I'm sick of it, Bush Bashing Options

[ComradeRed]

If you haven't noticed, the terrorists aren't exactly overjoyed at Bush and friends' actions.

Actually, Al-Qaeda is really happy we invaded Iraq. They've been trying to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia and overthrow Hussein since the late 80s.

[xxviet727babixx]

who gives a flyin ass bout dis bush crap. seriously we shouldn't have started a war. even though we had a terrorist attack n ****, we ain't gonna make it any betta by killn their ppl n ours n make it MORE CORRUPTED FO EVERYONE. all dis can suck da bigs balls i don't have ok. >_<

[*CrackedRearView*]

It doesn't matter if the baby is going to be a terroist or have down syndrome, everyone has a right to life.

Our enemy has a right to life?

What?! It's the enemy.

[ComradeRed]

So if I call you my enemy, suddenly you no longer have a right to life?

So anyone should be allowed to kill other people -- as long as they declared them an "enemy" first? Who kills their friends?

People only forfeit their right to life when they actually attack us and kill our people first -- like Al-Qaeda.

[gerundio]

Our enemy has a right to life?

What?! It's the enemy.

THE ENEMY. AAAHHHA. THE EVIL ONES.



Yes, everybody has a right to life. And Iraq really didn't do anything to the United States in the first place, so you could hardly consider Iraqis the enemy.

[*kryogenix*]

if your sick of it then go hide in a cave in some desolate area and then you wont hear anymore crap

AHAHAHAHAH! Why would I do that? It's just that i don't enjoy hearing slander about my country's leader.

[iheartsimba]

2 words.


GAY RIGHTS.


enough said.

[ComradeRed]

AHAHAHAHAH! Why would I do that? It's just that i don't enjoy hearing slander about my country's leader.

Slander, by definition, is false. Most Bush bashing is based on facts.

[ryfitaDF]

If you're referring to the people we've lost so far in the war -- make sure and check out the number of people we have lost in previous ones.  It's the price you pay, sadly.

yea i understand we lost billions of soldiers in previous wars for our freedom, but 1000+ lives for false causes is a ripoff.

You're not just killing a baby -- you're killing potential.

what if that 20 year old troop lying dead in iraqui sand would fin that cure? wheres the dead potential now? what about the potential in stem cell research?

and who gets abortions? mothers who don't want children. if they're unwanted they'll have crappy lives anyway. i dunno about you but i'd choose an early grave over a lifetime of suffering.

[sikdragon]

So you say you're pro-life but you're also pro-war? That makes no sense.

in your book sense and logic must not be the same thing. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one.

[gerundio]

in your book sense and logic must not be the same thing. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one.

You're contradicting yourself here because the number of people who have died in the war is much higher than the number of infants who have escaped abortion.

But why am I trying to argue with you? You have a gun in your signature for crying out loud. WOW.

[ComradeRed]

in your book sense and logic must not be the same thing. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few or the one.

That depends on what "needs".

If the "many" need slaves, and the "few" need their liberty, then the needs of the few outweigh the needs of hte many -- slavery is wrong.

Everyone has equal individual rights -- a need can never outweigh a right.

yea i understand we lost billions of soldiers in previous wars for our freedom, but 1000+ lives for false causes is a ripoff.

Billions?

The bloodiest war we've fought was the Civil War: 625,000 Americans dead. .. the second was WWII with 500,000 Americans dead. The third bloodiest was WWI ... only 100,000.

Very few Americans actually died FOR THEIR OWN FREEDOM. The one war that was really fought FOR OUR OWN FREEDOM was the American Revolution -- where only 5,000 Americans died.

[ryfitaDF]

my bad. i just thought with such a violent history there would be billions dead over the past 300 years.

and, excluding the revolution, i know they didn't die for their own freedom, but they fought for future generations' freedom. in this war we're fighting for "iraqui freedom" by forcong democracy on them, therefore being imperialistic and not democratic.

somthing in the back of my head tells me that 50 years from now "iraqui freedom" will be seen as a misteak rather than a triumph. just a feeling, though.

[*CrackedRearView*]

what if that 20 year old troop lying dead in iraqui sand would fin that cure? wheres the dead potential now?

The difference between the two is simple.

We've lost less than 1,000 over the span of several months in Iraq.

We lose over 1,000 unborn fetuses a day, not counting the partial-birth abortions that occur.

[gerundio]

We've lost less than 1,000 over the span of several months in Iraq.

We lose over 1,000 unborn fetuses a day, not counting the partial-birth abortions that occur.

I believe more Americans have died. And many, many, many innocent Iraqis have died. Neither of these two things are acceptable.

Sure... I'm sure 1,000 abortions occur everday in the United States. If it's the truth, well than that is just as unacceptable. But in no way justifies war, so I don't see your point.

[ComradeRed]

Both of you are wrong.

Not to be disrespectful, but very few enlisted soldiers who are killed would have been a major use to society.

HL Mencken did a study of the Civil War, where he determined that, of all the people who were wounded (possibly a million people), the only three wounded soldiers who ended up contributing majorly to society were the writer Ambrose Bierce, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and someone else that I forgot off the top of my head. Using that same principle, he concluded that of all the people who died in the Civil War, only one and a half would have made a huge difference. 620,000 people died in the Civil War ... compared to 1,000 Americans in Iraq (along with 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqis). Chances are, none of the American soldiers killed would have ended up finding a cure for cancer or anything so significant. HOWEVER, it is still MORALLY WRONG to kill tens of thousands of people -- and even if you argue that we SAVED tens of thousands of OTHER people -- the fact is that inaction is more morally just than performing both a morally right action and a morally wrong action, since your first moral duty is negative -- i.e. thou shalt not... But that's an entirely different argument.

The reason for this is simple: The people who tend to have the greatest effect on society are the people who go to the best universities, who generally have opportunities before them. If they are in the armed forces, they are probably officers (who die much less frequently than soldiers), or work non-combat job.

Your average grunt on the front lines who risks being killed or wounded tends not to have a college education. Once they leave the army, they will make less money over the course of their lifetime than people who have never been in the army in the first place. This is the case with America, it is EVEN MORE SO the case with Iraqi soldiers -- it is unlikely that any of them would've discovered a cure for anything, let alone cancer.

HOWEVER, to say that an aborted fetus could have done so is equally invalid. Aborted fetuses tend to come from mothers who would not care much for the child anyway. History shows that the VAST majority of great people -- especially in the Modern Era -- come from stable, two-parent homes. Many of them come from poor homes, but those are still stable, poor homes (the most famous example is Harlem). Very few people with irresponsible parents end up ammounting to much.

The sad truth of the matter is that aborted fetuses and frontline soldiers are in a very bad position to amount to much in the first place.

[T00000]

If you're tired of Bush bashing you shouldn't bash the "other side." Bashing Michael Moore and Farenheit 911 is one good way of doing that, which you've done. I'm sorry you think Bush is such a saint but I disagree with everything he stands for besides his disaproval on reinstating the draft. I do believe in gay rights. I also believe that women have a right to abort their babies. I don't support the war in Iraq. Just to name a few major issues he's not doing a good job dealing with. To me Bush seems to be of the opinion that in reality, the only people that deserve to use the United States to the greatest advantage are the wealthiest white men in this society. People have called Democrats liars as well, and many other things that aren't true. It's all a matter of opinion. It's politics. Get over it?

[expoised]

you know... i want Bush to be re-elected. I don't agree with everything he does... but I don't really like Kerry. and i'm not going into why. my post would be too long.

[Saeglopur]

I know. It's getting really annoying

I want Bush to be re-elected anywho. I believe there are second chances for people, and he needs a second chance to fix his mistakes. He's jsut human, you know.

Maybe he has a plan.. and well, it's not fully taking in right now, maybe it needs more time.

[gerundio]

Both of you are wrong.

Not to be disrespectful, but very few enlisted soldiers who are killed would have been a major use to society.

HL Mencken did a study of the Civil War, where he determined that, of all the people who were wounded (possibly a million people), the only three wounded soldiers who ended up contributing majorly to society were the writer Ambrose Bierce, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and someone else that I forgot off the top of my head. Using that same principle, he concluded that of all the people who died in the Civil War, only one and a half would have made a huge difference. 620,000 people died in the Civil War ... compared to 1,000 Americans in Iraq (along with 50,000 to 100,000 Iraqis). Chances are, none of the American soldiers killed would have ended up finding a cure for cancer or anything so significant. HOWEVER, it is still MORALLY WRONG to kill tens of thousands of people -- and even if you argue that we SAVED tens of thousands of OTHER people -- the fact is that inaction is more morally just than performing both a morally right action and a morally wrong action, since your first moral duty is negative -- i.e. thou shalt not... But that's an entirely different argument.

The reason for this is simple: The people who tend to have the greatest effect on society are the people who go to the best universities, who generally have opportunities before them. If they are in the armed forces, they are probably officers (who die much less frequently than soldiers), or work non-combat job.

Your average grunt on the front lines who risks being killed or wounded tends not to have a college education. Once they leave the army, they will make less money over the course of their lifetime than people who have never been in the army in the first place. This is the case with America, it is EVEN MORE SO the case with Iraqi soldiers -- it is unlikely that any of them would've discovered a cure for anything, let alone cancer.

HOWEVER, to say that an aborted fetus could have done so is equally invalid. Aborted fetuses tend to come from mothers who would not care much for the child anyway. History shows that the VAST majority of great people -- especially in the Modern Era -- come from stable, two-parent homes. Many of them come from poor homes, but those are still stable, poor homes (the most famous example is Harlem). Very few people with irresponsible parents end up ammounting to much.

The sad truth of the matter is that aborted fetuses and frontline soldiers are in a very bad position to amount to much in the first place.

No I am not wrong. I never said that one of these people could greatly contribute to society, I just said that everyone has the same right to life.

[ComradeRed]

That is correct, but earliuer you said they could have cured cancer.

[T00000]

No I am not wrong. I never said that one of these people could greatly contribute to society, I just said that everyone has the same right to life.

many of the unfertilized eggs that are dripping out of vaginas in a bloody drizzle right now could have contributed to society, but they were never born therefor they didn't. they also have a right to life but they never were alive.

[gerundio]

That is correct, but earliuer you said they could have cured cancer.

Nope. This is what I said:

And that line, "that baby could have invented the cure to cancer," is pathetic.

[gerundio]

many of the unfertilized eggs that are dripping out of vaginas in a bloody drizzle right now could have contributed to society, but they were never born therefor they didn't. they also have a right to life but they never were alive.

Um ok. What's your point? I am neither pro-choice or pro-war.

[*CrackedRearView*]

and who gets abortions? mothers who don't want children. if they're unwanted they'll have crappy lives anyway. i dunno about you but i'd choose an early grave over a lifetime of suffering.

I suppose they should have thought about that a tad bit more before they got themselves pregnant.