Does bush suck? Options

[WildGriffin]

I'm stealing this from someone. I'm not too sure, you can't really tell these things till after a term. But so far, he's on the road to suckage.

He sucked before he was prez., didnt he have a couple DWI's or DUI's or whatever the fark they're called? He also ditched his duties as a national guardsmen or whatever. And...he was a coke head.

So says my political bible written by a democratic satirist, "lies and the lying liars who tell them."

[shawty_redd]

in canada we call him a moron...

[*Kathleen*]

in canada we call him a moron...

Oh? You guys don't live in this country, though.

[ComradeRed]

where did the conservatives go

I'm a conservative and I still hate Bush.

Bush isn't a real conservative; he's a Nazi who thinks he is.

Bush has raised spending far more than any democrat, including Clinton.

[Spirited Away]

Bush has raised spending far more than any democrat, including Clinton.

Clinton is a horrible example when you compare him with Bush.

Clinton didn't have to deal with 9/11 or anything close to an international crisis that Bush has to go through. Plus, Clinton was lucky enough that the economy was booming during his presidency.

There's no doubt that Clinton was very good at spending, but like I said, he wasn't in a situation where he needed to spend.

in canada we call him a moron...

Well, some of the people in America think so too, but that's still only a one sided opinion.

[ComradeRed]

It's not just the War on Terror... Bush has spent more on social services than any other president in US History... the War on Iraq will probably cost in excuess of $150 billion when it's all over... His foreign policy has taken America form the most loved country in the world in 2001 to the most hated now.

I think there is a clear split in the Republican Party forming between a Neoconservative (read: Nazi) majority and your traditional conservatives like myself. A conservative I would think is someone who wants to conserve American vlaues -- the highest of which is the law, that is to say, the COnstitution.

I believe in teh Constitutional tradition of limited government, the Rule of Law, and individualism. That would make me a Republican, but increasingly, people like myself have been alienated by the Republican Party and are finding a closer following with the United States Libertarian Party: www.lp.org

[Spirited Away]

I believe in teh Constitutional tradition of limited government, the Rule of Law, and individualism. That would make me a Republican, but increasingly, people like myself have been alienated by the Republican Party and are finding a closer following with the United States Libertarian Party: www.lp.org

Erm, America was never the most loved country. People looked to us as one of the world's powers but that doesn't mean that people loved us. Even WAY WAY before Bush took office, there have been countries that disliked us. And even now, I wouldn't say that we're the most hated, but rather, people are cautious and wary of our intentions.

Well, as for political parties, even though you may identify yourself as republican/democratic, there will always be some minor detail that you'll disagree with your party. I like libertarians because many are economically-minded, but I do not agree with their stand on selective service... and correct me if I'm wrong (please), but do libertarians believe somewhat in anarchocapitalism as well?

[ComradeRed]

Erm, America was never the most loved country. People looked to us as one of the world's powers but that doesn't mean that people loved us. Even WAY WAY before Bush took office, there have been countries that disliked us. And even now, I wouldn't say that we're the most hated, but rather, people are cautious and wary of our intentions.

Well, as for political parties, even though you may identify yourself as republican/democratic, there will always be some minor detail that you'll disagree with your party. I like libertarians because many are economically-minded, but I do not agree with their stand on selective service... and correct me if I'm wrong (please), but do libertarians believe somewhat in anarchocapitalism as well?

Anarcho-Capitalism would be the logical extreme form of Libertarianism, yes.

I am a libertarian but I don't go as far as the Anarcho-Capitalist System. While I believe that Anarcho-Capitalism is the MOST JUST system in theory, run of the mill libertarianism is a better balance of justice and effectiveness.

Sometimes, you've just gotta compromise. But I try to do that as little as possible.

Why are you for selective service? There's no reason for the USA to need to draft soldiers any more. Besides, it's illegal. Thirteenth Amendment. And Fifth Amendment. The draft hasn't been upheld in Court since 1917.

And Nixon got rid of hte draft in 1973 because there was a very serious risk that the Supreme Court would declare it totally Unconstitutional if it were to continue on.

[Spirited Away]

Why are you for selective service? There's no reason for the USA to need to draft soldiers any more. Besides, it's illegal. Thirteenth Amendment. And Fifth Amendment. The draft hasn't been upheld in Court since 1917.

I see! Thank you for being informative on Anarchocapitalism.. it did sounded a bit extreme when I read about it.

OHH! As for selective service, I'm not saying that I'm for it, but I do have a problem with the way libertarians are going on about resisting it... it seems almost, unpatriotic. But then again, this is coming from a girl who do not have to worry about being drafted.


Er, back to topic... bush do not suck?

[ComradeRed]

I see! Thank you for being informative on Anarchocapitalism.. it did sounded a bit extreme when I read about it.

OHH! As for selective service, I'm not saying that I'm for it, but I do have a problem with the way libertarians are going on about resisting it... it seems almost, unpatriotic. But then again, this is coming from a girl who do not have to worry about being drafted.


Er, back to topic... bush do not suck?

Why do you consider resistance to selective service unpatriotic?

I've been accused of being unpatriotic many times, but I'm inclined to disagree. When you join the armed forces, you take a vow to protect the Constitution. If you are really loyal and patriotic towards the armed services, it seems to me that, as citizens of a democracy, we should do the same thing they do and protect the Constitution, and the ideals of America. And part of that is freedom against involuntary servitude, which is what the draft basically is.

Dodging the draft is totally different from burning down your local ROTC. Sometimes, dodging the draft is the bravest and most patriotic thing you can do, especially when the war itself is unjust.

[Spirited Away]

Why do you consider resistance to selective service unpatriotic?

No, no, you misunderstood me. I do not consider resistance to it unpatriotic, but I do consider 'how the libertarians are going on about resisting it", unpatriotic.

Selective service as of now isn't much of a problem, but the reason behind the resistence of selective service seems to be that libertarians do not agree with America having a large army. And that's where I find that I do not like it.

I guess unpatriotic.. isn't quite the word I wanted to use.. it only seem fitting at one point, but it doesn't make sense for me to accuse you of that.

What I only mean is that I don't agree with libertarians view of national defense.

Ah, way off topic... sorry!!!

[juliar]

I'm a conservative and I still hate Bush.

Bush isn't a real conservative; he's a Nazi who thinks he is.

Bush has raised spending far more than any democrat, including Clinton.

Nazi? What religion has he murdered, what countries has he attempted to raid and take over?
Of course he must spend more, we are fighting a war here. War needs money.

[ComradeRed]

Nazi? What religion has he murdered, what countries has he attempted to raid and take over?
Of course he must spend more, we are fighting a war here. War needs money.

1) He raided and took over Iraq.

If you want to tie that in to the War on Terror: (a) there is no convincing evidence linking Hussein to Al-Qaeda, ESPECIALLY since Al-Qaeda has been trying to overthrow Hussein's secular regimen, and (b) Hitler used the assassination of a German official in Paris by a Polish Jew and a border incident with the Polish army at a radio station as a pretext to invade Poland. So he did not invade without a reason.

Nor is mass military spending good for us. You do not want to build up the army to a point where it could crush teh militia if it came down to that. The army should never be more than two or three times stronger than the civil militia. And the army should focus on NATIONAL DEFENSE, not offensive invading small countries.

2) The war doesn't even BEGIN to explain it. Iraq, as wasteful as it is, is only $100+ billion of the $300 billion that he is raising the deficit by every year.

Attempts to reform Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc. are every bit as devastating as his wasteful military spending.

And about Iraq, in the other times we at leats get SOMETHING back .... even if it's only 10% of what we paid for. What are we getting back in Iraq? Dead soldiers. Dead Iraqis. Dead Budget. It would be so much better for everyone if we just all pulled out.

[juliar]

1) He raided and took over Iraq.

If you want to tie that in to the War on Terror: (a) there is no convincing evidence linking Hussein to Al-Qaeda, ESPECIALLY since Al-Qaeda has been trying to overthrow Hussein's secular regimen, and (b) Hitler used the assassination of a German official in Paris by a Polish Jew and a border incident with the Polish army at a radio station as a pretext to invade Poland. So he did not invade without a reason.

Nor is mass military spending good for us. You do not want to build up the army to a point where it could crush teh militia if it came down to that. The army should never be more than two or three times stronger than the civil militia. And the army should focus on NATIONAL DEFENSE, not offensive invading small countries.

2) The war doesn't even BEGIN to explain it. Iraq, as wasteful as it is, is only $100+ billion of the $300 billion that he is raising the deficit by every year.

Attempts to reform Medicare, Social Security, Education, etc. are every bit as devastating as his wasteful military spending.

And about Iraq, in the other times we at leats get SOMETHING back .... even if it's only 10% of what we paid for. What are we getting back in Iraq? Dead soldiers. Dead Iraqis. Dead Budget. It would be so much better for everyone if we just all pulled out.

He raided and took over Iraq. And isn't terrorizing their citizens. He is attempting to rebuild it.
And you are saying that Bush is even worse than Hitler?
Yea, it's not too good for us. What about the Iraqis under oppression? He IS focusing on national defense. He wasn't sure about the WMDs, so he goes in and checks, unplotted space, so obviously he is worried and fights against him to further secure the people of America AND other countries that oppose Hyssein.
He raised a deificit. Exactly how much did Clinton use? Alright, let's say there is about 150 billion gone for the war. How much did Clinton use? <<Not asking in sarcastic or rhetorical way, I really wanna know.
But his military spending, I doubt is WASTEFUL. Are you saying that America should pull all our soldiers out of Iraq right now? Without a government?
Better for everyone...IN AMERICA maybe. Iraq NEEDED the help we gave them. I doubt the civilians appreciated Hussein.

[ComradeRed]

He raided and took over Iraq. And isn't terrorizing their citizens. He is attempting to rebuild it.

I'm sure the Iraqis felt alot of terror when we were raining them with bombs.

Which begs the question, how do you define terrorist?

And you are saying that Bush is even worse than Hitler?

No I was preempting your argument that Hitler attacked Poland for no reason, while Bush had a reason to attack Iraq.

Yea, it's not too good for us. What about the Iraqis under oppression? He IS focusing on national defense. He wasn't sure about the WMDs, so he goes in and checks, unplotted space, so obviously he is worried and fights against him to further secure the people of America AND other countries that oppose Hyssein.

National defense implies defending our country, not invading other ones. Hence, defense. Sept 11th proved that our national defense was totally vulnerable? Why? Becuase our military is still operating in the Nation-State mentality that the best defense is a quick offense. Terrorism doesn't have a base you can preemptively strike at.

He raised a deificit. Exactly how much did Clinton use? Alright, let's say there is about 150 billion gone for the war. How much did Clinton use? <<Not asking in sarcastic or rhetorical way, I really wanna know.

Clinton raised the deficit by about $250 billion a year. Bush is raising it by about $350 billion a year. These are memorized stats and aren't exact, but I guess you could find out.

ALL of the last four presidents raised the deficit tremendously. Per year, Bush Jr. is the worst, Bush Sr. is second, Clinton is third, Reagan is last.

But his military spending, I doubt is WASTEFUL. Are you saying that America should pull all our soldiers out of Iraq right now? Without a government?

Sure. The Constitution doesn't give us jurisdiction over Iraq. They can create their own government. We did. We weren't occupied by a French Army throughout the 1780s and 90s. In fact, the only legitimate government is one the native people create themselves.

Military spending is necessary, obviously, but the fact that we spend more than the next 20 nations combined probably gives us some leeway to cut it. Having such a huge military budget is only going to create the illusion of invincibility, which as you can see in Iraq is not true.

Better for everyone...IN AMERICA maybe. Iraq NEEDED the help we gave them. I doubt the civilians appreciated Hussein.

And they're showing their gratitude by shooting at us. Great job. The US Government doesn't have jurisdiction over Iraq. If you want to help the Iraqi people, send them YOUR money. Don't force other people to send theirs.

The fundamental flaw of Neo-Conservatism is that neo-cons fail to realize that not everyone supports the United States. While it is accurate to say that Hussein was a dictator, in the eyes of the Iraqi people, we probably are too.

[strice]

comradered has been very comprehensive. there truly is no pro war arguement that cannot be countered with logic and fact.

[*kryogenix*]

comradered has been very comprehensive. there truly is no pro war arguement that cannot be countered with logic and fact.

we found chemical weapons in Iraq. logic that my friend.

[strice]

and when was that? we took measures to stop it, and we haevn't found any since then. you ever consider that piece of american government, the "innocent until proven guilty" part? or do you want to continue to contradict ourselves?

[ComradeRed]

we found chemical weapons in Iraq. logic that my friend.

We found SARIN gas. Every country in the world probably has some.

WMDs are supposed to be things that can cause MASS destruction like nukes and strategic rockets and such. An artillery shell with Sarin Gas is no more destructive than an artillery shell with high-explosive.

[*kryogenix*]

and when was that? we took measures to stop it, and we haevn't found any since then. you ever consider that piece of american government, the "innocent until proven guilty" part? or do you want to continue to contradict ourselves?

just today i think. ouch. research before you go into an outburst.

We found SARIN gas. Every country in the world probably has some.

WMDs are supposed to be things that can cause MASS destruction like nukes and strategic rockets and such. An artillery shell with Sarin Gas is no more destructive than an artillery shell with high-explosive.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't sarin gas prohibited? high explosive isn't. also, a shell filled with mustard gas was found at the beginning of may as well. and i'm pretty sure iraq is not supposed to be using that either. aren't scuds strategic rockets? i'm not sure about that either...

[strice]

ok, i missed that. i do doubt its credibility, however.

[*kryogenix*]

ok, i missed that. i do doubt its credibility, however.

the credibility of what? the sarin gas?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

[ComradeRed]

just today i think. ouch. research before you go into an outburst.



correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't sarin gas prohibited? high explosive isn't. also, a shell filled with mustard gas was found at the beginning of may as well. and i'm pretty sure iraq is not supposed to be using that either. aren't scuds strategic rockets? i'm not sure about that either...

SCUDs aren't really considered strategic, since their range is less than 300 miles. A strategic weapon is something you deply as part of an overall war strategy to target the enemy's country, usually at a range of over 500 miles. SCUDs can be used strategically (If Iraq used them to bomb Saudi Arabia, for instance), but the ones Iraq have aren't strategic weapons.They're generally considered operational weapons.

Mustard gas and sarin are both illegal probably by some obscure treaty, but it doesn't change the fact that are NOT weapons of mass destruction any more than high explosive is.

[Spirited Away]

Mustard gas and sarin are both illegal probably by some obscure treaty, but it doesn't change the fact that are NOT weapons of mass destruction any more than high explosive is.

Not WMD, but that doesn't mean we can undermine its lethal properties if it can be used as a weapon.

[WildGriffin]

Not WMD, but that doesn't mean we can undermine it lethal properties if it can be used as a weapon.

Better gather up all sharp pointy things too.

[Spirited Away]

Better gather up all sharp pointy things too.

So I can better poke at you Steven?