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

[Jimmy Onestroke]

Originally posted by Vengeance
He's only losing because there are too many people that hate President Bush here. I'm not one of them, but I don't want to get sucked into a debate with Jimmy. He's too good.

He's losing because inconvenient things like facts get in the way of his arguments. Really, if one person is right and four thousand people are wrong, that one person's arguments will remain right despite how loud the opposition may be. We haven't outshouted Reagan (and his allies, who disappeared bloody quickly), we've disproved his arguments. That's the only part that matters. I will now demonstrate:

Originally posted by Fett aka hmm
The economy has grown the most it has since Reagan.

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke

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%.

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke

Originally posted by reagan80
The unemployment rate is about the same as it was during Clinton's '96 re-election campaign.

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke

NET RESULT = I WIN. A LOT.





On another note, yes, yes I am awesome, and why yes, yes my penis is indescribably large.

[Ziegfried]

Oh my, someone was all intelligent. I would give you a 5 rating for that, Jimmy Onestroke, but, well, I'm giving you a 1 instead. There's life for you.

[reagan80]

Originally posted by Dingy
Reagan, you've really got to start accepting the fact that every other country is not the goddamn responsiblity of that dumb ass bush--offense intended...not to you, to him! Hell, he can't even wash his own undies, how's he gonna look after the world?
You have to understand that he has done things that have shown the world what a paradox the US can be in the so-called democracy that it claims to uphold. Clinton, did alot to keep the world by his side, you might assign a monumental task like that very little importance, but bush like many Americans thinks that the invincible USA doesn't need anyone by it's side, but if the whole world forms an anti-america alliance, then nukes, or no nukes--the next generation might not study geography with a USA on the world map, not that they'll be people or geography after a world war. This is just a hypothetical example to tell you that, the way the US is going,it's got more enemies,than friends by its side...and that's NEVER good.
America is a very powerful country, and I hate quoting Spiderman's uncle Ben (was it?) but "With great power comes great responsibilty"

I agree with you. Our country shouldn't have to be meddling in the affairs of other countries, but eventually we get dragged into these situations that require us to forcefully intervene.

- If we didn't intervene in World War I, the imperialists in the Central Powers would have eventually invaded my country.
- If we didn't intervene in World War II, the Nazis or Japanese would have eventually invaded us after defeating the USSR, British, and anyone else.
- If we didn't deter the Soviets from invading the OPEC nations of the Middle East, the Soviets would have invaded them and tried to ruin the West's energy supplies and our ability to wage a sustained military campaign against Soviet aggression.
- If we didn't try to defend Europe during the Cold War, the Soviets would have eventually invaded us after invading them.

I admit that this is selfish for us to intervene only when our interests are at stake. We can't be isolationist or neutral in the world anymore because eventually things that could have been stopped or prevented earlier come back to haunt us.

We didn't want to go invade Iraq unilaterally. We tried to get the rest of the world on our side, but they declined the offer. The French and Russians were more interested in getting their money back for Saddam's debts than in forcing him to totally come clean on his weapons programs.

We don't intentionally try to anger the world. We try to be friends with them, but sometimes they don't agree with us or our methods. In the end, they know that we aren't going to be trying to enslave them. The "Free world" will not form an alliance against us unless if we invade countries just to exploit(steal) their resources. If we perform a massive military operation, we usually discuss it with our allies first to get their "blessing." In Iraq, we are trying to get the world's co-operation in rebuilding that nation so that we won't have to be there anymore. We aren't old-fashioned imperialists anymore.

[31337D00D]

Here is another thing to make bush look stupid....

[reagan80]

Originally posted by Jimmy Onestroke
Bush is shit, Clinton was shit, other Bush was shit, etc.

Thank you. Your hatred of the United States government has been duly noted.

Jesus fucking Christ. Third time's the charm, and if not, then maybe the fourth or fifth time I show you this image you MIGHT decide to stop repeating that idiotic talking point.




U R A STOOPI!!!1ONE!!1!111! NOW READ AND REPET PICTUERS!!1 THAT R TEH WAY TO LERN.

I must ask this question about your chart: "Why is the unemployment rate going down in the final months of Bush Sr.'s administration?"

I must ask another question: "How did Bush Jr. cause a recession in the first three months of his presidency?"

I'm getting a little tired of your chart myself, so I found my own to dispute your argument. This link has a chart of industrial manufacturing employment in 2000...........http://www.house.gov/jec/press/2004/01-22-04.htm



Our stock market started going down in the months before the 2000 election because of the Dot Com bubble burst. Most of our recent corporate financial scandals resulted from practices that businesses did under Clinton's watch. Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement that allowed more outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico. High gas prices also contribute to recessions too.

One reason our gas prices have increased recently is because of OPEC's production cuts. If we had more domestic oil production, we wouldn't have these spiking gas prices now, but the environmentalist fanatics in our country have lobbied the Democrats into being against domestic oil exploration. By the way, Kerry wants to tax gasoline more. That is a sure-fire way to commit economic suicide during this recovery period.

Awesome, you use Newsmax as a news source. While you're there, you might want to get this item, apparently a hot seller in their store, that I know would appeal to you personally: http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/show...roduct_ID=1495

I never said all of my sources were un-biased, but the "mainstream" media isn't always un-biased either. Despite that fact, my link had actual quotes that Kerry used in his testimony.

There's also wonderful pop-ups like this one:

I like that one. I should make that my sig.

I must digress. Newsmax is poopy, but has wonderful bargain-bin sales. Now, Kerry was in Vietnam to fulfill what he was told was his duty, a-shootin'-and-a-killin', as you do in the army, and then he left. He didn't like it, you see. Morally horrified by the widespread shootin'-and-a-killin'-and-a-this-is-the-inexcusable-part-torturin'. So he badmouthed widespread atrocities, which some soldiers were lucky enough not to witness themselves. Those soldiers are now offended because apparently they're all meant to have taken part in the rape and murder but for whatever reason some didn't get to. Or something. On the other hand, Bush went AWOL from his post at the National Guard as a pilot. Kerry wins.

You have just contradicted yourself. First, you agree with Kerry that most of our troops in Vietnam were "Fascist baby-killing rapists" that were waging an illegal and unjust war. Then, you bash Bush for "draft-dodging" that war. If Bush didn't even go to Vietnam, why is Kerry better than Bush again?

I admit that some of our troops committed atrocities in Vietnam, but the vast majority of them didn't do those horrible actions. If you are basing your assertions on an Oliver Stone or Stanley Kubrick film, then you are misguided. Some of our troops committed atrocities in World War II too, but everyone knows that most of them were honorable in their conduct of that war.

More self-defeating evidence. On another note, it's curious that you call others sheep for following the exact same conventions you abide by. I refuse to believe that you hesitate to use the term, as I've noticed you chucking around the phrase before in regards to liberals.

I said "Democratic OR Republican sheep" in that post.........I tried to be fair with that statement.........Speaking of sheep, you are apparently an anti-American one. You didn't even like Clinton as our president and you dishonored most of our Vietnam veterans with your post. Is there anything we could do that would ever make you happy? I doubt it.

Only liberals are against changing the constitution in order to suppress people, awesome. As for your link, well, yes, something should be said about the stoop you've made with trying to prove a point by using it. I mean really, what the hell? KERRIE'S 92% LIFETIME ADA APROVED ON AVRAGE, KENDEDDY IS ONLY 90%, KERRY MUST BE A BIG WET COMMIE RADICAL LIBRAL MEDIAMAN! Thank heavens to Betsy we have a big scientific... thing to prove it.

Really? I guess all of those liberal activist judges that try to legislate from the bench aren't suppressing the will of the people. When the majority of the people are against gay marriage, I guess it is okay for a group of liberal judges to make it legal when the law says it isn't. Yeah, liberal efforts to get guns banned from civilians isn't a precursor to suppressing the people either.

I shall now follow your example, and post a link to a conservative blogger making reference to a newspaper article stating that voting statistics show Kerry as one of the least liberal in Democrat history. He's a political professor at the University of Chicago, which I will assume is somehow damning evidence of the liberal agenda in educating/brainwashing young Americans.

Least liberal? I've already mentioned Kerry's anti-military/intelligence voting record. He is going to raise taxes and increase government spending and raise some more taxes so he can spend more. He is going to fritter away American sovereignty to the UN. Most of our professors are liberal in this country. What's your point?

My point may be best illustrated by one of the readers who comments on the article posted: "Liberal/conservative seems pretty meaningless to me, if you're just looking at voting records. What about people who undercut the political support of liberal groups while voting for liberal policies, and vice versa?"

I admit that Bush hasn't been a total conservative, but Kerry isn't going to be a moderate(centrist) president either.

Oh for fu... http://citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
The link I've provided is fairly outdated (7/30/03) so it doesn't include any of the scandals revealed in the months since. But it popped up fairly high on google and it's as good a place to start as any. I can't be bothered reciting his lies, nor typing out what would need to be a lengthy summation on the rejection of CIA and FBI advice prior to the invasion of Iraq. This link barely mentions the latter, but it should be fairly widespread news over the next week or so with the Clarke scandal.

Your link with the Bush "lies" is flawed. It doesn't put some things into the right context. I'm not even sure if they were all true.

Here's another one of those pretty underlined jumbles of lettering that lead to mysterious new worlds of knowledge if you click on them, this one giving you a quick rundown of Clarke's past in case you consider trying to discredit him: http://billmon.org/archives/001239.html

Clarke says, "I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."


I wonder what the world would have said if we invaded Afghanistan before 9/11 happened.

I wonder what they would have thought if we told them we needed to invade Afghanistan to stop terrorists before they attack us.

I wonder what the world would have said when 9/11 would have happened then. It probably would be something like........."Those Americans got what they deserved."

When the 2004 elections would come around, our people would make sure Bush loses re-election by a landslide since everyone would have blamed the attacks on Bush as a result of his "acts of aggression" in Afghanistan.

Any of this stuff sound familiar?

As for Clarke, he is just trying to cover his a$$ for the poor job he did all of those years before Bush came to power. He is just trying to sell a book that bashes Bush since he has an axe to grind on Bush for demoting him. CBS forgot to mention that they are owned by the same conglomerate that is publishing Mr. Clarke's book. Whee!! CBS is giving their parent company more publicity with Clarke's controversial anti-Bush rantings.

While Clarke was testifying, this story went under the radar by the pro-Kerry media............http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.a...20040324d.html

The following are excerpts from the 60 Minutes interview he did recently, a fairly easy cut & paste exercise for me to fill up space:

CLARKE: Well Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq and we all said, 'No no, al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.' Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well there are lots of good targets in lots of places but Iraq had nothing to with it.'
LESLIE STAHL: You wrote you thought he was joking.

CLARKE: Initially I thought when he said there aren't enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking.

STAHL: Now what was your reaction to all this Iraq talk? What did you tell everybody?

CLARKE: What I said was, you know, invading Iraq or bombing Iraq after we're attacked by somebody else, it's akin to, what if Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor instead of going to war with Japan said, "Let's invade Mexico." It's very analagous.

* * *
CLARKE: I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.' He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.


* * *

CLARKE WINS!

No, Clarke doesn't win. He had to have made up the Rumsfeld quotes. Rumsfeld isn't that stupid. We didn't attack Iraq first like he claims we wanted.

David Kay said the administration didn't try to intimidate him during his WMD fact-finding hunt. Why should we believe Clarke when he gives resignation letters like this? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...42clarke1.html

And finally, my cartoons remain superior to your cartoons, because they have facts and punchlines and multiple panels and all sorts of modern day shit.

1. Paul O'Neill has an axe to grind just like Clarke. He was forced to resign and was bitter towards Bush and tried to sell a book. O'Neill caved because he revealed a classified document on TV and was threatened with prosecution.

2. Joseph Wilson is blaming the wrong person. Bush didn't out his wife. Robert Novak did after he heard it from one of Bush's subordinates. It isn't Bush's fault that pundit had to blab on national television and he didn't tell his people to conspire a way to punish him.

3. Foster thought Bush's plan was too expensive? Hell, the Democrats thought it was cheap.

4. Clarke's reputation is trashed because it is obvious he has his own agenda. There is probably a Clarke/Kerry connection in there as well.........http://www.politics.com/discussion.h...=120961&page=1..........Maybe Kerry will make Clarke his National Security Advisor when he is elected...........

So let me get this straight, someone has a belief, and that automatically makes them a sheep, maybe he is just anti-american, someone can be anti-american without being a sheep

I'm not sure. Maybe I'm wrong in using that term, but I can't find another synonym to substitute for it. I can't use "fanboy."

Whenever I hear people blaming Bush or America for everything, I have the urge to label them as "sheep." Bush didn't prevent 9/11, but Clinton didn't either. America has done some horrible things in the world, but they have done some good too in recent years.

[karragh]

I said "Democratic OR Republican sheep" in that post.........I tried to be fair with that statement.........Speaking of sheep, you are apparently an anti-American one. You didn't even like Clinton as our president and you dishonored most of our Vietnam veterans with your post. Is there anything we could do that would ever make you happy? I doubt it.

So let me get this straight, someone has a belief, and that automatically makes them a sheep, maybe he is just anti-american, someone can be anti-american without being a sheep



Oh and regean, I don't meen to be a whiner but can you take the time to seperate your quotes so it doesn't look like your post is all one big quote, and it is obvious when the quote ends and your comment starts.

[Ziegfried]

On another note, doesn't that mean that reagan is being a pro-Bush sheep right now?

[karragh]

Originally posted by Skinner8
On another note, doesn't that mean that reagan is being a pro-Bush sheep right now?

Correct, In fact, he is just a bush sheep, following bush around no matter what he does....

[Xaenn]

That's because only sheep would follow Bush.... XD

[reagan80]

Originally posted by karragh
Correct, In fact, he is just a bush sheep, following bush around no matter what he does....

Maybe I am a pro-Bush sheep, but at least I don't blindly agree with everything he's doing. It seems like everyone here believes conservatives, Americans, and Bush supporters are 500% retarded, evil, and decadent.

I don't agree with Bush's idiotic (illegal)immigration policy. I don't agree with his deficit spending, and I wish he would have removed the pork barrel spending from the budget with a veto threat. I don't agree with his 2000 campaign pledge to renew the assault rifle ban. I didn't agree with his African AIDS program funding either.

On the other hand, Kerry will do something more idiotic like giving illegal aliens more entitlements. Kerry will increase taxes, spending, and the deficit more until the recession comes back. Kerry will try to get all guns banned and expand government to become our mediocre "nanny." Kerry will cut defense spending and give all of that money to the UN so that we regain their "good will" so they will protect us from the next terrorist attack. The thought just makes me........

To me, Bush is the lesser of evils compared to Kerry.

If the Democrats actually had ideas that could solve this country's(or the world's) problems, I would vote for them, but they don't. They haven't come up with a logical plan for our problems in a long time. They apparently don't understand economics, national defense, or common sense.

I'm sorry, but getting more airport screeners isn't going to stop all of the terrorists. Al Qaeda will never have its own "Gorbachev" that will allow peaceful coexistence with the "infidels." Raising taxes on the rich won't save healthcare or social security. Being nice to North Korea won't stop them from building nukes or invading South Korea. Letting our troops stool around in Afghanistan until bin Laden and Company come out of hiding in Pakistan isn't going to advance the war on terror. Giving the UN operational control of Iraq won't make the reconstruction efforts there easy as they make everyone believe. France wasn't against our war in Iraq because of the lack of evidence, but they were against us since we were going to oust one of their major trading partners and clients. Raising taxes on gasoline won't decrease the demand for it, but it will cause inflation in the prices of all our goods due to higher shipping costs.

Am I forgetting anything else that liberals propose as solutions to our problems?

[Ziegfried]

Originally posted by reagan80
Maybe I am a pro-Bush sheep, but at least I don't blindly agree with everything he's doing. It seems like everyone here believes conservatives, Americans, and Bush supporters are 500% retarded, evil, and decadent.

Perhaps we wouldn't do that if we had reason not to... No offense to the intelligent Americans that frequent this place, if there are more than one...

To me, Bush is the lesser of evils compared to Kerry.

If the Democrats actually had ideas that could solve this country's(or the world's) problems, I would vote for them, but they don't. They haven't come up with a logical plan for our problems in a long time. They apparently don't understand economics, national defense, or common sense.

Yes, that's right. The official word of the Democrats or the Republicans is the only thing that matters. Obviously, if you disagree with one you have to agree with the other and vice versa, it's not like there are any options besides that... Disregarding the sarcasm, though, if you have problems with both Bush and Kerry, which you apparently do judging from the "lesser of evils" bit, how about you just not support either of them, hmm? Like someone said, it is perfectly possible for a candidate outside either parties to win, even though their chances aren't too great.

Oh yeah, there's a difference between "terror" and "terrorism". Learn it.

[karragh]

Originally posted by reagan80
Maybe I am a pro-Bush sheep, but at least I don't blindly agree with everything he's doing. It seems like everyone here believes conservatives, Americans, and Bush supporters are 500% retarded, evil, and decadent.

you completly ignored this :

So let me get this straight, someone has a belief, and that automatically makes them a sheep, maybe he is just anti-american, someone can be anti-american without being a sheep

[EGGO]

I really need to announce when I'm going to be out for a project. I don't know where I left off, but here, maybe this will put the nail on the coffin, so to speak. If I miss any points, reagan, let me know and I'll be glad to get to them.

We know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

We know that the US and UK had no good intelligence that Saddam had "WMD's"

We know that they said they did and are on record as giving it as their justification for the war. Therefore we know they lied in order to invade a country, a horrifying precedent to let past.

We know that less people were killed by the state in recent times in Iraq than Zimbabwe, where women are being raped as part of indoctrination in camps set up by Mugabe. We know the US hasn't the slightest interest in invading Zimbabwe, North Korea, Ubekistan and countless other countries in a worse state of oppression, giving the lie to their motives.

We know that, as judges may not select any arbitrary punishment for breaking a law, the penalty for breaking a resolution must be determined by the very UN security councel that formulated it.

We know that the US and UK violated International Law.

We know that the war has inflamed the Middle East and increased terrorism.

We know that brutal regimes have been toppled by more peaceful means (South Africa).

We know that some choices preclude others, so the US-led war might very well have denied the world the opportunity of a better solution in Iraq.

We know that "winning the peace" was poorly planned, by the White House' own admission, indicating that another, less-rushed solution likely would have had a better outcome. For instance, we know that Bagdad mortuaries report vastly more corpses daily now than under Saddam, households experience more power blackouts and women report a greater incidence of rape and live in more fear of their lives.

We know that the vast amounts of money spent on the Iraq war could have been better spent elsewhere.

We know that the Bush administrations motive was the fruit of a PNAC strategy that had little to do with human suffering.

How about that you are so naiive that you think we just wave our magic wand and set a country on the road to love and peace? How have things gone there in the last 100 years of imperialism? Let's just wind the clock back 4 decades:

We need to put Saddam into power because of the communist inclinations of the Iraqi leadership. We need to have the CIA foment a coup and then give him a list of communists to kill.

Down the road we'll need to supply him with arms, agricultural credits, battlefield assistance against our mutual enemies (to whom we should aslo supply arms so that we can use the profits to help the contras). We'll have to look the other way while he gasses his citizens in a civil war.

I'm totally for our government's wise policy of putting Saddam into power. And the Shah of Iran. And Castro. And Aristide. And the present support for Uzbekistan. Marcos. Etc. Etc.

To disagree with any of this is a moral abomination.

Welcome to the real world mr. naiive. We're still mired up to our armpits in alligators over there with bombs going off daily and you're fantasizing about some fairy sugar world with lollipops and cream puffs. You have no idea what will happen in Iraq down the road. Right now its a bloody mess.

Where are you on North Korea, Uzbekistan, Myanmar, and any one of a dozen other brutal regimes?

On the "liberation of Iraq":

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...raqpaper29.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq � The U.S.-led occupation authority used soldiers to shut down the newspaper of an anti-American Shiite cleric yesterday, charging that the paper repeatedly published misinformation designed to incite violence against U.S. troops...

Alaa-eldin Elsadr, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, said he accompanied about 50 U.S. troops to the offices of the al-Sadr organization's weekly al Hauza newspaper. The soldiers ordered employees out of the building and sealed it. The paper will be closed for at least 60 days, Elsadr said.

Elsadr gave newspaper officials a letter from L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, that said the paper published misinformation, including articles blaming terrorist attacks on coalition forces.

Elsadr acknowledged that such a shutdown would not happen in the United States but added, "Iraq is not America. Iraq is going through a very sensitive time right now, and, while there is freedom of the press, that freedom must be used responsibly."

"Give that man a position in the Bush administration. Oh wait, he has one..." -Happy Wonderer

"I was reading up on this yesterday and found that this is not the only newspaper that was closed. Also there was a television station that was closed for showing material that our military deemed "inappropriate." if I'm not mistaken, there was coverage showing our soldiers basically attacking Iraqi citizens for no reason and also showing civilian deaths on the television. So they closed that down as well.
You cannot liberate a people. The people have to liberate themselves. From where I'm standing, it seems like the Iraqis have lost Saddam, but they gained american dictatorship in its place."
-tangiellis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1072313,00.html
You think the US went to war with Iraq to stop a brutal dictator? This is a nice article about the US supporting a brutal dictator, because he allows a pipeline through his country and guards it. He's doing the exact opposite of liberating those people... ask him why.

If I remember, reagan said we're having more civil liberties. I have these that say otherwise:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=15071
http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/index.html
http://www.openthegovernment.org/
http://www.fas.org/index.html
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

And I'll be here for another 2 days before I do something again.

[reagan80]

Originally posted by karragh
you completly ignored this :

[/B]

I thought I answered you with this........

I'm not sure. Maybe I'm wrong in using that term, but I can't find another synonym to substitute for it. I can't use "fanboy."

Whenever I hear people blaming Bush or America for everything, I have the urge to label them as "sheep." Bush didn't prevent 9/11, but Clinton didn't either. America has done some horrible things in the world, but they have done some good too in recent years.

As for EGGO, I give up............

I'm finished. You all win. I can't change your minds, but I'm not changing mine either. Sometimes you were right. Sometimes you skewed facts out of context. Sometimes you didn't try to understand the American perspective in world affairs or history. I know Bush hasn't done everything right, but I think people are giving him a worse rap than he deserves. Just like Bush, I know America hasn't done everything right, but I think people are giving this country more anti-kudos than it deserves. I know America isn't loved by the world, but I doubt people will stop hating us if we became withdrawn and isolationist(neutral) again like Switzerland today. I don't know what the world wants from us, and I'm not sure if I care anymore. I give up..........

[karragh]

Originally posted by reagan80
I thought I answered you with this........

my apolagies, i did not see that post.

I give up..........

yay.