The New Official "Bush Won" Thread

[AgeOfAbnegation]

This has been said before, but the "traditional" label of marriage used to exclude interracial marriages. Our country survived the "drastic" change in the traditional meaning of marriage, I'm sure it would be able to survive another.


Most any definition can be twisted to fit an agenda or political platform - thats why modern rhetoricians are so obsessed with it. Key elements can be taken for the definition of marriage that allow it to survive such trends as race, social class, etc.

[Blackmoon]

I did it! I read the whole 10 pages + 1 post long thread... :cheesy:

And I even found myself agreeing with AoA at some points which is quite rare too :p

[Oberon]

Most any definition can be twisted to fit an agenda or political platform - thats why modern rhetoricians are so obsessed with it. Key elements can be taken for the definition of marriage that allow it to survive such trends as race, social class, etc.

Republicans are much better at twisting definitions than Democrats IMO. Here's (http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04003.html) an interesting interview regarding this topic.

[Hydro]

Republicans are much better at twisting definitions than Democrats IMO. Here's (http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04003.html) an interesting interview regarding this topic.

I think both political parties twist everything to their liking, though Reps. definitely have developed a knack for it...

[Pake]

http://img130.exs.cx/img130/1089/iq.jpg

Only a liberal would spell Missouri wrong... :)

BTW, hoax like these are somewhat dumb, considering the fact that this was first published in 2000 for Bush/Gore. That and come on now, how can California beat out Mississippi with all those celebrities living there? Must be the computer programmers, but even then most of them only voted Liberal b/c Gore invented the internet and us geeks sure love the internet. :)

BTW Oberon, are you an American? :)

[Oberon]

BTW, hoax like these are somewhat dumb, considering the fact that this was first published in 2000 for Bush/Gore.

What makes you say it's a hoax? Do you have conflicting data to cite?

BTW Oberon, are you an American? :)

Yes I am. In fact I live 150 miles East-Northeast of you.

p.s. - Rusty Wallace sucks.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Geez. Like I said, keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. Insanity.
That chart really proves....nothing....except that you keep pulling out of the liberal playbook with the, "I'm smarter than you, and you're dumb" routine. The fact is, the only state Kerry won really big in was in his home state. NY, PA, CA, all had Bush getting at least 40% of the vote. So what's your point??

[The.Jolly.Roger]

The Constitution should be ammended only when absolutely necessary and for a damn good reason. Changing this great document just so the homos can't get married is a great big slap in the face to our founding fathers. While you're at it why don't you add an ammendment defining life as begining at conception and another banning flag-burning, and yet another "protecting" the pledge of allegiance from anyone wanting to revert it back to it's pre-1950's form sans "under God"? Wait - Republicans do want such ammendments.....

Anyone who desecrates the American flag in this country should be arrested for sedition and either be shot or shipped out. What is the very first thing a victor does after it defeats it's opponent?? Hmmmm...I bet it has something to do with a flag. Our flag isn't just a piece of nylon, it's the symbol that embodies our freedom, bravery, and great history.

Changing the Constitution to stop idiot liberal judges from trying to write the law IS a DAMN good reason for changing it. These judges DO want to change the constitution with an abortion freedom amendment, *** marriage amendment, and any other amendment that would put us on a course for secularity. I guarantee you if our forefathers were witness to these judges, they would spit on the ground.

[Oberon]

Anyone who desecrates the American flag in this country should be arrested for sedition and either be shot or shipped out. What is the very first thing a victor does after it defeats it's opponent?? Hmmmm...I bet it has something to do with a flag. Our flag isn't just a piece of nylon, it's the symbol that embodies our freedom, bravery, and great history.

Listen to yourself and *think*. You're suggesting murdering someone for damaging, yes, a piece of nylon. Just because it's sacred to you, that does not give you the right to murder another human being. What of the many clothing articles and knickknacks labeled with the flag today? Should someone be shot if they bleach their Old Navy shirt "desecrating" the American flag on front?

Changing the Constitution to stop idiot liberal judges from trying to write the law IS a DAMN good reason for changing it. These judges DO want to change the constitution with an abortion freedom amendment, *** marriage amendment, and any other amendment that would put us on a course for secularity. I guarantee you if our forefathers were witness to these judges, they would spit on the ground.

I believe you'd be suprised at how our founding fathers would react to the current state of affairs. I believe many would be appalled at the influence of money and corporations in our government. They would have serious problems with our many military alliances and especially with US troops being posted in so many nations all over the planet. The certainly would have issues with the Jesus-freaks and their control of government. You guys have control all 3 branches of government and *still* you want more. And you wonder why people consider emmigration.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Ahh, the liberal mind at work, such a tragedy.

We all know the meaning of desecration. Desecration does not only involve the modification of the flag, but the thought behind the modification of the flag. So let me rephrase it, so that even the most insane liberal mind can understand. If a person proclaims himself as an enemy of the United States, and illustrates this proclamation by desecrating Her flag. Then that person should be arrested for sedition, and suffer the fate that all proven traitors of this country do.

And our forefathers were the biggest "Jesus Freaks" of all. Who do you think wrote the Pledge of Allegiance? In God We Trust, God Bless America, and on and on and on.
Why must a person that believes in God be coined as a "Jesus Freak". This mentality of liberalism is eroding. It will be all but gone in 20 or so years. The reason why this country has so many "Jesus Freaks" in it, is because it was founded on spiritual principles. This is why this country is the greatest nation in history. It is what separates it from all others. Believe me, our forefathers would have been sick with the thought of this liberal mentality, not with the principles on which they found this great nation.

But lets just forget about religion and spirituality for a moment shall we. Let us refer to nature itself. When the opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage arrives, it is quickly written off by liberals as being the voice of "Jesus Freaks" who want to impose their religous tyranny about. Truly, this is not the case. This may be the way it is communicated, but is not actually why. And it is not communicated as harshly as liberals would suggest. I just wish that I could teleport you all to the time of true religious tyranny by that of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe long ago. Then you would see the difference, and your heads would promptly be lifted from the sands of ignorance, if they weren't chopped off first. With these issues, religious principles are not the beginning, yet only a result.

The most important thing to any species on this planet is survival. The single most important component in survival is reproduction. Now, humans are different from most other species' because we make decisions based on reasoning, not just instinct. Humans not only feel emotion, we define and classify emotion. Also, like all other species' we adapt to survive, and instinctually find ways to better help our cause. Marriage, of the heterosexual kind, is one of these ways we strengthen our survival. We feel attraction and define it as love. Then we marry and have children, which strengthens the bond and ensures more children, which in turn strengthens and continues our survival. Humans, as with other species' also tend to rid itself of things that would hurt it's chances of survival....instinctually. Homosexual marriage, in the big picture, hurts our chance of survival. Now, let me just strongly note that I did not state homosexuality itself weakens our chance of survival, just homosexual marriage. This is why everyone witnessed homosexual marriage banned in 11 states, the only 11 states that had it on the ballot. It was not only banned, but was banned convincingly. This is because creating and supporting the idea of homosexual marriage would hurt our chance for survival, in the long run. We all know that ideas that are created and supported by humans tend to evolve. Over a period of time, if homosexual marriage were permitted, then more and more homosexuals would adopt more and more children. As more children are adopted into homosexual households, more and more children would tend to become homosexual. At worst, heterosexuality would vanish and only homosexuals would be left, with only cloning, artificial insamination, etc.. as a means of reproduction. And over a period of more time, because I know all of you liberals cannot deny you believe in evolution, the ability for a woman to reproduce would vanish...thus the extinction of humans would ensue. Also, the rise of all out abortion would also negatively effect our chances of survival..which is self explanatory. You see, the opposition to these things does not really arise from the "Jesus Freak" mentality. This is only the way it is defined, reasoned, and communicated. The opposition to these things arises truly from instinct itself as a means to ensure survival of the human species.

This is why things like utopian society and social equality are failures. You know, the first time I read Animal Farm, I remember thinking in the beginning of the story that those animals fought the good fight to liberate themselves. No animal shall kill another animal, four legs good-two legs bad, all animals are equal....are all ideas from this story that I will never forget, and thought that they were very good ideas, and frankly they are very good principles. Then I read the rest of the story, and it reminded me of one simple, but important thing---we are human. Humans are imperfect. We are imperfect, therefore a utopian model, or "perfect" model of society/economy can never be employed by or dictated to our imperfection. We will never possibly be able to bring about social equality completely and utterly througout due to another law of nature----survival of the fittest. If less endowed minds and bodies were equal to that of stronger minds and bodies, then it would spell extinction for all of us. If a herd of buffalo stopped it's natural movement because one of it's herd was attacked and hurt by a predator, then they would all be killed by predators, and they would all starve and die of thirst. Noone will live forever, and not everyone will be fortunate. Tis the natural progression of life.

Religion and spirituality are also tools for survival, and have always existed as long as human beings have. Again, humans do not act solely on instinct. We have the ability to reason, thereby defining and classifying emotion and manifesting morality. This, unfortunately, also brings about immorality, such as lying, cheating, stealing, and killing, not out of instinct, but out of immorality. This gap that exists between our species and most others is the reason why most people believe in a higher purpose. By practicing moral principles, we strengthen our survival by not lying and cheating each other, or killing each other as a result.

In conclusion, the opposition to homosexual marriage, abortion, and complete social equality is not religous tyranny by "Jesus Freaks", and bigotry. It is the natural drive to ensure survival. Religion, sprituality, and heterosexual marriage are all instinctual tools that, I believe are bestowed upon us from a higher, or divine source to help us not only ensure the survival our species, but ensure the prosperity of our species as well. This is another example of why the United States of America is the greatest nation in history, because it is one nation, under God, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. etc. etc.

[Sage the Mage]

And our forefathers were the biggest "Jesus Freaks" of all. Who do you think wrote the Pledge of Allegiance? In God We Trust, God Bless America, and on and on and on.
HOLY CRAP HAHAHA! Erm..ahem. The pledge of allegiance was modified to include the "Under God" phrase during the 1950s under Eisenhower.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

HOLY CRAP HAHAHA! Erm..ahem. The pledge of allegiance was modified to include the "Under God" phrase during the 1950s under Eisenhower.


I wasn't really using it in that context. I was more questioning how you could suggest that our forefathers were totally absent of religous principles. I can start digging up examples if you like.

[Oberon]

Ahh, the liberal mind at work, such a tragedy.

We all know the meaning of desecration. Desecration does not only involve the modification of the flag, but the thought behind the modification of the flag. So let me rephrase it, so that even the most insane liberal mind can understand. If a person proclaims himself as an enemy of the United States, and illustrates this proclamation by desecrating Her flag. Then that person should be arrested for sedition, and suffer the fate that all proven traitors of this country do.

Speaking of meaning, you seem to be confusing the meaning behind burning the flag. Americans who burn the flag do so not out of hatred of the United States, but rather out of hatred of our government's actions. It is a form of protest which is why courts have considered it a form of protected speach. If your government is doing something you feel is unAmerican it is your duty to protest. I personally would not burn the flag but I see it for what it is and don't form a kneejerk opinion such as you.

And our forefathers were the biggest "Jesus Freaks" of all. Who do you think wrote the Pledge of Allegiance? In God We Trust, God Bless America, and on and on and on.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy and it did not mention God until Congress altered it in 1954. "In God We Trust" was first added to our coins until the 1860's and dollar bills until the 1950's. "God Bless America" was written by Irving Berlin, a Russian, in 1918. You've really got to watch those kneejerk reactions because you're making a fool of yourself.

Why must a person that believes in God be coined as a "Jesus Freak". This mentality of liberalism is eroding. It will be all but gone in 20 or so years. The reason why this country has so many "Jesus Freaks" in it, is because it was founded on spiritual principles. This is why this country is the greatest nation in history. It is what separates it from all others. Believe me, our forefathers would have been sick with the thought of this liberal mentality, not with the principles on which they found this great nation.

The term "Jesus Freak" doesn't apply to every person who believes in God. Most theists aren't Christians. Even those who are, only the born-againers who wish to impose their views on others are labeled as such. Many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians.

I'm curious, when you say the United States is the greatest nation in history, what measuring stick are you using? What makes the U.S. better than Canada, Australia, England, Russia, France, Italy, China, Japan, etc?

But lets just forget about religion and spirituality for a moment shall we. Let us refer to nature itself. When the opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage arrives, it is quickly written off by liberals as being the voice of "Jesus Freaks" who want to impose their religous tyranny about. Truly, this is not the case. This may be the way it is communicated, but is not actually why. And it is not communicated as harshly as liberals would suggest. I just wish that I could teleport you all to the time of true religious tyranny by that of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe long ago. Then you would see the difference, and your heads would promptly be lifted from the sands of ignorance, if they weren't chopped off first. With these issues, religious principles are not the beginning, yet only a result.

The reason liberals fight the Chistian fundamentalists so hard is we know our history and the slippery slope that leads from discrimination to persecution to genocide. History shows us that slope can tilt very quickly. We can't afford to wait until you're chopping our heads off before we start complaining.

The most important thing to any species on this planet is survival. The single most important component in survival is reproduction. Now, humans are different from most other species' because we make decisions based on reasoning, not just instinct. Humans not only feel emotion, we define and classify emotion. Also, like all other species' we adapt to survive, and instinctually find ways to better help our cause. Marriage, of the heterosexual kind, is one of these ways we strengthen our survival. We feel attraction and define it as love. Then we marry and have children, which strengthens the bond and ensures more children, which in turn strengthens and continues our survival. Humans, as with other species' also tend to rid itself of things that would hurt it's chances of survival....instinctually. Homosexual marriage, in the big picture, hurts our chance of survival. Now, let me just strongly note that I did not state homosexuality itself weakens our chance of survival, just homosexual marriage. This is why everyone witnessed homosexual marriage banned in 11 states, the only 11 states that had it on the ballot. It was not only banned, but was banned convincingly. This is because creating and supporting the idea of homosexual marriage would hurt our chance for survival, in the long run. We all know that ideas that are created and supported by humans tend to evolve. Over a period of time, if homosexual marriage were permitted, then more and more homosexuals would adopt more and more children. As more children are adopted into homosexual households, more and more children would tend to become homosexual. At worst, heterosexuality would vanish and only homosexuals would be left, with only cloning, artificial insamination, etc.. as a means of reproduction. And over a period of more time, because I know all of you liberals cannot deny you believe in evolution, the ability for a woman to reproduce would vanish...thus the extinction of humans would ensue. Also, the rise of all out abortion would also negatively effect our chances of survival..which is self explanatory. You see, the opposition to these things does not really arise from the "Jesus Freak" mentality. This is only the way it is defined, reasoned, and communicated. The opposition to these things arises truly from instinct itself as a means to ensure survival of the human species.

Dude you're talking out of your *** here. This may come as a shock to you but homosexuals are born to heterosexual parents. Homosexual couples adopt and raise heterosexual children. Fundamentalists don't hate *** marriage because they're worried about mankind's survival. They hate it because they hate us.

[Pake]

What makes you say it's a hoax? Do you have conflicting data to cite?



Yes I am. In fact I live 150 miles East-Northeast of you.

p.s. - Rusty Wallace sucks.
Oh you ***** you... Let me think... grr... only Abbs and Lucky come to mind since that's the Virginia area... but neither of them are Liberals I do believe... that, and Lucky doesn't play WoW and Abbs always uses his normal name...

Here would be the more realistic score anyways: http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQschools.htm

Read the very bottom for reasons behind low test scores.

[Oberon]

Oh you ***** you... Let me think... grr... only Abbs and Lucky come to mind since that's the Virginia area... but neither of them are Liberals I do believe... that, and Lucky doesn't play WoW and Abbs always uses his normal name...

Huh? You don't know me Lopinboy.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

So, it's okay to burn the greatest symbol of this country because of it's government, as if it represents just what our current government does---which only you disagree with.

In God We Trust, God Bless America, and Under God were things that have been adopted by this country and it's government--except for God Bless America. I didn't mean to imply that Thomas Jefferson or George Washington actually wrote them, but they have been adopted by our government into our society and economy.

The fact is, you are actually making a fool of yourself by implying that our forefathers were absent of any religous principles while building the foundation of this country, and just for you, I'm going to post many examples of this.

[Oberon]

So, it's okay to burn the greatest symbol of this country because of it's government, as if it represents just what our current government does---which only you disagree with.

Different people obviously have different opinions as to what burning the flag means. To suggest murdering someone over that difference is to damage what that flag represents far moreso than actually burning the flag. America is, or should be, about the freedom to voice your opinions - especially unpopular opinions. As Abbie Hoffman once noted: "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists."

In God We Trust, God Bless America, and Under God were things that have been adopted by this country and it's government--except for God Bless America. I didn't mean to imply that Thomas Jefferson or George Washington actually wrote them, but they have been adopted by our government into our society and economy.

That's not what you said. You said "And our forefathers were the biggest "Jesus Freaks" of all. Who do you think wrote the Pledge of Allegiance? In God We Trust, God Bless America, and on and on and on."

Care to flip-flop again?

The fact is, you are actually making a fool of yourself by implying that our forefathers were absent of any religous principles while building the foundation of this country, and just for you, I'm going to post many examples of this.

I never said they were atheists. I did specifically state many were deists. If you're ignorant of what that term means I suggest you look it up. While you're at it you might also want to read Age of Reason.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Washington's Farewell Address
Washington's Farewell Address is one of the most important documents in American history because the recommendations made in it by the first president, particularly in the field of foreign affairs, have exerted a strong and continuing influence on American statesmen and politicians. The Farewell Address, in which Washington informed the American people that he would not seek a third term and offered advice on the country's future policies, was published in David Claypoole's Philadelphia American Daily Advertiser on Sept. 19, 1796, and was immediately reprinted in newspapers and as a pamphlet throughout the United States. The Address was drafted in July 1796 by Alexander Hamilton (Washington also had at his disposal an earlier draft by James Madison) and was revised for publication by the president himself.

The "religion section" of the Farewell Address was for many years as familiar to the American people as Washington's warning that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with foreign nations. The first president advised his fellow citizens that "Religion and morality" were the "great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens." "National morality," he added, could not exist "in exclusion of religious principle." "Virtue or morality," he concluded, as the products of religion, were "a necessary spring of popular government."
Library of Congress

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion -- Washington was an Episcopal vestryman and Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address (September 1796) Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support. During his two administrations (1801-1809), Jefferson was a "most regular attendant" at church services in the House of Representatives at which, surviving records show, evangelical Christianity was forcefully preached. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who road on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Jefferson permitted church services to be conducted by various denominations in government buildings, such as the Treasury and the War Department. During his administration, the Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers. It is, in fact, accurate to say that on Sundays in Washington during the Jefferson and Madison administrations the state became the church.

Recently, scholars have contended that Jefferson adopted a more positive view of Christianity in the 1790s as a result of reading Joseph Priestly's arguments that many of the miraculous features of Christianity to which Jefferson objected were not authentic, having been added at a later time by a self-interested priesthood. Whatever the reason, after becoming president in 1801, Jefferson began making statements about the social value of Christianity.
Library of Congress


I'm not afraid to admit a mistake. I didn't word that right, and I admit it. But they were still adopted by our culture and government---which is the most important point of all.

[Oberon]

It must burn Christian fundamentalists to no end the fact that Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. I have no problem with a politician attending church or professing a belief in God. I do have a problem with born againers who want to force their beliefs on the rest of the population. It is one thing to proclaim a belief in God. It's another thing to proclaim those who don't believe in your version of God should be punished or descriminated against. Christian fundamentalists come across as arrogant in their belief that only they are right and their version of morality is the only version.

[Pake]

Huh? You don't know me Lopinboy.
Then how exactly do you know me?

It must burn Christian fundamentalists to no end the fact that Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. I have no problem with a politician attending church or professing a belief in God. I do have a problem with born againers who want to force their beliefs on the rest of the population. It is one thing to proclaim a belief in God. It's another thing to proclaim those who don't believe in your version of God should be punished or descriminated against. Christian fundamentalists come across as arrogant in their belief that only they are right and their version of morality is the only version.
LOL, I love how we agree on that, yet were on different sides of the political spectrum.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

It must burn Christian fundamentalists to no end the fact that Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. I have no problem with a politician attending church or professing a belief in God. I do have a problem with born againers who want to force their beliefs on the rest of the population. It is one thing to proclaim a belief in God. It's another thing to proclaim those who don't believe in your version of God should be punished or descriminated against.


That's the point. If you believe in God, no matter how you believe in God, it is impossible not to use it as a guiding tool. President Bush has only said that his spritual beliefs guide him while governing. He said that they are very personal to him, and he would never seek to impose those beliefs on anyone. He has also said that one of the lasting, great principles in this country is that we have the freedom to worship, or not worship any religion that we choose. He has repeatedly made these statements, but is repeatedly accused of being a "Jesus Freak" that wants to impose a Christian theocracy. It's just not true.

As far as various organizations of spirituality that condemn others that do not practice as they do, then I fully condemn these organizations. I worked at Second Baptist in Houston, which is a mega-church that took up two city blocks. This was a Hitler type propaganda machine. The preacher, Ed Young, was seen almost as a divine figure. Monitors were placed througout the compound that constantly showed him preaching. He also walked around with bodyguards, and denounced homosexuality.
I was eventually fired for voicing opinions against the church, and was escorted off of the property and told that I could never return.
If this is the kind of thing you are talking about, then I absolutely agree. And if organizations such as this support President Bush, then that's just the way it is. But, the organizations that support the president do not define him. If you want to make that argument, then there are quite a few questionable organizations that support liberalism. I know the difference between the two. Just because I am compassionately pro-life, against embryonic stem cell research, and opposed to *** marriage, does not mean that I am a fascist. I have stated my reasons, in part, for opposing these things, and it has little to do with any type of religion. In fact, I don't practice any religion, I am guided by spirituality---there is a big difference.
By immediately painting President Bush as zealous fanatic just because he believes in a higher purpose as defined by Christianity, is the same thing you're arguing against. He has never stated any of the things that would define a Christian fanatic, or "Jesus Freak". Also, he has never stated that he is opposed to the things mentioned above, because of religous belief. He has given reasons for opposing these things, and I agree, it is in our country's best interest to oppose them, as do millions of others.

Washington and Adams didn't only proclaim a belief in God, they said it is good for society, and should be considered when governing. He said it is the "springboard for popular government". What are you missing here?

[Oberon]

Then how exactly do you know me?

:wave: I don't know you.

The funny thing is that you think I'm scared of terrorist, but I'm not, because Bush is the president. The terrorist are not winning this war, because they have not taken away a single freedom that you'll ever notice. You need to get a damn brain and figure out that these small changes in the law won't affect you in 1 single god damn way. You just wanna whine about it because some dumbass democrat isn't in office. You're the type of person that sees Bowling for Columbine is a documentary. Also, I could care less what my friends are doing and I never said anything on the subject other than that I could care less what they think I'm doing. If they're performing something that endangers others, they deserve to go to jail, friend or not.

So why even try to argue with me when you can only come up with nonsense?

Wah, cry use a river about Bush. As history shows, Republicans are the most willing to represent the people and help others.
Also, its funny how anyone to you who supports Bush is a "troll". Sorry, but you're a troll for whining so much about him.

[Pake]

:wave: I don't know you.
Ah... has to do with DSLR. That was my second guess, but wasn't expecting the ppl I debate with over there to be into WoW.



Anyways, unfortunately we can not get rid of religion, nor remove it from out government. Yet at the same time, we can't restrict it without people crying about the First Amendment, so we're screwed either way. So for ppl like us, the only part of politics we should concern outselves with is economics and military affairs, until one of us runs for office.

[ScytheNoire]

OKAY, i'm going to say something nice about Bush, so don't any one die of a heart attack.

why i love Bush? because, he's great for the Canadian dollar!
our exchange rate as of yesterday was 1.198. now, if you consider back four years ago it was pushing 1.7 (damn Clinton and his strong economy), this is just awesome for us here in Canada. this means that by the end of next year, if not sooner, the Canadian dollar will be worth MORE than the American dollar. this is just awesome.

so here's to Bush and his destruction of the American economy! keep it up, we're loving it here in Canada!

[Khal'jur]

I want to move to Canada...

[Khal'jur]

Those soldiers are there b/c at least some people in your government realize the importance of the war on terrorism.

HAHAHA...had to laugh...war on...terrorism....ahaha...

[Xaf]

OKAY, i'm going to say something nice about Bush, so don't any one die of a heart attack.

why i love Bush? because, he's great for the Canadian dollar!
our exchange rate as of yesterday was 1.198. now, if you consider back four years ago it was pushing 1.7 (damn Clinton and his strong economy), this is just awesome for us here in Canada. this means that by the end of next year, if not sooner, the Canadian dollar will be worth MORE than the American dollar. this is just awesome.

so here's to Bush and his destruction of the American economy! keep it up, we're loving it here in Canada!
Damn that is sweet, my grandma just gave me 1000 bucks canadian. Now it wont be worth like 50 american cents.

[Hydro]

Damn that is sweet, my grandma just gave me 1000 bucks canadian. Now it wont be worth like 50 american cents.

No it will translate into 290348120948 American dollars soon, which will buy you a candy bar and a burger.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

OKAY, i'm going to say something nice about Bush, so don't any one die of a heart attack.

why i love Bush? because, he's great for the Canadian dollar!
our exchange rate as of yesterday was 1.198. now, if you consider back four years ago it was pushing 1.7 (damn Clinton and his strong economy), this is just awesome for us here in Canada. this means that by the end of next year, if not sooner, the Canadian dollar will be worth MORE than the American dollar. this is just awesome.

so here's to Bush and his destruction of the American economy! keep it up, we're loving it here in Canada!

People can look at our economy, and know it's not the best, but it's getting better. And the Clinton economy went to sh$t in the form of a recession when he left office. Also, I don't believe the World Trade Center was destroyed during his administration, in which 1 million jobs were lost to that fact alone. I don't believe that his administration endured the worst attack on our homeland...ever. I don't think that we were at war, or had to take extreme measures in our security during his presidency. All I remember about Clinton and foreign policy is that he circle jerked with Arafat, and his Secretary of State Albright was hooked up with North Korea, praising their dictator. Or that whole Bosnia screwup, or that Rwanda situation. Heh, it was just peachy during his term.

I don't know who said it in another thread, something about President Clinton creating national healthcare. Well, this just isn't true. It was actually his wife that came up with that bright idea, and of course, it failed miserably as Socialism and it's cousing Communism always tend to do.

We are gaining jobs, unemployment is going down, home ownership is going up, taxes are low, 3.7 GNP (better than any other nation)...you can't look at this economy and keep saying that it's miserable. That's why you liberals always lose, because you think people are stupid and can't look for themselves. The also have enough common sense to know that something like the destruction of the World Trade Center via terrorism hurts your economy, so it's not going to be good after something like that...how is that hard to understand??

You're not going to ever convince the majority that an economy under Socialism and big government is better than that of an economy under Capitalism and fiscal conservatism. You're not going to convince the majority of that, not only because of the numbers, but because of the way it affects people's lives. This is not France, Canada, Germany, or.....Sweden. When are you going to understand that fact. Unlike other countries, most of the people here, except for the ones who are already socially imprisoned, don't believe that by putting in a hard day's work, they are just slaves to the corporate empire. They feel good about it, because they are earning it. Instead, they would feel like slaves if their income was taken and given to the lazy, stupid, and physically inferior. They don't want government into every detail in their lives. In a nutshell, this is not a Socialist economy, nor will it ever be because Socialism is a failed concept.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Well that's a very long rant, but none of it changes the fact that Bush is currently enacting policies to reduce the value of the dollar. Usually people do it to lower debt (though it's rather a short sighted solution).

Bush is a fiscal conservative? Explain how a massive deficit is in any ways related to fiscal conservativism.

And you can't just get out of it by calling me a communist because I am an economic conservative and there is no way Bush qualifies as one.


Other than the war on terrorism/Iraq, Homeland Security, and economic aid due to 9/11, I believe that spending has only increased 1%. I can substantiate that if you give me a little time.
Otherwise, tax cuts?? Am I wrong?

Let's just imagine 9/11 never happened. Now you tell me that his plan wasn't fiscally conservative, and I would have to say you're incorrect.

And I haven't called anyone a Communist, I have just said that certain people support Socialist/Communist ideas, and they do. What's the big deal..can you disprove that in any instance I have stated that?

You cannot claim that the deficit is not due, at least in part, to the war and the greatest attack on our homeland EVER...not to mention it was the World Trade Center.

Cut taxes+low spending=fiscal conservatism=economic growth

President Bush just didn't have the luxury of the absence of disaster and war.

[Khal'jur]

President Bush just didn't have the luxury of the absence of disaster and war.

Right.

"I am a war president."

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Fiscal responsibility means including those things in your final count and making adjustments.

Well regardless he still won't veto spending bills. Most of the exceptions you used are pork laden and could be done for less if Bush actually cared. Not to mention the giant medicare plan.

Well that equation is close. The problem is that it actually is:
Cut taxes +low spending+ balanced budget=fiscal conservatism.
As Bush hasn't cut spending (or used his veto on a spending bill) or balanced the budget, he's not fiscally conservative.
Being responsible means making tough choices. Instead Bush has passed giant medicare plans, and allowed spending to go through the roof. He hasn't made any tough choices, all he has done is passed a huge debt onto us and our children.

Cutting my taxes now doesn't mean anything if they're going to have to be raised even higher in future years to pay off this debt.


Geez, give the president some credit. I realize it's difficult to defend the economy under President Bush, and I have always contended that he isn't the most conservative politician there ever was. But we couldn't have foreseen that disaster....or what actual effect if would have on our economy. No one did, and why would you? We had never been attacked like that on our continental homeland, much less our greatest city.
Picture this:
World Trade Center is destroyed, and we do virtually nothing except beef up some security...including the borders being virtually wide open.
What if there would have been 3 or 4 more of those attacks? Can you grasp what that would do to the economy? Stock Market closed, Airlines closed, Workplaces closed....similar to what happened immediately after 9/11. Picture that, and not only at one time, but over a period of time. Our economy would crash.
I truly believe that what this administration is doing to avert terrorism is the right way to go. It contributed to a deficit, but now that we have things under control (have not been attacked since), the economy is recovering, and will get better...I would bet on it. Only time will tell. We have to have an economy to better one.
It hasn't been a perfect job, but I think the situation has been handled well, and certainly not disastrously.

[twisted_jackal]

I don't blame him for the disaster. I blame him for not using his veto on a single spending bill in four years. I blame him for cutting taxes 4 times the amount that Paul O'Neil and Greenspan said he needed. He did this during both a defict and a war. Whatever gains we make in the economy won't even come close to paying back what Bush's later tax cuts took away.

I don't think he's done a horrible job on the homeland security aspect of it, though I wish he hadn't streched are army and resources paper thin by invading Saddam at the particular time he did it. That also cost money we didn't have and was by no reasoning part of the war on terror.

If we were continuing the war on terror we would've gone after Iran. They have their own state funded terrorist group and they share the same goals as Al Qaeda; the creation of a giant fundamentalist Caliphite in the Middle East. Saddam was an obsticle in the vision of both Al Qaeda and Iran (also being a sworn enemy of Iran.) He was a dictator who felt that the fundamentalists wanted an end to his power and he spent much of his time fighting them (it fit in nicely with butchering his own citizens and spending food money building palaces. He was a busy guy.)

The only thing Saddam did against us recenty was he tried to kill our President's father during the Clinton administration.


Saddam openly supoported terrorist organizations by giving the families of suicide bomber thousands of dollars and hosting Al Qaida thug Zarqawi (sp?) in his country

[Sage the Mage]

Yeah yeah, the supporters of the war are almost always going to say, "You don't like the war, but you think Saddam is evil right?" An attempt to make a war based on a percieved security threat about something else.


Anywho, VA now has a 1 billion dollar surplus, and all we had to do was raise taxes slightly. Now we have money for things like...roads.

[Khal'jur]

Yeah yeah, the supporters of the war are almost always going to say, "You don't like the war, but you think Saddam is evil right?" An attempt to make a war based on a percieved security threat about something else.


Anywho, VA now has a 1 billion dollar surplus, and all we had to do was raise taxes slightly. Now we have money for things like...roads.

Also crap like this, "Wait, you aren't for the war in Iraq? You unpatriotic jerk, looks like you don't support our troops, but you may even support theirs!!"

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I don't blame him for the disaster. I blame him for not using his veto on a single spending bill in four years. I blame him for cutting taxes 4 times the amount that Paul O'Neil and Greenspan said he needed. He did this during both a defict and a war. Whatever gains we make in the economy won't even come close to paying back what Bush's later tax cuts took away.

I don't think he's done a horrible job on the homeland security aspect of it, though I wish he hadn't streched are army and resources paper thin by invading Saddam at the particular time he did it. That also cost money we didn't have and was by no reasoning part of the war on terror.

If we were continuing the war on terror we would've gone after Iran. They have their own state funded terrorist group and they share the same goals as Al Qaeda; the creation of a giant fundamentalist Caliphite in the Middle East. Saddam was an obsticle in the vision of both Al Qaeda and Iran (also being a sworn enemy of Iran.) He was a dictator who felt that the fundamentalists wanted an end to his power and he spent much of his time fighting them (it fit in nicely with butchering his own citizens and spending food money building palaces. He was a busy guy.)

The only thing Saddam did against us recenty was he tried to kill our President's father during the Clinton administration.

The reason for attacking Iraq was based on intelligence and many other reasons. When Colin Powell made his case to the corrupted UN, he had a book of reasons and evidence compiled. Our intelligence is what we rely on to make these kinds of decisions. If the intelligence is bad, then it's just bad, however, WMD was not the only reason for going into Iraq.
After 9/11, we were considering all threats to our security, and Saddam was one of those considerations. Our intelligence told us that he did have WMD, and with that among manyh other reasons, we invaded Iraq. He was given ample time to remove himself as the dictator of that country, but refused. It wasn't only President Bush that decided to invade Iraq, it was Congress as well.
Many politicians that all of a sudden oppose it, and are monday morning quarterbacking, have been quoted, at that time, as saying that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our country, and needed to be removed from power--I tend to agree with that, just as John Kerry and John Edwards did.

One of the other major reasons for invading was to install a democracy in that region. This would be a great defeat for terrorists in the area. Because, they know as well as we do that you defeat idealogy with idealogy. In the end it's going to be democracy and freedom that destroy terrorism, because once the people of these countries get a taste of what freedom is, then they will fight to protect it, and the terrorists organizations will disappear because their children will not be raised to hate our way of life. They will have opportunities that they didn't have before, like the ability to get higher education, and make their own money. They won't be forced to make a decision between living under tyranny, or being a terrorist. You give them an alternative, I guarantee you they will take freedom every time. It is a human being's God given right to live in freedom.This is a lofty goal, but I, among millions, believe it is reachable, but it will take some time.

When we invade Iraq with the intention of establishing democracy, this is maybe the only thing that puts fear into the hearts of terrorists. They may not be afraid to sacrifice their own lives, but the idealogy of hate that they practice, in which all of us here should be destroyed, can be destroyed by democracy, and they know it. By invading Iraq, or any other country in that region, we wanted to draw them into another front, while a front is already established in Afghanistan. This thins their numbers, and we are able to deal with them on our terms and out of the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. I can't understand why people can't see that if we aren't fighting this group in Iraq, then we would have been fighting them in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it would have been much more difficult, because they would not have grouped as they have in a few urban areas throughout Iraq...in other words, we would not have been able to isolate them into certain areas. They would have employed suicide bombing, and short raids...then retreated into the mountains in which they have complex systems of caves. Our commanders chose not to do this, and it was obvious that some, after the fall of the Taliban, were moving out of Afghanistan, and throughout the middle-east. With the threat of Saddam looming, based on intelligence that everyone thought he was a threat, or would be a threat at some point (and I'll tell you why) it made sense to take over Iraq, a major nation in the area, and establish a front to fight the scattering terrorists. Instead of letting them scatter and regroup in the mountains of Afghanistan, we invaded Iraq and let them regroup in urban areas there which is much more to our advantage.

By attacking Iran, we would not only have to fight the remnants from Afghanistan, but you would also have Iraq and Saddam right behind you with hundreds of thousands of pounds of weapons, artillery, and explosions(which were proven to be there)....and it's fairly certain that, maybe, Saddam wouldn't have declared war on us himself, but may have employed some other group to fight us...using his stockpiles. This would not have been a very smart decision. Whether he would have done this or not, why take the risk??

Now we see that Saddam was skimming money from the Oil for Food Program and paying off France, Germany, and Russia in order to have sanctions lifted against his country to begin building his weapons systems even stronger than before. This was suspected before we invaded Iraq, and there is no need to be naive about it. It's yet another reason that we invaded...not only that we thought he had WMD, but even if he didn't, he surely had the intention of creating them when sanctions were lifted, and had plenty of money to do it due to him again screwing his own people by taking money for their food and using it for his own insane agenda... there is plenty of proof for this. If inspectors had been given the time to conclude that there were no WMD, then France, Germany, and Russia would have argued that sanctions be lifted because they were getting paid, and he would have been able to start building his weapons systems again with the rest of money he skimmed from that wonderful UN program. And it's just funny how the head of the IAEA of the UN despises President Bush...hmm wonder why. This is not conspiracy theory, it's all in a report, and it's known that the head of the IAEA hates President Bush, probably because his own agenda isn't being met due to our actions. The UN is such a corrupt agency, I believe we should not take part in it. George Washington warned in his fairwell address not to engage in these types of entangling alliances. But that's another argument for another time. Oh, and Saddam continuously ignored sanctions set down by his buddies at the UN, and constantly got away with it..wonder why. This was reason enough to remove him from power.

1) He was ignoring sanctions
2) He was paying off France, Russia, and Germany in order to have the sanctions lifted so that he could resume building weapons, and he was doing it with money that he was supposed to be feeding his people with---which is yet another breach of sanctions...which automatically warrant his removal.
3) Suspected WMD from intelligence.
4) Brutal dictator that killed 500,000 of his own people
5) **** rooms and torture chambers
6) A threat consideration after 9-11 based on intelligence to not only us, but to Israel as well
7) Establishing another democracy in the region which is the greatest weapon against terrorism.
8) Establishes another front with terrorists that is more manageable for our forces than is Afghanistan, and also thins terrorists numbers over a larger area so that we do not have to fight them all in such an unfriendly terrain in which we would have accrued many more casualties. We took them out of their comfort zone, and drew them into an unfamiliar place which gave us a great advantage in order to advance our strategy.
9)Puts pressure on other nations such as Iran and Syria to abandon terrorists


Anyone who says we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq is dead wrong. There is an insurgent element in the areas that are not under our control, but the resistance there is mostly from terrorists that have regrouped from Afghanistan (and other areas) in Iraq to deter a democracy from being created there. This was exactly one of the reasons we invaded Iraq to start with...to establish another front away from Afghanistan which has enabled THAT country to hold democratic elections due to the terrorist element being thinned because quite a few of them have left Afghanistan and regrouped in Iraq to try and stop elections. This was not a mistake, it's what we wanted to happen. In the end, they will not stop elections in Iraq. We have had full control of the situation to start with, just as we did in Afghanistan, in which elections went on, virtually without any problems. The only reason we haven't dealt with a few choice areas in Iraq, and have CHOSEN not to seal the borders (you know the wrong assertion that we don't have enough troops there, by people other than our commanders, that know nothing of the strategy going on there, and have not even close to the knowledge of these commanders)....the reason we have CHOSEN not to seal the borders of Iraq is to let the terrorists cross the border and join the ones that have already been isolated in places like Fallujah and Ramadi. We CHOSE to wait and attack these areas so that we wouldn't have to deal with terrorists straggling in. We CHOSE to wait and attack these areas so that we could take out large amounts of them. Don't ever think that we can't manipulate that country at our will, and if we wanted control of these areas to begin with, we would have taken it...but we didn't want to. Now that elections are nearing, everyone is witnessing the pure power and might of our military. We have taken Fallujah with relative ease against this rag-tag army of terrorists of who many people (and you know who you are) thought that this was actually a formidable force that could actually go toe to toe with the greatest military force on this planet. Elections have been held in Afghanistan with virtually no problems--because of this magnficent strategy that has been carried out, and elections will go on in Iraq with virtually no problems because we are now rooting out the last of their resistance in Iraq as we speak...and we did it at our will, and on our time. If we wouldn't have done this at our will, and at our time, then we wouldn't have set a date for elections in January and our commanders and President Bush wouldn't have constantly stated that there WILL be elections there on time, guaranteed.

This is what the military calls "strategy". Isolate, let them grow, then take them all out at once. I can't understand why people actually could even suggest that these animals are any contest against our military---well, yes I could, but I don't want to get into that discussion.
But, you'll see come January when elections are held in Iraq with no problems as they were in Afghanistan. This will be a huge blow to terrorism, because, not only will there be 2 democratic nations in that region.......we took out huge numbers of them while these democracies were being installed.

Just think about it by historical precedent. In the middle-east, of all places, in just 2 years, we have removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from power. We have started breaking the back of the terrorist network in these countries by inflicting large casualty counts on them, killing 75% of their leadership, and freezing their assets. By January, we will have removed 2 dictatorships and replaced them with democracies....and while doing so, we have rooted out most of the terrorist element, their camps, and their leadership...AND all the while training an army and security force for the new democracies. And during the whole campaign, we have lost under 1500 soldiers. If anyone here knows the history of major wars that have taken place, just by history, they would recognize the magnificence of what has taken place.

What do you expect...our military commanders there to explain the full and detailed strategy of their objectives?? One thing they have said constantly is that they know what they are doing, and that we will win decisively. And like I said, when elections take place in Iraq in January, as they did in Afghanistan (with virtually no problems), it will be proven. Anyone who has read about military strategy, and knows what exactly goes into war planning...such as objectives, organization, dispersement and placement,time tables, psychology...they would have known what has been going on here. Do not ever think that any army in this world, much less these rag-tags, could pose a challenge to, relative to it's time, one of the greatest, if not THE greatest military force in the history of the world.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Why didn't we just try to establish a democracy in Afganistan? If we're going to make people free we actually have to follow through with these things. At the moment, despite the most recent elections there it isn't truly a free country. All we did with Iraq was add one more problem.

What invading Iraq did was get more troops against us. Not only do we still have various Afghans and pakistanis fighting us there, but now we have Iraqis fighting us. Al Qaeda doesn't need to waste it's own members attacking us when our invasions and bombings have turned so many of the locals against us.

Saddam it was shown (in the CIA report) wanted to establish closer ties with the US up until the very end. Now we didn't know that then, but we do now. We also know now (from the same report) that he didn't have weapons of mass distruction and he was just acting like to did to appear strong to Iran.
With Iraq we still have to fight the remnents from Afganistan and we now have Iran sitting in the middle causing trouble in both countries. I fail to see how that's better.

Of course. There's reason enough to remove the leaders of dozens of countries. However we have limitations on money and troops. Saddam wasn't worth the cost.

We are fighting terrorists in Iraq. However they weren't there until we got rid of Saddam.

Elections did happen but there are many problems. The government there doesn't have control over most of the country. The local and provincial governments don't have steady elections and are a general mess. The infastructure is destroyed. Warlords still control much of the area. Opiem production has skyrocketed. It is hardly a free stable country.

Hah. What exactly are you basing this on? Look at a map. Iraq has a long border (as it is almost land locked) and there is no way we could control the entire thing and carry out operations in the country. If we could manipulate this country to our will we would have made sure to win before the elections.

I don't care if there are national elections. That isn't what determines a free country. I care about local government and infastructure. Democracy is built from the ground up not imposed from the top down.

We didn't gain any great victory in Fallujah, the only terrorists left in the city were the ones too dumb to leave. We aren't fighting a standard army and just occupying a city is useless. Most the terrorists just went somewhere else.

Because they are humans just like us. They have guns and have the ability to think. The worst thing we can do is underestimate them. It's not like a bunch of people with home made weapons and sandels haven't caused our great army trouble before.

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't know what you're looking at but so far we haven't accomplished anything. If Afganistan and Iraq both evolve into stable free countries and remain that way 20 years from now then yes, we will have done an amazing thing. Right now all that's there is potential.

Well that's very arrogant. I hope you're right but I haven't seen anything really amazing so far. It isn't the first battle against the 2-bit standing armies that will test us. It's when we can't get a government to form that we like and the population hates us and is picking us off one by one. That is when we will be tested. I'm glad you're so confident. Hopefully you're right. However this conflict will eventually be decided by who wins the people not who has the bigger army.

Like I said, it's a lofty goal, and it will take time. I know our fast food culture thinks this effort should be finished in 1 year, but it's not McDonalds..it's not "you're way, right away".

You cannot deny the importance of democratic elections in these countries...this is how it begins. I don't get your argument here...there has to be a government in place to begin paving the way for order, infrastructure, and local government. And remember, Iraq is going to have a formidable army before we leave there---that's going to be a big issue. This is what these people want, I guarantee you. I've watched alot of videotape, and I don't hear the Michael Moore part of it very much...almost none. Virtually none of them say, "Saddam is my hero!! I loved living under Saddam!! I hate freedom!! Bring back my dictator!!!"
That's why this will work, because the people want it.

I'm telling you, if we want to destroy something in this country, we will.

Remember, quite a bit of how this war was run was based on political issues...like the election. We could have taken Fallujah and Ramadi at any time, and you know it. We are doing this on our timetable, and at our will. The assumption that we had no timetable of when to obtain certain objectives is not very credible, especially when it has been constantly stated that the elections will be in January, on time, guaranteed. Our military commanders are very competent, as well as our military.

The reason why not one democracy in Afghanistan? Because 2 democracies in that region are better than just one, and the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. Terrorism doesn't exist in just one country in that region.

Zarqauwe(mispelled I know) is from Afghanistan and was the organizer of the insurgence/terrorist effort in Fallujah.

The Dulfer Report, and the man who wrote it even says this world is better without Saddam. I doubt we would have opened up ties with him.

It's funny how you only hear the bad things in Iraq. What about all of the electricity that has been turned on. What about all the schools and businesses that have been opened. What about all of the men that sign up for the Iraqi army despite being threatened and killed.....despite that even more are there the next day to sign up.

And again, as I've said, only time will tell. 30 years from now, when there are strong democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq..as well as a Palestinian state existing in peace with Israel, President Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents ever.

[Backdoor Bandit]

President Bush will go down as one of the greatest presidents ever.

*pukes on keyboard*

Sure he will.....I dont comprehend how a thinking human being can be of that opinion. You have got to be kididng yourself.