Haha. I heart you.

Obviously, I have personal issues with Bush. Looking at my signature, you could probably figure out that I'm either bi or lesbian. I'm bi. I'm not one of those kind that just wants to have fun with girls or anything. I would never cancel out the idea of having a long term, if not lifetime, relationship with a women. The fact that Bush pries into other people's lives and dictates who they should marry, is just morally wrong. Not only that, it is Constitutionaly wrong, as well. It's against the first ammendment (I think that's the one. ) It states that everyone has the right to happiness. Obviously, there are places where you could draw the line, but being married to who you please is not where you would draw it. Budding into other people's lives and business is just.. wrong. I don't care what religion you are. It doesn't matter to me. My mom grew up in a very Catholic country known as Italy and went to a Catholic boarding school and all that other dandy stuff. Still, when I came out to her, she was perfectly fine with it. She knows that I deserve to be happy. Her line is, "I don't care who you bring home to me as long as they treat you right." That should be Bush's philosophy. I mean, it's none of his business anyone. Also (I can't back this up so I'm not sure if it's true or not but..) I did hear that one of his daughters is a lesbian. Hello! Isn't something wrong with that picture?

About the abortion thing, I agree with you on that, too. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. All I'm saying is that it should be up to the mother. I would understand if the father had some in-put, but the mother is the one who will be giving birth to the child and probably play the largest role in the child's life. No one has the right to take the personal choice from the mother. That includes the president. I'm not sexually active but if I was and I got pregnent, I would not want to keep the baby. Not even to put it up for adotion. Nine months of carying a baby at a young age can be a lot of pressure (whether you're keeping it or not) and you might have to stay out of school for a while or whatever your reason may be, it does not play a rold in the president's life, so he shouldn't care. And, that whole thing with the moral issues is just totally pointless. If you decide to say that "you're killing life" you're wrong. By the time the fetus turns into the human, you cannot abort it anymore. The reason you can't get an abortion past your third month is because you need to abort it while it's still a fetus so, technicly, that's not life. I guess that point could be debated. But... yeah......

That's all I have to say for now. So yeah.. Bye.

the president's job isn't to protect the country. check the constitution.
the president's job is to lead this country.

i don't see much leading...
i see no attempt to concede with the 49% of america that didn't vote for him.
well, actually, that voted, but not for him.


anyways:

i saw no attack after the `93 WTC bombings. not for a long time.

sure, it could be bush's policies,

or it could be that they're carefully planning thier attack, instead of russhing in.

i hear stories of post 9/11, people going throught entire flights with guns. and more with knives.

the fact that a boxcutter is much more easily hidden than a gun makes me wonder, if bush's policies are what's having an effect.

you cannot attribute everything that happens to the president's policies. both sides of the debate are at fault here.

anything that happens in the first year or so of a president's term is the previous president's fault.

therefore, september 11th was clinton's fault.

other things, like gas prices (which went from 1.50 in 2000 to 2.80 now in my area, by the way), and the stock market, can be attributed to market trends and fluctuations.

however; there are things we can attribute directly to the president.

these are namely:

1. the patriot act.
2. No child left behind
3. the social security reform (if passed)

now, the first two are considered failures. the patriot act is long and cumbersome- 700 parts to it, all worded quite strangely. No child left behind is not speeding up the children lagging behind- it's keeping the others at thier pace.

now, the social security reform, which bush would view as a good thing, would cost the nation some trillions of dollars to swtich over two.

in addition to these three things, you can actually see some truth in some claims.

for instance, the national debt-
granted, funding a war and protecting a country is expensive...

yet who says the money was well spent.

Bush is hated and loved so intensely because he's determined to get what he wants. if he wants the same thing as you, then he's great. if not, he's the devil reincarnated.

now; this is quite similar to another president in history: Teddy Roosevelt.

going by that precedent- it can be assumed that, since history is written by the winner- in subsequent accounts of "The age of terrorism", bush will be potrayed as a heroic figure.

and that being said, Bush does not suck, but his is not as great as others.

he does a mediocre job, he messes up sometimes, but overall, he'll go down in history as a good president.

as much as it displeases me to say.

<3

Indeed!

If nothing at all, Bush can at least go down in history as a president with good intentions, as opposed to several others.

Another <3


Quit making me agree with ya'll.

well about Bush...
i live in Illinois.. and needless to say.. its pretty much a democratic state and a lot of people over here hate him.
Well.. he's not my favorite president. and I dont think he's awesome.. but i don't hate him either.
He does have good intentions.. but.. eeh. hes OOOk. I mean.. everyone makes mistakes!

Ehh... I don't think he has the best intentions. I mean, I don't think he wants to take over the world or anything. But I still think he's in this war at least partially for oil. That's definatly bad intentions.

If oil was our concern, we'd look to our own territory.

Being how on tiny Gull Island, in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska there more oil than all of that in the entire region of Saudi Arabia.

We are looking on our own territory. Texis and there's a debate going on about the oil mining in Alaska. Activists are against it because of the damage to wild life there or something like that. At least that's what I heard.

Which has all been disproved.

In Lindsay Williams' The Energy Non-Crisis she comments about the tests run in Alaska on Gull Island, and they had no adverse effects. In fact, after the Alaskan pipelines were constructed, they actually benefitted the caribou in the region by providing them with what it now essential, crucial protection.

And about Texas -- the oil reserves there are so dried up it's disturbing.

The oil under Alaska could keep the United States self-sufficient for over 200 years, nearly doubling our country's lifespan.

Pipelines are far from the concern. There are hundreds of pictures in which you can see black smoke pouring into the sky at Prudhoe Bay, bulldozers, drilling rigs, and garbage dumps. There have been 23,000 oil spills there. A report to Congress by the Fish and Wildlife Service says that oil activities have stripped 11,000 acres of Arctic vegetation and have reduced the numbers of most bird species. Twenty of twenty-one major waste-storage pits were found violating Environmental Protection Agency standards, discharging toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and carcinogens into wetland habitats.

not necessarily as disproved as you somehow think it is.

It was humorous seeing where you had plagiarized and added your own uncapitalized touch at the end. The mainstream media is mind-molding public opinion by repeatedly showing running caribou, and oil-drenched seagulls touting environmentalists' claims that the caribou and other endangered species and habitats are being destroyed.

"The Alaska Fish and Game Department just did a study on the porcupine caribou in Prudhoe Bay. The size of the herds has increased since 1969 [the beginning of construction of the pipeline] by 35 percent. The pipeline area is a protected designation and the caribou have figured this out. They have migrated into this area for protection."

"Seagulls have also found refuge in this area. The Alaska Fish and Game Department quotes that there has been a 20 percent jump in the seagull population since the mid 80's."

What you and the media see as a dangerous, debilitating problem is actually a refuge for some.

Another problem with your logic is that anything our species does affects those that can't protect themselves from it. I'm not one to comment on how the human race became so psychologically advanced, but it is for that very reason that our minds won't allows us to not live the luxurious lives that we do. Hence, if we can do a 'harmful' activity [oil drilling] while assisting certain species, and keeping your family car full of petrol, I'd say that's a job well done. My only suggestion for you, if you're that adamant about having no impact on another species, would be to buy yourself an organic buttflap and go duke it out in the Alaskan wilderness. My wager is that you won't.

i am hardly ever offened, but i do find your statement pretty rude. I simply explained the facts that are out there, but you seem to know all the answers before entertaining the question, so i guess there was no point in me approaching it the way i did. Your examples of studies are pretty irrelevant, AGAIN pipelines and caribou are not even a main concern so why keep bringing them up?



Right because they are all just making it up and want America to invade other countries for oil. It doesn't take a genius to observe that oil, and not to mention the misue of it, significantly damages wildlife... case closed.



What is my logic? obviously you don't understand me. I am no animal rights activist, though you seem to have the impression that i am. I am only concerned with this notion that oil is not a reason we are in Iraq, because it certainly is. I am actually going against the Wildlife Federation's view on this matter. If getting oil from Alaska and killing some species there would get us out of Iraq, than it is fine with me, but i guess it's too late for that now.

We'll be beating this dead horse until the 2008 elections.

oil was a consideration for the iraqi war.

it was said that to cut down on post-war reconstruction costs, the iraqis would sell thier oil to US companies.

it wasn't primarily to get oil, but oil was considered as a way to pay for it.

What it doesn't take a genius to do would be to observe the fact that oil operations in Alaska benefit some species at the expense of others, creating an equilibrium. I never said you were an animal rights activist, however, you bring up animal rights activist facts.

Therefore, I approached your facts as such.



Why not? Just because your figures dealt only with fish, herds of caribou are irrelevant?



Well, of course it is. We're fighting in the middle east; anyone that would claim it had absolutely nothing to do with oil would be a fool.

However, I looked back to where this all began, and I objected to this statement:

'Bush is in the war for oil. That's definitely bad intentions.'

1) Oil is not our necessity.
2) Perhaps we should just forget about petrol all together. Then everyone here would be happy. We could rewind 100 years and ride a horse and buggy to the shopping mall.

i see no major conseqences of drillin for oil in alaska,

oil drilling in cold places has evolved; they can drill at angles and thus use less surface spots, they make the roads out of ice instead of gravel so that it doesn't damage the environment.

as long as there are no spills, and that enviromental concerns are met, then it should be fine.

Just curious... What animals does it help and what's your support for that statement? I'm not contradicting you. I just seriously don't know.

There were several studies done showing that the oil drilling areas and the pipelines offered critical protection for seagulls, caribou, and other mammals in the region.

Her question was HOW?

Which I answered. It offers them protection; my guess is that pipeline isolates the caribou from harsh environments, being how they migrate to it during times of extreme cold.

I'm not the scientist here. The Alaskan Wildlife researches brought forth the information, I'm just the messenger.

Read again. And this time, cognitively. Nowhere in the following post do I see the word "how."
http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/Petroleum/pu...um00/Page1.html

*shrugs* Looks like you're right. But still... accidents happen. They happen all the time with oil. For example...

In the Delaware river:
There was a boat carrying oil and something in the water hit the side of the boat and there was an oil spill in the river. Many animals were killed and it took a long time to clear up the water.

Well, if that's so horrible, what's your suggestion as a solution?

Stronger boat hulls? I mean, come on... How many precautions can we take before it gets ridiculous?

When was the last time I ran for president? Never. Not only because I'm not of age.. but because I'm not stupid enough (like GWB) to think that I could do a good job at it.