Give me ONE reason...

[othello]

i have given a few valid reasons, you agree'd with a few, dissagreed with others, i respect your reply .. thank you

hey no problem... im sorry if i come off as a prick at times, its not my intent. i just went through 18 pages od posts in less than 24 hours... that was a bit exhausting. i am very, very active on various political forums... so i have a bit of callous to the opposing side unfortunately... just as many people have a pres-set disposition against any bush supporter. its hard to remain objective sometimes... especially when some people really have no clue at all what theyre talking about. :|

 

[othello]

Othello, do you believe in multiculturalism, or do you find it acceptable to discriminate against people with cultural beliefs different to your own? (I'm not accusing you of it, I just want to know what you think of the question)

it depends... i believe discrimination, in certain forms, is a valuable tool. i dont believe malicious discrimination is acceptable in any form. maybe discrim. isnt the right word. cultural profiling? lol. if a culture as a history of hatred and violence, i believe they should be watched with a closer eye than those without... can i put it that way?

 

[joule]

I don't need to say anything. The clips speak for themselves.

http://www.muchosucko.com/video-abuguhwhat.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushboys.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushgetsserved.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushlikesharmingus.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushongynecology.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushsovereignty.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushvsbush.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-dubyadoesalittlestandupcomedy.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-foolmeonceuhhh.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-gaybar.html
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/bushlip.mpg
http://bushism.net/images/promovideo2.mov
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index....bushdrunk.wmv
http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=960813
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-kerryandbushoniraq.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushleaveiraq.html
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-bushflipsout.html
http://www***morsontheinternets.com/
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-10yearsofbush.html

 

[Sprafa]

it depends... i believe discrimination, in certain forms, is a valuable tool. i dont believe malicious discrimination is acceptable in any form. maybe discrim. isnt the right word. cultural profiling? lol. if a culture as a history of hatred and violence, i believe they should be watched with a closer eye than those without... can i put it that way?

Who in example ?

The Western society i.e. ?, who anihilated hundreds of thousands with their Cruzades, Inquisitions and Discoveries ?

 

[moppe]

Just another note on the healthcare.
I remember when I was climbing in the mountains, at my home.
The line broke, and I fell ~40 feet, broke both legs. Mountain rescue picked me up on thermal vision 1 hour later, and dropped me up at the hospital for emergency surgery, the next day I was "fine".

And with the goverment spending money on that, we still have the second highest quality of life in the world.

 

[Sprafa]

Just another note on the healthcare.
I remember when I was climbing in the mountains, at my home.
The line broke, and I fell ~40 feet, broke both legs. Mountain rescue picked me up on thermal vision 1 hour later, and dropped me up at the hospital for emergency surgery, the next day I was "fine".

And with the goverment spending money on that, we still have the second highest quality of life in the world.

Sweden rocks. :hmph:

 

[moppe]

Sweden rocks. :hmph:

And we still have a king that dosn't have any power at all, but nobody complains. Why so?

 

[Logic]

it depends... i believe discrimination, in certain forms, is a valuable tool. i dont believe malicious discrimination is acceptable in any form. maybe discrim. isnt the right word. cultural profiling? lol. if a culture as a history of hatred and violence, i believe they should be watched with a closer eye than those without... can i put it that way?

The way I see it, you either believe in multiculturalism or you don't. Are you prepared to tolerate those with cultural beliefs that differ from yours?

The views on homosexuality and religion that you've hinted at in this thread would suggest that you are indeed discriminatory against those who are culturally different - you appear not to believe that there should be separation between christianity and politics, which is unfair to all non-christians in the country, and you also appear to believe that certain christian beliefs (that homosexuality is 'bad') should be enforced by law. That's why I asked the question. Your responses so far suggest to me that you are intolerant of those with different cultural beliefs to your own, but rather than straight out accuse you of that, I want you to have an opportunity to explain your views on the issue.

So.... do you believe in multiculturalism? If not, isn't cultural and religious freedom one of the fundamental parts of the American constitution? (I don't claim to know the constitution, but as far as I know, it is) And furthermore, aren't those freedoms basic human rights?

 

[The Monkey]

Just another note on the healthcare.
I remember when I was climbing in the mountains, at my home.
The line broke, and I fell ~40 feet, broke both legs. Mountain rescue picked me up on thermal vision 1 hour later, and dropped me up at the hospital for emergency surgery, the next day I was "fine".

And with the goverment spending money on that, we still have the second highest quality of life in the world.

That's why I pay 50% tax, so that you will be rescued I you fall down a mountain.

 

[moppe]

That's why I pay 50% tax, so that you will be rescued I you fall down a mountain.

And you will get money if you're unemployed.

 

[The Monkey]

And you will get money if you're unemployed.

Yes, but not if you got a job. Well I'm off to bed. Night.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Aw, for christmas's sake. Othello could have saved everyone a lot of time and effort of by just listing the reasons why he liked Bush in the first place.

Instead, his basis for liking Bush is based directly on what arguments he can believe he's refuting.

Othello: Give me one reason not to support Bush.

Everyone: Here are a thousand or so good reasons.

Othello: I can assume that at around 20 of you are wrong like MICHAEL MOORE is. Therefore, I support Bush.

Me: That's stupid on many levels. You're just ignoring the valid points and/or putting forward factually baseless assumptions in almost every case. I will write a one-act play to show my dissaproval.

Seriously, your support for Bush is entirely reactionary. It is based entirely on how many anti-Bush people you think you're trouncing.

When someone has a valid point, you say, oh, I guess your point is valid" and drop the subject. When a point is debatable, you put forward claims directly contrary to common knowledge without backing them up with proof. But when you think someone is wrong, you go into a big fervor of half-hearted mockery and post a shiteload of shakey facts from semi-popular links.

Didn't you ask everyone here to use thier own words? Why are you making everyone else work at a disadvantage? This target-range mentality isn't making your case stronger. Why should we read your links when you disregard ours?

"So what if there are irrefutable reasons not to elect Bush? Some of them are difficult for me to accept, so Four More Years!"

Just scrap this thread and start a new one where you list your reasons to vote for Bush, instead of getting all your opponents to write out reasons that you can shoot blindly at until you eventually hit a point. You're clearly over your head here.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i never said i should b/c im jewish, i was j/k about that anyways so calm down about that. and secondly anyone having any voices in there head is crazy to me until there is hard proof that it's god, and there is none so to me it's absurd. especially to mix them up w/ in gov't issues whether it be through schools or just plain old government.

I agree here, and it brings up an obvious point: if god is omnipotent, then why must he move in mysterious ways and act all shady in his communications to random people?
God's not Solid Snake. He's got infinite power, so why can't he use that power to communicate directly to us in a clear and unobtrusive way. It sure would stop every non-christian on earth from inadvertantly joining the army of satan.

But, instead, he leaves answering machine messages in people's heads without any proof whatsoever that he was ever even involved. I ask why.

 

[othello]

The way I see it, you either believe in multiculturalism or you don't. Are you prepared to tolerate those with cultural beliefs that differ from yours?

absolutely.

The views on homosexuality and religion that you've hinted at in this thread would suggest that you are indeed discriminatory against those who are culturally different - you appear not to believe that there should be separation between christianity and politics, which is unfair to all non-christians in the country,

no i believe that seperation of church and state is a phrase widely misused nowdays. i dont believe in a government-mandated religion, and i dont believe that the church should have a hand in the government (old rome, england, etc).

and you also appear to believe that certain christian beliefs (that homosexuality is 'bad') should be enforced by law.

i believe homsexuality is perverse and unnatural, and that the people choosing that lifestyle shouldnt have the right to be married, which is the union of a man and a woman.

That's why I asked the question. Your responses so far suggest to me that you are intolerant of those with different cultural beliefs to your own, but rather than straight out accuse you of that, I want you to have an opportunity to explain your views on the issue.

im not intolerant of anything really, except ignorance. im not out protesting homosexuality and trying to ban them from marriage, this is just my opinion. and i will vote for the person that coincides with that opinion. in typical cliche' fashion, i have plenty of gay friends and acquaintances, all of whom know where i stand on their lifestyle. doesnt prevent us from pwning some nubs, or watching the game, or just having a good time together. same goes for my bush-hatin' friends.

So.... do you believe in multiculturalism? If not, isn't cultural and religious freedom one of the fundamental parts of the American constitution? (I don't claim to know the constitution, but as far as I know, it is) And furthermore, aren't those freedoms basic human rights?

yes i do believe in multiculturalism. the constitution guarantees all men the right to follow whatever religion they choose. nothing is infringing upon that right.

 

[Sprafa]

othello, you lose.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=850855

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewsofamerica/story/0,15221,1327568,00.html

 

[othello]

Aw, for christmas's sake. Othello could have saved everyone a lot of time and effort of by just listing the reasons why he liked Bush in the first place.

Instead, his basis for liking Bush is based directly on what arguments he can believe he's refuting.

Othello: Give me one reason not to support Bush.

Everyone: Here are a thousand or so good reasons.

i have YET to see a good reason (other than the ones i have already advocated of course).

Othello: I can assume that at around 20 of you are wrong like MICHAEL MOORE is. Therefore, I support Bush.

Me: That's stupid on many levels. You're just ignoring the valid points and/or putting forward factually baseless assumptions in almost every case. I will write a one-act play to show my dissaproval.

im not assuming that some of the people are wrong... im flat-out saying it. i didnt realize the people here were incapable of independent research, and were relying solely on any links i provided... my mistake. ill be mor thorough from here on out. however, your assuming my posts are baseless and/or factless. now that ive admitted my mistake, its time to admit yours.

Seriously, your support for Bush is entirely reactionary. It is based entirely on how many anti-Bush people you think you're trouncing.

oh is it? thanks for that nugget of insightful wisdom.

When someone has a valid point, you say, oh, I guess your point is valid" and drop the subject. When a point is debatable, you put forward claims directly contrary to common knowledge without backing them up with proof. But when you think someone is wrong, you go into a big fervor of half-hearted mockery and post a shiteload of shakey facts from semi-popular links.

Didn't you ask everyone here to use thier own words? Why are you making everyone else work at a disadvantage? This target-range mentality isn't making your case stronger. Why should we read your links when you disregard ours?

i dont disregard yours. i just didnt want people to respond with a link of thousandreasons.com or whatnot. i wanted to hear the personal reasons. ive read every link that has been posted within someones reponse. yet again with your, what was it, 'baseless assumptions'?

"So what if there are irrefutable reasons not to elect Bush? Some of them are difficult for me to accept, so Four More Years!"

name one. ban on homosexual marriages? ok. doesnt support stem cell research? fine with me. is against universal health care? a little shaky, but i accept it. none of those reasons have i really contended with.

Just scrap this thread and start a new one where you list your reasons to vote for Bush, instead of getting all your opponents to write out reasons that you can shoot blindly at until you eventually hit a point. You're clearly over your head here.

clearly. i wouldve hoped for more than a few sophomoric attempts to discredit me while im busy responding to everyone else's post. cleary your clairvoyance is astounding, and i should just hang my head in shame.

 

[othello]

othello, you lose.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=850855

thats a link to edit a post. gg on that one.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44008

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/viewsofamerica/story/0,15221,1327568,00.html

these two i will read when i get back from school. ooh, i cant wait... the guardian. clearly a source of unbiased and truthful journalism. :O

 

[Top Secret]

right... sorry if i didnt quite make the distinction. the fact remains, we wouldnt have gone to war if congress hadnt voted for its authorization.

Wrong. I think you need to read up on the Executive branch. The president has the power to send our troops anywhere in the world for sixty days without the Senates consent. After the sixty days, the senate is allowed to choose wether the troops stay or go. Now, once you've started a war, it isn't so easy after sixty days of military action to just pack up and go home. The exact same thing happened in Vietnam. Did you know that the last *Offical* war the United States was in is World War 2? The others, including Iraq, and technically only Military Engagements (And the like) Stating that the Senate put us in this war, not Bush, is ignorance.

Oh, and QckBeam, you can just PM me that history lesson whenever you're ready. :thumbs:

 

[Logic]

yes i do believe in multiculturalism. the constitution guarantees all men the right to follow whatever religion they choose. nothing is infringing upon that right.

If you do believe in multiculturalism, and rights to cultural beliefs, then why do you support legal enforcement of a cultural belief?

Yes, marriage does have legal\financial aspects and consequences, but legally, a gay marriage would be no different to a normal marriage - it is still the union of two people, so all financial and legal concerns would be treated in the exact same way, since law does not, and should not, favor (or discriminate against) males or females. Since there would therefore be no legal difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual one, the ONLY difference resides in cultural beliefs - in this case christian tradition. And if christian tradition is being enforced by law, then the constitutional and basic human rights to freedom of religion and culture are being violated.

And that's my point. You're welcome to be disgusted by homosexuality, and you are of course entitled to the opinion that gay marriage isn't right, but such a viewpoint can not be enforced by law without violating rights every human is entitled to.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i have YET to see a good reason (other than the ones i have already advocated of course).

Yeah, there are 100% NO GOOD REASONS... except the ones that were good, but they don't count.

im not assuming that some of the people are wrong... im flat-out saying it. i didnt realize the people here were incapable of independent research, and were relying solely on any links i provided... my mistake. ill be mor thorough from here on out. however, your assuming my posts are baseless and/or factless. now that ive admitted my mistake, its time to admit yours.

How so? You say that UN Sanctions weren't enough to deter Saddam from making WMDs, even though that was exactly what they did. You say that the war in Iraq was justified because of a huge Al-Queda presence, even though that presence was practically non-existant. You say that Al Queda flooded into Iraq in order to protect the Al-queda who were already there for no reason. You say that the entire world knew for a fact that Saddam had WMDs, when in actuality it was only faulty evidence from about three countries.

And that's just the Iraq part!

i dont disregard yours. i just didnt want people to respond with a link of thousandreasons.com or whatnot. i wanted to hear the personal reasons. ive read every link that has been posted within someones reponse. yet again with your, what was it, 'baseless assumptions'?

You're missing the point again. Why must we list our reasons and have you attempt to shoot them down one by one, when you can't even give a list of your own?

name one. ban on homosexual marriages? ok. doesnt support stem cell research? fine with me. is against universal health care? a little shaky, but i accept it. none of those reasons have i really contended with.

I don't need to name one, because you just named three...and I wonder why you haven't contended with them, hm?

clearly. i wouldve hoped for more than a few sophomoric attempts to discredit me while im busy responding to everyone else's post. cleary your clairvoyance is astounding, and i should just hang my head in shame.

Perhaps you should, because my point still stands. Instead of posting a reasonable thread, you created a huge "I challenge all comers to prove me wrong" thread without even first putting forwards your opinion.

You decided you could take on the entire forum, when you are clearly incapable of that task. Your responses a scattered, sporadic and simply not powerful enough to stop the floodgates you've opened. You came here hoping that we would just set up our points in a line so that you could knock them over one-by-one, writing your own "56 deciets" in response to our opinions.

The problem, however, is that you are not up to the task. You've bitten off more than you can chew, so to speak. Your answers aren't in any way compelling, yet you ask us to prove you wrong, as though your opinion were the be-all of Bush support.

For that reason, you should just give up and try again with simpler bite-sized pieces.


Hey, wait a minute...

Othello started this thread absolutely confident that he was right, and charged in headfirst with no solid plan or facts.
Then, when met with resistance, he started trying to desperately hold on to the ever-worsening situation.
As fact after fact contrasted with his prior motivation, he's gone into spin control, rather than admitting his errors, while still clutching onto the ideal that his few good points will be enough to justify the whole endeavour and convince people that the resistance is insignifigant, despite their strength and success.

Sounds familiar, eh? :E

 

[dream431ca]

Give me one reason why i shouldn't vote to re-elect george bush... in your own words, not a copy and paste job. come on... give me one valid reason.

Ok. Here's alot of reasons:

1. Bush is making the world more anti-american.

2. Bush looks after other countries (Iraq) rather than his own.

3. Bush refused to supply evidence that WMD exisitance in Iraq but he went to war anyway.

4. Bush and Cheney tried to stop the 9/11 investigation (If you support this you are a moron.)

5. Instead of focusing on what he can do for America he focused on "Evil".

6. Bush would rather go to fund-raisers rather than the funerals of the American soldiers that he sent to their deaths.

7. Bush gets angry at other countries trying to be "democratic"

8. After the 9/11 attacks the world gave great sympathy to america while bush developed an arrogant attitude towards the world.

9. Instead of taking responsibilty for his mistakes he blames it on the CIA.

10. Bush threatens europe over the ICC (International criminals court). Bush was reluctant to join because he himself was a criminal (Iraq)

There are some reasons. Go do some research you moron.

If bush gets in again..america will fall because of his arrogant behavior towards other countries..not to mention he treats the military like their expendable (Iraq). I hate bush with a passion as you can see. He has no idea how to run a country. Thank god I live in Canada so I don't have to live under a leader like yours.

 

[nicrd]

these two i will read when i get back from school. ooh, i cant wait... the guardian. clearly a source of unbiased and truthful journalism. :O

I'm not familiar with the guardian, but this article talks about a poll that was made in 10 countries, including canada, by respected publications. Here in Montreal, it was "La Presse" that was in charge of the poll and I can assure you its very respectable.

You ask for a reason why not to vote for Bush? Well maybe because he went to war in a place he had nothing to do. He received bad intelligence? Possible, but its not an excuse, war is not to be taken lightly. And war is not to be rushed when there is no emergency (get real, Sadam was maybe a threat, but it was far from urgent and a president should have enough judgement to see that). And about the UN against the war, do you suggest that the UN is useless in this kind of situation? Add to that the fact that he had no plan for getting out of Irak. Its not a surprise that today the situation is very difficult in Irak, the president should have been prepared for something like this. He has the responsibility to be prepared.

You have the right to like Bush as much as you want, but if you say he is perfect and every decision he took were the good ones, then you are ignorant and close minded.

 

[jverne]

anyone not seing the importance of oil reserves in iraq is a dumbass!
the first thing bush did in after "end of major military conflicts->aka end of war" was to bring the US oil companies and start pumping oil in the middle of war!!
WMD oh, please! what a lame excuse!!!!

if iraq would suddenly come to peace and establish theyre own (democratic and all that stuff) government and say to the US to fully leave the country, do you really think the US would leave!!?? oh please, they would overthrow the new goverment, with an lame excuse like the previous one!! the one thing i hate about the US is that they always use a very noble excuse to do something (start war,...) look back at WW1 and WW2 and not to mention Vietnam & CO!! sure other nations do it too, but the US makes it in a very pathetic way! like i've said before, wouldn't be much easyer to say the truth like "i'm going for the oil, anyone with me? those of you who aren't...FUC*K YOU... you can't do anything about it" at least you'd know where you stand!!

to tell you the truth with Kerry as president, i dout it would be much diffrent! it would only look diffrent!! ;(

but just for making someon happy i'd vote for Kerry! but on the other hand i loved to hear bushes stupid speeches! and also if Kerry wins who will we make joke of!??

 

[M16 Grenadier]

There isn't one.

 

[jverne]

tahts better!



listen to my new remix of Jenny from the Block:

"don't be fooled by the bombs that i got,
I'm still, I'm still Saddam from Iraq,
used to have a little, now i have lesssss,
everywhere i go, IIII get my ass kicked..."

:smoking:

need to finish it

 

[Mechagodzilla]

There isn't one.

Really? Because if you can give a good secular reason that a gay marriage ban isn't a bad idea, you get 150$. Unless you're willing to concede that point.

And if Bush is wrong on that point, how many more similar wrongs are there? Oh, an entire 20 page thread's worth, it seems.

Of course, I'm wrong. Bush has done absolutely nothing worthy of criticism. To think otherwise would be utterly naive.

 

[OCybrManO]

To think otherwise would be utterly naive.

Yes, dissenting views are unpatriotic... traitorous... treasonable, even. Give up your freedom of speech. Resistance is futile.

If this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just as long as I'm the dictator.

 

[othello]

There isn't one.

see i disagree... like mech has drilled over and over. the issue of homosexuals and marriage. while the majority of the american people support the ban, mech does not. so for him that is a legitimate reason to NOT vote for bush.

kudos.

some people also disagree with bush on stem cell research... thats a reason for them. more power to you.

mech, i didnt start this thread to refute all negative attitudes or opinions of bush, i actually started this thread to see why people wouldnt want to vote for him, as i very strongly do. it wasnt until people started spitting out their own personal unenlightenment that i started rebutting their 'reasons'. i have explained that.

 

[othello]

If this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot easier... just as long as I'm the dictator.

well, do you disagree?

 

[Neutrino]

Hmm, that was a lot of reading.

I might come back to this later if I have time.

 

[othello]

Hmm, that was a lot of reading.

I might come back to this later if I have time.

now you know how i felt. within an hour of starting this thread i was 4 pages behind in comments. people wouldnt even give me a chance. :x

 

[othello]

Wrong. I think you need to read up on the Executive branch. The president has the power to send our troops anywhere in the world for sixty days without the Senates consent. After the sixty days, the senate is allowed to choose wether the troops stay or go. Now, once you've started a war, it isn't so easy after sixty days of military action to just pack up and go home. The exact same thing happened in Vietnam. Did you know that the last *Offical* war the United States was in is World War 2? The others, including Iraq, and technically only Military Engagements (And the like) Stating that the Senate put us in this war, not Bush, is ignorance.

i agree, and i never said that. what i said is that we wouldnt be at war, without congressional approval. sure we wouldve invaded and used our military force through the presidential power you mentioned, im not contesting that. saying 'bush sent us to war' is just as naive... there was a lot more to it than that.

btw, wheres your disdain for clinton and serbia, bosnia, somalia, haiti, yugoslavia, kosovo etc? ;(

 

[Locust]

Alot of citizens wanted to go to war as well. more so than didn't want to go.

 

[Neutrino]

Alot of citizens wanted to go to war as well. more so than didn't want to go.

A lot of citizens also thought that Iraq was connected to 9/11 at the time too.

 

[othello]

Instead of posting a reasonable thread, you created a huge "I challenge all comers to prove me wrong" thread without even first putting forwards your opinion.

You decided you could take on the entire forum, when you are clearly incapable of that task. Your responses a scattered, sporadic and simply not powerful enough to stop the floodgates you've opened. You came here hoping that we would just set up our points in a line so that you could knock them over one-by-one, writing your own "56 deciets" in response to our opinions.

The problem, however, is that you are not up to the task. You've bitten off more than you can chew, so to speak. Your answers aren't in any way compelling, yet you ask us to prove you wrong, as though your opinion were the be-all of Bush support.

For that reason, you should just give up and try again with simpler bite-sized pieces.

that isnt what this thread started out to be at all, and i have explained that before. im sorry if my answers are 'scattered' i was being blasted by you and others for not responding and whatnot, or ignoring certain posts, and the simple truth was that i was 5 pages behind!

i certainly wasnt up to the task of responding to everyones post quickly and effectively... ill give you that. but was it more than i could chew? definitely not. all ive gotten from you is disconcerting responses and mindless dismissals. so all your little assertions about me i could turn right back around on you.

Hey, wait a minute...

Othello started this thread absolutely confident that he was right, and charged in headfirst with no solid plan or facts.
Then, when met with resistance, he started trying to desperately hold on to the ever-worsening situation.
As fact after fact contrasted with his prior motivation, he's gone into spin control, rather than admitting his errors, while still clutching onto the ideal that his few good points will be enough to justify the whole endeavour and convince people that the resistance is insignifigant, despite their strength and success.

Sounds familiar, eh? :E

no... not at all.

 

[othello]

A lot of citizens also thought that Iraq was connected to 9/11 at the time too.

so did most of the world and our government officials.

 

[Neutrino]

so did most of the world and our government officials.

No, the Bush adminstration said there were connections to Al quida. (Which later turned out to be rather insignificant.)

They did not say there were connections to 9/11, though they did certainly try to imply it in my opinion. But there was never any evidence that linked Iraq to 9/11.

 

[othello]

well the same stuff can be said about your media and your links and your news. there really is no such thing as a neutral news source. they're all leanin to one side

not even in the slightest. i suggest checking the links before saying something like this. i have everything from freerepublic.com to salon.com, cnn, miamiherald, and lots of others.

yes... the bush tax cuts have been beneficial to the economy, and are partially responsible for the amazing growth our economy is experiencing/has experienced. im sorry your dad lost his job, but its interesting that he lost it after 9/11. thousands lost thier jobs as well. next thing i know, you'll blame 9/11 solely on bush, thus justifying this whole argument.

well maybe they have been beneficial to people around you but i haven't heard anybody i know or anyone i know knows that thinks they did anything to help us. maybe rich people...

nope... the tax cuts place more of the burden on the rich, as they end up paying a larger portion. unless of course you find loopholes and end up paying less than 1/3 of what you are supposed to pay... like john kerry did.

sorry... my state has nothing to do with anything, just a place of residence. if this has 'proved' something to you, it really shows how little you rely on facts. you want a neat fact? bush's hometown newspaper in crawford, tx endorses kerry. so just stop while your... well... behind, really.

never been behind, being behind or ahead is all how one perceives it. to me you sound ridiculous, but to you i do so....

meh... factually you are.

and i assume you think that the prosperous economy under clinton is somehow related to something he did? clinton inherited a somewhat prosperous economy, with a slew of reforms and economic policies still in effect and that wouldnt show complete results for a few years, that all aided in the good economy during the 90's. you want to see clinton's effect on the economy? the economy was steadily declining in '99 (possibly late '98) and continued to do so when bush took office. obviously bush cant effect the economy immediately, so the blame cant fall on him for the decline in economic prosperity from '99-'01.

if hes such a great president the economy wouldn't have decined in 01, he woulda at least stabalized it :/

do you honestly believe that any reforms bush put forth in 2000 would've had a significant effect on the economy prior to 9/11 in 2001? hell, some plans take nearly a decade... prime example is reaganomics. it was forecasted to show significant and positive effects on our economy in 8-10 years. guess who was in office then? your precious little clinton. the point is, a 8 months isnt really enough to time to even stabilize it, much less reverse the harm done by the clinton administration.

then 9/11 happened... not exactly a positive economic stimulant. and yet, despite both of these instances, we now have one of the highest GDP's in years, and the fastest growing economy in 20 years, according to the US Dept of Commerce. granted, its not as good as it was in the 90's... but weve suffered a significant loss. you can hardly blame bush for that. or, judging by the rest of your post, maybe you can... who knows?

yes i can blame bush for that, because you see.... he is what is that word?? o ya a president! not to mention of one of the most powerful countries in the world. if we **** up the world tends to stutter along w/ us. so i do not blame him for what happened exactly as i blame him for not fixing it, it's been 3 years. things are really not much different, a lot of the facts you and even the other side get are usually wrong or biased one way so i really wouldn't listen to most of them.

as i said early... sure, 9/11 happened on bush's watch. so he deserves 8 months of blame. clinton deserves 8 years of blame. i blame bush for not taking the threats seriously, but in hindsight, nobody ever took it seriously... and that is the fundamental reason for 9/11.

kerry is a douche, its true... but i have barely even mentioned him. btw, clinton also took a $2 trillion national debt, and turned it into a $6 trillion national debt. wheres your outrage ove the $4 trillion. of COURSE we have a large defecit now... we're at war! we've had to make up for the damage 9/11 caused! making changes to the country isnt free, no matter how bad you socialists want it to be (lol).

ummmm i seem to remember you mentioning kerry many times, and i never said he was a douche. he may not be the best person either but i would rather have the lesser of 2 evils... then how did we come out on top?? your facts are wrong.... and DUH i know were at war... but maybe if someone didn't take it upon himself to be the "liberator of peace" and "free" a certain country (HA) then we wouldn't be at war like so many people didn't want and that money could be stimulating our economy and we could have jobs and better health care and better schools, instead of some little mans fascination w/ jets and bombs and guns....

i never said you said he was a douche. i was simply saying 'i havent mentioned him much, but yes... he is a douche'... more or less. how are my facts wrong? defecit and national debt are 2 different things. and yet once again, this is all bush's little power trip, right? do you people actually believe this shit? which is he, an incompetent fool, or an evil sadistic genius?

i would rather our president spend the money to make the changes he sees to be beneficial, and send our troops into a focused war against OBL, and saddam, and the islamic radical terrorists defending their 'totally unlinked to terror' stomping ground, iraq. then sit in his office, get his dick sucked, let his wife destroy health care and pass various other bills, and then send our troops to kosovo, haiti, somalia, serbia, bosnia, yugoslavia, etc...

well thats the problem the changes he sees beneficial, really arent... who do they help him and his comrades, about it. and where is this focused war againts OBL?? i believe when they had him pinned in the mountains they recalled a whole lotta troops and let him escape. infact why dont we have half the damn people in iraq than we do in afghanistan?? maybe they weren't totally unlinked but compared to other countrys surrounding and near him he was small fish, except for all that oil he was sitting on. i would rather have a president who like freedom instead of locking down the citizens and calling upon a draft. i would like a president that knew how to help the economy, and not lie and screw his people. and to a past comment, no this country is too diverse and too much hatred to be a big family... were more like distant cousins if anything.

i never said the war was focused on OBL... i said it was focused on OBL, saddam, and islamic radical terrorists. the problem, when we had OBL pinned in the mountains, is that we let a lot of local warlords chase after him, instead of pressing forward with more troops and capturing him ourselves. big mistake, imo. but im sure in your little world, those orders came directly from bush himself, right?

the reason we have more people in iraq, is because at the time, we perceived iraq to be a much larger threat. a man who has had WMDs before, has been pursuing them for the last 12 years, and that evidence shows had them up until 2002. when most of the free world tells you saddam has WMDs and plans to use them, which seems like a bigger threat? the situation i just described, or a man who is running for his life because he has already overseen his plan of attack on the US?

as proven already, the economy (even in the face of clintons failures and 9/11) is doing very, very well. oh and that draft you spoke of? yeah... the democrats are the one pushing that through congress. are you sure you know what you're voting for? john kerry's plan is to strengthen the number of troops in iraq and various middle eastern countries. bush's plan has already phased out troops in parts of europe and asia, and will do so in the middle east when the job is accomplished.

no because saddam has been refusing UN inspections since 1991. if he really did disarm, why wouldnt he allow a UN inspections team in for verification. theres a simple answer here, but it seems to be elduing the majority of you people. saddam has ignored over 15 UN resolutions over the last 12 years, what in the world makes you think he wouldve complied? you give saddam too much credit, thats part of the problem. you also give the UN too much credit... the same UN that backs away from sudan, libya, etc... and just acts like nothings going on... bush gave him a strict 6 month ultimatum and threatened to force him to disarm, if he didnt comply. saddam spat on his threat... so now saddam his captured and in jail.

yeah he has been refusing UN key word UN inspections. NOT US, so leave it to the UN, i dont care if it takes 10 more years sadam obviously wasnt going to attack us. i give saddam no credit, im not at all defending him but im defending us; and who the **** made bush the leader of the world? he shouldn't be giving any country any ultimatums. the whole world decided that was UN's job not the USA. thats why people hate us WERE FUCIN ARROGANT.

we left it to the UN for 12 years following the end of the Gulf War... and look what happened? bush isnt leading the world... hes leading the USA and taking whatever steps necessary to ensure the protection of you and me and our families. if that means rethinking the way weve approached the 'war on terror' in the past, then so be it. if that means bypassing the UN and their perpetual incompetence (not to mention all the anti-resolution votes that were bough off by saddam himself), then so be it. and if that means his methods and integrity is going to fall under intense scrutinization, then so be it.

yeah im filthy rich... i cant get a job anywhere and ive been searching for 9 months straight. i have a fiance and little daughter, and i cant ****ing support them. it feels wonderful not having all this money and enjoying those tax breaks for rich people like me. and on a side note, my dad just got back from baghdad, and my best friend in the whole world is being shipped to tikrit in 2 weeks.

well sorry to hear you cant get a job, but neither can i so i cant feel real sorry for you there. if you have a fiance and a daughter all you can do is try harder, b/c w/ a daughter no job is worse then having any job :/ and i have friends going to iraq too so sorry no care points from me there, he chose to go, the draft isn't here yet. thats what happens when you sign up for the army, you go to war :/

well im glad you realize that the war is completely voluntary, made up of consenting adults who understand the potential risk and are old enough to make their own decisions. i half-expected you to start saying bush was sending our children to die, against their will, no less. im not looking for your pity or your sympathy. life is great. i love my fiance' very much, and she loves me immensely as well. she has a beautiful 2 year old daughter named justice, that i have taken on as my own, and i love her very much as well. money isnt everything... it just makes this life a lot easier.

without resorting to insults, it would really benefit you to do some research into these regurgitated, and easily debunked, conspiracy theories you are so ignorantly tossing around.

i haven't stated any conspiracies, my first post was conspiracies and i was kidding. like i said what you think is fact i dont think is fact. you wont be swayed and neither will i, both parties have their news outlets and we dont actually get the truth about shit so maybe no one should vote.

lets see... kerry has cnn, nbc, cbs, abc, bbc, the majority of the AP, as well as the majority of nation-wide newspapers and magazines. bush has foxnews... sometimes. ya its totally fair.

 

[othello]

No, the Bush adminstration said there were connections to Al quida. (Which later turned out to be rather insignificant.)

They did not say there were connections to 9/11, though they did certainly try to imply it in my opinion. But there was never any evidence that linked Iraq to 9/11.

ahhh... ok sorry you're right.

 

[DoctorGordon]

Riddle me this othello:

What do you have to say about stem cell research?