PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on George W. Bush



Pages : [1] 2

Gordon_18
11-02-2003, 06:00 PM
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots. Alot of U.S soldiers have died thus far. Not alot to make people worry, but enough to draw attention.... I think its funny how all of you Praise bush for the war... AND you give SO much respect for the troops (This doesn't apply to everyone, just a majority) Yes your OWN chief AND commander doesn't give a **** about them. Proof??? Look here at the pic attached i got from my newpaper... it made me ****ing SICK. And don't give me **** about him being to busy, BECAUSE if he can send all these troops to fight, then he can certainly pay his respects.

What r ur thoughts?

Wheytgain
11-02-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots. Alot of U.S soldiers have died thus far. Not alot to make people worry, but enough to draw attention.... I think its funny how all of you Praise bush for the war... AND you give SO much respect for the troops (This doesn't apply to everyone, just a majority) Yes your OWN chief AND commander doesn't give a **** about them. Proof??? Look here at the pic attached i got from my newpaper... it made me ****ing SICK. And don't give me **** about him being to busy, BECAUSE if he can send all these troops to fight, then he can certainly pay his respects.

What r ur thoughts?

I think George Bush has more important things to do then attend every possible funeral. I'm sure they will hold a memorial when this all over, and it would be blashpemic and inappropriate for him not to attend. But until then, chill.

AJbuilder
11-02-2003, 06:02 PM
I don't like bush, i would vote arnold for president but that's not possible.:)

Dorian
11-02-2003, 06:06 PM
all this from a guy not even in the states....... HMMMMMMM....Yep media sure tells it like it is....

BigKazWSM747
11-02-2003, 06:09 PM
Hopefully Bush will have lost by 2004 so we don't have to deal with anymore horrible lies and his imcompetence anymore.

DTRG
11-02-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
all this from a guy not even in the states....... HMMMMMMM....Yep media sure tells it like it is....

i was just gunna point out he is a canadian

dont judge other countries presidents with what you hear on the news, eh?

Gordon_18
11-02-2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
all this from a guy not even in the states....... HMMMMMMM....Yep media sure tells it like it is....

That makes my opinion NEWTRAL, which means theirs no biased opinion here

.BrokeN.
11-02-2003, 06:17 PM
LOL at this whole topic. He rules, bottom line. There's always something you can pick out and eat away on about every person, so get a life. If he didn't know what he was doing then he wouldn't be where he is today. I'm sure he knows a lot more about what is going on and what to do about it than everyday people like ourselves. I think K-mart is calling for you, they need their bag boy back.

Gordon_18
11-02-2003, 06:18 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DTRG
i was just gunna point out he is a canadian

dont judge other countries presidents with what you hear on the news, eh? [/QUOTE

Then how do you expect us to know whats going on? How am I suppose to get an opinoin WITHOUT the news, ur an idiot don't talk...

nosliw
11-02-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Hopefully Bush will have lost by 2004 so we don't have to deal with anymore horrible lies and his imcompetence anymore.


lmao......

i bet you watch A LOT of CNN, don't ya?

USMuscle9403
11-02-2003, 06:25 PM
We've had enough Bush threads, shut the fu ck up.
Allen

nosliw
11-02-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by USMuscle9403
We've had enough Bush threads, shut the fu ck up.
Allen

:)


your right man

exe
11-02-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by nosliw
:)


your right man Bump. Shut the **** up with the Bush threads. You can't do anything about it. He's our President. If you don't like it, too ****ing bad.

anakin005
11-02-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots. Alot of U.S soldiers have died thus far. Not alot to make people worry, but enough to draw attention.... I think its funny how all of you Praise bush for the war... AND you give SO much respect for the troops (This doesn't apply to everyone, just a majority) Yes your OWN chief AND commander doesn't give a **** about them. Proof??? Look here at the pic attached i got from my newpaper... it made me ****ing SICK. And don't give me **** about him being to busy, BECAUSE if he can send all these troops to fight, then he can certainly pay his respects.

What r ur thoughts?


if your so damn perfect why dont you run for president. until then if your so unhappy with the current one why dont you move.

USMuscle9403
11-02-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by anakin005
if your so damn perfect why dont you run for president. until then if your so unhappy with the current one why dont you move.

He doesn't need to move, the guy lives in Canada. He's basically finding something to bitch about.
Allen

big man alex
11-02-2003, 06:56 PM
I think that bush is an idiot.

He really hasnt done any good to this country.

Hes team does all of his work for him, and his speeches.

he "cares" about this country, but yet he does not care about our soldiers.



these are super smart remarks, but its my opinion.

theHULK9281
11-02-2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots.


Originally posted by Gordon_18
That makes my opinion NEWTRAL, which means theirs no biased opinion here

ROFLMAO......no biased opinion? :rolleyes:

USMuscle9403
11-02-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by big man alex
I think that bush is an idiot.

He really hasnt done any good to this country.

Hes team does all of his work for him, and his speeches.

he "cares" about this country, but yet he does not care about our soldiers.



these are super smart remarks, but its my opinion.

Like our government has EVER cared about the soldiers?
Allen

nosliw
11-02-2003, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by big man alex
I think that bush is an idiot.

He really hasnt done any good to this country.

Hes team does all of his work for him, and his speeches.

he "cares" about this country, but yet he does not care about our soldiers.



these are super smart remarks, but its my opinion.



lmao ok

ignorance at it's best

this one's going in my profile

ComfortEagle
11-02-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by theHULK9281
ROFLMAO......no biased opinion? :rolleyes:

LMAO I was just about to post the same thing about his "newtral" opinion.

Gordon_18, I'm really sorry you don't like Bush, and I'm sure you have other reasons for not liking him, but I find it odd that you expect him to attend every funeral. Since when has any leader done that? Get real, man! Get a grip.

Smokinghawk
11-02-2003, 08:33 PM
I don't think people who support him are idiots, but I do oppose Bush's policies quite strongly. And I'm glad you pointed out that despite all that rhetoric about "supporting our troops," he hasn't been to ONE funeral, or called ONE family after a death, as was customary with every other president. So despite flying in wearing a flight suit and doing photo-ops in a bomber jacket, this is a guy who's cut military hazard pay, veterans' benefits, etc.

I think Bush is genuinely uninformed about domestic human needs, and focuses his efforts on behalf of the mighty, the powerful, the wealthy.

BTW, I'm genuinely interested in more substantive comments by people who express "Bush Rocks!" comments.

Gordon_18
11-02-2003, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
I don't think people who support him are idiots, but I do oppose Bush's policies quite strongly. And I'm glad you pointed out that despite all that rhetoric about "supporting our troops," he hasn't been to ONE funeral, or called ONE family after a death, as was customary with every other president. So despite flying in wearing a flight suit and doing photo-ops in a bomber jacket, this is a guy who's cut military hazard pay, veterans' benefits, etc.

I think Bush is genuinely uninformed about domestic human needs, and focuses his efforts on behalf of the mighty, the powerful, the wealthy.

BTW, I'm genuinely interested in more substantive comments by people who express "Bush Rocks!" comments.

well put and well said

Section 8
11-02-2003, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
I don't think people who support him are idiots, but I do oppose Bush's policies quite strongly. And I'm glad you pointed out that despite all that rhetoric about "supporting our troops," he hasn't been to ONE funeral, or called ONE family after a death, as was customary with every other president. So despite flying in wearing a flight suit and doing photo-ops in a bomber jacket, this is a guy who's cut military hazard pay, veterans' benefits, etc.

I think Bush is genuinely uninformed about domestic human needs, and focuses his efforts on behalf of the mighty, the powerful, the wealthy.

BTW, I'm genuinely interested in more substantive comments by people who express "Bush Rocks!" comments.

What exactly makes you think that someone who would make a "Bush Rocks!" comment would have anything more or less substansive to say than someone who would make a " an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots" comment? After all, someone with a "Bush Rocks!" mentality is only fractionally more intelligent than someone who would be arrogant enough to categorize all of his follow...er, 'supporters' as idiots.

Hmm, let's see, substansive comments...oh, yes; I seem to recall several of your 'well put and well said' arguments being torn to shreds in another recent thread. What exactly are you looking for? Oh, never mind...


[b]I'm genuinely interested in more substantive comments by people who express "Bush Rocks!" comments.

I get it now; you are looking for someone on your same level to debate with.

Smokinghawk
11-02-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
Hmm, let's see, substansive comments...oh, yes; I seem to recall several of your 'well put and well said' arguments being torn to shreds in another recent thread. What exactly are you looking for? Oh, never mind...

I get it now; you are looking for someone on your same level to debate with.


No, I was making a genuine attempt to entreat others to share their thoughts. But if you're intent on turning it into a snotty exchange, the so be it. I suppose that's why you're duly impressed with my points being "torn to shreds," which really amounted to people writing "that's stupid" and "Bull****". Plenty of people might have disagreed, and some even said why; I didn't get the pleasure of reading actual researched fact in the responses. Just people telling me it was wrong. (weirdly enough, the headlines the NEXT DAY after I wrote the piece everyone said was "stupid spin" vindicated my point exactly, and I posted the source).

So much for trying to invite dignified conversation about political disagreements. Let it be noted that you, not I, turned the polite invitation into a taunt and an insult.

Sheesh, people wonder why folks don't like Bush, when Bush's advocates act like a buch of petulant O'Reileys.

Starsky
11-02-2003, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Smokinghawk
I don't think people who support him are idiots, but I do oppose Bush's policies quite strongly. And I'm glad you pointed out that despite all that rhetoric about "supporting our troops," he hasn't been to ONE funeral, or called ONE family after a death, as was customary with every other president. So despite flying in wearing a flight suit and doing photo-ops in a bomber jacket, this is a guy who's cut military hazard pay, veterans' benefits, etc.

I think Bush is genuinely uninformed about domestic human needs, and focuses his efforts on behalf of the mighty, the powerful, the wealthy.

BTW, I'm genuinely interested in more substantive comments by people who express "Bush Rocks!" comments.

So Bush doesn't care about the troops because he hasn't attended funerals? I'm sure the guy has gone to about 100 funerals already since 9/11...what do you want, 3 funerals a day? A symbolic one to prove he cares? That would be more stupid then genuine anyways.

Domestic human needs? You mean continually creating and expanding more bloated social programs? What do you want, a welfare state? First it was poor single mothers with children, then everyone got real and cut the funding after they realized the dependence it created....now its seniors. If your thinking the government should be used as the arm to solve domestic human needs, you have no idea what freedom is, what the founding fathers wanted, or how the economy works. Government expansion is not the solution. Take it to its logical conclusion and you see what expanding government turns into..

Seriously, please elaborate on how reducing taxes is bad or how creating dependence programs is good, go ahead. Everything that has ever happened in the history of economics and freedom proves that government expansion is not the answer.

Booker H
11-02-2003, 09:21 PM
I am not into US politics, I been told to but out before as well, I think that Bush was a little too zealous with the invasion. I think this has the potential ti cripple your great nation.

PUA
11-02-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots. Alot of U.S soldiers have died thus far. Not alot to make people worry, but enough to draw attention.... I think its funny how all of you Praise bush for the war... AND you give SO much respect for the troops (This doesn't apply to everyone, just a majority) Yes your OWN chief AND commander doesn't give a **** about them. Proof??? Look here at the pic attached i got from my newpaper... it made me ****ing SICK. And don't give me **** about him being to busy, BECAUSE if he can send all these troops to fight, then he can certainly pay his respects.

What r ur thoughts?
As much as many despise and hate Bush, you gotta agree on one thing though: Masking the war against Iraq as a "war against Sadam" was clever cos look now WE GOT CHEAP OIL! Im not from US but our petrol prices are so much cheaper thanks to America's effort to get Iraq's oil and kill so many innocent people in the process. Well I was being optimistic here.

Booker H
11-02-2003, 09:30 PM
now that starsky has arrived on this thread all rational debate and thought will be washed away

nosliw
11-02-2003, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Booker H
now that starsky has arrived on this thread all rational debate and thought will not just a bunch of ignorant liberals bashing bush because they have been brainwashed by the elite media and radical leftists


agreed

Booker H
11-02-2003, 09:41 PM
whatr is the point quoting someone if you are going to alter it?

nosliw
11-02-2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Booker H
whatr is the point quoting someone if you are going to alter it?


don't know maybe it would make you think you said that? lol :p

Booker H
11-02-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by nosliw
don't know maybe it would make you think you said that? lol :p

:Dpiss off- or ill think i am losing it:p

ComfortEagle
11-02-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by PUA
As much as many despise and hate Bush, you gotta agree on one thing though: Masking the war against Iraq as a "war against Sadam" was clever cos look now WE GOT CHEAP OIL! Im not from US but our petrol prices are so much cheaper thanks to America's effort to get Iraq's oil and kill so many innocent people in the process. Well I was being optimistic here.

Where are you buying your petrol from? Oil prices are up. Besides, Iraq is a member of OPEC and now that they are free from UN sanctions (which were previously setting the amount of oil Iraq could export) they are not free to flood the market with oil. Besides, have they even started to export in quantities greater than pre-war levels?

Booker H
11-02-2003, 09:53 PM
didnt the price go up as all the towel heads blow up the pipelines

PUA
11-02-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
Where are you buying your petrol from? Oil prices are up. Besides, Iraq is a member of OPEC and now that they are free from UN sanctions (which were previously setting the amount of oil Iraq could export) they are not free to flood the market with oil. Besides, have they even started to export in quantities greater than pre-war levels?
in south east asian territory :D


and no prior to the Iraq war our petrol prices were huge... now they came down like 20% on average.

Starsky
11-02-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Booker H
now that starsky has arrived on this thread all rational debate and thought will be washed away

Booker H, you haven't demonstrated any rational debate or thought to begin with. If the anti-war crowd wants to come up with cliched oil theories or statements how the US alienated the world, go ahead...just dont pretend its anything close to rational debate or thought.

Snoopis
11-03-2003, 11:45 AM
There are things I like and dislike about Bush.

I'll start with the things I dislike. For one, he cut taxes, but hasn't cut spending. I'm all for tax cuts, but just as important is controlling the size of our government, and the associated budget/deficit.

I also think he's a hypocrite in some respects. He claims to be all about reducing our dependence on foreign oil and creating an "alternative fuel economy." But, he's done little to nothing to prove it. Sure, he dumped a bunch of money into Hydrogen, but that's 20-30years down the road. What about now? A lot of alternative fuel initiatives and funding has disappeared.

Now for the war on terror, specifically the situation in Iraq. Why the hell did he wait so long? Bending over backwards for public opinion and politics. If Iraq is such a threat(as I believe it was), he shouldn't have dicked around with the UN for so long. He knew what the end result would be.

I guess the only thing I like about him is that he responded quickly and strongly to Sept 11th, and also the fact that he (eventually) put an end to Iraq's WMD programs. I know a lot of people will say that they haven't found any WMD. Well, if you're refering to stockpiles, you're correct. But they have found proof of WMD programs. And maybe they moved the stockpiles out of country before we got there, maybe not. If not, well then there's no doubt that we succesfully put an end to his WMD programs. And that's one less threat for us to worry about.

I'm not real happy with him overall, but so far I don't see anyone else I'd vote for. And of all the issues to consider, national security is the most important IMO. A balanced budget and healthcare for everyone are worthless if we are constantly having terrorist attacks. So far, he's got my vote for re-election.

-Nick

SyNeRgY
11-03-2003, 11:58 AM
Here is a thought. Have we ever been happy with 1 president? No, of course not. I may be happy about one, yet the guy sitting accross from me hates him. Bottom line, when you are one man trying to run a country there will always be someone that opposes them. No one will ever be happy with the president.. it is 220 million to 1.

Gordon_18
11-03-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by SyNeRgY
Here is a thought. Have we ever been happy with 1 president? No, of course not. I may be happy about one, yet the guy sitting accross from me hates him. Bottom line, when you are one man trying to run a country there will always be someone that opposes them. No one will ever be happy with the president.. it is 220 million to 1.

I like Clinton, He kept it real.

antcraw
11-03-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Booker H, you haven't demonstrated any rational debate or thought to begin with. If the anti-war crowd wants to come up with cliched oil theories or statements how the US alienated the world, go ahead...just dont pretend its anything close to rational debate or thought.

Yeah any rational person knows that communists are turning America into a socialist welfare state and things like the FDIC, the Federal Reserve system, Social Security, low interest student loans, and Clean Air and Water Acts prove it!

LordNeon
11-03-2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots. Alot of U.S soldiers have died thus far. Not alot to make people worry, but enough to draw attention.... I think its funny how all of you Praise bush for the war... AND you give SO much respect for the troops (This doesn't apply to everyone, just a majority) Yes your OWN chief AND commander doesn't give a **** about them. Proof??? Look here at the pic attached i got from my newpaper... it made me ****ing SICK. And don't give me **** about him being to busy, BECAUSE if he can send all these troops to fight, then he can certainly pay his respects.

What r ur thoughts?

Bush is a lazy rich boy who dodged combat himself by joining the National Guard thanks to Daddy and then failing to report for duty. He has NO respect for the U.S. military - he just likes to USE them.

Count me a Wesley Clark supporter for 2004.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
He has NO respect for the U.S. military - he just likes to USE them.


I think you're right.

LordNeon
11-03-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by antcraw
Yeah any rational person knows that communists are turning America into a socialist welfare state and things like the FDIC, the Federal Reserve system, Social Security, low interest student loans, and Clean Air and Water Acts prove it!

Here's a hint for you ... virtually every developed, prosperous nation on Earth has programs and laws like those you mention here.

Think there's a reason for that?

I like these things. I don't care to live in a Third World sh!thole, which is what the nation will turn into if the right wing gets its way.

bigmuscles42
11-03-2003, 01:11 PM
Personally, I think Bush is a moron and don't get how anyone can support the War in Iraq. I mean people who like Bush always say that the people who oppose the war don't support our troops. I wouldn't call several soldiers dying each day in Iraq supporting our troops either. To tell you the truth we haven't accomplished much in Iraq, no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, we have further alienated the countries in the Middle East who already hate us, as well as making other countries mad as well. Bush's policy towards Iraq's Reconstruction was not very well thought out, as was the administrations ignorance that the Iraqi people would open us with welcome. In addition, the money spent on this war is ridicolous and could have very well been spent to something much more worthwhile. One final note about Bush, when he was asked about our soldiers dying in Iraq, he replied with "Bring em' on."

jestros
11-03-2003, 01:13 PM
A thoughtful bit of political commentary for all the right-wingers:
http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by bigmuscles42
...One final note about Bush, when he was asked about our soldiers dying in Iraq, he replied with "Bring em' on."

I just have to comment on the gross misquote here: The "Bring 'em on" comment was in regards to the terrorists who think they can intimidade American forces by random acts of violence.

And another thing: like it or not, the troops are over there doing their job. I'm not happy they are dying over there, and I feel for them and their families, but they are the ****ing armed forces for christs sake. Now, you can be against the war and that's your choice, but don't say that Bush doesn't care about the military because our soldiers are dying over there. At least come up with a better reason; it's bull****, and everyone that says it knows it (I would hope).

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I like Clinton, He kept it real.

How so? I've got nothing against the guy personally, and he was a great politician, but what did he actually accomplish? And if you say the great economy, you'd better be able to tell me how he was responsible for it.

LordNeon
11-03-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
I'm not happy they are dying over there, and I feel for them and their families, but they are the ****ing armed forces for christs sake. Now, you can be against the war and that's your choice, but don't say that Bush doesn't care about the military because our soldiers are dying over there.

I'd say the fact that he sent them there in the first place on poor evidence without a real postwar plan is the REAL proof he doesn't care about the military.

But they're there, and we should stay there and finish the job at least somewhat, and I hope they're successful. And I hope that Bush will be tossed out in 2004 for getting us into this mess in the first place.

antcraw
11-03-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Here's a hint for you ... virtually every developed, prosperous nation on Earth has programs and laws like those you mention here.

Think there's a reason for that?

I like these things. I don't care to live in a Third World sh!thole, which is what the nation will turn into if the right wing gets its way.

Iknow that but Starsky doesn't seem to get it :)

antcraw
11-03-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
How so? I've got nothing against the guy personally, and he was a great politician, but what did he actually accomplish? And if you say the great economy, you'd better be able to tell me how he was responsible for it.

I think it's just the attitude he had that America is doing OK like Reagan. Economy is running good, people are happy (generally), ect. It seemed like he was just keeping everything going, no big changes. Where as now there is a climate of uncertainty and Bush has done nothing to make it any better.

jestros
11-03-2003, 02:08 PM
I think it's quite the opposite, he's used the uncertainty to make it worse. The downturn in the economy gave excuse to handout tax cuts (to the rich). 9-11 gave him the excuse to finish up Daddies war.

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by jestros
I think it's quite the opposite, he's used the uncertainty to make it worse. The downturn in the economy gave excuse to handout tax cuts (to the rich)....

Here's another thing I don't understand: tax cuts for the rich.

The bottom 50% of wage earners (getting below 26k/yr) pay about 4% of the total income tax burden, and they earn about 13% of all income. If you take a look at the richest people in the country I'm pretty sure you'll find a bunch of guys that earned their wealth from next to nothing, despite the fact that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of all income taxes, and they earn around 35% of the total income. So of course, if you give a tax cut, the people who pay the most are going to get the biggest break, simply because they pay the most.

Rest assured, we still have a progressive tax in place, and the rich are still paying the majority of taxes.

CreatineMan
11-03-2003, 03:07 PM
republicans built the ecnomomy dating back to the 80's. Clinton rode the economy and did nothing to help it. When he left office, the economy was heading towards a downward spiral. After 9/11, the economy would be ****, no matter who was president. Bush just returned the highest rise in GDP in 19 years. He is a great politician and a great conservative.

jonnyb
11-03-2003, 03:18 PM
hey just read my signature, bush is a dumb ****.

his IQ is 91, COME ON! The lowest in the past 50 years.

1. President George W. Bush has the Lowest IQ of all Presidents of the past 50 Years. (His IQ is 91)
2. When asked to point out Iraq on a political world map he could not?
3. When asked, he could not name half of the world's political leaders?
4. He lacks the ability to even spell 'trickle-down' economics, let alone understand the theory?
5. He did not know whether Spain was a republic or kingdom?
6. He was almost killed by a pretzel?!!
7. When asked where his Northern Ireland War Summit with Tony Blair was taking place he replied 'Dublin', a city that is not even in Northern Ireland? (The Summit was actually taking place in Belfast).
8. He repeatedly makes idiotic like verbal mistakes such as 'most of our imports now come from overseas' and 'it will take time to restore chaos in Iraq'?

strongerone1
11-03-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by jonnyb
hey just read my signature, bush is a dumb ****.

his IQ is 91, COME ON! The lowest in the past 50 years.

1. President George W. Bush has the Lowest IQ of all Presidents of the past 50 Years. (His IQ is 91)
2. When asked to point out Iraq on a political world map he could not?
3. When asked, he could not name half of the world's political leaders?
4. He lacks the ability to even spell 'trickle-down' economics, let alone understand the theory?
5. He did not know whether Spain was a republic or kingdom?
6. He was almost killed by a pretzel?!!
7. When asked where his Northern Ireland War Summit with Tony Blair was taking place he replied 'Dublin', a city that is not even in Northern Ireland? (The Summit was actually taking place in Belfast).
8. He repeatedly makes idiotic like verbal mistakes such as 'most of our imports now come from overseas' and 'it will take time to restore chaos in Iraq'?

I'm from River Oaks, which part of Oakville are you from?

jonnyb
11-03-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by strongerone1
I'm from River Oaks, which part of Oakville are you from?

Right by Glenn Abbey, off dorval.

philhill4
11-03-2003, 03:38 PM
I think on so many issues and points here people are missing the bigger picture. Bush is not a middle of the road guy. He doesn't sit there and try and make everyone feel good, he actually does the things that are needed for long term security and prosperity regardless of whether everyone likes it or agrees with it. This is the exact opposite of Clinton who spent the whole 8 years try to make 250million friends instead of actually making bold decisions on our nations security and the future for our kids.

When it comes to Iraq 2 mistakes were made. 1. There should never have been as much emphasis put on the WMD's. As far as I am concerned Bush could have basically said Saddam is a piece of sh*t and we are removing him and that would have been enough for me LOL. Seriously though Saddam and others like him only hurt the future not just for our nations kids but for all people around the globe. 2. We should have gone in earlier and without any UN support at all. Personally I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. This thread was started by a Canadian from what I understand. Canada a nation that couldn't defend itself if it was invaded by the Eskimos. These people are so overtaxed and yet have a military smaller than the Rhode Island national guard. I can see your money is spent so wisely up there. Hey look you are all really nice people overall but don't bite the hand that feeds and protects you. Do you even have a clue how much assistance the USA provides your country? Probably not so here is a short list.

1. We provide you with military security. How you may ask well first off we like you guys and we are your neighbors so we are not about to let anyone f*ck with you. Besides just you guys living next door to us basically protects you more than anything else.
2. We provide you with more than 40% of your energy. That is right folks, Canada has trouble providing themselves with enough energy so we basically give it to you for free.
3. We are constantly providing your citizens with surgical and medical assistance that your own healthcare can't cover. Your system is flawed so you end up not being able to provide the most difficult of procedures so we take care of most of that for you.
And the list goes on and on and on.

Back to Bush. Is he the perfect guy hell no but no one ever will be. He is however a great leader. He understands that to do this job you surround yourself with the best people possible. That is why he has formed what is considered by most historians to already be the greatest presidential cabinet in history. Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the list goes on. These are easily some of the most brillian minds ever put together on one team. This is what its about. Leadership. Clinton went through cabinet members like water. He had some of the worst people working for him ever.

The war on terror will continue. We will as a nation take the steps necessary to provide long term security. The nations of the middle east really only have one choice. Get your heads out of your asses and come join the rest of us in the 21st century. Form democracies now and avoid the trouble of trying to fight us. YOU WILL LOSE. It really is that simple. As the next 5 years will show us and believe me Bush will get re-elected, the world will become a safer and safer place. At the end of Bush's second term we will see the following:

1. Iraq a free democracy that will be at that point not only fending for themselves but helping us to provide a safe and prosperous middle east.
2. Afghanastan will also be a free democracy. They need some more time but we will be there to help them build the infrastructure needed for long term growth. Bottom line here is free people free of terror.
3. Iran will by this point be free of the religious ruling council. The young will have taken back their nation. We will be there to help them make sure that a long standing democracy is ensured. These three middle east nations I just mentioned will provide the backbone for the future of the middle east. Along with to the east of them Pakistan and India, and to the west nations like Israel, Kuwait, Qatar and so on the future will be bright.
4. North Korea won't just not be a threat any longer but we will be within a year or so of a reunited Korea. Finally the people of north korea will no longer live in torture, fear and poverty. The korean peninsula will be a safe, prosperous and nuclear free place and will become a better neighbor to China and Japan.
5. By this point I believe we will have launched an all out assault on organizations like Hamas and in turn we will finally put an end to the extreme violence in Israel and Palestine. Palestine will be a nation finally without any jerk off groups like Hamas holding them back any longer.
6. I believe by this point as well we will finally see Castro out of Cuba. Why we have left this piece of sh*t in power so long is beyond me but Bush will finally put the nail in his coffin.
7. We will have begun a political, economical and military campaign to finally rid Central and South America of gorilla fighters, drug cartels and also to bring prosperity to our neighbors to the south. We have to find a way to rid that region of its problems. Their economy and safety is directly related to ours and to ignore it would be wrong but I believe by statements made by this administration that they are going to take care of those issues after we have cleaned house in the middle east.
8. Our economy will be at its greatest point in history. More people will own small businesses and own their own homes than ever before. Unemployement will be very low, the stock market larger than ever before and all of us will be doing better.

See to get and achieve these things it takes strong leadership. It takes the understanding that we have to fight and suffer loss to gain security and prosperity in our future. Bush understands this. Will all these things be exactly as I have said maybe but if not we will be much closer to those visions and that safe place than we are today.

Does all this mean I support Bush? You are damn right I do. Doesn this mean I would never vote for a Democrat? No not true. Find me a democrat that is smart and bold enough to do what is needed to make our nation and this world better and I will support him. Until then though you can take Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Clark and the rest of those idiots and tell them to go back to their old jobs because none of them have what it takes to be the leader of the free world. They are the worst bunch of candidates I have ever seen. They are a joke and they along with the Clintons and their big mouth's, are turning the democratic party into a total joke. The democratic party is becoming irrelevant in this country. Most people don't take them seriously at all anymore and those that do aren't thinking with intelligence but letting their warped emotions stand in the way of what is right and true.

So if you don't like Bush now then either change your way of thinking or just get used to it because you will see him in the white house for another 4 years. At which time if you really want a democrat in office then get your sh*t together and find someone worthy otherwise you won't get the white house back for another few decades.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by philhill4
I think on so many issues and points here people are missing the bigger picture. Bush is not a middle of the road guy. He doesn't sit there and try and make everyone feel good, he actually does the things that are needed for long term security and prosperity regardless of whether everyone likes it or agrees with it. This is the exact opposite of Clinton who spent the whole 8 years try to make 250million friends instead of actually making bold decisions on our nations security and the future for our kids.

When it comes to Iraq 2 mistakes were made. 1. There should never have been as much emphasis put on the WMD's. As far as I am concerned Bush could have basically said Saddam is a piece of sh*t and we are removing him and that would have been enough for me LOL. Seriously though Saddam and others like him only hurt the future not just for our nations kids but for all people around the globe. 2. We should have gone in earlier and without any UN support at all. Personally I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. This thread was started by a Canadian from what I understand. Canada a nation that couldn't defend itself if it was invaded by the Eskimos. These people are so overtaxed and yet have a military smaller than the Rhode Island national guard. I can see your money is spent so wisely up there. Hey look you are all really nice people overall but don't bite the hand that feeds and protects you. Do you even have a clue how much assistance the USA provides your country? Probably not so here is a short list.

1. We provide you with military security. How you may ask well first off we like you guys and we are your neighbors so we are not about to let anyone f*ck with you. Besides just you guys living next door to us basically protects you more than anything else.
2. We provide you with more than 40% of your energy. That is right folks, Canada has trouble providing themselves with enough energy so we basically give it to you for free.
3. We are constantly providing your citizens with surgical and medical assistance that your own healthcare can't cover. Your system is flawed so you end up not being able to provide the most difficult of procedures so we take care of most of that for you.
And the list goes on and on and on.

Back to Bush. Is he the perfect guy hell no but no one ever will be. He is however a great leader. He understands that to do this job you surround yourself with the best people possible. That is why he has formed what is considered by most historians to already be the greatest presidential cabinet in history. Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the list goes on. These are easily some of the most brillian minds ever put together on one team. This is what its about. Leadership. Clinton went through cabinet members like water. He had some of the worst people working for him ever.

The war on terror will continue. We will as a nation take the steps necessary to provide long term security. The nations of the middle east really only have one choice. Get your heads out of your asses and come join the rest of us in the 21st century. Form democracies now and avoid the trouble of trying to fight us. YOU WILL LOSE. It really is that simple. As the next 5 years will show us and believe me Bush will get re-elected, the world will become a safer and safer place. At the end of Bush's second term we will see the following:

1. Iraq a free democracy that will be at that point not only fending for themselves but helping us to provide a safe and prosperous middle east.
2. Afghanastan will also be a free democracy. They need some more time but we will be there to help them build the infrastructure needed for long term growth. Bottom line here is free people free of terror.
3. Iran will by this point be free of the religious ruling council. The young will have taken back their nation. We will be there to help them make sure that a long standing democracy is ensured. These three middle east nations I just mentioned will provide the backbone for the future of the middle east. Along with to the east of them Pakistan and India, and to the west nations like Israel, Kuwait, Qatar and so on the future will be bright.
4. North Korea won't just not be a threat any longer but we will be within a year or so of a reunited Korea. Finally the people of north korea will no longer live in torture, fear and poverty. The korean peninsula will be a safe, prosperous and nuclear free place and will become a better neighbor to China and Japan.
5. By this point I believe we will have launched an all out assault on organizations like Hamas and in turn we will finally put an end to the extreme violence in Israel and Palestine. Palestine will be a nation finally without any jerk off groups like Hamas holding them back any longer.
6. I believe by this point as well we will finally see Castro out of Cuba. Why we have left this piece of sh*t in power so long is beyond me but Bush will finally put the nail in his coffin.
7. We will have begun a political, economical and military campaign to finally rid Central and South America of gorilla fighters, drug cartels and also to bring prosperity to our neighbors to the south. We have to find a way to rid that region of its problems. Their economy and safety is directly related to ours and to ignore it would be wrong but I believe by statements made by this administration that they are going to take care of those issues after we have cleaned house in the middle east.
8. Our economy will be at its greatest point in history. More people will own small businesses and own their own homes than ever before. Unemployement will be very low, the stock market larger than ever before and all of us will be doing better.

See to get and achieve these things it takes strong leadership. It takes the understanding that we have to fight and suffer loss to gain security and prosperity in our future. Bush understands this. Will all these things be exactly as I have said maybe but if not we will be much closer to those visions and that safe place than we are today.

Does all this mean I support Bush? You are damn right I do. Doesn this mean I would never vote for a Democrat? No not true. Find me a democrat that is smart and bold enough to do what is needed to make our nation and this world better and I will support him. Until then though you can take Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Clark and the rest of those idiots and tell them to go back to their old jobs because none of them have what it takes to be the leader of the free world. They are the worst bunch of candidates I have ever seen. They are a joke and they along with the Clintons and their big mouth's, are turning the democratic party into a total joke. The democratic party is becoming irrelevant in this country. Most people don't take them seriously at all anymore and those that do aren't thinking with intelligence but letting their warped emotions stand in the way of what is right and true.

So if you don't like Bush now then either change your way of thinking or just get used to it because you will see him in the white house for another 4 years. At which time if you really want a democrat in office then get your sh*t together and find someone worthy otherwise you won't get the white house back for another few decades.

jonnyb
11-03-2003, 03:51 PM
Bump to that picture CalcioFreak, how dumb is this guy?

philhill4
11-03-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by jonnyb
Right by Glenn Abbey, off dorval.

Glenn Abbey can go f*ck off. Look at some truth behind this list.
1. President George W. Bush has the Lowest IQ of all Presidents of the past 50 Years. (His IQ is 91)
IQ obviously has nothing to do with it. If it did then Clinton would not have been stupid enough to lie to the country and underoath in a court of law and he would have been smart enough to diddle Monica somewhere other than the oval office. He also would have been smart enough to not let his wife do anything at all like her complete screw up with the health care project. Also Carter would have not let our oil shortage get out of hand like it did and he would have also been able to get our people home from the Iran hostage crisis. So don't give me the IQ crap.
2. When asked to point out Iraq on a political world map he could not?
This is a myth. It never happened. Another load of sh*t perpetuated by the moronic left.
3. When asked, he could not name half of the world's political leaders?
So what. First of all that was before he took office. Second most of the leaders of these countries are not that important. Now if he didn't know Tony Blair, Putin, or the Japanese Prime Minister that could be a problem. If you are referring to him not pronouncing their names right then I say WHO F*CKING CARES.
4. He lacks the ability to even spell 'trickle-down' economics, let alone understand the theory?
Well this is just bullsh*t. Again just a pretend insult to try and ruin a good mans name. In fact it is his understanding of trickle-down economics that is going to save this country in the long run.
5. He did not know whether Spain was a republic or kingdom?
Again a myth and again who cares. It is Spain, they are a country, they are our friend and we help each other out. Kingdom, Republic, Toilet bowl, Cereal box whatever.
6. He was almost killed by a pretzel?!!
Good make fun of a man choking on food. Real intelligent of you.
7. When asked where his Northern Ireland War Summit with Tony Blair was taking place he replied 'Dublin', a city that is not even in Northern Ireland? (The Summit was actually taking place in Belfast).
Even if he did make the mistake I again ask WHO CARES. Hell the fact that Ireland and Northern Ireland are still having problems over that crap is enough for me to say f*ck it. I am so sick of these countries and their whimpering about some religious bullsh*t that spans centuries. Get over yourselves you aren't that important.
8. He repeatedly makes idiotic like verbal mistakes such as 'most of our imports now come from overseas' and 'it will take time to restore chaos in Iraq'?
Yes he does make verbal mistakes but so did FDR. So did Eisenhower, Carter, hell they all do. Oh I know I forgot Clinton the great speaker. Oh the man who can bullsh*t and double talk his way out of everything. I guess that is what you want in a president. Well no thanks. I like guys who understand what it means to make the tough choices and run a country with pride. So I am going to go with guys liek Bush41, Bush43 and Reagan.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 03:54 PM
George W. Bush
The White House, USA
Resumι

Past Work Experience

• I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
• I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
• I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock
• I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money
• With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments as Governor

• I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
• I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
• I cut taxes and bankrupted Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
• I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.
• I became U.S. President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to
the Supreme Court.


Accomplishments as President

• I attacked and overtook two countries.
• I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
• I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
• I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
• I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
• My record for environmental issues is the least of my concerns.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
• I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year.
• After taking-off the entire month of August, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

• I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.
• I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of Sadam's procurement of
Yellow Cake Nuke WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends.
• I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.
• In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
• I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
• I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.
• I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
• I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history.
• I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
• I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.
• I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families - in war time.
• I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people)
shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of
mankind.
• I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.
• I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.
• I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
• My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.
• I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against
the will of the United Nations and the world community.
• I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
• I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.

• I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board
• I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S.
history.
• I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.
• I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
• I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
• I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
• I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
• My largest lifetime campaign contributor and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history.
• My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
• I have spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.
• I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented
country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in World
history.
• I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
• I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
• I am the first U.S. president in history to have the people of South
Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor,
North Korea.
• I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
• I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in
corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.
• I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.
• I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. Even after 18 months I have
no leads and no credible suspects.
• In the past 18 months following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
• I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any president in U.S. history.
• In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.
• I entered my office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and have turned every single economic category downward - all in less than two
years.


Records and References

• I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. My Texas driving record has been erased and is not available.
• I was AWOL from the National Guard.
• I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
• All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.
• All records of SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
• All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review

philhill4
11-03-2003, 03:55 PM
In response to that pic from Calicofreak all I can say is look at that pic while you look in the mirror. I am living in reality and this reality dictates a need to rid this planet of horrible governments like the Saddam regime, Iran, North Korea etc. We also must eliminate all terrorists organizations now not later. If you actually think that any of the democrats running right now can do that well I can give you the number of a good shrink for you to see.

Oh and if you think Clinton would have handled it better, half our problems right now are because Clinton spent more time wondering how he can get away with playing with Monica's big fat ass rather than worrying about the 5 times he was basically handed Bin Laden on a silver platter and didn't take him.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by philhill4

He is however a great leader. He understands that to do this job you surround yourself with the best people possible. That is why he has formed what is considered by most historians to already be the greatest presidential cabinet in history.

Here's a list of a few more people a little lower down in the cabinet.
Gale Ann Norton – Secretary of the Interior
Lobbied on behalf of oil, gas, mining, and logging interests for Mountain States Legal Foundation; worked for James Watt; lawyer who defended the lead paint industry and argued that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional.
Job – protecting 520 million acres of land belonging to Americans

J. Stephen Griles – Dep. Secretary of the Interior
Former VP of United Mining Company; worked for James Watt under Reagan; Lobbyist representing Occidental Petroleum, National Mining Association & Shell Oil.

Camden Toohey – Special Asst. for Alaska
Former director of Arctic Power, the organization that lobbies on behalf of aggressive oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge and elsewhere in Alaska.
Job – Managing 270 acres of Interior lands in Alaska

Bennett Raley – Asst. Sec for Water and Science
Former Lobbyist for National Water Resources foudation; opposed Clean Water Act and saving water for endangered species.
Job – Allocating water to balance needs of people and wildlife.


This is what its about. Leadership. Clinton went through cabinet members like water. He had some of the worst people working for him ever.

strongerone1
11-03-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by philhill4
Glenn Abbey can go f*ck off.

Glenn Abbey is a neighborhood you dumbass.

stray
11-03-2003, 04:18 PM
I think Bush is an idiot.......

Lead by example........This man does nothing of the sort.......

I would like to see Americas image become so pristine that then and only then can it pass judgment on other countries.......

While Oakland is enjoying another record-breaking murder rate this year and economic woes continue it is encouraging to see a man that can take a vacation when he hasn't yet punched a timecard........

In this land of plenty I find it amazing that we could even have poverty.......

There is a little part of Iraq in every city in America.....That is the reason why the RICH live in gated communities.......

I've come to the realization that America will never reach PERFECTION, but does that mean we should stop trying?

Bush step down.........Democracy? Ha ha we never had a choice........

philhill4
11-03-2003, 04:50 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CalcioFreak
[B]George W. Bush
The White House, USA
Resumι

Past Work Experience

• I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
//Good for him for trying.
• I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
//Good I hope he made a profit.
• I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock
//Good he knows when to get out when the getting is good.
• I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money
//Just like almost every other sports franchise owner in history.
• With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.
//Hey he took the ball and ran with it. Good for him. I know tons of little spoiled rich kids that live off their parents for life. It is good sometimes to see one of them do some good.

Accomplishments as Governor

• I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
//The size of the state and population along with its geography and weather patterns dictates that it will more than likely always be the most polluted. In addition this statement has never been substantiated by anyone making the claims. The records don't show this.
• I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
//This was proven about a dozen times by liberal media to be a lie so stop spreading it.
• I cut taxes and bankrupted Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
//Again the records don't show this. In fact Texas became a more prosperous state with lower pollution in cities like Houston and he improved the education system as well. Texas school students test scores improved dramatically during his time as governor.
• I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.
//Good for him it is about time someone starts executing these assh*les. I am sick of paying for their meals with my tax dollars.
• I became U.S. President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.
//With regard to this he won based on the constitution of the United States. If you don't like the electoral system then please do your part in helping to form a grass roots effort to eliminate it. Make sure to vote for candidates to congress who support this view and in time this may or may not be changed. Make sure not to just sit around and bitch about it though. Actually get out and do something about it. Also Enron money is not different than all the corporate money Gore had at his disposal and the supreme court is filled with wonderful, smart and Bush appointed members. I am actually very proud of how that went down. They showed their understanding of our laws.

philhill4
11-03-2003, 04:51 PM
Accomplishments as President

• I attacked and overtook two countries.
//Can't wait for the next two. I personally am hoping for Syria and North Korea.
• I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
//The surplus was already being dwindled away by Clinton during his last year, the US treasury was never ever even close to being bankrupt, and 9/11 set us back about 4 years economically speaking. Lets stick to facts shall we.
• I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
//Nothing wrong with deficit spending. It is actually smart business especially in these tough times we live in with global terror.
• I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
//Again lets tell the whole story. Over 95% of these bankruptcies can be directly attributed to the effects of 9/11.
• I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
//Actually statistically speaking the largest drop off percentage wise was not under Bush but regardless it is also from the effects of 9/11, a recession which Clinton stuck us in and the fact that Bush went after corporate fraud which of course is going to create a temporary downturn. We are going to break back over 10,000 within the next 2 months.
• My record for environmental issues is the least of my concerns.
//Truth is the enviroment will take a backseat to national security.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
//WOW really reaching for it there with the DUI charge. Yeah and Clinton didn't inhale huh.
• I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year.
//Well lets be honest the president is never on vacation. If he chooses to do some work at his ranch then so be it. As long as it gets done I don't care if he does it while drinking coffee at the diner from the show 90210.
• After taking-off the entire month of August, I then presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
//The worst tragedy in our history was not a security failure so much as a failure of the former president Clinton to not take out Bin Laden the 5 times he was ready to be handed over. Lets again stick to facts.

• I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.
//Great as far as I am concerned we should be the only country with WMD's but that weapon you refer to is not considered a WMD by any nation on earth. So nice try.
• I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of Sadam's procurement of Yellow Cake Nuke WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends.
//He never blamed anything on the British they took responsibility for it and in addition we went in there for alot more reasons than WMD's and beside just the fact that the Saddam rape rooms are closed and children are getting a better education is worth the fight.
• I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.
//GOOD.
• In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
//Direct result of mistakes by the Clinton administration.
• I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
//Again related to failures in the last 2 years of Clinton and 9/11.
• I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.
//Again reaching for it with that criminal word but go ahead and have fun with it.
• I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
//Good unlike Clinton he doesn't see the need to be a TV star. He is actually getting work done.
• I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history.
//This is a flat out lie.
• I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
• I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.
//There was no need to. The situation resolved itself and what past presidents do should not have bearing on the decisions of the current president.
• I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families - in war time.
//Actually most of this was pushed through congress by a group of democrats and most will be changed back over in the coming months.
• I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people)
shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
//History of mankind is a little bold there but this just shows how stupid those 15million people are and by the way why aren't they at work, school or home caring for their families. WOW it must be nice not to have to go to work and be able to march around town yelling and bitching like a jerkoff.
• I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.
//All treaties were sh*t to begin with or irrelevant for out times.
• I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.
//I like things kept secret. Clinton talked to much.
• I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
//I want succesful people running our country. Give me a millionare over a poor person anyday.
• My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
//WOW COOL.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.
//This has more to do with the bad policies created by Clinton who wanted to federalize everything.
• I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.
//A fraud that started during Clinton's years of doing nothing.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
//Good for him. Finally someone doing the right thing instead of worrying what the morons in France and other idiots think.
• I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
//We needed it and now things are safer.
• I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.
//Again we needed it because of the times we live in.

• I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
//Yeah and the UN has countries like Libya on it so I am glad we are not on it.
• I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board
//GOOD I like that one to.
• I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history.
//Good the congress oversight usually just gets in the way of getting things done.
• I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.
//Finally. The UN does nothing but get in the way now.
• I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
//He did this because of mistakes on their part not ours.
• I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" (detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
//Detainess from the war on terror do not fall under the Geneva Convention.
• I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
//We didn't need them getting in our way. All they would have done is cause problems. We are the USA we don't need help with our elections.
• I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
//That just shows how badly people wanted him over Gore.
• My largest lifetime campaign contributor and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history.
//And he was willing to bust his own friend in the process.
• My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
//Hey who wouldn't take a free jet ride and besides he still was willing to bust his friends.
• I have spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in U.S. history.
//False.
• I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in World history.
//WOW interesting way to twist the situation. Besides why do you care so much about world opinion.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 04:51 PM
Good points Phil.

philhill4
11-03-2003, 04:54 PM
• I am actively working on a policy of "disengagement" creating the most hostile of Israel-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
//Sharon is a big boy, he can handle it without us. Besides until Arafat is dead the issue won't get resolved.
• I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
//Just shows the failure of the european educational system.
• I am the first U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
//What a twisted load of sh*t that is.
• I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
//More Bullsh*t.
• I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.
//Again this is twisting the truth.
• I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.
//He did not fail. He just hasn't been caught yet. This is not completely in the presidents control but he will be captured.
• I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. Even after 18 months I have no leads and no credible suspects.
//Actually do not speak of things you don't know about. The main suspect is still being investigated. My friend actually was hired to help work on the investigation and that guy is so guilty but it is holes in our laws that are preventing us from a full prosecution.
• In the past 18 months following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
//There have been plenty of investigations. What are you trying to elude to a conspiracy. Go f*ck yourself on that one.
• I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any president in U.S. history.
//More overblown bullsh*t.
• In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.
//OH PLEASE SHUT THE F*CK UP WITH YOUR PUSSY BULLSH*T. WE ARE MORE TOGETHER THAN EVER BEFORE. ONLY A FEW OF YOU ASSH*LES ARE MAKING ALL THIS NOISE AND TWISTING THINGS. PLEASE GO GET A LIFE AND SHUT UP.
• I entered my office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and have turned every single economic category downward - all in less than two years.
//All categories were heading into the toilet under Clintons last 18months and after 9/11 Bush's policies prevented us from any further damage to our economy than we ended up with. Now we are on the verge of the single biggest breakthrough in the history of our economy. The future will show us this.


Records and References

• I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. My Texas driving record has been erased and is not available.
//Yup he wasn't the best driver and he did make mistakes as a younger man. It isn't whether you fall in life it is whether you get up and Bush did and took the ball and ran all the way to the White House.
• I was AWOL from the National Guard.
//Overblown situation. Stop resting on worthless points.
• I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
//Yeah because he no longer uses. Why should he because a few of you say so. WHATEVER.
• All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.
//They are always available. Contact his fathers library or the Texas State division of records.
• All records of SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
//Again more lies to try and discredit him.
• All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
//They will be made available when national security issues are no longer a problem.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 04:55 PM
Phil, I'm with you, how can anyone think this guy is any good...

Starsky
11-03-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by jonnyb
Bump to that picture CalcioFreak, how dumb is this guy?

What an idiotic response. He took the time to explain why he thought what he thought and you and Calciofreak just reply with the typical "George Bush is stupid" or cut and pasted email posts. What he said made more sense then both you and Calciofreak put together.

philhill4
11-03-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by strongerone1
Glenn Abbey is a neighborhood you dumbass.


Again I say Glenn Abbey can go F*ck off. Can't you read.

philhill4
11-03-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
Phil, I'm with you, how can anyone think this guy is any good...

Do me a favor even in your sarcasm or humor attempt do not label me in with your crap. BUSH IS THE BEST.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
What an idiotic response. He took the time to explain why he thought what he thought and you and Calciofreak just reply with the typical "George Bush is stupid" posts. What he said made more sense then both you and Calciofreak put together.

No, I came with the 'how dumb is this guy' post in lieu of the 'George Bush is stupid' post.

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
George W. Bush
The White House, USA
Resumι


Have you read that list? Absolute and complete bull combined with half-truths and outright irrelevant information that may sway someone against Bush if they had absolutely no brains or decision making capabilities of their own.

Starsky
11-03-2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
No, I came with the 'how dumb is this guy' post in lieu of the 'George Bush is stupid' post.

Its a widely circulated anti-George Bush email full of bs claims that has been posted numerous times, not just here. The only thing funnier than it, is the rebutall that cuts it too pieces.

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 05:04 PM
philhill4, your posts have been on point. It's a tribute to how well your arguments are formulated that the only response they get is a lame-ass picture, a cut and pasted piece of liberal propoganda "resume," and a bunch of sarcastic responses.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
philhill4, your posts have been on point. It's a tribute to how well your arguments are formulated that the only response they get is a lame-ass picture, a cut and pasted piece of liberal propoganda "resume," and a bunch of sarcastic responses.

Mainly because his points are so ludicrous it's hard to warrant them a response, his points are purely based on emotion and speculation.

Dorian
11-03-2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by philhill4
Do me a favor even in your sarcasm or humor attempt do not label me in with your crap. BUSH IS THE BEST.


I am with you phil.......

Gordon_18
11-03-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by philhill4
I think on so many issues and points here people are missing the bigger picture. Bush is not a middle of the road guy. He doesn't sit there and try and make everyone feel good, he actually does the things that are needed for long term security and prosperity regardless of whether everyone likes it or agrees with it. This is the exact opposite of Clinton who spent the whole 8 years try to make 250million friends instead of actually making bold decisions on our nations security and the future for our kids.

When it comes to Iraq 2 mistakes were made. 1. There should never have been as much emphasis put on the WMD's. As far as I am concerned Bush could have basically said Saddam is a piece of sh*t and we are removing him and that would have been enough for me LOL. Seriously though Saddam and others like him only hurt the future not just for our nations kids but for all people around the globe. 2. We should have gone in earlier and without any UN support at all. Personally I could care less what the rest of the world thinks. This thread was started by a Canadian from what I understand. Canada a nation that couldn't defend itself if it was invaded by the Eskimos. These people are so overtaxed and yet have a military smaller than the Rhode Island national guard. I can see your money is spent so wisely up there. Hey look you are all really nice people overall but don't bite the hand that feeds and protects you. Do you even have a clue how much assistance the USA provides your country? Probably not so here is a short list.

1. We provide you with military security. How you may ask well first off we like you guys and we are your neighbors so we are not about to let anyone f*ck with you. Besides just you guys living next door to us basically protects you more than anything else.
2. We provide you with more than 40% of your energy. That is right folks, Canada has trouble providing themselves with enough energy so we basically give it to you for free.
3. We are constantly providing your citizens with surgical and medical assistance that your own healthcare can't cover. Your system is flawed so you end up not being able to provide the most difficult of procedures so we take care of most of that for you.


HAHAHAAHAHAAH where the **** did u pull this **** from? I believe ontario provides michigan with a ****LOAD of energy.. We actually have alot of everygy THATS WHY WHERE SELLING IT TO YOU.. Number 2, its bull**** that you provide us with any medical assisstance, cause as far as i'm concerned Canadians AREN"T the ones going to th U.S to buy cheaper prescription drugs because the U..S overcharges.... And i believe that with ANY medical breakthrough The right thing to do would tell other countries about it.. Casue they would do that same for YOU.. 3rd.. Do you know how many ****ing countries would back Canada up? We are known for PEACE.. We give aid to countries that americans have left to ROT. If you just suddenly decided to wage war on Canada, I Gurantee you that Enough countries will form an alliance to boot your ass off the ****ing map. Your strong, but its ovious alot of countries don't like you, And would give ANY excuse to bring you down. They just need a reason.... So once again, until you can ACTUALLY make a list thats correct, and get off that patriotic trip....you can take that list right now, shine it up real nice, turn that sumbitch sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass (Rock)

USMuscle9403
11-03-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
HAHAHAAHAHAAH where the **** did u pull this **** from? I believe ontario provides michigan with a ****LOAD of energy.. We actually have alot of everygy THATS WHY WHERE SELLING IT TO YOU.. Number 2, its bull**** that you provide us with any medical assisstance, cause as far as i'm concerned Canadians AREN"T the ones going to th U.S to buy cheaper prescription drugs because the U..S overcharges.... And i believe that with ANY medical breakthrough The right thing to do would tell other countries about it.. Casue they would do that same for YOU.. 3rd.. Do you know how many ****ing countries would back Canada up? We are known for PEACE.. We give aid to countries that americans have left to ROT. If you just suddenly decided to wage war on Canada, I Gurantee you that Enough countries will form an alliance to boot your ass off the ****ing map. Your strong, but its ovious alot of countries don't like you, And would give ANY excuse to bring you down. They just need a reason.... So once again, until you can ACTUALLY make a list thats correct, and get off that patriotic trip....you can take that list right now, shine it up real nice, turn that sumbitch sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass (Rock)

I REALLY hope you don't believe that...
Allen

USMuscle9403
11-03-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Dorian
I am with you phil.......

Me too.
Allen

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
... We actually have alot of everygy THATS WHY WHERE SELLING IT TO YOU..

Here you are right. Although the energy trade goes both ways, Canada exports more electricity than it imports.


Originally posted by Gordon_18
Number 2, its bull**** that you provide us with any medical assisstance, cause as far as i'm concerned Canadians AREN"T the ones going to th U.S to buy cheaper prescription drugs because the U..S overcharges.... And i believe that with ANY medical breakthrough The right thing to do would tell other countries about it.. Casue they would do that same for YOU..

Your healthcare system is nothing do brag about in terms of quality of care. You can thank your govornment funded healthcare system for a shortage of doctors and medical techonlogy, not the US's hording of medical secrets. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Gordon_18

3rd.. Do you know how many ****ing countries would back Canada up? We are known for PEACE.. We give aid to countries that americans have left to ROT. If you just suddenly decided to wage war on Canada, I Gurantee you that Enough countries will form an alliance to boot your ass off the ****ing map. Your strong, but its ovious alot of countries don't like you, And would give ANY excuse to bring you down. They just need a reason.... So once again, until you can ACTUALLY make a list thats correct, and get off that patriotic trip....you can take that list right now, shine it up real nice, turn that sumbitch sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass (Rock)

You lose me here. What countries has America left to ROT that Canada helps out. Why would we want to wage war on Canada, that would be just plain dumb. And I also disagree that there are a lot of countries that would jump at "any excuse to bring [us] down." The US is too important in the world market. Plus a lot of those countries have citizens that don't like the US, but govornments that eagerly await the next USAID check to arrive in the mail.

Section 8
11-03-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
HAHAHAAHAHAAH where the **** did u pull this **** from? I believe ontario provides michigan with a ****LOAD of energy.. We actually have alot of everygy THATS WHY WHERE SELLING IT TO YOU.. Number 2, its bull**** that you provide us with any medical assisstance, cause as far as i'm concerned Canadians AREN"T the ones going to th U.S to buy cheaper prescription drugs because the U..S overcharges.... And i believe that with ANY medical breakthrough The right thing to do would tell other countries about it.. Casue they would do that same for YOU.. 3rd.. Do you know how many ****ing countries would back Canada up? We are known for PEACE.. We give aid to countries that americans have left to ROT. If you just suddenly decided to wage war on Canada, I Gurantee you that Enough countries will form an alliance to boot your ass off the ****ing map. Your strong, but its ovious alot of countries don't like you, And would give ANY excuse to bring you down. They just need a reason.... So once again, until you can ACTUALLY make a list thats correct, and get off that patriotic trip....you can take that list right now, shine it up real nice, turn that sumbitch sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass (Rock)

Perhaps if you would study something, instead of sitting on your ass in front of the television, your posts might actually be intelligible, and you wouldn't have to resort to such buffoonary.

Nothing quite like quoting a 'professional' 'wrestler' in a political debate... :rolleyes:

Gordon_18
11-03-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
Here you are right. Although the energy trade goes both ways, Canada exports more electricity than it imports.



Your healthcare system is nothing do brag about in terms of quality of care. You can thank your govornment funded healthcare system for a shortage of doctors and medical techonlogy, not the US's hording of medical secrets. :rolleyes:



You lose me here. What countries has America left to ROT that Canada helps out. Why would we want to wage war on Canada, that would be just plain dumb. And I also disagree that there are a lot of countries that would jump at "any excuse to bring [us] down." The US is too important in the world market. Plus a lot of those countries have citizens that don't like the US, but govornments that eagerly await the next USAID check to arrive in the mail.

Candians DO provide aid too.... and we do it out of the kindness of our hearts... You give aid to people cause you've waged war and now your OBLIGATED(I.E Iraq)..

P.S Thank you for not sinking into grade school comments

Section 8
11-03-2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots.

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
Candians DO provide aid too.... and we do it out of the kindness of our hearts... You give aid to people cause you've waged war and now your OBLIGATED(I.E Iraq)..


I reailze that Canada also gives aid to countries, and yes, we are obilgated to help Iraq back on its feet for the first time. But we also give aid to over 80+ countries all over Asia, Africa (waste of money for the most part here, imho), and Eastern Europe.

FatFat Bastard
11-03-2003, 07:50 PM
A quistion


George W Bush has a masters in Buisness
from what school?

how hard is it to get into this school?
{what marks do you need }

BTW it just for my own personal info...
nothing to do with this idiotic thread

thank you for you replly...

Aussie Rules
11-03-2003, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots.
I lost interest in anything you had to say after reading that sentence.

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by FatFat Bastard
A quistion


George W Bush has a masters in Buisness
from what school?

how hard is it to get into this school?
{what marks do you need }

BTW it just for my own personal info...
nothing to do with this idiotic thread

thank you for you replly...

Bush has a bachelors from Yale, and a Masters from Harvard. They are both top schools, though at least for Yale he probably had a lot of weight given to the fact that his father went there.

He's not an intellectual (not so sure that's a bad thing), but he is not an idiot, either.

FatFat Bastard
11-03-2003, 08:09 PM
WOW

Masters from Harvard
it is by far the best business in the world...

I think they teach using the "case system"
that is very impressive

If bush finished this program he must and i mean must have higher then avarage IQ.

its cool hopefully i will to get my MBA from harvard


someday....

ComfortEagle
11-03-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by FatFat Bastard
...
If bush finished this program he must and i mean must have higher then avarage IQ.
...

I don't know about that. I've heard anywhere from 91 to 125, though I don't put much stock in any of the numbers I hear, since I have yet to hear it from a credible sources. His cabinet, however, are extrememly smart people. Personally, so long as I agree with him on the issues and the majority of decisions he makes, I couldn't care less what is IQ is.

USMuscle9403
11-03-2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
I don't know about that. I've heard anywhere from 91 to 125, though I don't put much stock in any of the numbers I hear, since I have yet to hear it from a credible sources. His cabinet, however, are extrememly smart people. Personally, so long as I agree with him on the issues and the majority of decisions he makes, I couldn't care less what is IQ is.

Thank you, IQ has nothing to do with anything if you ask me. Just check out all the geniuses from this board *rolls eyes*.
Allen

FatFat Bastard
11-03-2003, 08:54 PM
I agree
IQ and decision outcomes are different issues.

and besides George W Bush is practically a genius in comparison to my prime minister.


what schools do the presidents advisors attend?
speaking of advisors, is Dr.Condoleezza Rice fluent in russian?

dave22
11-03-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by FatFat Bastard
I agree
IQ and decision outcomes are different issues.

and besides George W Bush is practically a genius in comparison to my prime minister.


what schools do the presidents advisors attend?
speaking of advisors, is Dr.Condoleezza Rice fluent in russian?

Hey, what's wrong with Sharon?

Also, it seems to me that Phill and Starsky were the only people on this thread that have said anything worthwhile. Phill explains why he's glad that Bush is our president, and the anti-Bush crowd paste a pic. Real nice there.

Booker H
11-03-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
Booker H, you haven't demonstrated any rational debate or thought to begin with. If the anti-war crowd wants to come up with cliched oil theories or statements how the US alienated the world, go ahead...just dont pretend its anything close to rational debate or thought.

i have never argued oil, you worthless ****- witt!

Booker H
11-03-2003, 10:03 PM
anyway, the closet thing to brain activity that comes out of starsky are his insults- he thinks he must be the pinnacle of intelligence by calling me, on several ocassions, a communist and a liberal.

FatFat Bastard
11-03-2003, 10:37 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dave22
[B]Hey, what's wrong with Sharon?



he is great in a war time. no doubt
but if you want to see peace, he needs to go.
he is 3rd on my least.
First Arafat then Hamas/and freinds.. and then sharon.
IDF respects him but does not like him... i am not a great fan myself. "too right is never right" its what i belive

philhill4
11-03-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
HAHAHAAHAHAAH where the **** did u pull this **** from? I believe ontario provides michigan with a ****LOAD of energy.. We actually have alot of everygy THATS WHY WHERE SELLING IT TO YOU.. Number 2, its bull**** that you provide us with any medical assisstance, cause as far as i'm concerned Canadians AREN"T the ones going to th U.S to buy cheaper prescription drugs because the U..S overcharges.... And i believe that with ANY medical breakthrough The right thing to do would tell other countries about it.. Casue they would do that same for YOU.. 3rd.. Do you know how many ****ing countries would back Canada up? We are known for PEACE.. We give aid to countries that americans have left to ROT. If you just suddenly decided to wage war on Canada, I Gurantee you that Enough countries will form an alliance to boot your ass off the ****ing map. Your strong, but its ovious alot of countries don't like you, And would give ANY excuse to bring you down. They just need a reason.... So once again, until you can ACTUALLY make a list thats correct, and get off that patriotic trip....you can take that list right now, shine it up real nice, turn that sumbitch sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass (Rock)


I think you missed the points I was making and obviously some of my sarcasm wasn't exactly obvious. Anyhow in response to your post let me say that yes your country currently does provide medications at a lower rate than ours but I was referring to the lack of ability in your countries medical system to provide some of the more complex procedures and care.

As for your rant regarding your own country and security again you missed the point entirely of what I said. We have protected you and always will. The USA loves Canada. Are we annoyed at some of the lack of support from the general public in Canada? You are damn right we are but we are the USA and we stand for freedom of speech so in the end while we may disagree we certainly don't hold it against you. Like our soldiers have died so many times to save other nations we would all walk in front of a bullet to protect Canada so please don't try and turn this into something totally different.

To continue on this topic if you want to rely on other nations to support you you are nuts. France for example couldn't do anything for anyone. I am not saying that there aren't people in France who wouldn't want to but that countries government is so screwed up I really don't know where to begin. Germany a joke, Russia really never wants to help anyone but themselves, the rest of europe really can't get anything done without us and the one country with any real capabilities there England, so think what you will but we aren't going to invade you and we are the best friend you guys will ever have. Truth is you guys have been good to us but don't act tough. Sure you stand for peace but so do we. The difference is we are willing to take bold steps to fight and eliminate threats to world peace.

Oh and just for fun say we did invade you and you think the world is going to rally around you and save you? Probably not but even if they did the only thing that could have a chance of stopping us would be the nuclear threat of Russia otherwise if we are talking a conventional and NON WMD fight, the truth is we could very easily beat the entire planet all on our own. Don't let a few problems in Iraq make you think we couldn't do it. That was the same thinking during WW2 and we ended up f*cking destroying germany and saving all of the worlds ass. If we hadn't gotten involved there would probably be 2 nations on earth today. Hitlerland and America. That would be it.

One more thing I like your use of The Rocks catch phrase. Seriously that is one thing I think we can agree on is The Rock rocks.

philhill4
11-03-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by ComfortEagle
Bush has a bachelors from Yale, and a Masters from Harvard. They are both top schools, though at least for Yale he probably had a lot of weight given to the fact that his father went there.

He's not an intellectual (not so sure that's a bad thing), but he is not an idiot, either.


Yes and let me also say you won't see me on here making any rude useless comments with regard to Clinton, Gore or anyone elses college education or whether they got busted for DUI, pot etc. I may bust some balls from time to time but I wouldn't provide any of that in a serious post.

As for Bush he is not always the smoothest talker but that doesn't matter. He is very intelligent but also has a great deal of common sense. He from what many who know him have expressed, is the kind of guy who just shoots straight with people and makes an effort to get his point across in the most simple of ways. For some that don't like him this annoys them and they like to call him stupid for it. Look that is no different than calling Carter stupid for his strong accent and wimpy tone in his voice or Gore is stupid because he talks like a Robot or someone reading from a script. If you want to pass judgement on a political figure base it on hard facts from that persons political life. Don't resort to attacks on a persons speech patterns.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 11:17 PM
Phil, you get most of your information from Fox News don't you? It's rather obvious that you are one of the many people who if you say something to them often enough they will start to believe it. I'm basing this on the countries that you cite as being 'jokes', you list France, Germany, and Russia, the three countries that Rumsfeld told you were 'problem' countries. The reason you can't begin to go into how screwed up things are in France is because you have no way to back that statement up, I'd bet you've never been out of the country let alone to France to examine how 'screwed up' it is.

Your statement that we 'take bold steps to fight and eliminate threats to world peace' is pure propaganda, you're a victim, talking emotion and spewing out party lines that have been fed to you so many times you now think they're true. We are the biggest threat to world peace, at least according to the rest of the world. Who have we eliminated that was a threat to world peace? Attempts, yes, but no eliminations and no one was a threat to world peace in the first place, we are the first strike nation, we are the threat.

This president can't find the leak in his own white house who gave up the identity of an undercover CIA agent, how would he ever find bin Laden in Central Asia or Saddam Hussein in the Middle East.

If you really want to grow up to be a 'have' and have a real reason to vote republican then do yourself a favor and examine the republican party before Reaganism, before the party became a victim of the smash and grab that the christian right and extreme conservatives pulled off, polluting the Republican party.

CalcioFreak
11-03-2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by philhill4
He from what many who know him have expressed, is the kind of guy who just shoots straight with people...

A real straight shooter:
In selling his tax breaks, the president was at his most disingenuous. "This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes... Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money." This is a perfect example of the old caution about "lies, damn lies and statistics." As Citizens for Tax Justice reported, 80 percent of Americans get less than the president's "average." More than half of all taxpayers get less than $100. Almost a third get nothing at all. Millionaires will enjoy tax breaks averaging $90,000 a year, while middle income Americans will pocket an average of $256. Together they make up the president's "average"

and-
His "first goal," he said, is "an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks job," but his own economic advisors project that his economic plan -- if everything goes well -- will create fewer jobs this year than were lost in the last. In fact, George Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them -- more than 2.9 million lost since 2001.

or,
On environmental issues, the president became simply Orwellian in his inversion of the truth. "I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years," he declared to applause. In fact, his plan does nothing to regulate carbon emissions, allows 50 percent more sulfur emissions and five times more mercury emissions than enforcement of current law. Compared to alternative legislation developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Resources Defense Council estimates that the Bush "clear skies" legislation will result in 100,000 additional premature deaths by 2020

Section 8
11-03-2003, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
Phil, you get most of your information from Fox News don't you? It's rather obvious that you are one of the many people who if you say something to them often enough they will start to believe it. I'm basing this on the countries that you cite as being 'jokes', you list France, Germany, and Russia, the three countries that Rumsfeld told you were 'problem' countries. The reason you can't begin to go into how screwed up things are in France is because you have no way to back that statement up, I'd bet you've never been out of the country let alone to France to examine how 'screwed up' it is.

And I would bet that if I asked you to counter Phil's assertion with an oppositional argument of your own that you would balk at the challenge. France is indeed a very 'screwed up' country, the government particularly. I list reason after reason, but instead of wasting my time, I'll concede to your brilliance for now: why exactly is France in such great shape?



Your statement that we 'take bold steps to fight and eliminate threats to world peace' is pure propaganda, you're a victim, talking emotion and spewing out party lines that have been fed to you so many times you now think they're true. We are the biggest threat to world peace, at least according to the rest of the world. Who have we eliminated that was a threat to world peace? Attempts, yes, but no eliminations and no one was a threat to world peace in the first place, we are the first strike nation, we are the threat.

Thank you, I've been inside working for most of the day; I was missing my daily dose of irony. You do, of course, realize that your assertion is just as much propaganda as Phil's, right? You do know what propaganda is...right?



This president can't find the leak in his own white house who gave up the identity of an undercover CIA agent, how would he ever find bin Laden in Central Asia or Saddam Hussein in the Middle East.


There is no reason to believe that the leak actually did. Talk about "one of the many people who if you say something to them often enough they will start to believe it." You have no idea what the heck you are talking about, yet you see fit to spread your filth wherever you think you can get away with it. I do give you credit though, as you are apparently much more intelligent than me; can you please explain to me how our intelligence community's ability to track down an internal information link is related to our ability to find a person(s) hiding out in a foreign region that is largely hostile to us? I don't see the connection at all, maybe you can help me out.



If you really want to grow up to be a 'have' and have a real reason to vote republican then do yourself a favor and examine the republican party before Reaganism, before the party became a victim of the smash and grab that the christian right and extreme conservatives pulled off, polluting the Republican party.

The putrid stench of gross political ignorance that emanates from this statement is so repulsive that I don't even want to go near it.

If you ever want to have a 'real' reason to do anything (I won't even touch on the idocy that is inherent of your "real reason"), I would suggest you start exercising your brain; it is very clearly atrophied.

antcraw
11-03-2003, 11:55 PM
Phillhill is so off. It's not worth responding. He just tries to bore you into submission with long winded post. I love the way he states opinions as facts and then makes up some more facts to suppoet them. Point out how he's wrong all you want, post links, show him a picture it doesn't matter. He is the typical apologist who can't admit the truth no matter what the facts are.

philhill4
11-03-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
Phil, you get most of your information from Fox News don't you? It's rather obvious that you are one of the many people who if you say something to them often enough they will start to believe it. I'm basing this on the countries that you cite as being 'jokes', you list France, Germany, and Russia, the three countries that Rumsfeld told you were 'problem' countries. The reason you can't begin to go into how screwed up things are in France is because you have no way to back that statement up, I'd bet you've never been out of the country let alone to France to examine how 'screwed up' it is.

Your statement that we 'take bold steps to fight and eliminate threats to world peace' is pure propaganda, you're a victim, talking emotion and spewing out party lines that have been fed to you so many times you now think they're true. We are the biggest threat to world peace, at least according to the rest of the world. Who have we eliminated that was a threat to world peace? Attempts, yes, but no eliminations and no one was a threat to world peace in the first place, we are the first strike nation, we are the threat.

This president can't find the leak in his own white house who gave up the identity of an undercover CIA agent, how would he ever find bin Laden in Central Asia or Saddam Hussein in the Middle East.

If you really want to grow up to be a 'have' and have a real reason to vote republican then do yourself a favor and examine the republican party before Reaganism, before the party became a victim of the smash and grab that the christian right and extreme conservatives pulled off, polluting the Republican party.


Well to begin with I don't get all my news from Fox News. I am a open thinker but you choose to do what so many on the left do and that is convince yourself that if someone like me doesn't see your point and agree with you then we are just mindless sheep towing the party line. Let me tell you my opinions have nothing to do with the party line. While I do consider myself a republican I absolutely do not agree with all that the party supports. I have many many issues within my own party but that is what being not just an american but being a free thinking human being is all about. I form my own opinions based on obtaining all the info I can and judging for myself. Back to your idea that I obtain all info from Fox News again you are wrong. I usually go through at least 2-3 newspapers every morning and try to look at a broad range of the current issues in each paper. Obviously I have my work to do everyday so I can't read every article but I do obviously go to the headlines that I feel are the most important. Later as the day goes on I will obtain more info from all the major news outlets. No one outlet is favored. I want to know exactly what all sides are thinking. The truth is so often the left says something and my jaw hits the floor because I honestly don't understand how they can think the way they do so often. What is really unfortunate is that I have so many friends who are liberal who do a much better job of explaining their beliefs and views than the idiots that the left puts on TV.

My issues with France, Germany and Russia have nothing to do with anything Rumsfeld said. The moment I became aware that France and Germany were not going to support our efforts in Iraq and furthermore were obviously making a huge effort to discredit us, I instantly knew they were a joke. We have done so much for them over the years and I am not just talking about WW2. Plus Chirac we now know was so involved financially with Saddam it doesn't shock me anymore that he was against our efforts. Not to mention we now know from Taric Aziz(sorry if I got the spelling wrong) that Russia and France were in contact with Saddam to let him know they were basically plotting against us. So as far as I am concerned until they show us a true effort at being a working partner for peace for the people of the middle east, they can go screw off.

Also your bet was a loss because I have been around many parts of the world including France. My sister in laws family is of French heritage and whenever we are in europe we visit them in France. They and many in France will be the first to tell you how messed up their government is. Many of them know how corrupt Chirac is and with France having such a horrible level of unemployment it amazes me they haven't all freaked out yet. Do you realize while we sit here in our country and complain about our now under 6% unemployment level, France currently has been averaging around 20% unemployment for months now? It is pretty bad over there right now. I really do feel bad for them.

My statement that we take bold steps to fight and eliminate threats to world peace is not pure propaganda at all. It is what we do now. You may not agree with it and you are free in this country to feel that way but I don't make my opinions based on emotions or spewing the party rhetoric. No in fact this is how I think and how I view the situation at hand. Just because so many around the world view us as the big threat doesn't bother me at all. I would love to see a breakdown of not only the countries surveyed but also the numbers from each country. I guarantee you that so much of that comes from nations who are not living in freedom like we are and even if they do like I have said earlier I honestly do give a f*ck what the rest of the world thinks. Just because so many think a certain thing doesn't make them right. Hey most of the world were convinced the world was flat and they were all wrong. Most Americans believed President Clinton the first time he went on TV and lied right into all our eyes when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" but all who believed that were wrong as well. He in fact did have sexual relations with that woman and he proceded to lie under oath in a federal hearing. So I will stick with my views for now which again like I said before I base on facts and realizing the truth on what needs to be done to bring us to a more stable and peaceful world. For now to get there will be unstable but in time we will live in a much more peaceful world.

You are correct they currently do not know the leak in the White House but Clinton and every other president of the modern era has dealt with the same thing. Reagan dealt with it regularly yet he was able to bring an end to the cold war. You mention Bin Laden so why not mention that Clinton had 5 times when Bin Laden was being handed to him on a silver platter and he didn't do it. He screwed up but we will get him. As long as this nation continues the fight against terror we will in the end get him no doubt. Also comparing the white house leak to finding Bin Laden really makes you look so stupid. It is that kind of thing that makes so many Americans continue to laugh at the left everyday. Please do your party a favor and stop this. Go and learn from the great democrats in our history like FDR, JFK and others. Learn what it means to be a liberal but to also use that ideology properly before you ruin your party.

As for the Republican party yes there are some extremists in the party as there are in any political party. There are also a growing number of liberal extreme christians in the democratic party lately as well. All extremists though lately have been stifled heavily. I know that I trully am not a religous person. Most people when they get to know me and hear my views on religion, science, the enviroment and many other issues begin to assume I am a liberal or a democrat but then we get into the economic, social, military and world issues and they realize that I am a free and open thinker who is not beholden to my party. It is interesting that you think the republicans were better in the past while I think the democrats were better in the past. We are probably both right on some level. Do me a favor though and I am being serious here in everyway, please do not dismiss the folks on the right. We like you are strong in our opinions like you are in yours. Don't dismiss our opinion as a joke because we honestly do not view your opinion that way at all. We do listen and more than ever try and find a way to either find middle ground or to help you see our view on something. Also realize that there are many in your own party or at least on the left you may not admit it openly but support the president fully. Bush has a bit of the Reagan thing going and I can tell you that if my private conversations with many liberals who happen to work within the Democratic party are at all telling, then Bush is going to easily win re-election. Most liberals I know are so disgusted with the choices presenting themselves from the democratic party and when combined with them actually trusting this president and liking what he stands for well there is just no chance for 2004 for you guys. I am sure though that 2008 will be interesting with Hillary sure to throw herself in, a possible return of Al Gore, plus some newcomers from the Republicans it shoud make for an interesting election cycle.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
A real straight shooter:
In selling his tax breaks, the president was at his most disingenuous. "This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes... Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money." This is a perfect example of the old caution about "lies, damn lies and statistics." As Citizens for Tax Justice reported, 80 percent of Americans get less than the president's "average." More than half of all taxpayers get less than $100. Almost a third get nothing at all. Millionaires will enjoy tax breaks averaging $90,000 a year, while middle income Americans will pocket an average of $256. Together they make up the president's "average"

and-
His "first goal," he said, is "an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks job," but his own economic advisors project that his economic plan -- if everything goes well -- will create fewer jobs this year than were lost in the last. In fact, George Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them -- more than 2.9 million lost since 2001.

or,
On environmental issues, the president became simply Orwellian in his inversion of the truth. "I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years," he declared to applause. In fact, his plan does nothing to regulate carbon emissions, allows 50 percent more sulfur emissions and five times more mercury emissions than enforcement of current law. Compared to alternative legislation developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Resources Defense Council estimates that the Bush "clear skies" legislation will result in 100,000 additional premature deaths by 2020


Here we go again. His tax relief has helped us all and we are now seeing first hand the rebound. The Dow is coming back so strong, every month we are gaining new jobs, and so many economic sectors are seeing incredible growth.

With regard to the issue of job losses since 2001 most can be attributed to the effects of 9/11 and please don't dismiss that event. It did huge damage to this countries economy we are actually very lucky it wasn't worse. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost in the new york city and surrounding area alone. It was devestating but we are rebounding so well now. We can revisit this topic again next year and I am very confident we will se incredible numbers. Also remember that the economy was going down very quickly during Clintons last 18months. By the way the economy goes through many cycles so Clinton nor Bush is to blame for any of it at all. Most presidents don't really have that much of an effect on the economy.

With regard to the enviromental issues it is so not a cut and dry issue. For every report from non biased researchers that is against Bush there is one defending his plan. This is trully an issue which needs so much more observation and research but I for one don't really agree much with the enviromental policies of most presidents anyway. Clinton failed at this just as much as any of them.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
Phillhill is so off. It's not worth responding. He just tries to bore you into submission with long winded post. I love the way he states opinions as facts and then makes up some more facts to suppoet them. Point out how he's wrong all you want, post links, show him a picture it doesn't matter. He is the typical apologist who can't admit the truth no matter what the facts are.


What are you talking about? I only deal in reality but you can go ahead and behind your protective wall known as the internet, you can sit there and conjure up some crap about how I twist things. So wrong, so wrong. I deal only in facts and I make every effort to not involve emotions when dealing with such important topics.

Oh and with regard to my long winded posts as you call them well sorry but there are topics that sometimes don't require just 2 sentence answers. If you don't like what I have so say then do us all a favor and stay out of the conversation. Also if you like respond with some actual info but please don't come back with your childesh responses. It just makes you look like such a fool.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
What are you talking about? I only deal in reality but you can go ahead and behind your protective wall known as the internet, you can sit there and conjure up some crap about how I twist things. So wrong, so wrong. I deal only in facts and I make every effort to not involve emotions when dealing with such important topics.

Oh and with regard to my long winded posts as you call them well sorry but there are topics that sometimes don't require just 2 sentence answers. If you don't like what I have so say then do us all a favor and stay out of the conversation. Also if you like respond with some actual info but please don't come back with your childesh responses. It just makes you look like such a fool.

Quiet, Phil! An argument is only an argument if it is presented in the form of a 3 or 4 word statement (or better yet, a picture!) with absolutely no justification, and no words that are have more than two syllables. You idiot; apparently you are the victim of brainwashing - probably by the evil of education - which has taught you that you should keep your mouth shut unless you can back up your assertions with reason. What nonsense!

From now on, draw your arguments with crayon on construction paper, scan them in, and attach them to the post, so that people like antcraw don't have to sit through your long-winded BS.

CalcioFreak
11-04-2003, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by philhill4

With regard to the issue of job losses since 2001 most can be attributed to the effects of 9/11 and please don't dismiss that event. It did huge damage to this countries economy we are actually very lucky it wasn't worse.

The notion that a large part of our current economic woes is attributable to the attacks and aftermath of 9/11 has become almost an article of faith for many policy makers and commentators. It’s been repeated so often, rarely questioned, that it has begun to feel like established fact. The sky is blue, and the attacks of 9/11 sent our economy into a tailspin that we are still struggling to pull out of. Reasonable people can argue about whether the sky is really blue. But it’s hard to find an economic indicator that supports the notion that today’s economic troubles can be properly explained as the backwash from 9/11. That claim simply does not withstand close scrutiny. While pockets of the U.S. economy remain worse off as a result of 9/11, the net effect on total GDP today is negligible and may well be positive.

For the last three years, we have had a substantial rise in both unemployment and idle equipment. At times like these, the biggest constraint on total output is a shortage of demand for the goods and services businesses offer. In fact, 9/11 has actually boosted demand by causing both government and business to spend more on security than they otherwise would have.

Don’t get me wrong. There can be no doubt that the economy was thrown for a loop by the attacks on 9/11. But it was a short-lived loop. Retail sales, travel, and the financial markets were put on hold for a number of days. Within a couple of months, however, retail sales had moved back on the strong growth trend that had preceded 9/11. The stock market was closed for a period and took an immediate dive after reopening. Within a couple of months, however, the major indexes all soared past their Sept. 10 levels.

Sept. 11 depressed leisure travel for several months longer and caused some shift away from some destinations (such as New York) and toward others. By today, leisure travel has largely overcome the effects of 9/11, with some locations gaining at the expense of others.

Businesses have not resumed traveling to the same extent as before 9/11. Since much earlier in 2001, businesses have been reining in travel to keep down expenses and raise profits -- the same reason that explains business caution in hiring and investment for the last two-and-a-half years. The added hassle of tighter security plays only a marginal role in explaining lower business travel.

Two years later, the nation still feels traumatized but has largely overcome the economic aftershocks of 9/11. Because of that trauma, we are spending more on security. As a result, our economic output is no lower today because of 9/11 and it may well be higher than it otherwise would have been

CalcioFreak
11-04-2003, 12:33 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Section 8
Quiet, Phil! An argument is only an argument if it is presented in the form of a 3 or 4 word statement (or better yet, a picture!) with absolutely no justification, and no words that are have more than two syllables. You idiot; apparently you are the victim of brainwashing - probably by the evil of education - which has taught you that you should keep your mouth shut unless you can back up your assertions with reason. What nonsense!

From now on, draw your arguments with crayon on construction paper, scan them in, and attach them to the post, so that people like antcraw don't have to sit through your long-winded BS. [/
QUOTE]

You're a student aren't you? Your pseudo-intellectual stance gives you away. That, and you reak of someone who is learning to love to hear the sound of their own mind and since now you're being exposed to literature and ideas that surpass those of the vast majority of americans you actually fancy yourself an intellectual. Your posts on this thread in particular fall far short of of intellect, they are for the most part, a ladder rung above school yard name calling.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
A real straight shooter:
In selling his tax breaks, the president was at his most disingenuous. "This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes... Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money." This is a perfect example of the old caution about "lies, damn lies and statistics." As Citizens for Tax Justice reported, 80 percent of Americans get less than the president's "average." More than half of all taxpayers get less than $100. Almost a third get nothing at all. Millionaires will enjoy tax breaks averaging $90,000 a year, while middle income Americans will pocket an average of $256. Together they make up the president's "average"

and-
His "first goal," he said, is "an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks job," but his own economic advisors project that his economic plan -- if everything goes well -- will create fewer jobs this year than were lost in the last. In fact, George Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them -- more than 2.9 million lost since 2001.

or,
On environmental issues, the president became simply Orwellian in his inversion of the truth. "I have sent you Clear Skies legislation that mandates a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15 years," he declared to applause. In fact, his plan does nothing to regulate carbon emissions, allows 50 percent more sulfur emissions and five times more mercury emissions than enforcement of current law. Compared to alternative legislation developed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Resources Defense Council estimates that the Bush "clear skies" legislation will result in 100,000 additional premature deaths by 2020

First of all, during the Clinton administration about 17 million minimum-wage paying jobs were added to the economy. Do you know why we have a minimum wage? I know you do not, so I will answer for you: because if the people who hold those jobs were paid for the value of their work, they would not be able to feed themselves. We have lost 2.9 million jobs, not "because of Bush!" but because in tough times employers lay off the people they don't need. During the Clinton administration we had - for the first time ever - over-employment, by over .5%. What exactly are you expecting from the Bush administration? Long before 9/11 economists claimed that the job market was over-saturated, and ready to burst at the seams.

Its funny how a person who claims to put such a high value on integrity has so little himself; on the other hand, I suppose that shouldn't surprise me, given your incapability to distinguish between validity and falsity.

Speaking of integrity, its rather ironic that you would claim Bush's "average" to be a violation of integrity, while clinging to the assertion that the upper-class should be taxed out of existence.

It must be nice having your whole reality spoon-fed to you, and never having to chew. Personally, I would choke if I were you, but that's just me.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 12:35 AM
To section8's last post, I am not sure how to respond to your post. Dude you have some very cryptic sarcasm. I LIKE IT LOL.

To Calciofreak's last post, while I don't totally agree with everything you said it was the first post you wrote that in my opinion made some good points. Actually many of your points can kind of go either way meaning your view or mine but that is cool. I certainly don't want to give the impression that 9/11 was the whole problem but at the same time nothing Bush did really caused any problems. Seriously if you look at the economies history very few presidents had any control over the good or bad times of the economy. When I make referrence in earlier posts to Clintons last 18 months beginning the downward turn I in no way am trying to blame him. He couldn't have controlled it. That period along with alot of our problems now come from a bloated stock market, an over valued tech sector, the ridiculous over investment in the dot com world and many other factors.

Then Bush took over and things kind of coasted at first and then came 9/11 which did some serious damage. Then the Bush administration went after corporate fraud including many of the presidents own friends. Truth is he maybe should have delayed going after alot of them but in the long run it will be a good thing. With most corportations now being very reserved in their outlook numbers and very reserved in their bookkeeping figures, we are I think going to see a more honest 10,000 in the Dow next year.

Oh and before you go thinking I am giving Bush some big credit all I am stating is he did is job on this one. He didn't care how many family friends got in trouble and now many of them are paying the price. I actually would give more credit on this one to Ashcroft. Say what you will about whether you like his policies on many issues but he did go after these companies with all guns blazing. He did not hold back on corporate fraud at all. If there is one thing I wish Clinton had done it would have been to replace Janet Reno early on. She really did not do a good job at all on any level.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 12:42 AM
Posted by Calcio
You're a student aren't you? Your pseudo-intellectual stance gives you away. That, and you reak of someone who is learning to love to hear the sound of their own mind and since now you're being exposed to literature and ideas that surpass those of the vast majority of americans you actually fancy yourself an intellectual. Your posts on this thread in particular fall far short of of intellect, they are for the most part, a ladder rung above school yard name calling.

Your post was hardly decipherable, but I'll give it a shot...

What's the point of posting something 'intellectual'? Philhill posts reasonable responses, and in return you idiots unleash the horde of straw men you keep company with.

I'm not willing to waste my time posting constructed arguments, only to garner retorts like: "Oh yeah! You're wrong! This magazine picture is proof! As the Rock would say, suck it! HA HA!"

By the way, I would love if you could define 'intellectual' for me; I'm always down for a few laughs.

CalcioFreak
11-04-2003, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
Then the Bush administration went after corporate fraud including many of the presidents own friends. Truth is he maybe should have delayed going after alot of them but in the long run it will be a good thing. With most corportations now being very reserved in their outlook numbers and very reserved in their bookkeeping figures, we are I think going to see a more honest 10,000 in the Dow next year.


Phil, I'm sorry man, I just find some of your points of view to be very hopeful to say the least.

Wasn't there a wave of scandals almost two years ago, having to do with corporations cooking their books and dressing up their balance sheets, often through complex tax dodges engineered by accounting firms? Does anyone remember Enron, which despite $2 billion in reported earnings between 1996 and 1999, didn’t pay a cent in federal income taxes? Do you recall an accounting firm called Arthur Anderson that got caught up in the Enron scandal, and is no more? And remember all that tough talk coming out of Washington, followed by what the public was led to believe was tough new legislation, and a tough new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and even a tough new agency to oversee accounting firms and make sure everything is whistle-clean?

Well, I’ve got news for you, folks. It’s still legal for accounting firms to sell tax shelters to the very same corporations that buy their accounting services. And it’s still legal for the same accounting firm to audit the books that include these shelters and sign off on them as meeting accepted accounting standards.

This is a conflict of interest that gives definition to the term "conflict of interest." Obviously, if you’re an accountant whose compensation is linked to the amount of business you do, and if your corporate client wants you to make its financial statement look as good as possible, and if it’s perfectly legal for you to offer aggressive accounting advice about how to change this expense to a write-off, or shift these profits to the Cayman Islands, or execute whatever tax dodge you can come up with—you’re going to do it. And then if it’s perfectly legal for you or your firm to audit the books and give these dodges your seal of approval, you’re going to do that, too.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
Phil, I'm sorry man, I just find some of your points of view to be very hopeful to say the least.

Wasn't there a wave of scandals almost two years ago, having to do with corporations cooking their books and dressing up their balance sheets, often through complex tax dodges engineered by accounting firms? Does anyone remember Enron, which despite $2 billion in reported earnings between 1996 and 1999, didn’t pay a cent in federal income taxes? Do you recall an accounting firm called Arthur Anderson that got caught up in the Enron scandal, and is no more? And remember all that tough talk coming out of Washington, followed by what the public was led to believe was tough new legislation, and a tough new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and even a tough new agency to oversee accounting firms and make sure everything is whistle-clean?

Well, I’ve got news for you, folks. It’s still legal for accounting firms to sell tax shelters to the very same corporations that buy their accounting services. And it’s still legal for the same accounting firm to audit the books that include these shelters and sign off on them as meeting accepted accounting standards.

This is a conflict of interest that gives definition to the term "conflict of interest." Obviously, if you’re an accountant whose compensation is linked to the amount of business you do, and if your corporate client wants you to make its financial statement look as good as possible, and if it’s perfectly legal for you to offer aggressive accounting advice about how to change this expense to a write-off, or shift these profits to the Cayman Islands, or execute whatever tax dodge you can come up with—you’re going to do it. And then if it’s perfectly legal for you or your firm to audit the books and give these dodges your seal of approval, you’re going to do that, too.


You are correct I am a very optimistic guy. As for your post of course I was referring to that and all the other scandals. As for Arthur Anderson, one of my clients worked for them and he got in alot of trouble. He admits it though, he knew he was being a scammer. Now he can't practice any form of financial work for 5 years and lost alot of money in fines.

As for tax shelters I think they are total bullsh*t. Trust me we probably agree alot on this one. I can not stand how we run our tax system. Don't get me wrong I am all for tax cuts for everyone but the system itself is so flawed it pisses me off. Tax breaks, write offs, and most of all the ability to use out of coutry tax shelters is to me a total load of crap.

We need to simplify the tax system. First eliminate all write off, special categories, and tax shelters. We need a simple system. Personally something along the lines of a simple 20-25% of federal income tax to my makes sense. We can argue the specific number but it is just an example. In my opinion the optimal would be 20% federal, 10% state, and a maximum of 9% sales tax allowed by law in any state. Make all levels of government reorganize and manage OUR money better and remember there will be more money available because there won't be any tax breaks, write offs, or shelters allowed. Keep the system simple.

CalcioFreak
11-04-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by philhill4


As for tax shelters I think they are total bullsh*t. Trust me we probably agree alot on this one. I can not stand how we run our tax system. Don't get me wrong I am all for tax cuts for everyone but the system itself is so flawed it pisses me off. Tax breaks, write offs, and most of all the ability to use out of coutry tax shelters is to me a total load of crap.



No doubt. Did you know that the General Accounting Office reported that abusive tax shelters cost the US government $85 billion this past fiscal year.

CalcioFreak
11-04-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Section 8
Your post was hardly decipherable, but I'll give it a shot...

What's the point of posting something 'intellectual'? Philhill posts reasonable responses, and in return you idiots unleash the horde of straw men you keep company with.

I'm not willing to waste my time posting constructed arguments, only to garner retorts like: "Oh yeah! You're wrong! This magazine picture is proof! As the Rock would say, suck it! HA HA!"

By the way, I would love if you could define 'intellectual' for me; I'm always down for a few laughs.

Thank you for further proving my point.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
Thank you for further proving my point.

That being what exactly? That I am, in fact, a student? Oh, the shame...how I wish vehemently spitting out arguments that don't make any sense could leave me content.



That, and you reak of someone who is learning to love to hear the sound of their own mind and since now you're being exposed to literature and ideas that surpass those of the vast majority of americans you actually fancy yourself an intellectual.

I choose to continue learning because I despise ignorance. By the way, what sound does a mind make?

Oh, and another thing: thank you for further proving my point. Your barage of ad hominem attacks has probably been very effective at diverting people from my earlier exposure of the logical contradictions and hasty conclusions that your arguments consist of.

Starsky
11-04-2003, 06:01 AM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
A real straight shooter:
In selling his tax breaks, the president was at his most disingenuous. "This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes... Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money." This is a perfect example of the old caution about "lies, damn lies and statistics." As Citizens for Tax Justice reported, 80 percent of Americans get less than the president's "average." More than half of all taxpayers get less than $100. Almost a third get nothing at all. Millionaires will enjoy tax breaks averaging $90,000 a year, while middle income Americans will pocket an average of $256. Together they make up the president's "average"

This is truly amazing. There is a reason Millionaires get back way more on the tax cuts....because they pay *more* income taxes. If someone gets their taxes reduced by 10% it will be obviously different for a multimillionaire then someone earning 40,000.

Then the final point to drive the stupidity nail home, "More than half of all taxpayers get less than $100."...well no ****. Thats because half of all taxpayers pay 4% of income taxes, and the 1/3 you mentioned pay virtually nothing. What do you want, money taken from other people to be given to them on taxes they don't pay in the first place?

antcraw
11-04-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
What are you talking about? I only deal in reality but you can go ahead and behind your protective wall known as the internet, you can sit there and conjure up some crap about how I twist things. So wrong, so wrong. I deal only in facts and I make every effort to not involve emotions when dealing with such important topics.

Oh and with regard to my long winded posts as you call them well sorry but there are topics that sometimes don't require just 2 sentence answers. If you don't like what I have so say then do us all a favor and stay out of the conversation. Also if you like respond with some actual info but please don't come back with your childesh responses. It just makes you look like such a fool.

You've been owned in this thread time and time again then you come back with 10 paragraphs of opinions to cloud the issue more. That's why I'm done arguing "facts" with you and just let people like Calcio do it. My favorites so far were that there should be no SS, Medicade is bad, and unemployment is to generous, all leading people to be lazy, and not take responsibility for themselves. After that I wasn't interested in your opinions. You say you deal in reality but then talk nonsense like have the federal govt sell all of its land to private investors for money. If you want to argue at least keep it in the realm of the believable.

antcraw
11-04-2003, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
What do you want, money taken from other people to be given to them on taxes they don't pay in the first place?
No, the money isn't given to people who don't pay taxes. The money is used services. Before you start crying welfare, there are many services that are seriously underfunded. Homeland Security being the first priority. Seriously how can you justify the biggest defecit in history along with tax cuts that are skewed to the wealthy (which you say is needed for stimulus) and there are still no jobs and there haven't been 2 quarters of sustained growth? It's been almost 4 years and the isn't anything to show for all this money that has been taken from the federal govt. How does Bush spend all this money and wind up with less jobs than when he started?

jestros
11-04-2003, 08:12 AM
Unless we get our bomb factories up to full production, the whole economy is going to collapse

philhill4
11-04-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
You've been owned in this thread time and time again then you come back with 10 paragraphs of opinions to cloud the issue more. That's why I'm done arguing "facts" with you and just let people like Calcio do it. My favorites so far were that there should be no SS, Medicade is bad, and unemployment is to generous, all leading people to be lazy, and not take responsibility for themselves. After that I wasn't interested in your opinions. You say you deal in reality but then talk nonsense like have the federal govt sell all of its land to private investors for money. If you want to argue at least keep it in the realm of the believable.


OK you know what you are totally pissing me off. You are twisting everything I say and making so you sound better or so you can try and make me look bad.

First off if you believe that the Social Security System is good then you are a moron. I am so sick of reading your wimpy I need the government to hold my hand to get through life bullsh*t. Yes medical coverage is destroying not only the entire medical system but also putting a huge unneeded strain on our economy.

Secondly Unemployment is way way to generous. People are lazy. I am so sick of people sitting around saying "I can't find a job" or worse yet the whino f*cks in every city asking "hey big man got a dollar or some change, I just gots to eats". Here is one for you. Every single friggin restaurant I walk past is hiring. Get off your lazy asses and go apply for a job. That is the best part about the people begging for money, they do it right in front of a McDonalds with a sign up that says NOW HIRING.

Now onto my comments about selling federal land. STOP TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS ANTCRAW. Go do some research. You keep thinking I am talking about selling all our federal land as if I mean to say we should sell off Yellow Stone National Park or something. You dumb ass go do some research before you speak. Take a trip around this great country and you will discover millions and millions of acres of unused land. Again listen carefully, I am not referring to park land or protected areas for wildlife. I am talking about deserted, baron, unused land. If the federal government would sell off even half that land I refer to we could pay off most of the national debt and or create a program to slowly taper us off the strangle hold of our senior years known as Social Security.

How can you not see how corrupt and hurtful social security is? You basically convince people that give us a few dollars a week and we will give you basically a pension. Yeah that same money that everyone sinks into social security, if it were put in just a simple IRA account instead of recieving an average of $750 a month to live on at retirement, these same seniors would have started off retirement with upwards of $750,000 to retire on. I base this off someone earning around $32,000 a year, take the amount they would be putting into social security starting at the age of 23yrs old until they are not 65 but 59. Figure in the simple calculations provided by any investment agency and you not only have much more money for retirement, you also retire 6 years earlier and you are not beholden to the federal government for your income.

If you can't see how simple that is then that is fine. BUT STOP SPINNING MY WORDS AND ATTACKING ME WITH COMPLETE LIES AND MANIPULATION.

Also I have gone over this thread and I have not been owned. In fact more people agree with me and the facts on this thread than don't but you are still welcome to your opinion. Just don't twist my words.

jestros
11-04-2003, 08:25 AM
Yeah, we should sell off some of that unused, wasted land. We definately need more stripmalls and housing developments in this country. There needs to be a Walgreens, Bartells, or RiteAid for every square mile in these United States of Wiiiidddeee America.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
No, the money isn't given to people who don't pay taxes. The money is used services. Before you start crying welfare, there are many services that are seriously underfunded. Homeland Security being the first priority. Seriously how can you justify the biggest defecit in history along with tax cuts that are skewed to the wealthy (which you say is needed for stimulus) and there are still no jobs and there haven't been 2 quarters of sustained growth? It's been almost 4 years and the isn't anything to show for all this money that has been taken from the federal govt. How does Bush spend all this money and wind up with less jobs than when he started?


Dude do you even keep up on current economic conditions? We have had growth every quarter for the last 6 quarters. Unemployment numbers have been dropping every week for the last 10 weeks.

As for Bush with less jobs than when he started let me begin your education. First he recieved a downturning economy. If Gore had been put in office he would be dealing with the same thing. The last 18months under Clinton the entire economy was starting a downward trend. Growth was beginning to taper off, the construction sector say no growth, real estate was slowing, and the Dow was only holding on because of the inflated numbers by major corporations. By the way I am not blaming Clinton. No president has control over that much of the economy period.

Once Bush came into office the trend was a slow downturn. At that time Bush was trying to get a tax cut into motion to try and stop the downturn early. Congress would not help him and then came 9/11. Don't dismiss the damage 9/11 did to our economy. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in the new york city area alone were gone within days. Not just the 7 buildings that make up the world trade center but all of the neighborhoods at the south end of manhattan island were crushed from the attack financially. It affected jobs all over NYC and NJ. That is just the local effect, then we have the national effect of it all and this continued for more than a year. These are just facts and nothing else.

As for deficit spending seriously learn about it first before you freak out about it. The media loves to make the word deficit sound so aweful when it isn't. Deficit spending is a common practice in just about every major corporation around the world for the last 75 years. A federal government is in effect a big corporation and financially should be run like one.

Also by lowering taxes and providing tax cuts you not only stimulate the economy but you force congress to spend less on worthless crap. Right now our federal government is going through the largest bookkeeping overhaul in history because Bush is forcing them to learn how to manage money better by not providing as much to them and still spending what we need to on our military and national defense.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by jestros
Yeah, we should sell off some of that unused, wasted land. We definately need more stripmalls and housing developments in this country. There needs to be a Walgreens, Bartells, or RiteAid for every square mile in these United States of Wiiiidddeee America.


Well that wasn't exactly my point but it is amusing. Most of this land can be sold off to developers of homes and communities or for factories and warehouses. Many companies obviously don't need to be paying the huge property taxes and rental rates of areas like say New Jersey, for their warehouses when they can do all the same shipping from some out of the way area of New Mexico and pay about 1/10 the property and or rental rates. In turn while it takes a few jobs away from New Jersey it provides them to a state that is in much more dire need of jobs, and the company sees a huge increase in profits which of course turns into company expansion, richer owners and more jobs created in time. It can only be a win win situation for all involved.

jestros
11-04-2003, 08:39 AM
Except for the people in New Mexico who dont want a factories to fill up thier landscape.
I lived in Albuquerque, and I can tell you you can see forever down there. Its a unique and beautifull area of our country and I for one wouldnt want a bunch of warehouses sitting on top of the mesa's. Your idea of "useless" is much different than mine.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
No, the money isn't given to people who don't pay taxes. The money is used services. Before you start crying welfare, there are many services that are seriously underfunded. Homeland Security being the first priority. Seriously how can you justify the biggest defecit in history along with tax cuts that are skewed to the wealthy (which you say is needed for stimulus) and there are still no jobs and there haven't been 2 quarters of sustained growth? It's been almost 4 years and the isn't anything to show for all this money that has been taken from the federal govt. How does Bush spend all this money and wind up with less jobs than when he started?

THE MONEY WASN'T TAKEN FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THE MONEY JUST WASN'T TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES.

Damn, how many times do I have to keep saying that? I've already explained the less jobs thing about a gazillion times as well. Are you really that stupid? I can't imagine anyone could possibly be that dumb, so I've given you the benefit of the doubt; I'm assuming your vision is just poor (which would also explain why you seem to have so much trouble reading the posts of anyone else who posts more than a few disconnected sentences), so I thoughtfully typed the point out for you in caps.

BTW minimum-wage jobs hurt the economy, not stimulate it. The loss of those jobs was a good thing, economy-wise. Come on man, seriously...your head can't be that far up your ass...don't you have to take an economics class to graduate high school?

rottie
11-04-2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Section 8
THE MONEY WASN'T TAKEN FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THE MONEY JUST WASN'T TAKEN FROM THE PEOPLE WHO PAY TAXES.



Uhh.. wouldnt not taking tax money from the people who pay taxes, take money from the federal government?

I think so.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Uhh.. wouldnt not taking tax money from the people who pay taxes, take money from the federal government?

I think so.

You're kidding, right?

Is the balance of my bank account the result of money I have taken from you? According to your logic, it is, since you didn't take it from me.

Something has to be had in order for it to be taken.

Do you think before you type?

rottie
11-04-2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Section 8
You're kidding, right?

Is the balance of my bank account the result of money I have taken from you? According to your logic, it is, since you didn't take it from me.

Something has to be had in order for it to be taken.

Do you think before you type?

Well I dunno Sparky, do YOU think before you type?

If you worked for a week, and went to the bank expecting your money to be in the bank, but in fact I picked up your cheque at work, would I be taking money from you?

Its money you had coming to you, but it never got there, so I would be taking the money away from you wouldnt i?

Your the one that should think before you type *******.

The Iron Lord
11-04-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Section 8
You're kidding, right?

Is the balance of my bank account the result of money I have taken from you? According to your logic, it is, since you didn't take it from me.

Something has to be had in order for it to be taken.

Do you think before you type?


:confused:

What color is the sky in your world? From where do you think the federal government gets it money? A magical money tree?

Section 8
11-04-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Well I dunno Sparky, do YOU think before you type?

If you worked for a week, and went to the bank expecting your money to be in the bank, but in fact I picked up your cheque at work, would I be taking money from you?

Its money you had coming to you, but it never got there, so I would be taking the money away from you wouldnt i?

Your the one that should think before you type *******.

Tax cuts go into effect when the federal budget goes into effect.

You analagy doesn't make any sense in the context of this argument.

In your analagy:

I am being paid, by my employer, for work I have completed.

You - who did no work - steal that money from me.

In the argument:

People are paid for work they have completed.

The federal government takes less money from them next year.

Consequently, they have that much less for next year's budget.

How the hell are those two situations at all analagous?

I'll make this really clear.

If you and a gang of friends regularly mug me on my way home from the bank, and one day you say: "this is it; we're going to give you a break and stop hassling you. We're well off enough anyways," whether or not you hit a rut and are suddenly NOT well off, I still haven't taken anything from you.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by The Iron Lord
:confused:

What color is the sky in your world? From where do you think the federal government gets it money? A magical money tree?

This really isn't that complicated. Iron must refer to the density of your skull.

If the tax cut meant that the federal government would have to go to the treasury and shovel out money to pay people, then the cut would be taken from the government.

Again, if a highway robber tells you that he isn't going to take your money, you haven't taken anything from him; he has taken less from you than he otherwise would have.

The tax cut is the government saying "we don't need to take as much from you for the next x years as they have in the past."

That is not the same as taking from the government.

antcraw
11-04-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by philhill4


As for deficit spending seriously learn about it first before you freak out about it. The media loves to make the word deficit sound so aweful when it isn't. Deficit spending is a common practice in just about every major corporation around the world for the last 75 years. A federal government is in effect a big corporation and financially should be run like one.

Also by lowering taxes and providing tax cuts you not only stimulate the economy but you force congress to spend less on worthless crap. Right now our federal government is going through the largest bookkeeping overhaul in history because Bush is forcing them to learn how to manage money better by not providing as much to them and still spending what we need to on our military and national defense.

OK I'll correct you on a couple of point first deficet spending isn't all bad. If you spend money on public work projects to generate jobs, manufacturing, ect. then that is a good use of creating a defecit. If you create a defecit through huge tax cuts and military spending it's not a very good use of a defecit. It didn't work in the 80's and it's not working now. Bush wants to make the cuts permanent so that would mean defecits into the forseeable future with no way to pay for them. Bush is trying to get Congress to strech the dollar by underfunding the govt? Not really he's trying to make the govt ineffective which is one of the pillars of the neocon movement(Read Grover Norquist). That is why ther IRS is so starved for employees and funds that it can't police tax abuse. The SEC can't police corporations, The EPA can't police the environment, ect.

rottie
11-04-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Section 8
Tax cuts go into effect when the federal budget goes into effect.

You analagy doesn't make any sense in the context of this argument.

In your analagy:

I am being paid, by my employer, for work I have completed.

You - who did no work - steal that money from me.

In the argument:

People are paid for work they have completed.

The federal government takes less money from them next year.

Consequently, they have that much less for next year's budget.

How the hell are those two situations at all analagous?

I'll make this really clear.

If you and a gang of friends regularly mug me on my way home from the bank, and one day you say: "this is it; we're going to give you a break and stop hassling you. We're well off enough anyways," whether or not you hit a rut and are suddenly NOT well off, I still haven't taken anything from you.

I wasn't into the arguement.

You stated that the money wasn't taken from the federal government, it just wasn't taken from the people that pay taxes.

Where do you think the money comes from for the federal government? You think Congress has some kind of giant magical ass hidden somewhere that they pull money out of?

And my scenario still stands. You hadn't been paid yet, i took your check. The money you had coming to you, isnt coming becasue I took your check.

The federal budget hasnt gone into effect yet, they havent "been paid yet", and they wont be becasue of the tax cuts. The money that would have been coming in, isnt going to.


It doesnt matter if I stole it or not, the end result is exactly the same.

antcraw
11-04-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Section 8


The tax cut is the government saying "we don't need to take as much from you for the next x years as they have in the past."

That is not the same as taking from the government.

Yes it is you moron, because the money isn't going to the govt. It's not technicall being "taken" from the govt since the govt decides how much they want to take, but it still means that money is being taken from govt programs that need it.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by jestros
Except for the people in New Mexico who dont want a factories to fill up thier landscape.
I lived in Albuquerque, and I can tell you you can see forever down there. Its a unique and beautifull area of our country and I for one wouldnt want a bunch of warehouses sitting on top of the mesa's. Your idea of "useless" is much different than mine.

I see your point but please understand I was just using New Mexico as a referrence. Actually there are many areas of New Mexico I wouldn't want to do this to especially right outside of Albuquerque. Maybe about 3 hours east of there on I think it is I-40.

How about the huge amount of flat land in Texas or any of the states? Hey it was just one of the ideas that antcraw decided to jump all over. He also took this statement of mine from an entirely different thread. In many of my other posts I also get into the idea of just managing our money better. For example did you know that under the Clinton administration the education department "LOST" somewhere around 3 billion dollars. They don't know where it went. Explain that fiasco.

Anyway back to your point about the land issue, it is definetly something that can be looked at but of course many concerns will exist and need to be addressed like enviromental, local economic etc.

antcraw
11-04-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Section 8
This really isn't that complicated. Iron must refer to the density of your skull.

If the tax cut meant that the federal government would have to go to the treasury and shovel out money to pay people, then the cut would be taken from the government.

Again, if a highway robber tells you that he isn't going to take your money, you haven't taken anything from him; he has taken less from you than he otherwise would have.

The tax cut is the government saying "we don't need to take as much from you for the next x years as they have in the past."

That is not the same as taking from the government.

Kids this is what happens when you are given everything by your parent without having to work for it. You just assume that money is there for you and always will be. " Thanks mom I don't need this much this week. Hey mom I need more this week to pay for a new jacket."

philhill4
11-04-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
OK I'll correct you on a couple of point first deficet spending isn't all bad. If you spend money on public work projects to generate jobs, manufacturing, ect. then that is a good use of creating a defecit. If you create a defecit through huge tax cuts and military spending it's not a very good use of a defecit. It didn't work in the 80's and it's not working now. Bush wants to make the cuts permanent so that would mean defecits into the forseeable future with no way to pay for them. Bush is trying to get Congress to strech the dollar by underfunding the govt? Not really he's trying to make the govt ineffective which is one of the pillars of the neocon movement(Read Grover Norquist). That is why ther IRS is so starved for employees and funds that it can't police tax abuse. The SEC can't police corporations, The EPA can't police the environment, ect.


Well the 80's did work because the way we ran the economy in the 80's helped to lay the ground work for the economic boom of the 90's that we all enjoyed.

Bush is not trying to make the gov. ineffective. What do you think he is plotting to destroy his country? Of course not what you call an attempt to make the gov. ineffective, most of us consider forcing better money management.

Sure the IRS is starved for employees because the tax code is so flawed. The ultimate goal of Bush/Cheney which they mentioned during the campaign is to simplify the tax code and in time shrink the size of the IRS. As for the SEC they have more funding and more agents than ever. They are policing everything just fine. As for the EPA they also recieved an increase in funding every year Bush has been in office. You can actually contact the EPA themselves for more info on this.

rottie
11-04-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
Kids this is what happens when you are given everything by your parent without having to work for it. You just assume that money is there for you and always will be. " Thanks mom I don't need this much this week. Hey mom I need more this week to pay for a new jacket."

Man you must be a hammer, cause you just hit the nail on the head. :D

antcraw
11-04-2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
I see your point but please understand I was just using New Mexico as a referrence. Actually there are many areas of New Mexico I wouldn't want to do this to especially right outside of Albuquerque. Maybe about 3 hours east of there on I think it is I-40.

How about the huge amount of flat land in Texas or any of the states? Hey it was just one of the ideas that antcraw decided to jump all over. He also took this statement of mine from an entirely different thread. In many of my other posts I also get into the idea of just managing our money better. For example did you know that under the Clinton administration the education department "LOST" somewhere around 3 billion dollars. They don't know where it went. Explain that fiasco.

Anyway back to your point about the land issue, it is definetly something that can be looked at but of course many concerns will exist and need to be addressed like enviromental, local economic etc.
Phill I jumped on it because it is an idea that is not viable. If there was even a glimmer of it being profitable to do what you say there would be 20 lobbiest and a few Reps (who would be bought by the lobbiest) pushing for this in Congress.

philhill4
11-04-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
Phill I jumped on it because it is an idea that is not viable. If there was even a glimmer of it being profitable to do what you say there would be 20 lobbiest and a few Reps (who would be bought by the lobbiest) pushing for this in Congress.

I thought the same thing but only a handful of reps have been interested in this. Those that have including Reps from the states of Colorado, Texas and Wyoming during the 80's were shot down by the Defense Dept. No one can explain what need they see in it but if the history of poor military spending is any indication, it is probably them just taking the WHAT IF question way to far. Kind of like when they purchased 250,000 refrigerators during the 80's and they just sit and rot in a warehouse somewhere JUST IN CASE. I am all for military spending but even they need to make adjustments.

antcraw
11-04-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by philhill4

Bush is not trying to make the gov. ineffective. What do you think he is plotting to destroy his country? Of course not what you call an attempt to make the gov. ineffective, most of us consider forcing better money management.

Sure the IRS is starved for employees because the tax code is so flawed. The ultimate goal of Bush/Cheney which they mentioned during the campaign is to simplify the tax code and in time shrink the size of the IRS. As for the SEC they have more funding and more agents than ever. They are policing everything just fine. As for the EPA they also recieved an increase in funding every year Bush has been in office. You can actually contact the EPA themselves for more info on this.


The neocons have most certainly gone on record as wanting to make the gov't ineffective. Decreasing the size of the gov't by half as Norquist wants would do that. Not to mention the general adversion to oversight that neocons have. Go to his web site. The number of IRS employees has nothing to do with the tax code and everything to do with funding. (I agree that it should be simplified, but special intrest come out of nowhere with buckets fulll of money any time anything is tried to be reformed).
The SEC was getting owned in Congess yesterday for lax enforcement. Eliot Spitzer has been the point man in trying to rein in corporate malfecence. Along with help from other state prosecutors. All because they are underfunded on purpose!!!

philhill4
11-04-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
The neocons have most certainly gone on record as wanting to make the gov't ineffective. Decreasing the size of the gov't by half as Norquist wants would do that. Not to mention the general adversion to oversight that neocons have. Go to his web site. The number of IRS employees has nothing to do with the tax code and everything to do with funding. (I agree that it should be simplified, but special intrest come out of nowhere with buckets fulll of money any time anything is tried to be reformed).
The SEC was getting owned in Congess yesterday for lax enforcement. Eliot Spitzer has been the point man in trying to rein in corporate malfecence. Along with help from other state prosecutors. All because they are underfunded on purpose!!!


I guess I see this differently. Yes there is an effort to not underfund but to not increase funding to many organizations. Personally I believe this is needed. There is so much waste in government and it needs to be managed differently.

The last I heard about the SEC situation was that they are doing their job but members of congress want them enforcing themselves to a great degree. I feel there is a point where you need to hold back. You can't end up with a SEC rep in every office in America. I know the democrats in congress would love to have that level of oversight but I personally don't agree with it.

The Iron Lord
11-04-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
Kids this is what happens when you are given everything by your parent without having to work for it. You just assume that money is there for you and always will be. " Thanks mom I don't need this much this week. Hey mom I need more this week to pay for a new jacket."

Bingo. We have a winner.

Section8, government spending isn't going down....regardless of how much Bush's regime (that's right, regime, not administration) has brainwashed you. Therefore, the tax cut will not stimulate the economy. It will simply propel us further into debt.

antcraw
11-04-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by philhill4
I guess I see this differently. Yes there is an effort to not underfund but to not increase funding to many organizations. Personally I believe this is needed. There is so much waste in government and it needs to be managed differently.

The last I heard about the SEC situation was that they are doing their job but members of congress want them enforcing themselves to a great degree. I feel there is a point where you need to hold back. You can't end up with a SEC rep in every office in America. I know the democrats in congress would love to have that level of oversight but I personally don't agree with it.

It's not just the Democrats that want the SEC to be more aggresive. It's needed to instill cofidence in the markets for investors and it is Republican led commitees that are asking for so they don't look like jackasses doing nothing while peoples investments are looted. One of the big reasons that people bitch about the tax cuts is that even though the fed govt can run deficits states and local govt can't. That why states are increasing fees and cutting public services(fire, police dept. ,public transportion, ect) across the country. These are the same as taxes except the burden falls on low and middle income households. So even though you get a bigger income tax refund it more than disappears when you have to pay for everything else. You preach personal financial responsibility to us but when it comes to the govt it's spend away and don't worry about deficits?

philhill4
11-04-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by antcraw
It's not just the Democrats that want the SEC to be more aggresive. It's needed to instill cofidence in the markets for investors and it is Republican led commitees that are asking for so they don't look like jackasses doing nothing while peoples investments are looted. One of the big reasons that people bitch about the tax cuts is that even though the fed govt can run deficits states and local govt can't. That why states are increasing fees and cutting public services(fire, police dept. ,public transportion, ect) across the country. These are the same as taxes except the burden falls on low and middle income households. So even though you get a bigger income tax refund it more than disappears when you have to pay for everything else. You preach personal financial responsibility to us but when it comes to the govt it's spend away and don't worry about deficits?


Understand though that what the president has been pushing for and many americans as well is a reduction not in things like fire, police, military, education etc. but a reduction in things like money for grants so some dumb ass can write a 15 page manual on some topic. Do you know that our government has holdings of 400 billion dollars unused? This money comes from money set aside for grant programs. Now don't get me wrong some programs are good like education grants, grants for home improvements etc. but do we the tax payer need to be handing out $50k grants to people while they write a book. Why is it an actor can go get a part time job while he moves up in the acting world but a writer or artists needs money handed to them so they can sit around all day. It just isn't fair no matter how you look at it. Now back to that 400 billion dollar amount. The other issue is most people don't know about the grant programs because of laws created so that the federal government can't advertise to the public about this money. So we continue to pour money into programs that are either not really needed or in the end alot of it doesn't get used.

It is time to end this. We don't need the government to manage our own money. Whether it be federal or local all we need covered are the following: Police, Fire Dept, all levels of military and national defense, Justice dept and courts system, education system, energy dept. which should include all enviromental issues, and public works which incluse basic sanitation and roads. Is there really anything else we can't handle on our owns as individuals?

Personally I want to see a further reduction in taxes. We are all paying way to much and the government must learn to utilize the money they are provided much more wisely.

corpsedub
11-04-2003, 01:32 PM
hey you bush lovers should be in paridise right now..he just got that 87(or whatever)billion dollar **** america in the ass bonus to go put more mony in haliburtons pockets..

jestros
11-04-2003, 01:49 PM
Yeah, thats pretty sweet, we can spend all those billions rebuilding that goddamn bunch of sand.

stray
11-04-2003, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by jestros
Yeah, thats pretty sweet, we can spend all those billions rebuilding that goddamn bunch of sand.

I'm good at making sand castles.....I won 2nd place when I was younger......

Maybe I should tackle Iraq to see if I've still got it.......

jestros
11-04-2003, 02:37 PM
Make up some corporation and collect the dough, you know that half that money will end up in the pockets of buisiness whores who shuffle papers and produced nothing.

Starsky
11-04-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
You're kidding, right?

Is the balance of my bank account the result of money I have taken from you? According to your logic, it is, since you didn't take it from me.

Something has to be had in order for it to be taken.

Do you think before you type?

Section 8, you have to understand the mentality leftists assume. It's not your money to begin with. The money is being taken away from the government, not the taxpayers. It's the governments money, not yours...you don't deserve it.

Repeat it long enough and you will actually believe it. People don't have the right to make their own decisions and control their own money. It *needs* to be redistributed to the bureaucrat lifers who know better.


Originally posted by corpsedub
hey you bush lovers should be in paridise right now..he just got that 87(or whatever)billion dollar **** america in the ass bonus to go put more mony in haliburtons pockets..

Yet another low in the history of dumbass posts. What would you have him do?? Abandon Iraq and let Saddam loyalists take over again thus invalidating all the work soldiers have fought and died for. If that meant Bush didn't get reelected, liberals would jump on that golden opportunity. Think thats liberal-bashing? Don't care because its true.

CalcioFreak
11-04-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Starsky

Yet another low in the history of dumbass posts. What would you have him do?? Abandon Iraq and let Saddam loyalists take over again thus invalidating all the work soldiers have fought and died for. If that meant Bush didn't get reelected, liberals would jump on that golden opportunity. Think thats liberal-bashing? Don't care because its true.

You call that 'dumbass' as if it were the ONLY option available. How about offer the money in the form of a loan, like the 13 billion that other countries are kicking in did instead of having us shoulder the bill. If given the opportunity I'd say spend the money on the infrastructure of our own country. I think it's a ridiculous waste of money that's being thrown at a problem the regime has created and still has no clear cut goals stated on how we get out of Iraq and how the conflict ends. Oh right, sorry, victory was declared in May right, over 200 US dead soldiers ago.

Starsky
11-04-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
You call that 'dumbass' as if it were the ONLY option available. How about offer the money in the form of a loan, like the 13 billion that other countries are kicking in did instead of having us shoulder the bill. If given the opportunity I'd say spend the money on the infrastructure of our own country. I think it's a ridiculous waste of money that's being thrown at a problem the regime has created and still has no clear cut goals stated on how we get out of Iraq and how the conflict ends. Oh right, sorry, victory was declared in May right, over 200 US dead soldiers ago.

If refusing to spend the 87 billion in our own country led to the U.S. turning into an Islamic terror state, you would a point. But you don't. Iraq already owes billions to Europeans countries and they have no way of paying, loans would be worthless to the U.S.

The clear cut goal is to draft a constitution, create free elections and create a western style democracy in the middle east, then leave.

Section 8
11-04-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
You call that 'dumbass' as if it were the ONLY option available. How about offer the money in the form of a loan, like the 13 billion that other countries are kicking in did instead of having us shoulder the bill. If given the opportunity I'd say spend the money on the infrastructure of our own country. I think it's a ridiculous waste of money that's being thrown at a problem the regime has created and still has no clear cut goals stated on how we get out of Iraq and how the conflict ends. Oh right, sorry, victory was declared in May right, over 200 US dead soldiers ago.

The idea of splitting the bill up between guaranteed money for our troops and a large loan to Iraq was debated for a little while, with proponents on both sides. The fact that it didn't go through that way only provides more evidence for my assertion in the other thread.

Clear cut goals, stated to whom? Be certain, the administration has very clear-cut goals, and none of them have anything to do with leaving Iraq. I believe that is why the bill wasn't passed as a loan, and its a very savvy move; would you give 30 billion dollars to a country that has no government? It isn't as if we could just repossess their assets if all of a sudden they decided that they didn't want to repay the loan. By 'giving' the money to them we increase good-will with the Iraqis, and enhance our (currently terrible) perception among the world community. You can bet that there isn't any chance in hell we will just hand Iraq the monies; we'll dole it out like a bank providing investment capital, as an incentive to keep them in line with our political ideology and motives. I think the move was the most strategic of the options.

All of you Bush demonizers (and note, I am in no way an apologist, but am a realist; I hate both parties) don't seem to grasp what is really going on. You [as in, demonizers as a group] are so quick to accuse Bush of idocy, and as support, point to the administration's seeming lack of direction. I don't understand how you guys can so quickly point out inconsistencies in his practice, and accuse the White House of leak conspiracies and all sorts of other nonsense, and then turn around and say he is stupid because his actions do not follow from his proposed premises. Those premises should not be taken for granted, as they are nothing more than spin.

You think his every move seems nonsensical only because you don't grasp what he is actually doing. Every single of the administration's moves so far have been of deadly strategic accuracy; you wouldn't know it if you were unable to see the bigger picture, as most people seem to be. In that sense too, Bush can chalk up another strategic victory; the current domestic and world community would not tolerate his true intentions for a second. Bush has not stated an exit strategy because his intentions are opposite.

I don't know Bush, and am in no position to judge his intelligence, especially given that he is working with a crack team of experts; however, from an analytical standpoint he hasn't missed a beat yet. Don't let emotions color your reality.

As for all of the libelous hooligans from earlier, I'll deal with you once I figure out how to explain elementary economics to someone with the conceptual capabilities of a six year-old. All in good time...

rottie
11-05-2003, 04:12 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
Section 8, you have to understand the mentality leftists assume. It's not your money to begin with. The money is being taken away from the government, not the taxpayers. It's the governments money, not yours...you don't deserve it.

Repeat it long enough and you will actually believe it. People don't have the right to make their own decisions and control their own money. It *needs* to be redistributed to the bureaucrat lifers who know better.



Yet another low in the history of dumbass posts. What would you have him do?? Abandon Iraq and let Saddam loyalists take over again thus invalidating all the work soldiers have fought and died for. If that meant Bush didn't get reelected, liberals would jump on that golden opportunity. Think thats liberal-bashing? Don't care because its true.

You idiot, even Liberals know the U.S. cant pull out now. The only pulling out should be you pulling your head out of your ass. So stop the bull**** blaming everything on the Liberals, and saying the Liberals would do this and do that, becasue you have no idea what you are talking about.

The problem the Liberals have with the whole thing is him going in to begin with, then all this money wouldnt be needed. Understand? And if the U.S. would give up some control to get U.N. help to rebuild, then they wouldnt have to foot the whole bill. Understand? Thats what the Liberals want. But its too ****in reasonable for a conservative gump like yourself or Dubya to wrap your thick cranium around.

Remember folks, no matter what the conservative *******s say, Liberals didn't get the U.S. into this mess. They did.

mattabull
11-05-2003, 04:45 AM
dubs a phuckwit and if i was american, i would be embarrassed.

Tim
11-05-2003, 05:44 AM
I dislike George Bush and his administration. That's all I'm gonna day.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
You call that 'dumbass' as if it were the ONLY option available. How about offer the money in the form of a loan, like the 13 billion that other countries are kicking in did instead of having us shoulder the bill. If given the opportunity I'd say spend the money on the infrastructure of our own country. I think it's a ridiculous waste of money that's being thrown at a problem the regime has created and still has no clear cut goals stated on how we get out of Iraq and how the conflict ends. Oh right, sorry, victory was declared in May right, over 200 US dead soldiers ago.


We did the same with Japan and ended up with a country that has been one of our best friends in our history. By granting the money you build trust with the same people who were once your enemy. You also give that nation the kick start it needs to become a vibrant and healthy economy down the road. Once they are there the financial rewards our country will see from trade with that nation will pay us back 10 fold over what we would get by loaning them the money and most of all we will end up with one less country that can threaten in any way, shape or form anyone whether it be the USA or any other country especially in the middle east. We also end up with a friendly nation to move our military bases to instead of those two faced bastards in Saudi Arabia.

Also stop referring to our current administration as a regime. It is an insult to our country to refer to our leaders this way. Even if you don't like who is running the show it is an insult to us all and is not needed.

By the way our administration does have clear cut goals. They are to make Iraq a safe enough place so that they can take over their own country. We also are making sure they have all the tools and security needed to form and keep a stable, free and prosperous economy. Oh I guess you were expecting some 12step program that goes just perfectly didn't you? Well talk to anyone who has ever served in a war and they will tell you it just doesn't work that way. I know the liberals like to pound this down everyone's throats but this isn't how things work so please stop buying into their Kool Aid.

The President declared major combat operations over. He never declared victory was complete. Stop spinning the truth for your own purpose. After any war time situation where we stay to rebuild and provide security we lose many many troops. It is extremely sad and we all mourn the loss but our military it doing the right thing and history will show that oneday. People complained about all the same crap when we did the same thing in Japan and everything turned out great.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
If refusing to spend the 87 billion in our own country led to the U.S. turning into an Islamic terror state, you would a point. But you don't. Iraq already owes billions to Europeans countries and they have no way of paying, loans would be worthless to the U.S.

The clear cut goal is to draft a constitution, create free elections and create a western style democracy in the middle east, then leave.


Thank god there are some people on this board who have common sense. How people can't see the good that will come of this is beyond me.

With regards to the money Iraq owes, we explained to all countries before the war that with their support we can do this quicker and they can get their money back and more but instead countries like Russia sat on their hands and did nothing. Now they will lose out on being involved in what will become a huge economic boom to that region of the world. France and Germany I don't care about much but Russia really dropped the ball on this one. This was their chance to form a very strong bond with our country but they were fooled by France and Germany into thinking they could stop us from doing what is right.

rottie
11-05-2003, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by philhill4

The President declared major combat operations over. He never declared victory was complete. Stop spinning the truth for your own purpose. After any war time situation where we stay to rebuild and provide security we lose many many troops. It is extremely sad and we all mourn the loss but our military it doing the right thing and history will show that oneday. People complained about all the same crap when we did the same thing in Japan and everything turned out great.

Uhhuh. Sure it will.

Oh and please show me all these people that were against the U.S going to war with Japan. I'd really like to know who those two people were. :rolleyes: . Get real. Your the one spinning this stuff to your own purpose.

There was a HUGE difference between Japan and Iraq. Japan attacked America. Japan was a threat. The U.S. , nuked thier candy asses, and rightfully so. It was then run, and has been continuously run by a Pro America government, and America and other nations invested in her. And rightfully so.

Iraq had a blowhard in command, who as we know now, had none of the WMD Bush said he did, WHEN he said he did, and even if he did, was not an emminant threat to the U.S.

The U.S. went in without the consent of the world, did thier thing, never found anything, and are now stuck with a country laying in shambles that they are duty bound to rebuild for ****ing it up in the first place. Your going to say the place is better off now, but you arent there. And a large amount of the population of Iraq dont want America there, and think they are worse off than they were.

A HUGE difference between Japan and Iraq.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by rottie
You idiot, even Liberals know the U.S. cant pull out now. The only pulling out should be you pulling your head out of your ass. So stop the bull**** blaming everything on the Liberals, and saying the Liberals would do this and do that, becasue you have no idea what you are talking about.

The problem the Liberals have with the whole thing is him going in to begin with, then all this money wouldnt be needed. Understand? And if the U.S. would give up some control to get U.N. help to rebuild, then they wouldnt have to foot the whole bill. Understand? Thats what the Liberals want. But its too ****in reasonable for a conservative gump like yourself or Dubya to wrap your thick cranium around.

Remember folks, no matter what the conservative *******s say, Liberals didn't get the U.S. into this mess. They did.


You just explained why we need to keep conservatives in control of our country. You are right liberals would never go in to Iraq. Hell liberals like CLINTON do nothing but worry about popularity numbers and if everyone feels all rosie inside. This doesn't take care of real issues. Here is a real issue Bin Laden.

During the Clinton years Bin Laden was not in hiding. In fact Clinton had 5 distinct chances to take him without military action. He was being handed to us on a silver platter by other governments but he did nothing. Probably because he was getting briefed on things like his daily popularity numbers, his next appearance to play his sax, his next high level meeting to screen the new Spielberg movie and of course the most important for him making sure Hillary wasn't around so he could soil and disgrace the oval office by getting a blow job from the pig Monica.

Bush did the right thing and what you liberals don't understand is that us conservatives have been wanting and waiting for someone to take control of our country and go out there and eliminate threats to our nation. See we understand you never wanted to go in. It is you who doesn't seem to grasp that the rest of us are all for these kind of actions.

Look think straight about this. We have for the most part an equal amount of democrats and republicans. The only vote that is going to win an election is the independents. Currently almost all of them support Bush so do yourselves a favor and start preaching all this bullsh*t to them and while you are at it get your own house in order because at least 50% of all democrats I know support the president and his actions and do not like the choices presented to them by the democrats for this next election cycle. Also don't try and put Hillary on the ticket because no matter what political party a guy is from I can tell you that 90% of all men in this country hate that woman with a passion. You will completely lose the male vote with her on the ticket not because she is a woman but because she is a sour, vile, arrogant, liar, backstabbing, pretentious, bitch.

rottie
11-05-2003, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
You just explained why we need to keep conservatives in control of our country. You are right liberals would never go in to Iraq. Hell liberals like CLINTON do nothing but worry about popularity numbers and if everyone feels all rosie inside. This doesn't take care of real issues. Here is a real issue Bin Laden.



Wrongo Sparky. Liberals would go in WHEN THERE IS A REASON TO! .

you cannot read, or are to ignorant to comprehend that you conservatives ****ed up.

Aight smart ass. Give me ONE viable reason why the United states went into Iraq. I want it in one clear sentence. ONE. dont tell me how Clinton got his dick sucked, how Dubya is the best thing since cheese whiz. I want a one line response to the following;

What reason did the U.S. have for invading Iraq.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Uhhuh. Sure it will.

Oh and please show me all these people that were against the U.S going to war with Japan. I'd really like to know who those two people were. :rolleyes: . Get real. Your the one spinning this stuff to your own purpose.

There was a HUGE difference between Japan and Iraq. Japan attacked America. Japan was a threat. The U.S. , nuked thier candy asses, and rightfully so. It was then run, and has been continuously run by a Pro America government, and America and other nations invested in her. And rightfully so.

Iraq had a blowhard in command, who as we know now, had none of the WMD Bush said he did, WHEN he said he did, and even if he did, was not an emminant threat to the U.S.

The U.S. went in without the consent of the world, did thier thing, never found anything, and are now stuck with a country laying in shambles that they are duty bound to rebuild for ****ing it up in the first place. Your going to say the place is better off now, but you arent there. And a large amount of the population of Iraq dont want America there, and think they are worse off than they were.

A HUGE difference between Japan and Iraq.


Sure there are huge differences between the two countries. I don't deny that at all but the post war situation is very similar. Go do some research on public opinion regarding the occupation of Japan. It was the same situation. Not right away but after the first year it got just as bad with public opinion as it is now. Also talk to older people who lived through that period. All the ones I have spoken to tell me how bad public opinion got the longer we were in Japan and how if back then they had had the internet and all these cable news channels that the people who opposed the occupation would have been much more organized and prevelant.

While Saddam may not have attacked us directly or had been a imminent threat is not the point. It has more to do with the huge list of things he was up to. Not to mention Iraq was/is our best chance at establishing a democracy in the middle east which is a true threat to our country. That region as a whole needs change and needs it now. We can no longer sit back and do nothing about it.

As for the people in Iraq all I can do is trust people who are dealing with the situation. Friends of mine returning from active duty for one. They tell me all the time how many great things are changing there and how grateful most of the people there are. I can also rely on the relatives of a close friend of mine who came here from Iraq back in the late 80's. His family in Iraq are so happy that they finally see hope in their lives. No longer do they have to live with the threat that one wrong move, one wrong word and Saddam's boys will show up and either kill a family member or worse drag the women and young girls off to Saddams rape rooms which he kept in every town and city in Iraq. My buddies family has been dealing with this for years and years. Many of the women in his family have been raped by Saddam's regime. Now that threat is gone.

You know what that gets me to thinking. If Bush had done nothing then the liberals would have been upset with him for not doing something about Saddam because of human rights and womens rights issues. It amazes me to see liberals and most of all liberal women attacking Bush. Bush liberated all those women in Afghanastan and Iraq. Think about all those women who had no rights, young girls not allowed to learn, being raped and used as slaves. All of that no longer exists because our president took the steps needed to eliminate not only a threat to our nation and all free people but to eliminate the disgusting cultural behavior of radical assh*les in those countries. You know if you liberals would show more support for what we are doing then our administration could conduct operations like this all over the world and free and liberate more innocent victims but instead you will do anything just to not have Bush around.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by rottie
Wrongo Sparky. Liberals would go in WHEN THERE IS A REASON TO! .

you cannot read, or are to ignorant to comprehend that you conservatives ****ed up.

Aight smart ass. Give me ONE viable reason why the United states went into Iraq. I want it in one clear sentence. ONE. dont tell me how Clinton got his dick sucked, how Dubya is the best thing since cheese whiz. I want a one line response to the following;

What reason did the U.S. have for invading Iraq.

Here are the reasons and make sure to read this properly ok.

1. To stop Saddam from filling another mass grave with the bodies of innocent people who just want freedom like we have.

2. So the kids in Iraq aren't brainwashed at school but actually taught the truth about their history and world history.

3. So young girls can get an equal opportunity at an education.

4. So women and young girls will stop getting raped by Saddam's regime in any of the hundreds of rape rooms Saddam kept.

5. To keep Saddam from supporting terrorism in any way, shape or form including his offering of money to suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine.

6. To keep Saddam from ever threatening his neighbors again in the middle east. As we now know he was obtaining missles that could go outside the range allowed by UN sanctions.

7. He violated multiple UN resolutions. The UN didn't want to do anything about it so we did.

8. He stole money from the UN, sold oil illegally for his own profit and kept food and medical aid from his own people. All of these things in effect is stealing from the UN which we cover the largest portion of the budget for with yours and mine tax dollars.

9. To prevent him from ever getting his WMD program up and running again.

10. Granted the reports may not have been accurate but if we didn't go in and he actually had WMD's and then used them on us, then how would you be feeling right now?

If you would like another ten reasons just let me know.

In the past I would have never supported the idea of preemption but after 9/11 we learned that we have to take the fight on terror to the terrorists and forming a democracy in the middle east is a huge step toward stopping terrorism.

mattabull
11-05-2003, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by rottie


What reason did the U.S. have for invading Iraq.

because he HAD to out do his father. he is still mad about 9/11 and wanted to show the world that he is the man, not to be phucked with.

.BrokeN.
11-05-2003, 07:38 AM
Hmm, I told myself to stay out of this thread, but I would have to totally agree that Philhill ****ED YOU UP on that one... It is a known fact that liberals have inadequate genitalia thus resulting in their delusional views and lack of sexual encounter*.




*does not include animals, children under 10, etc.

rottie
11-05-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
Here are the reasons and make sure to read this properly ok.

1. To stop Saddam from filling another mass grave with the bodies of innocent people who just want freedom like we have.

2. So the kids in Iraq aren't brainwashed at school but actually taught the truth about their history and world history.

3. So young girls can get an equal opportunity at an education.

4. So women and young girls will stop getting raped by Saddam's regime in any of the hundreds of rape rooms Saddam kept.

5. To keep Saddam from supporting terrorism in any way, shape or form including his offering of money to suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine.

6. To keep Saddam from ever threatening his neighbors again in the middle east. As we now know he was obtaining missles that could go outside the range allowed by UN sanctions.

7. He violated multiple UN resolutions. The UN didn't want to do anything about it so we did.

8. He stole money from the UN, sold oil illegally for his own profit and kept food and medical aid from his own people. All of these things in effect is stealing from the UN which we cover the largest portion of the budget for with yours and mine tax dollars.

9. To prevent him from ever getting his WMD program up and running again.

10. Granted the reports may not have been accurate but if we didn't go in and he actually had WMD's and then used them on us, then how would you be feeling right now?

If you would like another ten reasons just let me know.

In the past I would have never supported the idea of preemption but after 9/11 we learned that we have to take the fight on terror to the terrorists and forming a democracy in the middle east is a huge step toward stopping terrorism.

1. I am assuming your talking about the gas attack that happened during REAGANS admin. Something should have been done then. And sorry buddy, but it looks to me like the people who want freedom as much as you, are the same ones that parade around wearing the helmets of killed soldiers. :rolleyes:

2. Well you best be invading Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Libya, etc etc etc..

3. Yeah... well good luck invading evewry ****ing muslim country in the world. :rolleyes:

4. Oh wow rape rooms huh? You trying to tell me people dont get raped in the U.S. :rolleyes:

5. Uhhuh.. instead of going after the heart and sould of all terrorist funding in the world. Saudi Arabia. :rolleyes:

6. Such as.... Kuwait? Yeah he tried that before and got his ass raped, and hasnt threatened to do it since. Everyone else is quite capable of defending themselves. You must think the U.S. is the World Police or something.

7. Uhhuh. Well heres the thing about that genius, he violated U.N. sanctions, you conservatives think the U.N and the U.S are the same ****ing thing. They arent. If anyone was going to go after Saddam for breaking U.N. Sanctions, it should be the U.N. not the U.S. That clear enough Sparky?

8. Uhhuh... stole money from the U.N.... stretching arent we? Sold oil illegally? Big ****ing deal. So did Libya while the embargo was on them. and I will also call bull**** on the medical supplies and food as well. I remember a U.S. officer saying on Cnn that the hospitals in Iraq were "remarkably well stocked, considering the situation."

9. Yeah.. sure.. so is Iran next? North Korea? How about Syria? Libya has been known to be shopping as well.

10. If you didnt go in and he had WMD? I wouldnt feel threatened whatsoever. It has been stated time and time and time again that he DID NOT have the capabilites of attacking North America. If he DID have them, and there was iron clad proof, then he should have been disarmed. But all the proof beforehand and since has been that he did not have anything.

I am still waiting for that one plausable reason why they invaded.

rottie
11-05-2003, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by .BrokeN.
Hmm, I told myself to stay out of this thread, but I would have to totally agree that Philhill ****ED YOU UP on that one... It is a known fact that liberals have inadequate genitalia thus resulting in their delusional views and lack of sexual encounter*.




*does not include animals, children under 10, etc.

****ed who up on what there Mr. big balls? :rolleyes:

****ed himself up for using the same reasons that have proven to be inadequate at the very best.

jestros
11-05-2003, 08:03 AM
Its funny that the rightie's are now so concerned with the well being of Iraqi citizens.
Yeah, its a fuc ked up country, it might be in the top ten. N korea is a much bigger threat. How about our friends the Saudi's, they aren't a bunch of nuns either.

mattabull
11-05-2003, 08:08 AM
finds WMD = Hero

Nil find = Zero....

The man has a gambling problem that has cost the US people an amount of money beyond comprehension.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by rottie
1. I am assuming your talking about the gas attack that happened during REAGANS admin. Something should have been done then. And sorry buddy, but it looks to me like the people who want freedom as much as you, are the same ones that parade around wearing the helmets of killed soldiers. :rolleyes:

2. Well you best be invading Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Libya, etc etc etc..

3. Yeah... well good luck invading evewry ****ing muslim country in the world. :rolleyes:

4. Oh wow rape rooms huh? You trying to tell me people dont get raped in the U.S. :rolleyes:

5. Uhhuh.. instead of going after the heart and sould of all terrorist funding in the world. Saudi Arabia. :rolleyes:

6. Such as.... Kuwait? Yeah he tried that before and got his ass raped, and hasnt threatened to do it since. Everyone else is quite capable of defending themselves. You must think the U.S. is the World Police or something.

7. Uhhuh. Well heres the thing about that genius, he violated U.N. sanctions, you conservatives think the U.N and the U.S are the same ****ing thing. They arent. If anyone was going to go after Saddam for breaking U.N. Sanctions, it should be the U.N. not the U.S. That clear enough Sparky?

8. Uhhuh... stole money from the U.N.... stretching arent we? Sold oil illegally? Big ****ing deal. So did Libya while the embargo was on them. and I will also call bull**** on the medical supplies and food as well. I remember a U.S. officer saying on Cnn that the hospitals in Iraq were "remarkably well stocked, considering the situation."

9. Yeah.. sure.. so is Iran next? North Korea? How about Syria? Libya has been known to be shopping as well.

10. If you didnt go in and he had WMD? I wouldnt feel threatened whatsoever. It has been stated time and time and time again that he DID NOT have the capabilites of attacking North America. If he DID have them, and there was iron clad proof, then he should have been disarmed. But all the proof beforehand and since has been that he did not have anything.

I am still waiting for that one plausable reason why they invaded.


If you don't see those as plausible reasons and all you can do is spin everything then you are lost. To all of your responses here are I come back at you.

1. You obviously don't watch or pay attention to any news programs since we have found multiple mass graves and no not the ones from the gas attack from the 80's. These graves were proven to be from the last 10 years.

2. Great I can't wait for us to invade all the countries you mentioned. It is about time.

3. Yes lets invade every muslim country that does not allow women the right to an education.

4. You are such a moron. There is a big difference between an individual rapists and a regime raping women at will. Did you even think before you typed or do you support governments raping women? By the way we go after and convict rapists. In Saddams Iraq it was considered not a big deal.

5. Hey I want us to invade Saudi Arabia now not later. I wish we had hit them first to be honest.

6. Well we are the world police because everytime there is a major problem we get called in by the UN. We saved everyones ass in WW1, WW2, and multiple conflicts all around the world throughout the 20th century. Not to mention we give more aid money than any other nation and we give it to just about every nation on earth including our enemies. Also not everyone is capable of defending themselves. Do I need to list those issues as well?

7. Ok first off drop the Sparky thing my name is Phil. Second since we cover the bulk of the UN funding with our tax dollars we should have a strong say in how things get done. The UN sits on its ass and does nothing so we took the lead.

8. The hospitals being well stocked doesn't change the fact that on CNN they also showed stockpiles of medical and food supplies that Saddam was not providing to his people. He was claiming he wasn't getting enough when he was. Second he did steal money from the UN by claiming a need for financial aid when in fact he wasn't using the money we gave him, he was using it on himself not his people. That is stealing. Third I am talking about Iraq now not Libya and besides I say go in and take out Libya as well. We should have taken care of them years ago.

9. Yes all the nations you listed should be next on our list. Lets get it happening now.

10. Ok you are missing the point. So lets see if you can use your brain and answer this plausible scenario. Say he did get the capabilities. Say our intelligence was right but we did nothing. Then he makes a bomb and has it smuggled into our country and it goes off. Then how would you feel about the situation. Wouldn't you have been wishing we had taken him out years earlier?

philhill4
11-05-2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by jestros
Its funny that the rightie's are now so concerned with the well being of Iraqi citizens.
Yeah, its a fuc ked up country, it might be in the top ten. N korea is a much bigger threat. How about our friends the Saudi's, they aren't a bunch of nuns either.


While we can argue to death which country should have been first, I totally support us taking out the regime in North Korea and getting rid of the Saudi royal family.

.BrokeN.
11-05-2003, 08:24 AM
Shucks ol rottie. Do you not understand that there is always a counter to every point that someone makes, including yours as ignorant as it sounds to most people and as well as the views of others? It's a never ending battle of what you believe in as being right as opposed to the others. At your level in society why should you make such a heap about it when you don't even know a fraction of what is going on out there other than what you read or hear. Let your vote do the talking and until then STFU and quit wasting bandwidth. Please refer to my post on the first page which should have resulted in this thread not exceeding it. besides I agree with Phil, I'm such a hypocrit...



Originally posted by .BrokeN.
LOL at this whole topic. He rules, bottom line. There's always something you can pick out and eat away on about every person, so get a life. If he didn't know what he was doing then he wouldn't be where he is today. I'm sure he knows a lot more about what is going on and what to do about it than everyday people like ourselves. I think K-mart is calling for you, they need their bag boy back.

jestros
11-05-2003, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by philhill4


2. Great I can't wait for us to invade all the countries you mentioned. It is about time.

3. Yes lets invade every muslim country that does not allow women the right to an education.

5. Hey I want us to invade Saudi Arabia now not later. I wish we had hit them first to be honest.

9. Yes all the nations you listed should be next on our list. Lets get it happening now.



Your hillarious.
#1 invading every country we dont like and installing a puppet government is just wrong. If you cant see that, I really dont know what to say.
#2 We have a bad ass military, but its not strong/big enough to be spread out through all those countries. It was made to go two front, (asia middleeast for example). We spread it to thin and some bad things would happen.
#3 We start attacking every muslim country because we dont like thier religion, things would get real bad.

rottie
11-05-2003, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
If you don't see those as plausible reasons and all you can do is spin everything then you are lost. To all of your responses here are I come back at you.

1. You obviously don't watch or pay attention to any news programs since we have found multiple mass graves and no not the ones from the gas attack from the 80's. These graves were proven to be from the last 10 years.

2. Great I can't wait for us to invade all the countries you mentioned. It is about time.

3. Yes lets invade every muslim country that does not allow women the right to an education.

4. You are such a moron. There is a big difference between an individual rapists and a regime raping women at will. Did you even think before you typed or do you support governments raping women? By the way we go after and convict rapists. In Saddams Iraq it was considered not a big deal.

5. Hey I want us to invade Saudi Arabia now not later. I wish we had hit them first to be honest.

6. Well we are the world police because everytime there is a major problem we get called in by the UN. We saved everyones ass in WW1, WW2, and multiple conflicts all around the world throughout the 20th century. Not to mention we give more aid money than any other nation and we give it to just about every nation on earth including our enemies. Also not everyone is capable of defending themselves. Do I need to list those issues as well?

7. Ok first off drop the Sparky thing my name is Phil. Second since we cover the bulk of the UN funding with our tax dollars we should have a strong say in how things get done. The UN sits on its ass and does nothing so we took the lead.

8. The hospitals being well stocked doesn't change the fact that on CNN they also showed stockpiles of medical and food supplies that Saddam was not providing to his people. He was claiming he wasn't getting enough when he was. Second he did steal money from the UN by claiming a need for financial aid when in fact he wasn't using the money we gave him, he was using it on himself not his people. That is stealing. Third I am talking about Iraq now not Libya and besides I say go in and take out Libya as well. We should have taken care of them years ago.

9. Yes all the nations you listed should be next on our list. Lets get it happening now.

10. Ok you are missing the point. So lets see if you can use your brain and answer this plausible scenario. Say he did get the capabilities. Say our intelligence was right but we did nothing. Then he makes a bomb and has it smuggled into our country and it goes off. Then how would you feel about the situation. Wouldn't you have been wishing we had taken him out years earlier?

1. uhhuh.. within the last ten years.. gotcha. :rolleyes: That was on Fox news right?

2. Hell yeah Go to er chum. :rolleyes: The U.S wouldnt be considered war mongerers by any stretch...

3. That comment shows the depth of your intelligence right there. Moronic at best.

4. Your a lying sack of human excrement. It is well documented that rapist were treated the same way in Iraq as they are in every other Muslim country in the world. Liar. You get that info from Starsky?

5. Yeah. the U.S will invade them the day after monkeys fly out of my ass.

6. Again, a lying sack of **** that knows NOTHING about history. The U.S. saved everyones ass in WW1 and WW2. :rolleyes: .You ever stop to think you give more money than any other nation.. ohh I dunno.. maybe becasue you are the RICHEST? I dont remember the U.N coming to you and asking the U.S. to invade Iraq. So why would you bring up UN conflicts to boost your arguement?

7. You get as much a say as everyone else on the goddamn security council, and I dont give a **** HOW much money you give Sparky. If the U.N doesnt want to enforce ITS OWN resolutions, it isnt Americas place to do it instead *******. Again the UN, not the U.S.

8. Uhhuh... and the U.S. military doesnt stock pile medical supplies? Have someone hold your ass cheeks apart so you can get your head out.

9. Yup for sure. Then Chechnya, then Toronto, then the U.S. themselves. Terrosorists are everywhere. **** national soviergnty. As long as you have yours. Isolationalist little man.

10. lets say, what if, . I got a scenario for ya, my aunt may have nuts, should I start calling her my uncle?

Your scenarios are just that. scenarios. And you got North Korea over there, that within the next two years is going to have the capabilites of hitting the mainland U.S. with nuclear weapons, ADMITTEDLY , and your brilliant president is fighting a war against a country thats best weapon is a scud missile...

way to prioritize Sparky.

bgzee
11-05-2003, 08:38 AM
yes george bush is an idiot... hes corrupt... he doesnt listen to the people, just his rich friends...

You can say whatever you want about my comments, but these are the reasons that bush will not be back in office for another 4 years. I can guarentee that. When howard dean gets elected we'll be able to tell just how bad bush was by how great things will be when dean enters office.

antcraw
11-05-2003, 08:53 AM
Hey Phil you gave some good reasons except that NONE OF THEM were the ones told to the American public to justify the war. It's only with the failure to catch Hussain, find WMD, and increased resistance that Bush is ttrying to spin this into some kind of humanitarian mission. The things you listed happen in dozens of countries around the world. No one lifts a finger as african rebel groups and paramilitary groups massacre and rape civilians. Doesn't happen in Central and S. America either (we fund it instead). And please list what Hillary did to be hated by Republicans besides being a woman whose name is Clinton. After the disgraceful partisan attack on her for trying to deal with health care she stayed on the sidelines while first lady. Health care is still waiting to be reformed.

antcraw
11-05-2003, 08:58 AM
Not to mention but Afganistan is a complete failure. Outside of Kabul warlords retook control of the county. The Taliban is resugent in the south. Women still wear their burquas out of fear of attack outside of the big cities. Women are still raped and not educated. Iraq was a secular state where the women had many freedoms that women in Islamic did not have including education and being able to have jobs, that why the US liked him.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by rottie
1. uhhuh.. within the last ten years.. gotcha. :rolleyes: That was on Fox news right?

2. Hell yeah Go to er chum. :rolleyes: The U.S wouldnt be considered war mongerers by any stretch...

3. That comment shows the depth of your intelligence right there. Moronic at best.

4. Your a lying sack of human excrement. It is well documented that rapist were treated the same way in Iraq as they are in every other Muslim country in the world. Liar. You get that info from Starsky?

5. Yeah. the U.S will invade them the day after monkeys fly out of my ass.

6. Again, a lying sack of **** that knows NOTHING about history. The U.S. saved everyones ass in WW1 and WW2. :rolleyes: .You ever stop to think you give more money than any other nation.. ohh I dunno.. maybe becasue you are the RICHEST? I dont remember the U.N coming to you and asking the U.S. to invade Iraq. So why would you bring up UN conflicts to boost your arguement?

7. You get as much a say as everyone else on the goddamn security council, and I dont give a **** HOW much money you give Sparky. If the U.N doesnt want to enforce ITS OWN resolutions, it isnt Americas place to do it instead *******. Again the UN, not the U.S.

8. Uhhuh... and the U.S. military doesnt stock pile medical supplies? Have someone hold your ass cheeks apart so you can get your head out.

9. Yup for sure. Then Chechnya, then Toronto, then the U.S. themselves. Terrosorists are everywhere. **** national soviergnty. As long as you have yours. Isolationalist little man.

10. lets say, what if, . I got a scenario for ya, my aunt may have nuts, should I start calling her my uncle?

Your scenarios are just that. scenarios. And you got North Korea over there, that within the next two years is going to have the capabilites of hitting the mainland U.S. with nuclear weapons, ADMITTEDLY , and your brilliant president is fighting a war against a country thats best weapon is a scud missile...

way to prioritize Sparky.


It is amazing that you have now proven you are probably the biggest dumbass on this board but just for the fun of it lets see if you can understand these responses.

1. No it was on CNN that this was reported as well as NPR and the Associated Press.

2. I don't care if we are considered war mongers.

3. The intelligence is in finally doing what it takes to rid the world of governments that don't provide freedom for their people.

4. I am no liar and you are the one with human excrement for a brain right now. It is well documented by almost every human and womens rights organization that they did not go after rapists the way our judicial system does. The only time an idividual rapist was prosecuted was if that said rapists had done so to another mans wife. Usually at best they would go after easy cases. This still does not change that his own regime raped women in every city on a regular basis.

5. You are right. It probably won't happen and it bothers me.

6. Ok seriously I will be easily available to you to say that to my face during the Thanksgiving day weekend. Watch your mouth and stop hiding behind your computer. If you can't get on here and have a back and forth chat on a topic without resorting to attacks like that then stay out of the thread. Oh and yes you f*cking moron we did save everyone in WW1 and WW2. If we hadn't done anything during WW2 right now it would be a toss up between being ruled by Nazi's or the Japanese emporer. You pick moron.

7. And again assh*le you aren't getting the point. The UN should be doing their job properly if not we will do it for them. What about that don't you get. Do you think I care if some other nations get mad at us. So what? Other nations have been mad at us for years and it won't change. It is called they are jealous and if you can't see that then you need your head examine. We are the USA and you know what we make the damn rules on this planet. You don't like it try and do something about it. Obviously the other countries won't because they don't have what it takes. In the end we will have done the right thing again.

8. I don't have a problem with him stockpiling medical supplies but the point was if you would learn how to read is that he was making claims for supplies he did not need. Besides when this is done Iraq won't need constant UN aid. They will be self sufficient but you liberals don't want that no. What you want is for everyone to need a handout so that you can feel good about yourselves when that assistance is given out.

9. Russia should go in and end the Chechnya problem. Get it over with already. As for Toronto no problems there. Canada whether they agree with us or will always have our friendship, support and protection. Yes by the way our sovereignty does come first.

10. Yes if your aunt does have nuts you should call her uncle. Oh and that includes if she was a man and had a sex change it doesn't matter, she was born a man she gets called uncle. LOL. Seriously though we will take care of North Korea I am confident in that. You may not be but that is ok because they will be dealth with in a matter, time and place that we the United States of America sees fit.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by jestros
Your hillarious.
#1 invading every country we dont like and installing a puppet government is just wrong. If you cant see that, I really dont know what to say.
#2 We have a bad ass military, but its not strong/big enough to be spread out through all those countries. It was made to go two front, (asia middleeast for example). We spread it to thin and some bad things would happen.
#3 We start attacking every muslim country because we dont like thier religion, things would get real bad.

In response:

1. There is nothing for you to say. We don't agree on it.

2. I don't know where you got the idea it can only go two front. It depends on the size of each individual conflict. I also don't think we should dive into each situation at the same time.

3. Please don't insult the muslim religion. Growing up in the town I did I have many muslim friends and their families do not believe their religion condones the suppression of women. They have incredible faith in their religion and yet they live in the present day. They are the first ones in line to support regime change in most countries of the middle east including any said country of their origin.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
yes george bush is an idiot... hes corrupt... he doesnt listen to the people, just his rich friends...

You can say whatever you want about my comments, but these are the reasons that bush will not be back in office for another 4 years. I can guarentee that. When howard dean gets elected we'll be able to tell just how bad bush was by how great things will be when dean enters office.


Good for you for buying into that. I strongly doubt Bush will loose the next election but as for your choice of Dean wow he is easily the worst candidate available. The fact that he is ahead in the polls is really scary. Lieberman or Edwards should be your lead candidates. They are so obviously more in tune with basic common sense than Dean. Seriously it baffles me Dean is even considered but that just shows how out of touch the liberals have become.

rottie
11-05-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by philhill4

6. Ok seriously I will be easily available to you to say that to my face during the Thanksgiving day weekend. Watch your mouth and stop hiding behind your computer. If you can't get on here and have a back and forth chat on a topic without resorting to attacks like that then stay out of the thread. Oh and yes you f*cking moron we did save everyone in WW1 and WW2. If we hadn't done anything during WW2 right now it would be a toss up between being ruled by Nazi's or the Japanese emporer. You pick moron.



You little ****ers are amusing. No idea who is on the other end of the line, taking insults on the net to heart. Wahhh wahh.. ya ****in little baby. Your a little punk. Nuff said. You were the one that started calling people names Sparky. Not with me but others, calling them fools and morons, etc, and not backing up the **** you talk with facts. I can have a back and forth without name calling. I cant have a back and forth with a blatant liar.

BTW anytime your in New Brunswick punk, drop me a line if you want anything said to your face.

Yeah and I have argued the point on the U.S. being the saviour of the world in the two wars ad naseum with people like you on this board and have proved them all wrong. Instead of teaching you too, use the search button.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
Hey Phil you gave some good reasons except that NONE OF THEM were the ones told to the American public to justify the war. It's only with the failure to catch Hussain, find WMD, and increased resistance that Bush is ttrying to spin this into some kind of humanitarian mission. The things you listed happen in dozens of countries around the world. No one lifts a finger as african rebel groups and paramilitary groups massacre and rape civilians. Doesn't happen in Central and S. America either (we fund it instead). And please list what Hillary did to be hated by Republicans besides being a woman whose name is Clinton. After the disgraceful partisan attack on her for trying to deal with health care she stayed on the sidelines while first lady. Health care is still waiting to be reformed.


I do not like that the main reasons given for going to war were WMD. They did mention on many occasions the humanitarian situation but definetly not enought and they ran with the WMD thing. I admit not a good PR move at all.

As for the dozens of countries around the world I want us and other free nations to get together and fight these issues in Africa and South America. Please if don't agree on Bush then lets at least agree that governments that torture their own citizens need to be removed. If anyone agrees with me lets start a movement to get the UN and US involved in going after those regimes.

As for Hillary I am not trying to blow you off I just can not spend the next 5 hours listing every reason. Yes her being a Clinton does have something to do with it but at least for me her gender does not. I have no issue with a woman being president but of course I would only vote for one if I agree with her policies. Again Hillary's gender is not my issue at all and I know alot of men AND WOMEN who feel the same way.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
Not to mention but Afganistan is a complete failure. Outside of Kabul warlords retook control of the county. The Taliban is resugent in the south. Women still wear their burquas out of fear of attack outside of the big cities. Women are still raped and not educated. Iraq was a secular state where the women had many freedoms that women in Islamic did not have including education and being able to have jobs, that why the US liked him.


I have and will say again that we are not doing enough to finish the job right now in Afghanastan. We certainly have more work to do and the job will take a few more years. As for the women being in fear it is not that large of a number any longer. Please I agree with you that the issue is still there but lets not overstate it.

As for Iraq while they did allow women to get some education and have jobs they were still held down. My biggest issue again for women in Iraq was the issue with rape by Saddam's regime.

As for liking Iraq lets be honest. Iraq and Iran bordered the old Soviet Union. We wanted another buddy on the border and at that time it was decided Saddam was the lesser of two evils. During the cold war was a different time. Remember Carter got involved in the Soviet/Afghan war to basically give the Soviets their own vietnam situation and it worked. It was one of the very few things Carter did that was right. I also fully admit and am upset by all three of the next president Reagan, Bush41 and Clinton for allowing the Afghan situation to get out of hand. It was a hands off policy that obviously did not work.

Notice by the way I have no issue complaining about members of my own party. I do not tow the party line. I give you my view and if that view happens to side with the republicans more often then so be it.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by rottie
You little ****ers are amusing. No idea who is on the other end of the line, taking insults on the net to heart. Wahhh wahh.. ya ****in little baby. Your a little punk. Nuff said. You were the one that started calling people names Sparky. Not with me but others, calling them fools and morons, etc, and not backing up the **** you talk with facts. I can have a back and forth without name calling. I cant have a back and forth with a blatant liar.

BTW anytime your in New Brunswick punk, drop me a line if you want anything said to your face.

Yeah and I have argued the point on the U.S. being the saviour of the world in the two wars ad naseum with people like you on this board and have proved them all wrong. Instead of teaching you too, use the search button.


That is my exact point you have no idea who is on the other side of the line do you. I know you think you are a tough guy but talking crap on here does not make you tough.

Just for fun I will continue here first I am not a little punk. Little is definetly the wrong word for me. I am 6' 320lbs with 25% bodyfat. Also I am not sparky for sh*t sake damn it. I did not start the name calling on this thread at all. You keep confusing me with Sparky. I also have backed everything up since I basically only deal in facts. Hey you haven't given one fact yet. You only have given emotional feelings.

Sure I will be available. Will you be in New Brunswick over the thanksgiving weekend? If I end up doing dinner at my brothers that day it will be great. I will only be about 25 minutes from you.

You haven't proved anyone wrong you just think you are right BUT AGAIN you are not. Once you come to terms with the fact that you are wrong your life will be so much easier. Stop pretending you have a clue about any of this.

CerealKiller
11-05-2003, 11:04 AM
I am convinced George Bush LIED about some of the factors he used to lead the nation to a preemptive strike on Iraq.

I think he KNEW the statements were (or more than likely, were) false, he was determined to strike at Saddam regardless --
I AM CONVINCED OF THAT! So the whole time he was telling us he hadn't made up his mind about attacking Iraq -- HE WAS LYING. IMO he made up his mind before he took office and 9/11.

I've weighed the evidence such as exists -- and it is my opinion that either Bush KNEW Saddam had not been attempting purchases of yellow cake from Niger-- or should have known that Saddam had not been attempting to purchase yellow cake.

If he or his staff had taken due diligent steps to check out that vital piece of information -- the doubts of the CIA certainly would have become evident. For certain it has now been established that the...rumor...of Saddam attempting a yellow cake uranium purchase from Niger is very, very suspect -- and apparently it was very, very suspect back before the war also.


While preparing this response I realized that KNOWING a statement is false certainly qualifies the statement as a lie. I think it can reasonably be argued, though, that even absent knowledge that a statement is false, a statement can be considered a lie if due diligence was not taken to insure that a significant statement has been thoroughly researched and can be considered reliable BEFORE putting it out to the public -- which will rely on it simply because of where it is coming from.

Bush, for instance, as many presidents before him have, can set up a situation where he can establish "plausible deniability" by insisting that aides purposefully keep him out of the loop an particular matters.

In any case, this is just a taste of my thoughts on this angle. If anyone else sees merit in what I'm raising here -- please go with it. Other than that the most positive thing I can say about George Bush is that he has cute daughters.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
I am convinced George Bush LIED about some of the factors he used to lead the nation to a preemptive strike on Iraq.

I think he KNEW the statements were (or more than likely, were) false, he was determined to strike at Saddam regardless --
I AM CONVINCED OF THAT! So the whole time he was telling us he hadn't made up his mind about attacking Iraq -- HE WAS LYING. IMO he made up his mind before he took office and 9/11.

I've weighed the evidence such as exists -- and it is my opinion that either Bush KNEW Saddam had not been attempting purchases of yellow cake from Niger-- or should have known that Saddam had not been attempting to purchase yellow cake.

If he or his staff had taken due diligent steps to check out that vital piece of information -- the doubts of the CIA certainly would have become evident. For certain it has now been established that the...rumor...of Saddam attempting a yellow cake uranium purchase from Niger is very, very suspect -- and apparently it was very, very suspect back before the war also.


While preparing this response I realized that KNOWING a statement is false certainly qualifies the statement as a lie. I think it can reasonably be argued, though, that even absent knowledge that a statement is false, a statement can be considered a lie if due diligence was not taken to insure that a significant statement has been thoroughly researched and can be considered reliable BEFORE putting it out to the public -- which will rely on it simply because of where it is coming from.

Bush, for instance, as many presidents before him have, can set up a situation where he can establish "plausible deniability" by insisting that aides purposefully keep him out of the loop an particular matters.

In any case, this is just a taste of my thoughts on this angle. If anyone else sees merit in what I'm raising here -- please go with it. Other than that the most positive thing I can say about George Bush is that he has cute daughters.



While I don't totally agree with you at least you have the ability to explain your opinions and feelings in a clear matter without spinning anything. Not that my opinion of your statement is going to matter to you but I still wanted to commend you on it.

rottie
11-05-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
That is my exact point you have no idea who is on the other side of the line do you. I know you think you are a tough guy but talking crap on here does not make you tough.

Just for fun I will continue here first I am not a little punk. Little is definetly the wrong word for me. I am 6' 320lbs with 25% bodyfat. Also I am not sparky for sh*t sake damn it. I did not start the name calling on this thread at all. You keep confusing me with Sparky. I also have backed everything up since I basically only deal in facts. Hey you haven't given one fact yet. You only have given emotional feelings.

Sure I will be available. Will you be in New Brunswick over the thanksgiving weekend? If I end up doing dinner at my brothers that day it will be great. I will only be about 25 minutes from you.

You haven't proved anyone wrong you just think you are right BUT AGAIN you are not. Once you come to terms with the fact that you are wrong your life will be so much easier. Stop pretending you have a clue about any of this.


I'm not the one asking for a fight with the person on the other end of the line Sparky. So it doesnt matter to me who you are.

I live in New Brunswick. I'm always here.

Wow, your 6' 320 and 25% bodyfat. So i was wrong, your a big punk.When was the last time you saw your Willie?

Uhhuh. Sure sure Sparky. Keep up the internet tough guy facade. It does you wonders.

The U.S. didnt even want to come out and play for world war 2 till they were forced to, while the Nazis ran rampant all over Europe... that is until Hitler invaded Russia, which I and many many scholars on the subject agree, lead to his demise.

But hey you keep believing what you want Sparky.

CerealKiller
11-05-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
While I don't totally agree with you at least you have the ability to explain your opinions and feelings in a clear matter without spinning anything. Not that my opinion of your statement is going to matter to you but I still wanted to commend you on it.

There would be nothing to discuss if we all agreed on everything. I like hearing different points of view so everyones ideas/statements matter to me, even when I disagree.

jestros
11-05-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by CerealKiller
the most positive thing I can say about George Bush is that he has cute daughters.
BUMP. How long before they're in playboy? You ever notice the more conservative the Prez, the more wild the child?

philhill4
11-05-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by rottie
I'm not the one asking for a fight with the person on the other end of the line Sparky. So it doesnt matter to me who you are.

I live in New Brunswick. I'm always here.

Wow, your 6' 320 and 25% bodyfat. So i was wrong, your a big punk.When was the last time you saw your Willie?

Uhhuh. Sure sure Sparky. Keep up the internet tough guy facade. It does you wonders.

The U.S. didnt even want to come out and play for world war 2 till they were forced to, while the Nazis ran rampant all over Europe... that is until Hitler invaded Russia, which I and many many scholars on the subject agree, lead to his demise.

But hey you keep believing what you want Sparky.


I am not looking for a fight either. Ok enough with the fighting crap lets drop it.

I can see my willie fine. What you think I have a gut? I definetly don't but enough about all that crap. Stop making fun of my willie LOL.

Dude I am not Sparky. Sparky may do the tough guy thing but not me. I don't ever have to talk it.

Whatever the reason we still did get into WW2 and saved the day. It had more to do with Hitler invading Russia but yes that was a major catalyst. Yes we did sit on our asses on that one a little too long. Also dude drop the I am a scholar crap. By saying that you aren't saying much for other scholars.

Oh and right back at you. Keep believing what you want. In fact keep your head in the clouds and keep reaching for the sky LOL.

bgzee
11-05-2003, 11:50 AM
philhill honestly your such a moron, you blame everything bad that has happened during the bush administration on clinton. Clinton is responsible for the high unemployment rate? Get the **** out of here, the 8 years clinton was in office was the best 8 years the US had seen in a while, and now look at it. You dont know what your talking about. This president you think so highly of is completely incompetant, unable to accomplish any of the goals he set, including finding osama bin laden, who now just seems like an afterthought in the wake of iraq, and we still have yet to find these WMD, or Saddam... I guess clintons fault too? The only thing bush has accomplished is putting us even further into debt and endangering the lives of every american by making more enemies than we've ever had.

CerealKiller
11-05-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by jestros
BUMP. How long before they're in playboy? You ever notice the more conservative the Prez, the more wild the child?

The only thing I noticed was Chelsea Clinton looked like the Swamp Thing. :D

CerealKiller
11-05-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
[B]still have yet to find these WMD, or Saddam... B]

The WMD's are in Saddam's top pocket, when we find Saddam we find the WMD's. :D

philhill4
11-05-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
philhill honestly your such a moron, you blame everything bad that has happened during the bush administration on clinton. Clinton is responsible for the high unemployment rate? Get the **** out of here, the 8 years clinton was in office was the best 8 years the US had seen in a while, and now look at it. You dont know what your talking about. This president you think so highly of is completely incompetant, unable to accomplish any of the goals he set, including finding osama bin laden, who now just seems like an afterthought in the wake of iraq, and we still have yet to find these WMD, or Saddam... I guess clintons fault too? The only thing bush has accomplished is putting us even further into debt and endangering the lives of every american by making more enemies than we've ever had.


Honestly you are the moron. I don't blame everything on Clinton. Read my damn posts properly. I said that during Clintons last 18months the decline in the economy began. I never blamed Clinton for it at all. I also don't offer him credit for our economic boom. Very seldom does a president have that much control over the economy. The most they can do is provide certain tax situations, grant programs etc. to try and stimulate the economy. Our rebound that is really beginning to take shape now is not all because of Bush but his tax cuts may have helped us along that is all.

Back to Clinton again my only issue that I get pissed off about with regards to terrorism about with him is the issue of Bin Laden. I am not trying to say that he caused 9/11 but he dropped the ball so bad on that one.

Again with regards to our best 8 years you can thank people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobbs and many others for sparking a whole new economy. You can also thank the people at companies like AT&T. The explosion in growth in the tech sector, software industry, pc market growth, and of course the internet boom were all what made our economy grow. Hell a hamster could have been president during the 90's and experienced that. Don't give Clinton the credit on that.

As to the rest of your comments on Bush I think you are a moron. It is incredible the way you are spinning so much of that and also that anyone would not support the war. That right there amazes me but you are welcome to your opinion.

Sport
11-05-2003, 12:25 PM
I think Bush is doing as fine a job as can be done in the times we are in. I believe the War in Iraq was justified 100%. The purpose of the war was to make America safer and protect our security. Tax cuts were implemented, the DOW is creeping up to the 10,000 mark, a landmark achievement - as far as conservatives are concerned - was gained with the partial birth abortian bill that is about to be passed. (Yet will probably be held up by a unanamously named judge).

It is tragic that soldiers are being killed in this guerilla warfare battle that is continually going, but what is to happen in a land the size of California with 25 million citizens? Our losses are miniscule, considering the greater good involved. Iraqi's are no longer being turtured/murdered, an evil tyrant is no longer pursuing weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi people are on their way to controlling their own destiny.

I often wonder what it'd be like had Al Gore been elected president. I don't have an honest answer, but am sure glad that he is not.

Sport
11-05-2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Get the **** out of here, the 8 years clinton was in office was the best 8 years the US had seen in a while, and now look at it.
In all fairness, the 8 years of economic prosperity that our country endured was caused by the following 3 factors:

1) Reaganomics of the 80s
2) 1994 Republican electorate of House/Senate
3) IT boom

Clinton had little/no effect on the booming economy of the 90s.

CalcioFreak
11-05-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Sport
In all fairness, the 8 years of economic prosperity that our country endured was caused by the following 3 factors:

1) Reaganomics of the 80s


Yea, the corportate model is really the way to run the country, I think World Com and Enron proved that, along with all of the other corportations who dodge taxes by sheltering their money in the Caymans.
Corportations are about profit, the government is meant to be about the people, you know that part, by, for, and of the people, it's somewhere on that long forgotten artifact called the Constitution that W. swore to protect uphold, and defend a few Januarys ago.

CalcioFreak
11-05-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Sport
I think Bush is doing as fine a job as can be done in the times we are in. I believe the War in Iraq was justified 100%. The purpose of the war was to make America safer and protect our security. Tax cuts were implemented, the DOW is creeping up to the 10,000 mark...

How is it that you can mention Bush doing a fine job then mention the DOW creeping up like he's got anything to do with that, but in your next post debase the idea the Clinton had anything to do with the economic boom of the 90's, and I'm not saying he did, but a little consistency here huh.

bgzee
11-05-2003, 01:55 PM
These guys contradict themselves constantly...
from philhill...
In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
//Direct result of mistakes by the Clinton administration.
? I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
//Again related to failures in the last 2 years of Clinton and 9/11

The way that looks you are blaming clinton entirely for that first point there.

As for supporting the war, what good reasons do we have? All the bogus ones that our president try to convince you of? WMD? Oh yeah, now hes connected to 9-11 too! And what about all that uranium africa sold to them???
Tell me this:
How has saddam all the sudden become a bigger threat to us than the MOTHER****ERS THAT DROVE PLANES INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? How about we finish one thing before we start another? What an oppurtune time for the REAL THREAT (al quada... forget about them?) to come after us when our dumb ass president sends resources over to iraq to get our hands wet in oil? You conservatives that stand behind the war are blind as to what is really going on. Open up your eyes and stop thinkin with your wallet.

CalcioFreak
11-05-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by philhill4
As the next 5 years will show us and believe me Bush will get re-elected, the world will become a safer and safer place. At the end of Bush's second term we will see the following:

1. Iraq a free democracy that will be at that point not only fending for themselves but helping us to provide a safe and prosperous middle east.
2. Afghanastan will also be a free democracy. They need some more time but we will be there to help them build the infrastructure needed for long term growth. Bottom line here is free people free of terror.
3. Iran will by this point be free of the religious ruling council. The young will have taken back their nation. We will be there to help them make sure that a long standing democracy is ensured. These three middle east nations I just mentioned will provide the backbone for the future of the middle east. Along with to the east of them Pakistan and India, and to the west nations like Israel, Kuwait, Qatar and so on the future will be bright.
4. North Korea won't just not be a threat any longer but we will be within a year or so of a reunited Korea. Finally the people of north korea will no longer live in torture, fear and poverty. The korean peninsula will be a safe, prosperous and nuclear free place and will become a better neighbor to China and Japan.
5. By this point I believe we will have launched an all out assault on organizations like Hamas and in turn we will finally put an end to the extreme violence in Israel and Palestine. Palestine will be a nation finally without any jerk off groups like Hamas holding them back any longer.
6. I believe by this point as well we will finally see Castro out of Cuba. Why we have left this piece of sh*t in power so long is beyond me but Bush will finally put the nail in his coffin.
7. We will have begun a political, economical and military campaign to finally rid Central and South America of gorilla fighters, drug cartels and also to bring prosperity to our neighbors to the south. We have to find a way to rid that region of its problems. Their economy and safety is directly related to ours and to ignore it would be wrong but I believe by statements made by this administration that they are going to take care of those issues after we have cleaned house in the middle east.
8. Our economy will be at its greatest point in history. More people will own small businesses and own their own homes than ever before. Unemployement will be very low, the stock market larger than ever before and all of us will be doing better.


Are we talking about George Bush or Jesus Christ?
One would have to be more than delusional to think that in five years W., or anyone for that matter, setting aside the possibility of the second coming, has any chance of solving these issues, especially when you consider the lack of respect the rest of the world has for him as a leader. He has a failed foreign policy in every regard.
Phil, the only things you left out of this list of wonders Bush is going to pull off in the next five years is the cure for the common cold, a Nobel Prize for Peace, authoring the next great American novel, a platinum selling album, and an equation that bridges the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

philhill4
11-05-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by CalcioFreak
Are we talking about George Bush or Jesus Christ?
One would have to be more than delusional to think that in five years W., or anyone for that matter, setting aside the possibility of the second coming, has any chance of solving these issues, especially when you consider the lack of respect the rest of the world has for him as a leader. He has a failed foreign policy in every regard.
Phil, the only things you left out of this list of wonders Bush is going to pull off in the next five years is the cure for the common cold, a Nobel Prize for Peace, authoring the next great American novel, a platinum selling album, and an equation that bridges the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Well it is always possible that all of that may not get completed LOL but I am an optimist but also I do realize how difficult all of that may be. It really depends on how each issue resolves itself and how long each takes.

You know the whole world does not lack respect for him. Yes it is certainly a divided issue but as each issue is resolved respect will build. But just for fun let me say that:

1. He won't cure the common cold.
2. He might win a Nobel Peace Prize but that won't be until later.
3. He definetly won't author the next great american novel.
4. A platinum album can't be that hard nowadays. Look at the talentless assh*les that actually sell records lately. The music industry is at its worst talent level in years. Then again he won't be doing this either.
5. As for bridging those two theories, NO. But I would crack up if he did.

See I don't think Bush is the all knowing one but I do happen to agree with most of his policies. Not all but most.

CalcioFreak
11-05-2003, 03:17 PM
.

BigKazWSM747
11-05-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Sport
In all fairness, the 8 years of economic prosperity that our country endured was caused by the following 3 factors:

1) Reaganomics of the 80s
2) 1994 Republican electorate of House/Senate
3) IT boom

Clinton had little/no effect on the booming economy of the 90s.

o i beg to differ.

1) Reaganomics produced massive deficits (which dubya has succeeded in surpassing).
2) The democrats passed the Clinton plan in 93. After then basically any major republican attempt to stop it was squahsed via veto. Although some concessions were major in the interest of balancing the budget (which reaganomics ****ed over)
3) I don't think you can credit the technology boom soley for the economic boom in the 90s (I don't think you can solely thank the dems either, but the govt. does have a large effect).

The Conqueror
11-05-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I think hes an idiot, and everyone that SUPPORTS him on here, are idiots. Alot of U.S soldiers have died thus far. Not alot to make people worry, but enough to draw attention.... I think its funny how all of you Praise bush for the war... AND you give SO much respect for the troops (This doesn't apply to everyone, just a majority) Yes your OWN chief AND commander doesn't give a **** about them. Proof??? Look here at the pic attached i got from my newpaper... it made me ****ing SICK. And don't give me **** about him being to busy, BECAUSE if he can send all these troops to fight, then he can certainly pay his respects.

What r ur thoughts?

You totally validate stereotypical vision of canadians. :rolleyes:

gettin there
11-05-2003, 04:44 PM
sorry ,id have to agree too though that bush "aint the sharpest tool in the shed".

sorry if that makes me appear stereotypical, but thats what i think, and this isnt about any war in iraq(im all for that) or any small disagreements the canadians have with the americans, i make up my own mind.

hes just an idiot ,clear as day, thats all. you shouldnt be offended really, its not like you voted for him,right?

saying somethin about me, my leader or my country wont anger me, i know what my country lacks, and what it doesnt.
I went to this thread because someone was asking about peoples opinion on bush, and i gave my opinion, thats all. if you dont like it, ignore it,think im an idiot, matters not

Section 8
11-05-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
o i beg to differ.

1) Reaganomics produced massive deficits (which dubya has succeeded in surpassing).
2) The democrats passed the Clinton plan in 93. After then basically any major republican attempt to stop it was squahsed via veto. Although some concessions were major in the interest of balancing the budget (which reaganomics ****ed over)
3) I don't think you can credit the technology boom soley for the economic boom in the 90s (I don't think you can solely thank the dems either, but the govt. does have a large effect).

No, the government had nothing to do with the economic boom of the 90's...unless you accept Gore's claim to have invented the internet.

In 97/98 a whole new market for trade opened up, and everyone with money to spend spent it in hopes that the golden geese would lay golden eggs. Unfortunately for them, the geese flew south, hence the subsequent crash.

Section 8
11-05-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by rottie
Wrongo Sparky. Liberals would go in WHEN THERE IS A REASON TO! .

you cannot read, or are to ignorant to comprehend that you conservatives ****ed up.

Aight smart ass. Give me ONE viable reason why the United states went into Iraq. I want it in one clear sentence. ONE. dont tell me how Clinton got his dick sucked, how Dubya is the best thing since cheese whiz. I want a one line response to the following;

What reason did the U.S. have for invading Iraq.

One clear sentence: you are too stupid to understand why the US invaded Iraq.

Wow. Being as it took me a half an hour to type out an explaination of the invasion for you in that other thread, I never thought I could get it down to one sentence. It just goes to show, you can't be right all the time.

Damn you're stupid. Unfortunately, that just makes you the same as about 99.99% of our population...

"Tell me why! In one sentence! Everything can be explained in one sentence! Hey...does anyone know what time American Idle is on tonight?"

And people wonder why our country is as it is...

Robaln
11-05-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
Location: Toronto

:D

bgzee
11-05-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
One clear sentence: you are too stupid to understand why the US invaded Iraq.

Wow. Being as it took me a half an hour to type out an explaination of the invasion for you in that other thread, I never thought I could get it down to one sentence. It just goes to show, you can't be right all the time.

Damn you're stupid. Unfortunately, that just makes you the same as about 99.99% of our population...

"Tell me why! In one sentence! Everything can be explained in one sentence! Hey...does anyone know what time American Idle is on tonight?"

And people wonder why our country is as it is...

****, it took you one whole sentence to explain why we invaded iraq? I can do it in one word.

O-I-L

To discredit any of those pesky government spread "rumors"

Saddam was not an imminent threat. That would be osama bin laden.

Weapons of mass destruction? What weapons of mass destruction?

They bought large quantities of uranium from n africa? Oh wait... that was just a flat out lie to every citizen of the united states.

Section 8
11-05-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
****, it took you one whole sentence to explain why we invaded iraq? I can do it in one word.

O-I-L

To discredit any of those pesky government spread "rumors"

Saddam was not an imminent threat. That would be osama bin laden.

Weapons of mass destruction? What weapons of mass destruction?

They bought large quantities of uranium from n africa? Oh wait... that was just a flat out lie to every citizen of the united states.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGG

It wasn't freakin' oil.
It wasn't freakin' oil.
It wasn't freakin' oil.

This war has nothing to do with oil. For the very, very, very last time.

BTW, I've already dispelled of the so-called rumors you listed in your post, as well as the one that you seem to have deemed fit to parrot.

Does anyone know what thread that was in? There is no way in hell I'm retyping that thing...

Section 8
11-05-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Section 8:
Hmm...I'm glad to see someone in here sane enough to stay the hell away from the parties. Half the time, liberals' only criticism of my views is that I'm a "conservative Bush-lover", and consevatives' criticim of my views is that I am a "flaming liberal." Currently, the Dems are totally ****ed as a party, something will happen between now and next year to give the party some shape, though I'll be damned if I know what that will be or what shape it will take. The Republican's are doomed as well, but not for quite a ways off, and it largely depends on what ends up happening with the so-called 'war on terror.'

If a 'good job' is defined as the sucessful implementation of a grand plan, then Bush's administration has been nothing short of brilliant.

The war is not about WMDs, oil, or an old grudge. It never was. Its not about corruption either, its about military brilliance in the works. Whether you agree with the motive behind that war or not, you can't possibly find fault with the implementation.

The WMDs, in my mind, absolutely did exist, and probably still do. There is a reaon the weapons inspectors were let back in the country, which is the same reason that all of Sadaam's munitions scientists were killed before we entered the country, and the reason there were so many discrepancies with the report the Ba'ath regime delivered back in February. My guess is that as soon as Bush announced his 'axis of evil' Sadaam got his ass in gear and got rid of everything he possibly could. The recent report by David Kay seems to support this assertion.

So many anti-Iraq war-ites have brought up the question: "well if this about WMDs why don't we go after Iran? We know they are developing nukes." I can only marvel at the stupidity of these people, so close and yet so far off.

Bush's cabinet is composed of Cold-war relics, people who spent their entire lives figuring out how to wage a global war. What we are seeing now is that cabinet in action.

Want to know why we took out Iraq? Take a look at a map of the region. Iran is bordered by Iraq to the west, Saudi Arabia to the south-and-over the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East, and Turkey to the northeast. In other words, we now have massive ground forces positioned on two sides of them, with no barrier in between, 4 countries on their border, all with US airbases, and full control of the Persian Gulf, to sail a carrier group right in.

If we hadn't taken out Iraq we would lose a major border, have to run most of the ground operation in from Afghanistan, and, oh yeah, Sadaam would have jumped in with guns blazing in a heartbeat. We would have had a blood bath on our hands. Instead, we have stacked impossible odds up against Iran.

Why have the soldiers' stay in Iraq has been prolonged an extra year? You tell me.

IT WASN'T THE FREAKIN' OIL!!

Section 8
11-05-2003, 07:19 PM
For all of you idiots bitching about how stupid Bush is for waging a war with no exit strategy, I've thoughtfully posted his exit strategy for you above: exit Iraq, stage east...right into Iran.

bgzee
11-05-2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGG

It wasn't freakin' oil.
It wasn't freakin' oil.
It wasn't freakin' oil.

This war has nothing to do with oil. For the very, very, very last time.

BTW, I've already dispelled of the so-called rumors you listed in your post, as well as the one that you seem to have deemed fit to parrot.

Does anyone know what thread that was in? There is no way in hell I'm retyping that thing...

Ok idiot, read this article and rethink this. Want more evidence? Just give me the word and ill keep posting it.

A quick summary: "the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the administration -- can include 'operation' of Iraqi oil fields and 'distribution' of Iraqi oil."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/index.htm

Starsky
11-05-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by rottie
You idiot, even Liberals know the U.S. cant pull out now. The only pulling out should be you pulling your head out of your ass. So stop the bull**** blaming everything on the Liberals, and saying the Liberals would do this and do that, becasue you have no idea what you are talking about.

The problem the Liberals have with the whole thing is him going in to begin with, then all this money wouldnt be needed. Understand? And if the U.S. would give up some control to get U.N. help to rebuild, then they wouldnt have to foot the whole bill. Understand? Thats what the Liberals want. But its too ****in reasonable for a conservative gump like yourself or Dubya to wrap your thick cranium around.

Remember folks, no matter what the conservative *******s say, Liberals didn't get the U.S. into this mess. They did.

Great way to start off your post, rottie. You have the ability to argue and even win, when your arguing against things I didn't say and points I didn't make!

When was it said that liberals are responsible for rushing to war and going after Saddam...?? When? They weren't, all they did was put up valuable roadblocks, delays and impediments to something that had to be done. Oh, and your little spiel about the U.N. isn't appreciated...all it took was a couple bombings and the U.N pulled out and is down to a bare-bones staff. Putting them in charge would be a cruel joke and Bush is right not too.

What I said then and what is said now is that some liberals would find it a golden opportunity to "bring the troops home and pull out" if it meant hurting Bush's chances for reelection. Argue against that, and this time dont act like a huge douche doing it.

Starsky
11-05-2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Ok idiot, read this article and rethink this. Want more evidence? Just give me the word and ill keep posting it.

A quick summary: "the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the administration -- can include 'operation' of Iraqi oil fields and 'distribution' of Iraqi oil."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/07/news/companies/halliburton_iraq_con/index.htm

So because Haliburton has a contract to help reconstruct, the whole reason or even part of the reason to go to war was to make them rich?

You really have reached a new level of sad when all you have left is Haliburton.

bgzee
11-05-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
So because Haliburton has a contract to help reconstruct, the whole reason or even part of the reason to go to war was to make them rich?

You really have reached a new level of sad when all you have left is Haliburton.

You missed 2 very key points buddy:

-$7 billion contract, awarded without competition
-a company with close ties to the administration

But wait... dont companies usually bid on a contract, as a way for the government so save money?? Not when you have a financial interest in a company whom taxpayers just paid $7 billion...

Section 8
11-05-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
You missed 2 very key points buddy:

-$7 billion contract, awarded without competition
-a company with close ties to the administration

But wait... dont companies usually bid on a contract, as a way for the government so save money?? Not when you have a financial interest in a company whom taxpayers just paid $7 billion...

I addressed that in the other thread as well, but it was part of a different reply.

Your argument is a straw man; just because Bush may be giving favors to friends, does not mean that he went to war over oil.

In the end, the oil contract means nothing. Your argument is tantamount to saying "We went to war because we didn't like the statue of Sadaam. See! Here's a picture, with a flag over his face, that proves it!"

"To the victor goes the spoils" has always been the case, and I have never claimed that it is any different now. I _do_ assert that oil, in the short term at least, was in no way a motivator of our incursion into Iraq.

We invaded Iraq as a "preemptive strike," just not the kind of preemptive strike the administration claims it is. Iraq was the only strategically viable target for staging a greater conquest of the middle east, period.

SO STOP TALKING ABOUT OIL!! ITS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!

Truth alone never makes something relevant.

Iraq's O-I-L is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T.

FatFat Bastard
11-05-2003, 08:36 PM
ok ok stop this,



lets not talk about past for a secound .

what should the Americans do from this point on? (in Iraq)
they get good troops killed almost everyday, they can't pull out, its to late for that.

so call the UN for help? or should they train a new Iraq army and pull out before they did not get a peice of their a** beaten off? or should they increase number of troops rethink a few strateges and intrentch untill it will quite down?
nuking is not a valid option either so what is the USA to do?

i mean this is a tough situation they are facing, the human loses are not as segnificant as the moral loss. but still...


i did support the war from the start but i never liked the fact that americans troops would be killed after the war was over

BigKazWSM747
11-05-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
I addressed that in the other thread as well, but it was part of a different reply.

Your argument is a straw man; just because Bush may be giving favors to friends, does not mean that he went to war over oil.

In the end, the oil contract means nothing. Your argument is tantamount to saying "We went to war because we didn't like the statue of Sadaam. See! Here's a picture, with a flag over his face, that proves it!"

"To the victor goes the spoils" has always been the case, and I have never claimed that it is any different now. I _do_ assert that oil, in the short term at least, was in no way a motivator of our incursion into Iraq.

We invaded Iraq as a "preemptive strike," just not the kind of preemptive strike the administration claims it is. Iraq was the only strategically viable target for staging a greater conquest of the middle east, period.

SO STOP TALKING ABOUT OIL!! ITS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!

Truth alone never makes something relevant.

Iraq's O-I-L is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T.

The reasons the Bush administration gave the public for attacking the war were bull**** or pretty poor. Lets summarize.

1. Saddam has or is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons (disproven about 1000 times)

2.Saddam has WMDs (where? we stated we knew where they were and we haven't found a single one)

3. Saddam is linked to Al-Queda (denied by the bush admin. and they admit there is no evidence for that link)

4. Saddam is the world's most evil man (not a good enough reason, as if we cared about every single evil ruler we'd be going after the big dogs like China or N. Korea for their human rights violations as well).

All of those were either disproven or have little relevance as to why to specifically pick Iraq. Iraq was chosen because it could be a politcal boost to dubya and because of it being in the middle east, which is a very unstable part of the world. And, of course, why America (or at least most top politicans) cares about the Middle East in the first place is because of all the oil in the region. If it was just for humanitarian reasons we'd be heavily focussed on Africa, which we are not.

Preemptive strikes are a wrong and dangerous doctrines. Now other countries (ex. India) can attack just for the reason of them being a possible threat (ex. Pakistan). They have yet to commit an offense but you reason they would have if they get the chance and so you can just go in and do what you want. Well whats to stop other countries from taking up this policy (like Israel is starting to do) and say "hey the USA did it, why can't we?" Policies like this are part of the reason so many people hate us, because they are unsound, will only lead to further violence, and give a view of America being the arrogant "king" of the world.

Its also unethical to give special deals (in this case an exclusive contract w/ no competition for it) to your buddies because they gave you money for your campaign.

BigKazWSM747
11-05-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
So because Haliburton has a contract to help reconstruct, the whole reason or even part of the reason to go to war was to make them rich?

You really have reached a new level of sad when all you have left is Haliburton.

When you give an exclusive deal to a company just because of who they are to you it is sad an unethical. I'm sure if this was some democratic business and something like this happened you'd be going insane (i would too), don't excuse this simply because its republican.

bgzee
11-05-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
I addressed that in the other thread as well, but it was part of a different reply.

Your argument is a straw man; just because Bush may be giving favors to friends, does not mean that he went to war over oil.

No, Cheney being actively paid by Halliburton Co. had nothing to do with his interest in the war :rolleyes: See article below.


In the end, the oil contract means nothing. Your argument is tantamount to saying "We went to war because we didn't like the statue of Sadaam. See! Here's a picture, with a flag over his face, that proves it!"

Your point here just shows how desperate you are to defend that idiot we call our president. Oil is a huge part of bush and cheneys income. This is possibly the most retarded counter-point ive ever read.

"To the victor goes the spoils" has always been the case, and I have never claimed that it is any different now. I _do_ assert that oil, in the short term at least, was in no way a motivator of our incursion into Iraq.

No motivator of our incursion into iraq? Again, see below.

We invaded Iraq as a "preemptive strike," just not the kind of preemptive strike the administration claims it is. Iraq was the only strategically viable target for staging a greater conquest of the middle east, period.

SO STOP TALKING ABOUT OIL!! ITS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!

Truth alone never makes something relevant.

Iraq's O-I-L is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T.
You can think oil was irrelevant but then your just being ignorant. Bush and cheney are taking from the tax payers and giving to themselves. Read this:

Cheney's Ties to Halliburton: Deferred Compensation Package Counts, Report Indicates

Washington Post

A Congressional Research Service report released yesterday concluded that federal ethics laws treat Vice President Cheney's annual deferred compensation checks and unexercised stock options as continuing financial interests in the Halliburton Co.

Democrats have aggressively challenged Cheney's claim that he has no financial ties to Halliburton, despite those arrangements.

The Houston-based energy conglomerate has been awarded more than $2 billion in contracts for rebuilding Iraq, including one worth $1.22 billion that was awarded on a noncompetitive basis.

The report, from the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress, said deferred salary or compensation received from a private corporation -- as well as unexercised stock options -- may represent a continuing financial interest as defined by federal ethics laws.

The seven-page report, dated Monday, did not name Cheney or Halliburton, but addressed the general legal question. It was prepared at the request of Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who said Cheney should "stop dodging the issue with legalese, and acknowledge his continued financial ties with Halliburton to the American people."

Cheney, who was Halliburton's chairman and chief executive, has disclosed the payments and the 433,333 options. The report suggests no illegality.

Catherine Martin, Cheney's public affairs director, said: "The vice president has no financial interest in Halliburton. He has no stake in the company. He will in no way benefit from the rise or fall of Halliburton's stock price or the success or failure of the company."

Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14 that he has "no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." His assertion came during a discussion of Halliburton's contracts in Iraq. Cheney said he had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests."

Democrats disputed that because Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with payments scheduled to continue for three more years.

In response, Cheney's office said he had purchased an insurance policy so he would be paid even if Halliburton failed. And his office also has announced he has agreed to donate the after-tax proceeds from his stock options to three charities.

However, the congressional report said that neither the insurance policy nor the charity designation would change the public official's disclosure obligation.

The continuing controversy over Cheney's statement puts him in the position of drawing criticism to the White House. In the past, White House officials have considered him a reassuring figure for viewers and voters.

Bush issued what amounted to a correction of another statement Cheney made on "Meet the Press." When asked about the possibility of a connection between former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Cheney said, "We don't know." Three days later, Bush said in response to a question that the government has no evidence of such a link.

The liberal group American Family Voices has spent more than $300,000 to run ads about Halliburton's connection to the administration. The group said the commercials are effective for raising money. The ads -- on cable in Washington and on broadcast television in New Hampshire and battleground states of the Midwest -- began last week and will run for at least another week, the group said.

Section 8
11-05-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
You can think oil was irrelevant but then your just being ignorant. Bush and cheney are taking from the tax payers and giving to themselves. Read this:


You seem to be ignorant of the meaning of "irrelevant."

bgzee
11-05-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
You seem to be ignorant of the meaning of "irrelevant."

Yeah? You said

"Iraq's O-I-L is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T."

I just proved it was. Seriously, your digging yourself into a hole. You might as well stop posting here.

Section 8
11-05-2003, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Yeah? You said

"Iraq's O-I-L is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T."

I just proved it was. Seriously, your digging yourself into a hole. You might as well stop posting here.

:rolleyes:


Originally posted by bgzee
****, it took you one whole sentence to explain why we invaded iraq? I can do it in one word.

O-I-L


Originally posted by bgzee
Ok idiot, read this article and rethink this. Want more evidence? Just give me the word and ill keep posting it.


Originally posted by bgzee
Your point here just shows how desperate you are to defend that idiot we call our president. Oil is a huge part of bush and cheneys income. This is possibly the most retarded counter-point ive ever read.

I'm not a republican, I'm not a conservative, and I'm not defending Bush. Just the opposite actually. Did you even read my earlier post?


Originally posted by Section 8
Your argument is a straw man; just because Bush may be giving favors to friends, does not mean that he went to war over oil.


Originally posted by bgzee
No, Cheney being actively paid by Halliburton Co. had nothing to do with his interest in the war :rolleyes:


Originally posted by bgzee
Yeah? You said

"Iraq's O-I-L is I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T."

I just proved it was. Seriously, your digging yourself into a hole. You might as well stop posting here.

Sorry, I didn't expect having to explain either the meaning of "irrelevant" or the concept of "straw man fallacy."

Straw man fallacy: to attack an argument about a proposition using an argument that - no matter how true - is a lesser argument than that of your opponent.

Irrelevant: as in, not applicable.

We are arguing over why the US invaded Iraq. You stated that, above all, we invaded Iraq for their oil. I stated that we went to war with Iraq because of its logistical advantage in the Middle East, and that the oil was just a pick up along the way. I did not say that there has been no private gain due to oil contracts; I said that the motive behind our going to war with Iraq is of far greater dimension than personal gain...unless you count Bush's desire to be in the history books personal gain.

Your "proof" is not proof that we went to war for oil. It is shows that Bush and Cheney may gain in the private sector as a result of the war. Whether or not that's true, it is nothing but minute part of the bigger picture. I am arguing what Bush's motive was for invading Iraq. You are doing nothing of the sort, and are using third-grade logic to ignore facts that suggest you need to expand the scope of your analysis.

Maybe I should stop posting, as you seem to be either unwilling to read my earlier post or unable to comprehend it. Either way, continuing debate is a waste of my time if you are unwilling to remove your blinders.

By the way...how's the view from down there?

bgzee
11-05-2003, 10:04 PM
Ive heard all the different reasons the president gave for us going to iraq. are there some that nobody seems to know about beside yourself? If so please share with me and the rest of the world.

Section 8
11-05-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
Ive heard all the different reasons the president gave for us going to iraq. are there some that nobody seems to know about beside yourself? If so please share with me and the rest of the world.

I'm sorry, I really don't know how I can be more clear than this. Re-posted, for the third time:


Bush's cabinet is composed of Cold-war relics, people who spent their entire lives figuring out how to wage a global war. What we are seeing now is that cabinet in action.

Want to know why we took out Iraq? Take a look at a map of the region. Iran is bordered by Iraq to the west, Saudi Arabia to the south-and-over the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East, and Turkey to the northeast. In other words, we now have massive ground forces positioned on two sides of them, with no barrier in between, 4 countries on their border, all with US airbases, and full control of the Persian Gulf, to sail a carrier group right in.

If we hadn't taken out Iraq we would lose a major border, have to run most of the ground operation in from Afghanistan, and, oh yeah, Sadaam would have jumped in with guns blazing in a heartbeat. We would have had a blood bath on our hands. Instead, we have stacked impossible odds up against Iran.

Why have the soldiers' stay in Iraq has been prolonged an extra year? You tell me.

Bush is taking out the entire Islamic fundamentalist infrastructure. He doesn't want money; he wants to go down in history as the president who was in office when the single remaining threat to world peace attacked the United States, and as the president who responded by successfully transforming the Middle East into a democracy.

Why haven't your idiot-catering *ahem* liberal-oriented websites and newspapers made that assertion? Probably, because most of them are like yourself, and are entirely unable to think critically on any level. They listen to Bush, think "everything he says _must_ be a lie! Lets see how we can prove him wrong!" Think about it: I had to have a remedial knowledge of both geography and strategy to figure that out. As a group, liberals are cynical idiots, who are now and always have been totally incapable of seeing the bigger picture. The press doesn't want to put anything more complicated than "Bush is an idiot! Bush supporters are idiots! No blood for oil!" to their audience, because they know that they will become confused and change the channel to "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy."

God damn, as critical as you are of Bush, I find it amazing that you seem unable to comprehend the simple fact that the reasons he gave for us to go to war were nothing more than contrived superficial justifications.

"America is about to engage in a conquest of the Middle East."

That would have went over really well... :rolleyes:

Gordon_18
11-05-2003, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by rottie


There was a HUGE difference between Japan and Iraq. Japan attacked America. Japan was a threat. The U.S. , nuked thier candy asses, and rightfully so. It was then run, and has been continuously run by a Pro America government, and America and other nations invested in her. And rightfully so.


I'm going to give you two dates.. August 6 and 9, 1945. And December 7, 1941. Now the second date (dec 7) Is when pear harbour was attacked... Aus 6-9 were the dates that the u.s nuked millions upon millions of iinnocent people. Deleberately (SP) targeting civilian structures and cities. Their were a few stories about why they did it.. One was they were getting them back for pearl harbour (Which happed 4 years ago). The other was Truman wanted to give the U.S. an edge in the coming Cold War by showing that he was not afraid to use these weapons of mass destruction.
Can everyone see (weapons of mass destruction.) ?

Gordon_18
11-05-2003, 10:45 PM
Originally posted by Section 8
For all of you idiots bitching about how stupid Bush is for waging a war with no exit strategy, I've thoughtfully posted his exit strategy for you above: exit Iraq, stage east...right into Iran.
Then into Syria and palestine... Man what a Great president Bush is.:rollseyes: Hes going to use his miltrary might to comb the whole middle east of weapons, even if he has to turn Iran, Syria and Palestine into rubble

Section 8
11-05-2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
Then into Syria and palestine... Man what a Great president Bush is.:rollseyes: Hes going to use his miltrary might to comb the whole middle east of weapons, even if he has to turn Iran, Syria and Palestine into rubble

Yep, that's my assessment of it. Syria would be easier to take out, but it is a geographically much smaller state. I am not now, nor have I ever been, surprised that neither Husein nor Bin Laden have been found. We'll take out Iran, drive the remaining fundamentalist supporters into Syria, and then blow Syria to high hell.

He doesn't want to comb the middle east of weapons, he wants to over-throw all of the anti-American governments and replace them with democracies that "owe us a debt of gratitude for saving them from tyrannical oppression."

In other words, oil will be much, much cheaper, we'll have a bunch of nations contracting us to rebuild them (as Iraq is now), and a whole bunch of new long-term trading partners - partial to the United States - springing up from the rubble.

In terms of weapons, he probably wants to do the opposite. Look at what Israel has done for us, economically and as a political asset, since we armed their puppet government.

We'll play the Middle East like a marionette....

And nobody will stop it either, because idiots like bgzee will be too busy trying to find their way out of the house of smoke and mirrors.

Starsky
11-06-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
You missed 2 very key points buddy:

-$7 billion contract, awarded without competition
-a company with close ties to the administration

But wait... dont companies usually bid on a contract, as a way for the government so save money?? Not when you have a financial interest in a company whom taxpayers just paid $7 billion...

The same article your citing said that Haliburton will only get a profit of 490 million, which is less than 1/14 of what your saying the taxpayers payed to Haliburton and less than 1/400th of the total cost of the Iraqi war and reconstruction. Try again.

Starsky
11-06-2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
The reasons the Bush administration gave the public for attacking the war were bull**** or pretty poor. Lets summarize.

1. Saddam has or is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons (disproven about 1000 times)

2.Saddam has WMDs (where? we stated we knew where they were and we haven't found a single one)

3. Saddam is linked to Al-Queda (denied by the bush admin. and they admit there is no evidence for that link)

4. Saddam is the world's most evil man (not a good enough reason, as if we cared about every single evil ruler we'd be going after the big dogs like China or N. Korea for their human rights violations as well).

All of those were either disproven or have little relevance as to why to specifically pick Iraq. Iraq was chosen because it could be a politcal boost to dubya and because of it being in the middle east, which is a very unstable part of the world. And, of course, why America (or at least most top politicans) cares about the Middle East in the first place is because of all the oil in the region. If it was just for humanitarian reasons we'd be heavily focussed on Africa, which we are not.

Preemptive strikes are a wrong and dangerous doctrines. Now other countries (ex. India) can attack just for the reason of them being a possible threat (ex. Pakistan). They have yet to commit an offense but you reason they would have if they get the chance and so you can just go in and do what you want. Well whats to stop other countries from taking up this policy (like Israel is starting to do) and say "hey the USA did it, why can't we?" Policies like this are part of the reason so many people hate us, because they are unsound, will only lead to further violence, and give a view of America being the arrogant "king" of the world.

Its also unethical to give special deals (in this case an exclusive contract w/ no competition for it) to your buddies because they gave you money for your campaign.

No, those are your own versions of their reasons that your choosing for the sake of your argument.

1. Saddam attempted to start a nuclear weapons program in the past. He bought hundreds of tons of yellowcake from Niger in the 80's. There is clear evidence of that. The french built Osirak nuclear reactor was destroyed by Israel, which prevented him from getting enriched uranium. Does this mean he was close a year ago? No, it just means you are wrong.

2. Dead wrong again, they found a reference strain for botulism toxin. Now obviously this doesn't represent massive chemical warheads or stockpiles. The intelligence was flawed on his capabilities. But that was not the point. The point was to prevent Saddam from ever having WMD capability again. The Kay report and worldwide intelligence proved he had the capability to reconstitute his entire WMD program. This alone is justification

3. 100% wrong. Bush clearly said Iraq and 9/11 were *not* connected. He also said Iraq and Al-Qaeda were.

4. The only thing you have been right on so far is that Saddams evilness should have had nothing to do with the war. The deciding factor is whether or not it was in the interest of the U.S.

You saying that the Iraqi war was done as a political boost for George W. is a pretty serious charge. Personally, even from an attacking standpoint, that isn't realistic. The most realistic dubious reason I could think of is establishing a footprint in the Middle East, but even that has been disproven. The mass pullout from Saudi Arabia(already happened), and the pledge to eventually get out Iraq when the job is done proves this.

You are also making the mistake of assuming that because of the toppling of Saddam that pre-emptive strikes have now become doctrine. This is false. They are a strategy on the table of many strategies and it worked.

Section 8
11-06-2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
You saying that the Iraqi war was done as a political boost for George W. is a pretty serious charge. Personally, even from an attacking standpoint, that isn't realistic. The most realistic dubious reason I could think of is establishing a footprint in the Middle East, but even that has been disproven. The mass pullout from Saudi Arabia(already happened), and the pledge to eventually get out Iraq when the job is done proves this.

You are also making the mistake of assuming that because of the toppling of Saddam that pre-emptive strikes have now become doctrine. This is false. They are a strategy on the table of many strategies and it worked.

I agree that the political boost theory is absurd. I find it odd that people would dare to utter such nonsense, especially given the recently leaked memo.

Your proof is also anything but proven.

Since when does a pledge *prove* that something *will* happen? We never needed Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is over the Persian Gulf from Iran; carriers can provide air support quite adequately, and its a logistically awkward place to lead a ground campaign from. Sure, we'll get out of Iraq when the job is done...we just have a few stops to make on our way home.

Consider the situation rationally. Bush publicly justified war with Iraq over WMDs that - though I do believe they did exist - we had no evidence for at the time. How hard do you think it will be for him to get public approval to invade Iran - which openly admits to maintaining nuclear research - or Syria - the government of which publicly urges and funds terrorists? The only reason we haven't moved on is because troops are still dying in Iraq. Once Iraq is under control we'll move on, under the banner of "**** the nea-sayers, we were right the first time!" Do rest assured, Bush wants to go down as the guy who waged a successful campaign against the Axis of Evil; he has made that clear since 9/11. The liberals picked up on the anti-Iraq war sentiment, and in doing so, have lost sight of any and everything outside of Iraq. Bush does NOT want to go down as the guy who got us into the next Vietnam, and he and his crack military advisors are smart enough not to repeat that mistake. He won't make a new mess until he knows he can clean up the first.

In politics - especially American partisan politics - there is always more going on than meets the eye, and more often than not, what is actually going on is concealed under a thick web of lies that is, ironically, strengthened by the cynicism of the oppositional party. Its all smoke and mirrors...welcome to the funhouse.

bgzee
11-06-2003, 06:44 AM
Section 8 you spew off some of the most ridiculous bull**** ive ever heard.

"Bush is taking out the entire Islamic fundamentalist infrastructure. He doesn't want money; he wants to go down in history as the president who was in office when the single remaining threat to world peace attacked the United States, and as the president who responded by successfully transforming the Middle East into a democracy."

I see you've spoken to the president personally considering you know his "true" reasons for being in iraq. Whether or not the middle east is a democracy or not, there will still be terrorists... in fact we are making more terrorists for ourselves by taking these actions. DO you think its a coincidence that the majority of the world is angered with bush right now?

The bottom line is i completely proved you wrong when you said oil was irrelevant, thats all i came to argue about, so get the **** out of here.

philhill4
11-06-2003, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
You missed 2 very key points buddy:

-$7 billion contract, awarded without competition
-a company with close ties to the administration

But wait... dont companies usually bid on a contract, as a way for the government so save money?? Not when you have a financial interest in a company whom taxpayers just paid $7 billion...

Most democrats in congress when asked about the Haliburton issue had no problem with it because Haliburton was the only company with the resources and capabilities to get working in less than 30 days. Most companies didn't even want the contract but later will recieve smaller contracts for different areas of the reconstruction efforts. In fact I think it was Joe Biden who said the only other company that could have pulled it off as quickly was British Petroleum but they didn't want to take the risk.

Gordon_18
11-06-2003, 08:08 AM
Personally i'm just happy my thread made it this far

philhill4
11-06-2003, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by FatFat Bastard
ok ok stop this,



lets not talk about past for a secound .

what should the Americans do from this point on? (in Iraq)
they get good troops killed almost everyday, they can't pull out, its to late for that.

so call the UN for help? or should they train a new Iraq army and pull out before they did not get a peice of their a** beaten off? or should they increase number of troops rethink a few strateges and intrentch untill it will quite down?
nuking is not a valid option either so what is the USA to do?

i mean this is a tough situation they are facing, the human loses are not as segnificant as the moral loss. but still...


i did support the war from the start but i never liked the fact that americans troops would be killed after the war was over


I think they are constantly reworking the strategy. I also don't think any strategy would have worked perfectly. It is a war and nothing goes as planned. As to some ideas well here are just a few.

1. Definetly increase the amount of Iraqi's involved. Double the new military and double the police forces in every city by the new year.

2. They already said they will be rotating fresh troops in next year but until then I think they need to send in more troops. My opinion would be about 50,000 that at first all land in the triangle around Baghdad and get to work searching everywhere for the terrorists who are causing all the problems.

3. As you double the Iraq military, combine them with US troops and bring in more international troops and have a huge number of them watching the borders.

4. This one relates to number3 which is get on the horn and make economic, diplomatic and military aid threats to other countries. Now before you start thinking I mean threaten war I don't. For example get on the horn with governments around the Middle East. Turkey, Pakistan and India to start. Tell all of them that bottom line a democracy in Iraq and Afghanastan is in their best interests. Explain to them how much economic trade will be possible if they help out. Then tell them that if they don't send large numbers of troops and aid to help us that 1. They will not get any trade contracts, 2. We will stop all financial aid to their countries without regard for how it will affect them, 3. We will cut off any military security that we currently provide them, 4. We will impose our own trade sanctions with them and 5. We will have an American travel ban for their countries.

5. Next call up our close allies. Get them all and tell them to all triple their current numbers in both Iraq and Afghanastan. Explain to them that the time is now and that more troops means that the troops they do currently have their will be safer than they are now. Also offer them better trade options post war.

6. Get Russia involved. With Russia I think it is simple. It is all about money and I don't blame them. First Iraq owes them alot of money and second Russia has alot of financial problems. So first offer them a deal where if a large number of troops are sent and Russia decides to be a full partner in the war on terror like England, then we will put Russia at the top of the list for getting their money paid back by Iraq and getting new trade deals with Iraq.

7. Another Russia angle. Tell the Saudi's that they have screwed around with us long enough. Cut our oil purchases from them by at least half and give that contract to Russia. This would do so much for Russia's economy and if the agreement is done right would provide us with the most powerful ally we could ever ask for. Think about how quickly we could get things done if Russia was totally on our side and was providing at least 25% of the troops and agents both in Iraq and the overall war on terror.

These are just a few ideas and I have a few dozen more if you like.

philhill4
11-06-2003, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
When you give an exclusive deal to a company just because of who they are to you it is sad an unethical. I'm sure if this was some democratic business and something like this happened you'd be going insane (i would too), don't excuse this simply because its republican.


Normally I would agree with you on a subject like this but it is widely known that Haliburton was one of only 3 companies that could be up and running in less than 30 days. As for the other 2 companies BP was one of them and didn't want to take the risk. I am unsure of the reason why the third company wasn't involved.

philhill4
11-06-2003, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
Ive heard all the different reasons the president gave for us going to iraq. are there some that nobody seems to know about beside yourself? If so please share with me and the rest of the world.

Of all the dozens of reasons for the war I will give you the best reason of all. To provide stability in the future to the middle east there must be a change in how the governments there run themselves. The obvious choice is a democracy. The only way to do this is to show them all proof of it working which of course will take time but we must start somewhere. Iraq is that first place.

By helping Iraq to become a free and open democracy that flourishes economically, it will be an example to the rest of the people of the middles east. Other countries may need assistance in converting to a democracy but the ground work must be laid and Iraq is our best chance.

From there we should see and easy change in Iran. The younger people there are already trying to make a change and we have people on the ground there helping the youth with rallies and support for an overthrow. More than likely within 2-5 years Iran will be a full blown democracy and it will probably not take alot of military assistance. Afghanastan will take longer than Iraq because of its lack of infrastructure but in time they will also flourish especially with our continues support.

Remember by creating demcocracies you almost totally eliminate the ability in those countries for any terrorists influence or training. By having this enviroment in as many places as possible will help to bring terrorism to its own death. A peaceful, democratic and economically vibrant middle east can only help to bring an end to the biggest conflict in the region, Israel/Palestine.

I will also add that Iraq as our friend will give us the most strategic place for a military base which I am sure we will have one there for many years to come.

jestros
11-06-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by philhill4

Remember by creating demcocracies you almost totally eliminate the ability in those countries for any terrorists influence or training. By having this enviroment in as many places as possible will help to bring terrorism to its own death.


What kind of dream world are you living in? Just because a country had a democracy doesnt mean it cant have terrorists.

America is the greatest democracy out there. True?

Timothy McVey

antcraw
11-06-2003, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by philhill4
Of all the dozens of reasons for the war I will give you the best reason of all. To provide stability in the future to the middle east there must be a change in how the governments there run themselves. The obvious choice is a democracy. The only way to do this is to show them all proof of it working which of course will take time but we must start somewhere. Iraq is that first place.

By helping Iraq to become a free and open democracy that flourishes economically, it will be an example to the rest of the people of the middles east. Other countries may need assistance in converting to a democracy but the ground work must be laid and Iraq is our best chance.

From there we should see and easy change in Iran. The younger people there are already trying to make a change and we have people on the ground there helping the youth with rallies and support for an overthrow. More than likely within 2-5 years Iran will be a full blown democracy and it will probably not take alot of military assistance. Afghanastan will take longer than Iraq because of its lack of infrastructure but in time they will also flourish especially with our continues support.

Remember by creating demcocracies you almost totally eliminate the ability in those countries for any terrorists influence or training. By having this enviroment in as many places as possible will help to bring terrorism to its own death. A peaceful, democratic and economically vibrant middle east can only help to bring an end to the biggest conflict in the region, Israel/Palestine.

I will also add that Iraq as our friend will give us the most strategic place for a military base which I am sure we will have one there for many years to come.

There will never be an American style democracy in the Middle East. They may get the freedom to pick their leaders or have an open economy but they still will be Islamic. Their whole culture clashes with American culture and nothing will change that. I would not count on having close allies with America's intrests first no matter what happens, especially American military bases which was one of Osama's reasons for bombing the US in the first place.

antcraw
11-06-2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by antcraw
There will never be an American style democracy in the Middle East. They may get the freedom to pick their leaders or have an open economy but they still will be Islamic. Their whole culture clashes with American culture and nothing will change that. I would not count on having close allies with America's intrests first no matter what happens, especially American military bases which was one of Osama's reasons for bombing the US in the first place. Iran already has their own weapons industry because of international sactions on them and don't need military aid. Your optimisim isn't really in touch with reality.

philhill4
11-06-2003, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
I'm going to give you two dates.. August 6 and 9, 1945. And December 7, 1941. Now the second date (dec 7) Is when pear harbour was attacked... Aus 6-9 were the dates that the u.s nuked millions upon millions of iinnocent people. Deleberately (SP) targeting civilian structures and cities. Their were a few stories about why they did it.. One was they were getting them back for pearl harbour (Which happed 4 years ago). The other was Truman wanted to give the U.S. an edge in the coming Cold War by showing that he was not afraid to use these weapons of mass destruction.
Can everyone see (weapons of mass destruction.) ?


OK a little lesson in history here for you.

1. We did not nuke millions and millions. About 200,000 total died from the bombs. Not trying to say that isn't bad but lets keep the facts straight. Millions did not die.

2. The emporer by this point had no control over his military and barely any power left in his country. The military commanders had effectively taken total control and were quite frankly insane. They could not and would not surrender no matter what we did conventionally. A large scale conventional attack on the mainland of Japan would have caused just as many casualaties but also endangered more American lives than needed.

3. At this stage there was no definitive cold war. While yes we needed to show we had the ability we also needed to end the conflict with Japan. Although it has been argued that we didn't need to drop the second atomic bomb, we did so for many reasons including the fact that Japans military commander could not be trusted so we sent the message home and they got it.

4. The military leaders of Japan would not have gotten the point if all we had done was take out a military base on some small island with the bomb. All they would have seen was their base gone and a few thousand soldiers dead something we could accomplish with conventional weapons. They needed to see pure devastation at that time to get the point.

I happen to be married to a woman who is of Japanese heritage. I have had many many conversations on this issue with her relatives especially those that lived through world war 2. All of them of course wish we hadn't dropped atomic weapons but at the same time they will tell you that they all just had to obey the leadership. They would watch as their young men in their families would be taken from them and sent off to die for their country accept the difference is they were certain to die because of them being used as kamikazi pilots. Some of them of course still wish we hadn't done it but many of them know that we almost didn't have a choice.

Look one of the reasons we go after WMD's is because we know first hand the destructive power. Why do you think Reagan worked so hard to end the cold war? Granted we still posses them but just one of these weapons in the hands of an assh*le and we once again end up with major devestation. We are trying to avoid this happening again.

Look American is not perfect and we have made mistakes but we learn from them. We make ourselves better all the time. Right now we are conducting the first stages in eliminating terrorism. This includes removing leaders of regimes who at will torture their own citizens, hold them back from freedom and in any way support terrorism. We will do this by whatever means necessary whether that be military, diplomatically or financially but we will get the job done.

Snoopis
11-06-2003, 09:25 AM
There has been a lot of talk (here on the forum) about who will be next... Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, etc. I agree that they should get theirs, but...

I don't know what the chances of this happening are, but I expect that after the first 3-4(including Afghanistan and Iraq), the others will start to get the picture. Honestly I don't know a lot about how Iran's government works, but I've heard that they are already starting to think seriously about democracy. If this is true, then I think this is a great example of what we are trying to achieve. And the more countries that move in this direction, the less threatened the other nations will be. And hopefully they will all start to fall into place.

I'm sure it won't be nearly this easy, but I belive this is the goal not only(but mainly) for the middleast, but around the world.

-Nick

philhill4
11-06-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
Then into Syria and palestine... Man what a Great president Bush is.:rollseyes: Hes going to use his miltrary might to comb the whole middle east of weapons, even if he has to turn Iran, Syria and Palestine into rubble


Rubble is a strong word for it but yes whatever it takes to eliminate threats to peaceful nations including our own. Those nations mentioned as well as others can do the right thing and change. All they have to do is allow freedom for their people, stop torturing people, and eliminate all facets of terrorism within their country. It is actually very simple but they don't seem to want to fall in line so we will make them.

philhill4
11-06-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Starsky
The same article your citing said that Haliburton will only get a profit of 490 million, which is less than 1/14 of what your saying the taxpayers payed to Haliburton and less than 1/400th of the total cost of the Iraqi war and reconstruction. Try again.


Don't forget also that the profit they have calculated is only potential profit. They are already running into more problems than expected. They will most likely not make much profit during the reconstruction but will earn profits through trade agreements afterward which will be well deserved.

Snoopis
11-06-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Gordon_18
... Aus 6-9 were the dates that the u.s nuked millions upon millions of iinnocent people. Deleberately (SP) targeting civilian structures and cities

Lets not forget that less people were killed with both Fat Man and Little Boy, combined, than one night of fire-bombing, which happened several times in June and July.

-Nick

antcraw
11-06-2003, 09:31 AM
^^^^Not much to say about this BS from phil so I'll just insult him. Phil loves revisionist history, infact he does his own revisionism every time he makes posts. Hey phil are any of your kids deformed, or have cancer from chomosome damage due to the bomb. I'm sure that the Japanese are grateful to us dropping 2 atomic bombs on 2 of their biggest cities. What a fool.