Give me ONE reason...

[BabyHeadCrab]

I hope he wins just so I can hear four more years of your guys bitching.

<3 you too :naughty:

 

[Owskie]

i actually know a person who is voting for bush because he wants world war 3

 

[othello]

This isn't about what you would do though. This is about what a President should do. If you are the President of the United States, and you are told "Mr. President, the country is under attack". in this the nuclear age, you move your ass. The clock is ticking, and certain commands may only come from the President. Time is of the essence, every second counts. We elect men into office that will act without fear, and without hesitation. I would expect my Commander in Chief to be swift in such a crisis. President Bush sat there for seven minutes. It's quite easy to calmly excuse yourself from the room without alerting anyone.

as i said in another response, it was 5 minutes. and the whole time he was communicating back and forth with his staff members. information was still coming in, little was really known in those first few minutes following the actual impact on both towers.

 

[Owskie]

the deed of this forum has BEEN done, you have been given MANY MANY MANY MANY reasons, and though you come up with worthless babble on a few points, there have been many points you have failed to adress bypassing the ONE reason you wanted..

 

[blahblahblah]

One of you need to change your name. They look alike.

 

[f|uke]

Yep. Real, valid reasons have been given.

When Othello said "give me one reason", he really meant "theres nothing you could possibly say to make me change my mind."

Thanks for wasting our time, Othello. I wrote out a really good post, in my own words. It would have been nice to know from the start that it was just falling on deaf ears.

 

[Owskie]

yepp...

lyrics to one of my favorite songs

WWIII - by stuart davis

There's gonna be a World War Three
one more world war
and I get killed in World War Three
I get killed

Here's how the whole thing starts
religion gets seduced by art
and hearts burst like grenades within
when something whispers "pull the pin"

Right now they're building Ghandhi
they're gonna bomb our ass with love
and bring us to our knees
just using what we're made of

You can't fight what has no form
you just can't fight what has no form
Cuz every time you introspect
you dream up ways you could defect

So close your eyes and plug your ears
and go to battle
but when the whisper comes your world unravels

That's not a normal army
they kiss the enemy
with lips that blow your head off
and set your spirit free

If I only knew
who to surrender to
If I only knew
how to surrender

That's not a normal army
they kiss the enemy
right now they're building Ghandhi
they're gonna bomb our ass with love
and bring us to our knees
just using what we're made of

There's gonna be a World War Three
one more world war

 

[DoctorGordon]

One of you need to change your name. They look alike.

LOL, amen.

 

[Logic]

as i said in another response, it was 5 minutes. and the whole time he was communicating back and forth with his staff members. information was still coming in, little was really known in those first few minutes following the actual impact on both towers.

I find it pretty amusing that you've created a thread asking people to present points against Bush, yet you are unable to concede that Bush has been in any way wrong about anything, at any time. Your devotion to Bush might hold a little more weight if you appeared to be open minded enough to accept that Bush has at times made mistakes, like every other human being. Instead, you're completely one sided.

 

[othello]

Just to be fair, the Secret Service agent that informed him of the incident only said "A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center."

Beyond that, I don't know though. *Shrugs*

actually it was his chief of staff Andrew Card who said "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." quite a lot to think about in 5 minutes' time. =/

 

[Owskie]

I find it pretty amusing that you've created a thread asking people to present points against Bush, yet you are unable to concede that Bush has been in any way wrong about anything, at any time. Your devotion to Bush might hold a little more weight if you appeared to be open minded enough to accept that Bush has at times made mistakes, like every other human being. Instead, you're completely one sided.

i agree

 

[f|uke]

As long as we're posting lyrics, heres a really cool new song by Green Day.

"American Idiot"

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation under the new mania.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mindfuk America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alienation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
For that's enough to argue.

Well maybe I'm the fag0t America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.

(psst. guess who the idiot is.)

 

[othello]

bs the ss guy said something like it's happening sir. he knew about it simple as that come on, it's plain as light. he sat there... obviously he already knew about it. the bigger conspiracie would be if he or his administration planned it so they could use it as a scapegoat to go after "terrorism" and eventually iraq. who knows maybe they are the terrorists then they would be using another terrorist attack to get us to give up our rights....

and we obviously can see you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Owskie]

actually it was his chief of staff Andrew Card who said "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." quite a lot to think about in 5 minutes' time. =/

7 minutes.. btw.. and when your a president you dont SIT and think about something like that, your supposed to be prepared..

 

[blahblahblah]

- How about universal health care?
- Or the environment?

You people are not very good at providing reasons. You keep on harping on the same ones.

 

[othello]

Come on now, I know you are a religious person, and that's great, but you must see that we actually lock people up for taking violent actions under the command of some voice in their head, right?

Bush says he went to war because God told him to. His orders have killed thousands, and they were given with the belief that god, god himself, was the one who wanted this done. God wasn't just guiding Bush, god was commanding him. That is close to being a lunatic if it doesn't already qualify.

Now if we are to follow your logic (which seems to be "This is ok in my book" from what I can tell) that women who beat two of her three sons to death with a rock in Texas was innocent and pure, because she did what god told her to. Is that right? Where do you draw the line between a prophet and a nutcase?

A man who would let god, a being some believe in, while some don't, a being that we cannot even prove exists, call the shots is not a man I would want in that office. I don't want some religious zealot acting on behalf of some voice in his head. I want a man who follows the rules of logical thinking.

this is all a matter of personal religious beliefs. christians believe they have a relationship with God, and can hear his voice (whether its a physical voice, or strong intuition of sorts, i dont know). i thought you liberals were against discrimation? why the double-standard against christians?

the principles of christianity define this nation, as it was founded on basic Biblical principles. in fact, public education was created for the sole purpose of teaching the Bible. some would contend that believing in God is far more logical, than say... evolution?

again.. this is a matter of personal beliefs. if you dont like bush because you feel he is a 'religious zealot' then more power to you. vote for kerry. you know, john "I'm a Catholic....but I disagree with those views" kerry.

 

[rkef]

How about 3,029 reasons?

Or is it over 10,000?

How about 1,086 more?

Maybe 7,500 more?

Given that nearly 7 times as many soldiers have died during the "Post Combat Ops" period; wouldn't you say someone, perhaps the man in question (and the endless supply of creeps who surround him), made some extremely large mistakes? They're babysitting carbombs over there.

The President said they would stay there "until the job is done"; what was the job? Saddam has been captured, the weapons problem has been taken care of (barrels of Sarin gas, my arse -- that was completely discounted, as were countless other false alarms); who said anything about pacification? Who said anything about nation-building? It's all an after-thought, an excuse.

Collective amnesia.

Here's a "game" for those of you who are bored: set your mousewheel to scroll 1 or 2 lines each roll, hit that first link I gave, and keep track of how long it takes to get to the end of the page, then explain to us how they died for a good cause. Tell us how you'd be willing to die to secure Iraq, for the cause of freedom.

Lastly, where's Waldo?

"What would they do to me," he asked in confidential tones, "if I refuse to fly them?"

"We'd probably shoot you," ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen replied.

"We?" Yossarian cried in surprise. "What do you mean we? Since when are you on their side?"

"If you're going to be shot, whose side do you expect me to be on?" ex-P.F.C. Wintergreen retorted.

 

[Owskie]

The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense founded on the Christian religion

by Jim Walker

Many Religious Right activists have attempted to rewrite history by asserting that the United States government derived from Christian foundations, that our Founding Fathers originally aimed for a Christian nation. This idea simply does not hold to the historical evidence.

Of course many Americans did practice Christianity, but so also did many believe in deistic philosophy. Indeed, most of our influential Founding Fathers, although they respected the rights of other religionists, held to deism and Freemasonry beliefs rather than to Christianity.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The U.S. Constitution

The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. (For those who think the date of the Constitution contradicts the last sentence, see note 1 at the end.) The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the Founding Fathers purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the 1st Amendment. As to our freedoms, the 1st Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine]

Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st,1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.

Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society. On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Declaration of Independence

Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. The reason appears obvious: the Declaration mentions God. (You may notice that some Christians avoid the Constitution, with its absence of God.)

However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It came before the establishment of our lawful government (the Constitution). The Declaration aimed at announcing the separation of America from Great Britain and it listed the various grievances with them. The Declaration includes the words, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold today, and we have more than thirteen states.

Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets and believers, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. It represents a historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our government.

Of course the Declaration stands as a great political document. Its author aimed at a future government designed and upheld by people and not based on a superstitious god or religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all get born with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." Please note that the Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity. It bears repeating: "Governments are instituted among men."

The pursuit of happiness does not mean a guarantee of happiness, only that we have the freedom to pursue it. Our Law of the Land incorporates this freedom of pursuit in the Constitution. We can believe or not believe as we wish. We may succeed or fail in our pursuit, but our Constitution (and not the Declaration) protects our unalienable rights in our attempt at happiness.

Moreover, the mentioning of God in the Declaration does not describe the personal God of Christianity. Thomas Jefferson who held deist beliefs, wrote the majority of the Declaration. The Declaration describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy and might even appeal to those of pantheistical beliefs, but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Treaty of Tripoli




Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]


Click here to see the actual article 11 of the Treaty

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1997.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Common Law

According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

But one of our principle Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "ancien scripture", in reference to common law history. The term meant "ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean "Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from the Bible. Jefferson writes:

"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."

Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds: "The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the right to speedy trial.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For another article on this subject visit The Early America Review: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: The end of the Constitution records the year of its ratification, "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Although, indeed, it uses the word "Lord", it does not refer to Jesus but rather to the dating method. Incredibly, some Christians attempt to use this as justification for a Christian derived Constitution. The term simply conveys a written English form of the Latin, Anno Domini (AD), which means the year of our Lord (no, it does not mean After Death). This scripted form served as a common way of dating in the 1700s. The Constitution also uses many pagan words such as January (from the two-headed Roman god, Janus), and June (named after the Roman Goddess Juno). Can you imagine the ludicrous position of someone trying to argue for the justification of a pagan god based Constitution? The same goes to any Christian who attempts to use a dating convention as an argument against the Constitution's secular nature, and can only paint himself as naive, or worse, as dishonest and deceiving.

 

[othello]

7 minutes.. btw.. and when your a president you dont SIT and think about something like that, your supposed to be prepared..

im breaking ranks... ive been trying to go back page by page amd respond to everyones posts. you call this 'ignoring your posts/points' or whatever... i call it being fair.

sorry... you're wrong. it was 5 minutes. tell me how someone is supposed to be prepared to receive news like that, president or not? how long did it take you to digest the magnitude of this atrocity? a lot longer than 5 minutes im willing to wager. and all the while he was communicating with his staff (behind the cameras), while they were scrambling to gather as much information as possible, without alerting the media that was present.

 

[Owskie]

in end, we werent founded on christianity

 

[DoctorGordon]

this is all a matter of personal religious beliefs. christians believe they have a relationship with God, and can hear his voice (whether its a physical voice, or strong intuition of sorts, i dont know). i thought you liberals were against discrimation? why the double-standard against christians?

the principles of christianity define this nation, as it was founded on basic Biblical principles. in fact, public education was created for the sole purpose of teaching the Bible. some would contend that believing in God is far more logical, than say... evolution?

again.. this is a matter of personal beliefs. if you dont like bush because you feel he is a 'religious zealot' then more power to you. vote for kerry. you know, john "I'm a Catholic....but I disagree with those views" kerry.

Theres alot of things i could debate in there, particularly the more stupid of points.

 

[Owskie]

im breaking ranks... ive been trying to go back page by page amd respond to everyones posts. you call this 'ignoring your posts/points' or whatever... i call it being fair.

sorry... you're wrong. it was 5 minutes. tell me how someone is supposed to be prepared to receive news like that, president or not? how long did it take you to digest the magnitude of this atrocity? a lot longer than 5 minutes im willing to wager. and all the while he was communicating with his staff (behind the cameras), while they were scrambling to gather as much information as possible, without alerting the media that was present.

im not willing to wager 7 minutes or 5 minutes, part of being a president is being prepared for such events and when you are prepared you do something about it right away.. .. oh like dont inform the media.. right like it wasnt being covered on the news at that moment anyways......... plus.. i have a big post you have yet to reply to

 

[DoctorGordon]

Oh and, who the heck cares if it was 5 or 7 minutes? Thats useless information. I wouldnt be surprized if it took him that long to recognize the agent.

 

[Owskie]

he sat like a lump NOT knowing what to do, unprepared for at least 5 minutes

 

[othello]

Oil production is declining. Demand is increasing, not only due to population but all these poor fools in their SUVs and oversized trucks. Gas prices are only going to get higher. The American Economy is in peril, and the only solution is war. We must steal energy from soverign nations by proclaiming them to be terrorists. This is the story of Iraq.. the story of the American and Iraq lives lost to the cause.

well i agree with the first part. i cant stand SUVs and giant trucks. i live in the DFW metroplex, here in north texas, and we have more SUVs than almost any other state. WTF is up with that? we are, like, the flattest state in the nation! it so pathetic, i wish we could outlaw and destroy all vehicles that dont maintain at least 30 mpg lol.

as for you second part... its a bit off. we have the fastest growing economy in 20 years... and one of the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years. our average GDP over the last year has been higher than the average of the entire clinton presidency.

war is an $80 billion a year industry... so yes it does help stimulate the economy in ways. but it is not our 'only answer'. and while you were coming off as intelligent, calling iraq 'sovereign' kinda ruined it for you.

 

[othello]

Theres alot of things i could debate in there, particularly the more stupid of points.

please do.

and btw, i never said we were founded on christianity, but that chrisitan principles helped define our nations birth. 52 out of the 55 founding fathers professed a faith in the Lord.

 

[othello]

And that's another thing the administration has done. They taken the word 'terror' and made it into the reason, excuse, fault, scapegoat, and adjective for every thing that happens in the US now. It is so incredibly broad it means basically anything.

Some Americans are 'terrorists' because they're not patriotic.

blind ignorance is no better than blind patriotism.

 

[Owskie]

thats fine, and it doesnt matter, their spiritual beliefs arent the spritual beliefs of the residents of america..

 

[Owskie]

blind ignorance is no better than blind patriotism.

Bush is actually a terrorist by definition.. and so are the fighters in the war.. lets fight terrorism with terrorism, and then lets fight to stop fighting.. and then we can **** to save virginity

 

[Logic]

please do.

and btw, i never said we were founded on christianity, but that chrisitan principles helped define our nations birth. 52 out of the 55 founding fathers professed a faith in the Lord.

Do you then believe that Christian beliefs SHOULD be active in America's politics? If so, is that not discriminating against people with different cultural beliefs?

For that matter, isn't failing to recognise gay marriages etc also discrimination against differing cultural beliefs? I thought America was supposed to be multi-cultural!

 

[Owskie]

Do you then believe that Christian beliefs SHOULD be active in America's politics? If so, is that not discriminating against people with different cultural beliefs?

For that matter, isn't failing to recognise gay marriages etc also discrimination against differing cultural beliefs? I thought America was supposed to be multi-cultural!

well said

 

[Revisedsoul]

im sorry othello but it seems you started this as a defend bush thread.
even though you are bashing people for links that are bias'd. Where you have been asked a few times to provide your evidence but have yet to give a single link.

and one other thing. if you saying your responding going page by page. you have already jumped over blahblahblah's comment on why to vote for kerry and have yet to comment on it.

 

[Moto]

Look Othello, just believe what you want to believe okay? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Don't come here and try to push your pro-this or pro-that stuff on us. Nobody cares who you vote for and you shouldn't care who other people vote for. If you want Bush to win, vote for him and hope for the best. Don't try to sway other people's opinions and get them to believe what you believe. It won't work, people are stubborn when it comes to changing their views.

EDIT: What RevisedSoul said ^^

 

[Neutrino]

please do.

and btw, i never said we were founded on christianity, but that chrisitan principles helped define our nations birth. 52 out of the 55 founding fathers professed a faith in the Lord.

I'm am curious where you got that statistic from. Also, it doesn't really say much as professing a faith in the Lord is not synomous with christianity.

Furthermore, it has little relevance to the discussion as those same founding fathers were adament about a seperation of church and state. So their religious views have little to do with it as their views on government are the primary concern.

I'm not saying that christian principles didn't influence things as I'm sure they probably did. But I don't see the correlation between that fact and government policies today.

 

[Edge]

Look Othello, just believe what you want to believe okay? Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Don't come here and try to push your pro-this or pro-that stuff on us. Nobody cares who you vote for and you shouldn't care who other people vote for. If you want Bush to win, vote for him and hope for the best. Don't try to sway other people's opinions and get them to believe what you believe. It won't work, people are stubborn when it comes to changing their views.

EDIT: What RevisedSoul said ^^

Actually I care who he votes for and I think him trying to convert others is admirable. Although I think his tactics are a little rough around the edges. He believes in something and is willing to fight for it. That is more than most Americans are willing to do. They just lay down and vote with their party or who they think the majority are voting for... although I at this point would not vote for Bush

 

[othello]

heres a very good reason... HES GIVING TAX CUTS TO THE ****IN RICH. am i the only person or isn't somethin ****ed up w/ that.i dont care what you say othello u cant contradict that, and you doing so would just prove that you are not here to change your view but speak up for a man who looking out for his buisness, in oil i should add....

sure i can. bush ran on a 'tax-cut' platform in 2000. he won the election fair and square. so he gave the people the tax-cuts they voted for. not only that, but his tax cuts have been very beneficial to our economy's success in the last year.

bush tax cuts are working.

would it matter to you if the democrats are supporting further bush tax cuts?

bush tax cuts already working.

a chart showing the burden falling on the rich

greenspan agrees: the tax cuts are working

bush tax cuts help economy

bush tax cuts helped avoid serious recession

greenspan praises the bush tax cuts

bush fails to get credit, tax cuts are fair

the funny thing is, kerry and teresa, paid less than 13% in taxes this year (12.8% exactly). while bush, who has a substantially lower income than the heinz-kerry's, paid over 28% in taxes. apparently earning over $6.5 million doesnt qualify as 'rich'.

 

[Revisedsoul]

thanks pat. i have a treible time putting what i think into something that seems well thought out(even though i do think it out well most of the time)

on a side note your link to your bike doenst work, i was disapointed

 

[blahblahblah]

sure i can. bush ran on a 'tax-cut' platform in 2000. he won the election fair and square. so he gave the people the tax-cuts they voted for. not only that, but his tax cuts have been very beneficial to our economy's success in the last year.

bush tax cuts are working.

would it matter to you if the democrats are supporting further bush tax cuts?

bush tax cuts already working.

a chart showing the burden falling on the rich

greenspan agrees: the tax cuts are working

bush tax cuts help economy

bush tax cuts helped avoid serious recession

greenspan praises the bush tax cuts

bush fails to get credit, tax cuts are fair

the funny thing is, kerry and teresa, paid less than 13% in taxes this year (12.8% exactly). while bush, who has a substantially lower income than the heinz-kerry's, paid over 28% in taxes. apparently earning over $6.5 million doesnt qualify as 'rich'.

You show glimpses of promise than fail to continue through. Tax code in the US serves 3 purposes.

1) To collect revenue to fund government operations.
2) To encourage activities deemed beneficial by the government (like buying a house).
3) To reduce the tax burden because of inequality reasons (why medical expenses are deductible).

 

[hiln]

I agree with Blahblahblah in saying neutrino's outlined and orderly post of why to get rid of bush is the most relevent in this thread. I think you should retort that before the rest Othello. Just in my opinion though.

 

[qckbeam]

this is all a matter of personal religious beliefs. christians believe they have a relationship with God, and can hear his voice (whether its a physical voice, or strong intuition of sorts, i dont know). i thought you liberals were against discrimation? why the double-standard against christians?

This is nothing against Christians. I have a problem with a man who says he makes decisions based off what some invisible being is telling him. I don't care who you are or what religious background you have. If you're making decisions, creating policy, or doing pretty much anything based off what voices in your head are saying, you need to be kicked the hell out office asap. Of course, Christians will disagree with me on this, because you all seem to believe god does actually speak to people, and don't have such trouble hearing George talk about how god told him who to attack, and about how he is gods chosen one. For me on the other hand, that's a load of psycho-babble, and quite frankly it scares me to hear it spewing from the mouth of the guy leading the country.