I'm not a fan of Bush, but libs need to understand

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Should I point out the irony of the fact that not only is the topic creator in the Conservative Union, but he/she's also in the Christian Union. Coincidence...I think NOT.flavort

Yeah being a Christian means what? I believe in God. So what? I am a conservative but am actually more of a libertarian and a classical liberal. Liberals have become more socialistic over the years. These thing dont mean that these comparisons are wrong it is something to think about. But you can write it off as a conservative Christians nonsense. I just hope you at least read it.

I'm just saying being a Christian and being a republican seem to go hand-in-hand these days. Wouldn't you agree?

America was not attacked by "Afghanistan" it was attacked by an insurgent group. Doesn't warrant completely ****ing the country.Termite551

americans ( the ones supporting all the warfare ) dont give a ---- about other nations ( they'll say they do under the guise of "spreading freedom" )

I disaggree, the economy getting better was largely to do with clinton and gores work. And it is pointless to ask "If clinton had a major crisis, would he have done well". The fact of the matter is, Bush went through a crisis (9/11) and failed miserably, which is why people hate him

Termite551

Indeed. Before Clinton the deficit was high...he did bring it down. He stimulated the economy. Bush reversed all that. In addition, Bush is partly to blame for 911...his arrogance threw out the intell that was gathered. You can't restart intell....it builds.

I'm just saying being a Christian and being a republican seem to go hand-in-hand these days. Wouldn't you agree?

jalexbrown

No I wouldn't....:|

The difference is, all the wars you mentioned democrats getting the US involved in were already on going when the US became involved. Iraq on the other hand was a choice. The idea of invading Iraq... I mean and "spreading" democracy in the middle east was concepted in the 1990s by a group of conservatives (Project for a New American Century) who had the stabilization of Iraq as a key goal in their strategy to pacify the middle east so the US could have strategic control over oil production into the 21st century, thus preserving the US as dominant super power. Most of Bush's cabinet members who were architects of the Iraq war in fact were members of that group in the 90s. It pisses me off that they used the emotions of the nation from 911 to get people into the idea that Iraq was the front in the "war" on terror. I don't care what side of the political divide you are on, the way we were used should make everyone sick.

Another thing, the way conservatives demonize people with liberal ideas reminds me of the way Nazis blamed all their problems on the Jews. Its un-American.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

I'm just saying being a Christian and being a republican seem to go hand-in-hand these days. Wouldn't you agree?

LJS9502_basic

No I wouldn't....:|

Sorry about that. Allow me to rephrase...

Being an ULTRA-Christian and being a republican seem to go hand-in-hand. Better?

I'm opposed to the Iraq War, but I don't blame it all on Bush. Its easy to make him the scapegoat cause he's the current President. He deserves a lot of criticism, but there's a lot of blame to go around.

Some call for his impeachment. I always say, if you impeach him, then everyone who voted "Yes" on the war has to be taken out of office as well.

Bill Clinton, before leaving office, talked about how Saddam Hussein was building Weapons of Mass Destruction. He talked about how we may have to intervene destroyed these weapons, and changing the regime. Al Gore, when becoming Vice President, actually criticized George Bush senior for not going into Iraq after the Persian Gulf War.

Bill Clinton though, is hero amongst democrats today. I have nothing against the guy, and really don't think he was a bad President. But he bombed Iraq for 4 days, against the will of the UN, and the places that were bombed were not developing Weapons of Mass destruction, and innocent lives were lost, and there was speculation he did this to get his sex scandal off the front pages of the news papers. But this is okay? He doesn't get criticized?

Bill Clinton and other NATO allies also used military force against Yugoslavia, that was HEAVILY criticized, and did not have UN approval. But this is okay? He doesn't get criticized?

I don't think that Bill Clinton was a bad President. The economic prosperity we had during his years in office were just incredible. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve criticism for some of the things he did in office.

wow, this thread is going well, anyway, stats are stats but the biased undertones put into the TS's first post pretty much nullified the idea having reasonable conversation here...g-unit248

i wonder how many amputees and ptsd sufferers come out of detriot too....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

No...not really.

The BBC censors too...but it's nothing like Fox and the other channels in the US.

jointed

You missed the point. Unlike the UK...we have sevaral ways to obtain our information. They have different angles...not just one.

Second...youtube isn't my idea of proof.

Unlike the UK?

Oh and watch the videos before you make stupid excuses next time.

You get your info from the BBC....we have quite a few more news sources.

Nope. I'd prefer text I can read.

[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="blackngold29"]Wait hold up, the original poster said Bush went to war without being attacked? What exactly do you consider 9/11?Termite551

Not an attack by Iraq I can tell you....

Why is the topic starter trying to glorify the Iraq war? The Korean war was no good thing no question about it, but the north got support from China and the south would have been absolutely crushed if it weren't for American intervention. However there was absolutely no point in going to Iraq, absolutely no point that any sane person would accept as a reasonable answer. "They have WMD's" no "They're terrorists" no "They have oil" actually that one is true. Sooooo basically let's go to a country imprison people, kill lots of people and let soldiers take pictures of prisoners? Sigh.

And a bit off topic but why do conservatives see Bill Clinton as a bad president? He and Gore did lots to stabilize the economy during their stay.

Termite551

That's funny. I always thought the economy was self-righting. A stable economy under the Clinton administration does not mean that Clinton is the cause. In actuality the changes we make today will not full be realized for 10 years in some cases. I don't think Clinton was a bad president. I also don't think he was a particularly good one. White water. cigars. interns. Sounds like he was really focused on doing what's best for the nation!

There was no major crisis during his presidency. Thats not Clinton's doing. All of the problems during his tenure were self-inflicted. He had an easy run.

I disaggree, the economy getting better was largely to do with clinton and gores work. And it is pointless to ask "If clinton had a major crisis, would he have done well". The fact of the matter is, Bush went through a crisis (9/11) and failed miserably, which is why people hate him

How did he fail miserably? More importantly, why is it that JFK screwed up more in his half term than Bush did in two and is a national icon?

I'm opposed to the Iraq War, but I don't blame it all on Bush. Its easy to make him the scapegoat cause he's the current President. He deserves a lot of criticism, but there's a lot of blame to go around.

Some call for his impeachment. I always say, if you impeach him, then everyone who voted "Yes" on the war has to be taken out of office as well.

Bill Clinton, before leaving office, talked about how Saddam Hussein was building Weapons of Mass Destruction. He talked about how we may have to intervene destroyed these weapons, and changing the regime. Al Gore, when becoming Vice President, actually criticized George Bush senior for not going into Iraq after the Persian Gulf War.

Bill Clinton though, is hero amongst democrats today. I have nothing against the guy, and really don't think he was a bad President. But he bombed Iraq for 4 days, against the will of the UN, and the places that were bombed were not developing Weapons of Mass destruction, and innocent lives were lost, and there was speculation he did this to get his sex scandal off the front pages of the news papers. But this is okay? He doesn't get criticized?

Bill Clinton and other NATO allies also used military force against Yugoslavia, that was HEAVILY criticized, and did not have UN approval. But this is okay? He doesn't get criticized?

I don't think that Bill Clinton was a bad President. The economic prosperity we had during his years in office were just incredible. But that doesn't mean he doesn't deserve criticism for some of the things he did in office.

InterpolWilco

you say liberal as if it were a bad thing!.......

I for the most part try to consider myself unaligned or a political or what not, because there are things on both sides of the agenda that I belive should happen.

What I dont understand from you OP. is that you would somehow endorse BUSH just because you are a republican or rightwing etc. When the cold hard fact is that BUSH has been the ABSOLUTE worse president the united states has had in the past 100 years...This administration has done more damage to this country than KOREA, IRaq, Bin LAden, and Vietnam combined. the sad part is that as we waste timeplaying politics, argueing and pointing fingers, the country is going DOWN DOWN DOWN the toilet drain.....Im not saying tha democrats are better or infallable etc it seems all politicians now days are wrong in the head!

Body count has nothing to do with the fact Bush lied from the start to get America into Iraq. Now Americans are dieing in vain and Mccain wants another 100 if needed. Again nothing to do with the troops. The soldiers have done a great job and its there politicians and leaders who have failed them. Uxal

he was given evidence by every major country in the world that they had wmds... pretty good reason to go to war.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

No...not really.

The BBC censors too...but it's nothing like Fox and the other channels in the US.

LJS9502_basic

You missed the point. Unlike the UK...we have sevaral ways to obtain our information. They have different angles...not just one.

Second...youtube isn't my idea of proof.

Unlike the UK?

Oh and watch the videos before you make stupid excuses next time.

You get your info from the BBC....we have quite a few more news sources.

Nope. I'd prefer text I can read.

BBC and Euronews + all the channels available in the US,

I gave you solid proof...it's not my problem whether you consider youtube videos proof or not.

BBC and Euronews + all the channels available in the US,

I gave you solid proof...it's not my problem whether you consider youtube videos proof or not.

jointed

It's your word that's it's solid. I live here and I don't agree with your statement.

And you just killed your own argument.

[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

yoshi-lnex

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

you say liberal as if it were a bad thing!.......

I for the most part try to consider myself unaligned or a political or what not, because there are things on both sides of the agenda that I belive should happen.

What I dont understand from you OP. is that you would somehow endorse BUSH just because you are a republican or rightwing etc. When the cold hard fact is that BUSH has been the ABSOLUTE worse president the united states has had in the past 100 years...This administration has done more damage to this country than KOREA, IRaq, Bin LAden, and Vietnam combined. the sad part is that as we waste timeplaying politics, argueing and pointing fingers, the country is going DOWN DOWN DOWN the toilet drain.....Im not saying tha democrats are better or infallable etc it seems all politicians now days are wrong in the head!

Pythos77

I personally think LBJ is the worst president we ever had. He took the New Deal that was necessary to bring us out of the depression and applied to general stable times. The ramped up social programs and government control started this landslide of socialism thats run rampant in todays government. He took programs that were designed to end in ten years and gave them an infinite lifetime.

He is largely responsible for a lot of the issues we have today including government reliance.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

jimhogg

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

[QUOTE="Pythos77"]

you say liberal as if it were a bad thing!.......

I for the most part try to consider myself unaligned or a political or what not, because there are things on both sides of the agenda that I belive should happen.

What I dont understand from you OP. is that you would somehow endorse BUSH just because you are a republican or rightwing etc. When the cold hard fact is that BUSH has been the ABSOLUTE worse president the united states has had in the past 100 years...This administration has done more damage to this country than KOREA, IRaq, Bin LAden, and Vietnam combined. the sad part is that as we waste timeplaying politics, argueing and pointing fingers, the country is going DOWN DOWN DOWN the toilet drain.....Im not saying tha democrats are better or infallable etc it seems all politicians now days are wrong in the head!

effthat

I personally think LBJ is the worst president we ever had. He took the New Deal that was necessary to bring us out of the depression and applied to general stable times. The ramped up social programs and government control started this landslide of socialism thats run rampant in todays government. He took programs that were designed to end in ten years and gave them an infinite lifetime.

He is largely responsible for a lot of the issues we have today including government reliance.

[QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="Pythos77"]

you say liberal as if it were a bad thing!.......

I for the most part try to consider myself unaligned or a political or what not, because there are things on both sides of the agenda that I belive should happen.

What I dont understand from you OP. is that you would somehow endorse BUSH just because you are a republican or rightwing etc. When the cold hard fact is that BUSH has been the ABSOLUTE worse president the united states has had in the past 100 years...This administration has done more damage to this country than KOREA, IRaq, Bin LAden, and Vietnam combined. the sad part is that as we waste timeplaying politics, argueing and pointing fingers, the country is going DOWN DOWN DOWN the toilet drain.....Im not saying tha democrats are better or infallable etc it seems all politicians now days are wrong in the head!

yoshi-lnex

I personally think LBJ is the worst president we ever had. He took the New Deal that was necessary to bring us out of the depression and applied to general stable times. The ramped up social programs and government control started this landslide of socialism thats run rampant in todays government. He took programs that were designed to end in ten years and gave them an infinite lifetime.

He is largely responsible for a lot of the issues we have today including government reliance.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

BBC and Euronews + all the channels available in the US,

I gave you solid proof...it's not my problem whether you consider youtube videos proof or not.

LJS9502_basic

It's your word that's it's solid. I live here and I don't agree with your statement.

And you just killed your own argument.

No I did not...I just killed your argument.

You're using the fact that you have such a wide variety of news channels as an argument but it fails since we can get them here too. They're not very popular because of their incredible bias, but it still kills your argument.

Another thing, the way conservatives demonize people with liberal ideas reminds me of the way Nazis blamed all their problems on the Jews. Its un-American.

Darthmatt

So the Conservatives are like Nazi's?

Dude, completely out of line with that comment. I like how if someone doesn't agree with you, we can now call them Nazi's, cause you know, disagreeing with someone is on par with calling for the slaughter of an entire race of people, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you.

As a conservative (I'm actually more of a libertarian), I've been called a "War Monger" (I oppose the war) a "Religious Fanatic" (I'm a Catholic -the church actually agrees with some more socialist ideals and opposes the war and death penalty- who barely goes to church) "uneducated" (I'm going for my Masters in Music Composition). Oh, and of course "Bush is a Nazi."

Liberals demonize Conservatives just as much, if not MORE, and are much more vicious. At the end of the day, its all childish name calling and accomplishes NOTHING and in my opinion, is a BIG reason why this country is heading down the crapper, is because Left and Right, can't meet in the Middle anymore and work together.

No I did not...I just killed your argument.

You're using the fact that you have such a wide variety of news channels as an argument but it fails since we can get them here too. They're not very popular because of their incredible bias, but it still kills your argument.

jointed

No...I was refuting your statement. Which you have now agreed. As far as the news the UK gives...it is from one source. I was merely basing the wealth of opinion of US only programs against the UK only programs. Other countries are not part of my stance.;)

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

Another thing, the way conservatives demonize people with liberal ideas reminds me of the way Nazis blamed all their problems on the Jews. Its un-American.

InterpolWilco

So the Conservatives are like Nazi's?

Dude, completely out of line with that comment. I like how if someone doesn't agree with you, we can now call them Nazi's, cause you know, disagreeing with someone is on par with calling for the slaughter of an entire race of people, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you.

As a conservative (I'm actually more of a libertarian), I've been called a "War Monger" (I oppose the war) a "Religious Fanatic" (I'm a Catholic -the church actually agrees with some more socialist ideals and opposes the war and death penalty- who barely goes to church) "uneducated" (I'm going for my Masters in Music Composition). Oh, and of course "Bush is a Nazi."

Liberals demonize Conservatives just as much, if not MORE, and are much more vicious. At the end of the day, its all childish name calling and accomplishes NOTHING and in my opinion, is a BIG reason why this country is heading down the crapper, is because Left and Right, can't meet in the Middle anymore and work together.

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

Another thing, the way conservatives demonize people with liberal ideas reminds me of the way Nazis blamed all their problems on the Jews. Its un-American.

InterpolWilco

So the Conservatives are like Nazi's?

Dude, completely out of line with that comment. I like how if someone doesn't agree with you, we can now call them Nazi's, cause you know, disagreeing with someone is on par with calling for the slaughter of an entire race of people, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you.

As a conservative (I'm actually more of a libertarian), I've been called a "War Monger" (I oppose the war) a "Religious Fanatic" (I'm a Catholic -the church actually agrees with some more socialist ideals and opposes the war and death penalty- who barely goes to church) "uneducated" (I'm going for my Masters in Music Composition). Oh, and of course "Bush is a Nazi."

Liberals demonize Conservatives just as much, if not MORE, and are much more vicious. At the end of the day, its all childish name calling and accomplishes NOTHING and in my opinion, is a BIG reason why this country is heading down the crapper, is because Left and Right, can't meet in the Middle anymore and work together.

You missed his entire point dude.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

No I did not...I just killed your argument.

You're using the fact that you have such a wide variety of news channels as an argument but it fails since we can get them here too. They're not very popular because of their incredible bias, but it still kills your argument.

LJS9502_basic

No...I was refuting your statement. Which you have now agreed. As far as the news the UK gives...it is from one source. I was merely basing the wealth of opinion of US only programs against the UK only programs. Other countries are not part of my stance.;)

[QUOTE="InterpolWilco"][QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

Another thing, the way conservatives demonize people with liberal ideas reminds me of the way Nazis blamed all their problems on the Jews. Its un-American.

Darthmatt

So the Conservatives are like Nazi's?

Dude, completely out of line with that comment. I like how if someone doesn't agree with you, we can now call them Nazi's, cause you know, disagreeing with someone is on par with calling for the slaughter of an entire race of people, as well as anyone else that disagrees with you.

As a conservative (I'm actually more of a libertarian), I've been called a "War Monger" (I oppose the war) a "Religious Fanatic" (I'm a Catholic -the church actually agrees with some more socialist ideals and opposes the war and death penalty- who barely goes to church) "uneducated" (I'm going for my Masters in Music Composition). Oh, and of course "Bush is a Nazi."

Liberals demonize Conservatives just as much, if not MORE, and are much more vicious. At the end of the day, its all childish name calling and accomplishes NOTHING and in my opinion, is a BIG reason why this country is heading down the crapper, is because Left and Right, can't meet in the Middle anymore and work together.

OOOOOOOOOH my bad. Okay, I actually agree with that, sorry man, I just misunderstood.

[QUOTE="Wren28"]Ok, why are we blaming Bush for starting the war in Iraq? The President can NOT declare war, he can recommend it, yes, but he cannot declare war...that is Congress's department, blame Congress if you want...that's all I have to say about it...and I don't agree with the war, I'm glad they disposed of Saddam, but he wasn't the one responsible for 9/11.LJS9502_basic

Congress was given false information.....

not by Bush... by every major country...

[QUOTE="jointed"]

No I did not...I just killed your argument.

You're using the fact that you have such a wide variety of news channels as an argument but it fails since we can get them here too. They're not very popular because of their incredible bias, but it still kills your argument.

LJS9502_basic

No...I was refuting your statement. Which you have now agreed. As far as the news the UK gives...it is from one source. I was merely basing the wealth of opinion of US only programs against the UK only programs. Other countries are not part of my stance.;)

I have not agreed to anything, I still stand by my initial statement....your BS probably work on the average 13 year old GS user but not here. We watch BBC and Euronews...it doesn't matter what country the channels are from.

[QUOTE="Termite551"]America was not attacked by "Afghanistan" it was attacked by an insurgent group. Doesn't warrant completely ****ing the country.comp_atkins

americans ( the ones supporting all the warfare ) dont give a ---- about other nations ( they'll say they do under the guise of "spreading freedom" )

stereotyping ftl...

[QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]Should I point out the irony of the fact that not only is the topic creator in the Conservative Union, but he/she's also in the Christian Union. Coincidence...I think NOT.jalexbrown

Yeah being a Christian means what? I believe in God. So what? I am a conservative but am actually more of a libertarian and a classical liberal. Liberals have become more socialistic over the years. These thing dont mean that these comparisons are wrong it is something to think about. But you can write it off as a conservative Christians nonsense. I just hope you at least read it.

I'm just saying being a Christian and being a republican seem to go hand-in-hand these days. Wouldn't you agree?

That is a fair assumption, and assumption only. There, from what I hear, is a huge shift in the evangelicals to the left. I dont really know what the story is, but iyour right it is the stereotype of Christian republicans. I was actually a conservative first.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

No I did not...I just killed your argument.

You're using the fact that you have such a wide variety of news channels as an argument but it fails since we can get them here too. They're not very popular because of their incredible bias, but it still kills your argument.

jointed

No...I was refuting your statement. Which you have now agreed. As far as the news the UK gives...it is from one source. I was merely basing the wealth of opinion of US only programs against the UK only programs. Other countries are not part of my stance.;)

I have not agreed to anything, I still stand by my initial statement....your BS probably work on the average 13 year old GS user but not here. We watch BBC and Euronews...it doesn't matter what country the channels are from.

That makes you doubly wrong then...since we can get, in addition to SEVERAL (not one) news channel in the US..but other countries as wrong. :lol:

Why does flavort always create these debates only to flame and disappear within 20 posts?yoshi-lnex

I get flamed so much it is unreal. I left because I had a customer. I am at work.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="jointed"]

No I did not...I just killed your argument.

You're using the fact that you have such a wide variety of news channels as an argument but it fails since we can get them here too. They're not very popular because of their incredible bias, but it still kills your argument.

LJS9502_basic

No...I was refuting your statement. Which you have now agreed. As far as the news the UK gives...it is from one source. I was merely basing the wealth of opinion of US only programs against the UK only programs. Other countries are not part of my stance.;)

I have not agreed to anything, I still stand by my initial statement....your BS probably work on the average 13 year old GS user but not here. We watch BBC and Euronews...it doesn't matter what country the channels are from.

That makes you doubly wrong then...since we can get, in addition to SEVERAL (not one) news channel in the US..but other countries as wrong. :lol:

It doesn't matter how many news channels you can get...what matters is how popular the biased channels are and vice versa.

[QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

yoshi-lnex

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

and when did bush commit mass genocide on his own people?...

We trusted Bin Laden back then, he stood for freedom now he is just power hungry...

and Clinton also had 3 chances to get osama as well...

remember there are two sides to every coin.

It doesn't matter how many news channels you can get...what matters is how popular the biased channels are and vice versa.

jointed

No.....you can't say that any one source is where all the info comes from. Anyway, they slant the news...they don't make it. Same as every other news agencies in the world. I'd bet the US news is extremely slanted by your sources.

So that goes for your news as well channels as well.;)

you say liberal as if it were a bad thing!.......

I for the most part try to consider myself unaligned or a political or what not, because there are things on both sides of the agenda that I belive should happen.

What I dont understand from you OP. is that you would somehow endorse BUSH just because you are a republican or rightwing etc. When the cold hard fact is that BUSH has been the ABSOLUTE worse president the united states has had in the past 100 years...This administration has done more damage to this country than KOREA, IRaq, Bin LAden, and Vietnam combined. the sad part is that as we waste timeplaying politics, argueing and pointing fingers, the country is going DOWN DOWN DOWN the toilet drain.....Im not saying tha democrats are better or infallable etc it seems all politicians now days are wrong in the head!

Pythos77

I am registered as a republican and am going to change that. I find myself more of a libetarian. I wish there was no labels at all to put on a particular canidate. It just leads the sheep to vote for the r or the d. I voted for Bush and am very mad at what he has done. I like the tax cuts and the surge. I dont know what to say otherwise.

This is something some people need to realize. When you talk about trusting a polititian, going to war with out being attacked, and deaths during a war. I want to know how you feel about this. I thought it puts a good perspective on all of the mumbo jumbo talk I hear from liberals. Please read this and give a honest opinion wether you are a lefty or a righty.

Good Read and Think About it!

For those of us who spent time in the military, believe in our military and support the men and women of our military, read on.............
John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this ----- It should make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January. That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:


FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.



Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea
North Korea never attacked us
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran , and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

But Wait, There's more!

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT)
to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation..

We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the
Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his
Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida !!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts

But Wait

There's more!


JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor)

Some people still don't understand why military personnel
do what they do for a living. This exchange between
Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a prett y impressive
impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one
man's explanation of why men and women in the armed
services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.
I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.
My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different
occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my
checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was
not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank.'

'I ask you to go with me .. . as I went the other day...
to a veteran's hospital and look those men ..
with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM
they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans
of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them
that their DAD'S didn't hold a job.



You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in
Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch
those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation,
and you have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about Metzenbaum?'

For those who don't remember
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney
representing the Communist Party in the USA .

flavort

Death toll in Iraq over the last 4 years (These numbers were figured last August): 1,220,580, if you divide that number into the amount of months we have been in the war, the average is 2312.8 violent deaths per month due to the war. February may have been mellow, but it doesn't change the fact that a whole lot more people have died as a result of the US in Iraq than the 300,000 folks killed by Saddam.

Your right, Germany never attacked the US, Japan did, but if you read the history books, after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us, so we subsequently declared war on Germany. We were attacked first, and Germany officially declared war on us first.

Korea, Vietnam, and every war we have gotten into for the purpose of 'halting the spread of communism' were a waste of money and lives. I respect the men and women that fought and died for our country, but nothing of note was accomplished in any of those wars, and in both once we left, the communist country we opposed simply tightened their hold on the counrty we were defending. In addition, the Vietnam conflict began in 1959 with Eisenhower, a republican a president, and Kennedy took steps to try to mellow out the conflict and guarantee neutrality. Though it can't be proven cause he got shot, many people believe that the Vietnam war that escalated in 1965 with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution would have been ended before it ever got to that stage by Kennedy.

Johnson made a bunch of miserable mistakes, that's what you get when you pursue power over helping America. It's ironic that prior to '65 Johnson had made some amazing changes in America, reducing poverty, supporting Civil Rights, promoting Kennedy's programs. But by the end of his second term, he was generally hated and dropped out of the race in '68 rather than try to convince America to like him again.

Clinton did not send us to war. War had been occuring there since 1990 and it was all but ignored until the mid 90's. Clinton, sent US troops on a joint mission with UN peacekeepers (meaning of course that unlike Bush, Clinton saught the approval of the rest of the world rather than simply going cowboy). Further, the goal of that mission was not to gain control of Bosnia, or depose Milosevic. The goal was to stop the Serbs from killing thousands of innocent Albanians, including women and childeren. The mission succeeded, but Milosevic remained in power until his own people voted him out of office and when he refused to leave, the people of Yugoslavia made sure that he listened to them and left office. Now that country is more stable than it ever, because we allowed the people that live there to deal with the issue, rather than think we have the answer.

And I think all those 'gain control of Iraq' comments are a matter of opinion. Death and sadness have occured in that country for almost 5 years. Terrorists continue to kill our troops as well as innocent citizens, something that never occured previously in Iraq. I will grant that the killing of Kurds was wrong, and it is good that it has stopped, but as I said earlier, far more Iraqies have died as a result of our war than as a result of Saddams Genocide. And let's not forget that Saddam was 'our man'. We put him in power because he opposed the commies during the 80's. So as far as I am concerned, the mess that is Iraq has simply a result of our actions there for the last 30 years. Afganistan is a similar situation. Where do you think the Taliban got all their weapons? Funny isn't it that so many anti'american groups are shooting us with american made guns. Yea, we got rid of them, but Poppies are still their main crop, and opium their main export. Not only that, all the justifications for going over their (womens rights, human rights, freedom of religion) haven't exactly changed. Oh, and if Bush is so responcible in attacking the folks that attack us, Answer me two questions: First: When exactly did Iraq attack us, and since no one from that country was involved in any terrorist attack against the US that we know about, why was it so necessary to invade? Second, why does he continue to support Saudi Arabia, including just selling them jets and guns, when we know that the rulers there are not big fans of the US and we know that people from that country were involved in 9/11?

Does that mean that I don't support the troops? No, it means that my support for the troops asks that they come home as soon as possible before excessive, 'break into house, terrorizing the inhabitants and demanding to know if there are any AlQaida hiding' really begins to take its toll and our soldiers begin coming hope doing things like killing innocent americans. Oh, wait, that already has happened, to a pregnant soldier no less.

[QUOTE="jointed"]

It doesn't matter how many news channels you can get...what matters is how popular the biased channels are and vice versa.

LJS9502_basic

No.....you can't say that any one source is where all the info comes from. Anyway, they slant the news...they don't make it. Same as every other news agencies in the world. I'd bet the US news is extremely slanted by your sources.

So that goes for your news as well channels as well.;)

The US channels just slants the news a little bit more than European news.

European news is surprisingly unbiased because the national news stations need all the ratings they can get.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

jimhogg

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

and when did bush commit mass genocide on his own people?...

We trusted Bin Laden back then, he stood for freedom now he is just power hungry...

and Clinton also had 3 chances to get osama as well...

remember there are two sides to every coin.

[QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

yoshi-lnex

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

and when did bush commit mass genocide on his own people?...

We trusted Bin Laden back then, he stood for freedom now he is just power hungry...

and Clinton also had 3 chances to get osama as well...

remember there are two sides to every coin.

no clinton did not try his best at all. osama was handed to clinton on a silver platter 3 times... 3!!!!!! Bush did not declare war... congress voted ok? they voted with all of the evidence from every major country's intellingence that iraq had wmd's ok?

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

jimhogg

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

and when did bush commit mass genocide on his own people?...

We trusted Bin Laden back then, he stood for freedom now he is just power hungry...

and Clinton also had 3 chances to get osama as well...

remember there are two sides to every coin.

Top quote, no, the Gulf of Tonkin was never proven and it is generally accepted now that it was BS from the Pentagon and President Johnson to get us into the war.

Bin Laden has always been a warrior, and he has always been power hungry. We used him in the 80's because he was a strong leader able to bring rebels together to oppose the commies, but it is always dangerous to secretly give guns to any guerilla fighting group, especially one whose main agenda is to promote the specific branch of religion that he is a part of.

We commited genocide on every native american tribe that originally lived in the US, and the US has single handedly completely obliterated more than half the tribes that once lived in this land. This is after the Supreme Court, during Andrew Jackson's presidency declared that native american tribers were sovereign and could not be forced to move, nor could their land be taken. Jackson's responce to this decision, "Marshal (Chief Justice) has made his decision, now lets see him enforce it." Before he sent thousands of Cherokee out of Giorgia along the Trail of Tears, a thousand or so mile journey, forced by the US military, and undertaken in the winter. Yea, we have our share of rotteness as well.

[QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

Insane00

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

and when did bush commit mass genocide on his own people?...

We trusted Bin Laden back then, he stood for freedom now he is just power hungry...

and Clinton also had 3 chances to get osama as well...

remember there are two sides to every coin.

Top quote, no, the Gulf of Tonkin was never proven and it is generally accepted now that it was BS from the Pentagon and President Johnson to get us into the war.

Bin Laden has always been a warrior, and he has always been power hungry. We used him in the 80's because he was a strong leader able to bring rebels together to oppose the commies, but it is always dangerous to secretly give guns to any guerilla fighting group, especially one whose main agenda is to promote the specific branch of religion that he is a part of.

We commited genocide on every native american tribe that originally lived in the US, and the US has single handedly completely obliterated more than half the tribes that once lived in this land. This is after the Supreme Court, during Andrew Jackson's presidency declared that native american tribers were sovereign and could not be forced to move, nor could their land be taken. Jackson's responce to this decision, "Marshal (Chief Justice) has made his decision, now lets see him enforce it." Before he sent thousands of Cherokee out of Giorgia along the Trail of Tears, a thousand or so mile journey, forced by the US military, and undertaken in the winter. Yea, we have our share of rotteness as well.

everyone knows that... he said that Bush has committed genocide...

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

jimhogg

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

and when did bush commit mass genocide on his own people?...

We trusted Bin Laden back then, he stood for freedom now he is just power hungry...

and Clinton also had 3 chances to get osama as well...

remember there are two sides to every coin.

no clinton did not try his best at all. osama was handed to clinton on a silver platter 3 times... 3!!!!!! Bush did not declare war... congress voted ok? they voted with all of the evidence from every major country's intellingence that iraq had wmd's ok?

Its just ironic that you guys think that you can justify the war with the use of pass wars and blunders.. Yeah clearly we can justify Iraq war because of WW2.. Oh thats right THEY ARE NO WHERE NEAR ALIKE.. Every war after that was based off the flawed idea of stopping the spread of communism..

The point of the matter is we arn't just losing soldiers lives, it ISN'T WORKING... We have lost billions in Iraq due to incompetence and war profiteering is harming our soldiers as well as making record profits.. Look at the crap haliburton and Titan has pulled in the Iraq war. Yet Bush has said little to nothing about this.. I am sorry regardless of your political party if you suppor that kind of policy you are not only un"patriotic" (we do love how conservatives throw that around connecting it with having a flag on your car) but stupid.

Don't be a liberal, conservative, or any other party. Be a damn human being and take a look at the incompetence that has happened during this war.. Thats what makes me furious that most conservatives that support Bush act like nothing bad has happened in Iraq when it has come to the competence level.

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

Are you saying you're opposed to the U.S. entering ww2?

The reality is that right now, the domocrats are opposed to the war in far greater numbers than republicans, that's what matters right now, not what happened in the past.\

and vietnam did attack us, they attacked two of our destroyers which basically triggered the war. Don't lie.

jimhogg

I am not opposed to WW2 nor am I opposed to Iraq. I wish the progress that is going on now was going on sooner. You are right, dems are opposed to the war now more than repubs and it is weird to me this is the way it is since there are great improvements and things are getting much better. Why forget the past when dealing with the future. .

we got rid of a dictator who murdered hundreds of his OWN COUNTRYMEN... that in itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to just demonize the us, but almost everytime we get involved in middle easter conflicts, we always make things worse. For example the reason that Osama bin ladin was able to execute 911 was because Regan supplied him with money and weapons to fight the Russians, and that was used on us later on.

and when did bush commit mass genocide on his own people?...

We trusted Bin Laden back then, he stood for freedom now he is just power hungry...

and Clinton also had 3 chances to get osama as well...

remember there are two sides to every coin.

Top quote, no, the Gulf of Tonkin was never proven and it is generally accepted now that it was BS from the Pentagon and President Johnson to get us into the war.

Bin Laden has always been a warrior, and he has always been power hungry. We used him in the 80's because he was a strong leader able to bring rebels together to oppose the commies, but it is always dangerous to secretly give guns to any guerilla fighting group, especially one whose main agenda is to promote the specific branch of religion that he is a part of.

We commited genocide on every native american tribe that originally lived in the US, and the US has single handedly completely obliterated more than half the tribes that once lived in this land. This is after the Supreme Court, during Andrew Jackson's presidency declared that native american tribers were sovereign and could not be forced to move, nor could their land be taken. Jackson's responce to this decision, "Marshal (Chief Justice) has made his decision, now lets see him enforce it." Before he sent thousands of Cherokee out of Giorgia along the Trail of Tears, a thousand or so mile journey, forced by the US military, and undertaken in the winter. Yea, we have our share of rotteness as well.

everyone knows that... he said that Bush has committed genocide...

everyone knows that... he said that Bush has committed genocide...

jimhogg

No he didn't, you said that the fact that we got rid of a dictator that killed thousands of it's own citizens justifies entering the war.

He then replied, and I quote, "to be fair, so has the US" Not "to be fair, so has Bush"

And again, Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqies over, oh, 25+ years. The Iraq war has resulted in 1,220,580 Iraqi deaths in the 4 years 5 months from March, 2003 to August, 2007. So your saying that the death of 300,000 individuals justifies our president lying to us and and the further deaths of another 1.25 million people? Sorry if I don't agree.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]Why does flavort always create these debates only to flame and disappear within 20 posts?flavort

I get flamed so much it is unreal. I left because I had a customer. I am at work.