This thread is for Bush supporters. Please explain why you support a second term.

I've supported all of his decisions, with the exception of No Child Left Behind.

Really? Even environmental and fiscal decisions? You still support him after all the stuff that's come out about the leadup to the war and his inattention to terrorism before 9/11?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73613 date=1091370174]
Really? Even environmental and fiscal decisions? You still support him after all the stuff that's come out about the leadup to the war and his inattention to terrorism before 9/11?
[/quote]

Yes. At least, I can't think of anything that I didn't support off the top of my head with the exception of what I already mentioned.

Neither is good, except Bush is fiscally sound, so I'd vote for him.

The problem is that Kerry policies will only bolster terrorism. If you give into their demands and pull out of the middle east, what message is that to the enemies of the United States? That we'll give in as long as we have a liberal President? Just out of curiosity, who do you think the terrorists support for President? The Republican Bush who is willing to take the fight to their doorstep and smash them and their supporters, while cutting off their funding and rooting out their conspirators, or the Democrat Kerry who wants to pull out troops, run away from conflict, and "initiate talks" with those animals, and disarm and downsize military spending?

I'm not voting for Bush. I'm voting agains't Kerry. :-\

[quote author=Eli_1 link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73624 date=1091379981]
I'm not voting for Bush. I'm voting agains't Kerry. :-\
[/quote]

You're not voting at all. :P

[quote author=Eli_1 link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73624 date=1091379981]
I'm not voting for Bush. I'm voting agains't Kerry. :-\
[/quote]

A lot of people on tv say that, actually. It's a good position for Americans!

[quote author=Negotiable link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73634 date=1091382330]
[quote author=Eli_1 link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73624 date=1091379981]
I'm not voting for Bush. I'm voting agains't Kerry. :-\
[/quote]

A lot of people on tv say that, actually. It's a good position for Americans!
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm sure if everybody just didn't vote all your problems would go away!

Two days ago I played the Bush Game,

www.bushgame.com

And it brainwashed me into hating Bush. (Really excellent piece of propaganda, never seen anything better.) If I could vote in the USA, I would vote for Kerry.

(Edit: Grammar)

I played the Bush game. It had no effect on me.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73621 date=1091379298]
The problem is that Kerry policies will only bolster terrorism. If you give into their demands and pull out of the middle east, what message is that to the enemies of the United States? That we'll give in as long as we have a liberal President? Just out of curiosity, who do you think the terrorists support for President? The Republican Bush who is willing to take the fight to their doorstep and smash them and their supporters, while cutting off their funding and rooting out their conspirators, or the Democrat Kerry who wants to pull out troops, run away from conflict, and "initiate talks" with those animals, and disarm and downsize military spending?
[/quote]

Bush's foreign policy will create many, many more terrorists than it removes. Violence begets only violence. The way to deal with terrorists is to talk - not to the terrorists, but to the states that support them or turn a blind eye to their activities. Invading other countries with overwhelming force and killing (intentionally or otherwise) thousands of civilians in the process will only ever create even more anti-american, anti-western sentiment... surely that's obvious?

Bush's short-sighted unilateralism has even created anti-american sentiment in the US's european allies, in NATO... Given that, it's hard to imagine the level of hatred that must exist in nations where the US military has killed thousands of people. A 'war on terrorism' is a silly concept, akin to a 'war on drugs'.. Trying to fight small bands of terrorists with a huge army only plays into their hands.

To sum up my position, here is a quote from a previous thread:

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=10;threadid=7439;start=0#msg67693 date=1088473639]
I'm not ranting - seriously. I don't just instantly dislike Bush because he's Republican.

I dislike Bush for the following reasons:

His attitude. He doesn't take the job seriously. I hate that little smirking wry smile he uses when he's trying to be charming. I'll never forget that footage of him in an interview during the campaigns. He was being asked about world leaders, and displaying considerable unfamiliarity with the subject. He was asked who the leaders of India & Pakistan are and he didn't know either. He covered up his lack of knowledge by trying to be amusing. He just came off looking like an idiot.

His bad public speaking isn't a malady in itsself, it is a symptom. It concerns me greatly. When speaking, it is blindingly obvious when he is giving a prepared answer and when he is not. I'm sure you remember the press conference when he was unable to highlight mistakes in Iraq and stood there in semi-silence for several minutes. His inability to field such questions demonstrates his lack of awareness. He is not 'on the ball'. He displays no insight, no ability to think on his feet, no eloquence, in short: none of the qualities I would expect to see in a leader. He is inarticulate. I see no evidence of an enquiring mind. He comes off as ignorant - and I'm NOT just bashing. If I were to ask a stupid person masquerading as a knowledgeable person about an important topic, I suspect I would get an answer very much like Bush's when he hasn't been prepared with a response. He is obtuse. He has no gravitas.

Lastly, I hate his position on just about everything. I oppose the death penalty. I think that liberty is more important than security. I think the environment is more important than the economy. I think that attacking & occupying middle-eastern countries creates more terrorists than it destroys. I think that supporting oil interests and big business is very short sighted. I think that increasing the deficit to finance populist tax cuts is bizarre. I think that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, and that even if it is ruled not to be, that reasonable firearm restrictions are not only prudent, but imperative.

He is, in my opinion, the opposite of a good president.
[/quote]

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73650 date=1091385704]Bush's foreign policy will create many, many more terrorists than it removes. Violence begets only violence. The way to deal with terrorists is to talk - not to the terrorists, but to the states that support them or turn a blind eye to their activities. Invading other countries with overwhelming force and killing (intentionally or otherwise) thousands of civilians in the process will only ever create even more anti-american, anti-western sentiment... surely that's obvious?[/quote]

Surely the terrorists are going to be more keen towards somebody who is going to sit down and talk, over one that is going to punish the evil doers. For example, World War II, Hitler was defeated by a bunch of people sitting around and talking, it took force. I'm sure if Bush didn't decide to do something, everybody would call him a coward and the like.

Who cares what the terrorists like and dislike? They're hardly rational. I don't really care what they think. What I care about is a viable long term solution. Such a solution will arise only through diplomacy. Violence is not a long-term solution. Just look at Isreal for an example of that.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73651 date=1091385864]
To sum up my position, here is a quote from a previous thread:
[/quote]

Cheater!

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73656 date=1091386928]
Who cares what the terrorists like and dislike? They're hardly rational. I don't really care what they think. What I care about is a viable long term solution. Such a solution will arise only through diplomacy. Violence is not a long-term solution. Just look at Isreal for an example of that.
[/quote]

Yes, but there are situations where violence has solved things. Such as Americas independence (although you may see that in a different light dunno,) World War II, Civil War, Most (if not all) other wars, removing Saddam from power, just becuase the enemy is spread out more and is fighting with guerilla style tatics doesn't mean we shouldn't fight back.

All of those are real wars where 2 or more armies fight eachother. They are not comparable to an army fighting small, secret organisations. Terrorists are not guerilla fighters. They are terrorists.

Using an army to fight organisations like Al Queda and Hamas, which are purportedly the types of organisations that the War on Terrorism is about, is both futile and counterproductive.

Speaking of terrorists, why do you support the invasion of Iraq when there is no evidence that they ever sponsored terrorism against the west? I think Kerry had it spot on when he (basically accused) Bush of twisting intelligence to support policy, rather than using intelligence to shape policy.

I really don't care what Saddam did/didn't do. It's pretty obvious he was a bad man. He killed a countless amount of his own people, and he did have the power to create biological weapons. He tried to kill Bush's father, which in my opinion is enough to capture him (trying to kill a commander in chief.) I was just glad he was removed from power, regardless of the reason.

Iraq may not have had any weapons of mass destruction but they were certainly capable of making them and in the hands of Saddam alot of shit can happen =/

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73671 date=1091393618]
I really don't care what Saddam did/didn't do. It's pretty obvious he was a bad man. He killed a countless amount of his own people, and he did have the power to create biological weapons. He tried to kill Bush's father, which in my opinion is enough to capture him (trying to kill a commander in chief.) I was just glad he was removed from power, regardless of the reason.
[/quote]

Haha. Bush has killed countless of his own people (as governor of Texas, he had tons of people executed), he has the power to create biological weapons. And his father tried to kill Saddam.

[quote author=Negotiable link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73677 date=1091396816]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73671 date=1091393618]
I really don't care what Saddam did/didn't do. It's pretty obvious he was a bad man. He killed a countless amount of his own people, and he did have the power to create biological weapons. He tried to kill Bush's father, which in my opinion is enough to capture him (trying to kill a commander in chief.) I was just glad he was removed from power, regardless of the reason.
[/quote]

Haha. Bush has killed countless of his own people (as governor of Texas, he had tons of people executed), he has the power to create biological weapons. And his father tried to kill Saddam.
[/quote]
Even if he does have biological weapons its not like he can use it on anyone at any time. He will be kicked out of office so fast. On the other hand Saddam was a dictator, and does have the power to use it any way he like.

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73679 date=1091397067]
[quote author=Negotiable link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73677 date=1091396816]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73671 date=1091393618]
I really don't care what Saddam did/didn't do. It's pretty obvious he was a bad man. He killed a countless amount of his own people, and he did have the power to create biological weapons. He tried to kill Bush's father, which in my opinion is enough to capture him (trying to kill a commander in chief.) I was just glad he was removed from power, regardless of the reason.
[/quote]

Haha. Bush has killed countless of his own people (as governor of Texas, he had tons of people executed), he has the power to create biological weapons. And his father tried to kill Saddam.
[/quote]
Even if he does have biological weapons its not like he can use it on anyone at any time. He will be kicked out of office so fast. On the other hand Saddam was a dictator, and does have the power to use it any way he like.
[/quote]

Oh absolutely! If Saddam tried to _use_ biological weapons, the rest of the world would be screwed! HOW can a country like the USA stop a small middle-eastern country from destroying them!? Yup, if Saddam wanted to, he could have destroyed the rest of the world and nobody would have been able to stop him!!
</sarcasm>

Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?

Heh. Uh no George... just shut up and play your gameboy.

Why are there terrorists attacking America if we figure that out and just quit whatever we are doing wouldn't that help. Obviously they don't come over here to attack us for nothing.

[quote author=muert0 link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73688 date=1091400142]
Heh. Uh no George... just shut up and play your gameboy.

Why are there terrorists attacking America if we figure that out and just quit whatever we are doing wouldn't that help. Obviously they don't come over here to attack us for nothing.
[/quote]

They're attacking anybody who doesn't tolerate them. For example: Spain. Spain gave into their attacks, and what did that solve? Nothing, attacks still happened elsewhere..this has to be solved by force.

The prisoners on death row deserve it imo, and I'm a firm supporter of capital punishment. Saddam killed innocent people.

Gameboy is fun.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73693 date=1091402246]
[quote author=muert0 link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73688 date=1091400142]
Heh. Uh no George... just shut up and play your gameboy.

Why are there terrorists attacking America if we figure that out and just quit whatever we are doing wouldn't that help. Obviously they don't come over here to attack us for nothing.
[/quote]

They're attacking anybody who doesn't tolerate them. For example: Spain. Spain gave into their attacks, and what did that solve? Nothing, attacks still happened elsewhere..this has to be solved by force.

The prisoners on death row deserve it imo, and I'm a firm supporter of capital punishment. Saddam killed innocent people.

Gameboy is fun.
[/quote]
By going to Iraq, we are wasting our troops and putting them in a place they didn't need to be. They could've been doing a much better job in other places. I'm not entirely sure if this is true or not, but apperantly there were more police in New York than troops in Afghanistan.

As far as death row, I think it'd be better to make the prisoner rot in prison for life, seems a bit like letting them go free by just killing them.

[quote]As far as death row, I think it'd be better to make the prisoner rot in prison for life, seems a bit like letting them go free by just killing them. [/quote]

It costs just as much tax dollars to kill a man that it does to let him rot in jail, only by killing him he's not taking up a cell.

And no murderer should be provided free cable television. :P

[quote]
Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?
[/quote]

Yeah, I do. He could sell them to a terrorist organization, and they could use it here.

Here's what I think we should do. Every country which doesn't actively pursue terrorists even after we request it, we give them an ultimatum along the lines of: we will TOTALLY DESTROY the city of Baghdad in 3 weeks, at 6:00. Either pursue terrorists, or start getting all your civilians out.

In this way, if innocent people die, it isn't really the country's fault, and it also destroys infrastructure.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73716 date=1091412603]
Yeah, I do. He could sell them to a terrorist organization, and they could use it here.

Here's what I think we should do. Every country which doesn't actively pursue terrorists even after we request it, we give them an ultimatum along the lines of: we will TOTALLY DESTROY the city of Baghdad in 3 weeks, at 6:00. Either pursue terrorists, or start getting all your civilians out.

In this way, if innocent people die, it isn't really the country's fault, and it also destroys infrastructure.
[/quote]

Finally some logical thinking and good ideas provided. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about hostages being taken and tortured and held for ransome and the worst beheaded.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73650 date=1091385704]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=0#msg73621 date=1091379298]
The problem is that Kerry policies will only bolster terrorism. If you give into their demands and pull out of the middle east, what message is that to the enemies of the United States? That we'll give in as long as we have a liberal President? Just out of curiosity, who do you think the terrorists support for President? The Republican Bush who is willing to take the fight to their doorstep and smash them and their supporters, while cutting off their funding and rooting out their conspirators, or the Democrat Kerry who wants to pull out troops, run away from conflict, and "initiate talks" with those animals, and disarm and downsize military spending?
[/quote]

Bush's foreign policy will create many, many more terrorists than it removes. Violence begets only violence. The way to deal with terrorists is to talk - not to the terrorists, but to the states that support them or turn a blind eye to their activities. Invading other countries with overwhelming force and killing (intentionally or otherwise) thousands of civilians in the process will only ever create even more anti-american, anti-western sentiment... surely that's obvious?

Bush's short-sighted unilateralism has even created anti-american sentiment in the US's european allies, in NATO... Given that, it's hard to imagine the level of hatred that must exist in nations where the US military has killed thousands of people. A 'war on terrorism' is a silly concept, akin to a 'war on drugs'.. Trying to fight small bands of terrorists with a huge army only plays into their hands.
[/quote]

And I disagree. I believe that it is the job of all those who love freedom to root out and destroy all terrorists and anyone and everyone who supports them.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73716 date=1091412603]
[quote]
Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?
[/quote]

Yeah, I do. He could sell them to a terrorist organization, and they could use it here.

Here's what I think we should do. Every country which doesn't actively pursue terrorists even after we request it, we give them an ultimatum along the lines of: we will TOTALLY DESTROY the city of Baghdad in 3 weeks, at 6:00. Either pursue terrorists, or start getting all your civilians out.

In this way, if innocent people die, it isn't really the country's fault, and it also destroys infrastructure.
[/quote]

Yes, he'll go after terrorists after he destroys the Weapons he had already destroyed, and that he had said, many times, that he had already destroyed. Do you really think that he could have said _anything_ short of "take my oil" to change the situation he was in? When you have somebody in charge with something to gain, like Bush, he's going to do his best to use his position to his advantage. If making oil more easily accessable makes money for him, his family, and his Vice President (which it does), then obviously he's going to come up with an excuse for it.

I really don't understand the connection bewteen Saddam and Al Quida -- Saddam killed people for being religious, and Al Quida is a religious group. I couldn't see Saddam helping them.

They're fake Muslims duh! (Al Quada) The Muslim religion is supposed to peaceful, what they are doing is anything but peaceful. Even some of Muslim church leader things over there said that they aren't real Muslims or something like that.

[quote author=Negotiable link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73725 date=1091418835]Yes, he'll go after terrorists after he destroys the Weapons he had already destroyed, and that he had said, many times, that he had already destroyed. Do you really think that he could have said _anything_ short of "take my oil" to change the situation he was in? When you have somebody in charge with something to gain, like Bush, he's going to do his best to use his position to his advantage. If making oil more easily accessable makes money for him, his family, and his Vice President (which it does), then obviously he's going to come up with an excuse for it.

I really don't understand the connection bewteen Saddam and Al Quida -- Saddam killed people for being religious, and Al Quida is a religious group. I couldn't see Saddam helping them.[/quote]

Ah, the joys of a conspiracy theorist. :P From some of the news items I've seen lately, many different independent entities told the U.S. govt. that Iraq had weapons. Offhand: the Egyption president personally conveyed the message to Franks, Putin told Bush, CIA told Whitehouse, etc. I could dig up a full list if you really care. So, with all your friends / allies / subordinates telling you the same thing and citing different people, would you believe them? If you did, what would you do?

Saddam connection: again, you apparently haven't been following the news too closely. Aside from the obvious terrorist connection of Saddam giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, there's the report of a mid- (high-? don't recall) level operative from al Queda who was injured in Afghanistan, treated in an Iraqi hospital (in Baghdad, iirc!), and yet nowhere to be found when U.S. forces got there. Saddam's Iraq wasn't exactly a pinnacle of free travel, so I'll leave it to you to speculate on how this guy got into and back out of Iraq if Saddam's govt. didn't give at least tacit approval.

[quote author=Negotiable link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73686 date=1091399937]
[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73679 date=1091397067]
[quote author=Negotiable link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73677 date=1091396816]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73671 date=1091393618]
I really don't care what Saddam did/didn't do. It's pretty obvious he was a bad man. He killed a countless amount of his own people, and he did have the power to create biological weapons. He tried to kill Bush's father, which in my opinion is enough to capture him (trying to kill a commander in chief.) I was just glad he was removed from power, regardless of the reason.
[/quote]

Haha. Bush has killed countless of his own people (as governor of Texas, he had tons of people executed), he has the power to create biological weapons. And his father tried to kill Saddam.
[/quote]
Even if he does have biological weapons its not like he can use it on anyone at any time. He will be kicked out of office so fast. On the other hand Saddam was a dictator, and does have the power to use it any way he like.
[/quote]

Oh absolutely! If Saddam tried to _use_ biological weapons, the rest of the world would be screwed! HOW can a country like the USA stop a small middle-eastern country from destroying them!? Yup, if Saddam wanted to, he could have destroyed the rest of the world and nobody would have been able to stop him!!
</sarcasm>

Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?
[/quote]

You forget that Saddam used nerve gas against his own people. The logical conclusion would be that he had the capability to produce them (duh - he used them once) and he had the cajones to use them (there we go with that whole "duh" thing again), and furthermore, he had the motive to use them (or give them to people who would use them) against the citizens of the United States. (We kicked him out of Kuwait and have been a general pain in his ass for about 12 years now.) Without having access to any sensitive intelligence data at all, making a decision based upon actual events and logical conclusions, there is the justification for nipping Iraq in the bud.

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73675 date=1091396750]
Iraq may not have had any weapons of mass destruction but they were certainly capable of making them and in the hands of Saddam alot of shit can happen =/
[/quote]

No, Iraq was not capable of making them. The UN inspectors did a very thorough job of removing his WMD capability after the first Gulf war. Also, the processes used to make WMD require significant industrialisation which would have been both readily detectable by modern sattelite surveillence, and extremely difficult to accomplish whiles under UN sanctions.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73705 date=1091408731]
[quote]As far as death row, I think it'd be better to make the prisoner rot in prison for life, seems a bit like letting them go free by just killing them. [/quote]

It costs just as much tax dollars to kill a man that it does to let him rot in jail, only by killing him he's not taking up a cell.
[/quote]

This is also not true. By the time you consider all the costs involved in executing someone: The initial trial, all the appeals, the time spent on death row, and soforth, execution actually costs more than life imprisonment. See this page for more information.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73716 date=1091412603]
[quote]
Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?
[/quote]

Yeah, I do. He could sell them to a terrorist organization, and they could use it here.

Here's what I think we should do. Every country which doesn't actively pursue terrorists even after we request it, we give them an ultimatum along the lines of: we will TOTALLY DESTROY the city of Baghdad in 3 weeks, at 6:00. Either pursue terrorists, or start getting all your civilians out.

In this way, if innocent people die, it isn't really the country's fault, and it also destroys infrastructure.
[/quote]

That's just crazy. If someone were doing that to your country, wouldn't you take up arms to defend yourself and your fellow citizens? I sure as hell would. Do you really want to turn the whole world into rabid haters of the USA? That'd be a great way to do it.

Anyway, back on topic: Reasons why you'd vote for Bush?

It'd be Saddam's fault. He knew, he did nothing.

The whole "oil connection" was just a farce pulled out of someone's ass. If you didn't notice, oil prices were lower before we attacked Iraq; we didn't gain anything by it.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73752 date=1091457646]
It'd be Saddam's fault. He knew, he did nothing.
[/quote]

Nonsense. That's like saying to someone, "Give me your wallet, or I'll shoot you", the person saying no, you shooting them, and then saying it was their fault. That would be nonsense. If you shoot someone, it's your fault.

The war in Iraq was also about the fact that saddam violated our seice fire and was screwing with us for years. It was a last resort. Under clinton we tried that whole support the insurgents, pray for a coup crap, and it did not work at all. This was the last option. The war was more then needed, it was needed years before, but clinton did not want to do it because it was too much of a 'republican thing' because of bush #1.

Bush is a strong leader and he will stick to his dcisions. He is not going to waver like kerry. I do not care about the fact that kerry was in nam, that is fine and dandy, but I care more about his senate track record.

What?!

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]
The war in Iraq was also about the fact that saddam violated our seice fire
[/quote]

When did that happen?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]and was screwing with us for years.
[/quote]

By doing what?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]
It was a last resort.
[/quote]

Why were weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq before they'd finished their jobs, then?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]
Under clinton we tried that whole support the insurgents, pray for a coup crap, and it did not work at all.[/quote]

Howso?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195] This was the last option. The war was more then needed, it was needed years before, but clinton did not want to do it because it was too much of a 'republican thing' because of bush #1.
[/quote]

Why was it needed? What specific events required it?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]

Bush is a strong leader and he will stick to his dcisions.
[/quote]

Even when his decisions are wrong, and shown to be so?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]
He is not going to waver like kerry.
[/quote]

How do we know if Kerry is going to waver? He hasn't had a chance yet!

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]
I do not care about the fact that kerry was in nam, that is fine and dandy, but I care more about his senate track record.
[/quote]

What about his track record in the senate disturbs you?

You remind me of the Bob Dole sketch in Family Guy...

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73734 date=1091427956]
[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=15#msg73675 date=1091396750]
Iraq may not have had any weapons of mass destruction but they were certainly capable of making them and in the hands of Saddam alot of shit can happen =/
[/quote]

No, Iraq was not capable of making them. The UN inspectors did a very thorough job of removing his WMD capability after the first Gulf war. Also, the processes used to make WMD require significant industrialisation which would have been both readily detectable by modern sattelite surveillence, and extremely difficult to accomplish whiles under UN sanctions.
[/quote]

All I can say is: WRONG. The UN has been unable to deal with Iraq for nearly a decade thanks to our "Lets Bend Over" former President Bill Clinton. In 8 years, I think Iraq would be fully capable of developing a chemical weapons program, and worse.

Present your evidence, please.

arta... what about that no fly zone crap that saddam was pulling for years. Remember that puny deasert fox campaign that clinton did? Yes I suppose saddam was just sitting minding his own business, thats why clinton did that. Please....

Btw, inspectors came back from iraq the first time because they were kicked out (this was under clinton), and saddam wasn't screwing around?

You say kerry has not had a chance to waver? Yeah thats why he can vote in faver of a war, but then vote against the munitions needed for one. Kerry has been so insanely evasive. He says things like he is going to do a better job then bush, but he never says how he plans to do so. His speaches will leave you with no more information then you started with. He basically says nothing, its all fluff.

http://www.news-register.net/edit/story/0318202004_edt02.asp

Arta I am curious why you have responded to everyone except Kp?

[quote author=Tuberload link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73768 date=1091472285]
Arta I am curious why you have responded to everyone except Kp?
[/quote]

And Stealth.


[quote]Even when his decisions are wrong, and shown to be so?[/quote]

I don't think his decisions were wrong, it's a matter of opinion.

[quote]How do we know if Kerry is going to waver? He hasn't had a chance yet![/quote]

Because he said it?

[quote]What about his track record in the senate disturbs you?[/quote]

He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate..

I personally don't trust somebody who's going to vote for the war, and then criticize Bush for going to war, vote against more funding on the war, and say he's against the war..

Guess what country supplied Iraq with chemical weapons to use in the Iran-Iraq war? Bonus question -- who was the defense secretary at the time?

HINT.

I think Bush was right in claiming Saddam had WMDs. When his Daddy was VP, we sold them to him. ::)

[quote author=K link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73778 date=1091480193]
Guess what country supplied Iraq with chemical weapons to use in the Iran-Iraq war? Bonus question -- who was the defense secretary at the time?

HINT.

I think Bush was right in claiming Saddam had WMDs. When his Daddy was VP, we sold them to him. ::)
[/quote] We did about the same thing in afganistan to keep the soviets out. We basically fought communism with fashism because we thought it was the lesser of two evils back then. Now it has come back to bite us in the ass. That does not make the weapons we supplied any less of a threat to us, nor does it mean saddam didn't use them correctly.

But it's still all Bush's fault, in the end. Doesn't matter who did it or when, it's still his fault.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73782 date=1091483039]
But it's still all Bush's fault, in the end. Doesn't matter who did it or when, it's still his fault.
[/quote]

Duh! Along with the presidency comes automatically becoming America's scapegoat.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73759 date=1091467031]
What?!

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=30#msg73758 date=1091464195]
Under clinton we tried that whole support the insurgents, pray for a coup crap, and it did not work at all.[/quote]

Howso?
[/quote]

He is correct. Thousands of Iraqis tried to coup against Saddam when former President Bush (daddy) promised them support if they would. They were slaughtered and tortured and the USA did nothing.

The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73799 date=1091494844]
The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.
[/quote] I aggree, iraq was not about that. Its almost michael moorish. That carlyle group bs.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73799 date=1091494844]
The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.
[/quote]

Haha that's the first thing I said when I heard that Dubya wanted to start a war with Iraq. I didn't need any leftist propaganda to tell me the obvious :P

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73823 date=1091501798]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73799 date=1091494844]
The next person that says anything about Bush "just finishing what daddy started" will be hunted down and shot in the face. It's bullshit leftist propaganda and nothing more.
[/quote]

Haha that's the first thing I said when I heard that Dubya wanted to start a war with Iraq. I didn't need any leftist propaganda to tell me the obvious :P
[/quote] a war that probably should have been waged under clinton.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73788 date=1091488006]
He is correct. Thousands of Iraqis tried to coup against Saddam when former President Bush (daddy) promised them support if they would. They were slaughtered and tortured and the USA did nothing.
[/quote]

Ah, ok, yes. I remember that.

Kp makes some good points - in fact the only good points in my opinion. The question remains, though: does paying suiciide bombers' families and providing them medical care (such as it is) really consititute grounds for war? I don't think so.

This chemical weapons thing is really quite annoying.

It is a physical impossibility for Saddam to have stockpiled chemical or biological weapons from before the first Gulf war. It was verified by UNSCOM that Saddam had produced 3 chemical agents: Sarin, Tabun, and VX. Sarin and Tabun have a shelf life of about 5 years, so for people to claim that he had, before the war, stockpiles of those weapons is silly. That's not to mention the fact that 95% of Iraq's WMD capability was verifyably eliminated by UNSCOM after Gulf I.

VX is a slightly different story. It has a much longer shelf-life than Sarin and Tabun, but the Iraqis had only just managed to weaponise it when the first gulf war started. They did manage to produce a small amount before they were invaded, but their VX factories were destroyed both during the war, and during the subsequent inspection. There was not enough time for the Iraqis to have made enough VX to have it in enough quantity for it to be a significant threat. Even if they had, significant questions remain about the Iraq's stabilisation process. To stabilise VX is extremely complicated - even minor imperfections in the process creates proteins that break down the VX nerve agent in a matter of months.

As for Biological weapons, Iraq managed to prodce 2 in quantity - Anthrax and Botulinum toxin. There is no evidence at all that they ever produced, or tried to produce, smallpox, ebola, or any of that kind of thing. However, Biological weapons suffer from the same kinds of problems as chemical weapons. Anthrax, even if stored in perfct conditions, would have germinated after about 3 years and has now been useless for quite some time. I'm not sure about the details for Botulinum, but it also would have destabilised by now and become useless.

Given all this, it seems obvious that old weapons made by Saddam before the first Gulf war are absolutely not a factor. The question then becomes, could Saddam have created more weapons since UNSCOM left Iraq in 1998? The answer is, it's possible, but very unlikely. There's a period of 3-4 years when Iraq could possibly have restarted its WMD program. The problem for the pro-war lobby is that they would have had to start again, from scratch. There is no possibility that UNSCOM missed enough equipment and materials for Iraq to have been able to produce WMD without a lot of rebuilding and acquisition of materials abroad. There's really no chance that every modern Intelligence organisation in the west would have missed Iraq buying *that much stuff* from other countries - we're talking about vast amounts of money and equipment here. Even if they had, the production of these weapons produces vented gasses that are readily detectable. Iraq was watched by the US and others during that time, by satelite and other means, and the bottom line is - if Iraq had built a weapons factory, we'd have known about it. There would be definitive proof, and we would have acted at the time. Indeed, we *did* act at the time - Iraq was subject to intermittent bombing for the entire Clinton administration... so I don't know where people get these Clinton=wuss ideas. In fact, the US was quite heavily critisised for these raids at the time.

Finally, even if everything I have mentioned here was wrong and we'd missed something, we would have found it by now. We've been occupying Iraq for over a year now... we've had the opportunity to pore over every shred of the evidence in every facility in Iraq - There's no one left to deny us access or kick us out, now! And what has been found? Nothing. No substantial evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. There is no doubt anymore. Iraq did not, and does not, have any WMD capability.

I can go into nuclear capability if people want, but everyone has admitted Iraq never managed that, although they did try.

As for a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq... well, that one's just patently absurd. No one has ever presented any evidence of it, Bush just says it in his speeches and for some reason people believe it, even though it flies in the face of reason. Saddam has a long history of hating Islamic fundamentalism. he spent 30 years eradicating it in his country. He had laws on the books providing for summary execution of those found proseltysing islam, in particular Wahabbism, which is a particular branch of islam. Guess what religion Osama bin laden follows? He's a Wahab. Bin Laden has called Saddam an apostate, and said he needs to be killed. Saddam faught a war with Iran in part because of its fundamentalism. There are just no facts to back up any link between Iraq and terrorists, other than their assertions to pay the families of suicide bombers. To that I say - so what? Sure, it's pretty bad, and something should probably have been done about it, but a full fledged invasion?? I think that would be overkill.

Congratulations if you read all that. I didn't really mean this thread to turn into a debate on the merits of Iraq, so hopefully we can put that to bed and get back on topic :)

PS: My source for most of this is an excellent book by Scott Ritter (A former UNSCOM inspector) and William Rivers Pitt. Despite the stupid title, it's not very partisan and it's an informative look at the situation from the perspective of someone who's been there and knows what they're on about.

Lets see now, no one doubted the fact that Iraq had WMD before the war.
Blix the leader UN weapons inspector said that Iraq's declaration of what it had was incomplete.
[quote]On Thursday, Blix reiterated that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete. "We think that the declaration failed to answer a great many questions." ElBaradei said Monday that after two months of inspections it was still too early to determine whether Saddam Hussein's regime was trying to develop nuclear weapons. "We are not certain of Iraq's (nuclear) capability," he said. Blix has called on Iraq to answer outstanding questions in the declaration on Iraq's chemical, biological and missile programs, which is required under Resolution 1441, adopted Nov. 8. "Iraq may have more to say. I hope so," Blix said.[/quote] The above quote is from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0109blix.htm

Then we have an incident in Iraq that calls into question most of the rest of your post. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html . Now given what quoted about it having a 5 year shelf life is either clearly wrong which calls into question if this guy really has a clue what hes talking about or Iraq has WMD and made them in the 3 year period that the inspectors were gone. Take your pick, they both work for me :p

For a more on topic post, I don't agree with everything Bush has said or done. But that doesn't mean he is a bad president and that I should go for the other guy. I don't agree with most of the things Kerry says either. Its great that he served in vietnam and all but I see no value in having a person who served vs one who didn't as president. After all the president isn't the one drawing the battle plans so what does it matter? He has been a senator for the past 19 years too, and the 9/11 commission placed most the blame on congress so thats not exactly a plus for him either. Suppose I should point out that I don't agree with Bush's stance on gay marriage and that anyone who supports everything another person does is just a blind follower.

[quote author=Zorm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73855 date=1091528514]
[quote]On Thursday, Blix reiterated that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete. "We think that the declaration failed to answer a great many questions." ElBaradei said Monday that after two months of inspections it was still too early to determine whether Saddam Hussein's regime was trying to develop nuclear weapons. "We are not certain of Iraq's (nuclear) capability," he said. Blix has called on Iraq to answer outstanding questions in the declaration on Iraq's chemical, biological and missile programs, which is required under Resolution 1441, adopted Nov. 8. "Iraq may have more to say. I hope so," Blix said.[/quote] [/quote]

Yes! That's what happens when you pull out inspectors and go to war too soon!

[quote author=Zorm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=45#msg73855 date=1091528514]
Then we have an incident in Iraq that calls into question most of the rest of your post. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html . Now given what quoted about it having a 5 year shelf life is either clearly wrong which calls into question if this guy really has a clue what hes talking about or Iraq has WMD and made them in the 3 year period that the inspectors were gone. Take your pick, they both work for me :p
[/quote]

hmm, well, not being an expert I couldn't say - I'm just repeating what I've read. Incidentally, here's what Scott Ritter has to say about that incident. Either way, an IED doesn't constitute evidence of a stockpile - something rather insidiously absent from FOX's article...

[quote author=Zorm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73856 date=1091529178]
For a more on topic post, I don't agree with everything Bush has said or done. But that doesn't mean he is a bad president and that I should go for the other guy. I don't agree with most of the things Kerry says either. Its great that he served in vietnam and all but I see no value in having a person who served vs one who didn't as president. After all the president isn't the one drawing the battle plans so what does it matter? He has been a senator for the past 19 years too, and the 9/11 commission placed most the blame on congress so thats not exactly a plus for him either. Suppose I should point out that I don't agree with Bush's stance on gay marriage and that anyone who supports everything another person does is just a blind follower.
[/quote]

Regardless of your position on policy, don't you think that misleading your country and the world at large and unilaterally going to war on the basis of unreliable evidence is grounds for voting for the other guy? Even if Bush didn't deliberately mislead the public, surely he's at fault for disregarding warnings from the state dept and the CIA about the uncertainty of the evidence? Here in the UK, many people are furious with Blair for that exact thing. The Butler report has shown that evidence full of reservations ("might have", "it's possible that", "potentially posesses", etc) ended up being presented to the public as unreserved fact - ("does have", "certain that", "posesses", ...).

Surely it's the job of a good leader to investigate every avenue, to be thoughtful and inquisitive, to accept advice from all parts of the political spectrum, to collate information and ideas and then make a balanced decision based on ALL the information available? (Unless you spend too much time playing golf) I get the feeling Bush just did what Team Rumsfeld told him was right.

Even if Bush has done nothing wrong and has played no part in this hornet's nest of incompetence, he should resign anyway. It was his watch. Ultimately, he's responsible.

Quite simply, they lied. They knew (not "they might have known") that if they told the truth ("might have", "potentially possess") to the public, that public would not support war.

A country that potentially possesses threats is a potential threat. A country that does possess threats is an immediate threat. North Vietnam? An impoverished, uneducated and militant country that is anti-American if it is anti-anything. They want nothing less than for the USA to be a melting radioactive scrapheap of buildings and automobiles, and our charred remains smoldering in the scattered destruction.

Iraq, otoh, was and is less a threat to the United States than their sworn enemy and close neighbor, Iran.

Saddam still was in violation. They had al sammoud 2 (sp?) missiles. They were also fireing off skuds when we first invaded. Why have a delivery system without a war head? He had a means to put crap into surrounding countries, and that did not alarm anyone? If he had balls to he could have done some real damage in tel aviv.

I read somewhere that under saddam terrorist camps operated openly in north iraq, that couldn't happen without it being sponsored. Nothing really went down in iraq without saddam knowing.

Also, even without WMD, this war was still neccessary. There are other issues. I think making a big deal about WMD was a political mistake (though I do not feel bush was lieing, I still feel there are weapons, remember we found guys in iraq with shells with sarin in them, how do you get just 1 or 2 shells with sarin? It would not be produced by the table spoon, there has to be more), but it was one of several reasons why we waged this war. The fact is that saddam was sponsoring terrorism, he was still being hostile to our forces (still fireing at our planes over the no fly zone), and the fact that he could have weapons was a threat, why would you risk letting him get these weapons, provided that he didn't already have them?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73862 date=1091540310]
Saddam still was in violation. They had al sammoud 2 (sp?) missiles. They were also fireing off skuds when we first invaded. Why have a delivery system without a war head? He had a means to put crap into surrounding countries, and that did not alarm anyone? If he had balls to he could have done some real damage in tel aviv.

I read somewhere that under saddam terrorist camps operated openly in north iraq, that couldn't happen without it being sponsored. Nothing really went down in iraq without saddam knowing.
[/quote]

A warhead isn't necessarily a WMD warhead... and a missile which slightly exceeds the allowed range is hardly grounds for war either - especially since they immediately destroyed those missiles with the UN's supervision when we called them on it.

That stuff about training camps in Iraq is BS. Dunno where you read it, but it's just plain wrong. You may perhaps have been reading about camps in the Kurdish controlled territory (which is in the north of Iraq), but those camps were used to train the Kurdish militia who fought both against saddam and with coalition forces during the initial invasion. Either way, invading Iraq because of camps in the kurdish territory would make no sense - no one has ever claimed that was a reason for war, anyway.

Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our economy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.
The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's decsions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these it upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

[quote author=Snake link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73866 date=1091541868]Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our econimy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.[/quote]

The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.

[quote]The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's desions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these problems upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
[/quote]

You support Kerry's decisions on the war? His decision was to go to war, and not support the troops with additional funding. Now that the nation as a whole is against the war, Kerry is changing his mind about it? Smooth.

The fact of the matter is, Iraq was persuing a chemical weapons program, Iraq was persuing a nuclear weapons program, and the Iraqi government was brutally toturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people because their Muslim belief was a fraction of a percent off of his own. His murder of his own people is not disputed. This alone would give the United States just cause to step in and stop him and if you don't believe that, then it just goes to show you are more concerned with your own self-preservation and that you have no ethical and moral fortitude.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73867 date=1091542366]
[quote author=Snake link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73866 date=1091541868]Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our econimy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.[/quote]

The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.[/quote]

Yes, lets trust the man that can blatantly lie to his wife with a straight face about his promiscuity. Twice. That we know of.

The terrorist attacks were obviously being planned during the Clinton era, such an attack was admittedly not pulled off between Nov. 2 of 2000 when all the terrorirists were sitting in a cave watching CNN and commited on Sept. 11 of 2001. The planning must have taken several years. Where was all of this guys intelligence? The slacking in intelligence didn't just start when Bush took office, it was years of mistakes made under PRESIDENT CLINTON. There were no wars while Clinton was in congress because he was a patsy who wasn't willing to make the tough decisions to get involved in a major armed conflict, but lets not forget that he sent us into some sticky situations too that were politically unpopular. Also, study some economic charts pre-dating the Bush entrance into the White House, which is where all the Dems point and scream the downhill slope begins. It actually begins near the END of the CLINTON term. You might also consider that those few wealthy still pay the vast, vast, majority of taxes and everyone recieved a tax cut, it lumps to a larger sum the more wealthy you are.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73867 date=1091542366]
[quote author=Snake link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73866 date=1091541868]
[quote]The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's desions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these problems upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
[/quote]

You support Kerry's decisions on the war? His decision was to go to war, and not support the troops with additional funding. Now that the nation as a whole is against the war, Kerry is changing his mind about it? Smooth.

[/quote]

He goes with whatever is going to get him elected. He says whatever he thinks will get him in the Oval Office. He votes for something, then decides to vote against it. He seems to have no convictions. He won't decide. He votes Yes to war, then No to fund the troops. He votes Yes for the Patriot Act, then No to the Patriot Act. Kerry changes his mind on everything. He is a brave war hero one day, then a anti-war lackey the next.[/quote]

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73868 date=1091542441]
The fact of the matter is, Iraq was persuing a chemical weapons program, Iraq was persuing a nuclear weapons program, and the Iraqi government was brutally toturing and murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people because their Muslim belief was a fraction of a percent off of his own. His murder of his own people is not disputed. This alone would give the United States just cause to step in and stop him and if you don't believe that, then it just goes to show you are more concerned with your own self-preservation and that you have no ethical and moral fortitude.
[/quote]

You're going to give us a lecure on american "ethical and moral fortitude" after your nation's history? Gimme a break. It's America that armed Iraq in the first place. America does what suits America, just like everyone else does what's best for them, and if you can't see that then you're totally naive. By the way, religious belief was never an issue in Iraq, like I said, Saddam spent years eradicating fundamentalism, not being a fundamentalist himself. Thanks for reading my post.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73867 date=1091542366]
You support Kerry's decisions on the war? His decision was to go to war, and not support the troops with additional funding. Now that the nation as a whole is against the war, Kerry is changing his mind about it? Smooth.
[/quote]

Why do people rail on about this as an example of kerry being bad? It makes perfect sense. He supported the war along with the rest of congress when he had been told there was a clear threat, and so he voted in favour of it. Then, after it came out that he'd been misled and that most of the reasons for war were exaggerated or fabricated, he voted against prolonging it. Simple.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73870 date=1091542906]

The terrorist attacks were obviously being planned during the Clinton era, such an attack was admittedly not pulled off between Nov. 2 of 2000 when all the terrorirists were sitting in a cave watching CNN and commited on Sept. 11 of 2001. The planning must have taken several years. Where was all of this guys intelligence? The slacking in intelligence didn't just start when Bush took office, it was years of mistakes made under PRESIDENT CLINTON. There were no wars while Clinton was in congress because he was a patsy who wasn't willing to make the tough decisions to get involved in a major armed conflict, but lets not forget that he sent us into some sticky situations too that were politically unpopular.
[/quote]

Sure, Clinton may have made mistakes, but that's not relevant. He's not the president now, and he's not a candidate. There can be no denying that if by your standard Clinton mde mistakes, that Bush has also made mistakes. Personally, I think Bush made more. Clinton had frequent briefings on terrorisrm, and it was Clinton that broadened the NSC's pervue to include domestic terrorisrm arising from foriegn threats. Bush, however, did not continue this policy, expressing frustration at having to deal with what he called 'swatting flies'. Indeed, Richard Clarke, the chair of the NSC's counterterrorism and security group, tried to arrange a meeting to discuss the threat of terrorism with the administration and was refused. No such meeting was held until 9/4/01... just a tad late:

From the 9/11 commission hearings:
[quote]
Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues and
was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al
Qaeda was a “first order threat” and not a routine problem being exaggerated by “chicken little”
alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001.
[/quote]

By the by, I think calling someone a patsy for not starting an uneccessary war is highly distasteful. There was no cause for Clinton to go to war. There still isn't. I think Clinton managed to keep the peace for 8 years, through a policy of diplomacy and the measured use of force, and I think that's quite an accomplishment. War is hell. War is horrible. Killing people is horrible. War is a last resort. Why are you so keen on a violent solution?

I guess you're right. I mean, after all, Hussein only killed his own people. Its none of our business right?

It's our business to talk to people who's behaviour we disagree with. It's our business to use our economic and diplomatic strength to put pressure on people who's behaviour we disapprove of. And yes, it can be our business to use our military strength to intervene in situations which are beyond what we can tolerate, but only if that is our stated goal. If Blair and Bush had said they were invading Iraq to topple Saddam because of his human rights record, I might have supported it. But they haven't. They spewed a load of nonsense about WMD and lied to us all, intentionally or otherwise. Only when it became apparent that no WMD were present did they start talking about the humanitarian angle all the time. It's total, total hypocrisy.

To go to war falaciously and and then claim you're a humanist is an amoral, licentious outrage.

So...it's OK to mock Bush with 'daddy' comments, and "highly distasteful" to call Clinton a patsy? Talk about "total, total hypocrisy".

Sure, you may have some valid points (humanitarian one), but you're a screaming liberal who has double standards and will never accept any facts that could possibly be contrary to your own.

What's a 'daddy' comment? Please also point out my double standards.

I'm not mocking bush, I'm pointing out my reasons for thinking he shouldn't be re-elected.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73867 date=1091542366]
The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.
[/quote]

This was too good to pass up. It sounds to me like you're buying into a lot of right-wing propoganda about why they messed up the economy this badly. Historically, in any other war, the economy THRIVES. How do you think we got out of the Great Depression? A war economy. It's not war that takes a budget surplus (the first time we've had one in 40-some years, thank you, Clinton) and turns it into the largest deficit ever (thank you, Bush). It's a testament to just how poor a job Bush has done with this country. Even without digressing into the conspiracy theories about why Bush dragged us into this war, it's plain enough to see that pre-Bush, the U.S. was doing pretty damn well economically, and during-Bush, it's plain to see that things suck. You can try to blame it on all of the factors you want, like people being afraid to spend money (*cough* BS *cough*), but the fact remains that as president (and with a Republican congress, as you like to bring up), if he had any political skill, he should have been able to enact policies and legislation to stop, or at least help, some of these problems.

Lastly, I just have to address the crap you and Hazard have been spewing regarding Clinton. Yes, he lied about an affair (Oh my gosh, that's so totally un-American that a fair percentage of our morally upright population does it anyway). Regardless, explain how that has anything to do with his ability to run a country. (And if you even come close to saying, "If he'd lie about his private life, then he'd lie about politics." then you don't deserve to be a part of this argument.) As far as Clinton goes, I think that history will look back and rank his abilities as president among the best we've ever had.

omg! Why do I feel like I have posted twice and do not see it now?

I know I have started responding to this thread twice, both times at work. I am relatively certain that I finished responding, at least once.

Where are my posts?? :o

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73882 date=1091551622]
It sounds to me like you're buying into a lot of right-wing propoganda about why they messed up the economy this badly.[/quote]

Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.

[quote author=Myndfyre link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73901 date=1091555786]
omg! Why do I feel like I have posted twice and do not see it now?

I know I have started responding to this thread twice, both times at work. I am relatively certain that I finished responding, at least once.

Where are my posts?? :o
[/quote]

Did someone delete them? I've not changed anything in this thread (even Hazard's broken quote tag :P)

I noticed that too, a couple times here and once at clan-e1.net's forum. Perhaps it's a YaBB bug?

[quote author=Snake link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73866 date=1091541868]
Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our economy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.
The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's decsions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these it upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
[/quote] ok, its called a tax bracket. The rich pay a higher percent in tax because they have a lofty income. Because of this they get a higher percent back. But I suppose you would give all the cash out as welfare, the people who pay the least in taxes should get the highest percent? The tax cuts make perfect sence. Here learn about how taxes work: http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73864 date=1091540945]
[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73862 date=1091540310]
Saddam still was in violation. They had al sammoud 2 (sp?) missiles. They were also fireing off skuds when we first invaded. Why have a delivery system without a war head? He had a means to put crap into surrounding countries, and that did not alarm anyone? If he had balls to he could have done some real damage in tel aviv.

I read somewhere that under saddam terrorist camps operated openly in north iraq, that couldn't happen without it being sponsored. Nothing really went down in iraq without saddam knowing.
[/quote]

A warhead isn't necessarily a WMD warhead... and a missile which slightly exceeds the allowed range is hardly grounds for war either - especially since they immediately destroyed those missiles with the UN's supervision when we called them on it.

That stuff about training camps in Iraq is BS. Dunno where you read it, but it's just plain wrong. You may perhaps have been reading about camps in the Kurdish controlled territory (which is in the north of Iraq), but those camps were used to train the Kurdish militia who fought both against saddam and with coalition forces during the initial invasion. Either way, invading Iraq because of camps in the kurdish territory would make no sense - no one has ever claimed that was a reason for war, anyway.
[/quote]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://query.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9B01EED81E39F93BA35752C1A9679C8B63 <-- the most liberal paper in the country says that it was going on. Last time I checked this was a war against terrorism was it not? He was clearly supporting terrorism, even if its directed at israel, our ally, and not us, its still terrorism. Why would we not support out ally anyway? How can you not think that is cause for war?

Ok so saddam being able, and clearly willing to put missiles in a country we are allies with is hardly a cause for concern? WMD warhead or not, he can still do damage with those things. He could easily have WMD wareheads. As I said before, we found shells with sarin gas on insurgents inside of iraq. It was not covered heavily, because it was not a huge stock pile, but none the less there was sarin found in those shells. If they could get their hands on it, saddam could have easily had it, and probably did have it.

No he did not destroy the missiles immediatly because he still had skuds, we didn't find them, we saw him launch them when the war started. A skud is a ballistic missile as you know (not icbm), certainly it has a ranger over the UN limit.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73902 date=1091555911]
Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.
[/quote]

I don't need any media to tell me that the economy sucks now and that it didn't before Bush took office. Anyone who lives even remotely close to a city is affected by this.

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73882 date=1091551622]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73867 date=1091542366]
The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.
[/quote]
Lastly, I just have to address the crap you and Hazard have been spewing regarding Clinton. Yes, he lied about an affair (Oh my gosh, that's so totally un-American that a fair percentage of our morally upright population does it anyway). Regardless, explain how that has anything to do with his ability to run a country. (And if you even come close to saying, "If he'd lie about his private life, then he'd lie about politics." then you don't deserve to be a part of this argument.) As far as Clinton goes, I think that history will look back and rank his abilities as president among the best we've ever had.
[/quote] He was the president not an average citizen. He should be held to a higher standard. The man was an embarrassment to our country.

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73914 date=1091559740]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73902 date=1091555911]
Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.
[/quote]

I don't need any media to tell me that the economy sucks now and that it didn't before Bush took office. Anyone who lives even remotely close to a city is affected by this.
[/quote] thats why the economy is robust right now. You have been listening to too much NPR, try to find dark spots in everything that happens during an administration that does not share their views.
http://www.news-register.net/edit/story/083202004_edtiedit2.asp

As far as I'm concerened, the best way to describe Bush vs. Kerry is "Same shit, different asshole". They're both worthless.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73916 date=1091559928]
thats why the economy is robust right now. You have been listening to too much NPR, try to find dark spots in everything that happens during an administration that does not share their views.
[/quote]

What? Our economy is not "robust" by any means right now... Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it's doing so well?

[quote]
He was the president not an average citizen. He should be held to a higher standard. The man was an embarrassment to our country.
[/quote]

What you're suggesting is called "HYPOCRISY". One individual is not morally better or worse than another by virtue of his occupation. On the other hand, they are worse based on their actions and practices. I find it a great deal more embarrassing that Bush snubbed the UN than that Clinton engaged in extramartial sex and then lied about it.

Edit: By the way, could you possibly pick a more biased news source? That one wasn't frothing with enough Republican propoganda. ;)

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73921 date=1091560509]
[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73916 date=1091559928]
thats why the economy is robust right now. You have been listening to too much NPR, try to find dark spots in everything that happens during an administration that does not share their views.
[/quote]

What? Our economy is not "robust" by any means right now... Perhaps you'd like to explain exactly how it's doing so well?

[quote]
He was the president not an average citizen. He should be held to a higher standard. The man was an embarrassment to our country.
[/quote]

What you're suggesting is called "HYPOCRISY". One individual is not morally better or worse than another by virtue of his occupation. On the other hand, they are worse based on their actions and practices. I find it a great deal more embarrassing that Bush snubbed the UN than that Clinton engaged in extramartial sex and then lied about it.

Edit: By the way, could you possibly pick a more biased news source? That one wasn't frothing with enough Republican propoganda. ;)
[/quote] A more biased news source eh? I have posted articles from all over lol. A few posts up I posted an article in the new york times even. So one article says something contrary to what you want to hear, its automatically some right wing propoganda? Give me a break.

What do you think of oil for food? The un was corrupt and was not going anywhere. France and Germany being in bed with Iraq certainly gives them some incentive to look the other way. What I am suggesting with clinton is not hypocrisy. Thinking that the president should uphold a basic moral standard, how is that hypocrisy? You think its okay for the president to blatenly lie to the american people while under oath? The president does not have the right the same right to privacy that we do. Hes a public figure. All of that stuff goes out the window. Its just like the paparazzi with our movie stars.

Our economy is very robust right now. Employment is a lagging indictator, and employment has been up, so the economy has been on the up swing for quite some time.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73922 date=1091560912]Our economy is very robust right now. Employment is a lagging indictator, and employment has been up, so the economy has been on the up swing for quite some time.[/quote]

OK, I will accept your conclusion if you will prove your premise. show me that "employment has been on the up swing for quite some time". Now since you are a reasonable person and can accept, and admit, the rare occasion where you might be wrong, if the data shows employment is not on the upswing, you will admit that employment does not support the economy being on the up swing?

In the last 9 months 1.4 million new jobs have been created. Hows that for an upswing?

Employment is a lagging indicator of weather we are in or out of a recession. It is often used to guage the economy. Employment is up and this shows that the economy is rather healthy at this point. Bush did not drive the economy down. It was on its way down under clinton, it could not sustain its growth and was moving downward. Then when 9/11 hit, the economy went into a death spiral. The tax cuts would have helped this, but unfortunatly they were stalled in congress for a year and a half, and cut down to an extent thast they were less effective then they could have been. Finally, where we are now, the econmy is back in an up swing and back in gear. Emplyment may not be up from where it was under clinton. Yes we have lost jobs since that point, but over the past while, we have been gaining jobs. Bush has been creating many new jobs, especially in the services.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20030521.shtml <-- older article, but it talks about how the economy was already headed down hill before bush was in office.

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73882 date=1091551622]
This was too good to pass up. It sounds to me like you're buying into a lot of right-wing propoganda about why they messed up the economy this badly. [/quote]

Why do you automatically assume I listen to right week propaganda? In fact, the majority of my information comes from liberal media stations such as CNN. So, sadly, your assumption is incorrect and the majority of information is stuff I've applied from Government class and from information I hear from the left.

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73882 date=1091551622] Historically, in any other war, the economy THRIVES. How do you think we got out of the Great Depression? A war economy. It's not war that takes a budget surplus (the first time we've had one in 40-some years, thank you, Clinton) and turns it into the largest deficit ever (thank you, Bush).[/quote]

So, you're denying the fact that 9/11 had any effect on the state of the economy?

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73882 date=1091551622]You can try to blame it on all of the factors you want, like people being afraid to spend money (*cough* BS *cough*)[/quote]

Obviously you didn't watch financial news which stated this. That's one of the reasons why the economy started to fall, people weren't buying high priced items such as cars as much as they were before.

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73882 date=1091551622]Yes, he lied about an affair (Oh my gosh, that's so totally un-American that a fair percentage of our morally upright population does it anyway).
Regardless, explain how that has anything to do with his ability to run a country. (And if you even come close to saying, "If he'd lie about his private life, then he'd lie about politics." then you don't deserve to be a part of this argument.) As far as Clinton goes, I think that history will look back and rank his abilities as president among the best we've ever had.
[/quote]

The President is a lot different than a normal person, people perceive American partly based on the president. It's a whole different story if a President has an affair versus some guy in Kentucky who works at Burger King.

---

President Clinton didn't go to war? (That quote isn't in Topic Summary :P)

What about Bosnia? He attacked them without UN consent, yet Bosnia never attacked us. Clinton had a chance to capture Osama thanks to Sudan three times, he did nothing.

On the other hand, Bush has liberated two countries, cripled Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, peacefully sent nuclear weapons inspectors to Korea, Lybia, and Iran. He caught Saddam who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. He caught many of the high profile terrorist leaders, and kept home security high enough to not allow another terroist attack back home.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73880 date=1091547576]
What's a 'daddy' comment? Please also point out my double standards.

I'm not mocking bush, I'm pointing out my reasons for thinking he shouldn't be re-elected.
[/quote]

"you" as in hardcore liberals.

[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73914 date=1091559740]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73902 date=1091555911]
Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.
[/quote]

I don't need any media to tell me that the economy sucks now and that it didn't before Bush took office. Anyone who lives even remotely close to a city is affected by this.
[/quote]

I live just outside a city, and I'm not affected by this.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=90#msg73960 date=1091574217]
[quote author=TehUser link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73914 date=1091559740]
[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=75#msg73902 date=1091555911]
Sounds to me like you're believing everything you see in the liberal media.
[/quote]

I don't need any media to tell me that the economy sucks now and that it didn't before Bush took office. Anyone who lives even remotely close to a city is affected by this.
[/quote]

I live just outside a city, and I'm not affected by this.
[/quote]

I live in a large, highly liberal, military city. I'm not affected by this either.

If anything the job market in this town is better then it was a year or two ago. I know a lot of computer programmers in this town, they work for companies like bombardier, csx, modis, and so on. They do the business software, server aps, web sites, and all that those big companies require. You can still easily get a job in the tech industry even if some large companies out sourced to india. Just my $0.02 on employment, in my area atleast.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73870 date=1091542906]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73867 date=1091542366]
[quote author=Snake link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73866 date=1091541868]Tax cuts for the wealthy must be nice too. I'd vote for Bush too if he made my life nice by making it harder on the other 98% of america.
Atleast when another democrat was in the office our econimy was doing very well, compared to now when it's doing horrible.[/quote]

The Democrat was too busy screwing office staff. During the Democrats time in office the country didn't have a humungous terrorist attack that dampend our financial stability and sent us into a repression because people were scared to spend money. During the Democrats time in office there also wasn't an expensive war/country rebuild going. Sure, Clinton lowered the national deficit, but there was a Republican Congress when that happened.[/quote]

Yes, lets trust the man that can blatantly lie to his wife with a straight face about his promiscuity. Twice. That we know of.

The terrorist attacks were obviously being planned during the Clinton era, such an attack was admittedly not pulled off between Nov. 2 of 2000 when all the terrorirists were sitting in a cave watching CNN and commited on Sept. 11 of 2001. The planning must have taken several years. Where was all of this guys intelligence? The slacking in intelligence didn't just start when Bush took office, it was years of mistakes made under PRESIDENT CLINTON. There were no wars while Clinton was in congress because he was a patsy who wasn't willing to make the tough decisions to get involved in a major armed conflict, but lets not forget that he sent us into some sticky situations too that were politically unpopular. Also, study some economic charts pre-dating the Bush entrance into the White House, which is where all the Dems point and scream the downhill slope begins. It actually begins near the END of the CLINTON term. You might also consider that those few wealthy still pay the vast, vast, majority of taxes and everyone recieved a tax cut, it lumps to a larger sum the more wealthy you are.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73867 date=1091542366]
[quote author=Snake link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=60#msg73866 date=1091541868]
[quote]The issues aren't all about the war. And the part that is, I support kerry's desions to pull out of a war we shouldn't even be in. Just because we start problems and force these problems upon ourselves, doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
[/quote]

You support Kerry's decisions on the war? His decision was to go to war, and not support the troops with additional funding. Now that the nation as a whole is against the war, Kerry is changing his mind about it? Smooth.

[/quote]

He goes with whatever is going to get him elected. He says whatever he thinks will get him in the Oval Office. He votes for something, then decides to vote against it. He seems to have no convictions. He won't decide. He votes Yes to war, then No to fund the troops. He votes Yes for the Patriot Act, then No to the Patriot Act. Kerry changes his mind on everything. He is a brave war hero one day, then a anti-war lackey the next.[/quote]
[/quote]

His personal life never effected the nation.
Facts are facts, the econimy was doing very well and when bush went into office, it just dropped sharply, there is hardcore proof of this. The wealthy got wealthier during the time also, kinda nice huh?

Yeah let's totally forget about the Republican Congress too.

Snake, look at any graph showing trends from 1998-2004. You will see that the economy began its recession during the second Clinton term before Bush was ever elected, and that it is now on the upswing.

[quote author=Hazard link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=90#msg74007 date=1091591798]
Snake, look at any graph showing trends from 1998-2004. You will see that the economy began its recession during the second Clinton term before Bush was ever elected, and that it is now on the upswing.
[/quote] I posted this article about it earlier in the thread infact.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/lc20030521.shtml
The economy had grown too quickly under clinton, and could not sustain it and started to down slope. Then when 9/11 hit it went into a death spiral. The bush tax cuts would hav alleviated it, but then they were held up in congress for a year and a half.

[quote]His personal life never effected the nation.[/quote]

You should watch the news more.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=90#msg74020 date=1091597211]
[quote]His personal life never effected the nation.[/quote]

You should watch the news more.
[/quote] his personally life was an embarrasment to the nation. What do you think the rest of the world was thinking? Plus if the president does not follow the law, what message does that conveigh? When I say he broke the law, I mean the whole lieing under oath thing. Thats why he was impeached, not because he made it with a chubby chick out of wed lock.

How did his personal life affect the way the nation is ran?

Everytime there is a presidential scandal the nation has less trust in government. For example, the trust in government dropped temendously after Watergate.

I wouldn't mind seeing the American people exercise the 2nd Amendment (sp?) and take up arms against their government.

Go Militias!

Sorry, I am not a bush-supported, but I will still post my anti-bush shpeal

First off, I live in a city where the bad economy is felt. A place where my city pays ALL OF THE TAXES for the rest of the state, because of the republican legislature. They bleed the city for all the tax money it has. I see more people begging on the subway trying to sell stuff than I have in a long while.

The whole terrorism issue is fabricated.
It is just used as a pork barrel in order to give away money.
For example:
Wyoming the state, gets $31 per person to help fight terrorism.
New York gets $5 per person.
How does that make sense? Bush promised New York City 200 billion dollars to help rebuild.
We are yet to see any of that money. The current administration wants us to live in fear and uses the terrorist attacks as an excuse to suspend our constitutional rights and pass reactionary legislation through congress (example: Patriot Act).

Some other issues that Bush is bad on besides terrorism.
The economy: wasted a several trillion dollar surplus raised by Clinton. Gives tax cuts to the upper class and has the entire tax burden of this country on the middle class workers.
Environment: Passed the "Forest Destruction Act" nuff said
Iraq: Goes to war in Iraq on nonexistent intelligence, has no logical exit plan and wastes American's lives.
Abortion: Let people decided what they want to do.
Morals: I dont like the fact that they are born again Christians. Aka they cant wait till Jesus comes back and rids the world of all non-WASPs. Sounds great, sign me up. Keep your religion out of government policy (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.).

I was riding the subway the other, and normally I see these adds that say "If you see something, say something" and show a picture of an unattended package. This day, I saw one that say "Junk mail or HATE MAIL?" and showed a postal package in a seat. Then underneath that, someone wrote "or police state? 1984," which made me crack up. Kind of makes you think about the current administration.

PS. Bush broke the law much more than Clinton did. Clinton lied under oath, Bush was arrested twice for DWI and arrested for cocaine possession (I believe).

[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74059 date=1091631234]
The whole terrorism issue is fabricated.
It is just used as a pork barrel in order to give away money.
[/quote]

Riiiiiight. Since this goes into Bush's pocket, right?

[quote]
The current administration wants us to live in fear and uses the terrorist attacks as an excuse to suspend our constitutional rights and pass reactionary legislation through congress (example: Patriot Act).
[/quote]

So...Bush is going to seize control and become a dictator? Please.

[quote]
The economy: wasted a several trillion dollar surplus raised by Clinton. Gives tax cuts to the upper class and has the entire tax burden of this country on the middle class workers.
[/quote]

If by several trillion, you mean $123 billion, then yeah he used it...but he also had a little thing called Sept 11 happen. I think somone has been exaggerating a bit.

[quote]
Environment: Passed the "Forest Destruction Act" nuff said
[/quote]

Yep, you're right, and that's why I'm not a 100% Bush supporter.

[quote]
Iraq: Goes to war in Iraq on nonexistent intelligence, has no logical exit plan and wastes American's lives.
[/quote]

No reason to argue this as it's been shown countless times before in this thread that it was the fault of the faulty intelligence, and any reasonable leader would act on it the same way.

[quote]
Abortion: Let people decided what they want to do.
[/quote]

?

[quote]
Morals: I dont like the fact that they are born again Christians. Aka they cant wait till Jesus comes back and rids the world of all non-WASPs. Sounds great, sign me up. Keep your religion out of government policy (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.).
[/quote]

Aka, you're anti-Christian. Those damn Christians! Since they are the dominant religion in the US, they must suck, right!? I mean, Michael Moore told me they do, and he's funny, so he must be right.

He's not fucking anti-anything. Anti-gay marriage is good because it preserves an integral part of American culture. I do believe in civil unions; gay people should have equal rights with everyone else.

He has kept his religion out of policy. The whole Christian thing is overblown and DOES NOT MATTER. JUST because Islam is producing shitloads of terrorists doesn't mean we're targetting Islamic countries because they're Islamic. And what's with Bush supporting Israel, land of the Jews, the people he supposedly hates?

[quote]
PS. Bush broke the law much more than Clinton did. Clinton lied under oath, Bush was arrested twice for DWI and arrested for cocaine possession (I believe).
[/quote]

Not while he was president.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=90#msg73999 date=1091590314]
Yeah let's totally forget about the Republican Congress too.
[/quote]

And that whole "September 11th" thing - but that didn't have any sort of major impact on the economy. Not at all.

[quote]Iraq: Goes to war in Iraq on nonexistent intelligence, has no logical exit plan and wastes American's lives. [/quote]

Oh please. For the left to be so peace loving, I'm surpirsed that you guys don't support the removal of somebody who killed 300,000 of his own people.

[quote]Morals: I dont like the fact that they are born again Christians. Aka they cant wait till Jesus comes back and rids the world of all non-WASPs. Sounds great, sign me up. Keep your religion out of government policy (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.). [/quote]

This country and it's government was founded on religion, why keep any or all religion out of the government?

[quote]Bush broke the law much more than Clinton did. Clinton lied under oath, Bush was arrested twice for DWI and arrested for cocaine possession (I believe). [/quote]

That's irrelevant. He wasn't arrested for anything while in office, but William "I didn't inhale" Clinton, did break the law while in office.

dark, do you want there to be a surplus? A surplus means the government is holding onto money and you are not seeing it. Surplus is not good or bad, it is just money that is not in circualtion. A surplus slows the economy because it ties up funds. A deficit stimulates the economy because more funds are in the hands of the people. f we still had a clinton surplus I would be worried, it would really mean you are not getting your money. Also dark, its called a tax braket. Why does everyone think, "oh the tax cuts are only helping the rich"? I mean we have a tax braket. The more taxes you pay, the more money you got back. The rich have the highest income, they pay the highest income tax, they get the most money back. It makes perfect sence.

[quote]
If by several trillion, you mean $123 billion, then yeah he used it...but he also had a little thing called Sept 11 happen. I think somone has been exaggerating a bit.
[/quote]
Actually, most of the money was wasted to the tax cuts he put into effect. New York City never recieved any of the money promised to us by Bush.

[quote]
This country and it's government was founded on religion, why keep any or all religion out of the government?
[/quote]
That is not true at all. Our founding fathers went out of the ir way in order to not give the church from any power in our government "Seperation of Church and State." How is our government based on religion?

[quote]
Also dark, its called a tax braket. Why does everyone think, "oh the tax cuts are only helping the rich"? I mean we have a tax braket. The more taxes you pay, the more money you got back. The rich have the highest income, they pay the highest income tax, they get the most money back. It makes perfect sence.
[/quote]
I dont know what referring to people of a certain income as a tax bracket adds to your arguement, but whatever makes you happy.
[quote] I mean we have a tax braket [/quote]
Yes we do. We have many of them.
How does it make sense to give money back to the ritchest people in the country? It doesnt make "perfect sense" when we give tax cuts that ONLY benefits the wealthiest people in America. As Bill Clinton said in his speech, he didnt want the money back. He doesnt need it. He would rather it be spent in a productive manner.

[quote]
Aka, you're anti-Christian. Those damn Christians! Since they are the dominant religion in the US, they must suck, right!? I mean, Michael Moore told me they do, and he's funny, so he must be right.

He's not fucking anti-anything. Anti-gay marriage is good because it preserves an integral part of American culture. I do believe in civil unions; gay people should have equal rights with everyone else.

He has kept his religion out of policy. The whole Christian thing is overblown and DOES NOT MATTER. JUST because Islam is producing shitloads of terrorists doesn't mean we're targetting Islamic countries because they're Islamic. And what's with Bush supporting Israel, land of the Jews, the people he supposedly hates
[/quote]
I am not anti-christian, I just feel that a seperation between church and state should be preserved. Bush should not be legislate basted on his religions morals. How can you say that he kept religion out of his policy? Being Anti-Abortion and Anti-Gay Marriage is entirely a religious issue. And Anti-Stem cell research? THat makes no sense, besides it goes againts his religion. Stem cell research will save lives, but he stopped it. How is that keeping his religion out of policy?

So many jews support Bush because he is strong on Israel. I did a little research and discovered that Bush wants a strong Israel, because that is where Christ is going to come back to earth.... Sounds kind of stupid but he believes it. And when Christ comes back to earth, he will rid the world of all non-protestants aka jews. He isnt supporting the jews, just his own religion. And all these bitchy jewish princesses love bush for it. Ashcroft is an anti-semite as well.

The US was not founded on religion! It was founded by religious people who knew damn well that religion had no place in government. I think that the application of a leader's religious principles in the way he or she conducts their secular activities will always be a thorny issue. For example, I'd have no objection to a religious president using their faith to guide their decisions, but I'd have a big objection to passing legislation that forces other people to conform to their leader's religious principles: EG, abortion, gay marriage.

I think using a surplus to finance tax cuts is populist and short-sighted, and actually pretty reprehensible when you consider the number of american programs that really need more funding: eg schools, medicare, social security. That said, US government spending is pretty stupid to begin with. Far too much money spent on guns and bombs and far too little spent curing disease and educating children.

I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults. As for not supporting the removal of Saddam, I do, and always have - by diplomatic means. Sure, it would have taken a lot longer, but it would have worked in the end.

[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74076 date=1091641303]

That is not true at all. Our founding fathers went out of the ir way in order to not give the church from any power in our government "Seperation of Church and State." How is our government based on religion?

[/quote]can you find separation of church and state in the constitution? It isnt. The estabilishment clause basically says congress cant help or hurt a religion and we should not get entabgled (we should not make a specific church dependent on the governement).

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74078 date=1091641665]
I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults.
[/quote] Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74080 date=1091641922]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74078 date=1091641665]
I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults.
[/quote] Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?
[/quote]

I agree that the lying was bad. I don't agree that it was any of our business to ask him about it in the first place.

Look, you get back what you paid in dark. The tax cuts help everyone equally because it is a % back of what you paid in. How would you do it? Give all the money back to the lowest bracket? Its called welfare and that would not the economy any or help any of the other income brackets.

[quote]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[/quote]

[quote]
Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?
[/quote]
How much money did we spend investigating that? What a good way to spend our tax dollars.
I personally have no problem with the fact that he had sex in the oval office and lied about it. What a PIMP. I wish that I can grow up to fuck a chick in the oval office.

[quote]
Look, you get back what you paid in dark. The tax cuts help everyone equally because it is a % back of what you paid in. How would you do it? Give all the money back to the lowest bracket? Its called welfare and that would not the economy any or help any of the other income brackets.
[/quote]
I wouldnt give any money back. I would just cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and keep the amount that the upper class pays the same.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74082 date=1091642125]
[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74080 date=1091641922]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74078 date=1091641665]
I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed by Clinton's sexual conduct, except perhaps if you were his close friend or a family member. Sex scandals are almost always irrelevant, assuming they involve consenting adults.
[/quote] Its the fact that he did it in the oval office and that he lied about it, under oath to everyone. You do not find anything wrong with that? Nothing at all?
[/quote]

I agree that the lying was bad. I don't agree that it was any of our business to ask him about it in the first place.
[/quote] even when it is going on in the oval office? He is a public figure, he looses privacy. Its just like the movie stars with the paparazzi.

[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74084 date=1091642165]
I wish that I can grow up to fuck a chick in the oval office.
[/quote] and ebmarrase our nation? I sure hope you never run for president ::)

[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74084 date=1091642165]
I wouldnt give any money back. I would just cut taxes for the middle and lower classes and keep the amount that the upper class pays the same.
[/quote] Their tax rate is low enough! The rich are the ones with the high tax bracket. The lowest bracket is paying practically nothing. What you are proposing would not help the economy any.

Who cares what he does in the oval office? Would it have been better if she fellated him in the Roosevelt room?

What you fail to understand, is that once you are ritch enough in our country. You dont have to pay taxes anymore. There are hundreds of ways around it. A great deal of extremely wealthy people dont pay a dime in taxes. When you are in the upper middle class or below, you are the ones paying all of the taxes for the country.

*A NOTE* Nobody is impeaching bush because he lied to get us into the war in Iraq. I would think that is a little more important than Clinton getting head from a fat chick.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74078 date=1091641665]The US was not founded on religion! [/quote]

Yes it was. Look at many of the laws, they were based on principals from the 10 commandments. Thomas Jefferson went through great efforts to ensure churches were around. Even if the government wasn't founded on one particular religion, religion still played a major role in the formation of the country.

Seperation of Church and State only applies when the Establishment Clause is breached, which hasn't been done during Bush's presidency as far as I know.

[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74092 date=1091642547]
*A NOTE* Nobody is impeaching bush because he lied to get us into the war in Iraq. I would think that is a little more important than Clinton getting head from a fat chick.
[/quote]
Bush acted on the information provided by the CIA, which were false, so how could it be his fault? Wouldn't it be the CIA at fault?

[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74092 date=1091642547]
What you fail to understand, is that once you are ritch enough in our country. You dont have to pay taxes anymore. There are hundreds of ways around it. A great deal of extremely wealthy people dont pay a dime in taxes. When you are in the upper middle class or below, you are the ones paying all of the taxes for the country.
[/quote] so writing off a business expence is a mysterious loop hole? Look show me where you got information about rich people not paying a dime of taxes. That sounds pretty darned bogus to me. Then how would the tax cuts favor the rich if they did not pay them to begin with? How come the tax cuts are helping our economy if the rich do not pay taxes? The rich do pay national income tax, because they have large taxeable incomes. Being able to set asside money in some types of non-taxeable accounts is a right to everyone, and the rich cannot use it to keep all of their income from being taxed. Giving away to charity allows people to get a tax deduction. But wait if a rich person gives everything to charity... then that means he will not have to pay taxes, humm.

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74097 date=1091643599]
[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74092 date=1091642547]
*A NOTE* Nobody is impeaching bush because he lied to get us into the war in Iraq. I would think that is a little more important than Clinton getting head from a fat chick.
[/quote]
Bush acted on the information provided by the CIA, which were false, so how could it be his fault? Wouldn't it be the CIA at fault?
[/quote] another note ont hat, bush was not under oath either, and he was not blatently lieing to the people.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=105#msg74078 date=1091641665]
I think that the application of a leader's religious principles in the way he or she conducts their secular activities will always be a thorny issue. For example, I'd have no objection to a religious president using their faith to guide their decisions, but I'd have a big objection to passing legislation that forces other people to conform to their leader's religious principles: EG, abortion, gay marriage.
[/quote]
That's almost exactly how I feel. You don't decisions without consulting your morals and beliefs, so keeping religion out of government is impossible.

[quote]
So many jews support Bush because he is strong on Israel. I did a little research and discovered that Bush wants a strong Israel, because that is where Christ is going to come back to earth.... Sounds kind of stupid but he believes it. And when Christ comes back to earth, he will rid the world of all non-protestants aka jews. He isnt supporting the jews, just his own religion. And all these bitchy jewish princesses love bush for it. Ashcroft is an anti-semite as well.
[/quote]

Feanor, you better provide some facts with that, because as I see it that's outrageous and totally bullshit.

Kerry is moving to tax the upper middle class HARD.

[quote]
Yes it was. Look at many of the laws, they were based on principals from the 10 commandments. Thomas Jefferson went through great efforts to ensure churches were around. Even if the government wasn't founded on one particular religion, religion still played a major role in the formation of the country.
[/quote]

Not to mention that, if a non-crazy person read them, the ten commandments are actually a Good Thing.

Bush is supporting Israel because they are our only solid ally in the Middle Eastern region. Plus, they're cool. ;)

[quote author=Stealth link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74132 date=1091675906]
Bush is supporting Israel because they are our only solid ally in the Middle Eastern region. Plus, they're cool. ;)
[/quote]

Israel and America are two of the most liberal nations in the world. Israel is one of our stronger allies, Israels primary religion is Judism, Bush is a Nazi.

My, don't the liberals have a good argument? ;)

[quote author=Stealth link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74132 date=1091675906]
Bush is supporting Israel because they are our only solid ally in the Middle Eastern region. Plus, they're cool. ;)
[/quote]

Brown noser.

[quote author=DaRk-FeAnOr link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74092 date=1091642547]
What you fail to understand, is that once you are ritch enough in our country. You dont have to pay taxes anymore. There are hundreds of ways around it. A great deal of extremely wealthy people dont pay a dime in taxes. When you are in the upper middle class or below, you are the ones paying all of the taxes for the country.
[/quote]

I beg to differ. Allow me to rehash some data I used on StealthBot.net yesterday:

Who really pays our nation's taxes?

Top 1%, making $313,469 yearly or above, pay 36.7% of the country's taxes.
Top 5%, making $128,336 yearly or more, pay 56% of the country's taxes.
Top 10%, making $92,144 yearly or more, pay 67% of the country's taxes.
Top 25%, making $55,225 yearly or more, pay 84% of the country's taxes.
The top 50%, which includes everyone who makes more than $27,682 yearly, pays a staggering 96.1 percent of America's taxes.

The remaining 50%, those who make less than $27,682 yearly, weigh in at the remaining 3.9%.

What does this tell us? 50%, the rich and middle class people, are shouldering 96% of the country's tax burden. Everyone below them accounts for just 4% of the nation's tax revenue.

So among that 96%, the "middle class", which I would consider to be people who make less than (for argument's sake) $92,144 yearly, is paying the difference between 67 and 84%.

Let's break that down again:

Class / Percentage of taxes
50% OF PEOPLE: LOWER CLASS (< 27,682 yearly): 3.91% OF TAXES
40% OF PEOPLE: MIDDLE CLASS (27,682 - 92,144): 28.76% OF TAXES
10% OF PEOPLE: UPPER CLASS (>92,144 yearly): 67.33% OF TAXES

That seems like a damned fair distribution to me.

Stealth, congrats, you just owned everyone.

+1, if we still had karma.

Nice stealth. And the reason those lower classes even pay that much is because there are a ton of them. They do not pay a very high percent at all of their income if you actually bothered to look at the tax bracket links I posted before. Ill post it again for the hell of it
http://www.fairmark.com/begin/bracket.htm

[quote author=Stealth link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=120#msg74145 date=1091680295]

Class / Percentage of taxes
50% OF PEOPLE: LOWER CLASS (< 27,682 yearly): 3.91% OF TAXES
40% OF PEOPLE: MIDDLE CLASS (27,682 - 92,144): 28.76% OF TAXES
10% OF PEOPLE: UPPER CLASS (>92,144 yearly): 67.33% OF TAXES

That seems like a damned fair distribution to me.
[/quote] so lets ask again, who do you think deserves a tax break or cash back? The ones who pay the most correct? So why do you think the rich are getting the most money back? Because they payed in the most. Those who pay a higher percent on their income well get a higher percent of their income handed back to them then those who are paying a lesser percent because they have a lower income.

What the Republicans use is called trickle down economics, basically it's supposed to allow the rich to have more money and allow them to pass it down to thier employees and such in the lower tax brackets. It basically works on the honour system. So in theory it should work well, but it doesn't in reality because the wealthy usually don't increase wages for thier workers.. they keep the money.

The Democrats prefer another plan, one of which I forget the name of. This plan works on the theory of lessoning the burdon on the lower to middle income tax brackets and allowing them to have more spending power. This usually works very well because they are indeed the majority.

[quote author=Trance link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=135#msg74162 date=1091697892]So in theory it should work well, but it doesn't in reality because the wealthy usually don't increase wages for thier workers.. they keep the money.

The Democrats prefer another plan, one of which I forget the name of. This plan works on the theory of lessoning the burdon on the lower to middle income tax brackets and allowing them to have more spending power. This usually works very well because they are indeed the majority.


[/quote] Yeah so thats why reaganomics worked so well ::)

Ps: bushes tax cut is not trickle down economics. Its a tax cut for everyone with percents based on the tax bracket. It just so happens that the rich benefit the most $ wise because they pay the most.

The democrats are proposing hiking taxes on the middle class. Thats lessoning the burdon? You know lowering the taxes on one tax bracket is not going to do much anyway, the drop would need to be accross the board (like the bush cut).

When the rich got money they invest it. I find it hard to believe a rich guy would just leave his money in a bank where he would only loose money because of that because of taxes. The rich guy is going to invest it in the market, or build a factory or something. Idle money does not do that rich many any good.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=135#msg74183 date=1091724739]
The rich guy is going to invest it in the market, or build a factory or something. Idle money does not do that rich many any good.
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "idle" money collect interest?

Yes, it does, but it can grow much faster by investing it in something.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=135#msg74184 date=1091725064]
[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7987;start=135#msg74183 date=1091724739]
The rich guy is going to invest it in the market, or build a factory or something. Idle money does not do that rich many any good.
[/quote]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "idle" money collect interest?
[/quote] bank interest is practically nothing. Factor in inflation and it really is pathetic. http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/CurrentInflation.asp