President Bush

I do approve of the way he's acting as president but I think he could do a lot of things better.

We're gonna have some real issues real soon. Have you seen what has been happening in Iran. Then there's North Korea. Iraq's post war planning was a blunder.

Lots of stuff to think about before the next election. Would I vote for any of the current democrats running though? So far they haven't convinced me that their platforms are viable.

Would I vote for Bush? If he doesn't start addressing our image overseas then no. It's kinda like Clinton. Clinton never took care of our foreign affairs. A few missiles here and there. Well Bush isn't doing jack squat for our reputation and image as a world leader.

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

Wesley Clark has a very nice resume. I haven't heard him propose anything yet though.

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

"eden is my intel/ati superboy"
Is that in bed too? Cause if you're cheating on me again, I'm gonna have to say it's over!!

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

alright there, highlander aka christopher lambert


-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-

yes profusively with our mangina's...


-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-

Bo Jackson for President. Charles Barkley for VP.

Ooh! Ooh! I'll bring the popcorn and beer! And ingredients for s'mores, too!

I think there wont be a Democrat running in 2k4. If you notice there all weak. Cept Clark......... Thing is 2 days ago his head of starting his campian quit due to he was forgetting the ppl and just attacking Bush with the rest.

-------
<font color=red>Offical Bad Guy of THGC</font color=red>

I aint votin for no chimp

I was wondering the exact same thing myself. I prefer not to lock myself to any Party Affiliation, so when I vote I will for the most part ignore the "Democrat/Republican" stamp next to the name of the candidate and vote for according to not only by posisitons on political issues, but also based upon his/her ability to actual manage the government effectively, among other variables.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!

The democrats are poutting up a shmo for prez in '04 cuz they dont want them to win so in '08 hilary can run. If shes runs in '04 she has a less chance of winning against george w. then against a new candidate in '08. If they put up a crappy democrat in 04 then if bush wins its ok. but if they put in a good candidate they sacrifice hilary's vote for '08 considering the same candidate runs again.


Just my opinion though.


-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-

I didn't know it was any different.

<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>

Wusy I'm gonna repeat this again and I mean it: What the hell were you saying in your post I first objected?
Was that sarcasm or was it from your own mouth?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

I'm not one to take stuff seriously, but because I've never been used to you or even had that much concern with you, this

Is that you who you're talking about?
Answer me, what was that all about?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A>

Its not really specious reasoning, but your analogy is faulty. To apply that analogy correctly:
1. Bears would have already been rummaging through your dirty uinderwear. (terrorist attacks that have already happened)
2. THere would have been no dirty underwear in the laundry, and then later dirty underwear was added.
3. Bear rummaging ceases after the underwear addition.

In any case, analogies suck, and usually when you see one used in an argument it is used as a device to provoke emotion, condense a complex situation into a simplistic one, or draw attention away from real issues. Rarely will you see an analogy that does justice to the original situation. In short, analogies are good for literature, but poor for debates.

However, that's not what I was speaking about in the first place. Wat you responded with:

was exactly what I was talking about in the original post. I'm not arguing the point that SOME of the administrations policies are bad IMO. What I was trying to convey was that for me to make a decision on who to vote for, I need to know how the candidates distinguish themselves from each other. You can't win with the biggest plank in your platform being "the other guy sucks" (except in maybe CA recall elections). Dean, Kerry, Clark, whoever, needs to say "this is what I believe in", rather than "this is what I don't believe in". Everybody hates a whiner, and everybody takes shots at who's on top (Bush right now)...What I want to see is a candidate act presidential before I vote to make him the president.

It's all Bush's fault...all of it...

<A HREF="http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/acts_of_terror/Marines.htm" target="_new">Marine barracks in Lebanon(1983)</A>

<A HREF="http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/wtc93.htm" target="_new">WTC1993</A>

<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/bombing.html" target="_new">Oklahoma City Bombing(1995)</A>

<A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/27/olympic.bomb.main/" target="_new">atlanta bombing(1996)</A>

<A HREF="http://americanhistory.about.com/library/fastfacts/blffterrorism6.htm" target="_new">Khobar Towers Bombing(1996)</A>

<A HREF="http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/acts_of_terror/Kenya.htm" target="_new">African Embassy Bombing(1998)</A>


<A HREF="http://www.knowgangs.com/school_resources/menu_002.htm" target="_new">Columbine Shootings(1999)</A>


<A HREF="http://www.allisonsheart.com/vet/vet.html" target="_new">U.S.S. Cole(2000)</A>


I understand you said attacks by arabs, but we are at a war with terrorists.

here should provide some links as to why some ppl are so adament about stopping terrorism...

"...I get to do the three things I love most; Raise Hell, Drink beer, and kick some ass."


-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-

What is it about the chimney remark that makes him stupid, or not have a clue? Ya never seen a chimney catch fire before?

<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>

You said "I want the Dems to reassure America that they can kick some ass too IF ITS NECESSARY to acheive domestic security," so to me it really sounded like you think Bush is kicking ass against terrorism.

To say that he is good because he is a man of action is not sound reasoning. He acted wrongly, and he lied to the American people to try and justify this war.

I did not make a distinct statement about Afghanistan, I posed a question that I feel follows some of the logic you used regarding Bush on terrorism. You say Bush did well because no more terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11, so he's doing a good job. I "asked" if Afghanistan should be considered a failure then because Osama is missing and we have not brought peace and security to Afghanistan.

The problem with this war is this. George Bush calls the people in Iraq fighting against US troops terrorists. He says they are evil for the way they fight, hiding in residential areas and behind non-combatants. I think Bush is gravely mistaken for calling these people terrorists. They are defending their country against a force that THEY think are the terrorists. I mean, what do you expect? We bombed the hell out of their country, and fellow Arabs in Afghanistan, killing probably tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, so how the hell are we to expect them to react? George Bush is to many of them as Osama is to us. Also, they are a small force incomparable to our military. How can they fight like we do? Are our American forefathers, George Washington and the like terrorists for using the same techniques the Iraqis are using for fighting off the hated, larger, and superior British army that is killing thousands of innocent people in their attacks? Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure some of the fighters in Iraq are foreign nationals and members of terrorist groups. But, I bet some, if not the majority, are simply Iraqis with a deep seated hatred for the US because of how we look to them.

This is the problem I see. By Bush blindly labeling all these people as terrorists, he further imbues the lies of Iraqi terrorist and WMD links into the American people.

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

First of all I'm not a Democrat. I'm more of a Democrat than a Republican, but I am not registered or consider myself either.

Second of all, I know what Saddam Hussein did to his people. But do you know what, that was not Bush's reason for going to war!!! Bush said we went to war because Saddam Hussein posed a "grave and immenent" threat to the safety of America, not because he's a bad man. It was only until after all his supposed evidence backfired, and when the WMDs that were supposedly everywhere were not found, that the emphasis went from removing a threat from America to removing an evil dictator from the reason. Look, I know Hussein's a horrible man that did lots of bad things. But you know what, there are dozens of countries ruled by a dictator just like him, or even a hell of a lot worse.

The arguments of both Iraq being a threat to America, and Hussein being an evil dictator just don't hold up as viable reasons for war because there is NO real evidence to suggest Hussein was a "grave and immenent" threat, and the fact that there is nothing "special" about Hussein's cruelty that warrants us saving Iraqis, yet ignoring the billion or so other people who are suffering just as badly.

If we are going to be the policemen of the world, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, and the fact that he did it in a time of economic hardship that will cause more and more problems that American's many years from now will be paying for. This war will be costing hundreds of billions of dollars, and we are spending craploads of money building up Iraqi's economy and infrastructure while ignoring the economy and infrastructure of America. $84 billion that is going to Iraq sure could go a long way to strengthen America, but is going to fight a war that never should have been started.

Bush did call the fighters in Iraq terrorists several days ago. I saw the press conference on CNN. He was asked something along the lines of "what do you think of the Iraqi fighters who are killing our troops" with the tactics they are using, and he replied with "they're terrorists, nothing more." I will try to find a printed source.

What was Bush's reason for going to war? Thank you.

Israeli UN violations: <A HREF="http://mpacuk.org/mpac/data/5c993d8d/472ba325.htm" target="_new">http://mpacuk.org/mpac/data/5c993d8d/472ba325.htm</A>
US killed more Iraqis that Hussein did:<A HREF="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/133937_sanctions07.html" target="_new">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/133937_sanctions07.html</A>
I don't think I need to post sources explaining that Saddam Hussein is not the only dictator that "brutalizes his people and breaks nearly all human rights restrictions through out his entire reign." There are dozens.

It's not political to me. Like I said, I'm not a Democrat. I am against this because I think Bush's actions are detremental to the future well being of America and Americans. I think his actions are horrible, and I think he is a huge liar about not only this war, but many other positions his administration has taken.

No, American soldiers never commit sexual assault, <A HREF="http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/29/1062050670356.htm" target="_new">do they?</A>

I think it'd horrible what happened to that girl, but my opinion is she never should have been there in the first place.

Also, how many thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis did our bombs kill? No wonder so many Arabs hate us...

No, he is going to be looked back upon as the worst president in the history of the United States, and with good reason.

You keep harping on me for supposedly not reading the news or being aware of the truth? Where do you get all your news from, White House press reports?

Read this site, it might be informative: <A HREF="http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/" target="_new">http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/</A>

The funny thing is that you think my view is completely twisted and crazy, yet I think the same thing about you. The only difference is I have facts on my side.

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

Are you incapable of abstract thought? It seems like you have no ability to see behind the surface of things to get the meaning behind them.

Yes I did vote. I did not vote for Bush because I knew he would be a horrible president. I voted for Nader, because I know there are extreme problems with both the Democratic and Republican parties, and in my opinion neither should be dominant and we need more than the same 2 parties that have been squabbling mindlessly for decades to no resolve.

One ounce of proof? Here's some proof. On May 31, 2003 George Bush said in a press conference: "You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." He said we found weapons of mass destruction. It turned out those "mobile bio warfare labs" were confirmed by DOD engineers to be nothing but hydrogen producing labs for weather balloons. Now, this is the question... Will you continue to be blinded by your party loyalty that you will not admit that this is indeed a lie by Bush?

You know what, that's so sad that you don't care he lied. It's mind boggling...

Again, a complete lack of abstract thought. Are you incapable of deriving meaning from that statement? I said that because you gave Saddam Hussein being an evil dictator for reason for going to war. I said that there are dozens of equally evil men, so why did we go to war with Iraq, yet not give a crap about the other ones? Don't you understand the inconsistency in your argument?

You do realize that not every Iraqi is appreciative of the United State's mass bombing of their country that killed thousands of non-combatants. They are not terrorists for simply defending their country, even if it was once ruled by an evil man. Can't you connect the dots on your own for fvck's sake?

So now it is about terrorists and not about liberating an oppressed people? Also, in case you haven't heard, there has not been a single link drawn between Hussein and 9/11, or any other terrorist group that has attacked the US.

Also, here's another news flash for you. There HAVE BEEN links made with terrorists and Saudi Arabia! Why aren't we going to war with the Saudi's then? Why do we let them get away with all the crap they pull, yet go to war with Iraq, with no proof of any terrorist links? I'll tell you why, because this war isn't about Iraq and terrorism.

Of course it does. If he lied about his reasons for going to war, that means the real reasons are something he is unwilling to disclose. Why, if the war is so just, would he be unwilling to disclose the reasons? Maybe because American's would never agree to go to war under the real pretenses they were started...

Again, a complete lack of abstract thought. What is your deal? I brought up Israeli UN violations because you said that because Iraq violated UN resolutions, it was pretense for war. Israel violated more resolutions than Iraq did, yet the US turns a blind eye. Therefore, UN violations alone is not a valid pretense for war. Clear enough for you this time?

Yes it is worth considering. You say that Hussein killed thousands of his own people, so we are just in "freeing" them. Now, Iraqis see the US bombing them and imposing these sanctions that have brought poverty, misery, and death. And you wonder why not all of them are appreciative of us occupying them? This is why they are not all terrorists for attacking our troops. Many think we are the terrorists, and it isn't hard to see why they may think that.

There is absolutely no proof of the reasons you stated. I have given you examples and proof of every statement I made, now it's your turn. Good luck... Also, North Korea says they are actively pursing nuclear weapons and says they will use them against the US. Why aren't we at war with them too then?

This is getting hard... If you read my post you'd realize I stated it was horrible that happened, but unfortunately not too unexpected. The reason I posted the story about the US soldiers was to show that it isn't a surprise that men rape women. It's horrible, but that's the unfortunate way it is. Also, it's not like US soldiers are innocent all the time. Just look what American soldiers did in Vietnam. Sick stuff. Plus, what does that girl getting raped have anything to do with the war?

Why does someone being angry and bitter make him biased? Do you know what bias means? <A HREF="http://www.dictionary.com" target="_new">Dictionary.com</A> can help you with that. And sarcasm is often a very powerful tool in conveying an argument, as explained below.

My goodness, this is terrible. Are you really unable to see the meaning of that quote? The point of the Goering quote was to draw a parallel. You realize what that means? Actually, by the content of your posts so far, you obviously could not understand on your own. Let me explain.

The author of that site used a quote by Goering in conjuntion with a quote by Bush. Goering's quote explains how the Nazi's gained control of Germany by "inventing" a threat and demonizing those against them as being unpatriotic, and the quote from Bush shows how he is using his "terrorist threat" rhetoric to make the people agree with everything he does. You remember is whole "you are either with us, or against us" speech, don't you? Now, before you so dim-wittedly jump the gun like you have so far, this does not mean the author thinks Bush is a Nazi. It is meant to be clever with a hint of sarcasm, obviously far too clever for you to understand.

Hmm, when do news sources, quotes, and logical statements and refutations make something an ignorant high school argument?

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

So, by that logic, then we have:

Communism=bad
Vietnam War=good

That's why just looking at the surface value of a situation is inappropriate, because there's more too it than just the surface value. It's not making everything abstract either, it's looking at it from all possible angles and with absolutely everything involved taken into consideration.

Like I said, I have no problem with the US if it uses its wealth and power to truly do something good in the world, and to try and make the whole world a better place. But, do it at a time when it's feasible to do, and do it when we know the end result will leave the situation off better than it was before. This war in Iraq is done at a time where the cost is simply too much to force on the American people (considering the poor economy as of late) or the rising national debt. Plus, we have no idea if or when Iraq will be the "democracy" we want it to be.

Not only is the timing bad, but the moral motive of removing an evil dictator isn't even the reason we are at war. I don't undertand why you are incapable of this. Bush says so, the white house says so, and everyone else says so. Also, you seem to be saying that Bush only lied about WMD or terrorism because his real motive is removing an evil dictator, which is so absurd because why would Bush choose Iraq over any other country where he could ease more suffering with less effort. It's completely illogical, and you must be good at lying to yourself if you actually believe the things you say.

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>

The reason we got into Vietnam was because we were protecting the democratic south from an invading communist north. During that time period, in America, communism was considered a great evil. That's why I used it in that comparison.

The argument is valid. For some reason you just can't see beyond what your party demands you see...

-------------------------------------------
<font color=blue> "Trying is the first step towards failure." </font color=blue>