Congratulations President Bush, 6 yrs. with no terrorist attack on US soil!

Hi xHAD, Congratulations to another Bush hater! Let it all hang out, tell the world about it. That's nice and civil!
Can you Bush haters imagine what it was like for us people who have values like integrity, honor and accountability back when Clinton was in office? And now Hillary running for office? With their shenanigans day after day, week after week! Constant scandal! I know you're feeling sorry for us, too. Oh well. I just love politics! And politicians!

i'm just going to call you out on this: you pulled that number from your rear. (the 99% of terrorists are Muslim extremists)

reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Yes the terrorist killers that you for some reason like to defend do almost all of the terrorism, they have that dubious distinction. I admit I have not heard anyone who has tried to quantify that bloody activity, however. The "most victims are Muslims" has been quantified, and it is like about 75% which is really incredible to me. Kill your own, that makes a lot of sense! That really makes people take notice and want to join your side!

and nice job dropping my point on israel.

All I know about Israel is that the Palistinians and the Israelies have been arguing about it and fighting wars about it ever since the Israelies bought the land from the Palistinian land owners and the UN put their stamp of approval on it back about the time I was born. And we're off topic on that one.

it was actually our fault that the vietnam war started, because we refused to help the nationalist that would eventually turn to communism, ho chi min

After WWII Nam was a French colony and remained so well into the 50's. How was it the US's responsibility to help out the nationalists? You don't suppose our allies the French would have been a little upset with us if we had do you? We only went into Nam after the French left and Kenedy for some reason decided to go in and try to save the day!

I personaly think George W. Bush is doing a very good job protecting the U.S.A. from another terrorist attack.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by JadePhoenix]

reply to post by JadePhoenix

I'd agree on that one and you make my point. Many thanks!
Is Bush perfect? Not by a long shot! Are we better off with Bush as opposed to some liberal like Hillary President? Oh yeh and then some! Afganistan and Iraque would both have gone down the tubes with Democratic leadership for sure! No leadership in that camp!

Originally posted by plumranch
Yes the terrorist killers that you for some reason like to defend do almost all of the terrorism, they have that dubious distinction

oh the ad hom attack that is so common among conservative arguments. because i'm trying to shatter the twisted perceptions we have of terrorists, i'm "defending them"

. I admit I have not heard anyone who has tried to quantify that bloody activity, however.

then you were absolutely wrong to pull out a quantification.

The "most victims are Muslims" has been quantified, and it is like about 75% which is really incredible to me. Kill your own, that makes a lot of sense! That really makes people take notice and want to join your side!

you're assuming once more that the majority of terrorists are muslims.

All I know about Israel is that the Palistinians and the Israelies have been arguing about it and fighting wars about it ever since the Israelies bought the land from the Palistinian land owners and the UN put their stamp of approval on it back about the time I was born.

well... for one, the palestinians didn't sell the land, they were evicted. they received no compensation, no money, no new land. that's part of the reason why the conflict started. they were just pushed off forcibly.

And we're off topic on that one.

not at all. see, i'm arguing that bush has actually been encouraging acts that we'd call terrorist if they were coming from muslims.
would you consider breaking international law to use clusterbombs on civilian targets a terrorist act?

After WWII Nam was a French colony and remained so well into the 50's. How was it the US's responsibility to help out the nationalists?

um... we had that whole idealistic doctrine of popular sovereignty and FDR had actually semi-committed to it. truman was the one that backed out on that issue.

You don't suppose our allies the French would have been a little upset with us if we had do you?

ah, so appeasing allies is more important than allowing people freedom.

We only went into Nam after the French left and Kenedy for some reason decided to go in and try to save the day!

you really misunderstand the situation. the most kennedy sent were people to advise the south vietnamese
the issue was the odd and idiotic "domino theory"

anyway, that part is definitely off topic.

now, part of the funny thing is that we're now labeling the entire military of iran as a terrorist group...
hmm...
see how easy it is for people to shift around perceptions just by misuse of words?

[edit on 9/15/07 by madnessinmysoul]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Hi madness, You seem like a knowledgeable person concerning the Middle East. Why do you suppose we are there with a military presence. Why would powerful western countries involve themselves over there. Forget the reteric and standard reasons given on NBC and Fox.

Where did this myth o the 'liberal media' come from anyway? There is still the debate of whether or not Bush was involved in 9/11. Bush is a terrible president.

reply to post by plumranch


resources and a horribly inept security strategy...
mostly the horribly inept security strategy.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Hi Madness,
Interesting.
Well, because I believe (with little proof) that there is some sort of ubergovernment calling the overall shots, sort of directing the show, that our side is there to maintain a balance of power and keep up the good war or military action. Having all that oil and thus power in the hands of Sadam and now the Iranians may somehow not be acceptable either. I'm not in on the overall plan but I sure think there is one and the largest part of the plan is ongoing military activity. The muslim extremists get sucked in without realizing they are just pawns.

Where did this myth o the 'liberal media' come from

reply to post by 420prajna


Hi 420,
To a conservative, all media is liberal and always has been. My daughter is a journalist, she's a liberal, all her friend journalists are solid liberals. I remember the stat that better that 9 out of 10 people in the media vote democratic. What is not liberal about most media (except talk radio)? What planet do you come from?
Please refer to this Article involving political contributions of media people Of all the media contributors almost all were to the Democrats.


[edit on 15-9-2007 by plumranch]

Its purely typically liberal/socialist strategy..

Of course they can't/wont give any credit to President Bush..

But you can bet they would have blamed him if we had another attack...

So so typically ignorant of the real world situation and what is going on... Well ignorant isn't the right word, arrogant in their belief in their superiority is actually more appropriate..

So blinded and confused by the hate

But if you look at the other threads along the same lines, you will see the pattern easily enough...

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis

Its purely typically liberal/socialist strategy..

Welcome Semper! Sorry, which strategy are you referring to?

Welcome Semper! Sorry, which strategy are you referring to?

Simple,

The strategy of Higher Taxes, Increased people on welfare, abolishment of the 1st amendment and redistribution of wealth...

These are all right out of the Socialist play book, or more correctly, the Communist Manifesto...

They are all also the foundations of the Modern Democrat Liberal Policy Handbook...

Semper

I for one think terror attacks have very little to do with what Bush has been doing. Terror attacks are not always so carefully planned, and can be quickly taken out, just like a murder. More police isn't going to totally stop murder in America, just like more security and less freedoms aren't going to put a total end to terror attacks.

6 years and counting....

its coming and soon, keep believing in our gov't.

How can anyone believe our gov't is protecting its citizens.
Open your eyes at least to read and analyze what is really going on.
There is alot of information out there that tells a different story.

Be afraid, be very afraid

Be afraid, be very afraid

reply to post by magycpapyri

Hi Magy,
Of course that's what our enemies want us to be is afraid. Fear causes people to change their behavior and give up rights. I'll take life in America over anywhere else. We are a world away from the Middle East so it makes it difficult for terrorists to operate. The other factor that makes America a better place is the melting pot atmosphere. Old world traditions, attitudes, and hatred of traditional enemies doesn't persist here.

reply to post by plumranch


Geesh were you ever dead on the money with that post. It's too bad how most people view every political issue and world event through anti-Bush glasses, yours is a rare post indeed.

Yes, give credit where credit is due. Love it or hate it, the Bush administration has kept this country operable, functioning and safe.

Originally posted by plumranch
The current president deserves credit where credit is due!

And what kind of credit it that?, Yay lets party no attacks on the USA, but lets review all of the mistakes he has made with the Iran-Iraq War!

Originally posted by semperfortis

Simple,

The strategy of Higher Taxes, Increased people on welfare, abolishment of the 1st amendment and redistribution of wealth...

um, i don't think a single person in the USA wants the first amendment abolished outside of the religious right

These are all right out of the Socialist play book, or more correctly, the Communist Manifesto...

They are all also the foundations of the Modern Democrat Liberal Policy Handbook...

actually, the foundations of the modern liberal playbook are the works of john locke... the ones this country was founded on.

really shows how much you're just spinning instead of looking into the history.

modern liberals LOVE the first amendment, it's probably their favorite one

and i have a question for you... what the hell is wrong with higher taxes on the ridiculously rich, lower burden on the less fortunate and universal social services that increase the life expectancy and overall well being of a populace?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


ahhhh,

NO

when Republicans introduced a measure intended to permanently prevent the Federal Communications Commission from using what they called "the heavy hand of government control over talk radio."

In 1987, the agency had determined that the rule was no longer necessary due to the emergence of a "multiplicity of voices in the marketplace," he said.

"We live in ... a world in which you can simply change the dial or turn the radio off. But we don't want government in the business of censoring or monitoring and applying a standard that is basically unfair," he said

CNS News

Nothing FAIR about it...

The Liberals are trying to silence the only conservative voice that is making an impact... FACT... Regardless of your spin

Higher taxes?

That is a no brainer..

You libs want to punish success.. Just like good little Socialists, you want everyone equal and no one to excel above anyone else.. So you tax what YOU call the rich...

WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO DECIDE WHO HAS TOO MUCH MONEY? Are you playing GOD?

At what point do I begin to make too much money? You tell me please as it is you defending this pile of excrement...

Economic study after economic study has shown that REDUCING taxes increases the TAX revenue.. FACT

By reducing marginal tax rates and improving economic incentives, ERTA would increase the flow of resources into production, boosting economic growth.

In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid

High marginal tax rates discourage work effort, saving, and investment, and promote tax avoidance and tax evasion.

The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." Unfortunately, the Council could not bring itself to acknowledge the counterproductive effects high marginal tax rates can have upon taxpayer behavior and tax avoidance activities.

Since 1984 the JEC has provided factual information about the impact of the tax cuts of the 1980s. For example, for many years the JEC has published IRS data on federal tax payments of the top 1 percent, top 5 percent, top 10 percent, and other taxpayers. These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.

JEC Report

Bush Tax Cuts Raise Tax Revenue

If taxes rise, "early stage companies would be harder to form and fund, reducing the overall number of venture-backed companies and hurting the life blood of our entrepreneurial ecosystem," Jonathan Silver, a venture capitalist with Core Capital Partners, told the House Ways and Means Committee.

Higher Taxes HURT Venture Capital

The studies are endless

Liberal equals Socialism equals Communism

Spin it all you want, the facts are there

1. Redistribution of Wealth by the Government through higher taxes
2. Squashing of any voice that is contrary to the Liberal Philosophy
3. Creation of the Welfare State
ETC

Liberal equals Socialist

A Liberal Playbook

/posterity/Viewpts/libsoc.html]The sentimental liberal socialist


Facts and Facts and Facts, not opinion, facts

Thanks for the time

Semper