NationStates Jolt Archive

This is begining to get on my nerves now. I'm not a particular supporter of Bush or an American citizen myself, but the continual ridiculing of Bush has become just stupid. The man has done some things that I would say are questionable in there motives but not their outcome. IE While the invasion of Iraq may have happened for the wrong reasons, it will ultimately have a good outcome. But the Second Gulf War has blinded people to the fact that Bush is the President of the United States. IE he is not just the commander in cheif of the Armed forces. He does a great many other things too. And since 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal futures (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605180010), I don't think he can be too hevely criticised for his domestic policies. And his international ones are not too bad either

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Jun/28-655363.html

He really knows how to unite people behind a cause;

Hating him. :)

He makes everyone above the age of 5 feel clever.

He really knows how to unite people behind a cause;

Hating him. :)

Damn you for making that joke before I could, LG. :p

He has provided us with much Pretzel based amusement and language based misunderestimations.

He really knows how to unite people behind a cause;

Hating him. :)

Hating is useually an irational emotion

I think in this case it is still irrational

People are willingly ignoring the good things about presidency to continue to ridcule him

Hating is useually an irational emotion

I think in this case it is still irrational

People are willingly ignoring the good things about presidency to continue to ridcule him
I notice that you didn't provide any of these 'good things' in your OP, other than that Iraq will 'one day turn out alright', which is a hope, not a fact.

He gives the rest of the so-called free world a warm fuzzy feeling of how intelligent, wise and incorrupt our leaders are.

All is relative.

IE While the invasion of Iraq may have happened for the wrong reasons, it will ultimately have a good outcome.


You sure about that? From where I'm sitting it looks like things are getting worse, not better. How many Americans have died in Iraq now? And exactly where is Osama Bin Laden? Or was the Iraq invasion just to make us forget about that?

Good things about George W Bush

He hasnt nuked anyone yet? I dont know, ya got me. Why dont you start us off.

You sure about that? From where I'm sitting it looks like things are getting worse, not better. How many Americans have died in Iraq now? And exactly where is Osama Bin Laden? Or was the Iraq invasion just to make us forget about that?

Things get worse before they get better. Iraq has a democratic government now and the Iraqi security forces are slowly taking over more and more of the role of keeping the country secure. If we can have two more stable countries in the Middle East that show to the rest of the Arab world what it means to be a free country then it is a good thing.

He hasnt nuked anyone yet? I dont know, ya got me. Why dont you start us off.

I did. See the OP

I notice that you didn't provide any of these 'good things' in your OP, other than that Iraq will 'one day turn out alright', which is a hope, not a fact.

I did.

1. The fact that 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal future
2. The link regarding his action in helping African poverty

Is this just more examples of people willingly ignoring good things about Bush.

I did.

1. The fact that 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal future
2. The link regarding his action in helping African poverty

Is this just more examples of people willingly ignoring good things about Bush.

I don't think people are ignoring the good things about him. It's more to do with the fact that for every one good thing he does, he does a dozen insanely bad thing. Like, well to go by the last week or so, the Presidential Memo that allows the NSA to force telecom operators to give them numbers and information, the stupidity of his dealings with North Korea, the continued agitation of Iran and their nuclear program, the fact that Coalition troops are dying in Iraq in a pointless conflict.

And that's without going into PATRIOT, the wiretap fiasco, Plamegate and the leaving of official documents in garbage cans outside the Whitehouse.

George sleeps with a 9mm Glock loaded on his bedside table. While I don't approve of the caliber, it's a good choice for a firearm.

Things get worse before they get better. Iraq has a democratic government now and the Iraqi security forces are slowly taking over more and more of the role of keeping the country secure. If we can have two more stable countries in the Middle East that show to the rest of the Arab world what it means to be a free country then it is a good thing.

Okay. So when are we going into Saudi Arabia? OIr what about Somalia, to show Africa what it means to be a free country? Or North Korea, to show the people there what its like to be a free country? Or what about Bosnia again, to finish that job?

What exactly made Iraq special out of all of these countries, where there are just as many insane dictators who go to war and kill hundreds of thousands?

Good things about George W Bush
He can't run for president again.

well, one good thing about Bush, is that now, the southern states finally have a president who adequately represents them.

He's not Dick Cheney.

Okay. So when are we going into Saudi Arabia? OIr what about Somalia, to show Africa what it means to be a free country? Or North Korea, to show the people there what its like to be a free country? Or what about Bosnia again, to finish that job?

What exactly made Iraq special out of all of these countries, where there are just as many insane dictators who go to war and kill hundreds of thousands?

The same thing would have been said if he had gone into North Korea etc. You're expecting too much from him if you expect him to get America to intervene in every single instance of undemocratic government.

Good things about president Bush?
He creates an provides a lot of really good comedic material. And I do mean a lot! :D

He's not Dick Cheney.
Indeed! :p

Another good thing to say about George Bush.
*thinks hard*
Well, he's never ever been convicted of torturing kittens...
*disclaimer*
pending appeals.

I did.

1. The fact that 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal future
2. The link regarding his action in helping African poverty

Is this just more examples of people willingly ignoring good things about Bush.
1. Can this be directly attributed to his Presidency? I think the burden is very much on you to prove the causality here.
2. Which action, exactly?

1. Can this be directly attributed to his Presidency? I think the burden is very much on you to prove the causality here.
2. Which action, exactly?

1. They feel optimistic about the future, because after 6 years, there is only 2 more to go.

The same thing would have been said if he had gone into North Korea etc. You're expecting too much from him if you expect him to get America to intervene in every single instance of undemocratic government.

Then why go into any of the countries? Or why not go in with actual UN support, and not just ignore them?

I don't hate him... Hate is such a strong word. I just intensly loath him :)
Every speech he gives has something about trying to justify invading Iraq... He isn't even trying to find the real terrorists anymore... I give him a D- in smarts.

If the percentage of Americans who feel optimistic about the future dropped substantially lower than that, then you'd have grounds to worry about us. Americans have always scored high on that poll - dynamic optimism is a fundamental component of our national character. The belief that we can do better, and that next year, or next election, or next market cycle will be better than the last is indelibly ingrained into what makes us Americans.

If the percentage of Americans who feel optimistic about the future dropped substantially lower than that, then you'd have grounds to worry about us. Americans have always scored high on that poll - dynamic optimism is a fundamental component of our national character. The belief that we can do better, and that next year, or next election, or next market cycle will be better than the last is indelibly ingrained into what makes us Americans.
Yeah, with only 2 years left to go, we'd better be optimistic about the future. Expect that percentage to go up.

He shows us that we have indeed hit rock-bottom when it comes to leadership, and it cannot get any worse (please...tell me I'm right).

You sure about that? From where I'm sitting it looks like things are getting worse, not better. How many Americans have died in Iraq now? :rolleyes:

Really? From where I'm sitting in my tank, things haven't been this good here since the pricipal city here was Ur of the Chaldees Circa 4000 BC. IF you believe what NBC, CNN, or especially CBS says, you are being led astray. Period. And more Americans have died in NYC since March '03 than in Iraq, so where's the Clinton-Kennedy exit stategy?

He shows us that we have indeed hit rock-bottom when it comes to leadership, and it cannot get any worse (please...tell me I'm right).


I can't.
You're wrong.
Dead wrong.
It WAS worse from Jan20 1993-Jan20 2001. And even then I'm stretching it by sayin he was any kind of leader.

The OP was a bit wishywashy, but raises a point.

I disagree with the deployment of the National Guard to the border, however a month ago I was commending Bush for having the nuts to address the immigration issue and get something to happen. I'm not happy with the result, but people are thinking about the issue now.

I feel similarly about Iraq. Saddam was a danger and an evil to his own people. The war was started under false pretenses, poorly run, far too expensive*. While distateful to me, the message behind the 'cookie analogy' for defence spending and social spending is a good one. If we took the money spent in Iraq, how much good could we have done with education at home, how many lives saved in Africa, and so forth. I respect that Bush had the nuts to make that decision, though I disagree with his methods.

I don't know that Bush himself had much to do with Africa. I think it was an international bandwagon that decided to help get the fuck-up-faerie to end her visit to that continent. If anyone can provide some info I would be much obliged.



*This seems a relevant side note. I'm largely Libertarian (big L, party member). So when it comes to the government spending my money, I am more inclined to not spend it. However, I assume that the way things go, the government has money and will spend it one way or another. So when I see money being spent I try to find alternatives where it could be spent and used more effectively. Thanks to my Democrat parents, I largely see military spending that could have helped to not kill people, but then the Libertarian realizes that private charities spend money more effectively than the government.

Then why go into any of the countries? Or why not go in with actual UN support, and not just ignore them?

UN support? 95% of it would be our own troops. The US has no need for a organization that elevates France to our level. They haven't been a world player since the US saved them TWICE.

Nothing! HAhAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhaahaahahhhhhh......

UN support? 95% of it would be our own troops. The US has no need for a organization that elevates France to our level. They haven't been a world player since the US saved them TWICE.

*sighs*

They still have vast economic power, and they've learned not to be aresd with wars any more.

*sighs*

They still have vast economic power, and they've learned not to be aresd with wars any more.
And at least, for the most part, the French embody the American ideal of self determination even better than we do by not letting themselves be arsed with giving in to the U.S.'s whims all the time.

And at least, for the most part, the French embody the American ideal of self determination even better than we do by not letting themselves be arsed with giving in to the U.S.'s whims all the time.

Exactly. Fair play to the French.

"Good things about George W Bush"

Good joke. :D

The reason that so many people are optimistic about their personal futures is because George W. Bush is going to be out of office in two years.

It's also worth mentioning that a sizeable majority (well beyond statistical margin of error) believe that the United States is heading in the wrong direction.

This is begining to get on my nerves now. I'm not a particular supporter of Bush or an American citizen myself, but the continual ridiculing of Bush has become just stupid. ]

Then why would you care? In a Democracy, we have the right to speak out against our leaders as long as we do not threaten their lives.


The man has done some things that I would say are questionable in there motives but not their outcome. IE While the invasion of Iraq may have happened for the wrong reasons, it will ultimately have a good outcome.

And what will that outcome be pray tell? That the US will continue to be viewed as a bully nation who mindlessly interferes with other countries and wages wars of economic gain under the guise of democracy?:sniper:

But the Second Gulf War has blinded people to the fact that Bush is the President of the United States. IE he is not just the commander in cheif of the Armed forces. He does a great many other things too. .

Name one great thing this numbscull has done for America or the world. Presidents are ELECTED OFFICIALS, not holy relics, hes just a glorified civil servant with too much power.


And since 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal futures (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605180010), I don't think he can be too hevely criticised for his domestic policies. And his international ones are not too bad either


Your little polls fail to show that this idiot has an overall approval rating just below 30% right now. And as for domestic policies, you seem to be rather ignorant to the fact that since he was elected, he has had more failures at home than abroad:

:eek: Katrina Disaster Mismanagement
:mad: Social Security Privatization Debacle
:rolleyes: Patriot Act Wranglings
:mp5: illegal NSA/CIA secret monitoring programs
:confused: Plame/Libby scandal
:headbang: current Immigration flap
:fluffle: Attempts to ammend Constitution to ban gay marriage

And the list goes on and on...

The same thing would have been said if he had gone into North Korea etc. You're expecting too much from him if you expect him to get America to intervene in every single instance of undemocratic government.

Nope, I'd like him to STOP interfering in every instance of an undemocratic government...it's none of his bloody business!!

He won't live forever. : D

UN support? 95% of it would be our own troops. The US has no need for a organization that elevates France to our level. They haven't been a world player since the US saved them TWICE.

France saved America in the revolution. The Americans would not have won without French help. And the French gave you the statue of liberty as well.

UN support? 95% of it would be our own troops. The US has no need for a organization that elevates France to our level. They haven't been a world player since the US saved them TWICE.

Firstly, The USA donates next to no troops to the UN, the bulk of UN Peacekeepers come from Third World countries such as Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde and Africa because they're cheap. Secondly, the US was oppurtunistic as far as the World Wars were concerned, trading with both sides and then jumping in after everyone else was exhausted to "save the day" once the Mexicans started acting chummy with the Germans or the Japanese decided to take a couple of islands, and even then the majority of troops that participated in the liberation of France and the invasion of Germany were not American.

:rolleyes:
And more Americans have died in NYC since March '03 than in Iraq, so where's the Clinton-Kennedy exit stategy?

Really? Doing what? What numbers are you looking at? Are you counting:

Total Deaths of American/Coalition soldiers?
2,900 and climbing

Total deaths of insurgents?
over 5,000 and still ticking

Total deaths of innocent Iraqi men, women and children?
over 35,000 and climbing

Total number of injuires of American/Coalition soldiers?
19,000 and climbing

Total number of injuries of innocent Iraqi men, women and children?
over, 20,000 and climbing

Your ignorance is overwhelming...:rolleyes:

France saved America in the revolution. The Americans would not have won without French help. And the French gave you the statue of liberty as well.

Exactly, for every armed American colonist in the ranks were 10 French soldiers. The British ended up surrendering because the French Navy had them surrounded and cut off from their supply lines.

You sure about that? From where I'm sitting it looks like things are getting worse, not better. How many Americans have died in Iraq now? And exactly where is Osama Bin Laden? Or was the Iraq invasion just to make us forget about that?

Iraq is the least bloody conflict in modern history. FACT. Approx 2,200 US casualties in 3 years? In Vietnam there were 58,000 in 10. In Korea there would be 2,200 casualties in a single battle. Iraqi casualties? Even if we take the liberal ball-park figure of 100,000 (which was seemingly plucked out of thin air "between 18,000 and 180,000" - that's some estimate!) then there have been much fewer civilian deaths than in comparable conflicts in history. In Vietnam and Korea millions of civilians died, ditto World War Two. True, all casualties are bad, but these need to be taken into perspective. People die in wars, fact. Its just a matter of minimising them. 'Body counts' have never proven anything in any war in history. The same 'body count' statistics that people use to back up their points on Iraq are the same types of statistics created in the same way as the one's they (rightly) criticised and ridiculed in Vietnam.

Osama Bin Laden? Afghanistan or Pakistan, but hopefully dead. I will accept that the US Military royally bungled that one. They should have left it to the SAS, we would have got the bastard long ago.

Or why not go in with actual UN support, and not just ignore them?

Because the UN is a toothless organisation that is institutionally anti-American, even though the US pays 90% of its bills and US troops make up 90% of UN peace-keeping forces. The UN Security Council is made up of countries who all put their own interests above the common good. It is almost impossible to get a consensus at the UN over anything, and if you do its usually too late. Look at Sudan. While hundreds of thousands of people were being massacred and forced from their homes, the UN twiddled its thumbs and then, after some representatives flew over the least shitty part of Darfur, finally decided that it wasn't a genocide. This is an organisation that allows Saudi Arabia, Libya, China and Cuba onto the Council for Human Rights based on their 'tireless work for the cause of human rights'. What tireless work? Political repression, torture, subjugation of women, mass arrests, all facts of life in these countries. The UN has elected Iran, a country they themselves are currently investigating for allegedly developing nuclear weapons, onto the UN Committee for disarmament. They roundly condemn Israel for anything it does, yet for some reason remain silent when Palestinian terrorists blow up buses full of women and children. UN aid workers have been involved in a sex-for-aid scandal in Africa for years. The UN promises to investigate, and then does nothing. And people say we should cooperate?

As an organisation, the UN cannot continue in its current form. It is destroying its own credibility through its actions (or lack of in certain cases like Sudan and Rwanda) and need serious reform if it is to survive.

*sighs*

They still have vast economic power, and they've learned not to be aresd with wars any more.

Apart from that colonial war they've been fighting in the Ivory Coast for the best part of 20 years, or the systematic rape and pillage in African nations where they are supposed to be 'peace-keeping' as part of the UN.

And at least, for the most part, the French embody the American ideal of self determination even better than we do

As long as you're not Black, Asian, African, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or any other kind of non-White French Christian. Seriously, immigrants in France have little to no self-determination. They are put into slums and kept there by the systematic and subtle racism that is inherent in French society, particularly urban France (in the countryside, the French are actually lovely people). Just look at those riots that happened last year.

There's also the self-determination that led to the student riots earlier this year against a law that was designed to actually get them jobs! Seriously, how fucked up does a country have to be when people riot at attempts to get them into work. Yes, it was designed to make young workers easier to fire and yes, there were some aspects that needed to be better thought out, but the principle was there. Currently French employers don't employ young people because if they turn out to be hopelessly incompetent (or lazy) it is impossible to fire them. By making it easier to fire someone who is rubbish or lazy, employers will be more inclined to hire young people because they know they will be able to get rid of the useless ones and keep the best ones. Surely if French youths were as clever as everyone claims, then they wouldn't have to worry about getting fired?

While we're praising the French, let us also not forget that it is French and EU trade laws that cause a large amount of the poverty in Africa. The CAP causes massive over-production of crops, which are then dumped on third world countries, under-cutting and destroying their domestic agriculture. Then there's those French and EU tariffs targetted to prevent third world countries from under-cutting European producers, thus making it harder for poor countries to develop.

Anyway, back to the point of this topic. I'm British, and as you can tell conservative (that's with a small 'c', not Conservative as in the party). What do I think of George Bush? He's crap. Seriously, this administration could have won in Iraq easily, but they didn't plan for the aftermath of the invasion properly or send enough troops, so its now taking longer than it should have. The aftermath of Katrina was a disaster thanks to the bumbling of FEMA. The GoP has turned from the great party of Reagan (PBUH) into a Christian-Socialist party of religious nutters. Intelligent design is being taught as 'science'. Federal spending is through the roof and full of pork projects created by corrupt Senators and Congressmen on both sides. The only spending that is being cut is defence spending, so critical projects like the JSF and F-22 are being cut back or delayed. People's telephone calls are being monitored without proper safeguards for their anonymity (ie making sure identities are only revealed if the call is suspect).

Seriously, the GoP needs some real conservatives back in charge. People who follow the ideals of Reagan (PBUH). It needs to get rid of Bush and his religious right, because they are destroying the good name of America and conservatism as a whole.

Still, it could be worse. We could have President John 'flip-flop' Kerry, a man who wouldn't know a consistent policy if it came up and smacked him in the face.

As far as I can tell, Kerry didn't flip-flop, the conservative-biased media just made it look that way.

Then again, Republicans, Democrats, what's the difference?

Firstly, The USA donates next to no troops to the UN, the bulk of UN Peacekeepers come from Third World countries such as Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde and Africa because they're cheap. Secondly, the US was oppurtunistic as far as the World Wars were concerned, trading with both sides and then jumping in after everyone else was exhausted to "save the day" once the Mexicans started acting chummy with the Germans or the Japanese decided to take a couple of islands, and even then the majority of troops that participated in the liberation of France and the invasion of Germany were not American.

Wrong wrong wrong. The US commits large numbers of men to UN operations. The African one's you are referring to are the African Union peacekeepers, not UN peacekeepers.

Secondly, where do you get your information from, because that is factually WRONG! The US was not 'trading with both sides' in either of the World Wars. In both instances, they were trading with us (the British/Allies) and boycotting the enemy. Indeed, during WW1 German U-Boats were openly sinking neutral American liners and shipping, why on Earth would they trade with them? In WW2, the Americans were imposing a trade embargo on the Japanese, that's why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour in the first place! They needed the Americans out of the way so that they could take more territory and resources in the Pacific to offset the US trade embargo.

The Americans may not have had the majority of troops during the European campaign in WW2, but they were certainly the biggest single contributer of men and equipment.

As far as I can tell, Kerry didn't flip-flop, the conservative-biased media just made it look that way.

Then again, Republicans, Democrats, what's the difference?

One says they won't tax and spend, and then do, the other says they will tax and spend, and then do.

Kerry DID flip-flop on a number of issues. For example:

He spoke out against Iraq, voted FOR the war, before deciding he was against it again.

He called for more funding for armour and equipment for US soldiers, then voted against the bill to provide the funding, then criticised the Government for not providing the funding.

There are more, but I can't be bothered to go into them right now.

snip
It was me who made the point about France embodying self determination, so if you're going to attack someone, attack me.

I wasn't praising everything about France. All I was saying was at least they don't line up with their tail between their legs to take the latest dose of dogma from the U.S. like the good little vassal-state you wish they were. When I said self determination I meant that France, as a country, is marching to the beat of it's own drum. You'd probably praise the U.S. for doing the same thing, so don't be a hypocrite.

On that note, it's also U.S. policy to subsidise its agricultural sector at the expense of farmers in the developing world. At no point did anyone ever praise French or E.U. subsidies policies.

Furthermore, at no point did anyone even ALLUDE to the student protests or the jobs law. I personally think the law would've been a good thing.

I strongly suggest you refocus your argument rather than going into attack mode when someone says the France word.

Dubya and his cronies have taken deficit spending to levels Democrats have only dreamed of, eroded the Bill of Rights, invaded a foreign nation by misleading the people the were elected to serve, and then massively mismanaged the security of that nation out sheer arrogance and stupidity, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

As for your assertion that Dubya's invasion will have a good outcome, I think you're counting your chickens before they've hatched. Iraq could end up a Shi'ite theocracy that hates America and allies itself with Iran when all is said and done.

After all that, you'll have to excuse me if increasing aid to Africa doesn't win me over. Hell, knowing Dubya, most of the money probably goes for X-ians to preach abstinence as the only means of birth control and aids prevention.

He won't live forever. : D

Damn it, you beat me to it.... ;)

One says they won't tax and spend, and then do, the other says they will tax and spend, and then do.

Kerry DID flip-flop on a number of issues. For example:

He spoke out against Iraq, voted FOR the war, before deciding he was against it again.

He called for more funding for armour and equipment for US soldiers, then voted against the bill to provide the funding, then criticised the Government for not providing the funding.

There are more, but I can't be bothered to go into them right now.
Gosh. I see that someone gets all their info from Fox.
fyi, Kerry supported the bill for further funding in it's original form. When it came back to the house it had lots of extra riders that had nothing to do with buying armour for the troops - add-ons for domestic issues that the Bush admin knew wouldn't get passed by themselves.
So naturally, Kerry went against the new bill, as it had changed significantly between the two hearings.

As for being for the war, then against it - lots of people did that when they realised they had been misled and lied to by their government about the reasons for invading Iraq. That's what happens when one takes the time to re-evauate one's position as more information comes to hand, rather than blindly following the same path regardless - and thus making the same mistakes over and over again. But you seem to think that's a positive attribute for your leader to have.


See? That's the sort of information one can get when they don't just watch Fox and accept their spin on things.

Your entire post is unequivocably wrong.... Your embarassing ignorance is stunning...


The Americans may not have had the majority of troops during the European campaign in WW2, but they were certainly the biggest single contributer of men and equipment.

Really? Of the 62 Million total casualties of WWII, The Soviet Union accounted for about 23.5 million of those deaths. I suggest you pick up a history book every once in a while...:rolleyes:

Things get worse before they get better. Iraq has a democratic government now and the Iraqi security forces are slowly taking over more and more of the role of keeping the country secure. If we can have two more stable countries in the Middle East that show to the rest of the Arab world what it means to be a free country then it is a good thing.

Hope, as opposed to fact, is not something I'm willing to bet the farm on.

If bush does one good thing, outcome-wise, it will probably be torpedoing the Grand Ole Party.

George sleeps with a 9mm Glock loaded on his bedside table. While I don't approve of the caliber, it's a good choice for a firearm.
I've heard that before (I've also heard that he carries it with him), but I was never able to verify it. Do you have a source for it? That'd be a great story to share. :)

He doesnt own slaves. Thats good right?

Firstly, The USA donates next to no troops to the UN, the bulk of UN Peacekeepers come from Third World countries such as
That's right, they prefer to deploy them to UN operations under independent, U.S. command (as in Somalia, where they were the only effective military presense), and quite frankly, I don't blame them for it.

As far as I can tell, Kerry didn't flip-flop,

"Actually, I voted for the $83 billion before I voted against it."


the conservative-biased media
LMAO!



Your ignorance is overwhelming...:rolleyes:
...no, I'd say yours is, considering his explicitly specified American deaths.

This is begining to get on my nerves now. I'm not a particular supporter of Bush or an American citizen myself, but the continual ridiculing of Bush has become just stupid. The man has done some things that I would say are questionable in there motives but not their outcome. IE While the invasion of Iraq may have happened for the wrong reasons, it will ultimately have a good outcome. But the Second Gulf War has blinded people to the fact that Bush is the President of the United States. IE he is not just the commander in cheif of the Armed forces. He does a great many other things too. And since 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal futures (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605180010), I don't think he can be too hevely criticised for his domestic policies. And his international ones are not too bad either

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Jun/28-655363.html
George W Bush deserves none of the lies, slander, and treasonous propaganda disseminated by the Liberal media. He is a true American hero; his efforts in quelling the global swell of terrorism has been insturmental to the survival of freedom in the world. At no other time in history have freedom, democracy, and Jesus Christ had a more eloquent, honest, and dedicated leader. Not only is his foreign policy of pre-emption the most successful strategy in history, but he also champions the cause of good Christians here at home in America. George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself. God Bless George W Bush and America, the greatest nation to have ever existed!

Your entire post is unequivocably wrong.... Your embarassing ignorance is stunning...



Really? Of the 62 Million total casualties of WWII, The Soviet Union accounted for about 23.5 million of those deaths. I suggest you pick up a history book every once in a while...:rolleyes:

I'm actually a Military History graduate with honours. You are right, the Soviet Union did account for 23.5 Million casualties, but they did NOT take part in the liberation of France, which is what my post was about. (I was answering another posters assertions that the Americans did bugger all in Europe in WW2).

You are also right in your assertion that the Soviets were the single largest contributor of men and equipment in WW2 and in Europe. I shall correct my post accordingly so it is not misunderstood again:

The Americans may not have had the majority of troops during the Western European campaign in WW2, but they were certainly the biggest single contributer of men and equipment.

PS My specialist areas are Air Power history, Vietnam and the Middle East, so WW2 isn't my strongest area of history. Apologies all.

George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself.

I hate to say this, but you sound exactly like Islamic terrorists.

Seriously, the Free World can only win the War on Terror if the US gets rid of all the fundamentalist Christian rhetoric from the administration. The more it becomes a clash of Fundamentalist Christianity versus Fundamentalist Islam the more people will believe it to be a war of religion and not what it should be, which is a war for freedom over tyranny and oppression.

George W Bush deserves none of the lies, slander, and treasonous propaganda disseminated by the Liberal media. He is a true American hero; his efforts in quelling the global swell of terrorism has been insturmental to the survival of freedom in the world. At no other time in history have freedom, democracy, and Jesus Christ had a more eloquent, honest, and dedicated leader. Not only is his foreign policy of pre-emption the most successful strategy in history, but he also champions the cause of good Christians here at home in America. George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself. God Bless George W Bush and America, the greatest nation to have ever existed!

Please tell me that's a massive sarcastic joke.


Please

Let us see...

Abramoff - cliques and corruption galore, DeLay - ditto, PATRIOT I - ever heard of ye olde Bill of Rights, PATRIOT II - I SAID, EVER HEARD OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS?!, Iraq - oh lord, Afghanistan - sinking into the mire, No Child Left Behind - screwing up education for decades to come, the defecit - oh my GOD its huge, foreign policy in general - it's a policy Jim, but not as we know it... need I go on?

Compassionate Conservatism... WTF is that? No-one knows, just like no-one knows what the Third Way actually is.

There is one good thing - Bush can't run again in 2008.

George W Bush deserves none of the lies, slander, and treasonous propaganda disseminated by the Liberal media. He is a true American hero; his efforts in quelling the global swell of terrorism has been insturmental to the survival of freedom in the world. At no other time in history have freedom, democracy, and Jesus Christ had a more eloquent, honest, and dedicated leader. Not only is his foreign policy of pre-emption the most successful strategy in history, but he also champions the cause of good Christians here at home in America. George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself. God Bless George W Bush and America, the greatest nation to have ever existed!

*hopes that this is satire and nothing more*

Okay. So when are we going into Saudi Arabia? OIr what about Somalia, to show Africa what it means to be a free country? Or North Korea, to show the people there what its like to be a free country? Or what about Bosnia again, to finish that job?

What exactly made Iraq special out of all of these countries, where there are just as many insane dictators who go to war and kill hundreds of thousands?

Um... how about because setting up Saddam Hussein was a mess the US caused? Like the messes the US caused in Panama with Noriega and Afghanistan with the Mujahideen.

The EU allowed Jugoslavia to turn into a living hell.
Somalia was never stable from the start, since the British and Italians left.
North Korea was pushed back from the South by the US led UN forces in the 50s.
And Saudi Arabia? Been around since 1932.

France saved America in the revolution. The Americans would not have won without French help. And the French gave you the statue of liberty as well.

True. And we repaid the favor in WW1, WW2, sending aid up the wazoo in Viet Nam, and then getting involved in Viet Nam.

All told, I think it's even.

Firstly, The USA donates next to no troops to the UN, the bulk of UN Peacekeepers come from Third World countries such as Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde and Africa because they're cheap.

That's because the US pays it's UN dues.
In December 2000, the Assembly revised the scale of assessments to reflect current global circumstances. As part of that revision, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 22%. The US is the only member that meets that ceiling, but it is in arrears with hundreds of millions of dollars (see United States and the United Nations). Under the scale of assessments adopted in 2000, other major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2001 are Japan (19.63%), Germany (9.82%), France (6.50%), the UK (5.57%), Italy (5.09%), Canada (2.57%), Spain (2.53%), and Brazil (2.39%).

...Other nations that can't pay their assessment contribute more troops to offset this. Since the US is funding about 1/5th - 1/4 of the UN already, I'd think that would be enough for one country to do. Especially for an organization so blatently corrupt and which does so little.

Secondly, the US was oppurtunistic as far as the World Wars were concerned, trading with both sides and then jumping in after everyone else was exhausted to "save the day" once the Mexicans started acting chummy with the Germans or the Japanese decided to take a couple of islands, and even then the majority of troops that participated in the liberation of France and the invasion of Germany were not American.

The US did *not* trade with the Central nor Axis powers once hostilities began in earnest. Simply put, it was a logistical nightmare to get anything to Germany, let alone Austria-Hungary or Turkey.
This is why the Germans in WW1 & early WW2 complained about the US not truely being neutral, since their trade with France and UK and Russia went so far UP.

As for the Zimmerman Telegram, that was merely the last straw for US neutrality in WW1. Unrestricted submarine warfare was already nudging the US toward the allies.
WW2? How about Pearl Harbor?? The US was NOT involved until attacked! :rolleyes:

As for the liberation of Paris: No, the majority may not have been American, but then the UK and French didn't have to travel 5000-6000km over the Atlantic to get there, either. There is no way that Operation Overlord could have been launched without US participation taking Utah and Omaha beach.
You also discount the American Air Force, which was a major factor in German defeat, not to mention US supplies, which armed many other nations.

You sure about that? From where I'm sitting it looks like things are getting worse, not better. How many Americans have died in Iraq now? And exactly where is Osama Bin Laden? Or was the Iraq invasion just to make us forget about that?

Actually, there were 17 different UN violations by Iraq under Hussein that were given as the justification for the liberation of Iraq, please get a better understanding of the US intentions before making negative comments about the cause. This will go down in history as one of the great acts, the freeing of Iraqis from genocide.

George W Bush deserves none of the lies, slander, and treasonous propaganda disseminated by the Liberal media. He is a true American hero; his efforts in quelling the global swell of terrorism has been insturmental to the survival of freedom in the world. At no other time in history have freedom, democracy, and Jesus Christ had a more eloquent, honest, and dedicated leader. Not only is his foreign policy of pre-emption the most successful strategy in history, but he also champions the cause of good Christians here at home in America. George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself. God Bless George W Bush and America, the greatest nation to have ever existed!

So george... when did you learn to use a computer....? :D

This is begining to get on my nerves now. I'm not a particular supporter of Bush or an American citizen myself, but the continual ridiculing of Bush has become just stupid. The man has done some things that I would say are questionable in there motives but not their outcome. IE While the invasion of Iraq may have happened for the wrong reasons, it will ultimately have a good outcome. But the Second Gulf War has blinded people to the fact that Bush is the President of the United States. IE he is not just the commander in cheif of the Armed forces. He does a great many other things too. And since 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal futures (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605180010), I don't think he can be too hevely criticised for his domestic policies. And his international ones are not too bad either

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Jun/28-655363.html

This man once said "I believe someday that humans and fish can coexist equally"

Good things gergoe bush has done? hmm....uh.....well lets see..............uh there must be something..........................................huh...he hasnt shot anyone in the face yet?

Good Things about the shrub?

He provides a lot of great material for comedians. Funny stuff.

You know what, I'm for Bush in all but not because of my alignment to a certain political party or any of that rubish. I'm behind him all the way if for no other reason than he actually has a backbone and doesn't back down from his beliefs just because of the political climate or criticism, not to mention that he was obviously a better choice than Kerry, which your common sense should have told you no matter what political affiliation you have. I mean if there was a decent democrat running for office I'd vote for him too. Anyways, another reason I'm for Bush is because, he actually has some morals and integrity, which is very rare among politicians these days. (as I'm sure you've all seen)

I mean sure he's made blunders but then who hasn't?? And he's the freakin' president for crying out loud, I mean cut the man some slack here, he has so many responsibilities and has the weight of the whole country to carry, so I'd like to see any of the ones criticizing him try and be the president as long as he has and hold things together as relatively well as he has, and I bet that a majority of you couldn't do it to save your lives(that's not to say that I could necessarily do it either but I'm sure you get my point). I mean seriously people he's only one man, not God. Plus, the way I see it is that if your really out to blame anyone for our countries problems I say look to the heavily corrupted congress(corrupted heavily on both sides - left and right), the ones who pass the very laws that you're blaming Bush for.

And I also say to heck with all of this political party business because all politics is now-a-days is just basically a battle of propaganda, who's on who's side, and who can get the most power, all of which are total B.S. Both, sides are as guilty as the other now-a-days. I mean come on whatever happened to actually fighting for the people of this and other countries and not just telling people that you are just for status and power, and then you do absolutely nothing that you said you were going to do. And one final point, is it just me or does anyone else realize that we're never going to get anywhere in this debate no matter how many facts or non-facts are presented because everyone's going to look at it from their "side" instead of looking at it from both sides (that doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but on majority it does - at least here in the U.S. it does, or so I've seen) so everyone's going to have their minds closed to anything that doesn't match what they've seen, heard, or researched/read about any topic you bring up that has political association. Am I right?? :confused:

PS-Sorry if some of this doesn't make sense, has incomplete thoughts,is incoherent,off topic, or just seems like pointless rambling but I'm typing this rather fast b/c I'm tired and want to go hit the sack and just wanted to leave some of my thoughts/views on this matter as a whole.(I think I made a few
good points at least) ;)

He really knows how to unite people behind a cause;

Hating him. :)

Your a complete genious. I am uniting against him. I can't stand Bush. Somebody please give him a blowjob so we can impeach him...

well, one good thing about Bush, is that now, the southern states finally have a president who adequately represents them.

I resent that. I'm a southern girl. Guess what? I think Bush is a complete dumbass. He is giving the southerners a bad name. The man is a complete idiot and I think for America's sake, we should shoot him.

One good thing about Bush....Hmm....

Without him we wouldn't have quotes such as:

"My father has had alot of sex...I mean alot of setbacks.."

I love the public speaking Bush!

..no, I'd say yours is, considering his explicitly specified American deaths.

So to you American lives a more valuable than the lives of other people?
This is the sort of superiority complex that sometimes makes me ashamed of other Americans. Very sad indeed.:rolleyes:

Hating is useually an irational emotion

I think in this case it is still irrational

People are willingly ignoring the good things about presidency to continue to ridcule him

Okay, a good thing. The emasculation of the Bill of Rights. Pesky Bill of Rights. The fact is, the bad things are bad enough, that I can not, in good conscience say anything good about him.
But,
Child Tax Credit
also
Hitler reputedly loved dogs

Things get worse before they get better. Iraq has a democratic government now and the Iraqi security forces are slowly taking over more and more of the role of keeping the country secure. If we can have two more stable countries in the Middle East that show to the rest of the Arab world what it means to be a free country then it is a good thing.

I suspect the Iraq war will, like Communism, just keep getting worse until somebody wises up and gets us out. That hero will be accused of cutting and running.

I did.

1. The fact that 89% of Americans are optimistic about their personal future
2. The link regarding his action in helping African poverty

Is this just more examples of people willingly ignoring good things about Bush.
Maybe the "disconnect" is because people's optimism is in spite of Bush. After eight years of Republicans telling them Clinton had nothing to do with anything good that happenned during his administration, maybe Bush is reaping the whirlwind.

I can't.
You're wrong.
Dead wrong.
It WAS worse from Jan20 1993-Jan20 2001. And even then I'm stretching it by sayin he was any kind of leader.
Hahahaha! Fucking White House interns is so much worse than illegal wiretaps, illegally imprisoning thousands of people in Gitmo, illegal torture, starting a war of "naked aggression," that has led to thousands of American deaths and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent non-Americans. Turning a surplus into a deficit that will increase the debt by an amount greater than the two previous presidents.
Oh, yeah, it was blow jobs. Well, okay that is worse.
:upyours:

He doesnt own slaves. Thats good right?
Hmm? I guess that makes him a better president than Jefferson.

George W Bush deserves none of the lies, slander, and treasonous propaganda disseminated by the Liberal media. He is a true American hero; his efforts in quelling the global swell of terrorism has been insturmental to the survival of freedom in the world. At no other time in history have freedom, democracy, and Jesus Christ had a more eloquent, honest, and dedicated leader. Not only is his foreign policy of pre-emption the most successful strategy in history, but he also champions the cause of good Christians here at home in America. George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself. God Bless George W Bush and America, the greatest nation to have ever existed!

Hee hee. You're funny.

I'm behind him all the way if for no other reason than he actually has a backbone and doesn't back down from his beliefs just because...
... he's wrong?

Yep George Bush truly has the courage of his errors.

Hahahaha! Fucking White House interns is so much worse than illegal wiretaps, illegally imprisoning thousands of people in Gitmo, illegal torture, starting a war of "naked aggression," that has led to thousands of American deaths and the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent non-Americans. Turning a surplus into a deficit that will increase the debt by an amount greater than the two previous presidents.
Oh, yeah, it was blow jobs. Well, okay that is worse.
:upyours:

Let's not forget Clinton imposed all those sanctions on Iraq that caused suffering amongst ordinary Iraqis whilst the Iraqi Government and the UN got fat from the inherrent corruption. Let us also not forget that Clinton cut and ran from Somalia, leaving the people there at the mercy of the warlords. Clinton also ignored the Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people. He got involved in Bosnia too late to avoid thousands of innocent people being massacred. He was responsible for launching the cruise missile attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan against terrorists that achieved nothing other than the destruction of a children's medicine factory. He also tried to persuade the North Koreans not to acquire nuclear weapons by peddling them with cheap oil, only for them to go ahead with their nuclear programme anyway and demand even more trade concessions (that he gave).

Let's also not forget the all the dodgy deals he and Hillary have been involved in, such as that land rental deal that screwed hundreds of ordinary hard working Americans out of thousands of dollars through cleverly worded (and, in some states, illegal) contractual small print.

It wasn't just the BJ that Clinton did wrong. He made a whole host of mistakes. I'm no fan of Bush, but Clinton wasn't exactly a saint either and Kerry would have been an awful President. Unfortunately Bush is the least shitty of all the shitty potential Presidents of the US.

As an aside, although their internment may be illegal (I personally don't think it is, as they're not uniformed soldiers fighting for a national army they are not covered under the Geneva Convention for PoWs, but I don't want to get into an argument about it so I'll agree to disagree with people here) there were never thousands of people at Gitmo, a few hundred maybe, but never thousands.

Iraq is also the least bloody conflict in recent times. Fewer people have died (both US military and Iraqi civilian) than in any other comparable conflict in recent years (Vietnam, Korea etc). FACT. Even if you use the most liberal worst-case figures this is still true. Casualties are still bad, however many there are, but for the Left to use the 'body count' rationale does not achieve anything, especially since its the same rationale that they ridiculed during Vietnam as being hopelessly inaccurate, with statistics created through the same methods of research and analysis.

However, in agreement with you, the budget defecit is horrendous. Bush needs to curtail the spending, without raising taxes (as lower income taxes do actually increase IRS revenue).

Let's not forget Clinton imposed all those sanctions on Iraq that caused suffering amongst ordinary Iraqis whilst the Iraqi Government and the UN got fat from the inherrent corruption. Let us also not forget that Clinton cut and ran from Somalia, leaving the people there at the mercy of the warlords. Clinton also ignored the Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent people. He got involved in Bosnia too late to avoid thousands of innocent people being massacred. He was responsible for launching the cruise missile attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan against terrorists that achieved nothing other than the destruction of a children's medicine factory. He also tried to persuade the North Koreans not to acquire nuclear weapons by peddling them with cheap oil, only for them to go ahead with their nuclear programme anyway and demand even more trade concessions (that he gave).

Let's also not forget the all the dodgy deals he and Hillary have been involved in, such as that land rental deal that screwed hundreds of ordinary hard working Americans out of thousands of dollars through cleverly worded (and, in some states, illegal) contractual small print.

It wasn't just the BJ that Clinton did wrong. He made a whole host of mistakes. I'm no fan of Bush, but Clinton wasn't exactly a saint either and Kerry would have been an awful President. Unfortunately Bush is the least shitty of all the shitty potential Presidents of the US.

As an aside, although their internment may be illegal (I personally don't think it is, as they're not uniformed soldiers fighting for a national army they are not covered under the Geneva Convention for PoWs, but I don't want to get into an argument about it so I'll agree to disagree with people here) there were never thousands of people at Gitmo, a few hundred maybe, but never thousands.

Iraq is also the least bloody conflict in recent times. Fewer people have died (both US military and Iraqi civilian) than in any other comparable conflict in recent years (Vietnam, Korea etc). FACT. Even if you use the most liberal worst-case figures this is still true. Casualties are still bad, however many there are, but for the Left to use the 'body count' rationale does not achieve anything, especially since its the same rationale that they ridiculed during Vietnam as being hopelessly inaccurate, with statistics created through the same methods of research and analysis.

However, in agreement with you, the budget defecit is horrendous. Bush needs to curtail the spending, without raising taxes (as lower income taxes do actually increase IRS revenue).

Why do people always use the argument 'Oh, only a few thousand died in Iraq - much fewer than Vietnam and [Other US War]'? I mean, is that supposed to make it seem better? The invasion of a sovereign nation that wasn't a threat to the US is supposed to be justified just because there haven't been quite as many deaths as Vietnam?

I can see it now, three years time: "I don't know why people are moaning about Iran. The only war in recent times to have a lower bodycount is Iraq!"

My taxes went down.

My taxes went down.
Wow! I wish I was that rich!

George W Bush deserves none of the lies, slander, and treasonous propaganda disseminated by the Liberal media. He is a true American hero; his efforts in quelling the global swell of terrorism has been insturmental to the survival of freedom in the world. At no other time in history have freedom, democracy, and Jesus Christ had a more eloquent, honest, and dedicated leader. Not only is his foreign policy of pre-emption the most successful strategy in history, but he also champions the cause of good Christians here at home in America. George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself. God Bless George W Bush and America, the greatest nation to have ever existed!
George deserves a third term.

George deserves a third term.

In prison? :D

Ginnoria,

Im sorry to say youve lost it good christians who allow abbortion, send thousands of men to their deaths when he could have shown "the christian example of turning the other cheek". An estimated 2 - 3 million americans have lost their jobs since bush came to power, he has alienated and humiliated America on the world stage, he set the UN back decades and rendered it useless. He has been found out to have lied on different occasions about "nuclear weapons" in Iraq. Where are they??, If he is so christian why doesnt he support free medical healthcare?? Dont christians helping each other out and giving to the needy?? He also backed out of the Kyoto Agreement, Every country in the developed world signed up to the agreement except one person G W Bush. America used to be seen as the home of democracy.. by invading Iraq it bypassed democracy by those great pre emptive stikes as you call them

WMDs, not nuclear weapons. While they are considered WMD's, theres also gas shells that, biological weapons etc, that also fall into that category. Also his major oppisition to Kyoto was that China, the second largest CO2 emitter, was exempt from any cut backs in those emissions. Also the U.S. signed it, just simply not ratified it. Also the UN allowed around 800,000 Tutsis death's in Rwanda during the massacres, by simply not doing anything, which is as bad as doing the deed yourself. Face it, the U.N. has been useless for a LONG time. Their inability to deal with Rwanda, Somalia, and now Sudan is pathetic. Also, why are we supposed to turn the other check when a PLANE goes flying into WTC, the pentagon, and what would the white house if those brave souls hadn't attempted to do anything. However in terms of health care, and abortion, I would have to agree with you. Also the spending is on that of a mentally insane democrat, and that definately has something to with job loss. He has initiative, but unfortunetly, he is an idiot. The only problem is JK was also an idiot.

Why do people always use the argument 'Oh, only a few thousand died in Iraq - much fewer than Vietnam and [Other US War]'? I mean, is that supposed to make it seem better? The invasion of a sovereign nation that wasn't a threat to the US is supposed to be justified just because there haven't been quite as many deaths as Vietnam?

I can see it now, three years time: "I don't know why people are moaning about Iran. The only war in recent times to have a lower bodycount is Iraq!"

People use the argument because they're constantly having the bodycount logic being thrown at them. As I have said repeatedly, all casualties are bad. However, they need to be taken into context. Its nothing to do with justifying the war, its everything to do with not using unreliable statistics as the basis for an argument. If we were to use body counts as a measure of justification for war, then WW2 was the most unjustified war of all time!

I happen to think the war was justified. Saddam Hussein was a malevolent dictator who brutally oppressed his own people, launched wars against Iran (where he used chemical weapons, FACT) and Kuwait. He has sponsored terrorism ($25,000 each for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers), bribed international officials and spent years hiding a covert WMD programme in violation of International Law and UN sanctions. The existence of the programmes has been accepted and acknowledged by the UN and the Iraq Survey Group, even if the weapons themselves weren't found (The weapons were apparently smuggled to Syria, according to high-ranking Iraqi defectors, one of whom named the exact flights and aircraft that carried them. This information, although not the cargo details, was then corroborated with flight records from the former Iraqi Defence Ministry).

The problem with Iraq is that Bush and his goons fouled up on the post-war planning (ie, they didn't do any). This woeful boo-boo has resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and troops and the disillusionment of much of the Iraqi population. I think it will come good eventually, but it will take a lot longer and be a lot more bloody than if the US had actually thought about what it was going to do after it had won the war.

I also have a problem with the way that Freedom is only spread to certain countries. If spreading democracy is the central tenet of American foreign policy, then it should be applied to everyone, with priority given to those that are more dangerous (ie Iran).

One final point. I don't like George Bush either. He has given conservatism a really bad name with all his religious bollocks and destroyed the great legacy of Reagan (PBUH) by turning the GoP into a pseudo-socialist religious nut-job party of out-of-control spending and big government.

Ginnoria,

Im sorry to say youve lost it good christians who allow abbortion, send thousands of men to their deaths when he could have shown "the christian example of turning the other cheek". An estimated 2 - 3 million americans have lost their jobs since bush came to power, he has alienated and humiliated America on the world stage, he set the UN back decades and rendered it useless. He has been found out to have lied on different occasions about "nuclear weapons" in Iraq. Where are they??, If he is so christian why doesnt he support free medical healthcare?? Dont christians helping each other out and giving to the needy?? He also backed out of the Kyoto Agreement, Every country in the developed world signed up to the agreement except one person G W Bush. America used to be seen as the home of democracy.. by invading Iraq it bypassed democracy by those great pre emptive stikes as you call them
:D No matter how many times I do this, some people always take me seriously. It seems like either a sad reflection on the gullibilty of people or on just how crazy neocons really are.

My taxes went down.
Wow! I wish I was that rich!

I'm sorry to hear that you don't earn anything. May I suggest getting a job?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

Well, i hear he sucks a pretty mean fundamentalist wang.
And he's an 11, apparently.

He doesn't have a twin.

He doesn't have a twin.
Not genetically, no.
But there are several thousand C- average, english-optional idiots with too many contacts/too much money and utterly f*cked ideas on how to run the world and betray the constituency in the process.

Not genetically, no.
But there are several thousand C- average, english-optional idiots with too many contacts/too much money and utterly f*cked ideas on how to run the world and betray the constituency in the process.Or you could just have said: "But he does have a brother." ;)

Or you could just have said: "But he does have a brother." ;)
I suspect (erroneously perhaps) that Jeb is a few shades smarter.
Quick triv: what's his REAL name? (it ain't "Jeb")

Is Bush a bumbling idiot or an evil mastermind? Sometimes people can't make up their minds.

Is Bush a bumbling idiot or an evil mastermind? Sometimes people can't make up their minds.
Some people know that he's just the public face/figurehead and the real power is the guy right behind him. Some people know that his upbringing quite obviously doesn't merit his current position as "The Decider" :rolleyes:

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/Bush-BJ.jpg

if that's not enough of an un-doc'd keeper ...

http://rushlimbaughtomy.blogspot.com/screwed%20the%20poochA.jpg

and finally ...

http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg

---

The guy went to Harvard and Yale. Somehow I don't think he's as dumb as he might seem.

The guy went to Harvard and Yale. Somehow I don't think he's as dumb as he might seem.

People have graduated from prestigious colleges woithout being able to read. All that's required is the ability to run really fast or an influential and rich daddy.

Influential and rich daddy: Check.

Ability to run really fast: Check...at least in the cases of Vietnam and his original rationale for going into Iraq.


Zing.

What did Bush do well? Well, he created a general distrust in the American people against the Republican party that I hope will last for some time, he managed to get me interested enough in politics to promote me from a person who just chose their family's party and stuck to the party line to actually understanding quite a bit of in depth information on a variety of issues, and he's pretty good at destroying a nation's infrastructure in a few months.

What did Bush do well? Well, he created a general distrust in the American people against the Republican party that I hope will last for some time, he managed to get me interested enough in politics to promote me from a person who just chose their family's party and stuck to the party line to actually understanding quite a bit of in depth information on a variety of issues, and he's pretty good at destroying a nation's infrastructure in a few months.
He's also apparently good at making some intelligent people consolidate some cohesive, logical, sensible ideas into a really decent quote or two. *bows*

George W. Bush has given 50 million people the right to vote. He has but Saddam Hussein in a prison cell. He has given me a big tax cut. He is a defender of the traditional family. He ended the horror of partial birth abortion, which was too evil to comprehend. He recieved more votes than any other person in the history of America. These are a few good things about George W. Bush.

It bothers me that if many of the liberals on this thread had their way, they would have left Saddam Hussein in power but taken George W. Bush out. Does this strike anyone else as insane?

*snip*
It bothers me that if many of the liberals on this thread had their way, they would have left Saddam Hussein in power but taken George W. Bush out. Does this strike anyone else as insane?
It should be recognized as a lack of sanity on your own part that you're concerned with someone who you apparently know very little about, and that you're willing to trade the economic and social integrity of your own country's populace for a the populace of a people who have no historic respect of any kind for the democratic principles you're forsaking.
Perhaps not "insane", but definitely leaning towards the "traitor" side.
You asked. What did you learn?

People have graduated from prestigious colleges woithout being able to read. All that's required is the ability to run really fast or an influential and rich daddy.

Influential and rich daddy: Check.

Ability to run really fast: Check...at least in the cases of Vietnam and his original rationale for going into Iraq.


Zing.

IN 1964 George Bush sr. was neither rich or influential. He lived in a middle class town called Midland, Texas. Stop by there sometime, its nice. He did'nt even enter politics until 1966. I think its fascinating that your hatred of Mr. Bush spills over into such venom. I have respect for political leaders who's policies I have differences with. Such an attitude is becoming rare with younger folks today.

I had a grade school teacher always said: "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all."
.
.
.
.
.
*crickets chirping*

It should be recognized as a lack of sanity on your own part that you're concerned with someone who you apparently know very little about, and that you're willing to trade the economic and social integrity of your own country's populace for a the populace of a people who have no historic respect of any kind for the democratic principles you're forsaking.
Perhaps not "insane", but definitely leaning towards the "traitor" side.
You asked. What did you learn?

I sense so much hate in your writing. Let me be frank, I am not into such hatred. America's economy is great at the moment. GDP , the Dow and jobs are up at record levels, while unemployment and inflation are low. The social integrity of America is strong, in my opinion. Let me ask, do they still teach about World War II in history class? Did Japan have a history of Democracy in 1945? I am a veteran so I am not sure if you are calling me a traitor. I asked, and I learned that some people disagree with the policies of George W. Bush so much that they are not even capable of answering simple yes or no questions. Are we better off with Hussein back in power? Are we better off with higher taxes? Are we better off with 3rd trimester abortion? Give me a break. Give dubya a break.

IN 1964 George Bush sr. was neither rich or influential. He lived in a middle class town called Midland, Texas. Stop by there sometime, its nice. He did'nt even enter politics until 1966. I think its fascinating that your hatred of Mr. Bush spills over into such venom. I have respect for political leaders who's policies I have differences with. Such an attitude is becoming rare with younger folks today.

Let me acquaint you with the name Prescott Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush.

Let me also remind you that George HW was also an Oil man and a Yale graduate. George W. is at least a 3rd generation Yalie and a 3rd generation Skull and Bones.

The Bushes are blue bloods through and through. Your assertion that tyhey were middle class is laughable. They've been in Wall Street, Oil and politics for ages.

As usual, hardcore Bush supporters have a loose grasp on reality, and they project their failing on others as simple Bush hate.

Finally, you took a light hearted piece of satire, labelled as such (with the appropriate "Zing," and responded to it with ill humor and venom for other's views.

My dear sir, it is not me who has the problem.

As for your remark about "young folks today," does 32 really qualify as that young? Last time I checked, I've spent almost half my life as an adult.

What's next? You're going to yell at me to get off your lawn?

See what I mean? Sorry if I caused any kind of offense to be taken.

George W Bush Jr is the best president since Bill Clinton!!!

:cool:

Another good thing about George W. Bush.

He recieved more than 50% of the vote in the 2004 election.
A Democrat has only done that once in the last 40 years.

I sense so much hate in your writing. Let me be frank, I am not into such hatred. America's economy is great at the moment. GDP , the Dow and jobs are up at record levels, while unemployment and inflation are low. The social integrity of America is strong, in my opinion. Let me ask, do they still teach about World War II in history class? Did Japan have a history of Democracy in 1945? I am a veteran so I am not sure if you are calling me a traitor. I asked, and I learned that some people disagree with the policies of George W. Bush so much that they are not even capable of answering simple yes or no questions. Are we better off with Hussein back in power? Are we better off with higher taxes? Are we better off with 3rd trimester abortion? Give me a break. Give dubya a break.

Wow. 3rd trimester abortion was only performed under emergency health situations.

America's economy is a gilded pile of dung. It's great for the rich, but worrisome for the middle class, the young and the old. Wages are down. Buying power is down. Costs for medical care and insurance is up. Energy costs are up. Things look good for the economy because there's a chocolate Magic Shell of prosperity camoflaging the lima bean-flavored ice cream of reality for the average person.

Would we be better off with Hussein in power? It's impossible to say. Much good or much bad could have happened if things were otherwise. For one thing, New Orleans might have been better off if the National Guardsmen had been at home. The U.S. debt (primarily borrowed from China,) would be lower. 2000+ servicemen would still be alive. But, ultimately, we have no way of knowing. Things are not black and white, and a person of your age and experience should not only know that, but express that in your arguments. Instead, you parrot simplistic talking points as if you were in a clique in high school.

Much more troubling was the WAY we got Saddam out of power. We alienated much of the world, the world who should be our partners in keeping the peace and producing profitable trade on all sides. It takes a serious breakdown in diplomacy to go from the empathy the world felt for the U.S. directly after 9/11 to the antithapy much of the world feels now.

But hey, keep living in your fantasy land. I think Matlock is on.

I sense so much hate in your writing. You either rolled a 4 on a 20, your crystal's cracked, or Miss Cleo was in the bathroom when your horoscope got written out for you.
Let me be frankI can't let you be anyone else, unless you sign the contract and i get to be "beans".
And i haven't called you "Shirley".
do they still teach about World War II in history class? Did Japan have a history of Democracy in 1945?Evasion.
I am a veteran so I am not sure if you are calling me a traitor.I don't need to. You would be, though, if you expected your military service to qualify you to ignore the principles for which this country stands. As long as ex and current military stand under oath of defending this country, they are in oppositional principle by invading OTHER COUNTRIES unnecessarily and fulfilling CFR/PNAC agenda.
I asked, and I learned that some people disagree with the policies of George W. Bush so much that they are not even capable of answering simple yes or no questions. And i've learned that Bush defenders can't even stay on topic. Surprise that you didn't bring up Clinton already.
Are we better off with Hussein back in power?"WE" weren't worse off with him IN POWER. In fact WE PUT HIM IN POWER. And again you should consider what the traitor aspect is of the person you're protecting here ... so YOU DON'T FORGET or LOSE SIGHT OF THE BALL AGAIN:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." —Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001
and
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." —Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002



Are we better off with higher taxes? If they went to the people instead, yeah. Return on investment. Besides, you're not even REMOTELY addressing the actual issue of the economy, you're addressing a shell game. Perhaps you can talk about what the consequences to other aspects of the economy are in regards to tax breaks, and perhaps i'll point out what you're not admitting. Perhaps.
Are we better off with 3rd trimester abortion? What, can't stay on topic? Your mind wandering?
Give me a break. Give dubya a break.He deserves nothing but ABSOLUTE culpability. That is the VERY NATURE OF HIS POSITION OF "authority". Perhaps your own history class should have taught you that.
Aren't you proud to know that very desk has aptly garnered the placard reading "The Buckaroo stops here"?

But hey, keep living in your fantasy land. I think Matlock is on.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cartoon/053.gif

I resent that. I'm a southern girl. Guess what? I think Bush is a complete dumbass. He is giving the southerners a bad name.

Honey, you guys already had a bad name.

Sorry, just couldn't resist. I keed.

As for good things bush has done?

Um... let me see... well, I didn't disagree conceptually with going after the Taliban, but I think he bungled the operation badly by trying to do it on the cheap and then doing Iraq.

I'm proud that we took Hussein out. I am proud that we have the best economy in the world, which makes the most people rich. Even the people in poverty in America have obesity problems.....I believe that your charactorization of Iraq is poor. 2500 soldiers have died ( the lowest casualty rate per day of any American war since that of 1812), but 25 million people are free of Hussein's regime. As far as your personal affronts to me, I no longer want to hear them, or any other sort of whining about how tough everyone has it. Wake up. We live in the best nation on Earth, and its the best time ever to live here.

George W Bush deserves none of the lies, slander, and treasonous propaganda disseminated by the Liberal media. He is a true American hero; his efforts in quelling the global swell of terrorism has been insturmental to the survival of freedom in the world. At no other time in history have freedom, democracy, and Jesus Christ had a more eloquent, honest, and dedicated leader. Not only is his foreign policy of pre-emption the most successful strategy in history, but he also champions the cause of good Christians here at home in America. George W Bush has fought the evolutionists, the stem-cell researchers, and the homosexuals with the divine fury of God Himself. God Bless George W Bush and America, the greatest nation to have ever existed!

You seem to be very conservative, but nonetheless I still fail to understand how you (as one who sees things from a right lense)can like Bush to such an extent. As a conservative, wouldn't you angered at his liberal tendencies on illegal immigration and his tremendous overspending of the budget? I agree that the Bush-hating is overdone and that Bush has done some good things. I mean he isn't Hitler. But whether you be conservative or liberal, I can't comprehend how you would see Bush as so great.

Once again I repeat that Bush got 50% of the vote. Democrats have only done than once in the last 40 years. And that was way back in 1976.

He also appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the supreme court. Two Justices who won't make up new random things to wish were in the consitution.

I had a grade school teacher always said: "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all."
.
.
.
.
.
*crickets chirping*
:fluffle:

I'm proud that we took Hussein out. I am proud that we have the best economy in the world, which makes the most people rich. Even the people in poverty in America have obesity problems.....I believe that your charactorization of Iraq is poor. 2500 soldiers have died ( the lowest casualty rate per day of any American war since that of 1812), but 25 million people are free of Hussein's regime. As far as your personal affronts to me, I no longer want to hear them, or any other sort of whining about how tough everyone has it. Wake up. We live in the best nation on Earth, and its the best time ever to live here.

Those 25 million aren't free until things settle down. Fewer people in Iraq are working and fewer people have working electricity and running water. Sectarian violence is a daily occurence. Your judgement is premature.

We do have the best economy in the world. It's a shame our children are less educated than many poorer countries. It's a shame our infant mortality ranks below most european countries. It's a shame that we are the most conspicuous polluters in the world.

With so many advantages, one would think we could do better.

yeah Straughn , dont say anything if you dont have anything nice to say. Just put up a rude link to a webpage with a picture......

Once again I repeat that Bush got 50% of the vote. Democrats have only done than once in the last 40 years. And that was way back in 1976.
I guess I missed the part in civics where 50% of the vote removed an elected official from criticism. Maybe it's in the small print of the Constitution somewhere in there where they where setting up a government that actually relied on the public being critical of thier elected leaders...

When was the last time a president had an approval rating below 30%, since you're the stat taker like the presidency was a baseball game...

I guess I missed the part in civics where 50% of the vote removed an elected official from criticism. Maybe it's in the small print of the Constitution somewhere in there where they where setting up a government that actually relied on the public being critical of thier elected leaders...

When was the last time a president had an approval rating below 30%, since you're the stat taker like the presidency was a baseball game...

I guess when the voting is over, the will of the people doesn't matter anymore. I can understand why politicians feel that way (though I, of course, don't approve,) but why should regular people?

We do have the best economy in the world. It's a shame our children are less educated than many poorer countries. It's a shame our infant mortality ranks below most european countries. It's a shame that we are the most conspicuous polluters in the world.

With so many advantages, one would think we could do better.

Oh woah! We must be doomed. That evil George w. who doubled funds for education, cuts taxes, and doesnt appoint judges who try to shove new rights down our throats.

Oh woah! We must be doomed. That evil George w. who doubled funds for education, cuts taxes, and doesnt appoint judges who try to shove new rights down our throats.
Wow...

I guess I missed the part in civics where 50% of the vote removed an elected official from criticism. Maybe it's in the small print of the Constitution somewhere in there where they where setting up a government that actually relied on the public being critical of thier elected leaders...

When was the last time a president had an approval rating below 30%, since you're the stat taker like the presidency was a baseball game...

last time President had a sub-30% approval rating was Jimmy Carter in 1979.
That includes George w. Bush

http://realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=19

I'm proud that we took Hussein out.Then you're equally proud of how many good people have been lost there, and how much money has been wasted there, and how EVERY F*CKING EXCUSE for invading it was bogus and/or a deliberate lie. Pride, one of seven.
I am proud that we have the best economy in the worldWell, not much argument there ... other than you haven't been paying attention to the currency rates, the deficit, or how much of China owns us now.
which makes the most people richYou mean "the most already rich even richer".
Even the people in poverty in America have obesity problems.....Oh this is an interesting tangent. Perhaps you're a "nutritionist", in the "Savage" Weiner sense?
I believe that your charactorization of Iraq is poorWell we all have beliefs/delusions, so i can't fault you for that.
2500 soldiers have died ( the lowest casualty rate per day of any American war since that of 1812), but 25 million people are free of Hussein's regime.Yes, now they have a regime of local terrorists. Good trade. As far as your personal affronts to me, I no longer want to hear them, or any other sort of whining about how tough everyone has it.Well, there's plenty of other republicans who feel exactly the same way! Their ear cavities are probably just as finger-shaped as yours are.
Wake up. Delicious, glistening irony.
We live in the best nation on Earth, and its the best time ever to live here.
Opinion, but a little optimism can brighten the darkest room ... ;)

BTW, you're kinda fun to argue with.

Name one thing that Bush claimed about Iraq that a Democrat in the senate did'nt claim.

yeah Straughn , dont say anything if you dont have anything nice to say. Just put up a rude link to a webpage with a picture......
Are you flamebaiting me? ;)

I've got plenty, but for some reason, i feel i can suffice just as easily with script.
But if you're looking for something special, i can TG you.

http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg

BTW, you're kinda fun to argue with.

Ditto.

Are you flamebaiting me? ;)

I've got plenty, but for some reason, i feel i can suffice just as easily with script.
But if you're looking for something special, i can TG you.

http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg


oh my....I knew he like them Suadis but Sweet Jesus.

Oh woah! We must be doomed. That evil George w. who doubled funds for education,Here's some more ignorance or blatant disingenuity - he required the funding for the vote, and THEN CUT IT so the $ WASN'T THERE WHEN THEY NEEDED IT.
Don't quote stuff you don't know.
cuts taxes,Unless you're not an adult and not already rich.
and doesnt appoint judges who try to shove new rights down our throats.Yeah, there should be limits to freedom, eh? :rolleyes:

oh my....I knew he like them Suadis but Sweet Jesus.
He actually walks hand-in-hand around with him on the lawn! No joke! (I should get that pic too)

Also - the Saud bunch are Wahabi, right? Based on that guy within the last century (IIRC) named Wahab, and his "interpretation" of Islam ... kind of like the Mormons of Muhammad?

Name one thing that Bush claimed about Iraq that a Democrat in the senate did'nt claim.
C'mon ... who provided and channeled that info?
BTW, do you know the whole story of Ahmed Chalabi? Do you know what he's doing now?

He actually walks hand-in-hand around with him on the lawn! No joke! (I should get that pic too)

Also - the Saud bunch are Wahabi, right? Based on that guy within the last century (IIRC) named Wahab, and his "interpretation" of Islam ... kind of like the Mormons of Muhammad?


I see the link. Bush does well in Utah......Bush does well in the wahab smootching department. Interesting......

Name one thing that Bush claimed about Iraq that a Democrat in the senate did'nt claim.

Which Democrat? Or is your view that each party is controlled by a single brain? I submit the name Russ Feingold for your consideration.

Anyway, a bunch of people agreeing with someone doesn't make that person right.

Hold up, hold up...wait just a minute. name one thing Bush said about Iraq before the war that was never claimed by Clinton.

I see the link. Bush does well in Utah......Bush does well in the wahab smootching department. Interesting......
:)
Oh well, it might not make him a homosexual - that would be a bit confusing since one of the only personal stances Bush took (and later retracted) was the "gay marriage" thing (think Cheney's daughter ... and think how understandable that is with Dick as her dad/male role model!)

Hold up, hold up...wait just a minute. name one thing Bush said about Iraq before the war that was never claimed by Clinton.

That we should go into Iraq before the inspectors had finished their job. That the people would greet us with flowers. That the mission was accomplished.

:)
Oh well, it might not make him a homosexual - that would be a bit confusing since one of the only personal stances Bush took (and later retracted) was the "gay marriage" thing (think Cheney's daughter ... and think how understandable that is with Dick as her dad/male role model!)


He retracted that? Now I'm scared.....all that hand holding....haha

Secondly, where do you get your information from, because that is factually WRONG! The US was not 'trading with both sides' in either of the World Wars. In both instances, they were trading with us (the British/Allies) and boycotting the enemy. Indeed, during WW1 German U-Boats were openly sinking neutral American liners and shipping, why on Earth would they trade with them?



During WWI, USA declared a policy of neutrality to the war, and openly said they weren't going to help either side. Then, they were "smuggling" equipment to the Allies on American passenger liners. The Germans found out, started attacking. They tried to make deals, saying they'd stop attacking civilians if the boats weren't carrying equipment for the Allies, but the US kept at it. In the end, it was entirely the USA's fault their liners were sunk.

That we should go into Iraq before the inspectors had finished their job. That the people would greet us with flowers. That the mission was accomplished.


Those things have nothing to do with the threat level associated with the Hussein Regime. I believe that is what we were talking about when you called Bush a liar.

Just wondering, what do you all think of John McCain?

Just wondering, what do you all think of John McCain?

He's not my first choice, but he would have been in pretty much every way better than Bush. To me, competence is more important than ideology.

Things get worse before they get better. Iraq has a democratic government now and the Iraqi security forces are slowly taking over more and more of the role of keeping the country secure. If we can have two more stable countries in the Middle East that show to the rest of the Arab world what it means to be a free country then it is a good thing.

Iraq was actually quite well off before Duh-bya invaded. women were free to work and go to school. Saddam kept church and religion separate. Osama wants a world under islam, so a secular ruler would be his adversary. By invading iraq bush has united all islamic terrorists against the u.s. Bush is the best thing to happen to Bin Laden since the Wright Brothers.
As a u.s. citizen i am disgusted by the bush administration for lying and corruption. look into how the president of diebold, makers of the voting machines in ohio (voted down due to ease of corruptibility in california) was bush's campaign secretary. ohio was this past elections florida. couldn't have little brother fixing another one without being completely obvious.

He's not my first choice, but he would have been in pretty much every way better than Bush. To me, competence is more important than ideology.

I wanted him in 2000.......now I'd like to see him run in 08'. I'd like to see my Senator ( Jeff Sessions) run but I think he would lose. I don't really know how it was that Bush didnt lose to Mccain. All well.

Those things have nothing to do with the threat level associated with the Hussein Regime. I believe that is what we were talking about when you called Bush a liar.

Hey hey, you said one thing about Iraq. Now you're changing the requirements on me?

As far as the threat level, we have no way of knowing if the Clintons felt that Iraq was (on a scale of 1-10,) a 5 or a 10 on the threat meter. There's a difference between a threat and an actionable threat and a threat you invade over. To be sure, North Korea was and remains a greater threat than Iraq was. I acknowledge that North Korea is a grave threat. That doesn't mean I propose invading it.

See, that's the thing I was saying about black and white arguments.

[QUOTE=Leftismo]Iraq was actually quite well off before Duh-bya invaded. women were free to work and go to school. Saddam kept church and religion separate. QUOTE]

Just ask the million people buried in makeshift mass graves how great it was. I bet he gave out free donuts too.

If ya keep the thread bumped i'll be on to argue later in my spare time. Gotta go do my radio show, my apologies.
*scuttles off*

IN 2004 the Democrats ran John Kerry and John Edwards. Both of them voted for the Iraq use of force resolution. IN 08' the nominee will probably be Hillary Clinton. She voted for it too. My point is that the hatred of Bush that you harbor because he invaded Iraq should also fall on the shoulders of these Democrats, who always said that Hussein was a threat, and than voted to give Bush the authorization.

If ya keep the thread bumped i'll be on to argue later in my spare time. Gotta go do my radio show, my apologies.
*scuttles off*


I'm impressed.

I'm impressed.
I'm serious. Feel free to punch up my archives.
;)
Or ask Gymoor Prime about how serious (series- serious) i am.
Tah!

and doesnt appoint judges who try to shove new rights down our throats.

No danger of GWB giving us new rights. In fact, he doesn't even respect the rights we have.

I love this argument by the way, particularly the wording. Yes, giving people rights is a horrible thing. How dare a judge recognize rights not enumerated in the US Constitution. I mean there is that whole amendment that says they should, but let's pretend it doesn't exist. Along with the first amendment, the fourth amendment, the sixth amendment, etc. I mean, GWB does.

No danger of GWB giving us new rights. In fact, he doesn't even respect the rights we have.

I love this argument by the way, particularly the wording. Yes, giving people rights is a horrible thing. How dare a judge recognize rights not enumerated in the US Constitution. I mean there is that whole amendment that says they should, but let's pretend it doesn't exist. Along with the first amendment, the fourth amendment, the sixth amendment, etc. I mean, GWB does.


I am an "originalist". That means that I like defining legal documents ( including the constitution) based on what they say, not based on what I wish they said. If you can give me an example of how Bush ignored the text of the first, fourth, or sixth amendments I would consider it . I'm not aware of any instances. And what amendment is it that says that judges can make up whatever they dream of and call it a right?

Just ask the million people buried in makeshift mass graves how great it was. I bet he gave out free donuts too.
Million? Source please.

How about we ask the several thousand people who have been killed or injured how free they feel? How about the ones with no power? No clean water? Yes, some people paint the position of Iraq as worse than it is, but you paint it as better and the pre-war Iraq as worse. It's unrealistic and a little sad.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mass_graves_in_Iraq

I am an "originalist". That means that I like defining legal documents ( including the constitution) based on what they say, not based on what I wish they said. If you can give me an example of how Bush ignored the text of the first, fourth, or sixth amendments I would consider it . I'm not aware of any instances. And what amendment is it that says that judges can make up whatever they dream of and call it a right?

Do you know what stare decisis is? It's an important part of American Law. The appointees both talked about how important it is. That means there is more to the US Consititution than a literal interpretation of the text. Meanwhile, the US Constitution was designed for us to recognize rights not enumerated in the Constitution. In your vast study of the Constitution, you have read the bill of rights, no? Do you remember one that says THE PEOPLE have rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution.

Do you know what stare decisis is? It's an important part of American Law. The appointees both talked about how important it is. That means there is more to the US Consititution than a literal interpretation of the text. Meanwhile, the US Constitution was designed for us to recognize rights not enumerated in the Constitution. In your vast study of the Constitution, you have read the bill of rights, no? Do you remember one that says THE PEOPLE have rights NOT enumerated in the Constitution.

stare decisis, as I recall, has to do with letting precedents of the court stand. It makes it difficult to overturn rulings that have already been made by activist judges. A good example of this is how it took 58 years to overturn plessy v. Ferguson which institutionalized segregation. Or Scott vs. Sanford which described black people as objects. The right to own people was made up by an activist court and supported by stare decisis. The Bush nominees were asked about stare decisis as part of a trap. If they say they dont like it they are called " anti-abortion extremists".

also, there is no place in the constitution that I remember that says that judges have the right to make up new rights for people at random. you said you knew where it said they could. " rights not enumerated...", can you tell me where I can find that. maybe I just cant remember because its late here in the Great state of Alabama.

Guess its takin awhile to find it...

stare decisis, as I recall, has to do with letting precedents of the court stand. It makes it difficult to overturn rulings that have already been made by activist judges.

Stare Decisis refers to the fact that new cases are based on old cases so that law is not completely and constantly redefined. It makes it a little more difficult to overturn past decisions, but it also makes it possible to justify current decisions with past ones so that law progresses with society. The judges appointed by Bush are huge advocates of it, so if you don't like it, you don't like them. So which is it?

A good example of this is how it took 58 years to overturn plessy v. Ferguson which institutionalized segregation. Or Scott vs. Sanford which described black people as objects. The right to own people was made up by an activist court and supported by stare decisis. The Bush nominees were asked about stare decisis as part of a trap. If they say they dont like it they are called " anti-abortion extremists".
I can see you're well versed on this subject. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. You should do a little more review of Roberts.

As to your next post, yes, they're making up rights at random? All over the place? Amusing. You mean like the 'made-up' rights that they used to outlaw segregation or the 'made-up rights' they used to outlaw bans on interracial marriage. Those were the activist judges the right always complain about. I'm sorry that you have so little respect for such 'made-up rights'.

Guess its takin awhile to find it...

Kind of like you taking a while to find the millions of people in the mass graves in Iraq. I'll wait. Even though, I already know even the highest estimates are much, much lower and involve the casualties of the Iraq-Iran War and both Gulf Wars.

You still havent given me the text where it says the judges can make up rights. I'd like to see it if it exists. Also, the equal protection clause justifies the end of segregation and bans on interracial marriage. Its in the constitution.

You still havent given me the text where it says the judges can make up rights. I'd like to see it if it exists. Also, the equal protection clause justifies the end of segregation and bans on interracial marriage. Its in the constitution.

You still haven't explained what rights have been "made up".

IN 2004 the Democrats ran John Kerry and John Edwards. Both of them voted for the Iraq use of force resolution. IN 08' the nominee will probably be Hillary Clinton. She voted for it too. My point is that the hatred of Bush that you harbor because he invaded Iraq should also fall on the shoulders of these Democrats, who always said that Hussein was a threat, and than voted to give Bush the authorization.

Do you honestly think that, if they had been President at the time, they would have initiated an invasion? There's a big difference between acquiescense and initiative.

It's also up for debate, had a different person been spearheading the Iraq question, what the emphasis of the intel handed out to Congress would have been.

Again, you're grossly simplifying.

Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton all voted to give Bush the authority to do it.

Rights that have been made up that cant be found in the constitution:

abortion
sodomy
seperation of church and state
flag burning

George W Bush is most likely human (although he often acts as if he wasn't) and will therefore die somewhen in the future
IMHO that's a good thing about him

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' 2 It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement. 3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.

Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton all voted to give Bush the authority to do it.

Rights that have been made up that cant be found in the constitution:

abortion
sodomy
seperation of church and state
flag burning

Ha. Amusing. Read what I posted. They said AS THEY WROTE the bill that some rights were not in the Constitution but were intended to be protected. They basically said to people who were worried about people like you that they didn't believe people would ever be that stupid. No joke. Read the quote of Madison I posted.

The specific wording of the US Constitution says if it is not restricted by the Constitution then the right is reserved to the state or to the people. If you can show me how the right to privacy is a right of the state, I'll be glad to concede the point, but I won't hold my breath that you have the background to do it.

There is also no right to create a work of art in the Constitution. That's under the right to free speech, as is all right to expression, including flag burning (also could be considered right to protest). Abortion and sodomy fall under right to privacy. I find it amusing that you think a right to privacy doesn't exist since it was so delved into in the process of ratifying the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

thats all it says. Too me that just means that the federal constitution should not step on other rights that are granted by other governments, ( state and local).

Madison's personal notes are not the text of the constitution. Thats like saying my congressmans' notes are to be considered law. Thats just dumb. The constitution gives no right to privacy other than " due process under law"

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

thats all it says. Too me that just means that the federal constitution should not step on other rights that are granted by other governments, ( state and local).

Uh-huh. Then you're not reading it. The people is not other governments. It's other people. It means that people have those rights. You're mixing it with the tenth which says if it's not mentioned in the Constitution it is either a right of the state or the person. In the ninth, they don't mention the state, because they aren't talking about the state. They are talking about the rights of the people. It was specifically to recognize that they wanted to protect rights that people have but couldn't list all of them. They outlined the purposes of the amendment when they were ratifying the Constitution. They thought arguments that people would interpret it as you have were silly. Amusingly, the critics of the bill of rights that worried people like you would argue exactly what you're arguing were correct. Fortunately, the courts have a tradition of ignoring your rants.

Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton all voted to give Bush the authority to do it.

Rights that have been made up that cant be found in the constitution:

abortion
sodomy
seperation of church and state
flag burning

abortion was seen as a right to privacy issue which is how the Bill or Rights as a whole (primarily the 4th and 5th amendments,) has been interpreted by Constitutional Scholars for about the entire length of our Country's history.

There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the government the power to regulate what consentual and adult hole you put your wingdang into.

Seperation of Church and State is just a paraphrasing of the portion of the 1st Amendment that references religion. Even the framers of the Constitution (Adams himself even,) referenced that phrase when talking about the Constitution. Precident after precident has reinforced that sentiment. Basically, you're arguing semantics, and your side of the semantical argument has lost time and time again in the Supreme Court.

Flag burning is seen as an expression of distaste for one's leaders. It's kinda like having a Tea Party, but smellier and there's no need to dress up like an indian.

As such, it's a First Amendment issue. The framers of the Constitution WANTED the people to be able to protest the government. That was the whole point. As long as you don't put anyone in harm's way, burning the flag is entirely appropriate, if a bit extreme. The very fact that it pisses off the powers that be should be proof enough of it's effectiveness.

No one fights for a flag. People fight for family and country. It's a symbol.

Madison's personal notes are not the text of the constitution. Thats like saying my congressmans' notes are to be considered law. Thats just dumb. The constitution gives no right to privacy other than " due process under law"

Ha. Those aren't his personal notes. Those are the explanations and arguments used to ratify the constitution. They were explaining the meaning further. It demonstrates the intent of the language and that the writers were not talking about what you claim. It actually proves they intended it exactly the opposite of what you claim. Pretending the document can be interpreted without acknowledging what the language meant when they wrote it is absurd.

Kerry, Edwards, and Clinton all voted to give Bush the authority to do it.

Rights that have been made up that cant be found in the constitution:

abortion
sodomy
seperation of church and state
flag burning

Any country/state that regulates what holes and/or positions may be used during sex is retarded. What people do in the bedroom is no ones business. Not very surprisingly I seem to remember at least one state in the USA regulates sex. Retarded.

you posted that "It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right"

did you just bust your own argument?

Any country/state that regulates what holes and/or positions may be used during sex is retarded. What people do in the bedroom is no ones business. Not very surprisingly I seem to remember at least one state in the USA regulates sex. Retarded.

That is your opinion. it is also mine. That doesnt make it a "right" under constitutional law.

That is your opinion. it is also mine. That doesnt make it a "right" under constitutional law.

So it's time to change it then I guess. Then again that's not very likely since you have the president you have. You know, for beeing the most freedom loving country in the world you sure don't have all that much freedom at all. Just ask gay people. That's roughly 10% of your popolation that your beloved prsident discriminates against.

you posted that "It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right"

did you just bust your own argument?

Ah. You're trolling. Sorry for interrupting.

He's simply pointing out that it doesn't actually capture a specfic right.

Trolls try to make things mean something different by taking them out of context. In context, the intent is clear.

What you also forget is that the fourteenth amendment made the federal limitations that Madison was talk about extend to the more local governments. At the time of Madison the limitations were only put on the federal government. If the federal government could not abridge the rights he is talking about the time of Madison then all levels of government cannot now. That's the point.

So it's time to change it then I guess. Then again that's not very likely since you have the president you have. You know, for beeing the most freedom loving country in the world you sure don't have all that much freedom at all. Just ask gay people. That's roughly 10% of your popolation that your beloved prsident discriminates against.

Presidents. Anti-Gay discrimination has a long history in our country and was support by Clinton just as much as Bush.

So it's time to change it then I guess. Then again that's not very likely since you have the president you have. You know, for beeing the most freedom loving country in the world you sure don't have all that much freedom at all. Just ask gay people. That's roughly 10% of your popolation that your beloved prsident discriminates against.


just because you wish a right was there doesnt mean it is there. You have to amend the document to make a new right. This is how you " change it", as you say. You could pass an amendment saying all gay people are free to do as they may. Until then, the constitution simply doesnt mention them other than saying that they have a right to citizenship, due process, right to vote etc. like anybody else. Women did not originaly have a right to vote. We didnt just make up the new right because we thought it would be a good idea. We amended it in.

just because you wish a right was there doesnt mean it is there. You have to amend the document to make a new right. This is how you " change it", as you say. You could pass an amendment saying all gay people are free to do as they may. Until then, the constitution simply doesnt mention them other than saying that they have a right to citizenship, due process, right to vote etc. like anybody else. Women did not originaly have a right to vote. We didnt just make up the new right because we thought it would be a good idea. We amended it in.

Can you even be less rhetoric? Seriously, give it up.

Presidents. Anti-Gay discrimination has a long history in our country and was support by Clinton just as much as Bush.

It must be said, in all honesty, that most countries in the western world, until very recently, also did discriminate against gays. Many/most still do. I live in Sweden and even though we have our share of skeletons in the closet I'm pretty proud of our work to give equal rights/freedom to everyone in our society. We're not there yet but we've come farther than most others. How so many in the states see it fit to discriminate against gays is really frightening. Or rather, the US american christian right wing is frightening.

*edit*
Religion has played it's part in history but today it has become the single most dangerous factor in the world. Just look at the middle east. Look at IRA (in the past) and look at Bush. It is unfortunate that power and politics is what organized religion is all about, otherwise things would be much better.

There is no way to imagine Madison .... a christian planter from the old south, sitting there thinking...il make this 9th amendment so one day judges can make up a right to killing the unborn and gay sex. I'm sorry I cant picture it.

just because you wish a right was there doesnt mean it is there. You have to amend the document to make a new right. This is how you " change it", as you say. You could pass an amendment saying all gay people are free to do as they may. Until then, the constitution simply doesnt mention them other than saying that they have a right to citizenship, due process, right to vote etc. like anybody else. Women did not originaly have a right to vote. We didnt just make up the new right because we thought it would be a good idea. We amended it in.

Do you know how many recognized rights are not enumerated in the Constitution? It's specific purpose was because it is not necessary to enumerate each specific right or the US Constitution would be a million pages long.

Your interpretation of the amendment would make the tenth amendment sufficient. Why would they write the ninth amendment to just fulfill the same purpose as the tenth?

There is no way to imagine Madison .... a christian planter from the old south, sitting there thinking...il make this 9th amendment so one day judges can make up a right to killing the unborn and gay sex. I'm sorry I cant picture it.

Yes, because that's what I said. Amusing. At the time of Madison, abortion was legal and there were no laws discussing what happens behind closed doors.

Abortion was never legal in this country until it became a safe procedure and the puritans got upset that women could get them without risking their lives. They had no problem with women 'killing the unborn' so long as they might also die.

ABMS, do you think the government has the right to put a camer in your house and watch your actions every minute of the day?

There is no way to imagine Madison .... a christian planter from the old south, sitting there thinking...il make this 9th amendment so one day judges can make up a right to killing the unborn and gay sex. I'm sorry I cant picture it.

I'm not familiar with how your laws work so I'm guessing here...
But if your laws rest on the work of people who died so long ago, as Madison, and if you have laws that can't be changed/improved/invented because Madison said no-no then you have a funbdamental flaw right there. Laws need to be flexible as times change. Madison and his pals don't.

*edit*
Sorry for my spelling, laptop keyboards blow major donkey balls.

9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

one talks about rights being granted. The other refers only to powers. Rights and powers are very different in law.

There is no way to imagine Madison .... a christian planter from the old south, sitting there thinking...il make this 9th amendment so one day judges can make up a right to killing the unborn and gay sex. I'm sorry I cant picture it.

That's kinda why the Constitution was written as a living document. Also, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, slavery was legal. Would you say the right to not be property is a made up right?

I'm not familiar with how your laws work so I'm guessing here...
But if your laws rest on the work of people who died so long ago, as Madison, and if you have laws that can't be changed/improved/invented because Madison said no-no then you have a funbdamental flaw right there. Laws need to be flexible as times change. Madison and his pals don't.

Laws do change. They are passed every year.The constitution of the USA is not a set of laws. it is the framework under which the laws are constructed.

That's kinda why the Constitution was written as a living document. Also, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, slavery was legal. Would you say the right to not be property is a made up right?

The constitution has an equal protection clause that was AMENDED IN.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's kinda why the Constitution was written as a living document. Also, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, slavery was legal. Would you say the right to not be property is a made up right?

To be clear, they actually passed an amendment to make that illegal. They were not referring to black people when they wrote the original document.

Laws do change. They are passed every year.The constitution of the USA is not a set of laws. it is the framework under which the laws are constructed.

More precisely, it's a limitation as to what laws CANNOT be constructed.

Yup

9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

one talks about rights being granted. The other refers only to powers. Rights and powers are very different in law.
Amusing. You're education on the subject astounds.

9 - We can't enumerate every right so we will simply point out that the fact that we didn't doesn't mean they don't exist.

10 - If it's not a power of the federal government according to this document then it is for the state or the people to control.

That means ten says that if the power to address a particular issue is not already allowed to the feds then they can't add it without amendment. So if a state said something was legal, for example (the example you used) the feds couldn't abridge it even without the ninth amendment. (States or the feds don't grant rights. They only recognize them or abridge them. To suggest that a right exists that the state would need to acknoweldge demonstrates the problem with your understanding.)

To be clear, they actually passed an amendment to make that illegal. They were not referring to black people when they wrote the original document.

True, but without the rationalization that black people weren't really people, those amendments would never have to have been written. They had to write the amendment to keep people with an artificially narrow definition of the rights the Constitution gives (or, rather, the rights the Constitution bans the government from taking away,) from going right back to a slavery state when the opportunity arose.

If anybody can figure out what he meant by that let me know. That isnt what I believe...whatever that was...

I'm off to bed. Hope you work your way through this all

I'm off to bed. Hope you work your way through this all

We worked our way through it. We recognize the difference between the two amendments even if you don't . We recognize the purpose of the ninth, even if you don't. I explained their purposes in layman's terms. I'm sorry you're struggling, but the federalist papers would help your understandind immensely and stifle the giggles. They're interesting reading and would prevent you from stating things that are categorically untrue about the constitution.

We worked our way through it. We recognize the difference between the two amendments even if you don't . We recognize the purpose of the ninth, even if you don't. I explained their purposes in layman's terms. I'm sorry you're struggling, but the federalist papers would help your understandind immensely and stifle the giggles. They're interesting reading and would prevent you from stating things that are categorically untrue about the constitution.


Zing.

Anyway, I found your summary of the 9th and 10th to be nice, concise and clear, by the way.

But yes, 'bama should read the federalist papers.

Maybe it was my post that was the confuising one. I had no problem with Jocabia's.

Maybe it was my post that was the confuising one. I had no problem with Jocabia's.

I see no reason why one could be confused by it either. I can see how he might be confused by yours though. I understood it, but he probably didn't.

Hold up, hold up...wait just a minute. name one thing Bush said about Iraq before the war that was never claimed by Clinton.
Heh, prwned. :)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11032941&postcount=120
Surprise that you didn't bring up Clinton already.

He retracted that? Now I'm scared.....all that hand holding....haha
Yep. There was too much to focus on for the election that year .... like making sure transceivers were working and placed properly for debates.

Things I like about George Bush:

1. I like the fact he can never get re-elected.
2. I like the fact that if Hell exists, it has a special room waiting for him, in wich his anus will likely be packed to the brim with hot coals.

Right to the brim.

I don't really know how it was that Bush didnt lose to Mccain. All well.
Did you see what Bush did with his ads against McCain's mentality - due McCain's "internment"? It's un-f*cking-believable that 'nam-dodging excrement like Bush can actually be given respect after attacking people who ACTUALLY SERVED. Worse still that people argue for Bush in the same arena. :mad:

Things I like about George Bush:

1. I like the fact he can never get re-elected.
2. I like the fact that if Hell exists, it has a special room waiting for him, in wich his anus will likely be packed to the brim with hot coals.

Right to the brim. ...where he will eat naught but burning hot coals and drink naught but burning hot cola ;)

Actually, there'll be a lot of room up there. The fundies made sure of that.

...where he will eat naught but burning hot coals and drink naught but burning hot cola ;)

Actually, there'll be a lot of room up there. The fundies made sure of that.


I think its a lucky thing for most Fundies, that "Thou shalt not be a Dickhead" isnt an official Commandment.

I think its a lucky thing for most Fundies, that "Thou shalt not be a Dickhead" isnt an official Commandment.
Absolutely.
How is DeLay doing these days, anyway?
You don't hear quite so often anymore how "completely innocent" he "is".

Absolutely.
How is DeLay doing these days, anyway?
You don't hear quite so often anymore how "completely innocent" he "is".


Yah, that whole "Guilty as Hell" thing is going around these days in Washington.

...I wonder what it all means...

Hmmm.

Yah, that whole "Guilty as Hell" thing is going around these days in Washington.

...I wonder what it all means...

Hmmm.
It might mean their patron saints have been switched to Jim Bakker.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. George Bush is the greatest president ever. He won the war in Iriq, afghanistan, and Iran. He defeated his laberal opponents. He is a 2 termer. He signed the patriot act, and the no child left behind act. He fixed the economy after clinton screwed it up. He united america after 9/11. He went to Harvard. George Bush is wonderful. Its that laberal media telling lies about polls to try to make him look bad. When the majority of american who count like bush. If you dont support bush then you dont support the troops and if you dont support the troops then your unamerican, and unamerican people are tourists. So there you have it end of debate thread is dead.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. George Bush is the greatest president ever. He won the war in Iriq, afghanistan, and Iran. He defeated his laberal opponents. He is a 2 termer. He signed the patriot act, and the no child left behind act. He fixed the economy after clinton screwed it up. He united america after 9/11. He went to Harvard. George Bush is wonderful. Its that laberal media telling lies about polls to try to make him look bad. When the majority of american who count like bush. If you dont support bush then you dont support the troops and if you dont support the troops then your unamerican, and unamerican people are tourists. So there you have it end of debate thread is dead.


Knock it off already.

This isnt even skillfully done flamebait.

Something good about Dubya? Well, he's not here in the room with me. That's something.

I think its a lucky thing for most Fundies, that "Thou shalt not be a Dickhead" isnt an official Commandment.



sig'd

Er, has anyone managed to say a good word about him, lately?