The Good in President Bush, I would like to know... Options

[Alpha240]

I've read many debates regarding George Bush and John Kerry. Unlike Bush, Kerry never had a chance to prove himself as a president and show the American people how he could help this country and its people. George Bush had almost 4 years now to make a difference, and in my opinion any difference he made was make our country worse than it was before. I just don't understand why people like Bush. I really don't. I've heard unrational reasons, such as "He is a Christian" and "He is a strong leader", but I have not heard any REAL reasons on why Bush is a good person/president. So pleeease... someone tell me why so many people out there like Bush.

I would like non war related reasons, because i am against the war and therefore I will disagree with almost any reason given regarding the war.
For example: if you say you like Bush because he caught Saddam Hussein, my reply would be that he had no probable cause to go after Hussein. Even if he saw him as a threat, Bush had no proof or real intelligence to have reasons to bomb Suddam's country and capture him. I also don't believe in pre-emptive attacks. I think they are extremely hypocritical and destructive.

So if anyone has any input on how Bush improved our economy, environment, societal problems, scientific and technological advances, or anything along those lines please let me know.

[Spirited Away]

Tell me what Kerry could've done diffently for 9/11 while remembering that Kerry supported the war.

As for Intelligence, I hope you realize that British and Russian Intel also said there WMDs in Iraq. Why are you putting the blame on ONE person? Remember that the President looked for Congress's approval for war! So know that Congress supported fighting as well.

Tell me, what would Kerry have done that would differ from Bush?

Humph, it's not so much that "so many people out there like Bush", it's more like we're seemingly choosing the lesser of two evils with logical deductions, and hoping that it is the right choice for the next 4 years.

^ The above is only a repitition of what've been said over and over and over again in reply to blatant Bush-haters questions/opinions.

[pikimoo]

Tell me what Kerry could've done diffently for 9/11 while remembering that Kerry supported the war.

As for Intelligence, I hope you realize that British and Russian Intel also said there WMDs in Iraq. Why are you putting the blame on ONE person? Remember that the President looked for Congress's approval for war! So know that Congress supported fighting as well.

Tell me, what would Kerry have done that would differ from Bush?

Humph, it's not so much that "so many people out there like Bush", it's more like we're seemingly choosing the lesser of two evils with logical deductions, and hoping that it is the right choice for the next 4 years.

Well, if Kerry wouldn't have done anything different, then what makes Bush the lesser of the 2 evils? Unless I read that wrong..

I don't really support presidents. We all know I should be queen..

[inlonelinessidie]

Well, if Kerry wouldn't have done anything different, then what makes Bush the lesser of the 2 evils? Unless I read that wrong..

I don't understand how that would make Bush the less of two evils

[MeanBastard]

The fact he took down a tyrant?

[Spirited Away]

What do you know about Kerry and what he supports exactly, Pikimoo? From what I've speculated, he's definately no good in my book.

And not to mention that I'm one of those staunch Americans who believe that Bush should stay in office to finish what he started.

[pikimoo]

What do you know about Kerry and what he supports exactly, Pikimoo? From what I've speculated, he's definately no good in my book.

And not to mention that I'm one of those staunch Americans who believe that Bush should stay in office to finish what he started.

Err.. no. I don't really know anything about the president's truthfully

But I was referring to what you said.

Tell me what Kerry could've done diffently for 9/11 while remembering that Kerry supported the war.

Tell me, what would Kerry have done that would differ from Bush?

Humph, it's not so much that "so many people out there like Bush", it's more like we're seemingly choosing the lesser of two evils with logical deductions

You implied that Kerry wouldn't be any different from Bush, meaning they are equal. Then you said we're choosing 'the lesser evil'

I dunno

[Spirited Away]

Err.. no. I don't really know anything about the president's truthfully

Hmm..

You implied that Kerry wouldn't be any different from Bush, meaning they are equal. Then you said we're choosing 'the lesser evil'

I dunno

No, I implied that Kerry wouldn't have DONE anything different than Bush in the case with 9/11 and the decision for war. I thought I put a date there to clear up misconceptions.... *checks*... I did.

The lesser of two evils refer to what I disagree about Kerry's policies, and to what I consider his shady past with Communism, plus other unsavory things he said in the campaign speeches.... *shudders*...

Okay, does anyone want to get into the specifics? I may not be very brushed up on my politics, but I can certainly do research.

[pikimoo]

Hmm..




No, I implied that Kerry wouldn't have DONE anything different than Bush in the case with 9/11 and the decision for war. I thought I put a date there to clear up misconceptions.... *checks*... I did.

The lesser of two evils refer to what I disagree about Kerry's policies, and to what I consider his shady past with Communism, plus other unsavory things he said in the campaign speeches.... *shudders*...

Okay, does anyone want to get into the specifics? I may not be very brushed up on my politics, but I can certainly do research.

Oh, okay.. gotcha. I was a little confused.

[inlonelinessidie]

And not to mention that I'm one of those staunch Americans who believe that Bush should stay in office to finish what he started.

As much as I don't like Bush, for my own reasons that I've stated before, I do agree with "Fae" when she says that Bush should stay in office so he can finish what he started. I believe that this will be in people's minds when they vote. And will play a huge part in who wins the election.

I don't like that fact that people say that they would prefer anyone but Bush. I hate when people say that because it's like they're saying, " I would prefer to have Fidel Castro than Bush." UGH! But yes, Kerry is no better and no worse than Bush. They practically are the same. I would much prefer Nader . . . but that's just me along with a small fraction of others ; but knowing that there is no chance of him winning, Bush must finish what he has begun.








Even though I don't like him . . .

[ComradeRed]

www.jibjab.com : Nicely summarizes the main differences between Bush and Kerry.

[inlonelinessidie]

www.jibjab.com : Nicely summarizes the main differences between Bush and Kerry.

A flash animation is going to tell me the difference? Right . . . LOL

[ComradeRed]

It is...

[Devastation]

www.jibjab.com : Nicely summarizes the main differences between Bush and Kerry.

comradered knows his stuff, taking an animation lightly is completely unacceptable due to his intellectual reasonings.

[*Kathleen*]

comradered knows his stuff, taking an animation lightly is completely unacceptable due to his intellectual reasonings.

Whoa...they're treating you like a god now, Minda.

[Devastation]

Whoa...they're treating you like a god now, Minda.

i just have plain out respect.

[ComradeRed]

lol thanks!

[highly_evolved]

i still havnt read anything about wats good about bush btw...

[ComradeRed]

Bush is a major flip-flopper.

In 2000:
- Supported a "more restrained and humble foreign policy" (his own words)
- Promised to cut spending
- Strongly opposed to affirmative action

In 2004:
- Supports invading small countries
- Raised government spending more than any other president in history
- Supports affirmative action

He is trying to move to the left while still appeasing his MIC sponsors ... leading to major neo-conservative bullsh*t.

[highly_evolved]

Bush is a major flip-flopper.

In 2000:
- Supported a "more restrained and humble foreign policy" (his own words)
- Promised to cut spending
- Strongly opposed to affirmative action

In 2004:
- Supports invading small countries
- Raised government spending more than any other president in history
- Supports affirmative action

He is trying to move to the left while still appeasing his MIC sponsors ... leading to major neo-conservative bullsh*t.

hm..i dont see ur point here...i thought that u werea lways for bush. but now u say that he contradics himself and cpmpletly spins things around. and not in a good way.

[Mini]

Bush is also supporting the Patriot's Act. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is rewritting the Constitution because it is allowing agencies to look everything on you and what you are doing if someone anonymously accuse you of being a terrorist. It is like back in the days when the Red Scare was around, people were EXILED because they were accused of being a Commie even though they weren't. I don't want McCarthyism to come back.

[highly_evolved]

yeah and not many ppl who should have read the patriot act have read it....kinda likea wich hunt to. if u get accused of being a witch well u are a witch! ! u say someones a terrorist u get monitered for the rest of ur life and later arrested cause they find some kind of evidence that u are a terrorist.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Can any one of the Kerry supporters out there explain this to me?

From the Congressional Record -- February 27th, 1992 Page S2479:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today -- and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity -- to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

Wow -- if only, 12 years later, Kerry would follow his own words...

[Alpha240]

Can any one of the Kerry supporters out there explain this to me?

From the Congressional Record -- February 27th, 1992 Page S2479:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also rise today -- and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity -- to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

Wow -- if only, 12 years later, Kerry would follow his own words...

i'm sorry but what exactly are u trying to prove with this?

Tell me what Kerry could've done diffently for 9/11 while remembering that Kerry supported the war.

I think that there is a big difference between a citizen supporting the war, and the president having the country go to war. The president has all the information/intelligence regarding valid reasons to go to war, while citizens of america can only go by what the white house releases. I know a lot of people who supported the war in the beginning because of Bush's deceits of the reasons for war. Now that the TRUTH is coming to light, more and more people disapprove of what we have done... and still are doing. The president is the one who can take action and therefore has A LOT more responsibilty for his decisions. He is the one who truly knows what is going on. So, I really do think Kerry would have done things differently.. He may have sent to troops to Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden's capture, which I don't have any problem with, but I really dont think he would have done anything in Iraq... since there was NO reason at all.

The lesser of two evils refer to what I disagree about Kerry's policies, and to what I consider his shady past with Communism, plus other unsavory things he said in the campaign speeches.... *shudders*...

So you are qualified to say who is more evil simply by the policies you disagree with? I actually find that quite comical. Also, I find it interesting how many americans have been brainwashed by the government/schools to immediately think that communism=BAD. Every government has it's good and bad, so who are we to say that democracry is the best and every country needs to be democratic. Don't get me wrong, I love this country and democracy but we need to get over our arrogance.

What about the fact that he took down Suddam who has supressed Iraq for a long enough time?

sorry but I have to quote myself on this one...

if you say you like Bush because he caught Saddam Hussein, my reply would be that he had no probable cause to go after Hussein. Even if he saw him as a threat, Bush had no proof or real intelligence to have reasons to bomb Suddam's country and capture him. I also don't believe in pre-emptive attacks. I think they are extremely hypocritical and destructive.

but this is a perfect example on what i am talking about.... this topic was about what good Bush has done for OUR country. It seems like all a Bush supporter can do is defend his reasons for going to war or talk about Kerry's downfalls. SO if anyone has anything good to say about President Bush please tell me. THANKS

[MeanBastard]

i still havnt read anything about wats good about bush btw...

What about the fact that he took down Suddam who has supressed Iraq for a long enough time?

[*CrackedRearView*]

I just want you to explain to me why you think presidential hopeful John Kerry said Vietnam was an irrelevant issue to include in a campaign, when he happily, and proudly lists his service timeas a positive attribute and example of dedication to the country. For votes, of course.

You don't smell any hypocrisy there?

[ComradeRed]

OH yes, Kerry is a huge hypocrite, there's no question about it. But Bush has broken all of his major 2000 promises, except for cutting taxes (and even then, his cuts won't last). I think that's a bit worse.

[Mini]

I don't like either. I want Comrade Red as President.

[Alpha240]

I just want you to explain to me why you think presidential hopeful John Kerry said Vietnam was an irrelevant issue to include in a campaign, when he happily, and proudly lists his service timeas a positive attribute and example of dedication to the country. For votes, of course.

You don't smell any hypocrisy there?

I think a good reason for that would be that we are currently at war, and it is more relevant then ever now that the president understands what it feels like for a soldier to be at war. Then he would be more able to decide if war is really necessary in whatever situation. Sorry, but times have changed since 1992 and that means people's views and ideas change also.

I updated my previous post, so if u have any comments on that please let me know.

[highly_evolved]

hey this topic is about wat good bush has down to the US but i STILL dont see any one replying to that. and raed posts before if ur gna talk about saddam hussein

[Mini]

Doesn't anyone listen to me? Screw them both and vote for Comrade Red.

[Spirited Away]

I think that there is a big difference between a citizan supporting the war, and the president having the country go to war.  The president has all the information/intelligence regarding valid reasons to go to war, while citizens of america can only go by what the white house releases.  I know a lot of poeple who supported the war in the beginning because of Bush's deceits of the reasons for war.  Now that the TRUTH is coming to light, more and more people disapprove of what we have done... and still are doing.  The president is the one who can take action and therefore has A LOT more responsibilty for his decisions.  He is the one who truly knows what is going on.  So, I really do think Kerry would have done things differently.. He may have sent to troops to Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama Bin Laden's capture, which I don't have any problem with, but I really dont think he would have done anything in Iraq... since there was NO reason at all.

hmm, I don't know if you know how this works, but the President doesn't just declare war and BAM, America goes to war. He actually discussed with Congress and Congress approved. It would incredibly stupid of Bush to just jump into war without consent from Congress. I think you skipped some of your government classes.

You may think that Kerry would do things differently, but "there is a big difference between" would have done and done. There was an interview with Kerry that someone posted in another topic about Kerry's response to the Iraq War.... I think he said something along the lines of he would have gone to war as well. I'll try to find it again for your sake.

So you are qualified to say who is more evil simply by the policies you disagree with?  I actually find that quite comical.  Also, I find it interesting how many americans have been brainwashed by the government/public schools to immediately think that communism=BAD.  Every government has it's good and bad, so who are we to say that democracry is the best and every country needs to be democratic.   Don't get me wrong, I love this country and democracy but we need to get over our arrogance.

And what I find comical is that you disregard the words "in my opinion" to your liking. I hope you know there are no truths in playing politics and also in discussing it. Whatever side I take is the side that I show affinity to and, in that sense, I'm no different than you when you support Kerry. You're right about Americans being brainwashed though. Many kids don't even think about what they say before accusing others of being "brainwashed". I personally think Communism is bad because I LIVED it and experienced first hand what communism has to offer its poor. If it's not bad to you, then that's your opinion. I have the right to hold mine. Now what's even more ridiculous is someone saying that "AMERICANS" need to get over our arrogance. I think the word "Americans" is too generalized. To group intellectuals in with amatures is a fallacy and not all Americans are Bush/Kerry fanatics.

Because I do not like neither Bush nor Kerry as presidential candidates, I must then ask you if there is any goood in Kerry. Bush has my vote, and yes I'm registered to vote, simply because he is my choice over Kerry. If the only good in Bush is that he must finish what he has started, then at least he got one more credential over Kerry.

[Mini]

So you are qualified to say who is more evil simply by the policies you disagree with? I actually find that quite comical. Also, I find it interesting how many americans have been brainwashed by the government/schools to immediately think that communism=BAD. Every government has it's good and bad, so who are we to say that democracry is the best and every country needs to be democratic. Don't get me wrong, I love this country and democracy but we need to get over our arrogance.

Communism in its ideal state is interesting, but people abused their power even so with democracy. Yes, I rather have democracy than communism because I lived in a communist country before. I lived in Vietnam, and it was horrible. The poverty in Vietnam was far worst than any democracy I have visited. Communism have more flaws than democracy. In Communism, the government rules everything. Imagine if we just give all the power to President Bush and he would be our supreme leader or any other president. Communism IS FAR worst in the hands of people than democracy. Democracy at least grants the citizens control of who they are voting for, and they can blame it on themselves if they voted for the wrong people to represent them. In Communism, you don't have any control, the government could take away your property and leave you homeless anytime and just let you starve and die.

[highly_evolved]

thats a scary thought.. yes the idea of communism that being equal wealth is a good idea. but by human nature it can not be done and democracy is a far better form of government

[Mini]

thats a scary thought.. yes the idea of communism that being equal wealth is a good idea. but by human nature it can not be done and democracy is a far better form of government

Every CITIZEN has equal wealth. The government has BILLIONS of dollars and who works for the government is rich as HELL. As I said, people abused their powers and communism has SO many flaws.

[angel-roh]

i dont like kerry and i dont like bush. i hate both of them. im sick of hearing loved ones dying in the war. i get grossed out if i see same sex getting marry... i dont like it. i wish there is a president who makes gay marriage illegal and let there be peace into this world. i want that kind of president. why can't there be a president like that? i wish someone just someone at least do a speech about it, i'll vote for the person who says "lets bring peace to this world once again, and let the gay marriages be illegal to the United States blah blah" seriously and honestly i dont want our future to have gay marriages... i dont like seeing same sex having sex, kiss, make out in public...me and my homies was walking down the street and we saw this 2 guys humping together...i thought it was reallie nasty... it made me puke so much. i hate bush and i hate kerry. i really hate both of them. i dont like their speech. they both suck. i dont want none of them to be a president. i want another guy, so i can vote other person... so...

PRESIDENT BUSH AND PRESIDENT KERRY SUCKS!

[Spirited Away]

www.jibjab.com : Nicely summarizes the main differences between Bush and Kerry.

What a site to behold (no pun intended)!!!! I'm going to show this to the whole family.

[highly_evolved]

world peace means pleasing everyone. if u cant have gay marriages then u cant please everyone, and if u have gay marriages then u still cant please everyone.

[Mini]

world peace means pleasing everyone. if u cant have gay marriages then u cant please everyone, and if u have gay marriages then u still cant please everyone.

Susan!! Nooo, don't make another debate on gay marriages.

[angel-roh]

im not making another debate on gay marriages. all im saying is i hate kerry and bush. i hate their opinions. i hate their speech.

[highly_evolved]

well thats nice to know but i hope urealize that the topic is "The Good in President Bush"

[Mini]

WEll, I hate them both too. VOTE FOR COMRADE RED!!!

[Alpha240]

hmm, I don't know if you know how this works, but the President doesn't just declare war and BAM, America goes to war. He actually discussed with Congress and Congress approved. It would incredibly stupid of Bush to just jump into war without consent from Congress. I think you skipped some of your government classes.

Actually, the president has the power to send troops to war for a certain period of time without the approval of congress, sorry to burst your bubble.

The poverty in Vietnam was far worst than any democracy I have visited. Communism have more flaws than democracy. In Communism, the government rules everything. Imagine if we just give all the power to President Bush and he would be our supreme leader or any other president. Communism IS FAR worst in the hands of people than democracy. Democracy at least grants the citizens control of who they are voting for, and they can blame it on themselves if they voted for the wrong people to represent them.

I agree that democracy is a better form of government, but i'm just trying to make people think for themselves rather than being told that communism is BAD BAD BAD. Vietnam is a poorer country than the US, so that may have an affect with the poverty. And in the election of 2000, african americans and other minorities votes were nullified for whatever reason. This is just an example of the problems of government. Even though democracy claims that the people vote for their leader, it's more complicated than that. I'm NOT saying communism is good or bad, all i'm saying is that every governement has it's problems and secrets.

You may think that Kerry would do things differently, but "there is a big difference between" would have done and done. There was an interview with Kerry that someone posted in another topic about Kerry's response to the Iraq War.... I think he said something along the lines of he would have gone to war as well. I'll try to find it again for your sake.

Actions speak louders than words... what Bush has done about the war has much more of an impact than what Kerry has said about the war. Why does it matter what Kerry said about the war anyways?? If he's for the war, well we're already in one thanks to Bush. If he's againt is, then he will withdraw our troops.

Because I do not like neither Bush nor Kerry as presidential candidates, I must then ask you if there is any goood in Kerry. Bush has my vote, and yes I'm registered to vote, simply because he is my choice over Kerry. If the only good in Bush is that he must finish what he has started, then at least he got one more credential over Kerry.

Kerry was never our president and never had a chance to prove himself as one. How bout we give him a chance to see what he's got? By the progress of this topic, seems to me that Bush has NOTHING good to offer. If you disagree please PLEASE tell me something good bush has done for us. I don't think "finishing what he started" is a good reason to have him as our president for another 4 years. Why hasn't he withdrawn a majority of our troops already and start "finishing" this mess?? hmmm, maybe because he knows people are giving him their vote just for that reason? just a thought.

I hate when people say that because it's like they're saying, " I would prefer to have Fidel Castro than Bush." UGH! 

It's not really like that at all... when we say "Anyone but Bush" we are still being rational about it. For example, I would rather have any canididate from another party running for office as president rather than Bush, such as Kerry or Nader. Do you really think that people would want literally ANYONE as president.... for example, you? please think before you speak.... or type.

ok last time people, what good has Bush done for us in the last four years?????? c'mon there's got to be SOMETHING... that man can't be THAT uncapable of doing good...

[ryfitaDF]

i don't like kerry for any reason other than he's not bush.

[Mini]

I agree that democracy is a better form of government, but i'm just trying to make people think for themselves rather than being told that communism is BAD BAD BAD. Vietnam is a poorer country than the US, so that may have an affect with the poverty. And in the election of 2000, african americans and other minorities votes were nullified for whatever reason. This is just an example of the problems of government. Even though democracy claims that the people vote for their leader, it's more complicated than that. I'm NOT saying communism is good or bad, all i'm saying is that every governement has it's problems and secrets.

Why is Vietnam poor? Because of Communism. Communism is a society without money, without property, without social classes. People just come together and carry out a project or to help each other in a community but it is without different wages. Everyone makes the same minimal wage, a doctor can make the same a trashman. Think about it, why would you go and spend time going to school if you just make the same wage as someone who doesn't really need an education and time and they just receive ALMOST the same amount as you? The citizens are slaves to the government. I mean Communism was ideally a good form of government, but it hinders growth of the economy if other countries are capitalist. It is human nature that if you work really hard to improve society, another person should do the same. Except when corcerning professions, it contradicts that notation because each profession is different and that you spend different amounts of time working and studying that profession.

You are right that the government is brainwashing students, but people do think for themselves. I really do think they try to explain to you that Communism was a good idea except it didn't work out and that people corrupted the idea just like they corrupt many others. I was fortunate to be taught by wonderful teachers in Social Studies.

[Spirited Away]

Actually, the president has the power to send troops to war for a certain period of time without the approval of congress, sorry to burst your bubble.

I remember specifically saying that it would be stupid for the President to do so without the consent of Congress, sorry to burst YOUR bubble.

Actions speak louders than words... what Bush has done about the war has much more of an impact than what Kerry has said about the war.  Why does it matter what Kerry said about the war anyways?? If he's for the war, well we're already in one thanks to Bush.  If he's againt is, then he will withdraw our troops. 

This, once again, has been answered. Because Kerry said that he would have gone to war, what makes you think that Kerry would be any better than Bush?

Kerry was never our president and never had a chance to prove himself as one.  How bout we give him a chance to see what he's got?  By the progress of this topic, seems to me that Bush has NOTHING good to offer.  If you disagree please PLEASE tell me something good bush has done for us. I don't think "finishing what he started" is a good reason to have him as our president for another 4 years.  Why hasn't he withdrawn a majority of our troops already and start "finishing" this mess?? hmmm, maybe because he knows people are giving him their vote just for that reason?  just a thought.

Well, Gore was never our President and never had a chance to prove himself as one, and neither did plenty of other people who tried to run for Presidency. How about we give NADER a chance to see what he's got? By the progress of this topic, seems to me BUSH and KERRY has NOTHING good to offer. If you disagree, then please tell me something good about Kerry.

"Finishing what he started" is a perfectly good opinion. If you think that it isn't good, well, that's just YOUR own opinion and I'm fine with that. Heh, I'm not a person who would say your opinion is wrong because that's just... wrong.

ok last time people, what good has Bush done for us in the last four years?????? c'mon there's got to be SOMETHING... that man can't be THAT uncapable of doing good...

Seeing how I don't really have affinity for either candidates, I don't really have anything good to report. At least I know that I'm still voting for Bush.

I really do agree with you that schools and the government tries to brainwash you, but people do think for themselves.

Exactly.

[*CrackedRearView*]

I think a good reason for that would be that we are currently at war, and it is more relevant then ever now that the president understands what it feels like for a soldier to be at war. Then he would be more able to decide if war is really necessary in whatever situation. Sorry, but times have changed since 1992 and that means people's views and ideas change also.

....

We had just pulled out of a Middle East invasion in 1992, and there were still troops deployed in gray, unsure areas.

Not to mention, we've been overseas making moves throughout the entire 90's.

[Mini]

Let me ask a question, what does John Kerry have to offer that Bush doesn't? The fact that he served in the military means swat to me.

[sikdragon]

Bush has done an awesome job has president, everything he has promised has been brought before congress. foreign policy was humble he asked for humble support, he humbly flipped off the UN, he humbly asked Hussein for his weapons, hussein spit in his face so he humbly bombed the hell outta his country.

The economy is doing well considering we are at war. He created more jobs by giving the rich more money so they can afford to have more employees. He is working to get our guns back and raise the ages to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldnt have them. He is showing he has moral back bone by trying to get the amendmant passed redefining marraige. with the patriot act he gave law enforcement more right so they can protect us better. Bush doesnt flip-flop he supports everything he says and doesnt change his stance just to make the crowd love him. He is against abortion, he signed the partial-birth abortion act and believes tax-payers should not pay for abortions, or the advocation of such events. he is against affirmative action. President Bush's Jobs and Growth act sped up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of economic recovery and job creation. he signed a law that increased prescriptions covered by medicare. He opposes a highway bill that increases the gas tax. Bush signed a proclamation in december 2003 ending temporary steel tariffs.

those are just some of the great things he has done.

[Mini]

Although, Bush is trying to make good attentions, did you know the Patriot Act is rewritting the Constitution? It is going to do more harm than good.

[sikdragon]

it isnt doing more harm than good, i mean not that i have seen, can you cite a certain time it hurt somebody more than helped the multitudes? or are u just saying that because you dont like bush?

[Alpha240]

I remember specifically saying that it would be stupid for the President to do so without the consent of Congress, sorry to burst YOUR bubble.

Yea you said it was stupid, but you also made it seem like a president couldn't do that with this quote:

hmm, I don't know if you know how this works, but the President doesn't just declare war and BAM, America goes to war.

What you are saying the President doesnt do, IS possible.

This, once again, has been answered. Because Kerry said that he would have gone to war, what makes you think that Kerry would be any better than Bush?

I already answered this saying that since Kerry wasn't our president at the time he did not have all the facts availbale and could only go by what was released to the public, which was a bunch of crap anyways. I don't know what he would of done, but if he knew what Bush knew I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq. He might of invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama, but no one has a problem with that. Kerry does not have any personal motives to invade Iraq, unlike Bush. What motives does Bush have?
1. Revenge. He even said so himself that he wanted to get Saddam because he threatened Bush Sr. The elder Bush's high point of presidency was also tainted by his unability to despose of Saddam.
2. Oil. One of the Bush regimine's main goal was to secure compnay oil-profits. Since Iraq has more oil than the U.S., Canada, and Mexico combined, invading Iraq seemed like a good business move, huh?
3. Bush's domestic agenda. As long as we are at war, if anyone questions anything-- such as his tax cut for the rich, environmental despoilation, or restrictions of civil liberties via the Patriot Act-- these opposers are accused of "supporting terrorism."
4. To enforce the fact that America is a great Imperial power and we can do whatever we want regardless of what anyone says, including an international policing group (the UN).

If you disagree, then please tell me something good about Kerry.

I can't say what Kerry has done because he did not have 4 years to prove himself, like Bush. Both Kerry and Bush can promise what they want, but like I said actions speak louder than words. Knowing that Bush did not fulfill most of his promises, atleast I can see that he is not a man to trust. One thing I do like about Kerry is his promise to lower educational fees, such as college tuition. Also, he is one to further the advancement of science and technology, unlike Bush who is hindering stem cell research which is imperative to many medical advances. ( this hits me close to home, being a biology major and knowing the importance of stem cell research and science and technology as a whole).

Bush has done an awesome job has president, everything he has promised has been brought before congress. foreign policy was humble he asked for humble support, he humbly flipped off the UN, he humbly asked Hussein for his weapons, hussein spit in his face so he humbly bombed the hell outta his country.

The economy is doing well considering we are at war. He created more jobs by giving the rich more money so they can afford to have more employees. He is working to get our guns back and raise the ages to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldnt have them. He is showing he has moral back bone by trying to get the amendmant passed redefining marraige. with the patriot act he gave law enforcement more right so they can protect us better. Bush doesnt flip-flop he supports everything he says and doesnt change his stance just to make the crowd love him. He is against abortion, he signed the partial-birth abortion act and believes tax-payers should not pay for abortions, or the advocation of such events. he is against affirmative action. President Bush's Jobs and Growth act sped up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of economic recovery and job creation. he signed a law that increased prescriptions covered by medicare. He opposes a highway bill that increases the gas tax. Bush signed a proclamation in december 2003 ending temporary steel tariffs.

those are just some of the great things he has done.

ok I'm going to assume that you weren't joking with most of the stuff you said. so if you were trying to be sarcastic, I'm sorry but I couldn't tell. Well let me start from the beginning...
1. Bush has not done everything he promised, even if he brought it in front of congress it is not fully completed. And if he really wanted it done then would have put forth more effort than that.

But Bush has broken all of his major 2000 promises, except for cutting taxes (and even then, his cuts won't last). I think that's a bit worse.

(from comradRed) and those tax cuts were for rich people, who were mostly republican and supporters of Bush.
2. "Flipping off the UN" shows that Bush could not justify his reasons for war. The UN is an international policing group, in order to keep things right. But isnce we are america we can cause all the chaos and terrotr we want. I mean, if Germany decided to invade a country against everyone's wishes, do you think people would stand for that? i highly doubt it.
3. What could have Hussin done when Bush asked for WMD, since apparnetly Iraq didn't have any? I would have been pissed if i was Saddam. I mean, the US was asking him for something he apparantly doesn't have, yet we own the most WMD in the world. just a lil hypocritical.
4. The economy is not doing well at all. Our unemployment rate is at an all time high, and our national debt is at an all time high.
5. The patriot act is a violation of our constitutional rights and privacy. Let me quote Mini...

Bush is also supporting the Patriot's Act. In my opinion, the Patriot Act is rewritting the Constitution because it is allowing agencies to look everything on you and what you are doing if someone anonymously accuse you of being a terrorist. It is like back in the days when the Red Scare was around, people were EXILED because they were accused of being a Commie even though they weren't. I don't want McCarthyism to come back.

6. Bush does change his ideals....let me quote comradred again

Bush is a major flip-flopper.

In 2000:
- Supported a "more restrained and humble foreign policy" (his own words)
- Promised to cut spending
- Strongly opposed to affirmative action

In 2004:
- Supports invading small countries
- Raised government spending more than any other president in history
- Supports affirmative action

He is trying to move to the left while still appeasing his MIC sponsors ... leading to major neo-conservative bullsh*t.

7. Bush's tax cuts were for the rich, making the rich richer and poor poorer. i don't see any good in that. Bush is making his supporters happy and that's it.
8. i personally have not seen any decrease in gas prices. Maybe the tax is decreased, but perhaps the prices stay the same? I dont know.

Thanks for your input sikdragon. Atleast you attempted to answer the topic question. However, I disagree with you on many of your comments, but that's just how politics is. I'm not sure about the other statements you made about Bush, but if it's true about redifining marriage (whatever that means), increasing medicare, and reducing steel tax... well then... um, good for him.

[sikdragon]

ok I'm going to assume that you weren't joking with most of the stuff you said. so if you were trying to be sarcastic, I'm sorry but I couldn't tell. Well let me start from the beginning...
1. Bush has not done everything he promised, even if he brought it in front of congress it is not fully completed. And if he really wanted it done then would have put forth more effort than that.

no i wasnt being funny or sarcastic. and there is only so many times you can bring things out to the floor of the congress. and you have no idea what kind of effort he has put forth.

[Spirited Away]

Yea you said it was stupid, but you also made it seem like a president couldn't do that with this quote: What you are saying the President doesnt do, IS possible.

That's why you should read the WHOLE paragraph instead of focusing on one sentence when the next sentence obviously has to do with the first. I put the sentences in one paragraph for the reason that they support each each other...

I already answered this saying that since Kerry wasn't our president at the time he did not have all the facts availbale and could only go by what was released to the public, which was a bunch of crap anyways.  I don't know what he would of done, but if he knew what Bush knew I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq.  He might of invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of Osama, but no one has a problem with that.  Kerry does not have any personal motives to invade Iraq, unlike Bush.  What motives does Bush have?
1. Revenge.  He even said so himself that he wanted to get Saddam because he threatened Bush Sr.  The elder Bush's high point of presidency was also tainted by his unability to despose of Saddam. 
2. Oil.  One of the Bush regimine's main goal was to secure compnay oil-profits.  Since Iraq has more oil than the U.S., Canada, and Mexico combined, invading Iraq seemed like a good business move, huh?
3. Bush's domestic agenda.  As long as we are at war, if anyone questions anything-- such as his tax cut for the rich, environmental despoilation, or restrictions of civil liberties via the Patriot Act-- these opposers are accused of "supporting terrorism." 
4.  To enforce the fact that America is a great Imperial power and we can do whatever we want regardless of what anyone says, including an international policing group (the UN).

That is all in your opinion about what Kerry would've done, but we have something more solid because the words came from HIS own mouth that he would've gone to war anyways. Therefore, we can stop assume what he would've done because he already stated as much.

As for the rest, they have no significance to me. Why? Name one president that didn't have a personal agenda for Presidency.

I can't say what Kerry has done because he did not have 4 years to prove himself, like Bush.  Both Kerry and Bush can promise what they want, but like I said actions speak louder than words.  Knowing that Bush did not fulfill most of his promises, atleast I can see that he is not a man to trust.  One thing I do like about Kerry is his promise to lower educational fees, such as college tuition.  Also, he is one to further the advancement of science and technology, unlike Bush who is hindering stem cell research which is imperative to many medical advances. ( this hits me close to home, being a biology major and knowing the importance of stem cell research and science and technology as a whole).

How many of our Presidents fulfilled their promises? What makes you think Kerry will be any different from his predecessors?

Seeing how I don't know much about science and politics, hopefully you'll explain to me why Bush is an obstacle to the stem cell research.

[sikdragon]

dont i get a quote? :'(

[*Kathleen*]

4. The economy is not doing well at all. Our unemployment rate is at an all time high, and our national debt is at an all time high.

Okay, I pretty much read most of this thread, and you cannot say that our unemployment rate is at its highest, because i have a graph from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

...which shows that in fact, unemployment is going down.

Productivity is going up.

And total average hourly earnings are going up. Isn't this a good thing?

3. What could have Hussin done when Bush asked for WMD, since apparnetly Iraq didn't have any? I would have been pissed if i was Saddam. I mean, the US was asking him for something he apparantly doesn't have, yet we own the most WMD in the world. just a lil hypocritical.

But you must keep in mind that unlike Saddam, we're not power-hungry people who murder anyone at the drop of a hat to get something we want. I mean, look at who controls these weapons. You never know what happened to those weapons of mass destruction.

2. Oil. One of the Bush regimine's main goal was to secure compnay oil-profits. Since Iraq has more oil than the U.S., Canada, and Mexico combined, invading Iraq seemed like a good business move, huh?

This is just some excuse to go against Bush. Can you say coincidence?

7. Bush's tax cuts were for the rich, making the rich richer and poor poorer. i don't see any good in that. Bush is making his supporters happy and that's it.

As someone mentioned before, this in fact boosts the economy some what because the rich now have a chance to hire more people. Futhermore, giving money back to people to contribute into the ecnomy will help it, and cannot harm it. Another thing, if it only helps the rich, why are all the celebrities Kerry supporters? Besides, Kerry promised tax increases. Why would I want a president that's promising tax increases?

But anywho, I'm not completely for Bush, just like Fae. I didn't quote the rest of your post there. I'm just defending what I believe in. Bah. Too bad I can't vote yet, huh?

[sugarcultluver]

Heres why my family supports Bush:
- hes going after terrorists
- hes cut the tax rate for all tax payers
- strong supporter of education
thats just some of the reasons

[ComradeRed]

Is there a large political constituency that is agaianst education?

[Devastation]

the good in bush is basically many reasons, he plays the role of the underdog.
Many people and alot of the democratic party dislike bush because of his actions and his thoughts towards many topics. Everyone has their own opinions Bush is thinking about the nation not about the whole world.. Yes he did negotiate with i believe Asia, or somewhat part in the middleeast. But take in consideration what bush has done for thisnation. Yes he has sent millions of troops over there in iraq, but someone had to do something over there and between all the commotion he had was somewhat in his part. As far as the taxes and the wage and such. he isnt bad at that at all. comradered prolly has something to say about my reply.

[Knight]

I think Bush isn't exactly the best president. And it's not 9/11, since Kerry voted with it too. It's just other stuff, like health and jobs. He doesn't seem to be helping out with those.

[Devastation]

basically dude above me. but, in his strong debates he has war all over it. Ha, michael moore dare to challenge the bush adminstration.

[ryfitaDF]

- hes going after terrorists

which is only inspiring more people to become terrorists and, therefore, isn't helping.

- hes cut the tax rate for all tax payers

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what's making the poor more poor and the rich richer?

- strong supporter of education

what comradered said

[Devastation]

not really going after terreriosts basically just trying to go after the groups and the informities. as well as the tax its the same way, just alittle more effective. education could be improved.

[*Kathleen*]

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't that what's making the poor more poor and the rich richer?

How is that making us poorer, exactly?

[highly_evolved]

BY GIVING US NO JOBS!!! NO JOBS = NO MONEY!!!!! jsut have to say i love urr sig and avatar kathleen

[ryfitaDF]

concidering when clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and the corperations he got us a surpluss of $236 billion. bush's tax cuts have made the bigest deficit (-400 billion) in history, leaving generation after generation needing to pay for it. if the rich and the poor have to pay the same taxes, the rich will have an abundance of money afterward and us poor people are left with little to none, therefor making us more poor. hopefully whoever the next term's president is will do the same as clinton did and regain us a surplus.

[ComradeRed]

BY GIVING US NO JOBS!!! NO JOBS = NO MONEY!!!!! jsut have to say i love urr sig and avatar kathleen

The government's role isn't to give jobs, that's the job of the companies.

As for surpluses and deficits, the reason we have a deficit now is because of SPENDING HIKES, not tax cuts. Bush has raised spending more than any other President since FDR. The tax cuts alone would've been fine (After all, the extra $236 billion is OUR money, isn't it?)

After Bush gets out of the White House, we should pass a Balanced Budget Amendment requiring the budget be balanced by cutting spending and not raising taxes. Now, for once, liberals are right: We should learn from Third World Countries. Whenever a third world country changes its government, what's the first thing it does (after executing the leaders of the previous government)? That's right, it defaults on its national debt! We ought to do that too. After all, most government expenditures are lost due to corruption, waste, or on just plain unnecessary programs. Why should we be left to foot the bill? Do YOU ever remember voting for a government program? Or giving your approval to be taxed?

Of course, 60% of our deficit is held by Americans, so the government would still have to pay them -- which it could easily do by selling all those abandoned military bases in Utah, or those unconstitutional prisons that house drug offenders (after we decriminalize drugs, that is), and after we abolish the Secret Police, we could give all their weapons to the Arabs as a peace offering. The Federal Government also owns a lot of land out West that the States they should belong to would be glad to pay for. And finally, we'd sell the IRS building for scrap metal. All that should be enough to pay for the domestic debt (60% of the total debt), as well as buying annuities for all the seniors who put their money into the social security system (which would be destroyed promptly thereafter). We'd also end the War on Poverty. Instead of $400 billion we spend each year, we'll just give every poor adult $20,000, enough to make them not poor any more (it's really amazing ... we spend more money on welfare than it would mathematically take to get every poor person out of poverty). And last but certainly not least, we could sell the government's $20 Million Helium Fund http://www.nm.blm.gov/amfo/documents/96artc.pdf. I have a new idea for a tagline: THE US HELIUM FUND: You'd think it was a joke, but it isn't.

Sure, the one downside is we'd never be able to conduct foreign policy ever again, but foreigners are overrated. In fact, preventing the government from doing foreign policy is acutally a good thing -- we'd piss off less people and make them so desperate they are willing to fly planes into the World Trade Center.

[ryfitaDF]

After all, the extra $236 billion is OUR money, isn't it?

bush used all our exrea 236 billion. he even used the money he promised he'd save for socail security. now we're in the hole about 400 billion. yes, alone the tax cut would be fine but not when you're wadging a war against supposed terror.

[ComradeRed]

The War on Terror is very cheap. The most expensive part of the War on Terror was the Invasion of Iraq, and even then that only cost $100 billion. Compare that to the $400-$450 billion we are spending on welfare, or the $500 billion on social security each year, or the $200 billion on totally unworkable weapons systems.

[ryfitaDF]

$200 billion on totally unworkable weapons systems.

but what do we need weapons for? looking cool? or overthrowing saddam? we'll probably be spending a few more billions on the war on terror, aswell, what with osama and al-quida still on the loose.

[Alpha240]

there's a lot of comments I want to reply to... or put my 2 cents in but i'm not trying to write anymore 5 paragraph essays so i'm just gonna reply to this one:

Seeing how I don't know much about science and politics, hopefully you'll explain to me why Bush is an obstacle to the stem cell research.

The reason Bush is hindering stem cell research is due to the fact he is against abortion. Although Stem cells can be taken from different parts of the body, such as your bone marrow, these cells are not as effective as the cells taken from a zygote, or embryo (fertilized egg). When a sperm fertilizes an egg and the cells start to divide, there are certain phases that the zygote goes through. When the cell gets to a cell count of 32, then the individual cells can be taken for research. These cells are special because they are undifferentiated, meaning that they can become ANY cell in the body. So you can manipulate each single cell to become whatever you want, a blood cell, liver cell, brain cell, etc etc. The stem cells taken from the bone marrow can only be used as bone marrow cells.... get what I'm saying? So since Bush is against abortion, he thinks that using these stems cells from the zygote is killing a life. However, most of these embryos are taken from fertilization centers, where people fertilize their eggs and freeze it until they decide they want it. When people don't want it, they usually send it for research. So i don't see what else they could do with the egg that would not be considered "killing" it. It all boils down to when you consider taking a life would be-- If you think it's once the sperm fertilizes an egg and is just a couple cells, or if you think it's when the egg becomes developed enough to form a shape of a human, with a heart and such. All I know is that the reason our life expectancy is so high and our quality of life is much improved since the past is mostly due to the advances of science and technology. If we ever want a cure for cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, or other diseases stem cell research is our best bet.

Bush has allowed research for only 60 existing stem cell lines. He disregarded about 100,000 embryos available for research in fertility labs across the country.

[Spirited Away]

So does harvesting stem cells destroy the embryo they are taken from? If most of the embryos are taken from fertilization centers, then where do the rest come from?

Don't get me wrong, even though I'm moderate on most topics, I'm quite pro-choice about abortion, but I want to understand from the perspective of a science major of why Bush is in the wrong.

How about people who are pro-life, do they object to Bush's decision to stop funding stem cell research?

Well, I guess being pro-choice, I would have to say that Bush is in the wrong for slowing down science research... but if I look at it from a pro-choice perspective, I would think he is doing something right.

What about stem cell research for the purpose of cloning? And have you heard of something called therapeutic cloning instead of reproductive cloning? Both have to do with stem cell research, but reproductive cloning is the one that is getting banned. I'm not sure how it works, but supposedly with therapeutic cloning, embryos can still be supplied for research...

Please let me know if that's all myth... science is forever confusing to me.

[ComradeRed]

but what do we need weapons for? looking cool? or overthrowing saddam? we'll probably be spending a few more billions on the war on terror, aswell, what with osama and al-quida still on the loose.

Weapons are good for defending yourself ... but $500 billion worth is going a little overboard.

[Alpha240]

Harvesting stem cells DO destroy the embryo, and the ones that come from fertility labs supply most of the cells. Believe it or not, A LOT of people freeze their embryos for whatever reason, such as their husbands going to war, or them wanting to wait on having a baby... These cells are more than enough to research on right now. Other cells are taken from the body, like I said the bone marrow has stem cells but these cells will only produce blood cells and more bone marrow cells.

Basically, people who are pro-life generally want to stop stem cell research since it destroys an embryo. Therefore, they support Bush's decision.

Pro-choice people tend to advocate stem cell research, and are against what Bush is doing. I guess they don't seem to think it's taking away a life since the embryo is just a few cells.

Bush is in the "wrong" because he is only allowing research on 60 stem cell lines, and THAT'S IT. Once those are used up, there would be no more research on embryonic stem cells. He also cut funding for embryonic stem cell research, but increased funding for research of stem cells taken from an adult, umbilical cords, placenta, and animals. Atleast he increased funding for that, but it's the embryonic stem cells that are most promising to finding breakthrough therapies and cures to many disease.

Reproductive cloning is basically removing the genetic information from an embryo, and inserting new DNA from another individual into that embryo. Therefore, making a new being that is genetically identical to the DNA donor. I am against this because it seems to be playing God.

Therapeutic cloning is basically doing the same thing with the embryo, however you don't let it grow into a human being. Instead, you will use the stem cells that develop from the embryo to make tissues, organs, or other parts that will be identical to the DNA donor. So let's say someone needs a heart transplant. We all know that organs are always in short supply, so if the person gets therapeutic cloning done, they will not only get their heart but it will be a genetic match and therefore their body will be much less likely to reject the new heart.


hmmm, so we got way off topic.. o well

[Spirited Away]

Therapeutic cloning is basically doing the same thing with the embryo, however you don't let it grow into a human being.  Instead, you will use the stem cells that develop from the embryo to make tissues, organs, or other parts that will be identical to the DNA donor.  So let's say someone needs a heart transplant.  We all know that organs are always in short supply, so if the person gets therapeutic cloning done, they will not only get their heart but it will be a genetic match and therefore their body will be much less likely to reject the new heart.

Therapeutic cloning isn't illegal, is it? If not, then can't we use that to replicate embryonic cells?

Bush is in the "wrong" because he is only allowing research on 60 stem cell lines, and THAT'S IT.

In my point of view, it's rather surprising for someone as pro-life as Bush to even allow some continuance on stem cell research. I've just learned that there are pro-life advocates who wants Bush to just end it, period... So even though he is in the wrong for hindering scientific research, he's still considering the other side's (pro-choice) perspective.

hmmm, so we got way off topic.. o well

No, no, we're not off topic, we're still discussing Bush.

[Alpha240]

Therapeutic cloning isn't illegal, is it? If not, then can't we use that to replicate embryonic cells? 

Therapeutic cloning isn't illegal.... well atleast not yet. It is used to replicate embryonic cells. It's just like regular stem cell research, except that the DNA from the original embryo is taken out and replaced with DNA from another individual to make exact tissue parts or whatever, hence the term cloning.

In my point of view, it's rather surprising for someone as pro-life as Bush to even allow some continuance on stem cell research. I've just learned that there are pro-life advocates who wants Bush to just end it, period... So even though he is in the wrong for hindering scientific research, he's still considering the other side's (pro-choice) perspective.

Basically the reason why he allowed the use of these existing stem cell lines, is because they were already harvested from the embryo. So the embryos were already destroyed, so it's not like he could have "saved" them.


well that's it for me... heading back to school and won't have time for createblog. Hopefully, some of this information helped you understand all this science stuff

Byeeeeeeeee createblog

[sikdragon]

http://www.georgewbush.com/Media/Economy.swf

go here--the economy is doing better, but lets see what you know about the economy.

[angel-roh]

i just know that kerry just wants the money and not reallie wana be a president... his words sounds fake... i dont know y u think bush is a loser but i honestly not think like that...& kerry... he said no more wars, but just bring peace...well u know i wish there was peace in this world, but there will never be because there's ppls killing, kidnapping, fire damaging home, earthquakes, all those disasters... i wish there was peace with no danger... he's no God... seriously Kerry is no God... he thinks he is by saying "i will bring peace to this world" psh that's not a promise u guys... i know u guys want peace, but our purpose was to have a war... it's like fighting our temptations... if u know wat i mean. i bet the iraq wanted to do the war too...
.
.
.
so if kerry will be the next president... and there will be a war...do u think he will accept the war or just leave it and make it worse by letting his ppls die... like just watching ppls die and he has all the money to himself? i bet he will do a war just like how bush did...

i know it was so wrong of wat bush did in the first place the iraq war, but arent u glad we won? and anyways it was the iraq fault too... i have this feeling that iraq and afghan ppls are up to something... they look they are chained together... and bush is trying to break them into pieces ... arent u scared that someday iraq & afghan will do something bad that they will blow up the UNItED states...would u be glad to see that? i think bush started the war cause he had that mind where he thought that the afghan and the iraq might up to be something...

& i dont like gay marriages... i dont know y u guys like gay marriages so much.. o wait is it cause they love each other that they can do anything they want? hmm how about this there are many teenagers who wants to marry at age 12 or younger... would you accept that? cause they love each other...it's the same thing. it's better for female and male to marry..not male to male & female to female... seriously u guys... i dont want no gay marriages... if the gay marriages says they are gona die cause they wont allow gay marriages well i dont care... they need to learn a lesson not to do that agen then... im not being stricted...it's disgusting. and i dont know why julia says it was disgusting for a girl and a guy to kiss... i think that was reallie weird... seriously i dont want kerry to win...

& u think kerry loves us, well u guys...he doesnt. he has that fake smile everyday. and a fake face.... i just know that bush loves us and reallie wana be a president not cause of free moneys, but just to save our own world...that's wat he want...not like kerry who wants free money and not save the world...
.
.
so yeah i say bush... kerry is a loser, not bush... im sorry for the kerry's fan... but i'll pray that Kerry will lose... i dont hate him cause his not christian, but i hate his speech. HIS SPEECH ARE ALL LIES!

there will always be war and there will always be death... that's our purpose. LIVE WITH IT! if u wana live safe..then be careful, stay healthy, dont drink & smoke, dont go walking late by urself.... if u want PEACE... make it happen by getting rid of bad drugs, bad disease, increasing deaths, STD, HIVS, cancers... get everything out of it... that's wat i call the true meaning OF PEACE! ok?! u guys are weird!! u think kerry will help us get PEACE?! psh yeah right................ im saying it agen he's NO GOD! he's jus a human being like us. u guys act like u guys are worshipping him like worshipping an idol.

there will always be terrorist...and Bush is trying to send states many soldiers & cops just to safe us... he's trying to save us... i just know that u guys will regret for voting john kerry... seriously u will regret it. my honest opinion is that u guys will regret it....

and i know ur loved ones died in the war... well u know wat? they did it cause they loved U.S. and wanted to protect us... so why dont u be happy with that? and live with it? i dont know im being harsh for the ppls who lost their loved ones at the war...but they did it just for their country... so yeah
.
.
.
& u kno wat? u can tell that kerry wants the free money by trying to make everything better.. wat the fck is cutting the college tuiton?! so everyone could vote for him fast and quick? wow kerry i wonder wat ur gona say next? "poor ppls have better homes" ... argh a loser...big big big loser... and wat's next "let students have their summer vacation last for 6 months"?!?! psh i cant wait to hear his next speech ... psh wow kerry i didnt know u were that bad... gez

[scleex88]

i hate bush, he sucks.
hes nto christian, hes ****

[angel-roh]

i hate bush, he sucks.
hes nto christian, hes ****

can i ask why u hate bush?

[ryfitaDF]

i just know that kerry just wants the money and not reallie wana be a president... his words sounds fake... i dont know y u think bush is a loser but i honestly not think like that...& kerry... he said no more wars, but just bring peace...well u know i wish there was peace in this world, but there will never be because there's ppls killing, kidnapping, fire damaging home, earthquakes, all those disasters... i wish there was peace with no danger... he's no God... seriously Kerry is no God... he thinks he is by saying "i will bring peace to this world" psh that's not a promise u guys... i know u guys want peace, but our purpose was to have a war... it's like fighting our temptations... if u know wat i mean. i bet the iraq wanted to do the war too...
.
.
.
so if kerry will be the next president... and there will be a war...do u think he will accept the war or just leave it and make it worse by letting his ppls die... like just watching ppls die and he has all the money to himself? i bet he will do a war just like how bush did...

i know it was so wrong of wat bush did in the first place the iraq war, but arent u glad we won? and anyways it was the iraq fault too... i have this feeling that iraq and afghan ppls are up to something... they look they are chained together... and bush is trying to break them into pieces ... arent u scared that someday iraq & afghan will do something bad that they will blow up the UNItED states...would u be glad to see that? i think bush started the war cause he had that mind where he thought that the afghan and the iraq might up to be something...

& i dont like gay marriages... i dont know y u guys like gay marriages so much.. o wait is it cause they love each other that they can do anything they want? hmm how about this there are many teenagers who wants to marry at age 12 or younger... would you accept that? cause they love each other...it's the same thing. it's better for female and male to marry..not male to male & female to female... seriously u guys... i dont want no gay marriages... if the gay marriages says they are gona die cause they wont allow gay marriages well i dont care... they need to learn a lesson not to do that agen then... im not being stricted...it's disgusting. and i dont know why julia says it was disgusting for a girl and a guy to kiss... i think that was reallie weird... seriously i dont want kerry to win...

& u think kerry loves us, well u guys...he doesnt. he has that fake smile everyday. and a fake face.... i just know that bush loves us and reallie wana be a president not cause of free moneys, but just to save our own world...that's wat he want...not like kerry who wants free money and not save the world...
.
.
so yeah i say bush... kerry is a loser, not bush... im sorry for the kerry's fan... but i'll pray that Kerry will lose... i dont hate him cause his not christian, but i hate his speech. HIS SPEECH ARE ALL LIES!

there will always be war and there will always be death... that's our purpose. LIVE WITH IT! if u wana live safe..then be careful, stay healthy, dont drink & smoke, dont go walking late by urself.... if u want PEACE... make it happen by getting rid of bad drugs, bad disease, increasing deaths, STD, HIVS, cancers... get everything out of it... that's wat i call the true meaning OF PEACE! ok?! u guys are weird!! u think kerry will help us get PEACE?! psh yeah right................ im saying it agen he's NO GOD! he's jus a human being like us. u guys act like u guys are worshipping him like worshipping an idol.

there will always be terrorist...and Bush is trying to send states many soldiers & cops just to safe us... he's trying to save us... i just know that u guys will regret for voting john kerry... seriously u will regret it. my honest opinion is that u guys will regret it....

and i know ur loved ones died in the war... well u know wat? they did it cause they loved U.S. and wanted to protect us... so why dont u be happy with that? and live with it? i dont know im being harsh for the ppls who lost their loved ones at the war...but they did it just for their country... so yeah
.
.
.
& u kno wat? u can tell that kerry wants the free money by trying to make everything better.. wat the fck is cutting the college tuiton?! so everyone could vote for him fast and quick? wow kerry i wonder wat ur gona say next? "poor ppls have better homes" ... argh a loser...big big big loser... and wat's next "let students have their summer vacation last for 6 months"?!?! psh i cant wait to hear his next speech ... psh wow kerry i didnt know u were that bad... gez

Kerry is rich already. he doesn't need more money. and, unlike bush, he actually knows what it's like to be in the army and serve. how are you promoting bush by saying "kerry lies"? bush blatantly lied to us atleast twice that i can remember, being saving money for socail security and telling us iraq has WMDs.

if iraq and afgahnistan are plotting against us and we want peace we should'nt give them more reasons to kill us by, say, going to war with them. they're so angry with us because we're such nebs. and they weren't up to anything. the UN found no WMDs and neather did we.

i've never met anyone who wanted to get married when they were 12. and who's martyring themselves for gay marrage? this country is about equality for everyone, meaning gay, straight, or otherwise. bush is just being a super god lover, ignoring the seperation of church and state, and letting god run the country.

bush needs the money more, anyway. without it he'd just have to keep mooching off mom and dad. you think bush doesn't wear plastic smiles? and he loves us. that's why he killed our big brothers and sisters for a reason yet to be proven. he's really making the world a bad place to live.

you forgot to mension how bush isn't god eather. we're not worshiping kerry, eather. we just like him cause he's not bush. i don't know how many times people have refered to him as "the lesser of 2 evils".

and our loved ones didn't die for freedom. they died for a non-existant threat, for building a huge reason for more terrorism then calling it a democracy when it's really an empire, and so we can save a few cents per gallon on gas.

[Angelos]

aint no good and bush all though technically Cheney is the real president and Bush is just the puppet on the string

[*kryogenix*]

aint no good and bush all though technically Cheney is the real president and Bush is just the puppet on the string

have you any facts to support this claim?

[Suesterrx]

theres one good thing in bush. and that hes a majorly strong christain

but the other things about him is pure sin.. and evil.. its not like he bombed them and all the sudden it was raining stuffed animals,food,shelter and bottles of clean water. he bombed them and made it worse for the ppl..

i think he shud be hanged.. and the world will be happy happy joy joy

[*Kathleen*]

You mean worse as in no more people are being tortured for nothing? Do you watch the olympics? Sports? The Iraqi athletes were beaten all the time from Saddam's kids. I bet if you were to ask them what good there is in Bush, you might be a little more open-minded.

[ComradeRed]

So... The thousand American soldiers nad $200 billion was worth it... to get Iraq a better soccer team?

[*kryogenix*]

theres one good thing in bush. and that hes a majorly strong christain

but the other things about him is pure sin.. and evil.. its not like he bombed them and all the sudden it was raining stuffed animals,food,shelter and bottles of clean water. he bombed them and made it worse for the ppl..

i think he shud be hanged..    and the world will be happy happy joy joy

What are you talking about? This man did not commit any evil. The majority of Iraq likes the change. It's just the Sunni Triangle that are still loyal to Saddam.

  So... The thousand American soldiers nad $200 billion was worth it... to get Iraq a better soccer team?

And the removal of an evil dictator.

[ComradeRed]

We could remove all the evil dictators in the world, but as long as they aren't at war with us, it wouldn't be worth the cost of a single US Dollar. You see, the Congress represents the AMERICAN people -- not the Iraqi. It is morally wrong for it to force us to pay for things in other countries. Evil or not, Bush was derelict in his duties towards Americans -- instead focusing on other countries. This makes him unworthy to lead as commander-in-chief.

We bribed most of the members of our coalition with "no-bid" contracts in Iraq... In fact, the only three members of the coalition that we DID NOT bribe thusly were ourselves, the Netherlands, and Albania. Most of the governments that sent troops into Iraq are now unstable. Every democratic government that has sent troops into Iraq, except for ourselves and the United Kingdom, was soundly defeated in their next general election.

Not surprsingly, most of the new governments that then came into power have been radical left-wing parties that formerly COULD NOT HAVE HAD ANY POLITICAL POWER -- thus, even if you can claim that we did free Iraq from a dictator, we have arguably installed dozens of new socialists dictators-lite in many countries in the world from Japan to Spain. Even in our own country, Kerry will almost definitely win the next election due to the War on Iraq -- signaling an even more unpredictable turn in American politics. Seeing as the Republicans and the Republicans alone will be blamed for the war (which is now opposed by a majority of Americans), it is highly likely that the Democrats will remain in power for many election cycles -- leading to bigger government here. The new breed of democrat will also be "tough" democrats like Hillary Clinton who have no problem with trampelling on our Constitutional and human rights. In due time, America will turn into the regime we destroyed in Iraq.

You know, the Neoconservative movement was started by liberal Jewish socialists, who believed in the ideas of Leon Trotsky (worldwide revolution). Even though modern neo-conservatives are rarely socialist, they are playing right into the socialist agenda. Trotsky must be laughing in his grave.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. [There is an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and...degeneracy of manners and of morals...No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison, father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

The Truth Behind Iraq, by the American Conservative Magazine

[gigiopolis]

Tell me what Kerry could've done diffently for 9/11 while remembering that Kerry supported the war.

No offense, but if Kerry were elected president 4 years ago 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all, let alone him having to do something about it.

And those reasons about Bush being Christian...so? Just because he's a "strong" believer of Christianity doesn't mean he does the right thing. I'd rather have a president who believes in no religion and does a good job ruling the country than have one who's Christian and screws the whole country up (and foreign countries also). The truth is, Bush did a horrible job of ruling this country and you know it. What with the unnecessary war and the unnecessary capture of Saddam Hussein and just the pure stupidity of the guy.

[Spirited Away]

No offense, but if Kerry were elected president 4 years ago 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all, let alone him having to do something about it.

Hmm, no offense taken, but why do you say that? Do you think that the reason why they hijacked our planes to fly 'em and killed people just because they hate Bush?

[gigiopolis]

Hmm, no offense taken, but why do you say that? Do you think that the reason why they hijacked our planes to fly 'em and killed people just because they hate Bush?

Sorry...perhaps I should have reworded my opinion. Plus, I don't discuss politics much so excuse my poor arguments.

Of course they never hijacked the plane because they hated Bush. I should have said that 9/11 would have happened, but maybe not in that big or extreme a way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering how powerful the US is, how hard would it be to stop another attack on the World Trade Centre? Don't you think that Bush could have done some more to protect America? Don't you think if he did a better job, the number of people who perished could be reduced?

And please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I don't know enough about it after all.

[Spirited Away]

Sorry...perhaps I should have reworded my opinion. Plus, I don't discuss politics much so excuse my poor arguments.

Ah, I don't attend to politics anymore after reading ComradeRed's comments... He blew me off stage.

Of course they never hijacked the plane because they hated Bush. I should have said that 9/11 would have happened, but maybe not in that big or extreme a way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering how powerful the US is, how hard would it be to stop another attack on the World Trade Centre? Don't you think that Bush could have done some more to protect America? Don't you think if he did a better job, the number of people who perished could be reduced?

No, I don't think that Bush could've done anything seeing how we couldn't have predicted another episode of Pearl Harbor (well, not that I know of). The problem is that our Intelligence agency isn't as up-to-date and (I'm sorry to say) not as dependable like we thought.

Sure, I think that Bush could've done a better job, but then I'd expect ANY President to do a better job if they were in his seats, perhaps I'd even wish that they would never have let it happened in the first place.

Unless there's a conspiracy that I haven't heard of in the news that Bush caused 9/11 or is the reason that so many died in vain, then no, I do not think that we should blame him for the whole event.

And please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe I don't know enough about it after all.

I don't know much about it either. I'm just guessing.

[jo3]

[quote=sweetx305](from comradRed) and those tax cuts were for rich people, who were mostly republican and supporters of Bush.

7. Bush's tax cuts were for the rich, making the rich richer and poor poorer. i don't see any good in that. Bush is making his supporters happy and that's it.[/quote]
that's the most uneducated thing i've ever heard. why would tax cuts benefit the rich people? because they pay the most taxes. if you paid millions of dollars for taxes, and someone else paid a few thousand, you would expect to get more tax cuts than those who paid less. if not, then you're stupid.

[quote]2. "Flipping off the UN" shows that Bush could not justify his reasons for war. The UN is an international policing group, in order to keep things right. But isnce we are america we can cause all the chaos and terrotr we want. I mean, if Germany decided to invade a country against everyone's wishes, do you think people would stand for that? i highly doubt it.[/quote]
Look at what the League of Nations (pretty much the UN of the 1920s) did to us. the only reason they didn't accept anything we proposed was because the ones with the power in the League didn't like what we had to offer. they didn't care about their safety...they had their own personal agenda.

thats true with what happened in recent years. France was Iraq's trading partner, and if the US attacked, then it would hurt France's economy. i doubt world safety was #1 on France's list.

[quote=sweetx305]3. What could have Hussin done when Bush asked for WMD, since apparnetly Iraq didn't have any? I would have been pissed if i was Saddam. I mean, the US was asking him for something he apparantly doesn't have, yet we own the most WMD in the world. just a lil hypocritical.[/quote]
and if i was the United States, i wouldn't believe a single thing Saddam said. he killed millions of people and brought fear to millions more. if your enemy, someone who promoted the very things that you were against, said that they were innocent, would you really believe it?

[quote=sweetx305]4. The economy is not doing well at all. Our unemployment rate is at an all time high, and our national debt is at an all time high.[/quote]
education is not doing well at all. our stupiditiy is at an all time high....please get your facts straight. bush has done nothing but help the economy. yes, it was declining, but guess what? we were in a recession, and recessions are inevitable. have you heard of the business cycle? if not, then take an economics course.

in order to get out of a recession, you have to spend lots and lots of money. doing so stimulates business, and businesses can hire more people, so those people get money and can buy stuff. that's why the government is spending billions of dollars, and that's why we're deficit spending


[quote=sweetx305]I can't say what Kerry has done because he did not have 4 years to prove himself, like Bush. Both Kerry and Bush can promise what they want, but like I said actions speak louder than words. Knowing that Bush did not fulfill most of his promises, atleast I can see that he is not a man to trust. One thing I do like about Kerry is his promise to lower educational fees, such as college tuition. Also, he is one to further the advancement of science and technology, unlike Bush who is hindering stem cell research which is imperative to many medical advances. ( this hits me close to home, being a biology major and knowing the importance of stem cell research and science and technology as a whole).[/quote]
so you'd rather bring in kerry, who hasn't been in this whole situation and would have no clue what to do, then have bush clean up everything that he's done in the past 4 years?

not only that, stem cell research is a moral issue. bush doesn't believe in killing babies (yes...they're not "born" but they're turning into babies)

about lowering college tuition...how would he do that? put more money into education? where would he take money out of? maybe the stem cell research that you want so badly. or maybe from the military, since he wants to arm the US Armed Forces with spitballs...

[quote=ComradeRed]After Bush gets out of the White House, we should pass a Balanced Budget Amendment requiring the budget be balanced by cutting spending and not raising taxes. [/quote]
and we should also pass a Never-Go-Through-A-Recession Amendment requiring the US to always be in an expansion and never a contraction. but guess what, it will never happen. like i said earlier, spending is what stimulates the economy, and that's exactly what Bush is trying to do.

[quote=ComradeRed]We'd also end the War on Poverty. Instead of $400 billion we spend each year, we'll just give every poor adult $20,000, enough to make them not poor any more[/quote]
and within a year, they'll be poor again. look at lottery winners. do they keep the millions of dollars that they win? do they invest it? most of the time, 99% of the time, no. actually, they end up in a worse position than before. not to mention that probably 25% of the people will buy drugs and alcohol with the $20,000 that they'll receive. the government, however, can spend it on relevant things.

[quote=ComradeRed]Sure, the one downside is we'd never be able to conduct foreign policy ever again, but foreigners are overrated. In fact, preventing the government from doing foreign policy is acutally a good thing [/quote]
and we can turn into Communist China and Russia and not allow any foreigners in. The reason China was doing so terrible was because they isolated themselves and therefore could not:

1) learn from other countries
2) trade

the reason the US and other open countries did so well was because they:

1) learned from other countries
2) traded with other countries

[quote=ryfitaDF]but what do we need weapons for? looking cool? or overthrowing saddam? we'll probably be spending a few more billions on the war on terror, aswell, what with osama and al-quida still on the loose. [/quote]
then i have a good idea. the US should get rid of all guns in the country. why would we need them anyways? looking cool? or protecting ourselves. that's why the military has weapons.

it's ridiculous how you say that. i wanna see you fight overseas and ask the US to stop spending money on weapons.

[quote=ComradeRed]Weapons are good for defending yourself ... but $500 billion worth is going a little overboard.[/quote]
maybe you're right...but it's not like the weapons we make and use cost only a few dollars.

[quote=sweetx305]Bush is in the "wrong" because he is only allowing research on 60 stem cell lines, and THAT'S IT. Once those are used up, there would be no more research on embryonic stem cells. He also cut funding for embryonic stem cell research, but increased funding for research of stem cells taken from an adult, umbilical cords, placenta, and animals. Atleast he increased funding for that, but it's the embryonic stem cells that are most promising to finding breakthrough therapies and cures to many disease.[/quote]
omg...quit bitchin. bush is against abortion, and he does not want stem cell research, but he tried finding a median to please both sides. but being the selfish person you are, you want Bush to allow research on all stem cell lines. think about the millions of other people who are against it, and then put yourself in Bush's shoes. then, tell me what you would have done

[quote=ryfitaDF]Kerry is rich already. he doesn't need more money. and, unlike bush, he actually knows what it's like to be in the army and serve.[/quote]
if Kerry knows what it's like to be in the army and serve, then why is he trying to reduce the weapons that the military has? any soldier would want weapons to use, because if you don't have them, then you're dead

[quote=ryfitaDF]if iraq and afgahnistan are plotting against us and we want peace we should'nt give them more reasons to kill us by, say, going to war with them.[/quote]
lets say there was a bee hive right outside your home. you don't wanna get stung, but you have a chance of getting stung, even if you try to stay away from it. so do you kill the hive or do you let it stay there and grow bigger and bigger?

[quote=ComradeRed]This makes him (Bush) unworthy to lead as commander-in-chief.[/quote]
and Kerry wants the US Armed Forces to have less weapons. that's like giving your football team no pads or helmets. this makes Kerry unworthy to lead as COMMANDER in chief of the Armed Forces.

[quote=barelyy_coherent]No offense, but if Kerry were elected president 4 years ago 9/11 wouldn't have happened at all, let alone him having to do something about it. [/quote]
there's no way to prove that

[quote=barelyy_coherent]Of course they never hijacked the plane because they hated Bush. I should have said that 9/11 would have happened, but maybe not in that big or extreme a way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but considering how powerful the US is, how hard would it be to stop another attack on the World Trade Centre? Don't you think that Bush could have done some more to protect America? Don't you think if he did a better job, the number of people who perished could be reduced?[/quote]
when's the last time that the US had been attacked (before 9/11)? i'm pretty sure a long time ago. there had not been something of this caliber since 12/7 (pearl harbor). we weren't expecting it.

[quote=uninspiredfae]No, I don't think that Bush could've done anything seeing how we couldn't have predicted another episode of Pearl Harbor (well, not that I know of). The problem is that our Intelligence agency isn't as up-to-date and (I'm sorry to say) not as dependable like we thought. [/quote]
i pretty much restated what you said, but i have something to add

our intelligence agency is pretty up to date and reliable. think about how much more we'd go through had we not have an excellent intelligence agency. of course this is all just speculation because i can't prove it, but i think we'd be in even deeper sh!t if we didn't have get good intel.

you may ask, so why did 9/11 happen? no one's perfect. we can't play God. we're not omniscient


woowow that was a LONG post...i wonder if anyone will read it haha

push Ctrl + F and type in your username, so you can see made a rebuttal to any of your statements

[*CrackedRearView*]

our intelligence agency is pretty up to date and reliable. think about how much more we'd go through had we not have an excellent intelligence agency. of course this is all just speculation because i can't prove it, but i think we'd be in even deeper sh!t if we didn't have get good intel.

ROFL! Most of it's so good that it ventures into the corrupt category.

[ryfitaDF]

then i have a good idea. the US should get rid of all guns in the country. why would we need them anyways? looking cool? or protecting ourselves. that's why the military has weapons.

it's ridiculous how you say that. i wanna see you fight overseas and ask the US to stop spending money on weapons.

i understand that weapons protect us, but this is no excuse to be trigger happy. what if we didn't have weapons when 9/11 happend? we would have to negotiate an agreement of some sort. but, since we do have weapons, we feel we can just go bomb the crap out of them.

if Kerry knows what it's like to be in the army and serve, then why is he trying to reduce the weapons that the military has? any soldier would want weapons to use, because if you don't have them, then you're dead

if he kows what it's like (how awful it is) he'll try to prevent anything like it happening again. weapons only cause fighting and fighting only causes more fighting and i know i'm not a fan of fighting.

lets say there was a bee hive right outside your home. you don't wanna get stung, but you have a chance of getting stung, even if you try to stay away from it. so do you kill the hive or do you let it stay there and grow bigger and bigger?

muslims, much like bees, don't sting without a reason. if you get rid of the reason, you get rid of the risk.

[gigiopolis]

I don't know much about it either. I'm just guessing.

Ahaha nah...your opinions are pretty logical and well supported =)

[ComradeRed]

if he kows what it's like (how awful it is) he'll try to prevent anything like it happening again. weapons only cause fighting and fighting only causes more fighting and i know i'm not a fan of fighting.

Kerry wants to increase the size of the army by 40,000 -- and you know what that means: A draft. I'd rather have a few well-armed professionals in Iraq, than a horde of conscripted militiamen. Our soldiers should have the best weapons possible -- because the more WEAPONS we have, the less SOLDIERS we need -- which cuts DOWN on costs, leads to FEWER deaths, and preempts a draft, which is the worst thing that could happen due to Iraq.

[ryfitaDF]

Kerry wants to increase the size of the army by 40,000 -- and you know what that means: A draft. I'd rather have a few well-armed professionals in Iraq, than a horde of conscripted militiamen. Our soldiers should have the best weapons possible -- because the more WEAPONS we have, the less SOLDIERS we need -- which cuts DOWN on costs, leads to FEWER deaths, and preempts a draft, which is the worst thing that could happen due to Iraq.

damnit. that's lame. looks like i'm headed to canada eather way . are you sure we're really that screwed?

[ComradeRed]

Bush and his entire entourage is anti-draft...

A draft is unlikely because of demographics though. As more and more American families only have one kid, at most two, every soldier becomes a Private Ryan, which would cause much more opposition to the draft this time around.

Furthermore, a draft decreases the size of the workforce. That means less people available to work for overbloated social security programs. Which means that, if a draft of all people 18-26 occurs, as is proposed, that means that most people would not start working until they are 30 instead of 22 -- add to that all the old people in teh country (only 1.5 workers per retiree soon), and add to that the fact that you need to pay all those new soldiers (The Department of Defense spends more on pay than all other expenses combined. In fact, for every dollar the DoD spends on aircraft, missiles, and ships, it spends $3 paying pensions to retired soldiers). This would result in MASSIVELY increased government spending, coupled with DECREASED economic output -- necessitating massive tax hikes, which would cause the economy to collapse, bringing the government down with it.

[jo3]

kinda random, but sorry comradered....zell miller's gonna be president in 2008