Who do you want be the next president of the USA?

[QUOTE][i]


"As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final cut of the mini-series: $640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut; lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White House; Star Wars; and influence peddling."

Reagan: 1. Air traffic controllers striking is like having police officers or soldiers striking. That is unacceptable.
2. What's the matter with that? You want our troops to retreat from Iraq for the same reasons.
3. Would you rather have a Soviet puppet government in Nicaragua or an American puppet?
4. Jimmy Carter lost his re-election for the same reason, but I'm clueless as to how Reagan did it. Perhaps the economy started to improve?
5. How the hell was he going make the rest of the world buy more of our crap? If China doesn't want to buy more of our goods, would you forcefully make them or start a trade war?


Guess when this photo of Rummy and Hussy was taken? At the peak of the Iran-Iraq War, of course. Bush Senior, and some of his old chums (who're now working with his kid in whatever job it is his dad arranged for him to get into) supplied Saddam with financial backing and weaponry. When I say weaponry, that includes chemical and biological weapons such as anthrax.

Reagan: I guess you wanted the Iranians to win that war in spite of them taking American embassy workers hostage for over a year, having a fanatical Islamic government, and sponsoring terrorism. Yeah, Iran winning that war would've been really good for America at the time especially if the Iranians got control of most of the region's oil supplies. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, but he was the "enemy of our enemy" at the time. The USSR was the "enemy of our enemy" during World War II as well. You act like allying with tyrants that share a mutual national interest is uncommon.

Nice. If you bring up the point that the two Bush's are different people, um, die. Call it a genetic predisposition to evil, they can't help it.

Reagan: Yeah, Bush is still daddy's little boy. I'm sure he still breastfeeds from Barb and gets permission from his daddy first before blowing his nose. It's true, Bush is the anti-christ. He invaded Iraq for oil and hired bin Laden to coordinate 9/11 just to get an excuse.


I love your revisionist history on the Clinton economy............You seem to forget that the stock market started heading south IN THE MIDDLE OF the 2000 Presidential campaign. If Gore would have won, the economy would have still gone down the crapper anyway, but anti-Bush sheep want to say the recession was all Bush's fault. Face it...........Bush inherited the recession(9/11 didn't help either) and the economy is finally starting to improve.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by KnightofNachos
Interesting, however I still don't see how 27% is equivalent to half. That report mentions an increase in the number of people applying for VA benefits. I wonder if it is somehow involved with the massive unemployment rate that Bush Jr. and Sr. have in common.

---

You didn't look at the chart..............The budget is around twice as much compared to during the Clinton adminsitration...........

Erm, when I complained about the triple-posting, that wasn't a request for you to quadruple-post instead... Make one post, and wait for a reply. If you feel the need to add more to a post, you can edit it easily enough.

Well, you're offline now so presumably you've finished.

The liberal media? What the hell use has the American media been for liberalism? Christ, it was FOX who brought up the Plame case to mainstream news after the story sat cold for months on end while the so-called liberal media ignored it. In the run up to war, CNN and all the other American news outlets that you regard as crazy communist anti-Americans simply backed the government line. The "liberal media" are conservative. They operate on the basis of making profit, just like any other conservative business. They push whatever seems least controversial, so as not to alienate viewers.

I feel the need for a visual aid.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net...TMW5-14-03.gif

This comic seems accurate enough, right? Timely, too. All these issues have popped up in the media over the last couple of weeks. The problem is, this comic is from May 2003. As it says... THANKS, LIBERAL MEDIA!

You call those who oppose Bush leftist sheep. Do you see yourself as anything other than a neocon sheep, being fed daily doses of talking points from Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly?

I'm one of those people who, funnily enough, doesn't actually like the idea of supporting any sort of government with a tyranical leader who oppresses the people of his nation, simply out of political convenience. This is regardless of kindergarden adages such as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Bush, and other people like him in the past, have held constantly changing views of rulers like Saddam. If he gasses thousands of his own people while he's your ally, you cover it up and blame it on your mutual enemy. Afterwards, when this ally has become your enemy too, you use these gassings as evidence of his being evil in order to justify attacking him. So, in the conservative world of Christian, self-proclaimed "family" values, why is this moral relativism acceptable?

You could argue that the ends justify the means. But they clearly don't. Supply Saddam with the means to attack Iran... and he attacks Kuwait. That's what makes him evil, attacking your ally. Not any of the atrocities that he's committed in your favour.

Then the Gulf War broke out.

Now after even more war, Iraq is still a mess. Any political party, any extremist group, can come to power if the USA leaves. I agree with you on this point. But the USA is going to leave, and with Bush's permission it will be soon. This is despite escalating attacks and casualties. I was against the war on Iraq. I still am. The USA shouldn't have invaded in the first place. If, however, simplistic proverbs are the way to treat serious political issues, I'll stick with "You broke it, you bought it."

The Ba'ath party took control because of the circumstances that the USA left it in after supporting bids to assassinate Abdul Karem Kassim. Look how that worked out. The same applies to Afghanistan. Foreign policy is not a strength of the Bush administration, regardless of how much you may think the Dems are a bunch of pussies.

What did the American soldiers fight for in Iraq, Reagan? They were told Saddam had WMD... they saw a threat to their own country, and they fought for that cause. There were no WMD. What did they fight for? The welfare of the Iraqi people? Clearly, as it mattered so much to the USA during the Iran-Iraq war. The Al Qaeda link? A joke. Bush didn't say that Saddam had a grudge against the USA and he or his descendents might in decades time have the ability to attack. He sold the war on a grave and gathering danger. Powell presented a nice speech to the UN with ANTHRAX LOOK I'VE GOT A VIAL OF ANTHRAX I CAN KILL YOU ALL I AM SADDAM LOOK I'M SO COOL.

What did they fight for? What did they die for?

The war on terror will only end when america realizes that it is the sole reason FOR terrorism. if they weren't such pushy arseholes (not u Waffen, others in general :P) then they wouldn't have a problem with Bin Laden and Hussien. it is a simple fact. if america didn't act like their shit dont smell, then maybe they wouldn't have the problems they do.

(the above post does not show Wakkas views on all americans, just the ones who i dont know...)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wakka
The war on terror will only end when america realizes that it is the sole reason FOR terrorism. if they weren't such pushy arseholes (not u Waffen, others in general :P) then they wouldn't have a problem with Bin Laden and Hussien. it is a simple fact. if america didn't act like their shit dont smell, then maybe they wouldn't have the problems they do.

(the above post does not show Wakkas views on all americans, just the ones who i dont know...)

---

Are you saying that if we just sit back and relax, the terrorists will stop?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke
Erm, when I complained about the triple-posting, that wasn't a request for you to quadruple-post instead... Make one post, and wait for a reply. If you feel the need to add more to a post, you can edit it easily enough.

Reagan: I'm so sorry...........

Well, you're offline now so presumably you've finished.

The liberal media? What the hell use has the American media been for liberalism? Christ, it was FOX who brought up the Plame case to mainstream news after the story sat cold for months on end while the so-called liberal media ignored it. In the run up to war, CNN and all the other American news outlets that you regard as crazy communist anti-Americans simply backed the government line. The "liberal media" are conservative. They operate on the basis of making profit, just like any other conservative business. They push whatever seems least controversial, so as not to alienate viewers.

Reagan: I don't see how Peter Jennings, Andy Rooney, Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and the other news anchors are conservative, but I do agree that their corporate bosses are probably conservative. Even with conservative leadership, the anchors are usually going to spout their left-wing spin or sneering when they mention Bush.

I feel the need for a visual aid.

http://workingforchange.speedera.net...TMW5-14-03.gif

Reagan: About your "visual aid".............

1. Does this "honest recount" include Gore's request to have absentee ballots from military personnel overseas thrown out and uncounted during the recount fiasco?

2. Even though the rest of the world knew Iraq had WMD's at one point, liberals love giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt before they ever give it to Bush.

3. Liberals love talking about Bush coddling to the so-called "wealthiest one-percent." Liberals don't realize that Democrats want to punish people for their success. Whenever people make a profit in the risky stock market, the Democrats want it taxed. If someone becomes a doctor, engineer, or successful entrepreneur, the Democrats want them taxed heavily so that they can "pay back their fair share" to society. Doctors and engineers worked their a$$es off to get through college or medical school, but liberals love saying that their success wasn't earned and instead claim that it was GIVEN to them by the "little people." Even though the rich have their income taxed most today, Democrats still want to increase their taxes until more than half of their income is taken by the government. Liberals don't know how to read statistics when people are taxed here. First off, a millionaire probably pays around a $100,000 in income taxes annually and got only $12,000 back from the government. A working class employee that probably paid around $150 in income taxes will get a smaller percentage of their money back because they didn't pay as much in taxes as a rich person. Democrats want to have a Robin Hood-like wealth redistribution program. They want the working class guy that paid $150 dollars in taxes to get a $12,000 tax refund and the rich guy to get taxed more while getting nothing back in return. While they're at it, why don't they just kill my family and give our home, money, and possessions to people that are "have-nots" like Lenin did?

4. Bush served in the Air National Guard. What's wrong with that? Did you think the Vietnamese were the only problem during the Cold War? Did you think that the USSR wasn't a potential threat to the US? After all, the National Guard was meant to maintain defense of the homeland from invasion especially from the Soviets.

5. Just keep telling yourself that cliche about the "lying Fascist that stole the election with daddy's help" if it makes you feel better................



This comic seems accurate enough, right? Timely, too. All these issues have popped up in the media over the last couple of weeks. The problem is, this comic is from May 2003. As it says... THANKS, LIBERAL MEDIA!

You call those who oppose Bush leftist sheep. Do you see yourself as anything other than a neocon sheep, being fed daily doses of talking points from Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly?

Reagan: If I were a neocon sheep, I would have supported Bush's retarded immigration policy, but I don't...........If I were a neocon sheep, I would have supported Bush's waste of taxpayer money on African AIDS programs, but I don't...........

I'm one of those people who, funnily enough, doesn't actually like the idea of supporting any sort of government with a tyranical leader who oppresses the people of his nation, simply out of political convenience. This is regardless of kindergarden adages such as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Bush, and other people like him in the past, have held constantly changing views of rulers like Saddam. If he gasses thousands of his own people while he's your ally, you cover it up and blame it on your mutual enemy. Afterwards, when this ally has become your enemy too, you use these gassings as evidence of his being evil in order to justify attacking him. So, in the conservative world of Christian, self-proclaimed "family" values, why is this moral relativism acceptable?

Reagan: You don't like dealing with tyrants or "dirty" people in the name of our national interest? The Northern Alliance was a brutal bunch that we allied ourselves with when we toppled the Taliban, but I guess you would rather have us "go it alone" against them. The Pakistani government is a dictatorship too, but we need them to give us cooperation in finding Osama bin Laden. The CIA's human intelligence capability has been seriously diminished for years due to reluctance to "get into bed" with shady characters. What is your alternative?

The Ba'ath party took control because of the circumstances that the USA left it in after supporting bids to assassinate Abdul Karem Kassim. Look how that worked out. The same applies to Afghanistan. Foreign policy is not a strength of the Bush administration, regardless of how much you may think the Dems are a bunch of pussies.

Reagan: I admit the CIA-financed overthrow of Iran's democratic government in the 50's was an immoral(near evil) act of American foreign policy. I'm sorry, but reliance on the UN is not a great foreign policy strength. The French are never going to support us. They didn't support us in 1986 when our F-111's were denied the right to fly over French airspace in order to retaliate against a Libyan-sponsored terrorist attack in West Berlin. The French kicked foreign NATO forces out of their country and pulled their forces out of the integrated military structure of NATO because they didn't want to be under the American supreme allied commander's authority during the 50's-60's.


What did they fight for? What did they die for?

Reagan: The WMD's haven't been found yet, but they haven't been proven to NOT exist either. Iraq is a big country, and most of our troops don't have time to go around treasure hunting for WMD's now since they are busy policing and trying to rebuild the country. Right now our troops are trying change the draconian societies of the Middle East. Most of our allies in the region are oppressive and corrupt royal families that divert the angst of the Arab people toward Israel and the United States. If Iraq becomes a successful democracy, the Arab people in neighboring states will probably demand democratic reforms like a domino effect. When the Arab people get their right to take control of their own lives without having to rely on an authoritarian regime, they will probably be less angry and disenchanted with the US. Don't get me wrong, the Arabs(including Iraqis) will hate us like the rest of the world anyway, but maybe not enough to kill themselves in a suicide attack. The Europeans, Africa, etc. hate us, but I don't see them flying planes into our buildings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wakka
The war on terror will only end when america realizes that it is the sole reason FOR terrorism. if they weren't such pushy arseholes (not u Waffen, others in general :P) then they wouldn't have a problem with Bin Laden and Hussien. it is a simple fact. if america didn't act like their shit dont smell, then maybe they wouldn't have the problems they do.

(the above post does not show Wakkas views on all americans, just the ones who i dont know...)

---

Yeah, Al Qaeda's goal of driving out all Western influence in the Middle East, uniting the entire region into an Islamic fundamentalist state, and destruction or conversion of all infidels(non-Muslims) until the world is under Islamic law and domination didn't have anything to do with 9/11...............This war can only be won if we stop supporting Israel and let the Arabs get their land back by driving the Jews into the sea..........Yeah, bin Laden was right to declare Jihad on America due to its military presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia to deter Iraqi aggression and liberate Kuwait.

Actually, I wouldn't mind the US becoming isolationist again. I wish we could just mind our own business and keep all of our troops at home. I wouldn't mind giving our hegemon status to the European Union. Then, they would know what it feels like when the world hates you for trying to single-handedly maintain global stability and security. Then, they would know what it feels like to have the rest of the world pray for their collapse. Then, they would know what it feels like to have a bullseye painted on their foreheads by fanatical terrorists. I wouldn't mind seeing what the French would do if terrorists flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower or what the Germans would do if the Reichstag was destroyed. Finally, I would like to see how the Europeans will try to handle the world order when China's power grows to the point that they become expansionist and want to challenge their power. I know America isn't perfect, but do you want China or Russia to be the hegemon instead?

Seriously though..........If my country loses its hegemon status, I hope it is the Europeans(or Japan) that become the world's next hyperpower. Even though I'm not a fan of socialism, I would rather have another democracy take our leadership role than a communist or corrupt regime.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke
The Al Qaeda link? A joke.

---

<img src="http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/PolskiBroli/bush2.jpg">
Yup, thats exactly what it is, a joke :P

Also, I think bush partly went into the war for the oil, like the picture below clearly states
<img src="http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/PolskiBroli/bush3.jpg">

And finally, my last image, someone had this in their info awhile ago, and I believe it to be true....
<img src="http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/PolskiBroli/bushnostra.jpg">

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reagan80
Yeah, Al Qaeda's goal of driving out all Western influence in the Middle East, uniting the entire region into an Islamic fundamentalist state, and destruction or conversion of all infidels(non-Muslims) until the world is under Islamic law and domination didn't have anything to do with 9/11...............This war can only be won if we stop supporting Israel and let the Arabs get their land back by driving the Jews into the sea..........Yeah, bin Laden was right to declare Jihad on America due to its military presence in the holy land of Saudi Arabia to deter Iraqi aggression and liberate Kuwait.

Actually, I wouldn't mind the US becoming isolationist again. I wish we could just mind our own business and keep all of our troops at home. I wouldn't mind giving our hegemon status to the European Union. Then, they would know what it feels like when the world hates you for trying to single-handedly maintain global stability and security. Then, they would know what it feels like to have the rest of the world pray for their collapse. Then, they would know what it feels like to have a bullseye painted on their foreheads by fanatical terrorists. I wouldn't mind seeing what the French would do if terrorists flew a plane into the Eiffel Tower or what the Germans would do if the Reichstag was destroyed. Finally, I would like to see how the Europeans will try to handle the world order when China's power grows to the point that they become expansionist and want to challenge their power. I know America isn't perfect, but do you want China or Russia to be the hegemon instead?

---

That is correct, and I completely agree with reagan for once,

@reagan: I don't think you are trying not to double-triple-quad post, u are just doing it more....STOP!

On my decision to vote...

Well, im a republican, but I am ashamed of President Bush. He has done some decent things, and I know that some of the economic woes come from 9/11 and war, but I think that his foreign policy is terrible. Also, the amount of money that he spends on Iraq is blasphemy, when we could be spending it on the overcrowded schools at home.

With Kerry, I think we'd be spending just as much on programs, if not more, and will be taxed like crazy to balance the deficit (which is good, but I dont like taxes). Also, we already know the kind of job Bush can do as President, as he has been one for 4 years, but Kerry hasn't, and all of his propositions might just be all talk and no bite.

So, I will vote for neither. If I vote, it will be for a write-in. (Not Nader through)

Vote for me :)

First, the upcoming elections: I really dislike both sides...I'm worried about Bush's radical anti-homosexual stance, because it feels like a throwback to racism and sexism. I dislike Bush's massive deficit spending, and while I'm loathe to automatically attribute the economic situation to the Presidency, it seems plausible that unemployment rates are in part due to Bush's economic policies. I dislike Kerry's distaste for the military, which, while laudable normally (For instance, the American Navy maintains over a dozen aircraft carriers each capable of putting in the air over 50 fighters, while the next-largest navy maintains 2), being far from a good idea while we're in Iraq. Sure, it is possible to turn it over to the UN, but it would be unlikely to work very well. I do like Bush's support of rebuilding human presence beyond LEO, but I worry a little that he may be pushing the manned expedition to Mars a little too hard.

And, of course, because America is predominately a two-party system, any other candidate is effectively ignored by the media and voters. Annoying and frustrating, but true.

Second, on China.
First, we don't need to worry about any Chinese invasion of the mainland. Their Army may have the largest manpower base in the world, but their Navy is worse than WW2 Germany. They can't invade Taiwan, much less launch a trans-continental invasion fleet. Their technology base also leaves much to be desired, as well. Now, it's not this bad (Or, depending on your side, good), but a 5-1 numerical disadvantage does not seem like quite the disadvantage when the numerically inferior army possesses guns, tanks, artillery on the ground, and absolute air superiority (Off of land bases in Korea, Japan, and the ROC, as well as mobile carrier bases with escorts) that gives them an operational equivalent of ten times their number.

It's been studied before, and I challenge you to name a long-term major world power that did not possess a strong navy. Napoleon was forced to watch his back the entire time he was invading the rest of Europe because the British navy was landing munitions across Spain. Hitler was forced to concede the major staging ground of Britain because his navy could not follow through on Sealion. Russia was crippled at Sevastopol in the Crimean War because of British naval superiority, despite a dramatic numeric difference between the two powers' armies, and its successor state, the USSR, would never have succeeded in any conventional invasion of the NATO states without cutting the US-Europe supply line, which would have been impossible without a strong navy to challenge American supremacy. Spain held their colonial empire together with their navy, and when they collected it all together into the Armada and lost almost the entirety of it to the Protestant Wind and British Navy, they fell from the ranks of European powers (To be replaced by Prussia, actually). Still earlier in history, the Roman Empire depended on naval force to protect its main trade and communication routes across the Mediterranean, just as the Greeks and Phonecians did.

I highly doubt China will be a true power until they can project that force beyond their region. Marching an army across Siberia, the Himalayas, or even Sinkiang does not count; attrition makes it a prohibitive venture. Aircraft are limited by what fuel they can carry within their frames. Only sea-going navies can haul large amounts of ordinance, possess an effectively indefinite source of fuel (Nuclear reactors), and carry said armies and air forces to a destination without nearly as arduous attrition/logistic concerns.

I vote for:
http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html


Anyone want to guess ? :P

LMFAO, i've seen this before in the 2000 election. I remember a thread about that in my early days of EP. Heh. Thats still around, wow. Hmmm, thats off the copyright says 2003.....is this another site?

why do you think that Iraq and all them arab countries have it in for America? its because they made themselves out to be better people. they thought they were the shit, and then tried to tell other how to live. they marched on in, thinking that if they did this, showed others how to live, that they'ed be doing the right thing. they weren't they were fucking it up for everyone else. they PUT Saddam Hussien into power, and look what its lead to? they thought they were doing the right thing, but what they were doing was creating the terror that the world sees today... if they had've stayed away, and kept out of other peoples business, then maybe they wouldn't have the problem they are having...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bad Neighbour
and then tried to tell other how to live. they marched on in

---

How did we the US tell others to live?