If George W. Bush wins the election...

[Theodore Kurita]

What do you think is going to happen to the USA?

[clk]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
What do you think is going to happen to the USA?

Funny how most of your poll options are bad things. You're not interested in a serious discussion, are you?

Anyways, if Bush gets reelected, I think plagiarists will rise up and overcome. Also, Cybershaman will become the best selling software in the country.

[corplinx]

A president's second term is typically pretty lame. The filibuster will guarantee it.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by clk


Funny how most of your poll options are bad things. You're not interested in a serious discussion, are you?



It seems to me that for people who don't think that an invasion of Iran or North Korea would be a good thing, there is only one good choice listed.

[Richard G]

We will stomp the s**t out of anyone who raises a hand to kill Americans.

Thats what will happen.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Language</font></td></tr></table>

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



It seems to me that for people who don't think that an invasion of Iran or North Korea would be a good thing, there is only one good choice listed.

Then again, you have to analyze what Bush has done to this point.

He is...

A right winger

An Evangelical (Fundamentalist) Christian

wanting less of a separation between Church and State


He Has...

Started a war without end, "The War on Terrorism"

Passed the Patriot Act which restricts the rights and freedoms of US citizens

Detained many people in Guantanamo Bay for no apparent reason, without charges being filled against them

Used tricky wording in a recent speach that he supports a Constitutional Amendment that Bans Gay Marriage

Cut large amounts of funding out of the EPA

Given Tax cuts that really give major benefits to the top 1% of rich Americans

Increased the Federal Deffecit significantly

Given Tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs

Invaded two countries, one of those being without are true amount of Justification



In other words, I don't say alot of any potential positives that have come out of his administration, unless you consider the tax cut to be one.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Then again, you have to analyze what Bush has done to this point.

He is...

A right winger

An Evangelical (Fundamentalist) Christian

wanting less of a separation between Church and State


He Has...

Started a war without end, "The War on Terrorism"

Passed the Patriot Act which restricts the rights and freedoms of US citizens

Detained many people in Guantanamo Bay for no apparent reason, without charges being filled against them

Used tricky wording in a recent speach that he supports a Constitutional Amendment that Bans Gay Marriage

Cut large amounts of funding out of the EPA

Given Tax cuts that really give major benefits to the top 1% of rich Americans

Increased the Federal Deffecit significantly

Given Tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs

Invaded two countries, one of those being without are true amount of Justification



In other words, I don't say alot of any potential positives that have come out of his administration, unless you consider the tax cut to be one.

Yes, that is what the shills say, but what do you think as an independent thinker?

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by corplinx


Yes, that is what the shills say, but what do you think as an independent thinker?

I think, that Bush is doing a horrible job as President.

Are you happy now.

You also have to consider where i am on the political scale.

Corplinx, out of all of what I said, can you point to ANY major benefit by having Bush in the WhiteHouse?

[Schizobunny]

If Bush gets reelected I will scream at the top of my lungs because of the worry I have for our wonderful country.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

He Has...

Started a war without end, "The War on Terrorism"

So, the U.S. gets attacked first and we are the ones who started the war?

Passed the Patriot Act which restricts the rights and freedoms of US citizens

Since when do presidents single handedly pass legislation?

Detained many people in Guantanamo Bay for no apparent reason, without charges being filled against them

No good reason, maybe. But there is a reason.

Cut large amounts of funding out of the EPA

Given Tax cuts that really give major benefits to the top 1% of rich Americans

Increased the Federal Deffecit significantly

Given Tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs

See my second point, presidents do not single handedly do those things. One word for you....Congress.

Invaded two countries, one of those being without are true amount of Justification

Many people would disagree with that (the justification part).

In other words, I don't say alot of any potential positives that have come out of his administration, unless you consider the tax cut to be one.

That is just like the "Bush resume" someone posted here once. Aside from the fact that he is not solely responsible for many of those things, it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not most of those things are 'positive.'

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by ssibal


So, the U.S. gets attacked first and we are the ones who started the war?

How could a war on ideolegeaus be fought. The amount of fear mongering from this is reminisent of the McCarthy days[/B}

Since when do presidents single handedly pass legislation?

[B]No, but it was something the Bush administration and the Republican Congress were pushing for.

No good reason, maybe. But there is a reason.

But that can't be legally done though. He violated the constitution by doing so.

See my second point, presidents do not single handedly do those things. One word for you....Congress.

Counter-Point, a Republican Congress that is willing to do anything in order to keep in power

Many people would disagree with that (the justification part).

He did a pseudojustification by claiming there were WMD's in Iraq, whcih reports since the war have said otherwise

That is just like the "Bush resume" someone posted here once. Aside from the fact that he is not solely responsible for many of those things, it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not most of those things are 'positive.'

True, but I am an antiauthoritarian Leftist. In other words, I am a Democratic Socialist, who is antiwar and is against the current administration. I guess if you are Machivellian in your Politics (Repubican) or if you don't like Taxes taking your money (Libertarian) there might have been some good for you.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Richard G
We will stomp the s**t out of anyone who raises a hand to kill Americans.

Thats what will happen.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Language</font></td></tr></table>

Yet more fodder to the fire.

You are apparantely a Republican, who has never even considered any other political systems.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

He Has...

Started a war without end, "The War on Terrorism"

Passed the Patriot Act which restricts the rights and freedoms of US citizens

Detained many people in Guantanamo Bay for no apparent reason, without charges being filled against them

Used tricky wording in a recent speach that he supports a Constitutional Amendment that Bans Gay Marriage

Cut large amounts of funding out of the EPA

Given Tax cuts that really give major benefits to the top 1% of rich Americans

Increased the Federal Deffecit significantly

Given Tax breaks to companies who outsource jobs

Invaded two countries, one of those being without are true amount of Justification


I don't like comming off as a Bush supporter but your recollection of what he has done is less than accurate.

He didn't start the war on terrorism.
There is clearly an apparent reasons for detailing the people at Gitmo.
Invading Afghanistan was justified. Oh, you mean Iraq? We've been in a state of war with Iraq since they invaded Kuwait. This state of war persisted from Bush Sr's term, all through the Clinton year, and is still in place.

Some of the rest of your 'points' are GOOD things.

Yes, ban gay marriage. Marriage is a religious construct that the government should never have gotten involved in. But it did a long time ago and we can't change that. Extending marriage to include gays would be another intrusion into religion. Gays should be after Civil Unions, and so should many heterosexuals.

The EPA doesnt need more funding. The EPA is over-funded. What has the EPA done for you lately?

The rich still pay more than their fair share of the taxes. Anything closer to a flat tax is a good thing.

[WildCat]

Here's why Bush will win easily in November: Nobody is excited about Kerry! The only thing fueling the Kerry campaign is the hatred for Bush among the 30% or so of the hard-core Democrats in the population.

Look at all the threads her trashing Bush - then try to find a single thread praising Kerry's proposed policies. Find any?

Hatred of Bush among those who would never vote Republican anyway will not win the election for Kerry. The 30% of the population who have no party affiliation won't vote for Kerry simply because he is not Bush. They're going to need real reasons to vote for Kerry.

It's like the bumper sticker I saw today - "Be Patriotic! Vote Bush out of Office!". Not "Vote Kerry 2004".

If this keeps up, Bush will win in a landslide.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Started a war without end, "The War on Terrorism"


Plenty of people saw the Cold War as a war without end. But it was not. The war on terrorism may take decades, but it too will end. But I will never vote for a candidate that takes your view, that we should not be fighting because we cannot win. Because we can win. And we must win. The question is not whether we will fight a war on terrorism or not, it is whether we will take the fight to them now, or whether we will let the problem fester until they take it to us again. I have confidence that Bush will do the former, I have no confidence Kerry will. So I will likely vote for Bush, because that, to me, is the most important issue of the election.


Used tricky wording in a recent speach that he supports a Constitutional Amendment that Bans Gay Marriage


This is quite strange criticism. Is it the fact that he suports such an ammendment that you object to, or is it merely the tricky wording? I really can't tell from this.

For my part, I think such an ammendment is frankly unamerican. But it doesn't concern me much because it has no chance of passing.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


[quote][b]An Evangelical (Fundamentalist) Christian

Bzzzzz! Wrong! He's a Methodist.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Bad poll.
I vote yes on 1-6.

[shanek]

Agreed, bad poll. But I'll respond to some points anyway.

There will be another attack like 9/11 and an upsurge of Pseudopatriotism

Nah. As long as the administration acts paranoid and keeps oppressing its own people, the terrorists have one, no more attacks needed.

The economy will stay in horrible condition
The United States will see vast improvements in its economy

The latter, not the former, but not because of anything the President does. Despite the government's best efforts, the economy is improving, and no one can stop it recovering. But the President can't honestly claim credit for it either.

The United States will become a police state
More Civil Liberties will be taken away from USA citizens

Yes, but that'd be just as true under Kerry.

Gay Marriage will be banned on a national level

Not gonna happen. There's no way the constitutional amendment is going to pass.

[Frank Newgent]

http://www.galleryofhistory.com/archive/5_2001/Images/jpeg/89109.jpg

U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Don King (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9091972%5E1702,00.html)

[Roadtoad]

I read this article, (http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C627146904/E691961586/index.html) and found it interesting in what it said about John Ashcroft.

Frankly, if Bush would just fire that son of a bitch, (sorry, Hal), I'd vote for re-election in a second. That, in and of itself, would be perhaps one of the best things Bush could do for our civil liberties. Ashcroft is one of the greatest threats we face.

On the other hand, am I naive enough to think it's gonna happen? Nope.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I read this article, (http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C627146904/E691961586/index.html) and found it interesting in what it said about John Ashcroft.

Frankly, if Bush would just fire that son of a bitch, (sorry, Hal), I'd vote for re-election in a second. That, in and of itself, would be perhaps one of the best things Bush could do for our civil liberties. Ashcroft is one of the greatest threats we face.

On the other hand, am I naive enough to think it's gonna happen? Nope.


Yes, Ashcroft is really wanting to take away many of our Civil Liberties.

He is one of the most callous officials ever in politics.

In fact, here in Missouri, we elected a dead man over Ashcroft!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
How could a war on ideolegeaus be fought. The amount of fear mongering from this is reminisent of the McCarthy days

Like someone above said....Cold War. Regardless, what is the fear mongering aspect of the "war on terrorism?" Or do you not believe that there are terrorists out there that would like to harm us?

No, but it was something the Bush administration and the Republican Congress were pushing for.

He can push for whatever he wants, but to 'blame' him for the Patriot Act is ridiculous.

But that can't be legally done though. He violated the constitution by doing so.

Since when did the Constitution apply to foreigners?

Counter-Point, a Republican Congress that is willing to do anything in order to keep in power

A moot point when you are placing blame on the president for those things.

He did a pseudojustification by claiming there were WMD's in Iraq, whcih reports since the war have said otherwise

All I have to say is the ends justify the means.

True, but I am an antiauthoritarian Leftist. In other words, I am a Democratic Socialist, who is antiwar and is against the current administration. I guess if you are Machivellian in your Politics (Repubican) or if you don't like Taxes taking your money (Libertarian) there might have been some good for you.


Try none of the above.... I do not play stupid liberal/conservative/democat/republican games.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
In fact, here in Missouri, we elected a dead man over Ashcroft! Yes, but he was behind in the polls up until he died. Great bit of rhetoric but if you’re honest you will admit that those who voted for him knew that his wife would serve and that his death gave her momentum. There was little Ashcroft could do. He couldn't exactly attack the man's widow.

My biggest problem with politics is that it kills critical thinking. This is perhaps one of the best examples.

Furthermore, historically the people’s desire for safety after event's like 9/11 have lead to losses in civil liberties. I certainly don't condone it but I understand it. FDR, arguably one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century put many innocent Americans in relocation camps (euphemism for prison).

No it doesn't make current event's ok. It does help put them into perspective. I think it quite wrong to simply dismiss Ashcroft. Why not find the whole truth and put it into context before you pass judgment?

Yeah, I know, it takes effort to think. Knee jerk reactions, consumption of anti-administration propaganda and viewing the world through an ideological filter makes it hard. So close your mind, slap your comrades on the back and be secure in the knowledge that Ashcroft is what you say he is. Why think?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by RandFan

Yeah, I know, it takes effort to think. Knee jerk reactions, consumption of anti-administration propaganda and viewing the world through an ideological filter makes it hard. So close your mind, slap your comrades on the back and be secure in the knowledge that ----- is what you say he is. Why think?
Fill in the blank?

[shemp]

My worst fear in a second term is that Dubya will start dressing like Elton John and totally copy REO Speedwagon.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by RandFan

Yeah, I know, it takes effort to think. Knee jerk reactions, consumption of anti-administration propaganda and viewing the world through an ideological filter makes it hard. So close your mind, slap your comrades on the back and be secure in the knowledge that ----- is what you say he is. Why think?

So your saying that only people who are anti-Bush , for whatever reason, engage in this behavior? I think the sentence should have read :

...Knee jerk reactions, consumption of anti or pro administration propaganda ...

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
My biggest problem with politics is that it kills critical thinking.

Really??? It does??? I hadn't noticed...

:D

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Corplinx, out of all of what I said, can you point to ANY major benefit by having Bush in the WhiteHouse?
For the moment, yes, given the order of succession.

[Ladewig]

The thing that I'll least be able to stomach is R. Limbaugh saying "I told you so."

[fishbob]

It's like the bumper sticker I saw today - "Be Patriotic! Vote Bush out of Office!". Not "Vote Kerry 2004".

If this keeps up, Bush will win in a landslide.

Yeah, but voting for Kerry will preserve my right to bitch about Bush.

Actually, I look at it more as voting for the devil I don't know.

[dsm]

You left out "all of the above".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Originally posted by RandFan

So your saying that only people who are anti-Bush , for whatever reason, engage in this behavior? I think the sentence should have read :

...Knee jerk reactions, consumption of anti or pro administration propaganda ... I can live with that. But I think it was implicit in my post. If not then yes, there is an abundance of propoganda on both sides of the aisle.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I checked all the boxes. Every single one of them will happen.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
True, but I am an antiauthoritarian Leftist. In other words, I am a Democratic Socialist, who is antiwar and is against the current administration. I guess if you are Machivellian in your Politics (Repubican) or if you don't like Taxes taking your money (Libertarian) there might have been some good for you.

Just to nitpick a bit, most people don't like taxes taking their money. The trait libertarians share more than any other is that they are antiauthoritarian. Does that make you a libertarian Leftist? :D

[fishbob]

" He is an Evangelical (Fundamentalist) Christian "

" Bzzzzz! Wrong! He's a Methodist. "
================================
Actually, he is pandering to the religious by wearing a Methodist hat while behaving like an Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian.

[scribble]

Where's my choice for, "I'll move to Canada?"

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by RandFan
My biggest problem with politics is that it kills critical thinking. This is perhaps one of the best examples.

Furthermore, historically the people’s desire for safety after event's like 9/11 have lead to losses in civil liberties. I certainly don't condone it but I understand it. FDR, arguably one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century put many innocent Americans in relocation camps (euphemism for prison).

No it doesn't make current event's ok. It does help put them into perspective. I think it quite wrong to simply dismiss Ashcroft. Why not find the whole truth and put it into context before you pass judgment?

Yeah, I know, it takes effort to think. Knee jerk reactions, consumption of anti-administration propaganda and viewing the world through an ideological filter makes it hard. So close your mind, slap your comrades on the back and be secure in the knowledge that Ashcroft is what you say he is. Why think?

True words, but I'd add this: much of what passes for politics these days is little more than cliches from the years past warmed over and dressed up for the current audience. Most people have yet to figure out that one of our most environmental presidents in the past 50 years oddly enough was Nixon. (And, oddly enough, we're still paying for it.)

I don't trust Ashcroft. I have never trusted him. His Christianity is a little too convenient, his attitude towards the Constitution more than a little arbitrary. That's a danger, to me. Add 9/11 into the mix, and my ulcers begin to act up.

[Clancie]

My Predictions if we have Four More Years :eek: of Bush:


More tax cuts for the wealthy. More people classified as "working poor". Higher taxes on the middle class

The budget deficit continues to grow (even beyond what it is now, the largest deficit in our history).

We have the largest military spending budget in our history. We have the smallest budget for education and science in our history.

Increased reliance on fossil fuels. Escalating gas prices. Big profits for oil companies continue. No R&D $$$ for renewable energy. Environmental regulations rolled back. Drilling allowed in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

Unemployment reaches the highest level in 20 years.

US invades at least one more country (the GOP has added Thailand and the Phillipines as invasion possibilities in a current survey they're doing.)

Bush continues to give Israel carte blanche to destroy Palestinians (since, imo, to Bush, Palestinian = terrorist).

Bush appoints 2 new Supreme Court justices (replacing O'Connor and Rehnquist). He chooses two "Scalia-type conservatives", a Latino and a woman. The Court begins to roll back civil liberties...abortion rights...put the fundamentalist Christian agenda into law...increasing support for industry vs. the consumers and environmentalists.

Our foreign policies continue to be the Bush doctrine of "There's one super power in the world and we're it. We can do whatever we d*mn well please."

We, essentially, pull out of the U.N. by refusing to pay for it any more.

We are increasingly hated world-wide. Incidents of terrorism increase and more and more people around the world sympathize with terrorists for "standing up to the arrogance of America."



I notice that in all the commercials for Bush, he doesn't seem to have any positive record to point to other than Iraq (for those who find his record there positive). Seriously, what else is there?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A few corrections...

Originally posted by Clancie
My Predictions if we have Four More Years :eek: of Bush:

More tax cuts for the wealthy.

I think you meant to say "More making the tax system fairer. Afterall, it certainly isn't fair for the top 1% of taxpayers to pay 30% of the taxes, and the top 5% to pay 50%!!!" That is what you meant to say.

Originally posted by Clancie
More people classified as "working poor".

You mean more lazy people whining for bigger handouts?

Originally posted by Clancie
Higher taxes on the middle class

Was there a tax increase I missed? Or maybe you're predicting one? It's possible, I suppose.

Originally posted by Clancie
The budget deficit continues to grow (even beyond what it is now, the largest deficit in our history).

What you meant to say here was "No matter who gets elected, The budget deficit continues to grow...."

Originally posted by Clancie
Big profits for oil companies continue.

We hope so!!! Of course, since they are making such record profits, you certainly are intelligent enough to buy stock in these companies and share in the wealth, aren't you?

Originally posted by Clancie
(the GOP has added Thailand and the Phillipines as invasion possibilities in a current survey they're doing.)

And you got this from which loony toon conspiracy site?

Originally posted by Clancie
Bush continues to give Israel carte blanche to destroy Palestinians

So you're saying that Palestinians should get a free pass to destroy inncoent Isrealis? Interesting...

I think I have pointed out enough errors for now. No need to pile on.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancie
My Predictions if we have Four More Years :eek: of Bush:


More tax cuts for the wealthy. More people classified as "working poor". Higher taxes on the middle class

The budget deficit continues to grow (even beyond what it is now, the largest deficit in our history).

We have the largest military spending budget in our history. We have the smallest budget for education and science in our history.

Increased reliance on fossil fuels. Escalating gas prices. Big profits for oil companies continue. No R&D $$$ for renewable energy. Environmental regulations rolled back. Drilling allowed in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

Unemployment reaches the highest level in 20 years.

US invades at least one more country (the GOP has added Thailand and the Phillipines as invasion possibilities in a current survey they're doing.)

Bush continues to give Israel carte blanche to destroy Palestinians (since, imo, to Bush, Palestinian = terrorist).

Bush appoints 2 new Supreme Court justices (replacing O'Connor and Rehnquist). He chooses two "Scalia-type conservatives", a Latino and a woman. The Court begins to roll back civil liberties...abortion rights...put the fundamentalist Christian agenda into law...increasing support for industry vs. the consumers and environmentalists.

Our foreign policies continue to be the Bush doctrine of "There's one super power in the world and we're it. We can do whatever we d*mn well please."

We, essentially, pull out of the U.N. by refusing to pay for it any more.

We are increasingly hated world-wide. Incidents of terrorism increase and more and more people around the world sympathize with terrorists for "standing up to the arrogance of America."



I notice that in all the commercials for Bush, he doesn't seem to have any positive record to point to other than Iraq (for those who find his record there positive). Seriously, what else is there? Hi Clancie,

I would agree with a number of your predictions and take exception with others. They are of course predictions and not claims so there is little to debate.

I'm leaning in the direction of pulling out of the U.N.. It serves very much as a means for lesser nations to carry out their agenda of bringing down the United States.

The U.N. showed it's impotence when it failed to force Saddam to comply. The U.N.'s only power is to those who are willing to abide by it's rules.

I don't buy the notion that our policy is that we can do whatever we damn well please. Our policy is that after 12 years of being lied to we are going to act. If other nations do not have the balls to do the job the we do. And we will. Too many people confuse diplomacy with appeasement. After 12 years, letting Saddam continue to thumb his nose at us was simply appeasement IMO.

I have no problem with drilling in Alaska. I find it odd that there is such an outcry. We can drill without destroying the environment. And the environment is not intrinsically sacred. I'm for preserving the land but I don't think that there is a dichotomy.

I predict that the economy will turn around regardless of who is president. Those who think that the President has that much control are deluding themselves. The economy grew at unprecedented rates under Reagan. The treasury received unprecedented revenue. The deficit grew because we were not fiscally responsible. We are not now either. I do blame Bush but I doubt if Kerry will change things.

I respect your opinion. I hope you can respect mine.

RandFan

[Clancie]

Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

And you got this from which loony toon conspiracy site?
Um...The "loony toon conspiracy site" known as...Associated Press.

Republican Terrorism Survey--reported by AP (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040327/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_survey_2)

And, RandFan...I think our fundamental point of view on the appropriate role for the needs of corporate America in determining domestic and foreign policy is very different. Likewise, our view of U.S. foreign policy and the U.N. seems to be quite at odds. (I think other nations often, though not always, are -right- in their criticisms of our policies and the reasons for them. The current support for Sharon's Israel is just, imo, the most egregious example. The U.N., imo, often provides a refreshingly counterpoint of perspectives to challenge the propaganda of -any- individual nation. The world would be worse off without it.).
Posted by RandFan

I respect your opinion. I hope you can respect mine.
As a matter of fact, I do.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Clancie

Um...The "loony toon conspiracy site" known as...Associated Press.

Republican Terrorism Survey--reported by AP (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040327/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_survey_2)


You posted: US invades at least one more country (the GOP has added Thailand and the Phillipines as invasion possibilities in a current survey they're doing.)

Expanding the war on terror does not automatically imply an invasion of those countries. Now, you may believe that we will invade them, but that survey question implies no such thing. So it turns out the loony toon here is not the source, but the interpreter, aka, you.

[Clancie]

Scrutinizer,

The article quotes the Republican survey with this:

"Should America broaden the war on terrorism into other countries that harbor and aid terrorists such as Thailand, Syria, Somalia, the Philippines, etc.?"
I interpreted that to be introducing the possibility that we could fight the "war on terrorism" in these other countries as we have, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq. (After all, the pretext--well, one of them :rolleyes:--given for invading Iraq and Afghanistan was that they harbored terrorists).

I made a prediction, right? (I'll take it farther and say that of all that new and expanded possible Axis of Evil...I think we would most likely invade Somalia...work to heavily arm the government of the Philippines and "assist" them fighting terrorism (same with funding and sending our military to Thailand) and, maybe year 2 of the second Bush Administration (Ed forbid!)...attack North Korea.

Bold predictions? Maybe. I actually think George Bush is perfectly capable of doing--and rationalizing--all of them. (And I think we'll leave the UN right before we invade Korea).

But...hopefully, we'll never know if I'm right or not! :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Clancie
Scrutinizer,

The article quotes the Republican survey with this:

I interpreted that to be introducing the possibility that we could fight the "war on terrorism" in these other countries as we have, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq. (After all, the pretext--well, one of them :rolleyes:--given for invading Iraq and Afghanistan was that they harbored terrorists).

I made a prediction, right? (I'll take it farther and say that of all that new and expanded possible Axis of Evil...I think we would most likely invade Somalia...work to heavily arm the government of the Philippines and "assist" them fighting terrorism (same with funding and sending our military to Thailand) and, maybe year 2 of the second Bush Administration (Ed forbid!)...attack North Korea.

Bold predictions? Maybe. I actually think George Bush is perfectly capable of doing--and rationalizing--all of them. (And I think we'll leave the UN right before we invade Korea).

But...hopefully, we'll never know if I'm right or not! :)

Fair enough. But we are fighting the war on terrorism in many countries now, and have only invaded one.

[Clancie]

Posted by Central Scrutinizer

Fair enough. But we are fighting the war on terrorism in many countries now, and have only invaded one.
Um...two.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

What do you think will happen to the USA if George W. Bush get reelected?


Need we say more!!!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancie
And, RandFan...I think our fundamental point of view on the appropriate role for the needs of corporate America in determining domestic and foreign policy is very different. Corporate America? Hmmmm...... I would say that our views of domestic and foreign policy are different. I don't see Corporate America as the bad guy anymore than I see the US government as the bad guy. Both are corruptible and have the ability to abuse their power. The Federal Government takes huge amounts of money and wastes it and out right steals it. The eficiency of a dollar bill in federal government is abysmal. Why people see the Federal government just as the innocent care giver to sooth wounds of the poor and downtrodden and the Robin Hood to steal from the rich and give to the poor is really amazing to me. The Federal Governement comes at a very high cost. Beware a government that provides more resources to the people than the market place.

Beware the military industrial complex.

Beware a market place that has no government over sight (I hope shanek doesn't read this.) Of the three I fear the first far more than the the second and third and I fear the third the least of all.

A marketplace is far more self regulating than any government.

Bear in mind that other nations do not have our best interests at heart. Making policy with an eye to please others first is a fools errand.

Likewise, our view of U.S. foreign policy and the U.N. seems to be quite at odds. (I think other nations often, though not always, are -right- in their criticisms of our policies and the reasons for them. I'm not sure of the relevancy of this statement. Sure their criticisms are right sometimes. So what? A broken clock is right twice a day. The question that must be asked is what is the motivation of these other nations? Do they care about America or their own best interests first. Our best interests and theirs don't have to be mutually exclusive but they often are or are at least percieved that way. If we aren't prepared to put ourselves first no one else will.

The current support for Sharon's Israel is just, imo, the most egregious example. First, Bush has been willing to critisize Israel. Second, Israel supports human rights, women's rights, is a democracy and does not call us the great satan, scream Jihaad (see Yassar Arafat) and call for the destruction of America.

There is good reson to support Israel. It is safe to say that they are far more aligned with out best interests than Palestinians. Still we should work harder at being fair and we have mades a number of errors as to the Mid East. It would be a huge mistake to abandon Israel. And I am certain that Mid East leaders have little respect for a$$ kissers.

The U.N., imo, often provides a refreshingly counterpoint of perspectives to challenge the propaganda of -any- individual nation. The world would be worse off without it.). I'm not convinced.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KS_SKEPTIC
What do you think will happen to the USA if George W. Bush get reelected?


Need we say more!!! I think such an image is appropriate in a time when Americans are dying. I think it fits beautifully with Stings "Corpulent generals safe behind lines History's lessons drowned in red wine".

A question needs to be asked. Is the sacrifice of American lives worthy of any good that might be coming from this particular event. I chose the word event to make it as neutral as possible.

If one concludes that we aren't doing any good then the answer is no. One can conclude that Bush lied (and many do) but we are doing good then the sacrifice is worth it. However the good might not be enough to justify this sacrifice. I think there is a limit to how much death we are willing to endure. The cost might be to high. In which case the image by Skeptic is quite appropriate. If it continues at this rate I doubt that Bush will be re-elected.

I think it is worth it but then I am a corpulent civilian safe in my home. I do care about those young men. I hope that their death and misery are not in vain.

I also hope that Bush takes the deaths as serious. I know that those who were against Bush from the start will say no. I understand.

Sorry if my thoughts are scatter brained. They are sincere.

RandFan

[circuit slave]

The bottom line, in a somewhat simplistic juxtoposition of sorts:



They forgave Clinton's character, because of the economy. They will forgive Bush's economy because of his character.

[fishbob]

I can't let this one slide.

They forgave Clinton's character, because of the economy. They will forgive Bush's economy because of his character. ???? Does anybody seriously think the lies about extramarital hanky panky are somehow worse than the lies that dragged us into Iraq? The character flaws that resulted in BJs in the oval office are somehow worse than the character flaws that resulted in 500 dead American soldiers so far?

Are you speaking of some character trait other than honesty (or lack thereof)? Maybe arrogance or cronyism or profitteering or pandering? Rate B vs C for each trait, then decide.

Forgive Bush for his character my @$$.

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Originally posted by circuit slave
The bottom line, in a somewhat simplistic juxtoposition of sorts:



They forgave Clinton's character, because of the economy. They will forgive Bush's economy because of his character.

He's a character alright!!! :D ;)

[Zep]

Originally posted by Richard G
We will stomp the s**t out of anyone who raises a hand to kill Americans.

Thats what will happen.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Language</font></td></tr></table> In the main, that will be other Americans. To the tune of 29,000+ per annum by means of firearms alone, in the latest stats.

Go get 'em, tiger!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Yet more fodder to the fire.

You are apparantely a Republican, who has never even considered any other political systems.

No, the Republicans are a bit too Commie-loving for our Richard G.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fishbob
I can't let this one slide.

???? Does anybody seriously think the lies about extramarital hanky panky are somehow worse than the lies that dragged us into Iraq? The character flaws that resulted in BJs in the oval office are somehow worse than the character flaws that resulted in 500 dead American soldiers so far?

Are you speaking of some character trait other than honesty (or lack thereof)? Maybe arrogance or cronyism or profitteering or pandering? Rate B vs C for each trait, then decide.

Forgive Bush for his character my @$$. I'll take Bush any day. But then I don't buy the propaganda handed out by the left. I don't buy Bush's either. The evidence suggests that Bush was selective in his choice of data to accept. We did NOT know that there was no WMD. Saddam would not comply. Which in and of itself suggested that there was WMD.

So believe what you want but a murderous thug is no longer cutting the ears off of young men. He is no longer imprisoning innocent people. He is no longer torturing anyone and he can't gas any innocent people. You will have to decide for yourself if that is worth 500 lives. At the moment I do.

Oh and BTW Clinton was accused of Rape not just lying. And he never personally denied it. The accuser never went on speaking tours or had lot's of interviews or made lots of money from her accusation. She was a democrat and a supporter of Clinton.

If a rapist rates high in your books then fine. I spent 8 years defending that prick. And I would do it again. The crap the Republicans were willing to believe and do to bring him down was simply wrong. Objectivity demanded that I stand up for the truth. But in the end I think little of a guy who did what he did.

Like I said, I'll take Bush over Clinton ANY day.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by KS_SKEPTIC
He's a character alright!!!

"For the rest of us there's honesty". (from the image) I hope you don't include Kerry in "the rest of us".

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'll take Bush any day. But then I don't buy the propaganda handed out by the left. I don't buy Bush's either. The evidence suggests that Bush was selective in his choice of data to accept. We did NOT know that there was no WMD. Saddam would not comply. Which in and of itself suggested that there was WMD.

Did you pay attention to the last few weeks before we went in and bombed Iraq, or were you hiding under a rock?

Hussein was destroying weapons en masse. He used multiple incinerators to do that.

That, and your position is further weakended by the fact that the Official Reports show there were no WMD's in Iraq

So believe what you want but a murderous thug is no longer cutting the ears off of young men. He is no longer imprisoning innocent people. He is no longer torturing anyone and he can't gas any innocent people. You will have to decide for yourself if that is worth 500 lives. At the moment I do.

Using your rationale... we are justified to invade the following coutries:

Iran
North Korea
China

and for that matter, any coutry that has a dictator, or supreme ruler.

You have to remember we supposedly went in for WMD's.

There weren't any WMD's before we invaded! Look at the official reports back from December that concluded No WMD's.

Oh and BTW Clinton was accused of Rape not just lying. And he never personally denied it. The accuser never went on speaking tours or had lot's of interviews or made lots of money from her accusation. She was a democrat and a supporter of Clinton.

Site? Where are you pulling up this B* about a rape allegation?

If a rapist rates high in your books then fine. I spent 8 years defending that prick. And I would do it again. The crap the Republicans were willing to believe and do to bring him down was simply wrong. Objectivity demanded that I stand up for the truth. But in the end I think little of a guy who did what he did.

No Comment.

Like I said, I'll take Bush over Clinton ANY day.

:rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Did you pay attention to the last few weeks before we went in and bombed Iraq, or were you hiding under a rock?

Hussein was destroying weapons en masse. He used multiple incinerators to do that.[/b] Right, he was cooperating. He wouldn't let us verify but he was cooperating. Are you sure you wan't to argue this point?

That, and your position is further weakended by the fact that the Official Reports show there were no WMD's in Iraq Citation please?

Using your rationale... we are justified to invade the following coutries: I'm saying that the good of saving Iraqies does justify lives lost. Do you disagree?

You have to remember we supposedly went in for WMD's. NO!!!!! We went in to depose Saddam. WMDs were believed to be one reason why Saddam was a threat.

Site? Where are you pulling up this B* about a rape allegation? Thank you. And, where were you when the accusation came out? It was in all of the news day and night. Hellllooooo....

Accuser: Juanita Broaddrick

Nurse backs up Clinton rape charge (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33270)
Known as "Jane Doe No. 5" in Kenneth Starr's impeachment report to Congress, Broaddrick had filed an affidavit in the Paula Jones case, at first denying Clinton had made any unwelcome sexual advances to her. But she later claimed to investigators for independent counsel Starr she was raped. [/b]RandFan
If a rapist rates high in your books then fine. I spent 8 years defending that prick. And I would do it again. The crap the Republicans were willing to believe and do to bring him down was simply wrong. Objectivity demanded that I stand up for the truth. But in the end I think little of a guy who did what he did.

Theodore
No Comment. Not surprising, Clinton, Gore, and the Clinton apologist didn't have any comment either. This very credible accusation has gone with out any real denial.

Like I said, I'll take Bush over Clinton ANY day.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by circuit slave
The bottom line, in a somewhat simplistic juxtoposition of sorts:



They forgave Clinton's character, because of the economy. They will forgive Bush's economy because of his character.

I would question that. My suspicion is that Clinton was elected to a second term because his opponent was Bob Dole, a guy who's got a rep that's so mean, he makes Falwell look like a Teletubbie.

(BTW: Welcome, CS, to the Forum!)

[Some Friggin Guy]

I would argue this as well. On different reasons, though. I find that many of the problems people have with Bush is, in fact, based on his character.

[Dorian Gray]

You forgot to include this choice:
[] Alec Baldwin will leave the country again.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I would question that. My suspicion is that Clinton was elected to a second term because his opponent was Bob Dole, a guy who's got a rep that's so mean, he makes Falwell look like a Teletubbie.

(BTW: Welcome, CS, to the Forum!) I agree RoadToad, at least to a point. But let's give Clinton his due. [list=1]
Clinton is one of the best politicians in the last 20 years. He beat the Republicans at every turn. He outlasted Gingrich a savy politican in his own right.

The economy did well under his watch and the crime was low and most people were content.[/list=1] I would say that is a reciepe for re-election.

[circuit slave]

You forgot to includ this choice: Alec Baldwin will leave the country again. :D


I didn't know he left the first time. hehe. Will he be one of those celebrities who then criticizes the president on foreign soil?



P.S. Thanks for the welcome, Roadtoad


Forgive Bush for his character my @$$.


Surely, then he should be doing worse, right? Surely, this lying, unintelligent redneck Hitler-like president will be out the door then, fishbob.




than the character flaws that resulted in 500 dead American soldiers so far?




"Character flaws" ? You mean the lies right. The president intentionally lied to get us to go to Iraq is what your saying, right?

[circuit slave]

Clinton is one of the best politicians in the last 20 years. He beat the Republicans at every turn. He outlasted Gingrich a savy politican in his own right.


I agree with RanFan. (BTW, thanks for the welcome!)


I voted for Clinton, he did get some things accomplished, and then I threw away my vote for that little elf Ross Perot:D. Too bad Clinton had to go and stain his record (no Pun).


And as far as I'm concerned. I will not accept the alternative:








http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040228/i/r1633574988.jpg

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
I would argue this as well. On different reasons, though. I find that many of the problems people have with Bush is, in fact, based on his character.

:D ;) :p

[RandFan]

"Proving Darwin Wrong..."

Sorry but the Kennedy's beat them to it. Then again, Billy Carter and Roger Clinton were not far behind.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by ssibal
All I have to say is the ends justify the means.


So your attitude is "screw ethics"?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas



So your attitude is "screw ethics"?

Screw what ethics? Please clarify.

[fishbob]

The president intentionally lied to get us to go to Iraq is what your saying, right?

Yep.

Bush Lies:
Imminent Nukuler Threat.
Anthrax.
Nerve Gas.
Launchable in less than one hour.

Nothing about freedom for the Iraqi people until after the invasion.

Clinton Lies:
I did not have sex with that woman.

Neither is a shining beacon of honor, but come on. Bush wins hands down on magnitude of the whoppers and multitude of the whoppers. Plus all his staff parrot the lies.

At least Gore had the good sense to kept his mouth shut.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fishbob
Bush Lies:
Imminent Nukuler Threat.
Anthrax.
Nerve Gas.
Launchable in less than one hour. You have yet to prove that Bush lied. This is an assumption. The evidence actually suggests that he was selective in the data he chose to use.

Nothing about freedom for the Iraqi people until after the invasion. That is MY point. It is why I think the invasion was worth it.

Clinton Lies:
I did not have sex with that woman. He didn't lie about raping Broderick since he didn't deny it. So in that case he isn't a liar just a rapist. Nice.

Neither is a shining beacon of honor, but come on. Bush wins hands down on magnitude of the whoppers and multitude of the whoppers. Plus all his staff parrot the lies. And of course Albright and the rest of them parroted Clinton's lies.

At least Gore had the good sense to kept his mouth shut. In his response to the Broderick accusation,

“I don't know what to think of her claim. I don't know how to evaluate these stories.” “I think enough is enough.” Totally dismissing the crime of Clinton’s rape, Gore said, “I think that whatever mistakes he made in his life is balanced with...” (the good he’s done as President). It’s time to “move on and focus on the future.”

Yeah, why let a little thing like rape soil...er...mar his legacy.

Oh, and if we are into connecting the dots there is ample evidence that Clinton sold national secrets to China.

You know, if your going to compare you should do a fair job of it.

Clinton - Lies about Lewinski, Raped Broderick, Sold Secrets to China.

Bush - Lied about Iraq's WMD and in so doing deposed a Dictator who had a habit of torture, murder, false imprisonment and genocide.

Hmmmm........

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with Bush.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan

Yeah, I'm going to have to go with Bush.

Uhm... You know that Clinton isn't running in this election, don't you?

edit My bad, didn't realise this turned into a Bush V Clinton debate. Why do people even have Bush V Clinton debates?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Uhm... You know that Clinton isn't running in this election, don't you?

edit My bad, didn't realise this turned into a Bush V Clinton debate. Why do people even have Bush V Clinton debates? Ummm... are you able to follow the thread? I didn't bring up Clinton. I was responding to someone else who compared the two and others who responded to that comparison.

Between the two I would take Bush, understand?

Edited to say I just noticed your edit.

Never mind.

RandFan

[fishbob]

The evidence actually suggests that he was selective in the data he chose to use.

Parse on Garth. How is this any different than lying?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ummm... are you able to follow the thread? I didn't bring up Clinton. I was responding to someone else who compared the two and others who responded to that comparison.

Between the two I would take Bush, understand?

Edited to say I just noticed your edit.

Never mind.

RandFan

Didn't you read my post! I edited it to say I made a mistake! Jesus! What's wrong with you, you moron!


Edited to say, sorry, just noticed your edit about my edit. Never mind. :D

[circuit slave]

The president intentionally lied to get us to go to Iraq is what your saying, right? Yep.



:rolleyes:



Fact is it was just a matter of time. We could have dealt with Saddam on his terms or our terms. Whether your lobbing missles in the no fly zones and bombing pharmaceutical factories or whether your in congress passing leglislation for regime change, it was just a matter of time.

Last time I checked it was Clinton who was impeached. You only wish Dubya would be.

[shuize]

Well, since we're all making predictions here's my two:

If Bush wins, more jobs will be outsourced to India.

If Kerry wins, more jobs will be outsourced to India.

[circuit slave]

If Bush wins, more jobs will be outsourced to India.

If Kerry wins, more jobs will be outsourced to India.


:D

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fishbob
Parse on Garth. How is this any different than lying? He didn't know the truth. He had two scenarios and chose the data that fit his theories. Intellectualy lazy but not lying.

Do you really not know the difference?

[fishbob]

Fact is it was just a matter of time. We could have dealt with Saddam on his terms or our terms. Whether your lobbing missles in the no fly zones and bombing pharmaceutical factories or whether your in congress passing leglislation for regime change, it was just a matter of time.

You and Randfan miss my point. Bush should have honestly described the threats and annoyances posed by Saddam. I would have a much lower level of disgruntlement with Bush if he had presented the voters with an honest assessment of the situation. I might even have supported an invasion of Iraq, if well planned and well equipped. Instead, he lied to the voters, he fearmongered us into Iraq and so is on my excrement list forever.

He didn't know the truth. He had two scenarios and chose the data that fit his theories. Intellectualy lazy but not lying. As you say, he ignored the data that did not fit his theory. Don't we discuss critical thinking on these boards enough that you understand the problem with this?

Bush has family connections with the intelligence community going back 40 years or more. My opinion is that he had a very clear understanding of the situation and chose to mislead the public. How do YOU assess the character of someone who resorts to such tactics?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by fishbob
You and Randfan miss my point. Bush should have honestly described the threats and annoyances posed by Saddam. I would have a much lower level of disgruntlement with Bush if he had presented the voters with an honest assessment of the situation. I don't have a problem with this.

I might even have supported an invasion of Iraq, if well planned and well equipped. Instead, he lied to the voters, he fearmongered us into Iraq and so is on my excrement list forever. I don't quite agree but you have a point.

As you say, he ignored the data that did not fit his theory. Don't we discuss critical thinking on these boards enough that you understand the problem with this? But this assumes things that are not in evidence. We are also capable of critical thinking.

The decision was likely based on a number of criteria. I think Sr. was truly horrified that he was snookered by Saddam and that people he urged to rise up against him were slaughtered with the helicopters that Saddam was allowed to use. And it wasn't just that. Bush Sr. made a number of serious tactical errors following Gulf War 1. He truly cared about those who were tortured and maimed due to his ineptness. Also, there was the issue of Saddam allegedly trying to kill Bush, oil, and many other things.

So Bush has contradicting intelligence. He makes a decision. Did he "lie". You decide. I've made my decision. I don't give a ****. Saddam punished his own people for Gulf War 1. He killed hundreds of thousands and maimed as many if not more. I don't like 500 dead but I'm glad we went.

Bush has family connections with the intelligence community going back 40 years or more. My opinion is that he had a very clear understanding of the situation and chose to mislead the public. This I STRONGLY disagree with. There was real intelligence that Saddam did in fact have WMD. It was a fact that it had not been all accounted for and it was a fact that Saddam wanted WMD and he refused to comply. The Israelis and Iraqi defectors gave us significant intelligence that turned out to be wrong.

Hindsight is 20/20, if you can sit in your ivory tower and declare Bush a liar then fine. That is your prerogative. But I think you give up any claim to critical thinking.

How do YOU assess the character of someone who resorts to such tactics? I disagree with your characterization. You paint it to fit your world view. I see it differently. I see a human being struggling as all world leaders do to make the right choices. Oil, Mid-East politics, revenge, the suffering of the Iraqis likely all played a part. There is evidence to belive they all played a part.

Question, do you pick and choose which evidence you want to look at?

[subgenius]

RF: "I see ....."
What you expect to see and hear.

What piscesrobert is saying is we (US citizens) can handle the truth.
You can fool some of the....
oh we've heard it before....don't remind us.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
What piscesrobert is saying is we (US citizens) can handle the truth. What is the truth?
--Pilot

[Roadtoad]

Well, considering we're having a hell of a time getting it from ANY side, I think finding the truth is going to take a while.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by RandFan
What is the truth?
--Pilot
Hell if I know.

[fishbob]

Back to science for an example: We are not ikely to find the truth, just as we are not likely to prove anything absolutely. We can just gather up the evidence and see where it leads. The problem with politics is that you can very seldom find unspun evidence.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by subgenius

You can fool some of the....
oh we've heard it before....
Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time,
But all of the people can't be all right all of the time.


Bob Dylan Talkin' World War III Blues

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
Some of the people can be all right part of the time,
But all of the people can't be all right all of the time.


Bob Dylan Talkin' World War III Blues

Been a while since I've played or listened to Dylan. Thanks, Frank.