Now we're blaming Bush for wasting money in Iraq? I thought we accusing him of going to war with Iraq for oil money. I have to keep up to speed with this bulls*** anti-Bush<i>ism</i>.
OMG! <a href='http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/12/abortion/index_np.html' target='_blank'>New discovery!</a> Apparently Bush is planning to attack our fundamental right to abort babies. How can he take our 9th amendment away....or is it 14th....wait, that can't be right either. Whatever. The point is, if only we had known that he planned on defending this country and banning abortion [LIKE 99% OF THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO DO], we could have done something or other.
<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>If the odds are against you, use a weapon.</span> <span style='font-size:3pt;line-height:100%'>Sarcasm.</span>
You can't say Gore would be a worse president, because he's not. That's like saying you know Saddam acts the way he does because he was held too long by his mother. YOU DON'T, YOU'RE JUST THROWING OUT BASELESS NOISE.
Even if 9/11 happened, and I think it's almost impossible to say otherwise, I'm 100% positive Gore would've handled the Iraq situation better (Read: OIL. Cheney's best buddies got the oil contract for Iraq. What a coincidence!), and definately would've handled the economics better.
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Nov 12 2003, 02:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Nov 12 2003, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is quite clearly a case to be made that many people knew that an attack was imminent. ... the mayor of San Francisco... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Yeah... The San Francisco mayor is a major factor in world politics.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You cannot claim someone else would have done a worse or better job, you can only speculate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who claimed? Its funny. Someone states their opinion, yet when you don't agree with it its considered a claim and not speculation. Yet your opinions are speculation? Or are they claims? If something has not or will not happen and it is an opinion it is always a speculation. Stop trying to make it seem like anything else. Its disparaging and an insult.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 12 2003, 07:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 12 2003, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now we're blaming Bush for wasting money in Iraq? I thought we accusing him of going to war with Iraq for oil money. I have to keep up to speed with this bulls*** anti-Bush<i>ism</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sadly, I can't engage in this discussion for now due to my double-shift of death, but I can't let this one slide: The American administration was accused of attacking Iraq due to its close links to the oil lobby. The energy corps, not the government was assumed to benefit from it. Both accusations can thus exist next to each other, and anyone who's ever read Sun-Tzu will agree that this war is condemned to be a financial nightmare for the taxpayer.
I agree with Evis. I recently read a Zmag article about bush 9/11, the basic jist was about why Bush 'allowed' 9/11 to happen. now before everyone jumps in with arguements like "oh but how can he know everything that going to happen" or "he cant forsee the future", lets just remember how important Bushs job is. anyway, thats not the main point. The main point was that, if say Clinton was still in power, and 9/11 happened, the man would have been absolutly ripped to shreds by the corporate media. Just look how they savaged him over the sex scandals, He would have taken full blame for 9/11 (im not being clinton centric here, anyone else could have been an equal fall guy). And yet, somehow, miraculously, Bush not only recieves no blame whatsoever, he emerges as the defender of freedom.
he totally hyped the whole terror situation and turned from being an incompetant fool who allowed the biggest terror attack to occur in America ever, and became the shining ray of light that the American public seem to now be clinging to in fear of a loss of freedom, ,or whatever his message is today.
end of the day, Bush only got away with this because the media instead of questioning how 9/11 ever happened, fell straight into line with the headlines promising "more attacks imanent"; stoking terror in the public. thats what a corporate media will get you.
Does that mean that Clinton let how many terrorrist attacks occur during his 8 years? Bush was in for less than a year and had to deal with 9/11. He is not to blame.
Why do people continue to bring these unprovable conspiracy theories to these discussions? Its absurd.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I thought we accusing him of going to war with Iraq for oil money. I have to keep up to speed with this bulls*** anti-Bush<i>ism</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That oil money isn't for you or me. You and I do not reap the benefits of multi-million dollar contracts to fund the war and also to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry. Yet Bush wants you and me to pay for the war and pay for the reconstruction to the tune of an ever-increasing record deficit. This rebuild money isn't going to be a loan to Iraq... every effort has been made to ensure that this money won't have to be repaid. If they made it into loans, it would mean that some of that oil money would have to come back to go towards paying off the deficit. Bush knows that can only come at the expense of the now-privatized Iraqi oil industry. The administration privatized Iraq. This same administration decides upon which U.S. and British companies get the chance to participate in this new capitalistic environment. We've got the military presence there, so they'll do as they please.
There surely won't be any French or German companies getting these lucrative deals, that much you can bank on. France and Germany signed their own deals with Iraq before the war to help rebuild it; this is why they are so ticked off at us going in there and spent every effort to veto any U.N. resolution... a lot of money was at stake. They couldn't stop us militarily, as that would mean fighting against us. So they used the only power they had, which was the U.N. veto. Now Bush has essentially made the claim that he doesn't need the U.N., and there's nothing these countries can do short of taking up arms and fighting against us. Not going to happen.
However there is a political problem back home. A lot of angry people over the American deaths. To help limit Americans' anger over the human costs of war, Bush is now trying to go back to the U.N. and convince these countries to help with the military burden... spread the death around, if you will. These countries are still not happy about what we've done, so the only thing that can convince them of the necessity for assisting us in Iraq is cash. Lots of it. I think that not all of that $87 billion is going directly into Iraq or the military. I think a lot of it is just flat-out bribe money.
Quite obviously the oil companies getting huge contracts to work in Iraq, and the defense contractors making big bucks to build some more missiles, fighters, and bombers are the ones who stand to gain from this. You, me, Joe American Taxpayer, the soldiers who are dying over there, and the families here in America who now have lost their fathers, their mothers, their sons, and their daughters are the ones who lose out.
About the tax cut, tax cuts should be made at the right time. Making a tax cut during a war will not benefit the country much, however on the long run benefit of the tax cut will start to show up probably when the war ends.
So you're basically assuming that it's some kind of corporate conspiracy just because those contract didn't go to companies of countries that didn't participate. But that doesn't really matter because no matter what Bush does people like you will put a negative spin on it.
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 12 2003, 02:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 12 2003, 02:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Who claimed? Its funny. Someone states their opinion, yet when you don't agree with it its considered a claim and not speculation. Yet your opinions are speculation? Or are they claims? If something has not or will not happen and it is an opinion it is always a speculation. Stop trying to make it seem like anything else. Its disparaging and an insult. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please don't put words into my mouth. I did not disparage or insult you or anyone else. I said very clearly... and it goes for me too... that no one can claim anything, it is always pure speculation. I was speaking in general terms, and not citing a specific example. Perhaps my semantics did not come across properly. I did not accuse you or anyone else of claiming anything, in fact I didn't even respond to anything you posted so I have no idea why posted just to attack me. If you read the rest of my post you'd understand that I was trying to show how all of it is speculation... and yes, that goes for my own opinion about "what if" scenarios.
I have no opinion of what Gore would or would not have done. My point is that you cannot disparage him for something he has no control over. All the Republicans here are bristling at the thought of what Gore would have done in response had he been in office and are imagining just how horrible the universe would be. My only opinion is that anyone in office at that time, be it Gore or McCain or Buchanan, would not have just stuck their head in the ground and wallowed in self-pity. That is my general, speculative opinion.
You're right, the SanFran mayor is a nobody. So how come he knew but 3000 unfortunate people in New York did not?
<!--QuoteBegin--othell+Nov 12 2003, 02:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (othell @ Nov 12 2003, 02:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Does that mean that Clinton let how many terrorrist attacks occur during his 8 years? Bush was in for less than a year and had to deal with 9/11. He is not to blame. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. Clinton was at fault for not taking appropriate action on the information given to him. He could have done something to stop Bin Laden, too. You don't blame your problems on your underlings, you blame them on the guy at the top. The information was there, lots of people knew something was going to happen, yet no one tried hard enough to do anything about it. We're not claiming Bush knew every last detail of 9/11 and then purposefully told people to just let it happen. Someone knew that an event was forthcoming, however, and they were negligent in their duty to prevent it. They could have devoted more resources to the threat and attempt to neutralize it, yet they did not. Regardless of who you want to pin it on, someone failed to protect those people. We don't pay our taxes to let these things slip through our incredible intelligence community. If not directly responsible for the negligence, Bush is indirectly responsible purely because the FBI and the CIA ultimately are under his control.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 12 2003, 08:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 12 2003, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the anti-Bush<i>ies</i> are so worried about there being a burden on tax payers then why complain about tax cuts?
Does. Not. Add. Up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nor do the lines you're trying to draw.
As Nem already pointed out, you somehow think it's paradoxical to criticize both the motives for the war and the resulting cost to the taxpayer. That doesn't make any sense. They more or less go hand in hand-- especially considering that those taxes <i>are</i> going to many of the same corporations mentioned in the former.
And the second point just doesn't make any sense-- it simply says the same thing two different ways and the tries to position them as being mutually exclusive. So . . if you criticize the way our government spends money . . . then you shouldn't be able to criticize the way our government spends money?
By that same logic, conservatives who supported the tax cuts then should have absolutely no say about how the existing revenue is spent.
Basically, the Iraqis were offering any offer before war. They even offered to have US and UN inspected free elections and to destroy whatever biological weapons they had. Bush told him to not pursue any peace deal whatsoever.
What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped?
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!"
I doubt Al Gore would have tried to do anything more than put on a show for the American people and say "See! We shot at them! Where's my cookie?"
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 12 2003, 10:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2003, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped?
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!"
I doubt Al Gore would have tried to do anything more than put on a show for the American people and say "See! We shot at them! Where's my cookie?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you honestly think that only President Bush would have had the courage and vision to attack Afghanistan after the murder of close to 4,000 Americans, you're really giving him too much credit.
As David Cross said, for crying out loud, even NADER would have bombed Afghanistan. It wasn't exactly a tough decision.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Nov 12 2003, 02:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Nov 12 2003, 02:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nor do the lines you're trying to draw.
As Nem already pointed out, you somehow think it's paradoxical to criticize both the motives for the war and the resulting cost to the taxpayer. That doesn't make any sense. They more or less go hand in hand-- especially considering that those taxes <i>are</i> going to many of the same corporations mentioned in the former.
And the second point just doesn't make any sense-- it simply says the same thing two different ways and the tries to position them as being mutually exclusive. So . . if you criticize the way our government spends money . . . then you shouldn't be able to criticize the way our government spends money?
By that same logic, conservatives who supported the tax cuts then should have absolutely no say about how the existing revenue is spent.
ok, sounds good to me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're just twisting my point so I look like an idiot. Saying that the war on Iraq will be a burden on the tax payer and criticizing tax cuts is contradictory, if the criticism is as simple as that. More comprehensive criticism can avoid this contradiction. There was no need to point that out 'till you came along and twisted everything. Darn you to the nether planes!
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 12 2003, 05:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2003, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yes.
9/11 was a one off. he terrorists planned it for a long time. and probably expended all their resources in America on that one attack. All the marching around, warnings, planes and general paranoia was nothing more than scare mongering, its the oldest trick in the book for mustering patriotic support.
bush was doing his best to rape public opinion points off the back of a disaster (with the aid of the media of course [see the numerous headline quotes from the whitehouse administration along the lines of "more attacks certain", "were all going to die"]).
Just FYI so we can let this part die: 9/11 WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. The terrorists were in pilot school and living in the US for up to four years prior to the attack (Okay, I pulled that number out of my bass, but you get the idea. I know some were here in '98 before they got into 'take off and flying' school)
At least his tax cuts and exonomic views are sound and work. His tax cut doesn't kill the rich because the rich OWN the companys and the companys CREATE THE JOBS!!! Don't give me any BS about helping the rich if you take 95 cents from every dollar over a million for taxes you disincent people. The bad thing is the Iraq war wasn't nescessary yet even if Saddam was evil. I don't really give a damn how he talks so long as he boosts the economy. BTW Economic changes lag several years so thats why the tax cuts didn't work right away. Have some patience and think rationally you democrats
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Nov 12 2003, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Nov 12 2003, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 12 2003, 05:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2003, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> yes.
9/11 was a one off. he terrorists planned it for a long time. and probably expended all their resources in America on that one attack. All the marching around, warnings, planes and general paranoia was nothing more than scare mongering, its the oldest trick in the book for mustering patriotic support.
bush was doing his best to rape public opinion points off the back of a disaster (with the aid of the media of course [see the numerous headline quotes from the whitehouse administration along the lines of "more attacks certain", "were all going to die"]). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The terrorists had hundreds of members and since they didn't own the planes yes they would have done it again if it worked perfectly with no repercussions. After the first attack they'd have plenty of new recruits wanting to be martyrs. Think from the point of view of a terrorist bent on killing as many Americans as possible and taking down America itself. If the strategy works it will be used repeatedly. See the JP/HMG of 1.04.
This is the problem with politics. People are utterly convinced the president they liked would be perfect, and make no mistakes whilst the opposition is a bumbling fool and any mistake that every president eventually makes is just further reinforcement that they're right.
Bush and Gore are both pretty good guys minus both sides attempts to destroy each other's credibility, so honestly here, if a candidate is really that dumb, how could they get past the primaries ? They would drop out if they had no support, and the Republican party isn't stupid, neither is the Democratic party, they both want to win, and they're going to put out support for the best candidate. Honestly, against the facts, by this truth, any attacks on Bush being stupid really can't fly, sure, he can be a bad orater, but that doesn't make him stupid, by the same logic Stephen Hawking would be an uneducated fool, which we all know is false.
The reasons why I believe Bush would be better is becase his economic plans are more sound, as stated before, also, I believe in smaller government and less bureaucracy, therefore I disagree with most of the Democratic planks. In wartime, would bigger spending bureaucracies help the economy ? No. It's good that Bush is trying to reduce government spending and cutting taxes, that enables a growth in revenue especially as we rise from the depression status that is inherent in all business cycles.
As to Iraq, Bush may have fumbled a bit at home, but in Iraq his goals were clear, take Saddam out of power. At home, people may easily be at opposition to him for their own reasons, and most reasons simply tend to be single party issues or partisan, IE. Anti-War, Democratic, or what have you. Most people simply choose to dislike his decision based on who he is, not because of a comprehensive study on policies used and how we planned out our attack. The biggest mistake I think Bush made was not officially declaring war through Congress, (Rarely president's do this unless it lasts more than a certain time), other than that, I really don't think war could be much more perfect, wars never are.
And those who think that democrats would have never gone to war or whatever, even Clinton's NSA supported the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Sandy Berger said "It is not enough to be defined by what we are against, but show what we are for."
Overall, Bush isn't a bad guy at all, your letting the press get to you. Same thing with Clinton, while you may disagree with him, and he made a foolish mistake in office with the scandal doesn't mean he's evil. They both are doing in their minds the best for the country.
<b><i><u>So stop the conspiracy theories, stop the blatant partisan, stop the ruthless politic lies and stop the personal attacks on his ability. They are all engineered politically, and if you guys knew all the darn lies in politics you would have half the mind to stop getting so wrapped up in what you're told, instead of taking the facts, putting yourself in the same situation and making decisions for yourself.</u></i></b>
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Nov 12 2003, 06:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Nov 12 2003, 06:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to Iraq, Bush may have fumbled a bit at home, but in Iraq his goals were clear <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> wrong. 100% pure wrongness. I cant even begin to tell you how wrong that is.
you are aware that the admin changed its reason for war on an almost daily basis? was it terrorism? no that wount fly, better say somthing about weapons! yes thats right, Saddam is an immenant threat to the free world! what? thats not true either?! well, ,uhhh... perhaps... perhaps? were doing this in the name of.. democracy? freedom? and other number of 'positive but totally unrelated' goodness which serve only to be mildly rabble rousing/ and argument proof (after all, who would argue against freedom itself?!).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Overall, Bush isn't a bad guy at all, your letting the press get to you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
. . . youv seen that highly amusing, massive list of all the **** things bush has done? the one which made its way round the internet a while back? under the title of ' Bushs CV'?
that is a list of at least 30 ways in which Bush has SERIOUSLY shamed himself and infact the whole of America. how many things will it take to outweigh the 'counter argument' which is based on nothing more than,. "oh come on guys, Bush isnt really all THAT bad"
*after a small amount of digging* <a href='http://mail2.factsoft.de/pipermail/national/2003-June/017756.html' target='_blank'>Bushs CV</a> bear in mind this is quite out of date, and no doubt Bush has at least doubled his rating on the bastometer since
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush and Gore are both pretty good guys minus both sides attempts to destroy each other's credibility, so honestly here, if a candidate is really that dumb, how could they get past the primaries ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well we can start there. Bush relied on a tremendous support and spin staff to win the Republican party nomination. What he did to discredit John McCain is downright shameful. I recall one particular occasion where during a media event with some other candidates Bush pulled out a newspaper ad and claimed McCain was using negative smear tactics in his advertising against Bush. McCain stumbled about when confronted with that newspaper, the supposed "proof" that his campaign staff was issuing negative campaign ads. McCain, not aware of what was going on inside his campaign, had no answer. All he had to do was ask to read the supposedly negative ad that Bush held up. Had he done so, he would have realized it wasn't a negative ad at all; it had nothing bad to say about anyone at all. Bush lied, right there on live TV, yet no one questioned the authenticity of the accusation. It was a trick to belittle McCain, a vietnam war hero and POW.
Note this wasn't Bush making these decisions, it was his support staff and his campaign organizers. It costs millions of dollars to run a campaign. That money goes in large part to support these spin players. Bush is really just the face you put on the campaign. He's not any smarter than Ronald Reagan, a mediocre actor who used astrology while in the White House to make his decisions. The face and body you put up there is in no relationship whatsoever to their viability as a candidate. Surround yourself with confident people who know how to manipulate opinion polls, and you can literally put anyone who looks good or seems viable into office. But that takes a whole lot of money. It really is that easy. Out of all of the Democratic nominees, not one of them got to where they are because they're smarter or more viable a President than the tens of millions of other people here in the U.S. who meet the presidential pre-requisities. They got to where they are because they have influence, they have money, they know how to play the game, and they have that desire. Look how far Ross Perot got in 1992. A man with no political experience, but loads of cash. Had he a better surrounding organization, who knows what might have happened. Sure took the donkeys and elephants by surprise.
I'll get back to you on the soundness of his economic plans, and other plans he has for destroying our country's values. Just a quick blurb, this administration right now has only increased beauracracy and increased spending since he took office. You don't amount an unprecendented deficit by spending less and creating less beauracracy. Big myth people seem to have about believing George Bush the 2000 nominee vs the reality of George Bush the pResident.
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Nov 12 2003, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What if, when 9/11 had occurred, Bush had not acted. You people are criticizing him so much for taking action, yet supposing we hadn't done anything about it, do you really think the attacks would have stopped?
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Reality check time:
1) The 9/11 terrorists had not just flown in from the Middle East. They had been living in America for quite some time. If there were more lurking in the wings ready to die for their cause, bombing their homeland would not have done anything more than steel their resolve.
2) They weren't from Afghanistan, by and large. Most of them were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan only got involved because the Taliban didn't want to turn Osama over on our say-so.
3) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. According to all our intelligence, Saddam and Osama hate each other's guts.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that bombing Afghanistan or "liberating" Iraq had any sort of causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 12 2003, 03:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 12 2003, 03:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the anti-Bush<i>ies</i> are so worried about there being a burden on tax payers then why complain about tax cuts?
Does. Not. Add. Up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd venture a guess here and say that perhaps it is because most anti-Bush people are generally not going to benefit from things like tax-free dividends.
Just a guess.
I mean you can give more money to the wealthy and <b>hope</b> those good people will share with us little players in the economic game...but that's a big stretch. Voodoo economics I believe.
With the rediculous salaries that company heads often pay themselves... you figure it out.
When I say his goals were clear I meant that he knew what he wanted to do, get Saddam out of power. You only proved my point when you said that you didn't know the reasoning, WOMD or what, thus proving that the public, (Bush at home), he fumbled.
Evis, you are the epitomical archetype of a person who is completely convinced of Bush's inadequacies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll get back to you on the soundness of his economic plans, and other plans he has for destroying our country's values. Just a quick blurb, this administration right now has only increased beauracracy and increased spending since he took office. You don't amount an unprecendented deficit by spending less and creating less beauracracy. Big myth people seem to have about believing George Bush the 2000 nominee vs the reality of George Bush the pResident. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand what you mean about the values of our country, you could be insinuating that his economic policies are causing the decay of America morally, I'm not quite sure.
Sure, he had to increase some bureaucracy based on the whole national security incident, and there's unavoidable circumstances of foreign policy that no president can control, and bureaucracies involved in foreign policies are a need, not just a convienience for the few Americans that need it, and all of them that fund it. Everyone needs it. Domestically, we don't need more bureaucracy.
Big myth eh ? Bush was running on a platform he planned to commit to, unless you can prove me wrong, we had an incident you see, it was called 9/11, it changed things you might be able to say. Do you think Gore would change policies about not changing/decreasing the military funding after 9/11 ? Probably not, you'd probably see some extra funding going into the military even though that's not a very Liberal policy.
Plus the whole deficit has to do with business cycle, an unavoidable economic issue. People say that Bush started the depression and such but if you understand theres a lag time of one year in all the numbers it actually started during Clinton's years. And guess what, I'm not going to blame Clinton because he couldn't control it either !
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They got to where they are because they have influence, they have money, they know how to play the game, and they have that desire. Look how far Ross Perot got in 1992. A man with no political experience, but loads of cash. Had he a better surrounding organization, who knows what might have happened. Sure took the donkeys and elephants by surprise.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perot got...maybe 2% of the popular vote ? You really can't use a candidate with 2% of the vote to push that all it takes is money. If these "evil republican spinmeisters" were running this "puppet" it really wouldn't make sense to run the candidate that you think is a "stupid moron who can't do anything right". I'm sure that this major political party could do better than that, assuming Bush really is stupid.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Nov 12 2003, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Nov 12 2003, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At least his tax cuts and exonomic views are sound and work. His tax cut doesn't kill the rich because the rich OWN the companys and the companys CREATE THE JOBS!!! Don't give me any BS about helping the rich if you take 95 cents from every dollar over a million for taxes you disincent people. The bad thing is the Iraq war wasn't nescessary yet even if Saddam was evil. I don't really give a damn how he talks so long as he boosts the economy. BTW Economic changes lag several years so thats why the tax cuts didn't work right away. Have some patience and think rationally you democrats <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure the companies create the jobs... in India... China ... God knows where else.
Business ethics = oxymoron.
My former company at the first sign of trouble started laying off long term employees left/right and center. Not because they had no choice, but because it represented an unacceptable dig into the owner's personal profit margin. I.e. they don't give a rats about the annoying little peasants that they grudgingly need to have around from time-to-time.
Sure Bush is not completely responsible for how every company runs...but he oozes the slimey residue of someone in bed with the worst of the worst tax-dodging-loopholing-Enron thieves.
His tax cuts surely will benefit the rich...I'm sure they're all scrambling at restructuring their reward schemes to take advantage of the dividends.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu.
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Nov 12 2003, 08:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Nov 12 2003, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> His tax cuts surely will benefit the rich...I'm sure they're all scrambling at restructuring their reward schemes to take advantage of the dividends.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> lol. His tax cuts benefit many poor as well. It just so happens that taxes were not cut in any one area. Multiple types of taxes were cut. And of course the rich would get more back in taxes... They pay more. Its simple math there.
As to the rich not liking to part with their money... I just want to give a big DUH! to that. I'm a poor college student and I despise parting with my money.
Comments
OMG! <a href='http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/12/abortion/index_np.html' target='_blank'>New discovery!</a> Apparently Bush is planning to attack our fundamental right to abort babies. How can he take our 9th amendment away....or is it 14th....wait, that can't be right either. Whatever. The point is, if only we had known that he planned on defending this country and banning abortion [LIKE 99% OF THE REPUBLICANS WANT TO DO], we could have done something or other.
<span style='font-size:6pt;line-height:100%'>If the odds are against you, use a weapon.</span> <span style='font-size:3pt;line-height:100%'>Sarcasm.</span>
Even if 9/11 happened, and I think it's almost impossible to say otherwise, I'm 100% positive Gore would've handled the Iraq situation better (Read: OIL. Cheney's best buddies got the oil contract for Iraq. What a coincidence!), and definately would've handled the economics better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You cannot claim someone else would have done a worse or better job, you can only speculate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who claimed? Its funny. Someone states their opinion, yet when you don't agree with it its considered a claim and not speculation. Yet your opinions are speculation? Or are they claims? If something has not or will not happen and it is an opinion it is always a speculation. Stop trying to make it seem like anything else. Its disparaging and an insult.
Sadly, I can't engage in this discussion for now due to my double-shift of death, but I can't let this one slide: The American administration was accused of attacking Iraq due to its close links to the oil lobby. The energy corps, not the government was assumed to benefit from it. Both accusations can thus exist next to each other, and anyone who's ever read Sun-Tzu will agree that this war is condemned to be a financial nightmare for the taxpayer.
Does. Not. Add. Up.
I recently read a Zmag article about bush 9/11, the basic jist was about why Bush 'allowed' 9/11 to happen.
now before everyone jumps in with arguements like "oh but how can he know everything that going to happen" or "he cant forsee the future", lets just remember how important Bushs job is.
anyway, thats not the main point. The main point was that, if say Clinton was still in power, and 9/11 happened, the man would have been absolutly ripped to shreds by the corporate media. Just look how they savaged him over the sex scandals, He would have taken full blame for 9/11 (im not being clinton centric here, anyone else could have been an equal fall guy).
And yet, somehow, miraculously, Bush not only recieves no blame whatsoever, he emerges as the defender of freedom.
he totally hyped the whole terror situation and turned from being an incompetant fool who allowed the biggest terror attack to occur in America ever, and became the shining ray of light that the American public seem to now be clinging to in fear of a loss of freedom, ,or whatever his message is today.
end of the day, Bush only got away with this because the media instead of questioning how 9/11 ever happened, fell straight into line with the headlines promising "more attacks imanent"; stoking terror in the public. thats what a corporate media will get you.
Why do people continue to bring these unprovable conspiracy theories to these discussions? Its absurd.
That oil money isn't for you or me. You and I do not reap the benefits of multi-million dollar contracts to fund the war and also to rebuild the Iraqi oil industry. Yet Bush wants you and me to pay for the war and pay for the reconstruction to the tune of an ever-increasing record deficit. This rebuild money isn't going to be a loan to Iraq... every effort has been made to ensure that this money won't have to be repaid. If they made it into loans, it would mean that some of that oil money would have to come back to go towards paying off the deficit. Bush knows that can only come at the expense of the now-privatized Iraqi oil industry. The administration privatized Iraq. This same administration decides upon which U.S. and British companies get the chance to participate in this new capitalistic environment. We've got the military presence there, so they'll do as they please.
There surely won't be any French or German companies getting these lucrative deals, that much you can bank on. France and Germany signed their own deals with Iraq before the war to help rebuild it; this is why they are so ticked off at us going in there and spent every effort to veto any U.N. resolution... a lot of money was at stake. They couldn't stop us militarily, as that would mean fighting against us. So they used the only power they had, which was the U.N. veto. Now Bush has essentially made the claim that he doesn't need the U.N., and there's nothing these countries can do short of taking up arms and fighting against us. Not going to happen.
However there is a political problem back home. A lot of angry people over the American deaths. To help limit Americans' anger over the human costs of war, Bush is now trying to go back to the U.N. and convince these countries to help with the military burden... spread the death around, if you will. These countries are still not happy about what we've done, so the only thing that can convince them of the necessity for assisting us in Iraq is cash. Lots of it. I think that not all of that $87 billion is going directly into Iraq or the military. I think a lot of it is just flat-out bribe money.
Quite obviously the oil companies getting huge contracts to work in Iraq, and the defense contractors making big bucks to build some more missiles, fighters, and bombers are the ones who stand to gain from this. You, me, Joe American Taxpayer, the soldiers who are dying over there, and the families here in America who now have lost their fathers, their mothers, their sons, and their daughters are the ones who lose out.
Please don't put words into my mouth. I did not disparage or insult you or anyone else. I said very clearly... and it goes for me too... that no one can claim anything, it is always pure speculation. I was speaking in general terms, and not citing a specific example. Perhaps my semantics did not come across properly. I did not accuse you or anyone else of claiming anything, in fact I didn't even respond to anything you posted so I have no idea why posted just to attack me. If you read the rest of my post you'd understand that I was trying to show how all of it is speculation... and yes, that goes for my own opinion about "what if" scenarios.
I have no opinion of what Gore would or would not have done. My point is that you cannot disparage him for something he has no control over. All the Republicans here are bristling at the thought of what Gore would have done in response had he been in office and are imagining just how horrible the universe would be. My only opinion is that anyone in office at that time, be it Gore or McCain or Buchanan, would not have just stuck their head in the ground and wallowed in self-pity. That is my general, speculative opinion.
You're right, the SanFran mayor is a nobody. So how come he knew but 3000 unfortunate people in New York did not?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Clinton was at fault for not taking appropriate action on the information given to him. He could have done something to stop Bin Laden, too. You don't blame your problems on your underlings, you blame them on the guy at the top. The information was there, lots of people knew something was going to happen, yet no one tried hard enough to do anything about it. We're not claiming Bush knew every last detail of 9/11 and then purposefully told people to just let it happen. Someone knew that an event was forthcoming, however, and they were negligent in their duty to prevent it. They could have devoted more resources to the threat and attempt to neutralize it, yet they did not. Regardless of who you want to pin it on, someone failed to protect those people. We don't pay our taxes to let these things slip through our incredible intelligence community. If not directly responsible for the negligence, Bush is indirectly responsible purely because the FBI and the CIA ultimately are under his control.
Does. Not. Add. Up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nor do the lines you're trying to draw.
As Nem already pointed out, you somehow think it's paradoxical to criticize both the motives for the war and the resulting cost to the taxpayer. That doesn't make any sense. They more or less go hand in hand-- especially considering that those taxes <i>are</i> going to many of the same corporations mentioned in the former.
And the second point just doesn't make any sense-- it simply says the same thing two different ways and the tries to position them as being mutually exclusive. So . . if you criticize the way our government spends money . . . then you shouldn't be able to criticize the way our government spends money?
By that same logic, conservatives who supported the tax cuts then should have absolutely no say about how the existing revenue is spent.
ok, sounds good to me.
<a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/...ge031105-1.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/...ge031105-1.html</a>
Basically, the Iraqis were offering any offer before war. They even offered to have US and UN inspected free elections and to destroy whatever biological weapons they had. Bush told him to not pursue any peace deal whatsoever.
So much for him wanting peace :\.
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!"
I doubt Al Gore would have tried to do anything more than put on a show for the American people and say "See! We shot at them! Where's my cookie?"
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!"
I doubt Al Gore would have tried to do anything more than put on a show for the American people and say "See! We shot at them! Where's my cookie?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you honestly think that only President Bush would have had the courage and vision to attack Afghanistan after the murder of close to 4,000 Americans, you're really giving him too much credit.
As David Cross said, for crying out loud, even NADER would have bombed Afghanistan. It wasn't exactly a tough decision.
As Nem already pointed out, you somehow think it's paradoxical to criticize both the motives for the war and the resulting cost to the taxpayer. That doesn't make any sense. They more or less go hand in hand-- especially considering that those taxes <i>are</i> going to many of the same corporations mentioned in the former.
And the second point just doesn't make any sense-- it simply says the same thing two different ways and the tries to position them as being mutually exclusive. So . . if you criticize the way our government spends money . . . then you shouldn't be able to criticize the way our government spends money?
By that same logic, conservatives who supported the tax cuts then should have absolutely no say about how the existing revenue is spent.
ok, sounds good to me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're just twisting my point so I look like an idiot. Saying that the war on Iraq will be a burden on the tax payer and criticizing tax cuts is contradictory, if the criticism is as simple as that. More comprehensive criticism can avoid this contradiction. There was no need to point that out 'till you came along and twisted everything. Darn you to the nether planes!
yes.
9/11 was a one off. he terrorists planned it for a long time. and probably expended all their resources in America on that one attack. All the marching around, warnings, planes and general paranoia was nothing more than scare mongering, its the oldest trick in the book for mustering patriotic support.
bush was doing his best to rape public opinion points off the back of a disaster (with the aid of the media of course [see the numerous headline quotes from the whitehouse administration along the lines of "more attacks certain", "were all going to die"]).
yes.
9/11 was a one off. he terrorists planned it for a long time. and probably expended all their resources in America on that one attack. All the marching around, warnings, planes and general paranoia was nothing more than scare mongering, its the oldest trick in the book for mustering patriotic support.
bush was doing his best to rape public opinion points off the back of a disaster (with the aid of the media of course [see the numerous headline quotes from the whitehouse administration along the lines of "more attacks certain", "were all going to die"]). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The terrorists had hundreds of members and since they didn't own the planes yes they would have done it again if it worked perfectly with no repercussions. After the first attack they'd have plenty of new recruits wanting to be martyrs. Think from the point of view of a terrorist bent on killing as many Americans as possible and taking down America itself. If the strategy works it will be used repeatedly. See the JP/HMG of 1.04.
Bush and Gore are both pretty good guys minus both sides attempts to destroy each other's credibility, so honestly here, if a candidate is really that dumb, how could they get past the primaries ? They would drop out if they had no support, and the Republican party isn't stupid, neither is the Democratic party, they both want to win, and they're going to put out support for the best candidate. Honestly, against the facts, by this truth, any attacks on Bush being stupid really can't fly, sure, he can be a bad orater, but that doesn't make him stupid, by the same logic Stephen Hawking would be an uneducated fool, which we all know is false.
The reasons why I believe Bush would be better is becase his economic plans are more sound, as stated before, also, I believe in smaller government and less bureaucracy, therefore I disagree with most of the Democratic planks. In wartime, would bigger spending bureaucracies help the economy ? No. It's good that Bush is trying to reduce government spending and cutting taxes, that enables a growth in revenue especially as we rise from the depression status that is inherent in all business cycles.
As to Iraq, Bush may have fumbled a bit at home, but in Iraq his goals were clear, take Saddam out of power. At home, people may easily be at opposition to him for their own reasons, and most reasons simply tend to be single party issues or partisan, IE. Anti-War, Democratic, or what have you. Most people simply choose to dislike his decision based on who he is, not because of a comprehensive study on policies used and how we planned out our attack. The biggest mistake I think Bush made was not officially declaring war through Congress, (Rarely president's do this unless it lasts more than a certain time), other than that, I really don't think war could be much more perfect, wars never are.
And those who think that democrats would have never gone to war or whatever, even Clinton's NSA supported the war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Sandy Berger said "It is not enough to be defined by what we are against, but show what we are for."
Overall, Bush isn't a bad guy at all, your letting the press get to you. Same thing with Clinton, while you may disagree with him, and he made a foolish mistake in office with the scandal doesn't mean he's evil. They both are doing in their minds the best for the country.
<b><i><u>So stop the conspiracy theories, stop the blatant partisan, stop the ruthless politic lies and stop the personal attacks on his ability. They are all engineered politically, and if you guys knew all the darn lies in politics you would have half the mind to stop getting so wrapped up in what you're told, instead of taking the facts, putting yourself in the same situation and making decisions for yourself.</u></i></b>
wrong. 100% pure wrongness. I cant even begin to tell you how wrong that is.
you are aware that the admin changed its reason for war on an almost daily basis?
was it terrorism? no that wount fly, better say somthing about weapons! yes thats right, Saddam is an immenant threat to the free world! what? thats not true either?! well, ,uhhh... perhaps... perhaps? were doing this in the name of.. democracy? freedom? and other number of 'positive but totally unrelated' goodness which serve only to be mildly rabble rousing/ and argument proof (after all, who would argue against freedom itself?!).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Overall, Bush isn't a bad guy at all, your letting the press get to you<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
. . . youv seen that highly amusing, massive list of all the **** things bush has done? the one which made its way round the internet a while back? under the title of ' Bushs CV'?
that is a list of at least 30 ways in which Bush has SERIOUSLY shamed himself and infact the whole of America.
how many things will it take to outweigh the 'counter argument' which is based on nothing more than,. "oh come on guys, Bush isnt really all THAT bad"
*after a small amount of digging* <a href='http://mail2.factsoft.de/pipermail/national/2003-June/017756.html' target='_blank'>Bushs CV</a> bear in mind this is quite out of date, and no doubt Bush has at least doubled his rating on the bastometer since
Well we can start there. Bush relied on a tremendous support and spin staff to win the Republican party nomination. What he did to discredit John McCain is downright shameful. I recall one particular occasion where during a media event with some other candidates Bush pulled out a newspaper ad and claimed McCain was using negative smear tactics in his advertising against Bush. McCain stumbled about when confronted with that newspaper, the supposed "proof" that his campaign staff was issuing negative campaign ads. McCain, not aware of what was going on inside his campaign, had no answer. All he had to do was ask to read the supposedly negative ad that Bush held up. Had he done so, he would have realized it wasn't a negative ad at all; it had nothing bad to say about anyone at all. Bush lied, right there on live TV, yet no one questioned the authenticity of the accusation. It was a trick to belittle McCain, a vietnam war hero and POW.
Note this wasn't Bush making these decisions, it was his support staff and his campaign organizers. It costs millions of dollars to run a campaign. That money goes in large part to support these spin players. Bush is really just the face you put on the campaign. He's not any smarter than Ronald Reagan, a mediocre actor who used astrology while in the White House to make his decisions. The face and body you put up there is in no relationship whatsoever to their viability as a candidate. Surround yourself with confident people who know how to manipulate opinion polls, and you can literally put anyone who looks good or seems viable into office. But that takes a whole lot of money. It really is that easy. Out of all of the Democratic nominees, not one of them got to where they are because they're smarter or more viable a President than the tens of millions of other people here in the U.S. who meet the presidential pre-requisities. They got to where they are because they have influence, they have money, they know how to play the game, and they have that desire. Look how far Ross Perot got in 1992. A man with no political experience, but loads of cash. Had he a better surrounding organization, who knows what might have happened. Sure took the donkeys and elephants by surprise.
I'll get back to you on the soundness of his economic plans, and other plans he has for destroying our country's values. Just a quick blurb, this administration right now has only increased beauracracy and increased spending since he took office. You don't amount an unprecendented deficit by spending less and creating less beauracracy. Big myth people seem to have about believing George Bush the 2000 nominee vs the reality of George Bush the pResident.
So luckily, we have the terrorists going "Oh ****! duck!" instead of "Those stupid Americans! Lets hit them again!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reality check time:
1) The 9/11 terrorists had not just flown in from the Middle East. They had been living in America for quite some time. If there were more lurking in the wings ready to die for their cause, bombing their homeland would not have done anything more than steel their resolve.
2) They weren't from Afghanistan, by and large. Most of them were Saudi Arabian. Afghanistan only got involved because the Taliban didn't want to turn Osama over on our say-so.
3) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. According to all our intelligence, Saddam and Osama hate each other's guts.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that bombing Afghanistan or "liberating" Iraq had any sort of causal relationship to the lack of further terrorist attacks.
Does. Not. Add. Up. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd venture a guess here and say that perhaps it is because most anti-Bush people are generally not going to benefit from things like tax-free dividends.
Just a guess.
I mean you can give more money to the wealthy and <b>hope</b> those good people will share with us little players in the economic game...but that's a big stretch. Voodoo economics I believe.
With the rediculous salaries that company heads often pay themselves... you figure it out.
Evis, you are the epitomical archetype of a person who is completely convinced of Bush's inadequacies.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll get back to you on the soundness of his economic plans, and other plans he has for destroying our country's values. Just a quick blurb, this administration right now has only increased beauracracy and increased spending since he took office. You don't amount an unprecendented deficit by spending less and creating less beauracracy. Big myth people seem to have about believing George Bush the 2000 nominee vs the reality of George Bush the pResident. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand what you mean about the values of our country, you could be insinuating that his economic policies are causing the decay of America morally, I'm not quite sure.
Sure, he had to increase some bureaucracy based on the whole national security incident, and there's unavoidable circumstances of foreign policy that no president can control, and bureaucracies involved in foreign policies are a need, not just a convienience for the few Americans that need it, and all of them that fund it. Everyone needs it. Domestically, we don't need more bureaucracy.
Big myth eh ? Bush was running on a platform he planned to commit to, unless you can prove me wrong, we had an incident you see, it was called 9/11, it changed things you might be able to say. Do you think Gore would change policies about not changing/decreasing the military funding after 9/11 ? Probably not, you'd probably see some extra funding going into the military even though that's not a very Liberal policy.
Plus the whole deficit has to do with business cycle, an unavoidable economic issue. People say that Bush started the depression and such but if you understand theres a lag time of one year in all the numbers it actually started during Clinton's years. And guess what, I'm not going to blame Clinton because he couldn't control it either !
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They got to where they are because they have influence, they have money, they know how to play the game, and they have that desire. Look how far Ross Perot got in 1992. A man with no political experience, but loads of cash. Had he a better surrounding organization, who knows what might have happened. Sure took the donkeys and elephants by surprise.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perot got...maybe 2% of the popular vote ? You really can't use a candidate with 2% of the vote to push that all it takes is money. If these "evil republican spinmeisters" were running this "puppet" it really wouldn't make sense to run the candidate that you think is a "stupid moron who can't do anything right". I'm sure that this major political party could do better than that, assuming Bush really is stupid.
Sure the companies create the jobs... in India... China ... God knows where else.
Business ethics = oxymoron.
My former company at the first sign of trouble started laying off long term employees left/right and center. Not because they had no choice, but because it represented an unacceptable dig into the owner's personal profit margin. I.e. they don't give a rats about the annoying little peasants that they grudgingly need to have around from time-to-time.
Sure Bush is not completely responsible for how every company runs...but he oozes the slimey residue of someone in bed with the worst of the worst tax-dodging-loopholing-Enron thieves.
His tax cuts surely will benefit the rich...I'm sure they're all scrambling at restructuring their reward schemes to take advantage of the dividends.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu.
Bottom line is rich people - in general - do not like parting with their money. Alot of them I'm sure will simply pocket their breaks with a nice smile... and maybe open up a new call-center in kathmandu. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
lol. His tax cuts benefit many poor as well. It just so happens that taxes were not cut in any one area. Multiple types of taxes were cut. And of course the rich would get more back in taxes... They pay more. Its simple math there.
As to the rich not liking to part with their money... I just want to give a big DUH! to that. I'm a poor college student and I despise parting with my money.