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

[QUOTE="jimhogg"][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.

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?

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

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

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was questionable. It may have just been an excuse to escalate the war - similar to the USS Maine? in the Spanish American war. hard to say.

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]

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

Insane00

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.

sorry i misread.

and why do you keep saying that our President lied to us?!!!! we have all stated that he didn't CONGRESS declared war based on EVERY MAJOR GOVERNMENTS INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ok? even hillary clinton supported the war... intelligence dropped the ball on this one ok?

Newsmax quote huh. They aren't biased:roll: I mean the founder and editor and chief of that site is "Christopher Ruddy a conservative American journalist. He is currently the CEO of NewsMax Media." Zing!Darthmatt

everyone is biased in some way...

fox news is conservative

cnn is liberal

cbs liberal

nbc liberal

msnbc liberal

abc liberal

get the trend?

Bush is a texas oil man, If you really think we are in Iarq because Bush wanted to liberate those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator you are delusional. Bush does not give **** about the Iraqis he wants the oil.SunofVich

once again, the President CANNOT DECLARE WAR!

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Newsmax quote huh. They aren't biased:roll: I mean the founder and editor and chief of that site is "Christopher Ruddy a conservative American journalist. He is currently the CEO of NewsMax Media." Zing!jimhogg

everyone is biased in some way...

fox news is conservative

cnn is liberal

cbs liberal

nbc liberal

msnbc liberal

abc liberal

get the trend?

liberal or not they have clinton on tape admitting he had the perfect chance of capturing bin laden... jimhogg

Quite possibly, no one is defending him for doing that, I certainly shake my head at Clinton for not raising a finger for the genocide in Darfur (which is imo far more important then the capture of Bin ladin was at the time)...

That being said the same could be said with Bush a few years back.. They had Bin Ladin with in a days capture in Afghanistan, but for some reason they pulled off 2/3rds of the forces and he slipped away...

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Newsmax quote huh. They aren't biased:roll: I mean the founder and editor and chief of that site is "Christopher Ruddy a conservative American journalist. He is currently the CEO of NewsMax Media." Zing!jimhogg

everyone is biased in some way...

fox news is conservative

cnn is liberal

cbs liberal

nbc liberal

msnbc liberal

abc liberal

get the trend?

Yes but it seems alot of times sources like Fox are extremely more bias compared to their competitors.. This is not to say the other news stations are bias, but it seems like Fox is in a league of its own.

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]Bush is a texas oil man, If you really think we are in Iarq because Bush wanted to liberate those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator you are delusional. Bush does not give **** about the Iraqis he wants the oil.jimhogg

once again, the President CANNOT DECLARE WAR!

Yet formal declarations of war occur only on the request by the president in reality.

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Newsmax quote huh. They aren't biased:roll: I mean the founder and editor and chief of that site is "Christopher Ruddy a conservative American journalist. He is currently the CEO of NewsMax Media." Zing!sSubZerOo

everyone is biased in some way...

fox news is conservative

cnn is liberal

cbs liberal

nbc liberal

msnbc liberal

abc liberal

get the trend?

Yes but it seems alot of times sources like Fox are extremely more bias compared to their competitors.. This is not to say the other news stations are bias, but it seems like Fox is in a league of its own.

No, they're all equally biased actually. Fox News gets a lot of heat cause Conservative bias seems to be more obvious IMO.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Newsmax quote huh. They aren't biased:roll: I mean the founder and editor and chief of that site is "Christopher Ruddy a conservative American journalist. He is currently the CEO of NewsMax Media." Zing!InterpolWilco

everyone is biased in some way...

fox news is conservative

cnn is liberal

cbs liberal

nbc liberal

msnbc liberal

abc liberal

get the trend?

Yes but it seems alot of times sources like Fox are extremely more bias compared to their competitors.. This is not to say the other news stations are bias, but it seems like Fox is in a league of its own.

No, they're all equally biased actually. Fox News gets a lot of heat cause Conservative bias seems to be more obvious IMO.

Yes they are equally bias in YOUR opinion..

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]liberal or not they have clinton on tape admitting he had the perfect chance of capturing bin laden... sSubZerOo

Quite possibly, no one is defending him for doing that, I certainly shake my head at Clinton for not raising a finger for the genocide in Darfur (which is imo far more important then the capture of Bin ladin was at the time)...

That being said the same could be said with Bush a few years back.. They had Bin Ladin with in a days capture in Afghanistan, but for some reason they pulled off 2/3rds of the forces and he slipped away...

yeah.. i'm not saying i particularly like Bush.. he's not a great president, but he's also nowhere near as bad as people claim. they're claiming every bad thing is his fault, he's like the ultimate scapegoat.

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]Bush is a texas oil man, If you really think we are in Iarq because Bush wanted to liberate those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator you are delusional. Bush does not give **** about the Iraqis he wants the oil.Godly_Cure

once again, the President CANNOT DECLARE WAR!

Yet formal declarations of war occur only on the request by the president in reality.

yes, i know he put it forward and do you know who also voted for war? John kerry and hillary clinton...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]liberal or not they have clinton on tape admitting he had the perfect chance of capturing bin laden... jimhogg

Quite possibly, no one is defending him for doing that, I certainly shake my head at Clinton for not raising a finger for the genocide in Darfur (which is imo far more important then the capture of Bin ladin was at the time)...

That being said the same could be said with Bush a few years back.. They had Bin Ladin with in a days capture in Afghanistan, but for some reason they pulled off 2/3rds of the forces and he slipped away...

yeah.. i'm not saying i particularly like Bush.. he's not a great president, but he's also nowhere near as bad as people claim. they're claiming every bad thing is his fault, he's like the ultimate scapegoat.

I really could care less what other things he has done.. The war in Iraq is being ran extremely incompetent, what infuriates me the most is he doesn't even mention the problems over there, admit he is wrong nad improve etc etc.. Take a look at Haliburton (a company the vice president has significant stock in) in its killer profits as well as the fact its not doing its job and putting troops in harms way.. It only makes me more angry when this is supposedly the side thats "patriotic" and care for the troops.. Give me a break.

yes, i know he put it forward and do you know who also voted for war? John kerry and hillary clinton...

jimhogg

And when Kerry found out the truth and stopped supporting the war he was demonized for changing his mind. Your point?

I really could care less what other things he has done.. The war in Iraq is being ran extremely incompetent, what infuriates me the most is he doesn't even mention the problems over there, admit he is wrong nad improve etc etc.. Take a look at Haliburton (a company the vice president has significant stock in) in its killer profits as well as the fact its not doing its job and putting troops in harms way.. It only makes me more angry when this is supposedly the side thats "patriotic" and care for the troops.. Give me a break.

sSubZerOo

Don't forget the troops were sent over there without proper protection.

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]

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.

sorry i misread.

and why do you keep saying that our President lied to us?!!!! we have all stated that he didn't CONGRESS declared war based on EVERY MAJOR GOVERNMENTS INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ok? even hillary clinton supported the war... intelligence dropped the ball on this one ok?

If EVERY MAJOR GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE AGENCY was saying that, why did the UN not support our resolution to go to war. Why did we get caught up in a slap fest with the French, going so far as to CHANGE THE NAME OF OUR FOOD. Why, praytell did we have to create, a 'colalition of the willing' rather than work with the rest f the world like we did in Yugeslavia, like we have in places like Chad? Why was there so much disagreement, if Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMDs?

Fine, Bush may have been himself duped, but you have to ask yourself, how is it that the comander and chief of this country, who is technically incharge of all those US Intelligence agencies, was completely oblivious that they may have been wrong. I mean, since they were all wrong, what exactly did they tell him to convince him and the rest of congress that we should go to war. Did go like this, "well sir, we have taken many pictures and seen much activity in these places so there may be some WMD production occuring here." and Bush goes, "Oh, noes, we better go to war." I mean if that is what went down, I consider that a lie, that is, a misrepresentation of the truth.

I seriously doubt the CIA went to Bush and said, "they have WMD's. We know, we saw them, and we gotta take him out before he uses them." and then we attack, and suddenly poof, they are all gone, hmm. No, the data was misrepresented and Bush expressed confidence that wasn't justified to promote his agenda. That may not be technically a lie, but in my mind it is no better. Bush wanted to do something, and he told us what we needed to hear to agree, the fact that he knowingly didn't tell us everything is just as slimy and dishonest as if he just made stuff up.

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]Bush is a texas oil man, If you really think we are in Iarq because Bush wanted to liberate those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator you are delusional. Bush does not give **** about the Iraqis he wants the oil.jimhogg

once again, the President CANNOT DECLARE WAR!

You are correct, but he can send out troops to a conflict for a certain amount of time (like 90 days) without congressional approval, after which he must ask congress for permission. This is how the Afghanistan thing started as well as how we dealt with Yugoslavia.

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

yoshi-lnex

No, the US actualy provoked the Vietnamese into war by running their ship into Vietnamese waters just like the Lucitania.

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]

yes, i know he put it forward and do you know who also voted for war? John kerry and hillary clinton...

Godly_Cure

And when Kerry found out the truth and stopped supporting the war he was demonized for changing his mind. Your point?

john kerry said he still supports his decision...

[QUOTE="jimhogg"]

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]Bush is a texas oil man, If you really think we are in Iarq because Bush wanted to liberate those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator you are delusional. Bush does not give **** about the Iraqis he wants the oil.Godly_Cure

once again, the President CANNOT DECLARE WAR!

Yet formal declarations of war occur only on the request by the president in reality.

The president has the power to control the military. Congress has the power to declare war.

It's like the part of Conan where arnold says his prayer. Arnold says hey I'm gonna go fight these guys. How about a blessing before I go!

Congress doesn't command the army so a declaration of war without the president's involvement is the same as when some crazy exgirlfriend starts mouthin' off at the pub that you're gonna kick some guy's #*$%.

[QUOTE="Godly_Cure"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]

[QUOTE="SunofVich"]Bush is a texas oil man, If you really think we are in Iarq because Bush wanted to liberate those poor Iraqis from the evil dictator you are delusional. Bush does not give **** about the Iraqis he wants the oil.effthat

once again, the President CANNOT DECLARE WAR!

Yet formal declarations of war occur only on the request by the president in reality.

The president has the power to control the military. Congress has the power to declare war.

It's like the part of Conan where arnold says his prayer. Arnold says hey I'm gonna go fight these guys. How about a blessing before I go!

Congress doesn't command the army so a declaration of war without the president's involvement is the same as when some crazy exgirlfriend starts mouthin' off at the pub that you're gonna kick some guy's #*$%.

That's not what the point of his comment was. Simply that the president has historically requested the declaration.:|

[QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]

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

Insane00

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.

sorry i misread.

and why do you keep saying that our President lied to us?!!!! we have all stated that he didn't CONGRESS declared war based on EVERY MAJOR GOVERNMENTS INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ok? even hillary clinton supported the war... intelligence dropped the ball on this one ok?

If EVERY MAJOR GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE AGENCY was saying that, why did the UN not support our resolution to go to war. Why did we get caught up in a slap fest with the French, going so far as to CHANGE THE NAME OF OUR FOOD. Why, praytell did we have to create, a 'colalition of the willing' rather than work with the rest f the world like we did in Yugeslavia, like we have in places like Chad? Why was there so much disagreement, if Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMDs?

Fine, Bush may have been himself duped, but you have to ask yourself, how is it that the comander and chief of this country, who is technically incharge of all those US Intelligence agencies, was completely oblivious that they may have been wrong. I mean, since they were all wrong, what exactly did they tell him to convince him and the rest of congress that we should go to war. Did go like this, "well sir, we have taken many pictures and seen much activity in these places so there may be some WMD production occuring here." and Bush goes, "Oh, noes, we better go to war." I mean if that is what went down, I consider that a lie, that is, a misrepresentation of the truth.

I seriously doubt the CIA went to Bush and said, "they have WMD's. We know, we saw them, and we gotta take him out before he uses them." and then we attack, and suddenly poof, they are all gone, hmm. No, the data was misrepresented and Bush expressed confidence that wasn't justified to promote his agenda. That may not be technically a lie, but in my mind it is no better. Bush wanted to do something, and he told us what we needed to hear to agree, the fact that he knowingly didn't tell us everything is just as slimy and dishonest as if he just made stuff up.

The french and the russians were both selling arms to Iraq in shady dealings. The french and the russians also are two of the four nations that have the power to veto. funny that they would oppose the UN stirring up the dirt and possibly taking out the regime that they were tapping funds from.

the UN is as much of a failure as the first attempt after world war I. Oddly enough the first attempt is what ultimately led to WWII. So now that we have an even more corrupt and useless organization, it's reasonable to assume that the ties that bind will set the world on yet another call for "whose side are you on".

To everyone that says the president lied about WMD's:

The widespread idea that there were WMD's in Iraq came from two places.

1) There was an Iraqi man who ran away and ended up in some European country (I think Germany) and there he gave a detailed description of a factory he worked and lots of mysterious activity that went on and how no one was aloud in the basement and mysterious men in lab coats were the only one aloud in and government vehicles that would enter the basement loading dock and come out the other end loaded with secret boxes.

2) During the 3rd Reich in Germany English and French governments repeatedly approached Hitler and asked "Are you building an Army?" "Are you building a navy?" and so on. He essentially replied. "Maybe I am or maybe I am not." And the English and French decided to let him be for the time being to avoid another war. Saddam did the same shortly before US invasion of Iraq. He would say he did not have weapons but he would not allow anyone in to see.

I consider these pretty reasonable.

john kerry said he still supports his decision...

jimhogg

Meaning? Given the information at the time he made a decision. He did change his opinion so I don't what you are getting at here. Bush jumped on his change to bash him in the election.:|

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

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="jimhogg"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="jimhogg"]

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

effthat

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.

sorry i misread.

and why do you keep saying that our President lied to us?!!!! we have all stated that he didn't CONGRESS declared war based on EVERY MAJOR GOVERNMENTS INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ok? even hillary clinton supported the war... intelligence dropped the ball on this one ok?

If EVERY MAJOR GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE AGENCY was saying that, why did the UN not support our resolution to go to war. Why did we get caught up in a slap fest with the French, going so far as to CHANGE THE NAME OF OUR FOOD. Why, praytell did we have to create, a 'colalition of the willing' rather than work with the rest f the world like we did in Yugeslavia, like we have in places like Chad? Why was there so much disagreement, if Everyone agreed that Iraq had WMDs?

Fine, Bush may have been himself duped, but you have to ask yourself, how is it that the comander and chief of this country, who is technically incharge of all those US Intelligence agencies, was completely oblivious that they may have been wrong. I mean, since they were all wrong, what exactly did they tell him to convince him and the rest of congress that we should go to war. Did go like this, "well sir, we have taken many pictures and seen much activity in these places so there may be some WMD production occuring here." and Bush goes, "Oh, noes, we better go to war." I mean if that is what went down, I consider that a lie, that is, a misrepresentation of the truth.

I seriously doubt the CIA went to Bush and said, "they have WMD's. We know, we saw them, and we gotta take him out before he uses them." and then we attack, and suddenly poof, they are all gone, hmm. No, the data was misrepresented and Bush expressed confidence that wasn't justified to promote his agenda. That may not be technically a lie, but in my mind it is no better. Bush wanted to do something, and he told us what we needed to hear to agree, the fact that he knowingly didn't tell us everything is just as slimy and dishonest as if he just made stuff up.

The french and the russians were both selling arms to Iraq in shady dealings. The french and the russians also are two of the four nations that have the power to veto. funny that they would oppose the UN stirring up the dirt and possibly taking out the regime that they were tapping funds from.

the UN is as much of a failure as the first attempt after world war I. Oddly enough the first attempt is what ultimately led to WWII. So now that we have an even more corrupt and useless organization, it's reasonable to assume that the ties that bind will set the world on yet another call for "whose side are you on".

You should realize that the Permanent members of the UN (China, Russia, France, Great Britian, and United States) are the largest weapon dealers in the world by now.. And the reason why its a failure is because the main countries such as teh US don't even follow the UN.. They only follow the UN when its convient and break it when its not.. Giving nuclear weapons to India is proof of this.. Then the US some how has the balls with our prick waving in the UN calling people traitors and cowards when they have a DIFFERENCE of opinion with us.. Yeah I don't know why in the world the UN is failing right now :roll:

And also your going to need to provide proof of that argument because Iraq hasn't been supported with weapons trade sense the 80s when Reagen gave both iran and Iraq weapons.. I have seen none such evidence of a more recent arms deal..

Want to know something even more pathetic? The UN's primary contriubators for peacekeepers are from DEVELOPING NATIONS.. That is pathetic.. Maybe if the primary powers that be would actually support the UN things like the Darfur and Rwanda Genoicide would never happen. Which makes me sick as well that US politics as of late seems to be this bleeding heart humanism to cover up or mask other motives..

You know it's plagarism if you don't give the author credit, right?

Also, I think you are quite obtuse of you to believe it is only liberals who look down upon Bush. Elements within his own republican party look down upon his decisions.

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]Newsmax quote huh. They aren't biased:roll: I mean the founder and editor and chief of that site is "Christopher Ruddy a conservative American journalist. He is currently the CEO of NewsMax Media." Zing!jimhogg

everyone is biased in some way...

fox news is conservative

cnn is liberal

cbs liberal

nbc liberal

msnbc liberal

abc liberal

get the trend?