Will you re-elect Bush?
Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:06 pm
?
Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:46 pm
Being Canadian im probably not as informed as most americans in the state of their politics, but from what I see, he's taken a Clinton surplus and pushed it into half a billion defecit (if i remember correctly)
he's started two wars in his single term, one of them based on inaccurate intelligence, the economy is just starting to recover from a dive (not his fault though, that was Sep 11)
overall, I don't think he's done such a hot job. He's had some major problems to deal with, but that HUGE DEFECIT doesn't help him at all.
he's started two wars in his single term, one of them based on inaccurate intelligence, the economy is just starting to recover from a dive (not his fault though, that was Sep 11)
overall, I don't think he's done such a hot job. He's had some major problems to deal with, but that HUGE DEFECIT doesn't help him at all.
Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:50 pm
I'm not reelecting him b/c he is such a dumbass!
And your reasons too!
And your reasons too!
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:01 pm
***warning:Longest Rant ever ahead***
i voted NO
but he will be re-elected.
imo Gore screwed the entire Dem party by not running in 2004.
Dems wanted a rematch and the country wanted some closure on the presidential hijack that happened in 2000
(see the thousands of African-American men that were refused the right to vote in specific key districts in Fla.- MONTHS before the election, thanks to Republican efforts to mislabel them Felons- and therefore not eligible to vote. *this is documented)
so there (u may flame when ready)
not that i'm the biggest Gore fan, but I've had enough of Bush thumbing his nose at the world b/c "we have a bigger gun" and because of his raging narcissism/self-righteousness. Most of the world, including and especially Europe considers this president and his administration to be made up of religious fundamentalists who are using the phrase "preemptive strike" to justify war all over the world without explanation.
So do I.
here's some more flame-bait for Repubs
Bush comes across like a spoiled brat to me. He's not a smart man at all and he hides behind: the V.P, Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, his own arrogance when he talks to the press, and the largest most powerful army in the history of the world.
I'd vote for Lieberman(frontrunner), but we all know how important the South is to the pres. election and sorry but the South is NOT voting a Jew into the presidency.
Oh well, at least we found those weapons of mass destruction, right? Or the connection between Saddam and Al Qaida, right?
Oh well, at the least the economy is healthy.
And that Budget Surplus is still fat as hell, right?
oh.
"well who cares? I got me a tax check for 300 bucks. ONCE. Yeeeeeha. I'm gone buy me a new toolbox!"
4 more years of this guy is just depressing.
i voted NO
but he will be re-elected.
imo Gore screwed the entire Dem party by not running in 2004.
Dems wanted a rematch and the country wanted some closure on the presidential hijack that happened in 2000
(see the thousands of African-American men that were refused the right to vote in specific key districts in Fla.- MONTHS before the election, thanks to Republican efforts to mislabel them Felons- and therefore not eligible to vote. *this is documented)
so there (u may flame when ready)
not that i'm the biggest Gore fan, but I've had enough of Bush thumbing his nose at the world b/c "we have a bigger gun" and because of his raging narcissism/self-righteousness. Most of the world, including and especially Europe considers this president and his administration to be made up of religious fundamentalists who are using the phrase "preemptive strike" to justify war all over the world without explanation.
So do I.
here's some more flame-bait for Repubs
Bush comes across like a spoiled brat to me. He's not a smart man at all and he hides behind: the V.P, Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell, his own arrogance when he talks to the press, and the largest most powerful army in the history of the world.
I'd vote for Lieberman(frontrunner), but we all know how important the South is to the pres. election and sorry but the South is NOT voting a Jew into the presidency.
Oh well, at least we found those weapons of mass destruction, right? Or the connection between Saddam and Al Qaida, right?
Oh well, at the least the economy is healthy.
And that Budget Surplus is still fat as hell, right?
oh.
"well who cares? I got me a tax check for 300 bucks. ONCE. Yeeeeeha. I'm gone buy me a new toolbox!"
4 more years of this guy is just depressing.
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:10 pm
I can't really stand by and listen to soundbites being tossed around a legitimate and sensible arguments, so, please allow me to rebut these arguments.
Shock, it's a mistake to attribute either a good or bad economy to the actions of one person, be he a nobody like you or I, or be he the President of the United States. In the American system of government, the President has no real authority or power to directly impact the economy. Rather, the economy (and economics generally) are based on consumer confidence in the performance of the market. The reason why the economy was so good during the Clinton administration was not because of anything Clinton did, but was because of a high confidence in market performance, and the resulting investment, particularly in technology companies (the tech bubble).
Obviously, the bubble burst in 2000, starting the economic slide. It's a well-known fact that the current economic slide started in 2000 - during the Clinton administration (and, obviously, before Bush).
That Bush has "...started two wars in his single term..." is a matter of semantics. In fact, there is only one "war" in which we are engaged - a war on terror and the states that support terrorists. The attack on Al Qaeda and their Afghani Taliban hosts was only in response to the aforementioned attack on the US on Sept. 11.
Contrary to popular opinion, the attack on Iraq was NOT based on inaccurate intelligence. Even before the first Gulf War in 1991, it was obvious that not only did Saddam possess WMD, he actually employed them on both his enemies, such as the Iranians, as well as his own countrymen, as evidenced in the well-documented gassing of thousands of innocent civilians.
For twelve years following the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam engaged in a campaign of deception, falsification, omission, and outright bullying in order to lie about the WMD he possessed and to conceal those weapons from the U.N. inspectors sent to secure those weapons and monitor their destruction. In many of the reports given to the U.N. Security Council, Saddam and his lieutenants gave often conflicting and misleading information, and even went so far as to completely omit any reference to well-known stockpiles of WMD and WMD agents.
Secretary of State Colin Powell put it best when he recently said, “Iraq had chemical weapons. They used chemical weapons. They had biological weapons, they admitted it. We have no doubt whatsoever that, over the last several years, they have retained such weapons, they have retained the capability to start up production of such weapons. And the presentation I gave on the 5th of February before the United Nations Security Council, I spent four whole days and nights at the CIA, going over all the intelligence, in order to make sure that what I presented was going to be solid, credible, representing the views of the United States of America, and I stand behind that presentation.”
Basically put, the fact that Iraq has possessed weapons of mass destruction as well as the ability and desire to produce more has never been in doubt. It has been painfully obvious that Saddam went to great lengths to deceive and obstruct the search for WMD, and had twelve long years to perfect his regime’s ability to build and hide those weapons. The intelligence that the administration and Congress possessed prior to operation Iraqi Freedom was consistent with intelligence that President Clinton’s administration possessed – whose administration also firmly believed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
So. I'm sorry for the long post, but this is a subject about which I know a little something. And for you, Jeffro, I invite you to demonstrate how a man with an MBA from Yale is a "dumbass."
As always, just my $.02
-F
Originally posted by shockwave203
Being Canadian im probably not as informed as most americans in the state of their politics, but from what I see, he's taken a Clinton surplus and pushed it into half a billion defecit (if i remember correctly)
Shock, it's a mistake to attribute either a good or bad economy to the actions of one person, be he a nobody like you or I, or be he the President of the United States. In the American system of government, the President has no real authority or power to directly impact the economy. Rather, the economy (and economics generally) are based on consumer confidence in the performance of the market. The reason why the economy was so good during the Clinton administration was not because of anything Clinton did, but was because of a high confidence in market performance, and the resulting investment, particularly in technology companies (the tech bubble).
Obviously, the bubble burst in 2000, starting the economic slide. It's a well-known fact that the current economic slide started in 2000 - during the Clinton administration (and, obviously, before Bush).
Originally posted by shockwave203
he's started two wars in his single term, one of them based on inaccurate intelligence,
That Bush has "...started two wars in his single term..." is a matter of semantics. In fact, there is only one "war" in which we are engaged - a war on terror and the states that support terrorists. The attack on Al Qaeda and their Afghani Taliban hosts was only in response to the aforementioned attack on the US on Sept. 11.
Contrary to popular opinion, the attack on Iraq was NOT based on inaccurate intelligence. Even before the first Gulf War in 1991, it was obvious that not only did Saddam possess WMD, he actually employed them on both his enemies, such as the Iranians, as well as his own countrymen, as evidenced in the well-documented gassing of thousands of innocent civilians.
For twelve years following the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam engaged in a campaign of deception, falsification, omission, and outright bullying in order to lie about the WMD he possessed and to conceal those weapons from the U.N. inspectors sent to secure those weapons and monitor their destruction. In many of the reports given to the U.N. Security Council, Saddam and his lieutenants gave often conflicting and misleading information, and even went so far as to completely omit any reference to well-known stockpiles of WMD and WMD agents.
Secretary of State Colin Powell put it best when he recently said, “Iraq had chemical weapons. They used chemical weapons. They had biological weapons, they admitted it. We have no doubt whatsoever that, over the last several years, they have retained such weapons, they have retained the capability to start up production of such weapons. And the presentation I gave on the 5th of February before the United Nations Security Council, I spent four whole days and nights at the CIA, going over all the intelligence, in order to make sure that what I presented was going to be solid, credible, representing the views of the United States of America, and I stand behind that presentation.”
Basically put, the fact that Iraq has possessed weapons of mass destruction as well as the ability and desire to produce more has never been in doubt. It has been painfully obvious that Saddam went to great lengths to deceive and obstruct the search for WMD, and had twelve long years to perfect his regime’s ability to build and hide those weapons. The intelligence that the administration and Congress possessed prior to operation Iraqi Freedom was consistent with intelligence that President Clinton’s administration possessed – whose administration also firmly believed that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
So. I'm sorry for the long post, but this is a subject about which I know a little something. And for you, Jeffro, I invite you to demonstrate how a man with an MBA from Yale is a "dumbass."
As always, just my $.02
-F
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:33 pm
Originally posted by Folic_Acid
And for you, Jeffro, I invite you to demonstrate how a man with an MBA from Yale is a "dumbass."
I bet I could get a PhD from Oxford if my dad had millions of dollars to throw at a new library or sports stadium........
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:38 pm
Dems wanted a rematch and the country wanted some closure on the presidential hijack that happened in 2000
3 years and they still think Gore won. Maybe try counting again.
(see the thousands of African-American men that were refused the right to vote in specific key districts in Fla.- MONTHS before the election, thanks to Republican efforts to mislabel them Felons- and therefore not eligible to vote. *this is documented)
Funny how you fail to mention that using a Church as an institution for voting is illegal, yet so called "BlackChurches" are for some reason not restricted by this same law.
Or that these dems who love everyone tried to get votes from service members overseas disqualified because they arrived past standard deadline(except for service members overseas)
Or dems who when they lose control of a House they flee across state borders to keep from losing a vote(see Texas)
Exactly where is the NAACP to defend Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas from all these allegations.
Oh wait, the NAACP isn't about what its name states, but the advancement of liberal ideas.
How about NOW, when Catherine Harris was getting ripped apart. See above comment.
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:43 pm
Hell no.
Not only has this administration screwed up the economy, its also screwed our foreign policy by pissing off pretty much every nation (except Britain) on Earth.
Militarily, our forces are over streched. And the billion dollar a week campaign in Iraq isn't going to help either.
Who would I vote for in the next election? I don't know, no one in the Republican party is going to challenge Bush. On the Democrat side, it looks like a good fight between Dean and Kerry.
Oh and Sen. Lieberman can go to hell.
Not only has this administration screwed up the economy, its also screwed our foreign policy by pissing off pretty much every nation (except Britain) on Earth.
Militarily, our forces are over streched. And the billion dollar a week campaign in Iraq isn't going to help either.
Who would I vote for in the next election? I don't know, no one in the Republican party is going to challenge Bush. On the Democrat side, it looks like a good fight between Dean and Kerry.
Oh and Sen. Lieberman can go to hell.
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:43 pm
Originally posted by Cpl. Bingham
I bet I could get a PhD from Oxford if my dad had millions of dollars to throw at a new library or sports stadium........
So, you're saying that his father gave millions of dollars for some building at Yale, and that Bush was awarded undergraduate and graduate degrees fraudulently?
On what basis are you all claiming that he's a "dumbass" anyway?
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:50 pm
Folic put your name up there in the poll. I would vote for ya.
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:55 pm
Folic- You make some great points about the Saddam's campaign of deception for 12 years and his use of chemical weapons but my main issue with the "liberation" of Iraq had to do with the timing.
The administration used the general fear created by Sept. 11 to move the war from Afghanistan to Iraq without enough of an explanation of "why now?" and for some Americans (like me) it was just so sudden. There was never a real connection made between Al Qaida and Iraq, as far as I can tell. And that connection is coming under some serious scrutiny now.
If the evidence was so overwhelming that we felt justified in this invasion/liberation where is it now?? Not the actual weapons, even- just the evidence of an imminent threat or connection to Bin Laden and Sept 11.
It's just not there.
That was my main issue. We didn't go into Iraq b/c we claimed that we were "toppling a tyrant"- but b/c Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S. as an ally of Al Qaida and supporter of terrorism.
If the U.S. just went into Iraq just to liberate it and take out Saddam- it would take an act of Congress, unless it was a situation like Kosovo where genocide was taking place. But by claiming that we were in immediate danger, that Iraq was somehow connected to Sept. 11, that they were plotting more terrorist attacks- Bush had no one to answer to, including the American people.
Saddam is a bastard, a sicko, a tyrant. Don't mistake me. But this administration has manipulated the facts and the system to further their own agendas.
And Folic- the only reason Bush was accepted into Yale was b/c of his father. His grades were not up to par (putting it mildly) when he was accepted but b/c his father and grandfather were legacies who pulled strings- he was accepted. When this info was reported a couple of years ago- several people who were denied acceptance to Yale in the same year Bush, Jr. was accepted, filed lawsuits against the University.
yeah- he's not a dumbass, but he's easily the most inarticulate president that i've seen in my lifetime.
and yeah- Dems do some pretty shady things too. The overseas voter stuff was disgusting. The Bi-partisan system has become a two-headed monopoly that's contributed to a lot of voter apathy.
And yea- by law, according to the votes- Bush won. I'm not arguing that.
The administration used the general fear created by Sept. 11 to move the war from Afghanistan to Iraq without enough of an explanation of "why now?" and for some Americans (like me) it was just so sudden. There was never a real connection made between Al Qaida and Iraq, as far as I can tell. And that connection is coming under some serious scrutiny now.
If the evidence was so overwhelming that we felt justified in this invasion/liberation where is it now?? Not the actual weapons, even- just the evidence of an imminent threat or connection to Bin Laden and Sept 11.
It's just not there.
That was my main issue. We didn't go into Iraq b/c we claimed that we were "toppling a tyrant"- but b/c Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S. as an ally of Al Qaida and supporter of terrorism.
If the U.S. just went into Iraq just to liberate it and take out Saddam- it would take an act of Congress, unless it was a situation like Kosovo where genocide was taking place. But by claiming that we were in immediate danger, that Iraq was somehow connected to Sept. 11, that they were plotting more terrorist attacks- Bush had no one to answer to, including the American people.
Saddam is a bastard, a sicko, a tyrant. Don't mistake me. But this administration has manipulated the facts and the system to further their own agendas.
And Folic- the only reason Bush was accepted into Yale was b/c of his father. His grades were not up to par (putting it mildly) when he was accepted but b/c his father and grandfather were legacies who pulled strings- he was accepted. When this info was reported a couple of years ago- several people who were denied acceptance to Yale in the same year Bush, Jr. was accepted, filed lawsuits against the University.
yeah- he's not a dumbass, but he's easily the most inarticulate president that i've seen in my lifetime.
and yeah- Dems do some pretty shady things too. The overseas voter stuff was disgusting. The Bi-partisan system has become a two-headed monopoly that's contributed to a lot of voter apathy.
And yea- by law, according to the votes- Bush won. I'm not arguing that.
Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:59 pm
Originally posted by ShellShock
Hell no.
Not only has this administration screwed up the economy
How, exactly, has this administratin "screwed up the economy?"
Originally posted by ShellShock
its also screwed our foreign policy by pissing off pretty much every nation (except Britain) on Earth.
I guess the following either don't qualify as 'nations' or are located somewhere other than Earth, then?
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
Originally posted by ShellShock
Militarily, our forces are over streched.
You know, I actually agree with you. This is a direct result of the lack of any increases in military spending between 1992-1995.
Originally posted by ShellShock
And the billion dollar a week campaign in Iraq isn't going to help either.
Are the freedom of the people there, the increased stability to the region, and one less brutal dictator in the world not worth it? Why were those things worth it in World War 1 and 2?
Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:10 pm
Originally posted by supersTring
Folic- You make some great points about the Saddam's campaign of deception for 12 years and his use of chemical weapons but my main issue with the "liberation" of Iraq had to do with the timing.
The administration used the general fear created by Sept. 11 to move the war from Afghanistan to Iraq without enough of an explanation of "why now?" and for some Americans (like me) it was just so sudden. There was never a real connection made between Al Qaida and Iraq, as far as I can tell. And that connection is coming under some serious scrutiny now.
If the evidence was so overwhelming that we felt justified in this invasion/liberation where is it now?? Not the actual weapons, even- just the evidence of an imminent threat or connection to Bin Laden and Sept 11.
It's just not there.
But that's the point. The evidence IS there. There's all kinds of evidence. Much of it has been made public (like the stuff used in Colin Powell's speeches), but much continues to be classified. I've seen a lot of that information, though (yes, I have a clearance), and it's incredibly damning. Just because CNN doesn't report it doesn't mean it's not true.
Originally posted by supersTring
That was my main issue. We didn't go into Iraq b/c we claimed that we were "toppling a tyrant"- but b/c Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S. as an ally of Al Qaida and supporter of terrorism.
Here's how the justification went. Basically, Usama bin Laden hates the US and western culture, and wants to destroy them in any way he can. Saddam also hates the US (for stopping his invasion of Kuwait), and also conveniently possesses weapons of mass destruction. Although Usama is a religious fanatic and Saddam is quite secular, both have the same goals, both have something the other wants (Saddam has WMD, Usama has the means and desire to use them), and both have no moral problems at all with using any and all means to achieve their goals.
Think of Iraq as a big WMD store that has special discounts for terrorists who are looking to hit the US. Did Usama have a favorite bedroom in Saddam's house? Who knows. Are the motive and opportunity present? Absolutely.
Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:23 pm
He is a dumbass on this basis:
1.) He was spoonfed all his life
2.) He barely passed yale with a C grade...
3.) I have this calender of bush sayings that either didn't make sence or when he used REALLY bad english.
4.) He doesn't make decisions himself...the cabinet, secritary, and what not makes them for him!
Thats why i think he's a dumbass!
1.) He was spoonfed all his life
2.) He barely passed yale with a C grade...
3.) I have this calender of bush sayings that either didn't make sence or when he used REALLY bad english.
4.) He doesn't make decisions himself...the cabinet, secritary, and what not makes them for him!
Thats why i think he's a dumbass!
Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:36 pm
You guys still think voting exists in the States?