News President Bush

Why is it that because someone doesn't see the world the same way as you do, they can't think for themselves? Like your some Almighty power that has abilities no mere republican could have. You can't just accept that out of the more than 6 billion people on the face of the earth, someone is going to disagree with you, and be respectful of their opinion as well? You now called republicans who think CLinton deserves to be punished after he told the truth, "republican retards", you wouldn't appreciate it if I called you a "Democrat Douche", and now your saying that we can't think for ourselves? No one else in this thread has resorted to insulting the other side, why do you need to?

I don't have all day to argue with you on here. I'll just say that I'll be glad when we get rid of him and Hillary can take over in '08.

In other words, you have no more arguments. J/K. But seriously, if you don't have time today, then come back tomorrow, it would be childish to just leave like that.

You know Hillary will never win right? No matter how much anyone wants her to, No republican would vote for her, too many people still think a woman president is bad idea, and too many women don't respect her, because they don't think of her as a "strong woman" because of what Bill did. It's a very real possibility that the democrats win the white house, but no way in hell will it happen with Hillary.

how was it "sorta perjury" He got up on national TV in front of the entire nation and swore "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" He was under oath and lied = Perjury.

ALL the countries helped on disasters like that. NOT just the US.

so lets say USA has WMD; I am the president of CANADA. Me and Bush have arguments. I should invade USA because there is a potential threat that USA will use WMDs in Canada?

Its NOT only the US that does humanitarian missions. so do alot of other countries.

I fail to see your point, how does the fact that other countries helped mean anything? We are only suppossed to help when other countries don't?

First, there is no president of Canada, he would be the Prime Minister.

Second, What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read my response? An argument is a hell of a lot of different than being repeatedly threatened. If your playing a game with someone who has strangled people because he lost, and he has told you he would strangle you if he loses, if he loses are you just going to sit there and trust he won't do it, or would you try and immediately protect yourself? The fact of the matter is that Saddaam admitted to lacing SCUD missled with anthra during the gulf war. EVERYONE believed he was a threat in some way or another, if not directly to the US than to the middle east, which indirectly affects the US. That's a hell of alot different than an argument. It is like your grasping at straws here, you are drawing conclusions between two things that aren't even close to each other.

Now let's go through it again. Your the Prime Minister of Canada. I'm the President of the United States. You and I have an argument. Does that justify war from you? No. Now Your still Prime Minister, I'm still President. I'm known to kill my own people, have used weapons on you before, cheer whenever one of your people is murdered, threated to murder your entire nation, am known to at least be trying to get WMD's, possible already have them, and harbored terrorist that plan to urder thousands of your innocent civilians. Does it justify war? Yes, I think so.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Notice the words "consistent grasp" Kerry said, as many others felt, that even if he did not have WMD's, that he was trying avidly to obtain them, which was just as dangerous.

"...He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. ..."

- John Kerry

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

The intelligence failure was Bush's fault right? So explain to me why people in the previous administration said the same thing years before.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

REALLY!!! "Known for many years." That was in 2002, and known for many years. hmm...

Once again, this is relevant how? Because the fact that other countries aided too, it negates our efforts? This doesn't make any sense at all.

We have Prime Minister's here, not presidents

so where are the WMDs? since Saddam was known to have them for YEARS, then USA intelligence should know where they are. WHERE ARE THEY?
Just because it is THOUGHT for someone to have something, doesn't mean that he has something.

it doesn't matter if Canada has a prime minister or a president. Substitute Canada with any other country.

Alot of countries oppose the war that George Bush started. and yes i know you will say that no he didnt. but imho he did. he wanted to finish what his dad started. Over 10K officer had to immobilize when Bush visited France, Germany, Spain and Italy. 10K?! Almost all developing countries and most of Europe dislike the policy that Bush is using.

Also a side note:
Foreign Aid: USA is stingiest of the 22 most developed countries
The USA claims to be, in absolute terms, the world's biggest giver and this is true. However, as a proportion of it's wealth the USA gives least when compared to all 22 of the worlds' most developed countries.

a nice read though is located here:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html

read some of the responses.

i am ending this argument since you or i cannot change each others points of views.

I would like to commend E and OB1murry for some EXCELLENT posts in this thread!

I'm going to mostly stay out of it, because I can see they've said most of what I would have already.

I did see a comment that the U.S. wasn't "helpful" to other nations? Are you kidding!? We give an insane amount of aid to most of the countries in the world. Anytime there's a disaster somewhere we're usually the 1st to take the initiative and help.


And the 2nd quoted part in Eandree's above post I just can't leave alone. You have to consider this. Iraq was REQUIRED by the 1991 Gulf War resolution to account for and destroy ALL of their weapons and FULLY COOPERATE with inspectors. Lets see, they never accounted for or destroyed weapons. I guarantee there is proof of this. They also didnt cooperate with inspectors. Kicking them out entirely in 1998 is hardly considered cooperation. Lastly, once they were out in 1998 can you honestly say you think Saddam didn't start manufacturing weapons immediately thereafter? Of course he did, think about the man we're talking about here, as well as the perceived threats he would have from his neighbors (Iran anyone?)...... I could go on and on, since theres ALOT more to this whole issue but I think I've presented my points well enough for now.

you say its naive to think Bush didnt know the intelligence was wrong? I'd say its naive to think Saddam didnt have weapons just because the UN said "You've been bad, you can't have any" I seem to remember Hamid Karza (spelled wrong) the head of Saddams Nuke program saying they had so many ways to hide weapons (ie underground) that It'd be impossible to find them.


Oops guess I didn't stay out of it.

Neither do you. :weird

I thought you were leaving? :signIdiot

It's ok though. We are republicans. We knew we were getting false information from you. But we decided to pretend it wasn't faulty, all in an attempt to push our own agenda into getting you to come back.

Yes cause you listed worldwide disasters and all the countries helped in those and US is not the only country that helps (the stingiest at that)(Read the article about the ratio per catipa) and saying that we are the biggest help and we are the best and having the cockiest attitude like that is what brings this nation down. Thinking that US is the "peace maker" pretending to be one is what really sucks about US.

why is wacko? you support Bush's views, right? but you would never risk your life to "bring freedom to Iraq", would you? :superconf

Put the joint down...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

Most Americans oppose the war!--What do you think the other non-American population does?!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml

Did you even read the website? Probably not. oh yes..alot of room for compromise!

YES i would...the US gov't can't handle the New Orleans situation, you think they can handle an attack right now?

Based on what i read on the international news.

You weren't making the point that we are the stingiest, you made the point that we didn't donate,, you changed your agument.

What the hell is a big deal with it being per capita? If we donate 600 million dollars as a nation, our capita would be less than if say pakistan donated 300 million, we still gave more, just because it averages out to less doesn't mean anything.

According that 55% of people disagree with the war. Ok. Problem is it is 55% of THOSE POLLED, a poll will be inaccurate until every person in the country is polled, the poll also has a margin of error of +/- 4%. Which means even based on if that poll is accurate it could swing to as little as 51% being against the war, and 49% being in favor. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier, you completely ignor the half of the people in this country solely because they disagree with you. So what if half disagree, that means half agree, why is your side automatically more important? Wasn't your party the same people who said "51% isn't a mandate" when Bush won re-election, now that 51% serves your purpose is it?

From Dictionary.com:

W.M.D. n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons)

note the chemical and bilogical weapons.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040701203743.9i07uh3m.html

I can go find some more if you need.

Your drawing conclusions between two things not related again. The fact that he didn't look at the page doesn't mean he won't compromise. It means that his opinion won't change because people disagree with him, it will change when he truly believes he is wrong. Let's not forget, you are the one who said that we couldn;t sway you, none of us sayed we couldn't be swayed, who is uncompromising?

When can you ever truly handle an attack, it is all in how you respond to it. And don;t pull this the US governemt didn't try. Blanco blocked aid after the federal goverment had tried to send it in advance. State government failed in this case.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9444.shtml

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005403.php

http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/09/ill_wind_may_no.php

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011594.php

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005397.php

But if your so concerned about how we can't handle it., the once again why aren't you there helping. Your bitvhing at e to join the military if he believes in the cause, you seem to believe in the aid cause as much as he does the war, why aren't you there helping right now? It is easy to sit and bitch about things, yet do nothing about them.

^ Yeah, well some people dont understand basic functions of our country, like separation of powers. They think the Fed should throw money at people constantly despite the fact that their local officials are corrupt and inept.

no cause i know it will be a waste of my time.

i have read those. It is 1 article from 3 different sources. i would still trust my link not because it is from the head of CIA, but because it is up to date. NO WMD WERE FOUND. that comes from the CIA.

The article you posted has a title of: Report concludes no WMD in Iraq. That has to tell you something.

And IF my armpit had balls, i would have a dick the length of my arm. You can't go to war based on ASSUMPTIONS.

again my link in based on august 2005. when 9/11 happened everyone wanted to go to war just cause they thought that the war wouldn't last that long and have such a significant effect on the financial side on the american culture.

Again: IF my grandma had balls, she woulbe be a grandpa. IF IF IF!
Bush cannot be my hero. He cannot even form a complete sentence.

so all the european major news agencies are biased?

I think the Washington Post's top story as of now speaks for itself: Bush Approval Ratings Drop to a Record Low.

Seems as if some people who originally voted for Mr. Bush are now regretting it...

Also, I think Republicans are far more likely to ignore the viewpoints of others than Democrats. Take our President's own activity over the course of his time in office, as an example. He never recognizes wrongdoing on his own part and refuses to acknowledge facts opposing any of his actions or beliefs. What is he, a 10 year old? This activity is perfectly illustrated by Bush trying to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. If Republicans are so open to hearing the concerns of others, why do they support taking away the right for someone to make a decision about their own body? If you don't agree with abortion, fine, don't get one. I think it's ludicrous to try to take that right away from someone else just because you don't agree with it.

This guy seems to forget that he didn't even win the popular vote over Al Gore in 2000. As soon as he got in office he acts the like the entire country is full of hardcore right-wing conservatives who support the agenda he's pushing, when that's not the case at all. Honestly, I have nothing wrong with Republicans, but the fact that they feel they can take rights away from others makes me extremely mad.

a +/-4 might mean a 59% anti-war and 41% pro-war. so there is no 50/50 here.

NO WMD WERE FOUND. Going to war based on assumptions = BAD

so do you admit that WMD were not found based on CIA latest statement?
no, you don't. Therefore you have your mind set that WMD were found and nothing will change that.

State and local gov't failed to help in the Katrina situation. All the helicopters that were supposed to help for the New Orlean situtation were in Iraq. They KNEW Katrina was coming, yet no help was provided. You think if a SUDDEN attack was about to happen now, the US local and state will be able to respond?

Help what? in Iraq? Why? To make someone rich from oil? What is the use of our troops being there now? restoring freedom? protecting us? Saddam was captured. He was an evil man. Get our troops back. US is loosing the war now.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20051103-080702-9779r

Wow, just wow.

Please respond to mine then. TITLE: Mustard and Sarin Gas found in Iraq.

and the defenition of WMD says straight out it includes those types of weapons.

And as you said below, titles should tell you something.

Hmm well mine didn't, why don't you reply to that.

But guess what, if I created a new thread that is titled "I can shit Golden Eggs!", it doesn't mean tha I can. And once again, just a few post ago you were complaining about how dumb the CIA was about its information, now that they agree with you, they are smart enough? Which is it? You ignore people and make fun of them, until they agree with you.

Maybe, but I bet he at least knows Canada has a Prime Minister and not a President.

You have made numerous spelling and grammatical errors just in this thread, everyone has, imagine if you had to do it in front of the entire nation, you'd make mistakes there too.

It is embarassing that you are so concerned with the number of people who agree with you. I actually feel sorry for you that you think you can justify your argument through the strength in numbers argument.

When these people voted for Bush, you would have made them out to be the dumbest people on the planet, but now that they agree with you they are miraculously smarter. Which one is it, are they too dumb to make th eright decision, or are they smart enough? It can't be both ways.

See me last post about polls. 40% approve, 60% disapparove, OF THOSE POLLED, so it is already not 100% accurte, a margin of erro of +/- 3%, so it could easily be 57% and 42%, OF THOSE POLLED, that is still too close to 50 and 50 for a poll like this to be useful.

Ask e. he would know more about it than me. But I'm sure he will tell you polls like this are usually very inaccurate. Look at the exit polls from the 2000 and 2004 elections. Both showed Democrat candidates leading by alot, and republicans won the area. Most polls aren't usually effective.

I also notice they don't tell you the questions asked, which is a sure fire sign that something is amiss. The question asked could have been, "Do you agree with the way the Iraq war is being handled?" People may say no, because they think that something should be done differently, but still agree with the war. I will give you that yes, more and more people are starting to say they don;t agree, but you can't rely on things like this to determine that.

Yeah but remember, if your armpit had nuts, you would have a dick the size of your arm, your assuming it wouls swing that way, and you said you can;t assume things, so your point is automatically moot.

The point is, it COULD go either way, you can't assume that it will swing your way, it easily could, but it could easily swing the other way as well.

Who is uncompromising now? Proof, in your face, but your too ignorant to admit it.

Being an idiot = BAD

Yeah, kinda like how all the buses that were suppossed to be used to transport people away just sat in the parking lot because as Ray Nagin said, "They were too uncomfortable"? Did you read the links I sent? One shows evidence that Bush tried to declare it a siaster area and being moving people out TWO DAYS before Katrina hit, and Blanco said no.

No, I don't think we would. But if I broke into your house unexpectedly (no it's not a threat, it'shypothetical), and shot someone who lives with you, would you be prepared for it? You know that is a possiblity, but I doubt you would be prepared.

No, we did such a bad job in New Orleans, why don't you jojn FEMA and go help?

But remember, no assumptions, your assuming it was for oil, no one 100% knows that to be a fact, your telling us not to assume, while using an assumption as the backbone of your entire argument.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you just made your argument 100% moot, and proved my point. Ninety Four's poll showed the disapproval rating at 39% with a MOE of 3%, your poll shows it at 34%, with a MOE of 3%, the polls are at oppsite ends of the spectrum a 5% difference? That's a big deal in a poll. It just shows the inadequacy of polls

The fact that you resort to personal attacks proves you can't counter my argument with facts. And for your information, the whole point of a poll is that it accurately reflects the way the nation would vote. Obviously it is not the entire country, but if you've ever taken a statistics course, you would know that taking a sample gives you an accurate representation of the whole.

Also, Bush led in polls vs. his Democratic competition both in 2000 and in 2004, FYI.

First, please point out this "personal attack". As I would love to see it. Is it anything like calling people "republican retards"?

I can't counter your arguments? Aren't you the one who left earlier?

But as far as it being accurate goes, lets wait for e_andree, as he would have more first hand knowledge of it than us.

But really, Bush led in the exit polls?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23580-2004Nov3.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137451,00.html
http://www.baselinemag.com/print_article/0,3668,a=35729,00.asp
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/wambough/050107
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6408569/site/newsweek/

I was talking about pre-election polls, since that's most relevant to the polls in the article I posted. I don't know where you got the idea of exit polls from.

And yeah, I left because arguing against someone like you is a waste of my time.

How is that a personal attack? I said it is embarrising and I'm sorry that you actually feel sheer numbers justifies your opinion. Wow, I really lashed out at you.

Yup, when you leave it's because I'm an idiot, but when I don't want to respond to an argument where the entire point is "Well more people are on my side." it's because I can't argue against you. Damn, you see straight into my soul.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051104/us_nm/bush_poll_dc
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051104/wl_nm/latam_summit_dc

me and Ninety Four OWN THIS THREAD!

a 155 mm shell with sarin gas was found...umm ookkkk..on the other hand..
NO WMD WERE FOUND.

i think you are the one ignoring the fact that NO WMD were found...CIA were dumb enough to CLAIM that WMD were found, but now they prove me right!

personal attacks? drawing your last straw here? Bush cannot even form a complete sentence! US is in a huge debt because of him. In a recent interview he tried to make a joke about the CIA leak! idiot (Edit: referring to him-not you)!

personal attack. i feel sorry for you 2 then for having an opinion.

no but the people that made the wrong decision of voting for him are actually now seeing what they did wrong.

personal attack and i will not respond since most of the gibbersish you wrote above makes no sense.

yes i am prepared. I have an alarm..imagine a bigger alarm for US.

so local and state gov't handled the situation perfectly? is that what you are trying to say?

and you are assuming that US went to Iraq to restore freedom.