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

[brit]

that, my friend jimmy, was one sexy post. you have proven numerous valid points that the bush administration is a fuckin crock of shit. and my favourite part was about him going awol. i heard on the news that he was "there for at least 85 days of his X number of YEARS term"

[reagan80]

Originally posted by Schutzstaffel
The Japanese surrendered before the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. but the announcement didn't reach the US until it was too late.

EDIT: ...I am of no use to the conversation.. but apparently, I cannot trust my sister- according to some, since she is a communist.

No, you must be confusing the tardiness of the Japanese diplomats to inform our country that they were going to declare war on us...........http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

It's true............the Japanese weren't impressed with Hiroshima................http://www.thrashermagazine.com/inde...yocZ9tXYElks0w

I'm impressed by your compassion, or lack of, thereof. People in Japan still suffer from the genetic effects of that bomb and yet you have the balls to say that it wasn't an antagonistic effort to establish the US's nuclear supremacy. Sure, keep dreaming that you weren't the guys who started the nuclear arms race, hell after the US bombs the life out of another country using nuclear arsenal, every other country is bound to be scared and bound to develop their own just incase the US does that again. Had that antagonistic action not taken place, this world might have been without such nuclear threat.

So tell me, you support and purport the fact that the nuclear arms race should be limited to the US, who, would be racing with themselves ofcourse, and that if required a re-display of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not be avoided since killing "ONLY" half a million people and harming their genes for half a million years is just "kewl"

Lack of compassion? Can you read statistics? 500,000 dead < over a million dead................Do you want the war to end quick and painlessly or do you want it to drag out and bring more misery to both sides?

Nuclear supremacy? I can't believe I just heard that. We were dragged into a war by Japan and forced to develop nuclear weapons before Hitler got his hands on the technology first. Can't you understand that? We were isolationist before the war and were reluctantly forced into taking the leadership role of post-war Europe. Instead of being punitive toward Japan and Germany, we helped rebuild them with the Marshall Plan so that the Soviets couldn't invade them while they were still weakened.

The world would be safer without nuclear threats if we didn't develop them first? As I have mentioned before, a real Fascist(Hitler) was developing nuclear weapons before we did. Einstein came to us and warned us about the threat of nuclear weapons from Hitler. Therefore, we raced to get the bomb before the Nazis and we were successful. Now, imagine what Hitler and Stalin would have done if they had nukes first.

I NEVER said that no other country on this planet should have nukes. I only said that dangerous, tyrannical non-democracies shouldn't have nukes. I'm glad the United Kingdom, France, Israel, and India have nuclear weapons. They're our allies and I don't have a problem with them. I'm glad that we have democratic allies with nukes that could help us deter Russian or Chinese aggression.

You're saying that I think using nuclear weapons is "kewl"? No, I don't think the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "kewl," but I do think they were a neccessary evil. Shouldn't starting a war that killed millions of people be worse than using a nuke to end it? I'll repeat it again: WE DIDN'T START THAT WAR.

Since you like sticking it to my country, I've got a question for you, MasJ? You bashed my country's involvement in the Vietnam War, but why is your country in Kashmir? Is India trying to spread "goodwill" among the Muslim-majority there? Is Hindu India winning any "hearts and minds" among the separatists? If most of the people there want to be annexed by Pakistan, why are your people interfering with their sovereignty? It seems hypocritical to bash us when your country is doing something similar to quell the "popular resistance" in Kashmir just like we did with the "popular resistance" of Vietnam.

Unlike you, I try to look at the positive side of your country without dwelling on the negatives. I understand that China and Pakistan are potential threats to your people. I understand that you have nuclear weapons to deter Pakistan, China, and even us. I also understand that your country also has a problem with Muslim extremists. I know that you have many smart people there because I see many of them at my university. For your information, we almost elected a second generation Indian-American, Bobby Jindal, to be our state's Republican governor. I'm sorry about my Kashmir ranting, but I just can't stand it when people don't try to understand our country's foreign and military policies.

i think that if the Americans dropped back their weapon count, then many people would be a little less angry with them. but i dont think you need THAT many weapons. a couple of nukes is ok, but i think over 5 is too many

The Al Qaeda terrorists wouldn't have a change of heart if we made arms reductions. The world ought to understand that we need new military technologies to counter potential Chinese aggression. The Chinese outnumber our ground forces 3 to 1. We wouldn't have to spend so much on defense if our allies would invest more into creating their own stronger militaries.
It would be nice if we could reduce our nuclear stockpiles to that number, but it depends on how much we can trust the Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans. Right now, they can't be trusted much.

I simply don't know why does people vote for the Republicans? they just wan't to bomb the whole f*king world or at least to dominate it. I mean, thats cool if your American, but there are lots of people all around the world, the world goes beyond the USA if someone of you haven't noticed it. And with the Republicans, economy hasn't got much better. But the WMDs never existed, Bush only wanted to get their oil. And personally some might get offended but the 9/11 thing... well... they played with fire, and dot burned. Did you really expect that you could bomob the whole Middle-East and that they would do nothing? But if you bomb a country, doesn't that makes you a terrorist?

Republicans want to cut taxes for ordinary working people and small businesses. Democrats demonized the tax cuts by claiming it was only for the rich and corporations. Our economy won't grow if employers don't have more money to invest and hire individuals, but Democrats want to remove this extra capital through excessive taxation and overspending. Sure, Bush is running a deficit now, but imagine how much larger it would be under Kerry. During the 1996 re-election campaign, Clinton said the economy was at it's highest it has ever been. The unemployment rate at the time was 5.6%. Guess what the unemployment rate is now? That's right........5.6%.

Republicans want to bomb the world or at least dominate it? The world said the same thing about Reagan, but he did more to stand up to the USSR and get Eastern Europe freed from Communist tyranny. If Germany, Japan, and South Korea wanted to, they could tell us to remove our forces from their respective countries immediately, but they don't since our bases there help their local economy and national defense.

Oil?..............If we wanted oil, we could have finished the job in 1991 to get the Iraqi oil. It would be more politically convenient to make a deal with Saddam for cheaper oil by lifting the sanctions on him.

9/11 was our fault? We don't bomb Iraq anymore since Saddam is out of power. We haven't bombed Libya since the 80's. Our support for Israel might make Arabs angry, but we aren't going to sell out the Israelis so that fanatics can drive the Jews into the sea. It doesn't make us terrorists if we bomb terrorists. The Libyan, Afghan, and Sudanese air strikes were in response to terrorist attacks.

Did you know that North Korea's media broadcasts John Kerry's speeches?............http://www.hootinan.com/?entry=2351_...errys_Speeches

America is just going that one step closer to being a fascist state, ala 1984. The most left America will go is the middle, which is stupid.

I'm hoping that the middle is as far left as we'll ever go.............I'm scared of the radical Left..............

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20...draf1103p3.asp

America did liken the Soviet Union to Satan


Hell America (they) weren't even satisfied when Hans Blix (chairman-UNMOVIC) himself stated that there was no evidence of concealment of WMDs.

The Soviet Union's government was Satan, but most of its people were victims of its oppression. They outlawed religion, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, etc..............Yes, the human rights violations and expansionist intentions earned it that title...............

If Blix knows everything, then how come he can't tell us when, where, and how the weapons were destroyed by the Iraqis?

FINALLY THIS POST IS FINISHED....................

[reagan80]

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke


The �shining beacon of democracy� myth is a pretty one, but incredibly na�ve. Arabs can see the freedoms available in countries outside of the Middle East. Some complain. They get killed, because they don�t have that sort of freedom. To make a change to all this, start with actually telling off your allies once and a while.


Now, stop complaining about how lame everyone else would be in your situation, and come up with ways to better how the USA fulfils its apparent obligations.

We didn't get much support from our Arab allies in the recent war. Sure, they allowed us to launch an offensive from their territory, but they weren't too keen in seeing Iraq become a democracy. Saudi Arabia is scared that we will start trading with a democratic Iraq more than them. Before the war, we couldn't pressure the Saudis and our other allies in the region because of fears of an oil embargo against us. Now, we can pressure the Saudis and Kuwaitis to give their people more rights and freedoms if we have the world's second largest oil reserves backing us up. Maybe Iraq will become the Mid-East's new "cradle of democracy."

I thought we were fulfilling our obligations in Kosovo and Bosnia. There is only so much we can do. It is impossible for us to be everywhere and make everyone happy on this planet. All we can do is wait for the decline of my country or the rise of the European Union.

[MasJ]

reagan80, As far as I can see, I never bashed the US for anything they did in Vietnam, I just don't agree that the Hiroshima bombing was necessary or humane, or justiciable in any way.
But then again, explaining that to someone who names himself after his president is quite hard. I'm impressed at your patriotism nonetheless.
About the Kashmir issue, seemingly you have your facts wrong. No comment on that from my side. I still think Bush isn't a good candidate for this election, let alone a good president.

[Jimmy Onestroke]

Originally posted by reagan80
Do you want the war to end quick and painlessly or do you want it to drag out and bring more misery to both sides?

Dude, the place is still radioactive. Go visit, get cancer, and die.

Originally posted by reagan80
During the 1996 re-election campaign, Clinton said the economy was at it's highest it has ever been. The unemployment rate at the time was 5.6%. Guess what the unemployment rate is now? That's right........5.6%.

Ok, nice memory. This is what I posted in this thread a while back:



You see how that works? No? Oh dear...

Originally posted by reagan80
Republicans want to bomb the world or at least dominate it?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Have a look around, browse through signatories of letters, observe who�s involved in these wacky shenanigans, and drink a milkshake.

Originally posted by reagan80
Oil?..............If we wanted oil, we could have finished the job in 1991 to get the Iraqi oil. It would be more politically convenient to make a deal with Saddam for cheaper oil by lifting the sanctions on him.

That wouldn't be at all politically convenient, there would be uproar from conservatives as well as liberals. This way, with the war (war ALWAYS garners approval from the conservatives!) half the bucket of voters is still catered for.

Originally posted by reagan80
9/11 was our fault? We don't bomb Iraq anymore since Saddam is out of power. We haven't bombed Libya since the 80's. Our support for Israel might make Arabs angry, but we aren't going to sell out the Israelis so that fanatics can drive the Jews into the sea. It doesn't make us terrorists if we bomb terrorists. The Libyan, Afghan, and Sudanese air strikes were in response to terrorist attacks.

9/11 took place before the Iraq War, when bombing still took place. Good old Clinton, clearly a bleeding heart liberal. The terrorists, along with the average Middle Easterner, consider the Israeli counterattacks to Palestinian suicide bombers to be just as much a matter of bloodthirsty vengeance as the deeds of their targets. The circle keeps on going. It doesn't matter if the Israeli government doesn't target civilians. It still kills them. They're still dead. What difference does it make?

Originally posted by reagan80
Did you know that North Korea's media broadcasts John Kerry's speeches?

Did you know that it doesn't actually matter, because when Kerry is elected he's not going to suddenly announce a surprise alliance with North Korea in a plan to annex South Korea? Strange, but true!

Originally posted by reagan80
I'm hoping that the middle is as far left as we'll ever go.............I'm scared of the radical Left..............

Damn those leftist extremists! Constantly causing trouble, with their... protests on street corners! That disrupts traffic, causing inefficiencies in the economy! Thank our lord and holy saviour for supplying us with the antidote to these Stalinist Satanics, the right wing extremists! Unlike those pasty faced liberal extremists, they've also got religious fundamentalism on their side (rather than those commie bastards who worship the false idol of secularism). Some great examples are: those KKK members who were revealed a few months ago to have obtained nuclear weapons in a terrorist plot, then had almost no impact in media headlines because they're white and therefore not terrorists; whatever nutbag sent out anthrax in the mail; those guys who murdered doctors working at abortion clinics; Hitler; the various people who have murdered gays out of sheer discomfort at homosexual existence; and the guys who complain that the Passion of the Christ movie didn't have enough flogging scenes, and should be made PG-13! Thanks for the good work, guys! With any luck, we can dispose of the long-bearded and balding University lecturers soon too...

Originally posted by reagan80
We didn't get much support from our Arab allies in the recent war. Sure, they allowed us to launch an offensive from their territory, but they weren't too keen in seeing Iraq become a democracy. Saudi Arabia is scared that we will start trading with a democratic Iraq more than them. Before the war, we couldn't pressure the Saudis and our other allies in the region because of fears of an oil embargo against us. Now, we can pressure the Saudis and Kuwaitis to give their people more rights and freedoms if we have the world's second largest oil reserves backing us up. Maybe Iraq will become the Mid-East's new "cradle of democracy."

Oh, I see. The war was for oil, but only because it gave the USA trading leverage in political deals. Praise be!

Originally posted by reagan80
I thought we were fulfilling our obligations in Kosovo and Bosnia.

I think you misinterpreted my points. When I said "obligations," it was preceded by "apparent." This is because the way you and others put it, the USA's power obliges it to fix every fight and argument and spilt milk bitchfest worldwide. Now, that aside, my other point was that rather than complain about how nobody else would be able to do the job as well as the US, the best thing to do is to try and get it right.

At any rate, those were Clinton's dealings. This thread is about Bush's successes and failures, not those of the fictional entity known as �America�. I thought everything the Dems did was evil?

[Dingy]

NICELY DONE JIMMY!
ok, first, I'm very disturbed by the radical and endless ranting of your country's greatness, reagan! Nonetheless, impressed by your patriotism, but real patriotism comes not from exalting your nation's lead in the democratic world alone, it comes from understanding that America is backed by people, and people DO make mistakes. You seem to be quite confused in your ideas of America's "foreign and military policies" as you call them, I would rather call them, policies which only proliferate fear and the dollar imperialism. What I mean is, at times you are on the offensive front and sometimes on the defensive with cries of "we were simply protecting ourselves"--example--

Originally posted by reagan80

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.

Ok, now, America is not being pressured by anyone to come and save the world and you are not obliged to fulfill any obligations anywhere! I'm actually quite appalled at the way you disregard the mere existence of every other country except if they have oil, or are have a condusive environment that let you shit-load all your unused and old weapon stock and sell them to poor countries. Don't fool yourself by once again quoting this and saying in reply--"WE ARE ONLY HELPING THEM BY SELLING ARMS". The US sells arms to Pakistan and other countries even after it is convinced that they are promoting terrorism and are now even being host to Osama...for what, you ask? Your noble country sells arms and manipulates it foreign policy to its convenience, bacause it knows that it needs to trash its arms build-up somewhere and thus encourages proxy wars.

US has NEVER been isolationist, ever since the U-boats sunk Lusitania on 5th April 1917...America has been the protagonist in world politics, and not in a good way, ok maybe it did do some good in the economic front with its Dawes (1924) and Young (1929) plans and then later the Marshall Plan, but otherwise, when it lent money to countries after the wars for their reconstruction, it has always reminded these countries of what it "owes" America, not only monetarily, but politically or any other way.

Originally posted by reagan80

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?

Umm...you also said that

Originally posted by reagan80
"Instead of being punitive toward Japan and Germany, we helped rebuild them with the Marshall Plan so that the Soviets couldn't invade them while they were still weakened."

America was so generous to give aid to these countries as they believed that poverty bred communism and took that dictum seriously...and basically...they were PARANOID! And somewhere financial assistance was offered to revive European economies in view of opening up prime markets--once again a hidden motive! In today's world if you want to survive you've got to be the best and also shrewd, but America is neither, all its IT and other man-power is of Chinese, Japanese and Indian origin, it's manipulative and cunning in its policies!

I really don't care whether bush was flying planes or giving himself a blow job (more likely;p) during the war, he sure isn't doing any good to the world now. Believing that you shoulder a giant responsibility in cradling the world is bullshit! America, or any other country doesn't have the time to "look after" the world, and ask anyone, America isn't doing that. They support people who support them...

Originally posted by reagan80

I NEVER said that no other country on this planet should have nukes. I only said that dangerous, tyrannical non-democracies shouldn't have nukes. I'm glad the United Kingdom, France, Israel, and India have nuclear weapons. They're our allies and I don't have a problem with them. I'm glad that we have democratic allies with nukes that could help us deter Russian or Chinese aggression.

Ummm...who are you to decide...who should have what type of govt. and who should have nukes...you're openly admitting that America misuses the UN to its whims and fancies. HEY KOFI! GET YOU FREAKING TEAMS OUT THERE AND SEARCH THE DAMN PLACE!
I DIDNT FIND ANYTHING, SIR!
OH! DIDN'T YOU LOOK IN MY ASS? Umm...I'D RATHER SEARCH SADDAM'S!
Communism that exists today is very different from the Marxist approach of communism. It has been adapted to suit the conditions in China and the erstwhile USSR, it is no more the religion/state/pvt-property/exploitation less society once propagated by Marx. China has many religions, it has allowed the entry of MNCs and US investments into it's economy. USSR also had many changes in its policies with the perestroika and glasnost programs. During the Great Depression, it was because of America's interventionist economic policies that more than half of the world was a victim of it as well, USSR was the only country in the world not affected by it!

Agreed, communism isn't perfect, but then neither is democracy..America has violated the most important principle of democracy--FREEDOM! freedom to choose one's own govt.; freedom from external rule; freedom to make ones own economic policies I can go on forever!
Ok, I know I'm getting boring, I'll make it quick.

Originally posted by reagan80

"Unlike you, I try to look at the positive side of your country without dwelling on the negatives."

Ok, no country-bashing here, I know its harsh, but if America keeps going on this way (Bush remains in power) then the negative will become more glaring than the positive.

Originally posted by reagan80

Since you like sticking it to my country, I've got a question for you, MasJ? You bashed my country's involvement in the Vietnam War, but why is your country in Kashmir? Is India trying to spread "goodwill" among the Muslim-majority there? Is Hindu India winning any "hearts and minds" among the separatists? If most of the people there want to be annexed by Pakistan, why are your people interfering with their sovereignty? It seems hypocritical to bash us when your country is doing something similar to quell the "popular resistance" in Kashmir just like we did with the "popular resistance" of Vietnam.

Umm...maybe you haven't looked at the map of India, Kashmir is a part of it, for a brief history of how Kashmir is a part of India, take a look at this--http://www.ummah.org.uk/kashmir/history.htm or maybe this--since its from an american site, it may be more convincing:p--http://www.american.edu/TED/ice/kashmiri.htm

Nothing else to say at the moment, except...the US is NOT perfect...learn to accept it's flaws, if not yours.

[karragh]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by reagan80

I NEVER said that no other country on this planet should have nukes. I only said that dangerous, tyrannical non-democracies shouldn't have nukes. I'm glad the United Kingdom, France, Israel, and India have nuclear weapons. They're our allies and I don't have a problem with them. I'm glad that we have democratic allies with nukes that could help us deter Russian or Chinese aggression.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're still living in the past there, there is no huge threat of
Russia attacking you americans any time soon.

[Xaenn]

Most of this has been addressed already, but I still feel I show throw in my opinion.

Originally posted by reagan80

Nuclear supremacy? I can't believe I just heard that. We were dragged into a war by Japan and forced to develop nuclear weapons before Hitler got his hands on the technology first. Can't you understand that? We were isolationist before the war and were reluctantly forced into taking the leadership role of post-war Europe. Instead of being punitive toward Japan and Germany, we helped rebuild them with the Marshall Plan so that the Soviets couldn't invade them while they were still weakened.

Even if you make the claim we were forced to do this, we weren't forced to create SO many as we did. A few nukes is a very good detterant. Why else would we be so afraid of people gettin one? Now hundreds and thousands of them is total overkill and has nothing to do with detterence.

Originally posted by reagan80

Unlike you, I try to look at the positive side of your country without dwelling on the negatives.

If you don't look at what's wrong with your country how can you improve it? That is the responsibility of the people in a democracy however, which many are failing to do.

Originally posted by reagan80

Republicans want to cut taxes for ordinary working people and small businesses. Democrats demonized the tax cuts by claiming it was only for the rich and corporations. Our economy won't grow if employers don't have more money to invest and hire individuals, but Democrats want to remove this extra capital through excessive taxation and overspending. Sure, Bush is running a deficit now, but imagine how much larger it would be under Kerry. During the 1996 re-election campaign, Clinton said the economy was at it's highest it has ever been. The unemployment rate at the time was 5.6%. Guess what the unemployment rate is now? That's right........5.6%.

Do those first lines not contradict eachother? If you haven't noticed not very many people are being hired right now. I don't even want to talk about overspending... Finally, how are more tax cuts for the rich benefitting you?

Originally posted by reagan80

If Blix knows everything, then how come he can't tell us when, where, and how the weapons were destroyed by the Iraqis?

Because they don't and didn't exist. Bush's information all comes from things that are either made up or things that were true when his father was president.

[reagan80]

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke


Ok, nice memory. This is what I posted in this thread a while back:



You see how that works? No? Oh dear...

That's funny...............That chart shows that the unemployment rate was going down in the final months of Bush Sr.'s administration...............Perhaps Clinton inherited the prosperity just like Bush Jr. inherited a recession?

Have a look around, browse through signatories of letters, observe who�s involved in these wacky shenanigans, and drink a milkshake.

What was your link supposed to prove?

Damn those leftist extremists! Constantly causing trouble, with their... protests on street corners! That disrupts traffic, causing inefficiencies in the economy! Thank our lord and holy saviour for supplying us with the antidote to these Stalinist Satanics, the right wing extremists! Unlike those pasty faced liberal extremists, they've also got religious fundamentalism on their side (rather than those commie bastards who worship the false idol of secularism). Some great examples are: those KKK members who were revealed a few months ago to have obtained nuclear weapons in a terrorist plot, then had almost no impact in media headlines because they're white and therefore not terrorists; whatever nutbag sent out anthrax in the mail; those guys who murdered doctors working at abortion clinics; Hitler; the various people who have murdered gays out of sheer discomfort at homosexual existence; and the guys who complain that the Passion of the Christ movie didn't have enough flogging scenes, and should be made PG-13! Thanks for the good work, guys! With any luck, we can dispose of the long-bearded and balding University lecturers soon too...

I didn't say all liberals were bad...........just the extremists that start violent riots during WTO meetings and burn down car dealerships that sell "gas guzzling polluters." I didn't say all conservatives are good either. I admit that Pat Robertson's assertion that 9/11 was the result of the actions of gays and liberals is retarded. Not all Republicans are far-right warmongers. If we were warmongers, Reagan or the Bush's would have invaded Cuba by now to depose Castro.

By the way, most of my World Politics class is liberal, including the professor. My professor is from Austria. Just thought it might interest you that many future generations of college-going Americans will be influenced by the liberal philosophy and theories of these teachers, but I will be wary of any flaws in the logic of their teachings. Just because someone with a PhD tells you their philosophy, doesn't mean it is always right.

[Fett aka hmm]

Originally posted by Fett aka hmm
I didn't say all liberals were bad...........just the extremists that start violent riots during WTO meetings and burn down car dealerships that sell "gas guzzling polluters." I didn't say all conservatives are good either. I admit that Pat Robertson's assertion that 9/11 was the result of the actions of gays and liberals is retarded. Not all Republicans are far-right warmongers. If we were warmongers, Reagan or the Bush's would have invaded Cuba by now to depose Castro.

I agree with the WTO assertion. I live in Seattle, and during the WTO riots a couple years back, it was impossible to go anywhere in downtown Seattle because of the stupid leftist morons dressed up in turtle suits.

[Dingy]

Originally posted by reagan80
Not all Republicans are far-right warmongers. If we were warmongers, Reagan or the Bush's would have invaded Cuba by now to depose Castro.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Eisenhower republican? If so, you were warmongers because kennedy had stepped up to Ike's lead when he had launched his attack on The Bay of Pigs...
Eisenhower had already conspired with the CIA to develop a secret army of Cubans to oust the communist dictator. If it wasn't for the missile base of USSR in Cuba, they wouldn't have stopped at anything to depose Castro.
Give me one reason, good enough for America to invade Cuba, you are all control freaks! There were only 2 reasons for them to invade Cuba-first, it was communist and second, it had nationalized all the US plantations and industries! Basically it told America to butt out!

[EGGO]

So much to read after being gone. I'll just go ahead and get whatever is thrown now.

That's funny...............That chart shows that the unemployment rate was going down in the final months of Bush Sr.'s administration...............Perhaps Clinton inherited the prosperity just like Bush Jr. inherited a recession?

Nope. And why? Because I'd like for you to recall what happened to him that made that statistic go that direction. Now, after all that, I want you to pay attention to who is in the spotlight now. That's George W. Bush.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like he's inhereting Clinton's prosperity that was continually going down neh?

Yes...it all becomes so clear.

I didn't say all liberals were bad...........just the extremists that start violent riots during WTO meetings and burn down car dealerships that sell "gas guzzling polluters."

Just remember, conservatives are also guilty of the same crimes in other situations.

[mushindo]

Simply put, show me one government that is perfect? Yeah not a one. Every government has given and taken something from humanity. Does it matter? Not really, everyone seems to miss the big picture anyway. So why squabble about something that won't be justified until generations later when everything can be weighed in?

[karragh]

Originally posted by mushindo
So why squabble about something that won't be justified until generations later when everything can be weighed in?

Because we have nothing better to do

[EGGO]

Originally posted by mushindo
Simply put, show me one government that is perfect? Yeah not a one. Every government has given and taken something from humanity. Does it matter? Not really, everyone seems to miss the big picture anyway. So why squabble about something that won't be justified until generations later when everything can be weighed in?

Because we have the ability to do something about it now?