Is President Bush Evil?

[Poopy]

What do you guys think?

[nightjarWI]

I don't think he is nearly as stupid as he is made out to be, but yeah, he is still pretty stupid.
War in Iraq = failure
No Child Left Behind Act = failure (I still can't do math)

[aminorthreat55]

I don't think he is nearly as stupid as he is made out to be, but yeah, he is still pretty stupid.
War in Iraq = failure
No Child Left Behind Act = failure (I still can't do math)

I agree. There are more failures but still, he could do a much better job than he currently is.

[LoyalSubject]

I don't think he is nearly as stupid as he is made out to be, but yeah, he is still pretty stupid.
War in Iraq = failure
No Child Left Behind Act = failure (I still can't do math)
That No Child Left Behind Act is basically the draft in disguise. If anyone uses those govt. funds they give your name, number, and address to every recruiter in the area. He is a smart guy believe it or not (even though I still think he's a moron), he just hasn't mastered the english language yet.

[Lueda Alia]

I think he's just a freakin puppet. He's too stupid to be running the country.

[juan_believes]

lets not say he's evil, hes just not as intelligent as the average stupid person

i say u need another option that says stupid

[AreYouReady]

That No Child Left Behind Act is basically the draft in disguise. If anyone uses those govt. funds they give your name, number, and address to every recruiter in the area. He is a smart guy believe it or not (even though I still think he's a moron), he just hasn't mastered the english language yet.
no he isn't smart, the country is being run by rumsfield and cheney, bush is a simple minded born again christian who has a great political advisor who knew that by appealing to simple minded americans through fear, the fact he never changes, attacking kerry's war record, and making up that kerry flip flop he won the election, he went right into iraq with rumsfiield cheney despite being told not to, he is killing the dollar through globalaztion, killing social security, making a crappy service econmy, and going agaisnt everything in history with his forgiegn policy, he doesn't listen to any science, and is generally a dumb, misguided, evil person

[aminorthreat55]

no he isn't smart, the country is being run by rumsfield and cheney, bush is a simple minded born again christian who has a great political advisor who knew that by appealing to simple minded americans through fear, the fact he never changes, attacking kerry's war record, and making up that kerry flip flop he won the election, he went right into iraq with rumsfiield cheney despite being told not to, he is killing the dollar through globalaztion, killing social security, making a crappy service econmy, and going agaisnt everything in history with his forgiegn policy, he doesn't listen to any science, and is generally a dumb, misguided, evil person
The reasons Kerry lost were this simple:
1. His campaign was lackluster at best.
2. Karl Rove said he could get four million new voters from the Christian Right, and he did.

There's the election.

[AreYouReady]

The reasons Kerry lost were this simple:
1. His campaign was lackluster at best.
2. Karl Rove said he could get four million new voters from the Christian Right, and he did.

There's the election.
yes his campaign was lackluster but if people were'nt so damn retarded he should of won, u have people from the right saying the econmy is bad im making less money, i dont think the war is going well voting for bush because he is a born again christian who is steadfast, i don't understand how ur life can be worse under bush and u vote for him again. and how the fuck r u undecided, its the left and its the right, fuck people are dumb

[when 4ever ends]

yes his campaign was lackluster but if people were'nt so damn retarded he should of won, u have people from the right saying the econmy is bad im making less money, i dont think the war is going well voting for bush because he is a born again christian who is steadfast, i don't understand how ur life can be worse under bush and u vote for him again. and how the fuck r u undecided, its the left and its the right, fuck people are dumb

beacause right now security is one of the big issues and when i watched the debates i thought bush was a lot stronger on security then kerry

[yeat182]

are the options "wrong" or "misguided" in reference to the person that created the poll?

[Lueda Alia]

beacause right now security is one of the big issues and when i watched the debates i thought bush was a lot stronger on security then kerry
you are joking right?

I cannot understand how ANYONE could vote for Bush after watching those debates. It's amazing.

[yeat182]

you are joking right?

I cannot understand how ANYONE could vote for Bush after watching those debates. It's amazing.

the beauty of you being canadian is that you don't have to understand, and we don't have to care.

[Lueda Alia]

the beauty of you being canadian is that you don't have to understand, and we don't have to care.
true, I can't quite understand how idiots think.

& the "we don't have to care" thing.... say that again when you beg for our help. and not only ours, but everyone's. it's definitely going to help.

[sleepygrlgreen]

you are joking right?

I cannot understand how ANYONE could vote for Bush after watching those debates. It's amazing.


It's really not that surprising. Bush appeals to the hoi polloi. Give Kerry an accept, a limited vocabulary, and a cowboy hat and he would have been our president right now.

[yeat182]

true, I can't quite understand how idiots think.

ooooo, burn.

& the "we don't have to care" thing.... say that again when you beg for our help. and not only ours, but everyone's. it's definitely going to help.

haha, yeah right. we are going to beg for canada's help.

[Lueda Alia]

haha, yeah right. we are going to beg for canada's help.
actually you are.


but seriously, continue with that attitude, it's going to get your country in good places. (not necessarily talking about you). and I'm not surprised you support such arrogant administration.

[yeat182]

actually you are.

actually, we aren't.


but seriously, continue with that attitude, it's going to get your country in good places. (not necessarily talking about you). and I'm not surprised you support such arrogant administration.

continue with your attitude and you'll be going to the prom by yourself.

[_astheruinfalls]

continue with your attitude and you'll be going to the prom by yourself.
Hahahah, I'm sorry Eda, but that was funny.

[when 4ever ends]

why do all the canidians hate bush so much, god damnit i hope canada gets atacked then they can come running to us

[AreYouReady]

beacause right now security is one of the big issues and when i watched the debates i thought bush was a lot stronger on security then kerry
did u listen to that debate at all, all bush has done was make a department that made a color chart to protect us, he has done nothing for security, he is the one that let 9/11 happen and the only reason it has happened again is it takes awhile to plan those things, your a dumbass


and while im not canadian i would like to add canada recently for the 8th straight year was said by the U.N. to be the best country to live in

[Lueda Alia]

why do all the canidians hate bush so much, god damnit i hope canada gets atacked then they can come running to us
Canidians? Who is that? :huh:

[Lueda Alia]

actually, we aren't.



you're not? weren't you the one who said we didn't necessarily have to send troops, just as long as we support you in other ways? seems like asking for help to me.

& Bush was here to kiss our asses so we could support you.


continue with your attitude and you'll be going to the prom by yourself.
you're the one who has done that already.

[dretti]

right

[Lueda Alia]

the one who really gives a shit about the troops.....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041219/wl_afp/usiraqmilitaryrumsfeld_041219075846 &e=4

[yeat182]

did u listen to that debate at all, all bush has done was make a department that made a color chart to protect us, he has done nothing for security, he is the one that let 9/11 happen and the only reason it has happened again is it takes awhile to plan those things, your a dumbass

why even write this post? there is almost no truth to anything you wrote, you must be a michael moore fan. first, the department of homeland security does much more than operate a colored chart. second, bush has done alot for our security. third, he didn't let 9/11 happen, it happned, and if you want to place blame on it, blame clinton, the attacks stem from his administrations lack of action regarding terrorism. who's the dumbass?


and while im not canadian i would like to add canada recently for the 8th straight year was said by the U.N. to be the best country to live in

oh, well, as long as the UN says its cool, then it must be....

[yeat182]

you're not? weren't you the one who said we didn't necessarily have to send troops, just as long as we support you in other ways? seems like asking for help to me.

i don't recall ever begging you though.



you're the one who has done that already.

sorry, that isn't nearly as funny as the original.

[Lueda Alia]

i don't recall ever begging you though.




begging/asking... same thing.



sorry, that isn't nearly as funny as the original.
first, I don't think what you said was funny. second, I wasn't trying to be funny.

[yeat182]

begging/asking... same thing.

not even a little bit.


first, I don't think what you said was funny. second, I wasn't trying to be funny.

good, because it was, and you weren't.

[Brit_Ben]

why even write this post? there is almost no truth to anything you wrote, you must be a michael moore fan. first, the department of homeland security does much more than operate a colored chart. second, bush has done alot for our security. third, he didn't let 9/11 happen, it happned, and if you want to place blame on it, blame clinton, the attacks stem from his administrations lack of action regarding terrorism. who's the dumbass?




oh, well, as long as the UN says its cool, then it must be....


i love the way as soon as anyone tinges to the left they get acused of being a micheal moore fan or influnced by him. Anyone whoknows anything bout public relations will know that half the stuff Bush's admin comes up with is bollocks, he probably doesnt even write his own speaches. Having the one figurehead of a country seems terribly similar to dictatorship, although im pretty sure Bush is just a puppet, easily replaced.

[yeat182]

i love the way as soon as anyone tinges to the left they get acused of being a micheal moore fan or influnced by him. Anyone whoknows anything bout public relations will know that half the stuff Bush's admin comes up with is bollocks, he probably doesnt even write his own speaches. Having the one figurehead of a country seems terribly similar to dictatorship, although im pretty sure Bush is just a puppet, easily replaced.

i didn't say he was a michael moore fan because he leans left, i said he was a moore fan because he makes baseless claims and tries to pass them off as facts.

as for you understanding of american democracy, it is obviously lacking.

[BuriedAlive]

nah, i just think you people like to bitch alot. if kerry were president you'd still be doing the same.

[nofxmisfitt]

i really think he is illiterate....i loved his angry face in the 1st debate

[Bishop]

He, you forgot Poland.

[sleepygrlgreen]

What about Poland?

[Bishop]

There was mention of the debates and that immediately stuck in my head.

[sleepygrlgreen]

as far as poland goes... the only big thing that has been circulating around (pertaining to the war) is that they're supposed to pull out two-thirds of their troops after the elections in january.

[Justin_stacy]

The reasons Kerry lost were this simple:
1. His campaign was lackluster at best.
2. Karl Rove said he could get four million new voters from the Christian Right, and he did.

There's the election.

Kind of a hack job analysis there wasn’t that?

I know its tough to admit failure, but there was a lot of it on the left this year that lead to their loss, and it amounts to far more then just those two points.......What about the nominating of a party extremist (that alone should be the #1 point)? Or the DNC’s alignment, publicly and commercially, with the far left? Or Kerry’s (and the party’s) inability to take a stand on the two most important issues to the American public (morality and security)? Or what about the DNC placing all their cards on the turnout of two, historically, unreliable voting blocks, the black and youth votes? Or a more obvious one, Kerry’s inability to answer and explain any of the charges leveled against him by the Swift Boat Vets? All of these were major points that lead to Kerry’s failure and they are just the tip of the iceberg……

See this loss was self-imposed. A President like Bush should have been an easy defeat. He had the 2000 election results still fresh in people’s mind, and he had little, national, support prior to the 04’ election. He had his failure to react economically to the Clinton recession and 9/11 against him. And he his current “problems” in Iraq against him…..and your going to say their lose was only due to Kerry’s “lackluster” campaign and Karol Rove’s? That’s just a fool’s analysis that ignores the real problem(s)….that will surface again in 08’ if they aren’t rectified…..


Like every honest analyzer said, this race was Terry's and Kerry's to loose and they chose to lose it instead of winning it…

[UndefinedBoy]

Kind of a hack job analysis there wasn’t that?

I know its tough to admit failure, but there was a lot of it on the left this year that lead to their loss, and it amounts to far more then just those two points.......What about the nominating of a party extremist (that alone should be the #1 point)? Or the DNC’s alignment, publicly and commercially, with the far left? Or Kerry’s (and the party’s) inability to take a stand on the two most important issues to the American public (morality and security)? Or what about the DNC placing all their cards on the turnout of two, historically, unreliable voting blocks, the black and youth votes? Or a more obvious one, Kerry’s inability to answer and explain any of the charges leveled against him by the Swift Boat Vets? All of these were major points that lead to Kerry’s failure and they are just the tip of the iceberg……

See this loss was self-imposed. A President like Bush should have been an easy defeat. He had the 2000 election results still fresh in people’s mind, and he had little, national, support prior to the 04’ election. He had his failure to react economically to the Clinton recession and 9/11 against him. And he his current “problems” in Iraq against him…..and your going to say their lose was only due to Kerry’s “lackluster” campaign and Karol Rove’s? That’s just a fool’s analysis that ignores the real problem(s)….that will surface again in 08’ if they aren’t rectified…..


Like every honest analyzer said, this race was Terry's and Kerry's to loose and they chose to lose it instead of winning it…

Why are you still talking about this? Instead of discussing Kerry's campaign failures, why don't you try to defend Bush's current failures?

And conservatives were telling US to get over it. We are. Let's concentrate on the here and now.

[Justin_stacy]

Why are you still talking about this? Instead of discussing Kerry's campaign failures, why don't you try to defend Bush's current failures? .

Why were your comments not directed at the original writer? Why is it ok for him to continue discussing the current election, and not me? See just because you guys got your asses handed too ya, in an election you should have won, doesn't mean the topic is off limits to anyone who’s not left of center....the election is an important issue, and although I’d never start a thread on it now, I will comment when bullshit examples and analogies are made that ignore what actually happened…

And conservatives were telling US to get over it. We are Let's concentrate on the here and now.

Obviously not....the title of the thread makes that point clear...

[yeat182]

i really think he is illiterate....i loved his angry face in the 1st debate


i'm fairly positive he can read. and i'm also fairly positive that a facial expression is no indication of reading ability.

[UndefinedBoy]

Why were your comments not directed at the original writer? Why is it ok for him to continue discussing the current election, and not me? See just because you guys got your asses handed too ya, in an election you should have won, doesn't mean the topic is off limits to anyone who’s not left of center....the election is an important issue, and although I’d never start a thread on it now, I will comment when bullshit examples and analogies are made that ignore what actually happened…

Your comment was the only I'd really read on this topic...

You call the closest election for an incumbant in history getting our "asses handed to us?" Please...

Obviously not....the title of the thread makes that point clear...

What does that have to do with the election? Just because we're over losing doesn't mean we're going to start agreeing with Bush...

[Poopy]

Agree with it or not "Americans support strong national defense, lower taxes, less government, believe in faith and family as traditionally defined, and support restrictions on abortion." Thats why Bush won.

I think its funny that Bush is "Evil" is winning in the poll. It just goes to show that most of the fanatics vote on these polls.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41400

[when 4ever ends]

did u listen to that debate at all, all bush has done was make a department that made a color chart to protect us, he has done nothing for security, he is the one that let 9/11 happen and the only reason it has happened again is it takes awhile to plan those things, your a dumbass


and while im not canadian i would like to add canada recently for the 8th straight year was said by the U.N. to be the best country to live in


yeah if bush didnt do anything for security, then explain why we havent had another 9/11.

and why did bin laden say vote kerry? cause he knew that kerry was weak on security and kerry wanted terrorism to go back to being a "everyday problem" or something like that.

[sleepygrlgreen]

yeah if bush didnt do anything for security, then explain why we havent had another 9/11.

and why did bin laden say vote kerry? cause he knew that kerry was weak on security and kerry wanted terrorism to go back to being a "everyday problem" or something like that.

::sigh::

[UndefinedBoy]

yeah if bush didnt do anything for security, then explain why we havent had another 9/11.

and why did bin laden say vote kerry? cause he knew that kerry was weak on security and kerry wanted terrorism to go back to being a "everyday problem" or something like that.

Your blatant ignorance saddens me.

You cannot brag about there not being another terrorist attack. There have been maybe a dozen attacks on U.S. soil in HISTORY. 3 years without an attack is not an accomplishment.

Bin Laden didn't say vote Kerry. He said it didn't matter which nominee was elected.

I second that ::sigh::

[Brit_Ben]

Yeah, in the video Bin Laden mentioned that it did not matter who was elected.

I will say you can hold up the lack of a terrorist attack as an accomplishment, but you have to also recognize that there is much, much more that has to be done. And when it comes down to it much of it realizes heavily on the individuals who are checking your bags at the airport, checking the cargo boat, and guarding our boarders.

i think terrorism attacks are way to hyped up. if u wana create a terrist attack its piss easy. How hard is it to aquire fertilizer and turn it into a bomb and plant it??? Almost anyone can create a terrorist attack even with all these checks but very few happan, yet so many are paranoid.

[Brit_Ben]

were paranoid about that tho, but just look what we have done. We have destroyed countries in response. Terrorism happans for a reason as well which is not being adressed.

[Brit_Ben]

i think saying they all want us dead is pretty extreme fox news may tell us that and the media but if u hunt around u will find that this view is not so strongly shared. they may wana hang our leaders high but as for killing us all thats not true, their attacks are simply the only way they see to invoke change.

[Brit_Ben]

who releases the video? if they had videos of them saying anything like they did not wish to harm civilains etc that they would be played on our media? u get the same balance with our countries, u get people here who want all Iraqi's dead as sad as it is. But you gotta also consider how havin your country invaded and friends and family killed how that would alter your opinion. And i spose thinking about it Iraqi's may believe the general public support the war, hence supporting the slaughter and destruction.

u cant expect to do that to a country without repercusions.

[Brit_Ben]

i think ur the dumber one. They release the videos yea but not to you or me! to news stations etc who then check and play them, if they dont want it played they wont play it.

they released the Irish women who was captured when they cuda killed her no problem so y didnt they?

[Brit_Ben]

yea but how do u find the sites? u hear bout them of the news, or like u said they take the videos of there so they will choose which ones to take and to not take. They have exectued many as have we, but if u think they all want all of us dead then why would they release that women???

[Nikkie]

Wrong/Misguided

[cptn_crunch]

all this pitty pat bullshit of people going back and forth in hopes of swaying one to anothers side, you gotta agree to disagree, this fighting is wasting your lifes away. nothing short of armed revolution will get the bush man outta office and i seriouly doubt that anyone is willing to get up from their pc's and grab some heat. so i'll settle it once and for all..........
I AM THE MOST EVIL!!
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! ARRRRRRRR MATEY!!!!
(hope i eliviated some tension with my sillyness)

[AreYouReady]

why even write this post? there is almost no truth to anything you wrote, you must be a michael moore fan. first, the department of homeland security does much more than operate a colored chart. second, bush has done alot for our security. third, he didn't let 9/11 happen, it happned, and if you want to place blame on it, blame clinton, the attacks stem from his administrations lack of action regarding terrorism. who's the dumbass?




oh, well, as long as the UN says its cool, then it must be....
ok ya he posted this awhile back but i just checked it, first of all i hate michael moore that fat bastard should die, second homeland security has done crap, nyc the place most likely to get hit by terrorist is the least equipped and trained to prevent terrorists attacks and react to them and some city in the midwest is the highest, i believe homeland security handles that, also do you think there is gonna be another terrorist attack on america in the next couple of months.. no those things take years to plan, and based on the way our goverment agencies work and how the president disregards his advisors i dont think we would catch a whiff of it till it was gonna happen in the immediate future i believe that would be something homeland security should work on with bush about. Improving our goverment agencies is something bush should of done but hasn't they still operate they way they did before, he hasn't done anything at the ports at all and people can still come in easily on the northwest cost, the east coast, and if need be through canada, thats another thing he said he was gonna fix but didn't, he attacked a useless country,third he did let 9/11 happen when you have the anti-terrorism head at that time(dick clarke, im sure you read his book) who served with bush sr, clinton and then dubya telling you al queda is a serious threat and they are planning an attack, get an report saying in september al queda is planning to attack nyc with possibly airliners, have clinton tell you to watch al queda, and yes he did he was very concerned with them im sure you knew that too, and you still say no they are not going to attack us, then on the day they attack us, u listen to rumsfield saying it was iraq, and not dick clarke saying there is no relationship between al queda and iraq and decide to start planning to possibly go to war with iraq i believe you fucking let 9/11 happen and if your cocky son of a bitch ass tells me im wrong, u can fucking rot in hell, YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

[AreYouReady]

and why did bin laden say vote kerry? cause he knew that kerry was weak on security and kerry wanted terrorism to go back to being a "everyday problem" or something like that.
he didn't he said no matter who you vote for it doesn't matter, and also unknown to most americans bin laden's cause is not to destroy america, its to get them out of the middle east and be kinder and have a different policy on muslims, and i believe kerry would of aimed to exit iraq in the next 4.. 5 yrs, changed the way things we're done over there, relaxed the military occupations of countries like saudi arabia, taken a middle ground on the israel pakistan problem and strengthened our defense by having a less hostile foreign relations with the middle east, and actually having ports check incoming ships

[Poopy]

he didn't he said no matter who you vote for it doesn't matter, and also unknown to most americans bin laden's cause is not to destroy america, its to get them out of the middle east and be kinder and have a different policy on muslims, and i believe kerry would of aimed to exit iraq in the next 4.. 5 yrs, changed the way things we're done over there, relaxed the military occupations of countries like saudi arabia, taken a middle ground on the israel pakistan problem and strengthened our defense by having a less hostile foreign relations with the middle east, and actually having ports check incoming ships

Jeez are you an idiot! Islam is a violent religion. If you are not islamic you have three option, death, enslavement, or life as a second class citizen. Thats straight out of the Koran. Dont think Kerry can stick America's tail between her legs and run home to mommy. Terrorists are always going to hate the US out of jealousy. Their countries are misserable failures and ours is great. Add in some religous rantings and thats all you need.

[AreYouReady]

Jeez are you an idiot! Islam is a violent religion. If you are not islamic you have three option, death, enslavement, or life as a second class citizen. Thats straight out of the Koran. Dont think Kerry can stick America's tail between her legs and run home to mommy. Terrorists are always going to hate the US out of jealousy. Their countries are misserable failures and ours is great. Add in some religous rantings and thats all you need.
first of all when did you read the koran, second islam is a violent relgion?, lets see so is christanity(the crusades, the inquisition and many more), (judism im not sure of being that i never have gotten into if it has a history of violence since society focuses on the violence agaisnt them)and if u came name the most recent religion founded right here in america(i'll give you a hint, its big in utah) thats voilent to, so are all asian,african,native american religions, all religions are violent to say that one is and thats why we have terrorist is very unfair

[JonnyChrist]

G. W. Bush is The Axis Of Evil.

[Poopy]

first of all when did you read the koran, second islam is a violent relgion?, lets see so is christanity(the crusades, the inquisition and many more), (judism im not sure of being that i never have gotten into if it has a history of violence since society focuses on the violence agaisnt them)and if u came name the most recent religion founded right here in america(i'll give you a hint, its big in utah) thats voilent to, so are all asian,african,native american religions, all religions are violent to say that one is and thats why we have terrorist is very unfair

You are right, most religions have caused, or helped to cause many horrible events. I am not saying that any other religion is not violent or is any better. I believe Islam is inherently different beacuse you have very many verses of peace and tolerance in the Koran but also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. None of the major islamic leaders have come out and spoken against the violence in the Koran, in fact most of them support it. This is still happenning in 2004 which to me says that the religion has not up until this point detached itself from its violent roots.

[AreYouReady]

You are right, most religions have caused, or helped to cause many horrible events. I am not saying that any other religion is not violent or is any better. I believe Islam is inherently different beacuse you have very many verses of peace and tolerance in the Koran but also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. None of the major islamic leaders have come out and spoken against the violence in the Koran, in fact most of them support it. This is still happenning in 2004 which to me says that the religion has not up until this point detached itself from its violent roots.
of course it has violent roots, pakistan leaders have recently said they wanted violence to stop, and i think no leader would be able to say they believe some of its roots are violent because of the way the extremist might react to it, so you never know some rulers may not agree with all of it, but to say this part of it is wrong might get them killed

[yeat182]

ok ya he posted this awhile back but i just checked it, first of all i hate michael moore that fat bastard should die, second homeland security has done crap, nyc the place most likely to get hit by terrorist is the least equipped and trained to prevent terrorists attacks and react to them and some city in the midwest is the highest, i believe homeland security handles that,

homeland security does more than just that, and as for NYC, they have the largest police force in the country and they have always been the biggest target for terrorists, and thus are already well equipt to handle it, whereas other cities were not prepared whatsoever.

also do you think there is gonna be another terrorist attack on america in the next couple of months.. no those things take years to plan,

whose to say they haven't already been planning something for years? are you assumeing that they are just getting around to it now?

and based on the way our goverment agencies work and how the president disregards his advisors i dont think we would catch a whiff of it till it was gonna happen in the immediate future i believe that would be something homeland security should work on with bush about.

hence the point of the department of homeland security...

Improving our goverment agencies is something bush should of done but hasn't they still operate they way they did before,

not true, they have significantly revamped the intellegence agencies.

he hasn't done anything at the ports at all and people can still come in easily on the northwest cost, the east coast,

to say he hasn't done anything isn't accurate.


and if need be through canada,

so, maybe canada should do something about who they allow into their country.

thats another thing he said he was gonna fix but didn't, he attacked a useless country,

not true.

third he did let 9/11 happen when you have the anti-terrorism head at that time(dick clarke, im sure you read his book) who served with bush sr, clinton and then dubya telling you al queda is a serious threat and they are planning an attack, get an report saying in september al queda is planning to attack nyc with possibly airliners,

they get those reports every day, there was no reason to think this one was anymore serious than the one he recieved the day before.


have clinton tell you to watch al queda, and yes he did he was very concerned with them im sure you knew that too,


clinton let al-qaeda attack the US 5 times, including an attack on the world trade center, and he did virtually nothing about it. it was his non-action that allowed a 6th and devestating attack to occur.

and you still say no they are not going to attack us, then on the day they attack us, u listen to rumsfield saying it was iraq, and not dick clarke saying there is no relationship between al queda and iraq and decide to start planning to possibly go to war with iraq i believe you fucking let 9/11 happen and if your cocky son of a bitch ass tells me im wrong, u can fucking rot in hell, YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

you are wrong.

[AreYouReady]

yeat im not gonna awnser that, your a retard dont ever post on the politics forum again, you oviously dont read jack shit and don't read reports that come out, im sorry you called me a michael moore fan for making factless statements when all you have said is generally crap, but one thing i will respond 2 is your saying im wrong about when bush made his decision to attack iraq, let me go get dick clarke's book Agaisnt All Enemies and look up the page heres some quotes from it
"I expected to go back to a round of meetings examining what the next attacks could be, what our vulnerabilities were, what we could do about them in the short term. Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first i was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting al Qaeda. Then i realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowiz were going to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. My friends in the Pentagon had been telling me that the word was we would be invading Iraq sometime in 2002" another quote
"Later, on the evening of the 12th, I left the Video Conference Center and there, wandering alone in the Situation Room, was the president. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us "I know you have a lot to do and all . . . but i want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way..."
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But Mr.President, al Qaeda did this.""

[yeat182]

yeat im not gonna awnser that, your a retard dont ever post on the politics forum again, you oviously dont read jack shit and don't read reports that come out, im sorry you called me a michael moore fan for making factless statements when all you have said is generally crap

or you could just admit when you are wrong...either way.

[AreYouReady]

read the quotes i just entered in it

[UndefinedBoy]

Jeez are you an idiot! Islam is a violent religion. If you are not islamic you have three option, death, enslavement, or life as a second class citizen.

Where the hell did you get that? Muslims don't just kill anyone who isn't muslim, or enslave them. Where are you getting this?

Thats straight out of the Koran.

Riiiight...

Dont think Kerry can stick America's tail between her legs and run home to mommy.

Run home to mommy? Are you being serious here?

Terrorists are always going to hate the US out of jealousy.

Straight out of Dubya's mouth! That is the only reason they hate us, right? Not because of years of bad foreign policy...

Their countries are misserable failures and ours is great. Add in some religous rantings and thats all you need.

Wow...

[yeat182]

read the quotes i just entered in it

clarke's book is one questoinable account of what occured. regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a problem that needed to be taken care of and it was.

[AreYouReady]

clarke's book is one questoinable account of what occured. regardless, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a problem that needed to be taken care of and it was.
first of all iraq was no problem to us at al and secondly its worse off than it was under Saddam and once we live and maybe before a civil war is going to erupt bringing in Shi'ites and sunni muslims from all around the middle east to help and generally causing more of a problem than it ever was

[Justin_stacy]

Jeez are you an idiot! Islam is a violent religion. If you are not islamic you have three option, death, enslavement, or life as a second class citizen. Thats straight out of the Koran. Dont think Kerry can stick America's tail between her legs and run home to mommy. Terrorists are always going to hate the US out of jealousy. Their countries are misserable failures and ours is great. Add in some religous rantings and thats all you need.

Although I agree with your jealousy argument (except that it more defines Western Europe then The Middle East)....your conclusion that Islam, is by definition, a violent religion is just dead wrong. It is the personal interpretations by "violent" people that make Islam look bad and violent. But you can not fault the religion for this, any more then you can blame the Christian religion for the likes of Fred Phelps. These people do not believe in the religion, nor its true teachings, but are using it for their own gains and power.....Do you honestly think a mass murder like Osama believes in anything higher them himself? Of course not, he only uses Islam to get others to follow him and he manipulates the versus to build a hatred in them, that he couldn't normally (or rational) foster...

[yeat182]

first of all iraq was no problem to us at al

yes it was.

and secondly its worse off than it was under Saddam

you're joking, right?

and once we live and maybe before a civil war is going to erupt bringing in Shi'ites and sunni muslims from all around the middle east to help and generally causing more of a problem than it ever was

i assume you mean when we leave, and no, there won't be a civil war. the people fighting us are Saddam loyalists and terrorists, they do not represent the will of the people of Iraq. Shi'ites and Sunnis, as well as the Kurds, are all Iraqi's and they want a free Iraq, they aren't going to rise up anymore than the protestants and catholics in america are going to rise up into a civil war.

[UndefinedBoy]

Although I agree with your jealousy argument (except that it more defines Western Europe then The Middle East)....your conclusion that Islam, is by definition, a violent religion is just dead wrong. It is the personal interpretations by "violent" people that make Islam look bad and violent. But you can not fault the religion for this, any more then you can blame the Christian religion for the likes of Fred Phelps. These people do not believe in the religion, nor its true teachings, but are using it for their own gains and power.....Do you honestly think a mass murder like Osama believes in anything higher them himself? Of course not, he only uses Islam to get others to follow him and he manipulates the versus to build a hatred in them, that he couldn't normally (or rational) foster...

Besides the jealousy argument, I agree.

Glad I'm not the only one who caught that...

[yeat182]

Besides the jealousy argument, I agree.

Glad I'm not the only one who caught that...

i agree as well, i just chose to ignore the original comment as it was obviously off base. as for the jealousy, i think there is an element of jealousy in terrorism, but the leaders of terrorist movements aren't jealous, they have money, they could easily live that lifestyle if they chose. they instead use it as a tool to recruit people (one of many tools).

[AreYouReady]

i assume you mean when we leave, and no, there won't be a civil war. the people fighting us are Saddam loyalists and terrorists, they do not represent the will of the people of Iraq. Shi'ites and Sunnis, as well as the Kurds, are all Iraqi's and they want a free Iraq, they aren't going to rise up anymore than the protestants and catholics in america are going to rise up into a civil war.
im glad that all of us have the privilege of having a messiah of politics on the board who despite what many experts say, and what has been reported of who is attacking us still believes that he is right even though im sure he lacks the credentials of many goverment officials who have written books, analysis, and reports of our situation in iraq who say otherwise all of us should be thankful for the time he takes to enlighten us about foreign affairs

[yeat182]

im glad that all of us have the privilege of having a messiah of politics on the board who despite what many experts say, and what has been reported of who is attacking us still believes that he is right even though im sure he lacks the credentials of many goverment officials who have written books, analysis, and reports of our situation in iraq who say otherwise all of us should be thankful for the time he takes to enlighten us about foreign affairs


well, i know we're all glad that there are 15 year olds like you to show us the way...

[AreYouReady]

well, i know we're all glad that there are 15 year olds like you to show us the way...
i'm sorry but age generally doesn't matter, you called me a michael moore fan because i made baseless statements when all you have said is I'm wrong with no counter argument or facts, and now because you, well can't think of anything else decide well he is 15 he can't be right, just shows that you won't admit your wrong and maybe, yes maybe, you got bested by a 15 year old. I'm sorry man but please if your going to try to insult me come up with something better than that

[yeat182]

i'm sorry but age generally doesn't matter, you called me a michael moore fan because i made baseless statements when all you have said is I'm wrong with no counter argument or facts, and now because you, well can't think of anything else decide well he is 15 he can't be right, just shows that you won't admit your wrong and maybe, yes maybe, you got bested by a 15 year old. I'm sorry man but please if your going to try to insult me come up with something better than that


i offered reason why the statements you made were wrong. you strung togther one run on sentence that made little sense and offered no facts or reason to back up any claim you made, and concluded it with "YOU FUCKING DUMBASS". if you want better insults, you should start improving your own.

[AreYouReady]

what experts are you talking about and what did their analysis say that was different from what Yeat listed?
CNN's website has had an ongoing special on the Iraq war http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/ and through books of former politicans who have written many books

[yeat182]

CNN's website has had an ongoing special on the Iraq war http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/ and through books of former politicans who have written many books

for every expert that says that things are doomed in Iraq there is one that says things will be ok.

[AreYouReady]

i offered reason why the statements you made were wrong. you strung togther one run on sentence that made little sense and offered no facts or reason to back up any claim you made, and concluded it with "YOU FUCKING DUMBASS". if you want better insults, you should start improving your own.
lets see you said i was wrong about NYC not being prepared to react or prevent a terrorist attack by saying they have alot of cops they are equipped when they have a large policeforce because they are a large city and they did have them when 9/11 occurred, you said they revamped the intelligence agencies but failed to mention the new intelligence bill which has many flaws, said i was wrong about the only reason there wasn't a terrorist attack by saying who is to know that they haven't been planning one for years, when it took 9/11 over 10 years to plan and i think that would of showed up in reports before and after 9/11, and said untrue when i said Bush attacked a coutry with no involvement in 9/11 and terrorism without any back up. Said Clinton allowed 5 attacks by al-Qeada by doing nothing but failed to mention one of them and said it was Clintons fault for 9/11 because they get reports everyday saying al-Qeada was going to act out a attack on major cities like NYC with airliners and ignoring it was alright. You also said Dick Clarke's was questionable, and the book changed nothing about why we went to war with Iraq and it doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a problem to us and we fixed it, yet you failed to mention what that problem was. Then you said i was wrong about the fact that a war between the differnt groups in Iraq would occur when we left and it was remaining member of the Baath party attacking us no Sunni's in the Sunni triangle or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist from Jordan. How are you backing up statements and I'm not?

[AreYouReady]

You're saying experts are saying this and that, but have not provided any. That's why I asked which ones you were referring to specificaly?
9/11 took 10 years to plan-9/11 commission report, Iraw war decided before and on 9/11 and that Iraq had no involvement dick clarke and 9/11 commision report, the media has been covering recent terrorist attacks you just gotta check out some news companies like CNN fox to find out who they think is behind them, and for some books Agaisnt All Enemies-Dick ClarkeThe Persian Puzzle-kenneth pollack, on our horrible foreign policy War and The American Presidency by Arthur Schlesinger, Imperial Hubris:Why We Are Losing The War On Terror by Michael Scheuer and some of its opionin

[yeat182]

lets see you said i was wrong about NYC not being prepared to react or prevent a terrorist attack by saying they have alot of cops they are equipped when they have a large policeforce because they are a large city and they did have them when 9/11 occurred

and i was right...

you said they revamped the intelligence agencies but failed to mention the new intelligence bill which has many flaws,

and i was right....


said i was wrong about the only reason there wasn't a terrorist attack by saying who is to know that they haven't been planning one for years, when it took 9/11 over 10 years to plan and i think that would of showed up in reports before and after 9/11,

why do you assume we would know about it? we didn't know about 9/11 until the last minute. again, i was right...

and said untrue when i said Bush attacked a coutry with no involvement in 9/11 and terrorism without any back up.

no, you said "he attacked a useless country" don't go changing your statements after you realize you were wrong.

Said Clinton allowed 5 attacks by al-Qeada by doing nothing but failed to mention one of them

first of all, i did mention the first attack on the world trade center. if you want the other four, all you have to do is ask. 2 embassy bombings, the USS Cole and an attack on our military barracks in kuwait. do you ever get tired of being wrong?


and said it was Clintons fault for 9/11 because they get reports everyday saying al-Qeada was going to act out a attack on major cities like NYC with airliners and ignoring it was alright.

nice try, but that isn't what i said. i said it was clintons fault because he never took any siginicant action against al-qaeda after 5 attacks. i said you can't blame bush because he gets reports like the one days before the attacks all the time, signaling out that one ignores the hundreds he gets that turn out to be nothing.


You also said Dick Clarke's was questionable, and the book changed nothing about why we went to war with Iraq and it doesn't change the fact that Iraq was a problem to us and we fixed it, yet you failed to mention what that problem was.

the problem is, Iraq had 17 resolutions passed against it by the UN security council, including a final unanimous vote calling for compliance or serious consequences, when he failed to comply he triggered the serious consequences and we acted on that, and to be more specific, under the origninal terms of the cease fire signed with Iraq in 1991, a violation of the UN secrurity council's resolutions results in a breaking of the cease fire and thus a renewal of hostilites. finally, he had tried to assainate a US president and has attacked, on nearly a daily basis, US and Coalition aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zone, a zone agreed to be protected under the terms of the cease fire agreement he signed. violation of that is seen as an act of war. that doesn't even get into the WMD's, but we've heard enough about that, haven't we?


Then you said i was wrong about the fact that a war between the differnt groups in Iraq would occur when we left and it was remaining member of the Baath party attacking us no Sunni's in the Sunni triangle or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist from Jordan. How are you backing up statements and I'm not?

because you gave absolutely no reason why there would be a civil war and i offered you 2 reasons why there wouldn't be one. wrong again...

[yeat182]

9/11 took 10 years to plan-9/11 commission report, Iraw war decided before and on 9/11 and that Iraq had no involvement dick clarke and 9/11 commision report, the media has been covering recent terrorist attacks you just gotta check out some news companies like CNN fox to find out who they think is behind them, and for some books Agaisnt All Enemies-Dick ClarkeThe Persian Puzzle-kenneth pollack, on our horrible foreign policy War and The American Presidency by Arthur Schlesinger, Imperial Hubris:Why We Are Losing The War On Terror by Michael Scheuer and some of its opionin

are you capable of using punctuation? a period here or there makes all the diffrence.

[AreYouReady]

nyc has a large police force trained to fight normal crime not a terrorist attack and they have not recieved funding to train thier police and firemen incase another one happens just because theres alot of them doesn't mean they can stop a terrorist attack or react to minimize causilites with thier normal training

and im glad u can say im wrong when i later provided the base for your statement that they revamped the intelligence agencies, when this bill should of been passed awhile ago and the changes will take years to complete so as of right now we have our intelligence agencies working the same way they did years ago, so well then i would say niether one of us is truly right on that

and we know they arent planning one now because well we kicked Osma out of Afghanistan and before he can plan another attack he is going to have to set up base in another country. I believe we are keeping a close eye on the possible countries he c"ould be. So unless he manage to slip past us, the U.N and is making a base again he can't possiblely be planning another attack

"no, you said "he attacked a useless country" don't go changing your statements after you realize you were wrong."
a useless country in terms of terrorism differnt words same meaning


"first of all, i did mention the first attack on the world trade center. if you want the other four, all you have to do is ask. 2 embassy bombings, the USS Cole and an attack on our military barracks in kuwait. do you ever get tired of being wrong?" USS Cole shouldn't of happened but Bush has let embessay bombings occur to, wasn't it one in Africa and somewhere around australia im not sure if u do please tell, and the first world trade center george bush could share blame to say clinton allowed it to happen


"nice try, but that isn't what i said. i said it was clintons fault because he never took any siginicant action against al-qaeda after 5 attacks. i said you can't blame bush because he gets reports like the one days before the attacks all the time, signaling out that one ignores the hundreds he gets that turn out to be nothing" i dont think we get a report everyday saying we're going to get bombed or attacked and if u can prove we do go ahead

"the problem is, Iraq had 17 resolutions passed against it by the UN security council, including a final unanimous vote calling for compliance or serious consequences, when he failed to comply he triggered the serious consequences and we acted on that, and to be more specific, under the origninal terms of the cease fire signed with Iraq in 1991, a violation of the UN secrurity council's resolutions results in a breaking of the cease fire and thus a renewal of hostilites. finally, he had tried to assainate a US president and has attacked, on nearly a daily basis, US and Coalition aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zone, a zone agreed to be protected under the terms of the cease fire agreement he signed. violation of that is seen as an act of war. that doesn't even get into the WMD's, but we've heard enough about that, haven't we?
i dont think when the U.N said serious consequences they meant for us to dig up some random thing to lead a war in Iraq. I have never heard of saddam attacking our aircrafts in a no-fly zone, that doesn;t sound right to me but you never know. As far as the WMD's they should of planted some to make them look better, if they can make that lie up why not follow through with it

and as far as why i think there will be a civil war in Iraq is because you have the remaining Baath party members who want power, the kurds who have been opressed who will want power, the Sunni and Shi'ites who would never agree with a leader of another religion ruling them. Then you have people from other countries who will enter the country to back a movement of thier religion. Also, all these groups are willing to fight for what they believe in

[AreYouReady]

You didnt answer the question.....

Yeat said, "i assume you mean when we leave, and no, there won't be a civil war. the people fighting us are Saddam loyalists and terrorists, they do not represent the will of the people of Iraq. Shi'ites and Sunnis, as well as the Kurds, are all Iraqi's and they want a free Iraq, they aren't going to rise up anymore than the protestants and catholics in america are going to rise up into a civil war.

Then you said, im glad that all of us have the privilege of having a messiah of politics on the board who despite what many experts say, and what has been reported of who is attacking us still believes that he is right even though im sure he lacks the credentials of many goverment officials who have written books, analysis, and reports of our situation in iraq who say otherwise all of us should be thankful for the time he takes to enlighten us about foreign affairs

So.......I was just wondering what experts, and government officials you have seen that thought differently about possible civil war in Iraq? All you have done is list the same 4 books as from your other thread.
the article was published by people who worked on the 9/11 report and panel, along with others in the pentagon, during the summer about what would happen when we left, now i can't find it anymore because it would take forever to go through the records, and how did you not read it, it was a very big deal. Also, how can you just say only Baath party members are attacking us. The recent beheadings haven't been by Saddam loyalist, and isn't the general opinion that a free Iraq is one without the U.S not neccessarily all the groups united?

[AreYouReady]

I'm not trying to argue the point over whether civil war is or isnt possible. I'm just pointing out that you're here harping and yelling about people being credible with sources (which I do often as well), but you've yet to provide any yourself. You say you have ONE article over this, but can't find it. Not being able to find it is fair enough, but posting a response like yours to Yeat was really stupid when you are simply relying on ONE article. Ecspecially considering the whole ordeal is a debateable issue. I'm saying that I wouldnt be on your high horse considering you have ONE article, you can't find, on a debateable issue.
well yes but the comment was generally aimed at the baath party comment and yes you got the civil war comment is opinion, so im wrong i'll admit it

[yeat182]

nyc has a large police force trained to fight normal crime not a terrorist attack and they have not recieved funding to train thier police and firemen incase another one happens just because theres alot of them doesn't mean they can stop a terrorist attack or react to minimize causilites with thier normal training

not true, they are trained to fight terrorism, and trained well for it.

and im glad u can say im wrong when i later provided the base for your statement that they revamped the intelligence agencies, when this bill should of been passed awhile ago and the changes will take years to complete so as of right now we have our intelligence agencies working the same way they did years ago, so well then i would say niether one of us is truly right on that

that isn't true either, the agencies made major changes directly after 9/11 and continue to do so. the dept. of homeland security for instance, has made it possible for agencies to share knowlege between themselves in a way that wasn't possible before 9/11. but yes, it will take time for the effects of the new bill to be felt fully.

and we know they arent planning one now because well we kicked Osma out of Afghanistan and before he can plan another attack he is going to have to set up base in another country. I believe we are keeping a close eye on the possible countries he c"ould be. So unless he manage to slip past us, the U.N and is making a base again he can't possiblely be planning another attack

UBL isn't the only terrorist in the world, nor is he the only one capable of planning an attack. and slipping past the UN? what can the UN do to prevent UBL from doing anything? you are naive at best, ignorant at worst if you believe that because we are looking for UBL, no terrorist is planning an attack, or that they haven't had an attack being planned for quite sometime. also, if you are relying on the UN to stop an attack, you are really in for a rude awakening.

"no, you said "he attacked a useless country" don't go changing your statements after you realize you were wrong."
a useless country in terms of terrorism differnt words same meaning

there were enough legitimate reasons to go into Iraq, whether or not they were involved with terrorism. which they were, as saddam paid the families of suicide bombers in palestine....


"first of all, i did mention the first attack on the world trade center. if you want the other four, all you have to do is ask. 2 embassy bombings, the USS Cole and an attack on our military barracks in kuwait. do you ever get tired of being wrong?" USS Cole shouldn't of happened but Bush has let embessay bombings occur to, wasn't it one in Africa and somewhere around australia im not sure if u do please tell, and the first world trade center george bush could share blame to say clinton allowed it to happen

first, any embassy bombings now, under bush, aren't ignored, especially since we are currently seeking out and destroying al-qaeda, something clinton never did. to say the USS Cole shouldnt' have happened doesn't really add much to your arguement, of course it shouldnt' have happened, but it did and clinton didn't do anything significant about it. and i don't blame clinton for the first world trade center bombing, i blame him for the second.


"nice try, but that isn't what i said. i said it was clintons fault because he never took any siginicant action against al-qaeda after 5 attacks. i said you can't blame bush because he gets reports like the one days before the attacks all the time, signaling out that one ignores the hundreds he gets that turn out to be nothing" i dont think we get a report everyday saying we're going to get bombed or attacked and if u can prove we do go ahead

we do.

"the problem is, Iraq had 17 resolutions passed against it by the UN security council, including a final unanimous vote calling for compliance or serious consequences, when he failed to comply he triggered the serious consequences and we acted on that, and to be more specific, under the origninal terms of the cease fire signed with Iraq in 1991, a violation of the UN secrurity council's resolutions results in a breaking of the cease fire and thus a renewal of hostilites. finally, he had tried to assainate a US president and has attacked, on nearly a daily basis, US and Coalition aircraft patrolling the No-Fly zone, a zone agreed to be protected under the terms of the cease fire agreement he signed. violation of that is seen as an act of war. that doesn't even get into the WMD's, but we've heard enough about that, haven't we?
i dont think when the U.N said serious consequences they meant for us to dig up some random thing to lead a war in Iraq. I have never heard of saddam attacking our aircrafts in a no-fly zone, that doesn;t sound right to me but you never know. As far as the WMD's they should of planted some to make them look better, if they can make that lie up why not follow through with it

it wasn't some "random thing" that lead us to war, do i have to spell it out for you again? and of course you never heard about saddam attacking our aircraft over Iraq because you are 15 years old. look it up, it happened on nearly a daily basis.


and as far as why i think there will be a civil war in Iraq is because you have the remaining Baath party members who want power, the kurds who have been opressed who will want power, the Sunni and Shi'ites who would never agree with a leader of another religion ruling them. Then you have people from other countries who will enter the country to back a movement of thier religion. Also, all these groups are willing to fight for what they believe in

sunni/shiites/kurds aren't going to fight eachother, Iraq is going to be a secular country, and there is no reason they will fight eachother anymore than the jews/catholics/protestants in amercia are going to fight eachother. those that do fight will be extremeists and not representative of the general population.

[Justin_stacy]

Besides the jealousy argument, I agree.

Glad I'm not the only one who caught that...

Personal opinion here.....but I’d say its just as naive to say that jealousy doesn't play apart in the "world’s" (mainly socialist Europe and Islamic middle east) opposition to us, as it is to say that American foreign policy doesn't play apart in there opposition…

[richter915]

Personal opinion here.....but I’d say its just as naive to say that jealousy doesn't play apart in the "world’s" (mainly socialist Europe and Islamic middle east) opposition to us, as it is to say that American foreign policy doesn't play apart in there opposition…
personal opinion here too...but that's why certain nations (Britain) suck our asses...just remember that quote from that annoying dude in the mummy "it's better to be the devil's right hand man than in his path" or something like that.

[shrguy]

no, i like bush

[Justin_stacy]

personal opinion here too...but that's why certain nations (Britain) suck our asses...just remember that quote from that annoying dude in the mummy "it's better to be the devil's right hand man than in his path" or something like that.

oh yes lets ignore France and Germany......can't sum up their positions on jealousy, can we (it must all be about the oil!)....

[bopst]

Bush is pushing a right wing, neo conservative, Christian agenda, which makes him one dangerous fellow...

[open mind]

i think (or like to think) bush is doing what he thinks is best, problem is he isn't smart enough to see all the negative effects of what he does

[Rebs]

i personally like bush.
every president has made mistakes, every politician has flaws. there are certain policies that i do not agree with, but i like most of them.

i think the media scrutinizes him far too much, being that the majority of hollywood and the media are left-wingers. it seems to me that some people dislike bush as a trend. most don't even have a valid point for finding him a bad leader.

[IAmCountryMusic]

i personally like bush.
every president has made mistakes, every politician has flaws. there are certain policies that i do not agree with, but i like most of them.

i think the media scrutinizes him far too much, being that the majority of hollywood and the media are left-wingers. it seems to me that some people dislike bush as a trend. most don't even have a valid point for finding him a bad leader.
you like all men you hussy

and i do have a valid point: bad decisions. sorry becca, i still love you :)

[Rebs]

you like all men you hussy

and i do have a valid point: bad decisions. sorry becca, i still love you :)

sure you do.
and i am no hussy. and i do not love all men. i couldnt stand al gore. he pissed me off.

[richter915]

i personally like bush.
every president has made mistakes, every politician has flaws. there are certain policies that i do not agree with, but i like most of them.

i think the media scrutinizes him far too much, being that the majority of hollywood and the media are left-wingers. it seems to me that some people dislike bush as a trend. most don't even have a valid point for finding him a bad leader.
first off...please fix ur sig!!haha

but ya...why do you like Bush...I won't bash you, I just want to know what about him you like.

personally, I think he's misguided...he bases too much of his actions on his own beliefs...now in such a mixed nation, that can't be good because not everyone shares in those beliefs. The fact that he says things like...god chose me to lead this country or god tells me how to lead this country...whatever I don't know the exact words...but I don't think that that's a great mindset to have when you're president...I mean...Osama bin Laden uses words like that too...so...I personally don't think his religious mindset is good.

[Rebs]

well obviously not everyone is going to agree with me.

i like bush because he defended our country. i like bush because i couldnt stand kerry. or al gore.

[richter915]

well obviously not everyone is going to agree with me.

i like bush because he defended our country. i like bush because i couldnt stand kerry. or al gore.
defended our country from what?

[Lueda Alia]

well obviously not everyone is going to agree with me.

i like bush because he defended our country. i like bush because i couldnt stand kerry. or al gore.
that's a pretty stupid reason to like someone. sorry, but it is. how can you say you like someone because you dislike someone else? doesn't make sense to me.

[richter915]

that's a pretty stupid reason to like someone. sorry, but it is. how can you say you like someone because you dislike someone else? doesn't make sense to me.
I gotta agree with that...but my vote for kerry was influenced by my dislike for bush so I won't deny that.

[Justin_stacy]

that's a pretty stupid reason to like someone. sorry, but it is. how can you say you like someone because you dislike someone else? doesn't make sense to me.
So you're not a big fan of the Lessor of Two Evils concept, are you?

[Lueda Alia]

I gotta agree with that...but my vote for kerry was influenced by my dislike for bush so I won't deny that.
I think that's different, as is the whole "lesser of two evils" thing. you're not necessarily saying that you LIKE Kerry because you dislike Bush... which is what the other person said. voting for someone because you have no choice (because you dislike the other candidate) doesn't mean you like the candidate you're voting for.

I'm not making much sense.

So you're not a big fan of the Lessor of Two Evils concept, are you?
I think the last time I checked, people said, (example from the election) "I don't like either candidates but I'll go with Kerry/Bush because he's the lesser of two evils." which, as I said above, is different than liking someone because you dislike someone else. the "lesser of two evils" thing applies only when you have to choose even though you don't like either...

[Rebs]

that's a pretty stupid reason to like someone. sorry, but it is. how can you say you like someone because you dislike someone else? doesn't make sense to me.


okay ill correct myself. i hate all politicians. they all lie and they all are just puppets to their own party.
i believed bush to be the lesser of two evils. so i support him.

[Alex Djaferis]

bush is the devil.

no, but seriously :)

I amso glad i dont live in the usa/or am american because i would hate to vote if i was there. Choice of 2? gimme a break...that system just cant work properly.

[bert_the_queen]

bush is the devil.

no, but seriously :)

I amso glad i dont live in the usa/or am american because i would hate to vote if i was there. Choice of 2? gimme a break...that system just cant work properly.

i have to agree, id hate to have a choice between two parties-though the problem with having more is that you end up with two main parties and then some little ones hanging round the edge of infinity... people then worry to vote for the third or fourth party because they think their vote will be wasted.

its why labour will win the general election, and you can quote me on that,

[ReFuSeD!]

i have to agree, id hate to have a choice between two parties-though the problem with having more is that you end up with two main parties and then some little ones hanging round the edge of infinity... people then worry to vote for the third or fourth party because they think their vote will be wasted.

its why labour will win the general election, and you can quote me on that,
The USA's two-party system is a joke. In reality, the Democrats are not that much different than the Republicans. I guess you could call them "the least of 2 evils", but that's not saying much. Anyone who considers the USA's democratic party to be "liberal" really needs to wake up.

[Poopy]

The USA's two-party system is a joke. In reality, the Democrats are not that much different than the Republicans. I guess you could call them "the least of 2 evils", but that's not saying much. Anyone who considers the USA's democratic party to be "liberal" really needs to wake up.

I agree, at least on philosophy portion of their website the Canadian Liberal party sounds much more liberal in the classic sense. However if you look at their stance on the issues they don't align with their philosophy at all. The problem today is that you have to many socialists calling themselves liberal. In America the closest thing we have to a classic liberal party is the libertarian party. I actually voted for their candidate in '04, but unfortunately they are a third party and lag behind even the green party.

The problem I see with the republican party is that it claims to be the party of limited government but then intrudes in people's private social and sexual lives. I am sure you will disagree with me on this but I believe the democrats slowly adopted more socialist policies in the period from 1930-1980. While the democrats are more lax on personal and social issues, they have this paternalistic view of the federal government that is just as invasive. They believe people cant take responsiblity for themselves so the government needs to step in to protect them. In the wake of the depression democrats formed the opinion that big government was needed to "correct" the free market. Keynesian economics was born and government budgets have been rising exponetially ever since. It has gotten so bad that even the republicans are running record deficits. I think most people agree there is a problem but everyone disagrees with what should be done.

[FallingOut]

All you Christian people who like Bush because he claims to be a big Christian are so incredibly stupid that it makes me laugh. The fact that he used faith as a basis to invade Iraq is so insane, and its pathetic that everybody in this country fell for that trick. He says hes doing "God's mission." Are you kidding me?!?!? That is the biggest load of shit Ive ever heard in my entire lifetime. Im sure that God really is telling George W. Bush what to do. Anybody who believes that Bush is doing "God's work" is just plain ignorant.

[Carlo Marx]

No, Bush is not evil. He's a puppet. Cheney is the evil one.

[Poopy]

All you Christian people who like Bush because he claims to be a big Christian are so incredibly stupid that it makes me laugh. The fact that he used faith as a basis to invade Iraq is so insane, and its pathetic that everybody in this country fell for that trick. He says hes doing "God's mission." Are you kidding me?!?!? That is the biggest load of shit Ive ever heard in my entire lifetime. Im sure that God really is telling George W. Bush what to do. Anybody who believes that Bush is doing "God's work" is just plain ignorant.

The fact that you take yourself seriously is a joke. Are you capable of a rational argument?

[FallingOut]

The fact that you take yourself seriously is a joke. Are you capable of a rational argument?

Yes, I think I am. Bush was the one who uses religion to justify everything he does. If youre that fucking retarded to not see that, and see that everything he does it for his own personal gain, then you should get yourself checked out by some kind of mental doctor.

[Lueda Alia]

Yes, I think I am. Bush was the one who uses religion to justify everything he does. If youre that fucking retarded to not see that, and see that everything he does it for his own personal gain, then you should get yourself checked out by some kind of mental doctor.
I don't think any doctor would be willing to work with such patient though. Sometimes it's just too late to save someone.

[Rebs]

Did anyone else watch the press conference last night? Religion was one of the issues he discussed.

[Poopy]

Yes, I think I am. Bush was the one who uses religion to justify everything he does. If youre that fucking retarded to not see that, and see that everything he does it for his own personal gain, then you should get yourself checked out by some kind of mental doctor.

Thanks for proving my point.

[XthroughmyeyesX]

That No Child Left Behind Act is basically the draft in disguise. If anyone uses those govt. funds they give your name, number, and address to every recruiter in the area. He is a smart guy believe it or not (even though I still think he's a moron), he just hasn't mastered the english language yet.

To me... Bush is just a puppet for a much larger operation. It's his staff that are the brains behind every policy that he puts out. I think it's Mr. Cheney that's the most evil out of anyone with any kind of power today.

[richter915]

To me... Bush is just a puppet for a much larger operation. It's his staff that are the brains behind every policy that he puts out. I think it's Mr. Cheney that's the most evil out of anyone with any kind of power today.
as many have said...Dick Cheney = the evil emperor.

[Rebs]

politicians suck.

[angryandconfusd]

Yes, I think I am. Bush was the one who uses religion to justify everything he does. If youre that fucking retarded to not see that, and see that everything he does it for his own personal gain, then you should get yourself checked out by some kind of mental doctor.
Ummm.....No he uses religion to appeal to voters and constituents in order to vote for him and stand behind his cause. Remember, he is still a politician

[thekinks?]

wanna give me scene points