Will you re-elect Bush?
- Wairudo Enjin
-
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 5:55 am
- Location: Atlanta, Ga
by Wairudo Enjin » Thu Jul 31, 2003 4:05 pm
While there a lot of posts different people have made that I have responses to, I never post them because each person has their view that they are going to stick to. So have fun beating your heads against each others walls. 
For the record however I am neither Democrat nor Republican nor any other 'chosen' political party. I agree with and disagree with certain things done by both sides. Actually, to be blunt, most politicians make me want to hurl. I hate it the way they are constantly bickering, shifting blame, lying, or distorting facts in order to make themselves or their party look better.
I wish...
1) they would realize they are on the same side (or should be) and TRY and come up with solutions that benefit this nation.
2) they wouldn't point fingers when things go wrong. Just figure out what went wrong and fix it the best they can.
The following is the easiest post to respond to.
Of course voting still exists, THEY JUST DON'T COUNT!
For the record however I am neither Democrat nor Republican nor any other 'chosen' political party. I agree with and disagree with certain things done by both sides. Actually, to be blunt, most politicians make me want to hurl. I hate it the way they are constantly bickering, shifting blame, lying, or distorting facts in order to make themselves or their party look better.
I wish...
1) they would realize they are on the same side (or should be) and TRY and come up with solutions that benefit this nation.
2) they wouldn't point fingers when things go wrong. Just figure out what went wrong and fix it the best they can.
The following is the easiest post to respond to.
Originally posted by Keekanoo
You guys still think voting exists in the States?
Of course voting still exists, THEY JUST DON'T COUNT!
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Thu Jul 31, 2003 8:55 pm
Originally posted by Jeffro
He is a dumbass on this basis:
1.) He was spoonfed all his life
2.) He barely passed yale with a C grade...
Oops, I thought you were talking about Gore there for a minute (maybe someone will explain that one to you all someday).
Here is yet another thread for people to throw out fraudulent sound-bites, ignorance, etc. I'm beginning to think these get started just so people can watch me and Keek go at it.
Thank you to those who actually pay attention...the rest of you need to hurry back to the barn to be sheared for your wool.
- Drax
- supersTring
by supersTring » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:46 pm
Folic
respect your opinion but i don't think motive and opportunity are enough of a reason to justify a war waged without Congressional approval
common sense would dictate that if the evidence was really there, about this "immediate threat" that Iraq posed, then the administration could've easily got the backing from a Republican controlled Congress to wage war against Iraq.
and while it's great that you get to see the "evidence" that would make it all clear to me, I don't care much for the "you'll see" approach to justifying a war. In Bush's own words- the war is "over" and we're all still waiting to "see"
but really- i got no problem agreeing to disagree.
i don't usually post on politics anywhere b/c there's right and there's left and never the two shall meet.
BUT
i said at the start of this war that i might be wrong, that there might be real justification for the sudden shift of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, and, honestly, i'm still willing to listen to any new evidence, but almost every single conservative Bush-backer that I've spoken to refuses to believe that they might be wrong, that any new evidence could ever come to light that would change their minds about Iraq.
sorry- did someone say something about sheep?
respect your opinion but i don't think motive and opportunity are enough of a reason to justify a war waged without Congressional approval
common sense would dictate that if the evidence was really there, about this "immediate threat" that Iraq posed, then the administration could've easily got the backing from a Republican controlled Congress to wage war against Iraq.
and while it's great that you get to see the "evidence" that would make it all clear to me, I don't care much for the "you'll see" approach to justifying a war. In Bush's own words- the war is "over" and we're all still waiting to "see"
but really- i got no problem agreeing to disagree.
i don't usually post on politics anywhere b/c there's right and there's left and never the two shall meet.
BUT
i said at the start of this war that i might be wrong, that there might be real justification for the sudden shift of focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, and, honestly, i'm still willing to listen to any new evidence, but almost every single conservative Bush-backer that I've spoken to refuses to believe that they might be wrong, that any new evidence could ever come to light that would change their minds about Iraq.
sorry- did someone say something about sheep?
- shockwave203
-
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: SK Canada
by shockwave203 » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:51 pm
Folic, the explanation that the bush administration has given us for the war doesn't hold up very well. First, they claim that Saddam had ties to Osama Binladen.
That was never proven.
They couldn't prove that, so they said he was supporting terrorism. THEN, after no proof was shown to the world, they said he posessed weapons of mass destruction.
Once again, where are the WMD?
The Bush administration has said time and time again, that they liberated the Iraqi citizens. That may be true, but what about all the other countries with oppresive govt's? If a war was waged against saddam because he was a brutal dictator, whose to say another country won't be next? There are a ton of countries with brutal dictatorships, is the US there? why not?
His popularity is sliding according to recent polls. I for one can understand why. After all the patriotism has worn off, people start to ask questions, questions that really need answering. The whole justification of war was because they HAD PROOF of weapons of mass destruction. The fact of the matter is, no proof was ever found. Just because 'we are sure it's there' doesn't mean 'it's there for sure'
I'm not really attacking Bush, but it looks like he's messed up a bit.
That was never proven.
They couldn't prove that, so they said he was supporting terrorism. THEN, after no proof was shown to the world, they said he posessed weapons of mass destruction.
Once again, where are the WMD?
The Bush administration has said time and time again, that they liberated the Iraqi citizens. That may be true, but what about all the other countries with oppresive govt's? If a war was waged against saddam because he was a brutal dictator, whose to say another country won't be next? There are a ton of countries with brutal dictatorships, is the US there? why not?
His popularity is sliding according to recent polls. I for one can understand why. After all the patriotism has worn off, people start to ask questions, questions that really need answering. The whole justification of war was because they HAD PROOF of weapons of mass destruction. The fact of the matter is, no proof was ever found. Just because 'we are sure it's there' doesn't mean 'it's there for sure'
I'm not really attacking Bush, but it looks like he's messed up a bit.
- Keekanoo
by Keekanoo » Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:13 pm
Bush hasn't messed up at all. Trying to validate or invalidate the reasons the American, British and World public were given for the war against Iraq is like argueing about which toy has more soul. It's absurd. Anyone that believes the clap-trap about America/Britain fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq isn't worth the time arguing with.
Bush succeeded in securing some of the worlds largest oil-reserves. An important point for oil-price stability in America and, more importantly, a direct denial of said resources to China, Russia and a variety of other countries.
Bush succeeded in a massive financial splurge, mostly in the form of military expenditures. A gigantic economic investment to shore up a seriously flagging American currency.
Bush successfuly sold the 'terrorist attack' dogma to the American people, keeping them duped into thinking that their country is under imminent, horrific attack--the new 'cold war'. Perfect platform for directing money into the military and away from social reforms. 'We need to tighten our belts to pull through this' philosophy. An old trick used by Govt's for time-immoral.
Bush succeeded in using the 'terrorist campaign' dogma to further unparalleled military build-ups around the perimeters of Russia and, conveniently, China.
Bush suceeded in holding a sword to the worlds throat, a direct threat against the 'Euro dollar invasion', a currency which completely threatens the once dominant American dollar.
Bush succeeded in toppling Nato and thwarting all world courts and conventions regarding soverign nation treatise, wmd development/stockpiling.
And please, the whole vote issue is a mute point. Bush didn't win this election. The vote-rigging scandal is completely forgotten in these post 9-11 times. How convenient.
Bush succeeded in securing some of the worlds largest oil-reserves. An important point for oil-price stability in America and, more importantly, a direct denial of said resources to China, Russia and a variety of other countries.
Bush succeeded in a massive financial splurge, mostly in the form of military expenditures. A gigantic economic investment to shore up a seriously flagging American currency.
Bush successfuly sold the 'terrorist attack' dogma to the American people, keeping them duped into thinking that their country is under imminent, horrific attack--the new 'cold war'. Perfect platform for directing money into the military and away from social reforms. 'We need to tighten our belts to pull through this' philosophy. An old trick used by Govt's for time-immoral.
Bush succeeded in using the 'terrorist campaign' dogma to further unparalleled military build-ups around the perimeters of Russia and, conveniently, China.
Bush suceeded in holding a sword to the worlds throat, a direct threat against the 'Euro dollar invasion', a currency which completely threatens the once dominant American dollar.
Bush succeeded in toppling Nato and thwarting all world courts and conventions regarding soverign nation treatise, wmd development/stockpiling.
And please, the whole vote issue is a mute point. Bush didn't win this election. The vote-rigging scandal is completely forgotten in these post 9-11 times. How convenient.
- shockwave203
-
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: SK Canada
by shockwave203 » Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:28 pm
I agree with you there. If Bush and Blair are on FREEDOM HIGHS, trying to liberate people oppressed by their govt's, why aren't they doing it to all the other millions of people undergoing the same thing the Iraqis are?
Let's accuse them of having weapons of mass destruction, maybe it'll work this time too!
sorry, but Gore would have made a MUCH better president.
Let's accuse them of having weapons of mass destruction, maybe it'll work this time too!
sorry, but Gore would have made a MUCH better president.
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:39 pm
These political threads give me a headache anymore... I tend to share Wairudo's opinion... my .02 isn't going to help or change anyone's opinions.
Besides, us arguing about this shit is like a group of fleas trying to steer the dog they're riding on... whatever consensus may or may not be reached... the dog is going to go whichever way it wants anyway.
So the only point to even responding to the thread is to put down where I stand on the issues...
For the record...
I think in the 2000 election that Bush won fair and square. The Florida Supreme Court was clearly overstepping its bounds, as pointed out by the US Supreme Court.
I think the US was justified in going to war in afghanistan and iraq. We have a right to defend our interests, whatever those may be. If a country disagrees, they are free to challenge us in whatever way they can devise.
I think that all of the "social programs" that Keek mentioned are just fancy names for communism, a failed system that goes against human nature, and should be abandoned and forgotten. Social Security, welfare, affirmative action, progressive tax rates... all are methods to redistribute wealth to people who didn't make it. The reasoning behind whatever program is irrelevant. The philosophy of redistribution of wealth is wrong IMO.
I apply this to myself as well. If I lost my job, I would not expect a handout from the gov. to be able to survive. This would be great incentive to get another job, not to mention stay in school, do well in school, and myriad other effects. I guess it comes down to believing in survival of the fittest.
Unfortunately, my views seem to be in the minority, based upon the direction most states and countries are going. My view is that it will continue to get worse, before it gets better...
Besides, us arguing about this shit is like a group of fleas trying to steer the dog they're riding on... whatever consensus may or may not be reached... the dog is going to go whichever way it wants anyway.
So the only point to even responding to the thread is to put down where I stand on the issues...
For the record...
I think in the 2000 election that Bush won fair and square. The Florida Supreme Court was clearly overstepping its bounds, as pointed out by the US Supreme Court.
I think the US was justified in going to war in afghanistan and iraq. We have a right to defend our interests, whatever those may be. If a country disagrees, they are free to challenge us in whatever way they can devise.
I think that all of the "social programs" that Keek mentioned are just fancy names for communism, a failed system that goes against human nature, and should be abandoned and forgotten. Social Security, welfare, affirmative action, progressive tax rates... all are methods to redistribute wealth to people who didn't make it. The reasoning behind whatever program is irrelevant. The philosophy of redistribution of wealth is wrong IMO.
I apply this to myself as well. If I lost my job, I would not expect a handout from the gov. to be able to survive. This would be great incentive to get another job, not to mention stay in school, do well in school, and myriad other effects. I guess it comes down to believing in survival of the fittest.
Unfortunately, my views seem to be in the minority, based upon the direction most states and countries are going. My view is that it will continue to get worse, before it gets better...
- shockwave203
-
- Posts: 1440
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:40 pm
- Location: SK Canada
by shockwave203 » Thu Jul 31, 2003 11:54 pm
I don't think any one is fighting. This is one of a VERY FEW message boards on the interent, where one can express their thoughts and not get hammered and spammed for it. A little healthy debate here and there never hurt anyone.
- supersTring
by supersTring » Fri Aug 01, 2003 12:53 am
agree w/ Keek completely
The war machine was in motion b/c of 9/11
Iraq is a completely different story.
Making the connection between the two is like saying- Ricky hates Kmart b/c they fired him, Walmart hates Kmart b/c of competition- so the National Guard should invade Walmart to keep Ricky from buying a gun and going to kill everyone at Kmart.
Come on. This was about Bush seizing the opportunity to move on Iraq b/c of his own economic and personal agendas.
anyone remember his famous quote- pre-war? When asked why he considered Saddam an evil man?
"Well he did try to kill my dad."
Not all Americans have bought this force-fed news bullsht, where no reporter can ask any tough questions, the white house press corps can't ask followups and Bush just comes out to give us a few hokey "Ross Perot-lite" comments like he's afraid someone will figure out he's only a little smarter than former Gov. Jesse Ventura.
The war machine was in motion b/c of 9/11
Iraq is a completely different story.
Making the connection between the two is like saying- Ricky hates Kmart b/c they fired him, Walmart hates Kmart b/c of competition- so the National Guard should invade Walmart to keep Ricky from buying a gun and going to kill everyone at Kmart.
Come on. This was about Bush seizing the opportunity to move on Iraq b/c of his own economic and personal agendas.
anyone remember his famous quote- pre-war? When asked why he considered Saddam an evil man?
"Well he did try to kill my dad."
Not all Americans have bought this force-fed news bullsht, where no reporter can ask any tough questions, the white house press corps can't ask followups and Bush just comes out to give us a few hokey "Ross Perot-lite" comments like he's afraid someone will figure out he's only a little smarter than former Gov. Jesse Ventura.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Fri Aug 01, 2003 1:28 am
Originally posted by supersTring
sorry- did someone say something about sheep?
My comments were aimed at those who's brilliant reasoning behind why Bush is a terrible President is that they can call him a bunch of names or make nasty assumptions:
"I'm not reelecting him b/c he is such a dumbass!"
"...raging narcissism/self-righteousness...this president and his administration to be made up of religious fundamentalists"
"spoiled brat"
"...his own arrogance"
"I bet I could get a PhD from Oxford if my dad had millions of dollars to throw at a new library or sports stadium........"
"inarticulate"
"spoonfed all his life"
and of course, Keekanoo's entire post
"A little healthy debate here and there never hurt anyone."
Sorry, but you'll have a hard time finding it here. Good luck.
- Conscious*
- Posts: 2702
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 4:09 pm
by Conscious* » Fri Aug 01, 2003 1:50 am
al gore is a moron..i wont reelct bush...im choosing not to vote..im not going to waist my time on the two running because i dislike both
- JimmyTango
-
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 5:17 pm
- Location: Land of the Shemales.
by JimmyTango » Fri Aug 01, 2003 6:59 am
Baby Bush has done hte same thing as Papa Bush. Waged a war and let the actual country go to crap.
It cost the fist his re-election, it should the second.
Like Wairudo Enjin, I am neither Democrat nor Republican.
The saddest part of elections is that the majority of the population thinks you have to be either a Democrat or Republican, and they side with one, and only vote that one, no matter the candidates own stances.
Another sad thing are some of the friends I have who actually believe trickle down ecomonics works.
It cost the fist his re-election, it should the second.
Like Wairudo Enjin, I am neither Democrat nor Republican.
The saddest part of elections is that the majority of the population thinks you have to be either a Democrat or Republican, and they side with one, and only vote that one, no matter the candidates own stances.
Another sad thing are some of the friends I have who actually believe trickle down ecomonics works.
- Folic_Acid
-
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:32 pm
- Location: Spying on you from Falls Church, VA
by Folic_Acid » Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:50 am
Jeez - I step away for the evening, an the whole place explodes. String, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
Unfortunately, it seems that many have reached a point where they have certain things which they believe first ("Bush is a dumbass," "Bush has ruined the economy," "Bush is arrogant"), so despite evidence to the contrary, they will continue to hold such beliefs, and will either denounce contrary evidence as fabrication, or will just ignore it completely. If I had the time, I'd love to pick apart the arguments (especially Keek's) but I don't.
One last parting shot to you, string, regarding the question of Congressional approval, go here - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@X
Unfortunately, it seems that many have reached a point where they have certain things which they believe first ("Bush is a dumbass," "Bush has ruined the economy," "Bush is arrogant"), so despite evidence to the contrary, they will continue to hold such beliefs, and will either denounce contrary evidence as fabrication, or will just ignore it completely. If I had the time, I'd love to pick apart the arguments (especially Keek's
) but I don't.
One last parting shot to you, string, regarding the question of Congressional approval, go here - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@X
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests