews or gays, but there are definitely no such thing as the Illuminati! :cool:

FNORD

No it hasn't. The US, like every other country, has an obligation to observe international law, and that does not include the right to engage in a regime-changing war for national self-interest when the target nation was not threatening your nation directly.



There is no obligation whatsoever to obey international law, primarily because there is no such thing AS international law.

In order for law to exist, there must be a method of enforcement. No such method exists. Ergo, international law also, does not exist.

What does exist are treaties and agreements. However, what these really mean is - ink on paper. By and large, governments can get away with breaking any or all agreements, and generally do so as soon as they become onerous.

The only law in international relations is the Law of Consequences. What you do reflects upon you, and if you annoy someone bigger than you are, they just might inflict their will upon you - possibly by military force.

If a nation has the right to attack another nation for whatever it's government unilaterally deems to be a matter of national interest, then, in effect, any nation has the right to wage war on any other nation any time it likes.


Absolutely. This has been the right of nations from time immemorial, and despite the high-sounding words of the UN Charter, no nation has ever renounced exactly that right. Any nation may declare war on any other for any reason whatsoever.
The Law of Consequences does apply, of course.

I've seen a lot of anti-Bush threads lately. Why are you people so upset about him? Is there no NS'er that trust him?

I'm sure someone has pointed this out but I will state my peace anyway

Its not so much Bush as it is his administration. Its one thing to make mistakes. Its quite another to be negligent. And shamefully opportunistic(all politicians are opportunistic).

Why dismantle some cornerstone rights on which the democracy was formed when the intel was there about September 11? I am not going to split hairs but lets say it was an honest mistake of the bureaucracy then fix that instead of ramming through orwellian powers (pardon the cliche but it fits like a glove). There hasn't been this kind of fear mongering since McCarthy(with us or against us attitude, prevents social discourse).

If indeed he was honest in his reasons pursuing Iraq. Do it right. Send more troops or atleast secure basic order and essential services for the people when you get there instead of solely protecting oil field (which I know are important). Troops were just ordered to stand there and watch the looting. that has to have an negative effect on the citizens.

Know the culture and have an exit strategy. secure the border with agreements and partols to limit foreign fighters.

I don't think Bush is as behind these policies as people would like to think. Lets face it he is a figurehead, others do the heavy lifting. There is always some of that in any administration but the cronyism is rampant. Fire someone once in awhile when there is a mistake. the only people that get eliminated are ones who dissent the administrations views.

I must say on either side of the debate it does nothing to call names (ie nazi, retard, hippy, liberal)

Why is liberal such a dirty word anyway- it is just being open minded

Why is liberal such a dirty word anyway- it is just being open minded
It's a dirty word because liberals want to take your gun away so that negroes can rape your wife.

It's a dirty word because liberals want to take your gun away so that negroes can rape your wife.

Oh yeah and Hyperbole ....I forgot to mention Hyperbole

none of that now too, it does nothing to help discourse

Oh yeah and Hyperbole ....I forgot to mention Hyperbole

none of that now too, it does nothing to help discourse
The terrible thing is that the sort of libertarian who thinks that they have a constitutionally protected right to fill their house with anti-tank missiles and assault rifles tend to offer this sort of argument to justify all of the good that the NRA are doing.
"Liberal" was used as a smear during the last election you had over there wasn't it?

The terrible thing is that the sort of libertarian who thinks that they have a constitutionally protected right to fill their house with anti-tank missiles and assault rifles tend to offer this sort of argument to justify all of the good that the NRA are doing.
"Liberal" was used as a smear during the last election you had over there wasn't it?

Hey not here. I'm Canadian. Its Conservative thats dirty up here. Its sad when fear mongering and smear dominate politics instead of facts and true debate. It happens here too.

Hey not here. I'm Canadian. Its Conservative thats dirty up here. Its sad when fear mongering and smear dominate politics instead of facts and true debate. It happens here too.
It happens everywhere, unfortunately.

Thats the problem with the teenage generation, and all the liberal democrats who have nothing better to do then gripe and wine about the Honorable President Bush. He has done an excellent job in office and will continue to do so. Its a good thing that the wining hasn't really done anything, he won everything his second term, popularity, electoral, etc. The Republicans have regained power, thank God, once again, and finally the democrats left along with all of their shinanigans. I have tried to hold my vulgarity and profane thoughts about liberal democrats in this thread so bare with me. There should be no such thing as Gay Rights, Defend the sacred privelage of marriage between man and woman. Our tax money should not be going to abortions, if women really want to kill their child that bad, its their choice, but it should come out of their pocket as well. Last but not least, the War on Terror, support it, support bush, and support our troops. Freedom isn't free, and if you want to get blown up somwhere or you don't agree with ridding of terrorists, get out of our country it isn't yours, you gave that right up.

Bush/Cheney support 100 percent.

That's a good boy, now go tell mommy and daddy how brave you were for standing up to the bad old liberals by using the words you were taught.

Third, he got us into a war in Iraq that didn't need to be fought with evidence that didn't stand up to scrutiny.

So... was Saddam just going to step down? Saddam is precisely why the war needed to be fought -- to get him out of power, to give Iraqis a chance at freedom. They showed up to vote, validating our expectation that most IRaqis were against Saddam and for freedom to elect their leaders.

So what gives us Americans the right to just decide that another sovereign nation's government/leader is evil and must be deposed? Who died and made us God? If a nation/leader is a demonstrable, direct threat to America, (not just a source of righteous rage) we MAY make a case for intervention but this war? I think not.

I dunno about that..."right wing" and "left wing" mean different things in America, maybe? From what I understand, the "pure" definition of libertarian refers to a person who wants minimal government interference in both social and economic spheres, but in America the right wing is all about government interference in social affairs (while the left is more about interference in economic affairs). That would mean that "classic" libertarians aren't really compatible with either "wing" in American politics.
I think a libertarian is defined as somebody who can read a book by Ayn Rand without laughing...

So... was Saddam just going to step down? Saddam is precisely why the war needed to be fought -- to get him out of power, to give Iraqis a chance at freedom. They showed up to vote, validating our expectation that most IRaqis were against Saddam and for freedom to elect their leaders.

That and make sure Halliburton can get lucrative contracts so Dick Cheyney, and Daddy Bush make another bundle.

The current government of Pakistan, a US ally in this so-called "War On Terror", is headed by General Musharraf who siezed power in a coup in 1999. I don't see the US deposing of this dictator.

To answer your original question, I am a bush supporter.

I think a libertarian is defined as somebody who can read a book by Ayn Rand without laughing...


You owe me a new pair of pants.

I think a libertarian is defined as somebody who can read a book by Ayn Rand without laughing...

Zing! And so true...

f-r-e-e-d-o-m FREEDOM! It's worth fighting for! Woo hoo! hehe

huh?! Eye n0 speeka redneck.

Originally Posted by Man in Black
Yeah, damn him for not propping up Castro's regime with U.S. dollars! Damn him for not wanting to fund Castro's crooked ass government. Damn him because he doesn't believe that all of the corporations and businesses that Castro stole from people when he took power should be well funded by American wealth. Your right, he's such an ass.

-

YEAH, how dare he not deal with a Communist dictator?!

...my gosh you really are obssessed with how evil communism obviously is, equal rights for all are just disgusting arent they?

So tell me, what is worse than communism and civil rights put together?


..no but seriously... me as a "leftie/gay" as you like to call us, can think of worse... I don't see much use trying to though for fear you give me the "f-r-e-e-d-o-m" arguement again... that was just so ummm... compelling

the real question is WHY like him

how about spending 5 1/2 trillions dollars in 3 years....how about sending me to iraq to get a bullet in the leg...how about his 'strategery'...