President Bush has saved us all!

[Toz]

Imagine for a moment, if Gore became a president. 9-11 would of still had happened and Gore probally would of done basically the same things as bush(near or on the day). But after that America would have done nothing. Gore would have sent a few cruise missles and called it a day. Al-Queda would still be at max level and would just come up with a greater, more devasting attack. America would have forgotten all about the middle east. Saddam Hussein would still be dictator of Iraq, forever ruling with an iron fist.

Americans have sacrificed a few(500+) for thousands upon thousands. Hussein commited genocide upon HIS OWN PEOPLE. Killing the hundreds of thousands. If this would of happen to a country mostly populated by whites, America would of been outraged. But muslims(middle-easterns) are of lesser stature.

People say that Bush lied to us about WMD's. The liberation of Iraq was not just about that. It was about liberating a country that lived in fear. Americans have the biggest ego. They put their own unemployment aboves the lives of thousands of innocent people. When you are poor in America, you are still fat. But when you are poor in Iraq, you die of starvation. Please put your petty egos behind yourself.

You don't understand what Bush is doing. He is FREEING a country. A year ago, in Iraq, if people protested about their country, they were raped,murdered,killed and your family was killed. You would have to see your wife and children raped. Now if you protest, you are listened to and changes will be made.

Damn democracy is a great thing!

[Scipio]

If you think Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and destroyed Al Qaeda, you're wrong. Completely, 100% wrong.

If you think democracy is guaranteed (or even likely) in Iraq in the next 5 years, you're probalby wrong.

The Clinton administration was prepared to declare war on terrorism in the months before it left office, but they decided not to start a war so soon before a change of leadership.

The Bush administration ignored Al Qaeda until 9/11, though they say that initial discussions on counterterrorism were taking place in early September.

Therefore, one might think that an Al Gore administration could have prevented 9/11. I sure do. I don't promise that it WOULD have, but when you don't spend any time fighting terrorism (like Bush), your chances don't look so good by comparison.

Oh, and freeing Iraq has done nothing to "save" us from anything.

I'm basically in favor of the war in Iraq, but I think that in retrospect that it was unnecessary, poorly planned, and has accomplished few of the initial goals.

What about the long term? I want a stable government in the long term, but I don't want our troops tied up over there long term. They need to be back in Georgia and Texas waiting to spring upon whoever pops up to challenge us next, not camped out nation building in Iraq.

[nanofever]

Originally posted by Toz
Imagine for a moment, if Gore became a president. 9-11 would of still had happened and Gore probally would of done basically the same things as bush(near or on the day). But after that America would have done nothing. Gore would have sent a few cruise missles and called it a day. Al-Queda would still be at max level and would just come up with a greater, more devasting attack. America would have forgotten all about the middle east. Saddam Hussein would still be dictator of Iraq, forever ruling with an iron fist.

Americans have sacrificed a few(500+) for thousands upon thousands. Hussein commited genocide upon HIS OWN PEOPLE. Killing the hundreds of thousands. If this would of happen to a country mostly populated by whites, America would of been outraged. But muslims(middle-easterns) are of lesser stature.

People say that Bush lied to us about WMD's. The liberation of Iraq was not just about that. It was about liberating a country that lived in fear. Americans have the biggest ego. They put their own unemployment aboves the lives of thousands of innocent people. When you are poor in America, you are still fat. But when you are poor in Iraq, you die of starvation. Please put your petty egos behind yourself.

You don't understand what Bush is doing. He is FREEING a country. A year ago, in Iraq, if people protested about their country, they were raped,murdered,killed and your family was killed. You would have to see your wife and children raped. Now if you protest, you are listened to and changes will be made.

Damn democracy is a great thing!

1. You can't say what would have happened under Gore, that is pure speculation without a logical basis.

2. Shrub pissed-off a good 4/5ths of the world by attacking Iraq without UN approval. Can you say massive drop in international political capital ?

3. I call bullshit on the WMD comment, the invasion of Iraq was 100% about WMD untill we learned that Iraq had none. Then shrub, rummy and colon decided to shift the focus to humanitarian aid - bullshit I say.

4. Bush isn't liberating a country, he is creating a massive, sucking power vaccum where Saddam use to be. Iraq is going to have to toe an amazingly straight-line to keep from becoming an annexation of Turkey/Iran/Saudi or an independent Islamic theocracy.

5. What gives the US the right to invade another country without a pretext ?

6. Why did we invade Iraq when N.K, Rwanda and China all have humanitarian problems ?

[Lebell]

Just a note,

Calling the president "Shrub" as well as other name calling really detracts from your arguments, as much as me calling H. Clinton "Hitlery" might.

It is a practice that I strongly discourage on both the left and the right, as it adds nothing to the conversation.

Carry on.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Scipio

The Clinton administration was prepared to declare war on terrorism in the months before it left office, but they decided not to start a war so soon before a change of leadership.

I keep hearing this spin now, but at the time of 9/11 most of the ex-Clinton/Gore people were saying quite the opposite. Dick Morris still says terrorism was job 102 for Bill.

If Clinton did have a plan like this, my guess is he waited until it was 'to late' for him so he could give the problem to the next guy. It would be fairly typical of Bill to pass the buck. No risk to his already shakey legacy.

Ohhhhh Clinton is going to go fight terrorists, after cutting the military budget, handcuffing the CIA with moronic regs, and giving us the humiliation of Somalia, but just you wait, we WAS going to get them, its all Bush's fault! Yea right.

If he wouldn't take Osama when offered because we didn't have 'legal' reason to hold him, what the hell was he going to do? Ask them to confess? Hope they play nice? Go blow up some empty tents?

[Superbelt]

Clinton was criticised by republicans in congress incessantly for the money he was diverting towards anti-terrorism efforts. Don't say it was job 102 to him. He was perceived and portrayed as a terrorism whacko by congress.

Bill made the plan in direct respons to the USS Cole bombing.

Again, please pick up the book "Against All Enemies : Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened " By Richard Clarke, Clintons counter-terrorism czar. Bush liked him so much he used him for Cyberspace security.

I agree completely with what both Scipio and nanofever said.

and to:

People say that Bush lied to us about WMD's. The liberation of Iraq was not just about that. It was about liberating a country that lived in fear. Americans have the biggest ego. They put their own unemployment aboves the lives of thousands of innocent people. When you are poor in America, you are still fat. But when you are poor in Iraq, you die of starvation. Please put your petty egos behind yourself.

Bush doesn't CARE about people, he doesn't care about international human rights. Liberating the Iraqis and stopping the torture and murders DID NOT FACTOR into why we went into Iraq.

I have proven that with the way we are acting with Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.
(Do a search on it on this site, you will find plent of information)

And for an update on that sorry nation....

http://www.uzland.uz/2004/february/14/09.htm

"The elderly mother of a religious prisoner allegedly boiled to death by Uzbekistan's secret police has been sentenced to six years in a maximum security jail after she made public her son's torture.

Fatima Mukhadirova, 63, a former market vegetable seller, is the mother of Muzafar Avazov, who died in the notorious Jaslik high security jail in 2002. She was convicted of attempting to "overthrow the constitutional order".

An Uzbek judge yesterday said she had "set up an underground cell of women propagating the ideas of [banned Islamic fundamentalist group] Hizbut Tahrir". The secret police had found "incriminating" pamphlets in her flat, a common occurrence in arrests of group members.

The British ambassador to Tashkent, Craig Murray, last night told the Guardian: "This is appalling. She took photographs of her son's corpse which she gave to the British embassy. The Foreign Office sent them to the University of Glasgow pathology department. Their forensic report said the body had clearly been immersed [in boiling water] because of the tide marks around the upper torso." He said that Ms Mukhadirova's continuing campaign seemed to explain why she had been targeted by the authorities. She now had a sentence of hard labour. "The chances of her surviving that are very limited," he said.

Uzbek prison authorities maintain that Mr Avazov died after inmates spilled hot tea on him. But the forensic report said that his teeth had been smashed and his fingernails torn out. His body was covered in burns.

Mirzakayum Avazov, Ms Mukhadirova's youngest son, said: "My mother was simply trying to defend her sons and looked for justice. She only wanted those guilty of Muzafar's death to be punished."

Britains ambassador to Uzbek gave a speech criticizing the Uzbek govt over its human rights record.
He was recalled by Britain after the Uzbeks and members of the US government put pressure on Britain to shut him up because the brutal Uzbeks and our administration didn't like what he was saying

So, DON'T. EVER, think you can give Bush the moral high ground and project a bleeding heart for human rights onto his sorry frame.

[tecoyah]

Originally posted by Toz
Imagine for a moment, if Gore became a president. 9-11 would of still had happened and Gore probally would of done basically the same things as bush(near or on the day). But after that America would have done nothing. Gore would have sent a few cruise missles and called it a day. Al-Queda would still be at max level and would just come up with a greater, more devasting attack. America would have forgotten all about the middle east. Saddam Hussein would still be dictator of Iraq, forever ruling with an iron fist.

Americans have sacrificed a few(500+) for thousands upon thousands. Hussein commited genocide upon HIS OWN PEOPLE. Killing the hundreds of thousands. If this would of happen to a country mostly populated by whites, America would of been outraged. But muslims(middle-easterns) are of lesser stature.

People say that Bush lied to us about WMD's. The liberation of Iraq was not just about that. It was about liberating a country that lived in fear. Americans have the biggest ego. They put their own unemployment aboves the lives of thousands of innocent people. When you are poor in America, you are still fat. But when you are poor in Iraq, you die of starvation. Please put your petty egos behind yourself.

You don't understand what Bush is doing. He is FREEING a country. A year ago, in Iraq, if people protested about their country, they were raped,murdered,killed and your family was killed. You would have to see your wife and children raped. Now if you protest, you are listened to and changes will be made.

Damn democracy is a great thing!

Tell that to the Sudanese,liberians, or just about any of the non-white, non-oil, African countries who have been starving for far longer than the Iraqis. And dying in far greater numbers, under far greater tyranny. Shrub cant even pronounce the names of the countries, because he has no interest in them, and therefor you dont either, Please dont question the ethics of an entire poulation, simply because you follow the party line.

[silent_jay]

Is George Bush the only person in America who could of figured out that Osama was in Afghanistan and started bombing it, I'm fairly sure Al Gore coulf of done that.

If you figure Iraq is a democracy now do you feel the same way about Afghanistan is it a democracy? Is "FREEING" a country the same as occupying it because that is what he is doing. So now the main focus of the war was "liberation" not WMD, then why were WMD mentioned in every single speech, commercial, or anything else put out by this party.

And what happened to the number one suspect the most wanted man in the world Osama, still hanging out in Tora Bora probably. Bush realizes that Saddam is more than likely the only one he will catch and that is why Osama has fallen off the political world.

peace

[Ustwo]

Why Clinton Slept E-mail this column to a friend!



by Dick Morris

Last month, President Bush shut down three U.S.-based "charities" accused of funneling money to Hamas, a terrorist organization that last year alone was responsible for at least 20 bombings, two shootings and a mortar attack that killed 77 people. These "charities" - The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation - raised $20 million last year alone.

But the information on which Bush largely relied to act against these charities was taped nine years ago, in 1993. FBI electronic eavesdropping had produced compelling evidence that officials of Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation had met to discuss raising funds for Hamas training schools and establishing annuities for suicide bombers' families - pensions for terrorists.

Why didn't Clinton act to shut these people down?

In 1995 and 1996, he was advised to do just that. At a White House strategy meeting on April 27, 1995 - two weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing - the president was urged to create a "President's List" of extremist/terrorist groups, their members and donors "to warn the public against well-intentioned donations which might foster terrorism." On April 1, 1996, he was again advised to "prohibit fund-raising by terrorists and identify terrorist organizations," specifically mentioning the Hamas.

Inexplicably, Clinton ignored these recommendations. Why? FBI agents have stated that they were prevented from opening either criminal or national-security cases because of a fear that it would be seen as "profiling" Islamic charities. While Clinton was politically correct, the Hamas flourished.

Clinton did seize any bank accounts of the terrorist groups themselves, but his order netted no money since neither al Qaeda nor bin Laden were obliging enough to open accounts in their own names.

Liberals felt that the civil rights of suspected terrorists were more important than cutting off their funds. George Stephanopoulos, the ankle bracelet that kept Clinton on the liberal reservation, explains in his memoir "All Too Human" that he opposed the proposal to "publish the names of suspected terrorists in the newspapers" with a "civil liberties argument" and by pointing out that Attorney General Janet Reno would object.

So five years later - after millions have been given to terrorist groups through U.S. fronts - the government is finally blocking the flow of cash.

Political correctness also doomed a separate recommendation to require that drivers' licenses and visas for noncitizens expire simultaneously so that illegal aliens pulled over in traffic stops could be identified and (if appropriate) deported. Stephanopoulos cited "potential abuse and political harm to the president's Hispanic base," and said that he'd killed the idea by raising "the practical grounds of prohibitive cost."

Had Clinton adopted this recommendation, Mohammed Atta might have been deported after he was stopped for driving without a license three months before be piloted an American Airlines jet into the World Trade Center .

Nothing so illustrates the low priority of terrorism in Clinton's first term than the short shrift he gave the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Six people were killed and 1,042 injured; 750 firefighters worked for one month to contain the damage. But Clinton never visited the site. Several days after the explosion, speaking in New Jersey, he actually "discouraged Americans from overacting" to the Trade Center bombing.

Why this de-emphasis of the threat? In Sunday's New York Times, Stephanopoulis explains that the 1993 attack "wasn't a successful bombing. . . . It wasn't the kind of thing where you walked into a staff meeting and people asked, what are we doing today in the war against terrorism?"

In sharp contrast, U.S. District Court Judge Kevin Duffy, who presided over the WTC-bombing trial, noted that the attack caused "more hospital casualties than any other event in domestic American history other than the Civil War."

But Stephanopoulos was just the hired help. Clinton was the president and commander-in-chief. For all of his willingness to act courageously and decisively - against the advice of his liberal staff - on issues like deficit reduction and welfare reform, he was passive and almost inert on terrorism in his first term.

It wasn't until 1998 that Clinton finally got around to setting up a post of Counter Terrorism Coordinator in the National Security Council.

Everything was more important than fighting terrorism. Political correctness, civil liberties concerns, fear of offending the administration's supporters, Janet Reno's objections, considerations of cost, worries about racial profiling and, in the second term, surviving impeachment, all came before fighting terrorism.

Yea those wacky republicans in congress didn't want to spend the money on counter-terrorism. Uh huh, we KNOW how republicans hate spending money on defense and national security. Give me a break, my washingmachine spins less.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Superbelt So, DON'T. EVER, think you can give Bush the moral high ground and project a bleeding heart for human rights onto his sorry frame.

First off assuming the BBC story about the US trying to force him out is true (ha!) they have no proof and even they only present it as a vague maybe, what is your point? That we have to work with governments which do bad things? Isn't that just what YOU want to do with the U.N.? 2/3rds of those nations are run by dictators of one form or another, yet you want their approval before any action is made? Using this as proof Bush doesn't CARE about people is laughable. What should we do, care, protest, and DO nothing?

The US can only do so much in this world, and we can't save everyone. The US has liberated 50 MILLION people from oppressive regimes in the last 3 years. Thats not to shabby a record. There is a lot of work left to do, if people like you would quit whining and giving our enemies hope that if they keep up resistance just long enough the US will lose its nerve and vote some liberal in which will be all talk and feeling with no action,and allow them free reign again to commit mass murder!

[Superbelt]

Dick Morris is an ass kissing rat who goes where the power is. After Clinton he went to Bush. He will try to get in good with whoever is in power in 2005 as well. And he will be slandering Bush as much as possible as he ever does to Clinton to get there.

You already know my opinion on what a good, moral nation should act regarding brutal dictatorships.
Karimov isn't just any dictator. He is the absolute most abohrent human in control of a nation. He is slime. Remember what your parents said about the friends you keep.

"If I don't quit whining it will give our enemies hope to keep up their resistance to win?" What the hell kind of comment is that? My "whining" is for us to cut the bastard off at the teat today. To start sanctions against him, today. To begin an internation campagin to shut him off from the rest of the world and fund resistance fighters in the nation today. That is the last thing Karimov wants. Karimov wants Bush to stay in power because he is getting an awesome money and protection deal from him.
We. Are. Already. Allowing. This. Guy. Free. Reign. To. Commit. Mass. Murder.

You know I'm right. Just admit it.
Come into the light. It's nicer here and we don't have that stench of hypocracy that keeps you up at night.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by tecoyah
... Shrub...

Sigh...

I understand why some parents just go directly to "yell".

[tecoyah]

Shrub comes from "bushwacked", a book about Mr bushs' tenure as governor of Texas. Very interesting read, almost exactly what he has done to the country as a whole.
I thought it was in common use.....sorry to dissapoint you.

[Sparhawk]

The common disrespect people use toward the man in the Oval Office bothers me as well, but it is in a sense, an inevitable historical legacy, both of Vietnam and Watergate, the omnipresent media - which goes hand in hand with a president's often bubbling attempts at presenting an image, and we come at last to the Clinton and Bush years. So it doesn't surprise me one bit. But do I let folks I know get away with it? No (well, I let my Dad slide), just like I don't let enlisted folks call officers by their first name - Respect the Office, if you can't respect the man.

But it's also politics as usual on an internet forum

[Tophat665]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
The common disrespect people use toward the man in the Oval Office bothers me as well, but it is in a sense, an inevitable historical legacy, both of Vietnam and Watergate, the omnipresent media - which goes hand in hand with a president's often bubbling attempts at presenting an image, and we come at last to the Clinton and Bush years. So it doesn't surprise me one bit. But do I let folks I know get away with it? No (well, I let my Dad slide), just like I don't let enlisted folks call officers by their first name - Respect the Office, if you can't respect the man.

But it's also politics as usual on an internet forum

Sparhawk, when the interloper in the oval office evinces so little respect for that office, how can anyone else be expected to? Bob Dole I could have respected while I disagreed with. Or Malcom Forbes. Or really anyone who made any effort to pretend that they were doing the job. Not the joker SCOTUS dealt us.

I do understand what you are trying to get at: the king's two bodies and all. I just think there's a point at which the king has so spectacularly failed in his public body, that the office is actually vacant. Time was, you could haul him off to the tower and strike his head off for that, but I am against the death penalty.

I'll respect the office when someone holds it again.

[Ustwo]

Bush has done more in his first 3.15 years then any president in my lifetime. You might not agree with anything he does, but your hate only makes you look childish, much like the Shrub comments.

[Superbelt]

I doubt you can quantify "done more" But letting that slide, what he has done has been net negative.

First president since Hoover to oversee a net loss in jobs! That is definetley in his history book summary.

[pan6467]

Yeah Bush gave us this guy I suppose. Why does ANYONE with a conscience and desire to have a better country support this President? Especially, when he fills his cabinet with people like this:

Paige Apologizes for Teachers Union Quip

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

WASHINGTON - Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization" Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year.

Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right to say so.

The education secretary's words were "pathetic and they are not a laughing matter," said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush administration over lack of funding for demands included in the "No Child Left Behind" schools law.

Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark.

"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better," said Paige, the first black education secretary.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, "The NEA is a terrorist organization."

Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents.

Weaver responded, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction."

Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long supported Democratic presidential candidates.

Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah." In a statement released to the media, Paige said he chose the wrong words to describe "the obstructionist scare tactics" of NEA lobbyists.

Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The comment was inappropriate and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized."

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists."

Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more flexibility from the administration on Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law, which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to move their children from poorly performing schools.

Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be changed.

The NEA spends roughly $1 million a year lobbying in Washington. It is also a big political donor, mostly to Democrats.

In the last presidential election cycle, 1999-2000, NEA and its political action committee donated $3.1 million to federal candidates and national party committees, with about $9 of every $10 going to Democrats. At that time, national party committees were allowed to raise union donations, part of the so-called soft money that they are now barred from accepting.

Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet officials.

"He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the president is doing," Holden said.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, "Somebody asked him about the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it."

Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were made in the context of "we can't be supportive of the status quo and they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate — I know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists — but to even suggest that the organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for."

Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation.

But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three groups that are "hard nosed, highly financed and well organized." Asked to name the groups other than the NEA, Paige declined, saying: "I've already got into deep water with that one, haven't I?"

The governors were in Washington for four days of discussions at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association, though the usual effort to build consensus was marked by partisan politics that Democrats said couldn't be avoided.

In brief public comments, Bush told the governors that rising political tensions of an election year won't stop him from working closely with them.

"I fully understand it's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue," Bush said. "But surely we can shuffle that aside sometimes and focus on our people."

___

AP Education Writer Ben Feller and AP Political Writer Ron Fournier contributed to this report.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...achers_union_5

Not good at this link thingy so please forgive me.

[pan6467]

How quick this administration is to throw out who is a terrorist group.

And the right think it's ok to label ANYONE that might disagree with them, yet they get mad if you label them.

They can call names intensify hate but if the LEFT asks legitimate questions the RIGHT persecutes and spews hatred.

Bullies, schoolyard bullies.

Just proves to me that they CANNOT HONESTLY DEBATE the issues without attacking and trying to destroy. Hopefully, the people will elect new people this time around so the destructive politics can get back into some form of control.

[Lebell]

Originally posted by pan6467
How quick this administration is to throw out who is a terrorist group.

And the right think it's ok to label ANYONE that might disagree with them, yet they get mad if you label them.

They can call names intensify hate but if the LEFT asks legitimate questions the RIGHT persecutes and spews hatred.

Bullies, schoolyard bullies.

Just proves to me that they CANNOT HONESTLY DEBATE the issues without attacking and trying to destroy. Hopefully, the people will elect new people this time around so the destructive politics can get back into some form of control.

I *think* this may be posted because of earlier comments I made, so if it's not, my appologies.


Tilted Politics is a place to discuss politics, not to flame, troll or otherwise bait the "other" side.

My experience with using cute nick names for politicians/people (Hitlery, Shrub, Chimp, Klinton, etc.) you don't like is:

1) it doesn't advance the conversation
2) it makes people less likely to listen

Therefore it is discouraged.

Note, I said discouraged, not banned. (If such name calling makes it difficult to maintain ordered discussion here, then staff may reconsider.)


So by all means, feel free to be angry at Bush, Rove, whoever. Post stories, commentaries etc. But please, if you can't add to the conversation in meaningful ways without name calling, then you really need to take a step back.*


*This whole post really can apply to anyone who feels their temper getting the best of them while in "Politics".

[mml]

Sparhawk is right on the money. I did not vote for President Bush, but he is still my president. I think a great deal more could be discussed in campaigns and on sites like this if we remembered to respect the office and talk about the details. I am comfortable saying that I think that Mr. Bush has made some very poor decision on the environment and that I do not believe he is being entirely honest in regards to the invasion of Iraq, but my statements loose their impact if I resort to name calling.

and as far as:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Bush has done more in his first 3.15 years then any president in my lifetime. You might not agree with anything he does, but your hate only makes you look childish, much like the Shrub comments.

Ustwo, how old are you? Even if you think that Bush has acomplished more than Clinton and his father, Reagan did a whole hell of a lot in his eight years. (also, does calling Reagan "The Gipper" count as a slam?)

[Lebell]

Originally posted by mml
(also, does calling Reagan "The Gipper" count as a slam?)

I don't think so

[onetime2]

I see a lot of talk about "respecting the office" yet no talk of just plain old "respect". It really bothers me that people can, so non-challantly and with little to no forethought, throw out comments about people they've never met and know little about.

Calling the President shrub or an idiot is ridiculous. These insults have no place in ANY rational conversation. I guess at some point it became acceptable to personally attack people based on their politics but it will never mean that it's right.

[pan6467]

But it was ok for the Right to call Clinton names and hound him for an affair?

That was respect for the office wasn't it?

In My Opinion, there is nothing wrong with calling an elected official names. It has happened throughout the history of this country and will for the rest of time. It is better for people to vent in that way then than to suppress the ideas and voices of them.

But after we make an ammendment on "WHAT MARRIAGE IS", we'll pass an ammendment forbidding the name-calling of our president..... but only if he is a man of great moral character.

[pan6467]

Lebell,

No that post was just in response to the article posting I did above it.

I am very outraged that ANY politician calls the NEA a "terroristic group" and thinks it's funny. I'm sorry but I find no humor in a cabinet member calling a legitimate group terroristic, in this day and age.

If a Dem. during Clinton, (say Robert Reich) had called the NRA a group of Nazi-istic thugs, do you not think there would have been an outcry for his job within hours?

I just truly get upset over this double standard. The GOP during Clinton could call him anything, and today, Bush's people can say and do whatever they damn well want but someone says something about them, well, then that person is humiliated, thier name savaged and they get treated as if they are unpatriotic treasonists out to destroy the country.

To me, my dad always said if you have to resort to name calling you lose the debate. But today, you almost have to name call because noone debates issues anymore civilly. Noone seems to respect that someone has a different view.

We are all so wrapped up in taking sides that the true issues are being forgotten and when someone does want to talk issues they are treated like imbiciles that have no idea what they are talking about. It's both GOP and the DEMs that are guilty. and it has to stop.

[tecoyah]

I would like, at this point to publicly apologize for using the presidential slander from the above posts. It was never my intent to highjack this thread with the use of a popular Texas nickname for the former governor of that state.
My personal interpretation of the skills, and intellect of Mr. Bush have been cheapened by the use of name calling, and this I regret.
Please continue the debate as to how he has saved us all, and forget the mention of slanderous names.

[gibingus]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Bush has done more in his first 3.15 years then any president in my lifetime. You might not agree with anything he does, but your hate only makes you look childish, much like the Shrub comments.

Bush has certainly done a lot in his first years in office, but that doesn't mean any of it is good for us as common citizens. I contend that he has done more damage to the principles that I belive define what the American democratic experiment stands for.

I believe in an America that tells it's citizens that they can do anything, not in an America that tells them they can't. We should seek more freedom, and not to restrict anyone's choices. I am deeply disturbed by this morning's news of Bush backing an ammendment to ban gay marriage. After centuries of working to undo racism and discrimination in our nation's highest law, that conservatives seek to persecute anyone based on beliefs that do not pose any physical harm to anyone is truly unamerican.

This administration has done more to restrict personal and civil liberties than any other in modern history. They have done it in the name of patriotism, which disgusts me. They have gotten away with it by exploiting our deepest fears, and the only people who have benefited are the corporations that have contributed to the Bush campaign. American taxpayers bought the bombs, and we're footing the entire bill for the reconstruction and we are in more danger now than we have ever been. It infuriates me that Americans (who are so pathetic in their knowledge of world geography that 80% of our school children don't even know that the Tigris is a river, much less where it is) would seek to dictate terms of existence to any culture at gunpoint because we do it better than they do.

The America of 8 years ago was a role model to the world of an open economy and free mindset that was emulated by western nations. today those nations fear us instead of respect us because our foreign policy is that of a bully instead of a champion.

Now before you go slamming me with knee jerk democrat slurs, let me say right up front that I like republicans. I like republicans who stand for small government and do not seek to legislate morality. I like republicans that belive in the concept of the republic and let state governments operate in confederation with the federal government. When you start thinking about what the republican party is supposed to stand for, and then you see what the republican party is really standing for, all you registered repubicans out there should really questioning your party hard. Today's republicans aren't representing the true ideology of the party in any sense. They are representing the ideology of facist oligarchy, and the Bush dynasty is evidence of a modified form of hereditary assumption of power. That's right, folks... they are actively recreating the exact form of government that we revolted against more than 200 years ago. And without appropriate checks and balances from the other two branches of government, they disturbingly begin to resemble the regimes we have helped to dismantle in the past 50 years.

To say that the democrats will not defend the nation is ridiculous. Charles Krautheimer, a noted conservative columnist who actually thinks and reasons rather than march in lock step with the PR machine like so many other pundits, beautifully explains away this falicy: Everyone believes in use of force for self defense - liberal, conservative, democrat or republican. Liberals, however, balk at any armed intervention that seeks to promote the national interest because they equate the national interest with the self interest of the administration that is in power. They do however support armed intervention for humanitarian reaons, which explains the many military actions of the Clinton administration. Liberals are tolerant of forms of government other than american democracy, but conservatives find them a threat and seek to supplant regimes with those they can control.

Consider all of this in light of the War on Terror, which like the war on drugs is really only a war on American taxpayers. It was sold to us as critical for our national defense, and when that turned out to be untrue, it was recouched as a humanitarian intervention. But it was too late to sway anyone but the most fanatical supporters of the administration.

And why do those people support the administration? Because your taxes went down? Unless you make in the neighborhood of $250,000 a year, your taxes did not go down, and if you think they did, you are not paying attention to the details. Your taxes have been restructured, and the middle class is actually shouldering more burden than ever and getting less service for their money. Where are all those tax dollars going? Into non competitive contracts for companies that are mired in the CEO and tax accounting scandals.

Wake up America! Your government is bigger! You are less secure! You have less liberty! We are putting a debt burden on our children that would make credit card companies like MBNA salivate (they were a major campaign donor to Bush, btw).

I have to end this rant, but I'm going to do it with this quote, which I hope you will ponder:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

It was said by Hermann Goering during his trial at Nuremberg. The angriest person is the one who suddenly realizes that they have been taken advantage of. If you are a rebublican and you aren't pissed as hell, you have no idea of what a republican really is.

[Superbelt]

That was... really good giblingus. Bravo.

I too have much respect for true conservatives like Dick Armey, though I disgree with him on much he works towards the national interest and americas freedom.

I fear any one political party or ideology controlling this government. Noone should have the trifecta. Noone should have real control over more than one full branch of government. Not Democrats, not Republicans. The Supreme Court SHOULD be non-partisan but I see too much in the way of ideology there. You get problems where "dynasties" are possible

I'll leave you with a 'better' Goering quote.

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
-Hermann Goering

[Lebell]

Originally posted by pan6467
Lebell,

No that post was just in response to the article posting I did above it.

I am very outraged that ANY politician calls the NEA a "terroristic group" and thinks it's funny. I'm sorry but I find no humor in a cabinet member calling a legitimate group terroristic, in this day and age.

If a Dem. during Clinton, (say Robert Reich) had called the NRA a group of Nazi-istic thugs, do you not think there would have been an outcry for his job within hours?

I just truly get upset over this double standard. The GOP during Clinton could call him anything, and today, Bush's people can say and do whatever they damn well want but someone says something about them, well, then that person is humiliated, thier name savaged and they get treated as if they are unpatriotic treasonists out to destroy the country.

To me, my dad always said if you have to resort to name calling you lose the debate. But today, you almost have to name call because noone debates issues anymore civilly. Noone seems to respect that someone has a different view.

We are all so wrapped up in taking sides that the true issues are being forgotten and when someone does want to talk issues they are treated like imbiciles that have no idea what they are talking about. It's both GOP and the DEMs that are guilty. and it has to stop.

Oh, ok

Anyway, the NRA regularly gets called names like that, but I would have to look to see if any high cabinet officials do it.

I do know that high level senators regularly engage in such hyperbole.

I think the last part of what you said is dead on correct.

[Sparhawk]

Since everyone likes statistics, here's the President's legacy:

3,000,000: Since George W. Bush took office, America has lost 3 million jobs.

1,000,000: One million jobs have been outsourced since President Bush took office.

50% Higher: Health care costs have increased 50 percent since 2001 when Bush took office.

33% Higher: Unemployment has increased 33 percent since Bush took office.

$35,000: Bush is worried about death taxes for people making tens of millions of dollars -- but he has saddled every child born into this country with a $35,000 birth tax.

[b]$10,368[b/]: American families will pay $10,368 in interest on the debt by 2014.

http://www.bls.gov

[tecoyah]

One more stat for ya'

91- The estimated I.Q of George W. Bush
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points :


147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
099 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

[mrbuck12000]

This man has taken us to war with a country that has no WMD's, no ties to al-queda and that his father funded. He has scared the be-jesus (sp) out of the american people. he told me and millions of other people that going to war with a country is the right thing to do. He has today inforced the fact that gays shouldn't get married. He has made it so a single middle income person like myself has to pay taxes thru the ying-yang. More people have lost jobs in this country since, i think hoover was in office. My health care is thru the roof, and spiralling completely out of control. name one friggin reason why i or anyone should vote him back into office again. why should i feel that this man had done anything for me?

mr b

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by tecoyah
One more stat for ya'

91- The estimated I.Q of George W. Bush
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points :


147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
099 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

Laugh, thats such a crock.

[Ustwo]

Originally posted by Sparhawk
[B]Since everyone likes statistics, here's the President's legacy:

3,000,000: Since George W. Bush took office, America has lost 3 million jobs.

1,000,000: One million jobs have been outsourced since President Bush took office.

50% Higher: Health care costs have increased 50 percent since 2001 when Bush took office.

33% Higher: Unemployment has increased 33 percent since Bush took office.

$35,000: Bush is worried about death taxes for people making tens of millions of dollars -- but he has saddled every child born into this country with a $35,000 birth tax.

$10,368[b/]: American families will pay $10,368 in interest on the debt by 2014.

http://www.bls.gov

Hehe I'll be happy to discuss your numbers, but do you have a source better then the homepage of the US dept of labor and statistics? Obviously you didn't do research on that page but got this off some other site and then put a link up to the dept website to make it look good (I'm sure they did too). Since the numbers you gave are purposefully misleading I will assume it was some left wing website you took those from. It would help if we knew which one it was.

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by tecoyah
One more stat for ya'

91- The estimated I.Q of George W. Bush
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points :


147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
099 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

That's not really a statistic there, guy

[mrbuck12000]

yeah as much as i dis-like our US president, Sparhawk has a point. I know usTwo, i'm just spouting off info again, but this one has a point:


http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
mr b

[Sparhawk]

Originally posted by Ustwo
Hehe I'll be happy to discuss your numbers, but do you have a source better then the homepage of the US dept of labor and statistics? Obviously you didn't do research on that page but got this off some other site and then put a link up to the dept website to make it look good (I'm sure they did too). Since the numbers you gave are purposefully misleading I will assume it was some left wing website you took those from. It would help if we knew which one it was.

Bingo - ya know, if you put a tenth of the cynicism you show toward everything else, and pointed it at this administration, you'd be one of the many very pissed off Republicans I know.

[gibingus]

Ustwo, the stats that Sparhawk put out are basically on target, they can be corroborated at any number of sources including US government reports and are reported through major media, although the acutal numbers fluctuate from month to month. If anything, they are higher than what he supplies.

(a plea: please do not throw out that straw man liberal news media argument. it is patently untrue. the major news media companies are all publicly traded and are very conservative businesses driven by advertising revenue that is dependent on even more conservative businesses. the parent companies of nbc and cbs are giant defense contractors, and ALL media businesses stand to benefit from the relaxing of FCC ownership rules that are being pushed by the administration. a lexis nexis search of endorsement editorials in the past election will show that the marjority of daily papers backed Bush. the only real left wing news media that adhere to real journalistic ethics and principles in this country are the magazines Mother Jones and The Nation and the radio pacifica network. what is commonly called the left wing is actually quite moderate, and the right wing is now much farther to the right than it was 12 or 16 years ago. /end plea)

the statistic that is commonly left out is the one about the economic recovery via tax relief and consumer spending is acutally being financed on credit cards. i first heard it reported yesterday by radio pacifica and the subsequent analysis was done by an economic advisor from the nixon administration (name escapes me, but you'd have to agree that he's pretty conservative, right?). the tax relief was said to be a good short term policy for minor economic stimulus, but the real jump in consumer spending (66% of the total economy for those of you scoring at home) has been financed by credit, and is still unpaid. coupled with continued tax cuts, we will be looking at a devestating crash, massive interest rate hikes, and a whole slew of other problems if we keep this up for four more years.

greenspan echoed this mildly in his last address to the senate finance commitee, which brought the inside the beltway rumors out again that bush wants to axe him because he doesn't play ball with the party line. kind of like paul oneil, but greenspan has such public status that if he was to be fired, bush would lose complete support of voters who are liberal minded but fiscally conservative.

what really pisses me off is that we are deindustrializing our nation and sending those jobs to a COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP. wtf? that is good for the national defense? that is patriotic?

[james t kirk]

Originally posted by Toz


You don't understand what Bush is doing. He is FREEING a country. A year ago, in Iraq, if people protested about their country, they were raped,murdered,killed and your family was killed. You would have to see your wife and children raped. Now if you protest, you are listened to and changes will be made.

Damn democracy is a great thing!

Wow, such nobility on behalf of Bush and Company.

Now, what about Uzbekistan?

Who you ask????

Well, see, they have this whacko dictator who runs the place and he makes Saddam Hussein look like Mother Theresa.

Yet the bastion of international morality, the good ole US of A backs him to the hilt, just like they used to with Uncle Saddam till he lifted his leg.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywo...stan/slow.html

So how come this guy is a good dictator and Saddam was a bad dictator??????????

If Saddam never invaded Kuwait in 91, he would still be shaking hands with Rumsfeld, you can bet on that.

[james t kirk]

Originally posted by Superbelt

Bush doesn't CARE about people, he doesn't care about international human rights. Liberating the Iraqis and stopping the torture and murders DID NOT FACTOR into why we went into Iraq.

I have proven that with the way we are acting with Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.
(Do a search on it on this site, you will find plent of information)

And for an update on that sorry nation....

http://www.uzland.uz/2004/february/14/09.htm

Britains ambassador to Uzbek gave a speech criticizing the Uzbek govt over its human rights record.
He was recalled by Britain after the Uzbeks and members of the US government put pressure on Britain to shut him up because the brutal Uzbeks and our administration didn't like what he was saying

So, DON'T. EVER, think you can give Bush the moral high ground and project a bleeding heart for human rights onto his sorry frame.

Guess we were both on the same track, when i quoted, I had not read your post.

Cheers