It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why do so many people on ATS hate Bush?
page: 8share:
and if I hear one more idiot say the world is just jealous of the US freedoms etc I will have to piss myself.
Originally posted by Romeo
and if I hear one more idiot say the world is just jealous of the US freedoms etc I will have to piss myself.
Wel whatever floats your boat
I was being serious re the girlfriend post mwm1331. Do you have any friends outside the US. Ask them for there honest opinion of what they think of
the US leadership. I can honestly say I have never seen the world (well my world anyway) so scornful of ANY leader of one of the "majors".
Romeo I lve in Europe and know the anti American sentiment well. However that scorn was here 5 years ago as much as today. As for the aprroval or
dissaproval of Bush personally I chalk it up to europen (and american) bigotry towards "rednecks"
The fact is I take a perverse pride in Europes scorn having lived here and seeing what europeans put up with from thier own government.
Between the excessivly heavy tax burden and the lack of personal freedoms in terms of self defense and personal property protection, most Amercans I know would revolt if forced to live under the european system.
The fact is that Americans and Europeans have vastly different priorities, values, habits, and lifestyles. While there is nothing wrong with that I dont like Europe judging the United States by thier standards.
The fact is I take a perverse pride in Europes scorn having lived here and seeing what europeans put up with from thier own government.
Between the excessivly heavy tax burden and the lack of personal freedoms in terms of self defense and personal property protection, most Amercans I know would revolt if forced to live under the european system.
The fact is that Americans and Europeans have vastly different priorities, values, habits, and lifestyles. While there is nothing wrong with that I dont like Europe judging the United States by thier standards.
well to answer your question, it's becoming the cool thing to do. I'm serious, and I've talked about this before, people are hopping on the
repungnent bandwagon........... and riding it to a slow collapse from capitalism to socialism.... so go ahead, vote for Kerry, and ruin this
country. People need to start reading up on politics, and making their decisions based on real information as opposed to listening to the biased
media. But unfortunetly, that wont happen people are lazy. And you must remember, that the majority of the people that will elect the next president,
therefore deciding our future, are extremely underinformed. So please, take to heart the motto of this website, and "deny ignorance".
Originally posted by CazMedia
27sj, i noticed that you were not willing to re-stste for the reccord that bush was AWOL and explain how he got an honorable discharge for being AWOL.....hmm, so you wont admit here that your statement was OPINION, yet im willing to state that you will continue to believe the delusions about this AWOL idea as well as continue to spew this LIE to others not on ATS.
BRING FACTS TO HATE BUSH FOR, NOT HYPE!!!! (millionth and 1 times asked for)
In your frantic haste to pull your lips away from the Bush administrations backside, and justify his every action, you must have me confused with some other delusional Bush hater, you see I never posted anything about Bush being AWOL, although he certainly didn't sign up to go to Nam did he?
Which companies are you alleging are corrupt and can you show any evidence of this corruption, or are you blindly accepting the rhetoric?
Yeah, Im blindly accepting the rhetoric. Sorry.
As far as "passing money to them thru contributions" goes...you do realize that $$$ donated to a politicians campaign is NOT the persons money and is highly monitored and accounted for and can be tracked? So where is the profit for Bush? Are you alledging secret payoffs? If so BRING THE FACTS NOT SPECULATION!?
I'm sure if I had solid proof of secret payoffs, I would be dead. And, I CAN SPECULATE HOWEVER MUCH I WISH, IF EVERY DISCUSSION WAS VOID OF OPINION AND SPECULATION WE WOULD ALL BE ROBOTS! But heres some info if you insist:
www.realchange.org...
Awarding contracts to? Many companies all got to give their sales pitch to the FEDS to compete and it just so happens that HALIBURTON was awarded the contract....WHY? Perhaps because they were the only company of its size and kind that could provide the type and level of services that would be needed? Show me another company with even close to the same capasity. Do you even know the types of things Haliburton does or are you just saying their corrupt because they are partly into oil and have had Cheney work for them?
Many companies got a chance to bid? Sorry, it was a no-bid contract buddy.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
Should i bother to dig up the same type of non issue sleaze on Kerry and his contributors? Im sure he's got vested intrests in some of their success as well as they in him.
Please, bother.
American soldiers COST alot of $$$ to start with, they volunteer to serve the nation to in PART protect monetary/economic intrests of the nation as well as physically protecting it. How valuable would those soldiers lives be if the economy collapsed? Could we even afford them if it did?
Thats a great question, the economy was doing great under Clinton, until your champion Bush came along. We went from surplus to raging deficit and that is not speculation, that is fact.
27sj continues a baseless rant,
Are you blind? Its 27jd, why do you keep posting 27sj? Maybe you do have problems with your eyesight, because earlier you stated I posted about Bush being AWOL, which was a true baseless rant, being as I didnt post it.
Hmm did Bush jr own some interests in kuwait around the time of Desert Storm? Your alledging he did, you show us this is fact. But lets say he did.
SO WHAT? that was what, 10 years before he even ran for office? So you hate our current president because he had legit business dealings a decade ago? What a crap argument...again BRING SOMETHING RELAVENT AND NOT HYPED DEMOCRATIC TRIPE THAT PLAYS MORE TO EMOTION AND LESS TO FACTS.
HERES SOME FACTS about his legit business dealings:
www.realchange.org...
As far as your ASSUMPTION that Bush Sr instigated in part to save Jr's oil rig...what a shallow way to gauge this situation. So the fact that the USA/coalition was ousting a dictator known for attacking neighbors and WMD use that had occupied a neighboring country wasnt a good reason for dessert storm? Is that the nobel reason your putting down? Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator is bad?
Theres that noble cause I was expecting! You do not disappoint. Im sure they were very concerned about the people of that region (insert sarcasm). Very noble. By the way, I thought it was Desert Storm not dessert storm, that makes me picture ice cream attacks and pie bombings. No wonder you love GWB so much, you have so much in common (i.e., bad grammar).
I'll give you that "families in power" have the potential for corruption/collusion with one another. But unless you can show illegal actions between the 2, what are you doing? Your again trying to hate the President for something YOU MADE UP IN YOUR HEAD! Are facts meaningless to your vote casting process?
Sorry, Im not trying to hate the President, I dont have to try. And its not just the potential for corruption, some things are obvious, and their dealings are obviously corrupt. Just like the mafia, while proof is often hard for the law to come by, you know they are criminals.
Exactly how many families in lets say, the energy sector, do you think that are this wealthy to be involved in things at the national/world market level? mabey a handfull? It seems like a basic assumption that they would know and interact with each other...who else can they interact at this magnitude with? Me? You? we probably will get to wash their dishes after their function, not help decide energy policy.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here or how it justifies wealthy families corrupt dealings with each other, but maybe is not spelled "mabey". Is english your second language "mabey"?
Have you seen how many Saudis have died from them trying to reform away from fundamentalist Islamism? They have seen a drastic increase in internal terror strikes since they sided with the west.
No, I havent seen how many. And Im not talking about the people, Im talking about the leaders, they control the country, they can reform away this self-destructive form of Islam at their will. They choose not to.
How easy do you think it is to decide to now persecute a segment of your culture that previously you at the minimum allowed to flourish, as well as perpetuated their attitudes? Its not like flicking a switch, and the Saudi's are paying for this now in blood on their streets. It also seems like the Saudi's have BEEN trying to reform things there for a long time as they were already working with the USA bases there for over a decade as well.
We need to assist them, but not meddle internally as long as they remain a stable place in the area. Change IS in the works there, just not as quick as some might like.
We pulled most of our military out of Saudi Arabia last I heard. And we're talking about a brutal regime here, they can reign in militants much more quickly than you state. They know full well who they are and where. Change is not in the works, at best they are creating the illusion it is, and its got you snowed.
It didnt take 30,000 shells that i believe we gave him to wipe out a village of a few thousand. (im researching that # for you)
Let me know what you come up with, and dont forget the Iranians now.
Yes even I am amused at Rummy shaking hands with Saddam, however, your pulling this out of context. That moment was at a time where the USA was activly trying to contain the spread of radical fundamentalist Islamic rule by the religous leaders in IRAN....so we helped a non religious state (Iraq) fight its enemy. Dont forget the cold war for the preceeding 50 years where we were playing chess with the world with the soviets, backing nations against the other side. All of these factors led to what is the middle east now...and they were going on for decades before Bush Jr got into office.
Trying to pin the results of 50 yrs of involvement in the mid east on Bush Jr gives him a little too much credit dont you think? Bush Jr had nothing to do with Rummy shaking Saddams hand...was he even govenor when that happened? Im glad you have an inside track to either Bush's motives that they havnt stated....OPINION OR FACT?
No, Bush didnt have anything to do with Rummys chumming it up with Hussein, thats why I stated his "administration", so as not to pin it directly to him. But he has been a major player as far back as he could have been.
The JESUS issue...
Seperation of church and state does NOT mean that any president or gov official cant have a religious belief OR that he can't use it to guide his decisions....It means that the Government will not force or deny a religon onto the people in an institutionalized form....(IE laws for/against a state religon)
again, you use misinformed HYPE to say you hate Bush.
Do you have any actual TANGIBLE, non-emotive, policy reasons to hate Bush? Or you just running off adrenaline and un-informed OPINIONS, UNVERIFIED SPECULATIONS, OR MISINFORMATION passed thru the couch potato masses in order to cast your vote?
He is forcing religion by passing laws against stem-cell research, passing laws banning gay marriage, and abortion rights just to name a few instances. No opinion, unverified speculation, or misinformation there, just fact. Do you deny his religious beliefs are affecting people who do not share them concerning these issues? If you do, then you are not even worth debating.
And I would like to add (off the particular subjects) that during Bush's press conference yesterday, he stated that if he knew before we went to war with Iraq, what we know now, he still wouldve invaded. The magnitude of that statement is enough to render all of these debates pointless. He wouldve invaded a country with absolutely no grounds other than Hussein was a bad guy and had the desire at one time to harbor WMDs, well then we'd better start invading alot of other countries. I can't believe you can live with yourself loyally defending such a criminal.
Now, back to your grammar, upon reading your posts one cannot help but laugh at your attempt to sound hyper-educated, heres just one quote from a post to strangeland from you:
"Lets try this again,
In studying the english language and developing reading comprehension skills, taking any (sentance) and classifying it as a statement of; fact, opinion, question, speculative, emotional, false, (ect) is (tought) to kids so that they can interpret what someone is saying."
I put your errors in parenthesis. This is exactly how I would expect Bush's statement to look and read if he were trying to make the same point (whatever point that may be). Birds of a feather flock together, I guess. Its just funny as hell, and ironic that you refer to studying the english language, when it appears that you have not. And it is in my opinion, notice I stated opinion so you don't point out that it is not a documented fact, which is usually just someones opinion on paper anyway, that we need a president who can effectively "englishificate" his words when he speaks, as he is a reflection of our country, and I am embarrased every time he speaks. And I love how you add little comments like "27sj drones" and "27sj rants", thats a nice touch, maybe it will divert people from noticing how intelligent you really aren't. Anybody can use a search engine and find "facts" that support their opinions on some biased website, and this thread asked why we hate Bush, and I didnt see anything stating list only facts, and although there are many negative facts about Bush, this thread was asking our opinions on why we hate Bush. So take your "fakts" as you might spell it, and stick em you know where, 27sj drones.
[edit on 4-8-2004 by 27jd]
Bush represents a segment of the population that lacks inspiration and vision. He and those of his ilk bow to archaic traditions from the old
testement. Very similar to those who bow to ignorance in the muslim faith. The future is full of limitless possibilities, if you want to try and
take up residence in the past so be it.
i choose to let the future wash over me like a wonderful ocean wave.
The future is truth, beauty and virtue. Let it lead you through its winding intricate path.
.
i choose to let the future wash over me like a wonderful ocean wave.
The future is truth, beauty and virtue. Let it lead you through its winding intricate path.
.
27jd
In terms of the economy, under Clinton as opposed to Bush there are a few thngs you need to take into account.
First of all any legislative regulatory action taken by any administration does not begin to have an effect on the U.S. economy in any meaningful way for at least 3-4 years. Second Clinton was lucky to be president at a time when a number of technological factors which he had little if anything to do with converged in a positive way. For example computer, genetic, and electronic technologies didnt even begin to really advnce at geometric rates untill the early 90s. In addition the popularisation of the Internet nd related businesses combined with the personal computer revolution created historically unique surges in productivity. While all of these factors combined to create a very powerful growth economy Clinton can take credit for only a very little if any of these factors. Understand that while I liked Clinton very much as a persn and as a performer I disagreed with the policies he instituted vehemently. In my honest opinion had he instituted the same economic policies at any other time of our nations history the economy would have suffered drastically. President Bush on the other hand took office at a time when the main force behind the U.S. stock markets, which at the time were technology companies, were so ridiculously overvalued that there was no concievable way that the growth could be sustained. (case in point in the year 2000 Amazon.com which had yet to produce so much as a penny of profit and had relaesed press statement to the effect tht they would not show a profit in any division untill at least 2003 was trading at above 250 dollars per share) The market as a whole did not realse ths untill mid 2001, when the current correction began. Added to that the devastating 9/11 attacks and the Further market pressures exerted it is no wonder that the markets have not yet recovered. Now I know many reading ths post will say that the stock markets are not the economy and that is true however the effects and influences the markets have on the economy can not be overstated. First of all after the crash Many working class people (who in truth never should have been investing in common stocks in the first place) had lost all or at the very least a large portion of both ther savings and thier disposible income. This factor alone severly hindered the recovery of the economy as working class people with no savings do not spend money. In addition a large number of technology based jobs were either lost or moved overseas, which futher hindered economic growth and recovery. The fact is that the current administaton can not be blamed for current economic woes nor in truth can the previous administration. The natural cycle of a free market economy is boom and bust. However the question is are George W. Bush's economic initiatives harmful or hurtful? While mny do believ that a large or as in the current case record defecit is harmful that is simply not the case. For evdence of ths one need look no further than Reagan. The defecit racked up by the United States during Reagan's tenure as President was untill that time the largest in history. Mny people felt the same about his economic policies as they do bout President Bush's. However what they fail to take into account is that the economic boom of the lte 90s is directly attributable to Reagans policies as President. Most if not all of the technologes which led to the economic explosion of the late 90s would never have been developed if not for the massive government invetments in military technology as well as the corporate investments in technology which would not have been possible had taxes on corporations, capital gains and the like not been cut.
The internet, optical disk drives, computer technology, fuel cells, materials science, all were at the very least advanced considerably and in some cases invented as a direct offshoot of government research and devolpment programs. If you look earlier in this thread I gave a much more detailed example of why a high national debt is good for the economy. At the end of the day though the bottom line is this when it comes to the economy, Clintion got lucky Bush got screwed.
In terms of the economy, under Clinton as opposed to Bush there are a few thngs you need to take into account.
First of all any legislative regulatory action taken by any administration does not begin to have an effect on the U.S. economy in any meaningful way for at least 3-4 years. Second Clinton was lucky to be president at a time when a number of technological factors which he had little if anything to do with converged in a positive way. For example computer, genetic, and electronic technologies didnt even begin to really advnce at geometric rates untill the early 90s. In addition the popularisation of the Internet nd related businesses combined with the personal computer revolution created historically unique surges in productivity. While all of these factors combined to create a very powerful growth economy Clinton can take credit for only a very little if any of these factors. Understand that while I liked Clinton very much as a persn and as a performer I disagreed with the policies he instituted vehemently. In my honest opinion had he instituted the same economic policies at any other time of our nations history the economy would have suffered drastically. President Bush on the other hand took office at a time when the main force behind the U.S. stock markets, which at the time were technology companies, were so ridiculously overvalued that there was no concievable way that the growth could be sustained. (case in point in the year 2000 Amazon.com which had yet to produce so much as a penny of profit and had relaesed press statement to the effect tht they would not show a profit in any division untill at least 2003 was trading at above 250 dollars per share) The market as a whole did not realse ths untill mid 2001, when the current correction began. Added to that the devastating 9/11 attacks and the Further market pressures exerted it is no wonder that the markets have not yet recovered. Now I know many reading ths post will say that the stock markets are not the economy and that is true however the effects and influences the markets have on the economy can not be overstated. First of all after the crash Many working class people (who in truth never should have been investing in common stocks in the first place) had lost all or at the very least a large portion of both ther savings and thier disposible income. This factor alone severly hindered the recovery of the economy as working class people with no savings do not spend money. In addition a large number of technology based jobs were either lost or moved overseas, which futher hindered economic growth and recovery. The fact is that the current administaton can not be blamed for current economic woes nor in truth can the previous administration. The natural cycle of a free market economy is boom and bust. However the question is are George W. Bush's economic initiatives harmful or hurtful? While mny do believ that a large or as in the current case record defecit is harmful that is simply not the case. For evdence of ths one need look no further than Reagan. The defecit racked up by the United States during Reagan's tenure as President was untill that time the largest in history. Mny people felt the same about his economic policies as they do bout President Bush's. However what they fail to take into account is that the economic boom of the lte 90s is directly attributable to Reagans policies as President. Most if not all of the technologes which led to the economic explosion of the late 90s would never have been developed if not for the massive government invetments in military technology as well as the corporate investments in technology which would not have been possible had taxes on corporations, capital gains and the like not been cut.
The internet, optical disk drives, computer technology, fuel cells, materials science, all were at the very least advanced considerably and in some cases invented as a direct offshoot of government research and devolpment programs. If you look earlier in this thread I gave a much more detailed example of why a high national debt is good for the economy. At the end of the day though the bottom line is this when it comes to the economy, Clintion got lucky Bush got screwed.
mwm1331
I agree that no president can be directly responsible for the economy, and that there are many other factors involved. And if the economy was the only issue I had with Bush, I wouldn't dislike him so much. But peoples confidence can also affect the economy and many of Bush's policies have alot of us worried. So in that, and with world resentment up, and consequently, tourism down, I believe his policies could hurt the economy. There are many other issues with Bush I personally dislike, but I think your point on the economy is valid.
I agree that no president can be directly responsible for the economy, and that there are many other factors involved. And if the economy was the only issue I had with Bush, I wouldn't dislike him so much. But peoples confidence can also affect the economy and many of Bush's policies have alot of us worried. So in that, and with world resentment up, and consequently, tourism down, I believe his policies could hurt the economy. There are many other issues with Bush I personally dislike, but I think your point on the economy is valid.
The Patriot act, the attempts at Operation TIPS, the Terrorism Information Database (formerly Total Information Database), pre-emptive invasion of
Iraq, eagerness to return to budget defecits with no end in sight, no-bid contracts to select companies for Iraq support and reconstruction, lying
about Iraqi invasion, having Ken Lay plan the nation's energy plan, these are all reasons I won't vote for Bush. Kerry however doesn't seem much
better.
Congratulations taibunsuu,
You are the one of the FEW on this thread that hates Bush for actual policy reasons and some acts Bush has done, instead of all the assumptive, speculative, and misrepresentations of fact that many are clinging to like its the gospel.
While I may not agree with all of your reasons to dislike the President, (i actually agree with a few) Im glad that you seem to be taking a stance on substance not hype. May your vote be counted in november...whichever way you choose.
You are the one of the FEW on this thread that hates Bush for actual policy reasons and some acts Bush has done, instead of all the assumptive, speculative, and misrepresentations of fact that many are clinging to like its the gospel.
While I may not agree with all of your reasons to dislike the President, (i actually agree with a few) Im glad that you seem to be taking a stance on substance not hype. May your vote be counted in november...whichever way you choose.
CazMedia, I believe I made most of those points myself, why is it speculation and hype when I state the exact same facts? And I don't think
"assumptive" is an actual word, though I may be wrong. Oh well.
[edit on 5-8-2004 by 27jd]
[edit on 5-8-2004 by 27jd]
27JD,
Im sorry I was addressing you with the wrong name....it was about 330am and i was getting bleary eyed and struggling to stay focused as it was late.
However,
As you arent my grammar teacher, and proper spelling, punctuation etc are not required....it is not a concern of mine if you worry more about my grammar than the ideas im expressing....Which by the way kinda supports MWM's contentions about speech/intelligence....the abillity to communicate does not correlate to an lack of intelligence. Does the name Dr Stephen Hawkings ring a bell? You know, the theoretical physisist in the wheelchair that "speaks" by typing with his eyes and using a voice machine?
As we were obviously conversing and you appeared to have no problems understanding me....i question your concerns over this...seems petty and off topic. Im not going to jump thru hoops for you and personally dont care if i have a few gramatical/spelling errors. (Gramar errors left in for your further enjoyment)
It was good of you to ask if english was my second language tho as otherwise i feel you would have insulted everyone that posts here for whom english IS the second language, and who may not know the proper rules of english grammar or spelling.
27jd states,
Lets look at your first post, second sentance for the real answer,
Hmm desertion...AWOL...arent they the same? So you DID post something about this topic.
As Bush was in the national guard, it was entirely possible that his unit would have been activated, and he could have served in Nam. This is not burning his draft card or fleeing to Canada. This was service in a recognised branch of defense.
27jd fails to back up allegations of corruption here,
Well, hopefully spending time here with us trying to "DENY IGNORANCE" will help cure your blind eye and aid in your discerning rhetoric from fact.
27sj says,
Hmm....proof of anything youve been speculating perhaps?
27jd,
surely you can, but dont be so suprised when someone calls you out on where the real facts are. As far as opinion, your entitled to one, but based upon the one you express, i question how informed as a citizen you really are (not how much you think you are) and if your really going to vote based upon things with no real basis or substance, even when shown more evidence to the contrary. This type of citizen/vote scares me more that either Bush or Kerry in the whitehouse as its symptomatic of the voter malise this country needs to get over.
27jd struggles with this one,
according to your own source,
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
Please note the PLURAL TERM firms, meaning more than one firm is getting government contracts. Yes Halliburton got one mentioned contract (out of how many) that was no bid...big deal. There are other companies involved.
Halliburton�s government relations director says
Sounds like the FEDS chose the right company that could get the job done. This does not indicate giving it to someone that cant do the job, because of political alliegences.
Also, because some of these contracts may deal with classified info/materials etc...mabey we the public dont really know the decision processes at the D.O.D. to be able to state that this WAS cronyism as a fact...we would be making that up as speculation.
Lets look deeper, at the time the war was starting
www.opensecrets.org...
Hmm that would be 6 different companies here, not one.
Now indeed, the president DID restrict the bidding to only companies in countries that aided the war effort, which is the right thing to do as the other countries werent willing to put their lives on the line to deserve a chance at the profits potential of rebuilding. Too bad France.
This site also lists contracts awarded so far at that time, which company, how much they donate to whom (Rep/Dem), and what the contract was for....a reminder, this is just the start of the war effort and the contracts at that point....many more have come down the pipe since then. I wont take up space posting what my link will allow you to read yourself, but notice that out of 9 contracts listed at that point 5 went to Rep sponsors and 4 went to Dem sponsors (where the companies support went)
But oh yeah...ONLY EVIL BUSH BUDDIES GET CONTRACTS RIGHT?
27jd's answer to my question about if i should dig up stuff on Kerry's cronies.
This is an attack Bush thread, not attack Kerry one....im sure its out there somewhere.
Besides, BOTH sides have significant clout with companies both domestic and foriegn. This proves what...that politics means influence over the private sector...no duh.
27jd says,
What MWM1331 said! (he got one of my votes also)
A point to which you conceed to him 2 posts later.
27jd responds with sarcasm to my question "Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator is bad?" with,
Are you saying that you were not in favor of Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator, which was approved thru the UN, and to which a large group of nations all participated?
There are many reasons to have done this, not just for the bennefit of the Quaiti people...regional stability, oil intrests (for many countries), or how about because it was just the honorable and just thing to do.
Imagine a post 9-11 world where the USA did not oppose saddams land grab...would he be more brazen if we had let him get away with it and we were dealing with terrorist to? I can only immagine how both he and terrorist would be plotting the WEAK DO NOTHING AMERICANS then. I like our new policy of "think twice about a butt whipping" better than allowing the perception that the USA is too scared to take actions if nessisary.
27jd observes,
As i look and compare the mafia's history with that of say Bush and or Halliburton...I see no history of behaivior and violating the laws that are similar between the mob and the others.....How are you judging Halliburtons actions to be criminal when it doenst appear that they have any criminal history to indicate there are crimes occuring...not even any investigations of this....what criteria are you using that the law doesnt to determine illegalities? any evidence? oh thats right if you had proof,
27jd's appraisal of Saudi efforts at westernization efforts,
So you think that a mostly fundamentalist, theocratic state can just decide to crack down on its own people without reprocussions....up to and including causing armed insurrection (internal terrorism)? Saudis are killing Saudis already. The Saudi people that have died because of this infighting paid the price for the royal families decision to change and "westernize".
This change might take a generation or longer before overall attitudes there will really show this change. To crack down any harder on their own citizens risks a revolution, which would be bad and a bloodbath. Is that what you want? Yet another destabalized mid east nation?
You seem to need to dig your way out of the snow on this one..what a shallow view you have of this situation.
So our millitary is mostly withdrawn from there? This actually helps the Saudi Gov as some of the internal preassure about USA forces there is dimminished. Besides, like 1/2 our army isnt next door should the Saudis request millitary assistance. Why would they...the Gov there is stable and working with the west...unless they go wild internally or threaten the USA, we have no reason to put troops there, theyre needed elsewhere.
USA forces assisting them to crackdown wouldnt help them, it would probably hurt them as then to terrorists, they gave up the nations soveringty to the west. If they rule on their own, while not favored, at least its an Islamist regime (as they percieve things). As opposed to the USA dominated Iraqi Government. Which do you think the Saudis would like more?
27jd says Bush
Didnt anyone ever tell you
Hate the game not the player. Indeed, some people are born with a silver spoon, Hmm let me guess...Bush sr made some kind of deal with the devil to have a son and make sure Bush jr would grow up to be President...Hate him because he was born to an influential family now eh? Sounds like angst from those less fortunate if you ask me.
27jd states semi correctly states...
Hmm, yes the President, as the chief of the EXECUTVE branch of GOV, is both setting a tone for legislation he'd like to see (adgenda), as well as signing into law those bills that he recieves that he approves of.
Those pieces of legislation come from CONGRESS! Or the LEGISLATIVE branch of GOV. This is really basic Civics 101 in play here....
So where is your blame for CONGRESS for even passing legislation to the President that you dont approve of? You do realize that you as a citizen have far more power over your Senator or Congress person than you do the President? Why arent you holding them accountable for creating such "terrible" (subjective) legislation for the President to approve of? Bush cant make it into law without their efforts creating legislation
Oh yeah, It's all Bush's fault. How soon people forget the basic workings of this GOV.
As far as this issue "forcing religion" from either Congress or the Whitehouse, I dont think that all the people involved in these bills have the same religon, indeed some may not believe in god at all. Yet they seemed to have passed these things into law. (Thru democratic means) How many hundreds of your Senators and Congress people had to agree on this BEFORE Bush could have his way with it? (sign or veto)
But oh yeah....BUSH is tho only one responsible here. Democracy doesnt count here.
27jd says,
I'll take it for granted this statement is true.
GOOD!!! ME TOO.....
Look this whole terror/mid east crisis thing comes down to the idea that the west specifically the USA, doenst have the guts, the willpower, the determination to stick it out and to take an active role over there. (for whatever reason) I dont believe that Saddam actually believed we would take him out until too late. The president IS correct when he says this is an ideological battle. How long did the terrorists observe the UN's (and the wests) reluctance to actually ENFORCE 10 years worth of sanctions they passed against Iraq? How much more empowered would they be now if they had seen us cave in and do nothing time and again?
The time for do nothing, isolationist politics are over.
Im sorry I was addressing you with the wrong name....it was about 330am and i was getting bleary eyed and struggling to stay focused as it was late.
However,
As you arent my grammar teacher, and proper spelling, punctuation etc are not required....it is not a concern of mine if you worry more about my grammar than the ideas im expressing....Which by the way kinda supports MWM's contentions about speech/intelligence....the abillity to communicate does not correlate to an lack of intelligence. Does the name Dr Stephen Hawkings ring a bell? You know, the theoretical physisist in the wheelchair that "speaks" by typing with his eyes and using a voice machine?
As we were obviously conversing and you appeared to have no problems understanding me....i question your concerns over this...seems petty and off topic. Im not going to jump thru hoops for you and personally dont care if i have a few gramatical/spelling errors. (Gramar errors left in for your further enjoyment)
It was good of you to ask if english was my second language tho as otherwise i feel you would have insulted everyone that posts here for whom english IS the second language, and who may not know the proper rules of english grammar or spelling.
27jd states,
you see I never posted anything about Bush being AWOL, although he certainly didn't sign up to go to Nam did he?
Lets look at your first post, second sentance for the real answer,
Bush may not have deserted by the definition of the word, but he sure avoided the war, he certainly did not sign up for it like Kerry,
Hmm desertion...AWOL...arent they the same? So you DID post something about this topic.
As Bush was in the national guard, it was entirely possible that his unit would have been activated, and he could have served in Nam. This is not burning his draft card or fleeing to Canada. This was service in a recognised branch of defense.
27jd fails to back up allegations of corruption here,
Yeah, Im blindly accepting the rhetoric. Sorry.
Well, hopefully spending time here with us trying to "DENY IGNORANCE" will help cure your blind eye and aid in your discerning rhetoric from fact.
27sj says,
I'm sure if I had solid proof of ..........
Hmm....proof of anything youve been speculating perhaps?
27jd,
I CAN SPECULATE HOWEVER MUCH I WISH, IF EVERY DISCUSSION WAS VOID OF OPINION AND SPECULATION WE WOULD ALL BE ROBOTS!
surely you can, but dont be so suprised when someone calls you out on where the real facts are. As far as opinion, your entitled to one, but based upon the one you express, i question how informed as a citizen you really are (not how much you think you are) and if your really going to vote based upon things with no real basis or substance, even when shown more evidence to the contrary. This type of citizen/vote scares me more that either Bush or Kerry in the whitehouse as its symptomatic of the voter malise this country needs to get over.
27jd struggles with this one,
Many companies got a chance to bid? Sorry, it was a no-bid contract buddy.
according to your own source,
www.informationclearinghouse.info...
The system has been awarding billions of dollars in military contracts to private firms.
Please note the PLURAL TERM firms, meaning more than one firm is getting government contracts. Yes Halliburton got one mentioned contract (out of how many) that was no bid...big deal. There are other companies involved.
Halliburton�s government relations director says
Why did they get the no-bid contract to put out oil fires for the Army? �We are the only company in the United States that had the kind of systems in place, people in place, contacts in place, to do that kind of thing,� says Dominy.
But he acknowledges the perception of cronyism it creates, which is a view only a look inside the process could dispel. �In fact, I wish I could embed [critics] inside the Department of Defense contracting system. Once they�d done that, they�d have religion just like I do about how the system cannot be influenced,� he tells Kroft.
Sounds like the FEDS chose the right company that could get the job done. This does not indicate giving it to someone that cant do the job, because of political alliegences.
Also, because some of these contracts may deal with classified info/materials etc...mabey we the public dont really know the decision processes at the D.O.D. to be able to state that this WAS cronyism as a fact...we would be making that up as speculation.
Lets look deeper, at the time the war was starting
www.opensecrets.org...
Even before the war in Iraq began March 20, the Bush administration was considering plans to help rebuild the country after fighting ceased. According to news reports in early March, the U.S. Agency for International Development secretly asked six U.S. companies to submit bids for a $900 million government contract to repair and reconstruct water systems, roads, bridges, schools and hospitals in Iraq.
Hmm that would be 6 different companies here, not one.
Now indeed, the president DID restrict the bidding to only companies in countries that aided the war effort, which is the right thing to do as the other countries werent willing to put their lives on the line to deserve a chance at the profits potential of rebuilding. Too bad France.
This site also lists contracts awarded so far at that time, which company, how much they donate to whom (Rep/Dem), and what the contract was for....a reminder, this is just the start of the war effort and the contracts at that point....many more have come down the pipe since then. I wont take up space posting what my link will allow you to read yourself, but notice that out of 9 contracts listed at that point 5 went to Rep sponsors and 4 went to Dem sponsors (where the companies support went)
But oh yeah...ONLY EVIL BUSH BUDDIES GET CONTRACTS RIGHT?
27jd's answer to my question about if i should dig up stuff on Kerry's cronies.
This is an attack Bush thread, not attack Kerry one....im sure its out there somewhere.
Besides, BOTH sides have significant clout with companies both domestic and foriegn. This proves what...that politics means influence over the private sector...no duh.
27jd says,
the economy was doing great under Clinton, until your champion Bush came along.
What MWM1331 said! (he got one of my votes also)
A point to which you conceed to him 2 posts later.
27jd responds with sarcasm to my question "Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator is bad?" with,
Theres that noble cause I was expecting! You do not disappoint. Im sure they were very concerned about the people of that region
Are you saying that you were not in favor of Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator, which was approved thru the UN, and to which a large group of nations all participated?
There are many reasons to have done this, not just for the bennefit of the Quaiti people...regional stability, oil intrests (for many countries), or how about because it was just the honorable and just thing to do.
Imagine a post 9-11 world where the USA did not oppose saddams land grab...would he be more brazen if we had let him get away with it and we were dealing with terrorist to? I can only immagine how both he and terrorist would be plotting the WEAK DO NOTHING AMERICANS then. I like our new policy of "think twice about a butt whipping" better than allowing the perception that the USA is too scared to take actions if nessisary.
27jd observes,
its not just the potential for corruption, some things are obvious, and their dealings are obviously corrupt. Just like the mafia
As i look and compare the mafia's history with that of say Bush and or Halliburton...I see no history of behaivior and violating the laws that are similar between the mob and the others.....How are you judging Halliburtons actions to be criminal when it doenst appear that they have any criminal history to indicate there are crimes occuring...not even any investigations of this....what criteria are you using that the law doesnt to determine illegalities? any evidence? oh thats right if you had proof,
as you have said.
I would be dead.
27jd's appraisal of Saudi efforts at westernization efforts,
We pulled most of our military out of Saudi Arabia last I heard. And we're talking about a brutal regime here, they can reign in militants much more quickly than you state. They know full well who they are and where. Change is not in the works, at best they are creating the illusion it is, and its got you snowed.
So you think that a mostly fundamentalist, theocratic state can just decide to crack down on its own people without reprocussions....up to and including causing armed insurrection (internal terrorism)? Saudis are killing Saudis already. The Saudi people that have died because of this infighting paid the price for the royal families decision to change and "westernize".
This change might take a generation or longer before overall attitudes there will really show this change. To crack down any harder on their own citizens risks a revolution, which would be bad and a bloodbath. Is that what you want? Yet another destabalized mid east nation?
You seem to need to dig your way out of the snow on this one..what a shallow view you have of this situation.
So our millitary is mostly withdrawn from there? This actually helps the Saudi Gov as some of the internal preassure about USA forces there is dimminished. Besides, like 1/2 our army isnt next door should the Saudis request millitary assistance. Why would they...the Gov there is stable and working with the west...unless they go wild internally or threaten the USA, we have no reason to put troops there, theyre needed elsewhere.
USA forces assisting them to crackdown wouldnt help them, it would probably hurt them as then to terrorists, they gave up the nations soveringty to the west. If they rule on their own, while not favored, at least its an Islamist regime (as they percieve things). As opposed to the USA dominated Iraqi Government. Which do you think the Saudis would like more?
27jd says Bush
has been a major player as far back as he could have been.
Didnt anyone ever tell you
Hate the game not the player. Indeed, some people are born with a silver spoon, Hmm let me guess...Bush sr made some kind of deal with the devil to have a son and make sure Bush jr would grow up to be President...Hate him because he was born to an influential family now eh? Sounds like angst from those less fortunate if you ask me.
27jd states semi correctly states...
He (BUSH) is forcing religion by passing laws against stem-cell research, passing laws banning gay marriage, and abortion rights just to name a few instances.
Hmm, yes the President, as the chief of the EXECUTVE branch of GOV, is both setting a tone for legislation he'd like to see (adgenda), as well as signing into law those bills that he recieves that he approves of.
Those pieces of legislation come from CONGRESS! Or the LEGISLATIVE branch of GOV. This is really basic Civics 101 in play here....
So where is your blame for CONGRESS for even passing legislation to the President that you dont approve of? You do realize that you as a citizen have far more power over your Senator or Congress person than you do the President? Why arent you holding them accountable for creating such "terrible" (subjective) legislation for the President to approve of? Bush cant make it into law without their efforts creating legislation
Oh yeah, It's all Bush's fault. How soon people forget the basic workings of this GOV.
As far as this issue "forcing religion" from either Congress or the Whitehouse, I dont think that all the people involved in these bills have the same religon, indeed some may not believe in god at all. Yet they seemed to have passed these things into law. (Thru democratic means) How many hundreds of your Senators and Congress people had to agree on this BEFORE Bush could have his way with it? (sign or veto)
But oh yeah....BUSH is tho only one responsible here. Democracy doesnt count here.
27jd says,
during Bush's press conference yesterday, he stated that if he knew before we went to war with Iraq, what we know now, he still wouldve invaded.
I'll take it for granted this statement is true.
GOOD!!! ME TOO.....
Look this whole terror/mid east crisis thing comes down to the idea that the west specifically the USA, doenst have the guts, the willpower, the determination to stick it out and to take an active role over there. (for whatever reason) I dont believe that Saddam actually believed we would take him out until too late. The president IS correct when he says this is an ideological battle. How long did the terrorists observe the UN's (and the wests) reluctance to actually ENFORCE 10 years worth of sanctions they passed against Iraq? How much more empowered would they be now if they had seen us cave in and do nothing time and again?
The time for do nothing, isolationist politics are over.
Originally posted by CazMedia
27JD,
Im sorry I was addressing you with the wrong name....it was about 330am and i was getting bleary eyed and struggling to stay focused as it was late.
No problem.
However,
As you arent my grammar teacher
If I was, I certainly wouldn't be doing a very good job!
As we were obviously conversing and you appeared to have no problems understanding me....i question your concerns over this...seems petty and off topic. Im not going to jump thru hoops for you and personally dont care if i have a few gramatical/spelling errors. (Gramar errors left in for your further enjoyment)
Well, what I did understand was that you are somebody who tries real hard to appear a more intelligent person than you really are, and thanks for leaving GRAMMAR (two M's) errors in for my further enjoyment, I appreciate that.
It was good of you to ask if english was my second language tho as otherwise i feel you would have insulted everyone that posts here for whom english IS the second language, and who may not know the proper rules of english grammar or spelling.
Maybe they could give you a lesson or two, because I have seen people with english as a second language on here do way better than you.
Hmm desertion...AWOL...arent they the same? So you DID post something about this topic.
Yes I did, and I believe I said that I did not believe he did by definition of the word, but he avoided the war. So you are just putting words in my mouth, and I never used the term AWOL, although some say he was, I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue.
As Bush was in the national guard, it was entirely possible that his unit would have been activated, and he could have served in Nam. This is not burning his draft card or fleeing to Canada. This was service in a recognised branch of defense.
Yes a recognized branch of defense that there was a waiting list for that he bypassed, because it was least likely to be activated. Dance around the issue all you like, and I'm sure you will.
27jd fails to back up allegations of corruption here,
Once again, if I had proof, I would be dead or on TV, not on a conspiracy DISCUSSION website.
Well, hopefully spending time here with us trying to "DENY IGNORANCE" will help cure your blind eye and aid in your discerning rhetoric from fact.
Really? So on this conspiracy website, all of the varied allegations of government conspiracies are backed by solid fact? I wasn't aware of that. And you should examine the word ignorance. Ask your "gramar" teacher. Oh yeah, grammar is of no consequence to a mind as brilliant as yours. Sorry I forgot.
surely you can, but dont be so suprised when someone calls you out on where the real facts are.
Something you haven't done, you've only parroted "info" you've googled off pro-GOP websites. Sorry, doesn't convince me.
27jd struggles with this one,
Many companies got a chance to bid? Sorry, it was a no-bid contract buddy.
I was only pointing out your nonsense that many other companies got a chance to bid. Please define "no-bid" contract for me, or call your english teacher to help you. No struggling there.
Also, because some of these contracts may deal with classified info/materials etc...mabey we the public dont really know the decision processes at the D.O.D. to be able to state that this WAS cronyism as a fact...we would be making that up as speculation.
"Mabey" we would be speculating, but you being the genius you are would be way above speculation. So believe the D.O.D., they would never deceive you. It is you who blindly belives rhetoric, not I.
ONLY EVIL BUSH BUDDIES GET CONTRACTS RIGHT?
NO, I'M SURE THEY WORKED HARD TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS GIVEN A FAIR SHOT. Yeah right, if other companies were given a fair shot at other contracts in Iraq (not the no-bid contract Halliburton was awarded) it was only because Bush ran out of evil buddies to award them too. And yes I'll beat you to it, that would be "assumptive" and yes it's my opinion.
27jd's answer to my question about if i should dig up stuff on Kerry's cronies.
This is an attack Bush thread, not attack Kerry one....im sure its out there somewhere.
Don't offer to do something if you cannot follow through.
Are you saying that you were not in favor of Liberating a country from invasion by a dictator, which was approved thru the UN, and to which a large group of nations all participated?
Sure, personally I care about ALL people, but I'm not stupid enough to believe the US government or UN do. You need to re-examine the phrase "deny ignorance" you were throwing around.
There are many reasons to have done this, not just for the bennefit of the Quaiti people...regional stability, oil intrests (for many countries), or how about because it was just the honorable and just thing to do.
You got one thing right OIL INTERESTS, thats about it. And who are Quaiti people? You probably mean Kuwaiti people, and you probably just left that in for my amusement again, keep 'em coming!
Imagine a post 9-11 world where the USA did not oppose saddams land grab...would he be more brazen if we had let him get away with it and we were dealing with terrorist to? I can only immagine how both he and terrorist would be plotting the WEAK DO NOTHING AMERICANS then. I like our new policy of "think twice about a butt whipping" better than allowing the perception that the USA is too scared to take actions if nessisary.
I never said we should've let Saddam take Kuwait, I'm just not so naive as to think it was for the good of man, it was about oil, and we SHOULD protect our interests in that case. Just don't try and sugar coat it with lofty purposes that didn't really exist.
So you think that a mostly fundamentalist, theocratic state can just decide to crack down on its own people without reprocussions....up to and including causing armed insurrection (internal terrorism)? Saudis are killing Saudis already. The Saudi people that have died because of this infighting paid the price for the royal families decision to change and "westernize".
This change might take a generation or longer before overall attitudes there will really show this change. To crack down any harder on their own citizens risks a revolution, which would be bad and a bloodbath. Is that what you want? Yet another destabalized mid east nation?
You seem to need to dig your way out of the snow on this one..what a shallow view you have of this situation.
You seem to underestimate the control these theocratic governments have over their people. The royal family is playing both sides. The only thing they want to "westernize" is their bank accounts. They will continue to push fundamentalism. Your ignorance is astounding. I'm nowhere near the snow on this one.
So our millitary is mostly withdrawn from there? This actually helps the Saudi Gov as some of the internal preassure about USA forces there is dimminished. Besides, like 1/2 our army isnt next door should the Saudis request millitary assistance. Why would they...the Gov there is stable and working with the west...unless they go wild internally or threaten the USA, we have no reason to put troops there, theyre needed elsewhere.
USA forces assisting them to crackdown wouldnt help them, it would probably hurt them as then to terrorists, they gave up the nations soveringty to the west. If they rule on their own, while not favored, at least its an Islamist regime (as they percieve things). As opposed to the USA dominated Iraqi Government. Which do you think the Saudis would like more?
The 1/2 our army thats over there is currently bogged down in a guerilla war your man Bush got us into. And the Saudi's kicked us out, and would not allow us to use their land for the Iraq war. And which is it? Are the Saudi's in total control and not in need of military assistance? Like you stated. Or are they unstable, teetering on the brink of civil war with internal militants because of their dealings with the US? Like you also stated.
Didnt anyone ever tell you
Hate the game not the player.
Yeah, in high school.
Hmm, yes the President, as the chief of the EXECUTVE branch of GOV, is both setting a tone for legislation he'd like to see (adgenda), as well as signing into law those bills that he recieves that he approves of.
But oh yeah....BUSH is tho only one responsible here. Democracy doesnt count here.
He's the president, our main figurehead, and the main figurehead of the government you seem so well versed in. He should not be "setting a tone" for any religious agenda, regardless of the workings of congress. You said it yourself, this is a Bush bashing thread, not an attempted lesson by you in the workings of Congress. You should've paid as much attention in english class.
I'll take it for granted this statement is true.
GOOD!!! ME TOO.....
Look this whole terror/mid east crisis thing comes down to the idea that the west specifically the USA, doenst have the guts, the willpower, the determination to stick it out and to take an active role over there. (for whatever reason) I dont believe that Saddam actually believed we would take him out until too late. The president IS correct when he says this is an ideological battle. How long did the terrorists observe the UN's (and the wests) reluctance to actually ENFORCE 10 years worth of sanctions they passed against Iraq? How much more empowered would they be now if they had seen us cave in and do nothing time and again?
The time for do nothing, isolationist politics are over.
Well then, welcome to WWIII right? You're far more foolish than I thought, you actually advocate military invasions on principles alone. And as a Bush supporter, you only further my views against him, and make the choice that much more clear to me. Thanks. And thanks again for leaving in all the "gramar" errors, they have given me a chuckle in these sad times.
[edit on 6-8-2004 by 27jd]
The truth is Bush used it as a "pass away" thing so that the people would smile and say "ok lets go to war he has WMD.. we believe because Bush
can't lie.. he is our president and we must believe even if he does lie." Which is nonsense. The "patriots" seem to go along with anything
American even if it is wrong. To me, the true patriots are those who stand up for the rights of people worldwide.. not only in the USA.
And when Bush leaves the presidency he will just shrug his shoulders.. thousands of people dead in Iraq..... oh well.
[edit on 6-8-2004 by RedOctober90]
And when Bush leaves the presidency he will just shrug his shoulders.. thousands of people dead in Iraq..... oh well.
[edit on 6-8-2004 by RedOctober90]
Yea...Iraq was oddles better off with Saddam at the helm...who are you kidding?...He was responsible for the death of 300,000 OF HIS OWN PEOPLE....in
his reign he went after Isreal, Iran, Kuwait, etc...Im tired of hearing all this Bush Bashing....this site is becoming very Liberal....What did
Clinton do after Somalia?...."Shrug his shoulders and say oh well"?...Come on now...Everyone claims bush is such a horrible president SOLELY BASED
ON THE IRAQ SUBJECT....Clinton was just as flawed as Bush...but yet he's a god to many of you...People make such a big deal about the Bush/Saudi
connection...but who do you think paid for Hilarys way into the senate?...How about Clinton pardonning the 19 Puetro Rican terrorists?...Bush is doing
roughly the same thing as Clinton did in Bosnia and Kosovo...but people dont want to hear that...because its "hip" to hate Bush....People blame Bush
for our economic situation...but most people are retarded...and dont realize that OUR CURRENT BUDGET CAME FROM THE CLINTON ERA...budgets are made 3-4
years in advance...Im also tired of hearing Bush being referred to as a Redneck/Racist...etc...Cause we all know Clinton came from the
city...no...urban area...no...um...oh yea...ARKANSAS...I mean jesus...come on now...Bush brought Powell and Rice with him...BOTH BLACK....he's trying
to make Thomas the HEAD of the Supreme court....so please people...stop the race issue...Im tired of the Democrats still bitchin about Florida...3
counts...won them all...EVEN THE COUNTS DONE BY THE DEMOCRATS...how about our troops votes GORE tried to throw out?...oooo...how soon we forget...How
about the Democrats bitching about the "chad" system WHICH THEY INSTALLED>....its becoming pathetic these arguments...
Originally posted by BasementAddix
Yea...Iraq was oddles better off with Saddam at the helm...who are you kidding?
Given the current state of things there, I would say you're wrong, maybe if we can stop the insurgency, and a new government can ACTUALLY control the country it will be better off, but as of now we have created a terrorist state where there was not one, Saddam was secular and had no tolerance for militant islam in his country. Nobody ever said Saddam was a good guy, but we put him at the helm to begin with, and now, based on your argument, we are obligated to rid every country of murderous dictators, like I said, welcome to WWIII.
He was responsible for the death of 300,000 OF HIS OWN PEOPLE....in his reign he went after Isreal, Iran, Kuwait, etc...Im tired of hearing all this Bush Bashing....this site is becoming very Liberal....What did Clinton do after Somalia?
That was back in the 80's when he used the chemical weapons WE provided and while WE still suported him, and once again, he's not the only evil dictator to have killed his own people. All you Bush supporters parrot the same arguments. Again that was in the 80's, was your heart not bleeding back then? Why did it take 20 years? And as for Israel, they can take care of themselves, and Iran.......remember we supported him against the Iranians, and Kuwait has already been discussed, see above. What should Clinton have done after Somalia? We were there on a peacekeeping mission, it backfired, we got out. Do you think we should've nuked the place? Or maybe gotten bogged down in a guerilla war like the one we are in today? I wish we could've done something more too, but he had no support for a war in Africa.
People make such a big deal about the Bush/Saudi connection...but who do you think paid for Hilarys way into the senate?...How about Clinton pardonning the 19 Puetro Rican terrorists?
Yeah we do, because the Saudi's are the main purveyors of American hatred in the muslim world with their brand of wahabi islam. But again all thats already been discussed. And I seriously doubt they paid Hillary's way into the senate, but even if so, she's not running for president yet, so we'll talk about that when she does. And what is a Puerto Rican terrorist? The word terrorist gets thrown around so much for political purposes, it makes me ill.
Bush is doing roughly the same thing as Clinton did in Bosnia and Kosovo
Um, no. Clinton saved muslims from genocide at the hands of non-muslims, and with world support, not even close to the same thing.
its "hip" to hate Bush
Then I must be the Fonze. Heeeey!
People blame Bush for our economic situation...but most people are retarded...and dont realize that OUR CURRENT BUDGET CAME FROM THE CLINTON ERA...budgets are made 3-4 years in advance
See, theres more parroting, we have already gone over that, and if completely true, then in a few years we are totally f**ked.
Im also tired of hearing Bush being referred to as a Redneck/Racist...etc...Cause we all know Clinton came from the city...no...urban area...no...um...oh yea...ARKANSAS
Where you are from makes no difference, Bush comes across a dumb cowboy, Clinton was an articulate speaker, actions and how you carry yourself show who you are, not where you are born. How closed-minded are you anyway? If I were an intelligent person born in Arkansas, I would be rather offended.
I mean jesus
Another one of Bush's main faults you did not try to debunk, because even you know it's true, he wears his religion on his sleeve (as indirectly stated by Ron Reagan Jr.) and it influences decisions made for all of us.
Bush brought Powell and Rice with him...BOTH BLACK
So, all you gotta do is have TWO black people on your team to fool the black community into supporting you? I don't think so, they're not stupid. And most black people will tell you, those two haven't been "black" for some time. They do not represent their interests one bit.
he's trying to make Thomas the HEAD of the Supreme court
Thomas was appointed to the supreme court by your buddy Bill C., or he wouldn't have even been in the position for Bush to try and use that as a way to try and garner support from the black community, but you're right, race should never be an issue, skin color should have no bearing, so we'll look at Bush's many other faults instead.
Im tired of the Democrats still bitchin about Florida
His brother was governor of FL, and I believe he stole the election. If it were as cut and dry as you claim, the Dem's wouldn't still be bitchin, but I forgot, everybody but those who support Bush are retarded, like you say.
Enough said.
[edit on 7-8-2004 by 27jd]
27JD questions being questioned
Which GOP slanted web sites have I used as referance here?
27jd talks about Iraq contracts,
Yes indeed, Haliburton did get ONE no bid contract, out of how many?
Whatever reason you deem that other, non republican companies got contracts in Iraq is irrelavent to the fact that MANY companies have recieved contracts, not just Bush crony company friends.
As far as cronyism in the DOD selection process....lets say, we dont know the things that go on in those selection meetings, and indeed some favoritism could occur. What makes you think that everyone involved in that process is a Bush supporter...Boy, that Bush is good eh? He's got all of congress supporting his religious adgenda AND the DOD in his pocket for doling out contracts to only his buddies....Doesnt that give Bush a little too much credit for being so powerful?
I find it MORE likley (yes to assume) that Bush would make sure some democratic people got something in these contracts as "payment" for congress signing the check for the war to start with, than i would believe Bush is only promoting his people.
27JD'S assesment of Saudi westernization...
And you seem to oversimplify the position the Saudi government finds itself in.
It is because that they indeed have been "breeding" anti west sentiments there for a few decades that now, when they do things like allow western millitary bases, crack downs on radical groups, support of western ousting of saddam, and other pro west ideas theyve adopted that many in the country are ready to rebel, (this is aside from all the usual gripes about their government) Can you immagine the preassure they would have been under if they allowed coalition forces to strike from there? (hence why they told the USA, attack if you want, just dont do it from here where we would draw ire for allowing you to.)
The internal forces that you so casually brush off as "they could crack down harder" would be a disaster if done too soon/aggressivly....the perception that they were totally giving away the kingom to the west could really aggravate their situatuion. Are we really too impatient for them to change that we'd jeapordize Saudi stabillity by trying to rush changing an ideology thats several decades ingrained into the culture?
You lack a long term understanding and vision on this issue, if you think the Saudi royal family (already not their citizens favorite people) can and should really force westernization as quickly as we'd like them to...the fact that they're doing this at all is positive.
27jd says,
The President AS leader IS the person thats supposed to set the tone/adgenda for his term in office. They can ask for whatever they want, but its still Congress that has to do the work of getting the legislation passed amongst themselves BEFORE the President can actually make it happen/not.
Your abdication or congressional resposibillities in this reguard in order to blame the President alone is soo blantantly biased. Again, where is your anger for your LOCAL representatives that actually gave bush what he wanted? Did Bush pay off everyone in Congress that voted for the legislation to pass?
27jd's predicts WW3,
No, not gonna happen. First of all, Where is the alliance forming against the USA? Which of the countries not only have the balls to stand up to America, but will actually get in front of the USA and say "stop or we'll attack". I dont see any, and dont see a coalition of any nations willing to even try stopping the usa on this...why? because for the past 10 years thru the UN theyve been saying "bad saddam" Because some of those countries value business with america more than sadam...
27jd asks me,
Yes, sometimes principals alone are all thats needed to start a big fight, and i appear to not be alone with this thought, here's what J.Kerry has to say....www.abovetopsecret.com...
For the reccord, that would be Bush, Kerry and myself that would have invaded iraq, without WMD's and based on principal....where do your principals lie?
27jd discusses with addix the bush-saudi connections, and addix allegations,
Excuse me on 2 levels here!!!! IF Hillary took Saudi $$$ for her campaign,
First of, if its ok for the Clintons to have some connections with the Saudi's, then the same standard would apply to the Bush's, its ok.
Second, ANY USA FEDERAL level politican that is taking foriegn $$$ would seem to be questionable behaivior at least. So it would seem that the Saudi's have had relations with the previous President as well as the current one...DUH! go figure.
27jd partially corrects an allegation that Kosovo is the same type of action as Iraq,
There is some differance and simmilarities...
The biggest similarity is that the USA in both situations is trying to protect MUSLIMS in some way, one from non muslims, and in iraq from other muslims....Also similar is that now, while we dont have as much support in Iraq as we did Kosovo, there are still over 20 nations with us in iraq.....far from unilateral.
Ultimately, i expect the USA government to protect American intrests first, weather the world approves or not. The people here didnt elect anyont at the UN or other countries to look out for the USA, and so we will protect our intrests, percieved or tangible, even if it ticks others off.
Were France and Germany looking out for their allies interest when they were saying to our face, "yes we agree he's bad" at the UN all the while sucking the oil teat under the table with the oil for food scam, violating their own sanctions and rubbing the USA's nose in it by not giving the USA what it wanted (enforcement) because that would end their little rippoff scheme?
27jd talks the alledged florida election rippoff,
You cant steal what GORE SURRENDERED! GORE WITHDREW FROM THE RACE!!!! IF he realy thought he could have won after that 3rd recount, then why did he withdraw in the end? IF he really believed that it was the best thing for America that he won, why didnt he contest this more?
in the end, Gore gave up the race. How is that stolen....plus as i know ive cited before, by the recounts and the USA commission on human rights report on the election, no such hanky panky as the sore losers alledge occured.
try these...again from page 6 of this thread
and the winner is
and
steal this
Oh yeah Bush stole the election....GORE QUIT!
When will the same ole tired anti Bush rhetoric people start to bring FACTS
other than the fact that you dont like him?
Something you haven't done, you've only parroted "info" you've googled off pro-GOP websites. Sorry, doesn't convince me.
Which GOP slanted web sites have I used as referance here?
27jd talks about Iraq contracts,
NO, I'M SURE THEY WORKED HARD TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS GIVEN A FAIR SHOT. Yeah right, if other companies were given a fair shot at other contracts in Iraq (not the no-bid contract Halliburton was awarded) it was only because Bush ran out of evil buddies to award them too. And yes I'll beat you to it, that would be "assumptive" and yes it's my opinion.
Yes indeed, Haliburton did get ONE no bid contract, out of how many?
Whatever reason you deem that other, non republican companies got contracts in Iraq is irrelavent to the fact that MANY companies have recieved contracts, not just Bush crony company friends.
As far as cronyism in the DOD selection process....lets say, we dont know the things that go on in those selection meetings, and indeed some favoritism could occur. What makes you think that everyone involved in that process is a Bush supporter...Boy, that Bush is good eh? He's got all of congress supporting his religious adgenda AND the DOD in his pocket for doling out contracts to only his buddies....Doesnt that give Bush a little too much credit for being so powerful?
I find it MORE likley (yes to assume) that Bush would make sure some democratic people got something in these contracts as "payment" for congress signing the check for the war to start with, than i would believe Bush is only promoting his people.
27JD'S assesment of Saudi westernization...
You seem to underestimate the control these theocratic governments have over their people
And you seem to oversimplify the position the Saudi government finds itself in.
It is because that they indeed have been "breeding" anti west sentiments there for a few decades that now, when they do things like allow western millitary bases, crack downs on radical groups, support of western ousting of saddam, and other pro west ideas theyve adopted that many in the country are ready to rebel, (this is aside from all the usual gripes about their government) Can you immagine the preassure they would have been under if they allowed coalition forces to strike from there? (hence why they told the USA, attack if you want, just dont do it from here where we would draw ire for allowing you to.)
The internal forces that you so casually brush off as "they could crack down harder" would be a disaster if done too soon/aggressivly....the perception that they were totally giving away the kingom to the west could really aggravate their situatuion. Are we really too impatient for them to change that we'd jeapordize Saudi stabillity by trying to rush changing an ideology thats several decades ingrained into the culture?
You lack a long term understanding and vision on this issue, if you think the Saudi royal family (already not their citizens favorite people) can and should really force westernization as quickly as we'd like them to...the fact that they're doing this at all is positive.
27jd says,
He's the president, our main figurehead, and the main figurehead of the government you seem so well versed in. He should not be "setting a tone" for any religious agenda, regardless of the workings of congress.
The President AS leader IS the person thats supposed to set the tone/adgenda for his term in office. They can ask for whatever they want, but its still Congress that has to do the work of getting the legislation passed amongst themselves BEFORE the President can actually make it happen/not.
Your abdication or congressional resposibillities in this reguard in order to blame the President alone is soo blantantly biased. Again, where is your anger for your LOCAL representatives that actually gave bush what he wanted? Did Bush pay off everyone in Congress that voted for the legislation to pass?
27jd's predicts WW3,
Well then, welcome to WWIII right?
No, not gonna happen. First of all, Where is the alliance forming against the USA? Which of the countries not only have the balls to stand up to America, but will actually get in front of the USA and say "stop or we'll attack". I dont see any, and dont see a coalition of any nations willing to even try stopping the usa on this...why? because for the past 10 years thru the UN theyve been saying "bad saddam" Because some of those countries value business with america more than sadam...
27jd asks me,
you actually advocate military invasions on principles alone.
Yes, sometimes principals alone are all thats needed to start a big fight, and i appear to not be alone with this thought, here's what J.Kerry has to say....www.abovetopsecret.com...
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.
For the reccord, that would be Bush, Kerry and myself that would have invaded iraq, without WMD's and based on principal....where do your principals lie?
27jd discusses with addix the bush-saudi connections, and addix allegations,
I seriously doubt they paid Hillary's way into the senate, but even if so, she's not running for president yet, so we'll talk about that when she does.
Excuse me on 2 levels here!!!! IF Hillary took Saudi $$$ for her campaign,
First of, if its ok for the Clintons to have some connections with the Saudi's, then the same standard would apply to the Bush's, its ok.
Second, ANY USA FEDERAL level politican that is taking foriegn $$$ would seem to be questionable behaivior at least. So it would seem that the Saudi's have had relations with the previous President as well as the current one...DUH! go figure.
27jd partially corrects an allegation that Kosovo is the same type of action as Iraq,
Um, no. Clinton saved muslims from genocide at the hands of non-muslims, and with world support, not even close to the same thing.
There is some differance and simmilarities...
The biggest similarity is that the USA in both situations is trying to protect MUSLIMS in some way, one from non muslims, and in iraq from other muslims....Also similar is that now, while we dont have as much support in Iraq as we did Kosovo, there are still over 20 nations with us in iraq.....far from unilateral.
Ultimately, i expect the USA government to protect American intrests first, weather the world approves or not. The people here didnt elect anyont at the UN or other countries to look out for the USA, and so we will protect our intrests, percieved or tangible, even if it ticks others off.
Were France and Germany looking out for their allies interest when they were saying to our face, "yes we agree he's bad" at the UN all the while sucking the oil teat under the table with the oil for food scam, violating their own sanctions and rubbing the USA's nose in it by not giving the USA what it wanted (enforcement) because that would end their little rippoff scheme?
27jd talks the alledged florida election rippoff,
His brother was governor of FL, and I believe he stole the election. If it were as cut and dry as you claim, the Dem's wouldn't still be bitchin
You cant steal what GORE SURRENDERED! GORE WITHDREW FROM THE RACE!!!! IF he realy thought he could have won after that 3rd recount, then why did he withdraw in the end? IF he really believed that it was the best thing for America that he won, why didnt he contest this more?
in the end, Gore gave up the race. How is that stolen....plus as i know ive cited before, by the recounts and the USA commission on human rights report on the election, no such hanky panky as the sore losers alledge occured.
try these...again from page 6 of this thread
and the winner is
and
steal this
Oh yeah Bush stole the election....GORE QUIT!
When will the same ole tired anti Bush rhetoric people start to bring FACTS
other than the fact that you dont like him?
Originally posted by CazMedia
When will the same ole tired anti Bush rhetoric people start to bring FACTS
other than the fact that you dont like him?
The "same ole tired anti Bush rhetoric people" are most of the population on the planet earth. It doesn't matter what "facts" you choose to repeat from whichever sources you choose to repeat them from. When you have a bad feeling about somebody, you just do. Anybody who pays any attention feels the same way. I'm sure Hitler had many people like you in Germany blindly defending him with "facts". He too attacked other countries based on principles. Kerry is bad in many ways as well, but nowhere near as bad as Bush in my opinion. I don't need a list of "facts" to form an opinion based on the past four years, I've watched the country change course and I don't like the direction it's going. That's all I need. I grow tired of this discussion. This thread asked why so many people hate Bush? I gave my opinion. Hopefully, enough people share it to steer this country back to sanity. I'll believe what I believe to be true, and you do the same. It's obvious I'm not going to convince you, and you're certainly not going to change my mind, so continue to spread the BU# on your toast and eat it. Then regurgitate it as "fact". I choose not to waste any more of my life arguing with somebody who believes everything the government says and ignores the impending consequences of this country continuing on it's current path. I just hope you are a minority this November.
When presented with the truth, 27jd's arguments crumble to whiney liberal rants with no substance and all opinion!!! Typical opinionated
un-educated, willing to believe whatever the snake-oil salesman is selling as long as it fits with their close minded "get Bush" rhetoric. Run
along 27jd, keep spreading the un-informed mis-representations of reality to the brain dead couch potatos that will believe all this crap with out
question.
27jd says,
Fortunatly, only USA citizens will get to vote here. The rest of the world can kiss my AMERICAN butt! They dont live here, pay taxes here and i sure as hell didnt elect Chirac to rule here. So in November, I'll only have people like 27jd to blame for casting such a lame, uninformed, emotion over logic vote as one for Kerry.
27jd says,
WHY? Why would you choose to not at least review the information provided to you? Exactly which sources would you find acceptable. Which sources cited in this thread do you have problems with? (the second time for this question to you) I think we all know the reason you refuse to acknowledge sources that people have cited, its because in reality you have a closed mind, one that can not or will not admit that there might be something you didnt know or hadnt considered. Your blanket refusal to accept anything presented to you just shows your total bias on these topics.
27jd says,
Thats right, you did. You are entitled to have an opinion and express it.
But when challenged to defend and explain your OPINIONS, we can see that they are based on what? a hunch? a feeling? Speculation? Mis-statements of fact? Where are the facts that helped form your opinions? When I try to see/understand things from "your" side of the argument, i keep asking myself, where is the substance? How can you convert me to your side when all you offer is fluff, emotive, and non factual garbage? If this is the way many voters will cast their votes, this country is in trouble because it shows how lame brained most people are.
27jd says,
Belief in something doesnt make it true. Still think Santa Clause is comming to town? Again this attitude you express goes right back to my point about the fallicy of most of these hate Bush arguments. If you cant accept that something you belive MIGHT not be true then who is really deluding you? Your deluding yourself. Belief in santa clause, when presented with evidence to the contrary is delusional behaivior. Refusal to accept information that conflicts with your reality is both arrogant and delusional.
I'll choose to look at the facts and then make an assesment instead of just giving blind belief because i need to feel "right" about an issue. Id love for one of you Bush bashers to actually come up with credible, tangible reasons for me to understand and accept....but so far in 8 pages of this thread, i have yet to see any.
Let me be clear here, Im not so much for defending Bush because i like him, or support all of his platform. What i am against is the absolutly wacko ideas that some have expressed about hating the President. It amazes me that some people are so WILLING to remain blind to things, and spew such emotion ladden crap. I would defend Kerry in the same fashon were he to be President, if all i saw from the other side was baseless, emotive, non truthful crap being used against him.
My biggest gripe is not with Bush or Kerry, but with the VOTERS, and the often non issue related drivel that they cling to like the gospel.
We the people need to do better before we can expect the same from our officials.
[edit on 10-8-2004 by CazMedia]
27jd says,
The "same ole tired anti Bush rhetoric people" are most of the population on the planet earth.
Fortunatly, only USA citizens will get to vote here. The rest of the world can kiss my AMERICAN butt! They dont live here, pay taxes here and i sure as hell didnt elect Chirac to rule here. So in November, I'll only have people like 27jd to blame for casting such a lame, uninformed, emotion over logic vote as one for Kerry.
27jd says,
It doesn't matter what "facts" you choose to repeat from whichever sources you choose to repeat them from.
WHY? Why would you choose to not at least review the information provided to you? Exactly which sources would you find acceptable. Which sources cited in this thread do you have problems with? (the second time for this question to you) I think we all know the reason you refuse to acknowledge sources that people have cited, its because in reality you have a closed mind, one that can not or will not admit that there might be something you didnt know or hadnt considered. Your blanket refusal to accept anything presented to you just shows your total bias on these topics.
27jd says,
This thread asked why so many people hate Bush? I gave my opinion.
Thats right, you did. You are entitled to have an opinion and express it.
But when challenged to defend and explain your OPINIONS, we can see that they are based on what? a hunch? a feeling? Speculation? Mis-statements of fact? Where are the facts that helped form your opinions? When I try to see/understand things from "your" side of the argument, i keep asking myself, where is the substance? How can you convert me to your side when all you offer is fluff, emotive, and non factual garbage? If this is the way many voters will cast their votes, this country is in trouble because it shows how lame brained most people are.
27jd says,
I'll believe what I believe to be true, and you do the same.
Belief in something doesnt make it true. Still think Santa Clause is comming to town? Again this attitude you express goes right back to my point about the fallicy of most of these hate Bush arguments. If you cant accept that something you belive MIGHT not be true then who is really deluding you? Your deluding yourself. Belief in santa clause, when presented with evidence to the contrary is delusional behaivior. Refusal to accept information that conflicts with your reality is both arrogant and delusional.
I'll choose to look at the facts and then make an assesment instead of just giving blind belief because i need to feel "right" about an issue. Id love for one of you Bush bashers to actually come up with credible, tangible reasons for me to understand and accept....but so far in 8 pages of this thread, i have yet to see any.
Let me be clear here, Im not so much for defending Bush because i like him, or support all of his platform. What i am against is the absolutly wacko ideas that some have expressed about hating the President. It amazes me that some people are so WILLING to remain blind to things, and spew such emotion ladden crap. I would defend Kerry in the same fashon were he to be President, if all i saw from the other side was baseless, emotive, non truthful crap being used against him.
My biggest gripe is not with Bush or Kerry, but with the VOTERS, and the often non issue related drivel that they cling to like the gospel.
We the people need to do better before we can expect the same from our officials.
[edit on 10-8-2004 by CazMedia]
new topics
-
Elites disapearing
Political Conspiracies: 2 hours ago -
A Personal Cigar UFO/UAP Video footage I have held onto and will release it here and now.
Aliens and UFOs: 2 hours ago -
Go Woke, Go Broke--Forbes Confirms Disney Has Lost Money On Star Wars
Movies: 4 hours ago -
Freddie Mercury
Paranormal Studies: 4 hours ago -
Nirvana - Immigrant Song
Music: 8 hours ago -
British TV Presenter Refuses To Use Guest's Preferred Pronouns
Education and Media: 9 hours ago -
Tucker Carlson interviews Christian pastor from Bethlehem.
Middle East Issues: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
British TV Presenter Refuses To Use Guest's Preferred Pronouns
Education and Media: 9 hours ago, 16 flags -
Go Woke, Go Broke--Forbes Confirms Disney Has Lost Money On Star Wars
Movies: 4 hours ago, 11 flags -
Trump To Hold Dinner with President of Poland At Trump Tower Tonight
2024 Elections: 12 hours ago, 8 flags -
Tucker Carlson interviews Christian pastor from Bethlehem.
Middle East Issues: 11 hours ago, 7 flags -
Elites disapearing
Political Conspiracies: 2 hours ago, 6 flags -
A Personal Cigar UFO/UAP Video footage I have held onto and will release it here and now.
Aliens and UFOs: 2 hours ago, 5 flags -
Freddie Mercury
Paranormal Studies: 4 hours ago, 5 flags -
Revolution in advertising: the Russians launched a unique satellite
Science & Technology: 17 hours ago, 5 flags -
A family from Kansas with six children moved to the Moscow region
Other Current Events: 15 hours ago, 5 flags -
Nirvana - Immigrant Song
Music: 8 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
Elites disapearing
Political Conspiracies • 11 • : nerbot -
Are the 'Abrahamic Religions' all Really the Worshipping the Same Abrahamic God?
Conspiracies in Religions • 190 • : Consvoli -
British TV Presenter Refuses To Use Guest's Preferred Pronouns
Education and Media • 43 • : Consvoli -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 315 • : Annee -
Trump To Hold Dinner with President of Poland At Trump Tower Tonight
2024 Elections • 29 • : ImagoDei -
Terrifying Encounters With The Black Eyed Kids
Paranormal Studies • 41 • : Consvoli -
A Personal Cigar UFO/UAP Video footage I have held onto and will release it here and now.
Aliens and UFOs • 7 • : Ophiuchus1 -
A family from Kansas with six children moved to the Moscow region
Other Current Events • 72 • : Unknownparadox -
The Truth About Jesus
Conspiracies in Religions • 269 • : lilzazz -
New Photo's reveal Railway System underneathe the Pyramids
Breaking Alternative News • 28 • : Skinnerbot