George W`s hotmail inbox

[scubywrxr]

This is da inbox of the president of the United States

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/bushmail.html :lol:

[jeroen40]

[/url]http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/bushmail.html[/url]

[scubywrxr]

sorry bout the link boys .. have corrected it above to make it clicky

[graywolf624]

sigh. I wonder how you would react to a joke about your leader. Especially ones with no basis in reality.

[Toronto]

hahaha 2,145,980 emails form god

[scubywrxr]

sigh. I wonder how you would react to a joke about your leader. Especially ones with no basis in reality.

If u read the webpage carefully with approriate critique u would realise that its really a light hearted poke at everyone concerned... mailers and mailee :wink:

[graywolf624]

I did. I'm just getting tired of the large number of jks at his expense and the bias opinions of him.

I realize it is tongue and cheek but there are far too many people that actually believe this crap for me to find it funny.

[Vansquish]

Unfortunately it is quite difficult to separate fiction from reality with Dubya... so much the worse for our country.

[scubywrxr]

Remember that u guys voted for him or in the majority of the cases did not even bother to attend the polls becoz of general apathy ...
In a poll in chicago most of the people did even know who the president was in the first place.. I saw the interviews on CNN 4 months ago!

Hey .. in South Africa Mbeki got voted in and we still laugh about it today... :D
Remember though that more than 85% of our voting population excuted their democratic right...people are much more politically concious in SA becoz of our notorious past :roll:

[graywolf624]

Remember that u guys voted for him or in the majority of the cases did not even bother to attend the polls becoz of general apathy ...


Hey .. in South Africa Mbeki got voted in and we still laugh about it today...
Remember though that more than 85% of our voting population excuted their democratic right...people are much more politically concious in SA becoz of our notorious past


Thats just the thing. Bush isn't a bad president. He hasn't done anything to deserve that rep. In fact hes one of the few that seems from a distance to stand for his convictions(whether you agree or disagree. I am about 50-50).

I just can't get over how people can never drop minor speech fauxpas but the previous guy could lie to the public and get away with it. Hardly seem fair.

[Vansquish]

...well...I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Bush isn't a bad president...he's really made a hash of the economy, and of our international relations. He has no decent sense of foreign policy etiquette, and by far he is the worst-speaking president I can ever remember having seen, and that includes all sorts of speeches by presidents ranging all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century. He exudes a presence, but unfortunately it is laughable and moronic. He's been trying to flex the US's muscles, but he's only making enemies and turning us into the laughing stock of the rest of the world. The scariest thing is that he's going to get re-elected.

[graywolf624]

he's really made a hash of the economy, and of our international relations. He has no decent sense of foreign policy etiquette, and by far he is the worst-speaking president I can ever remember having seen, and that includes all sorts of speeches by presidents ranging all the way back to the beginning of the 20th century.

He had nothing to do with the economy. Firstly presidents have no effect on the economy. Second the economy works on a delay affect. So the problems actually began during clintons time in office(not that it was clintons fault either).
Foreign policy- he told the un to stuff it. Whether it was a good thing or not is up for debate(aka what your opinion of why france and germany were out). Either way, it doesnt mean hes a bad president. He certainly isnt the imperialist they continually accuse him of. And anyone who compares him to hitler needs their head examined. I could point out how we needed a tough president on foreign policy. That pansy clinton let us got walked over. That would be an opinion. Neither stance makes that person a bad president.

And as for flubbs. Do I need to show you goreism page again(to demonstrate how they concentrate on bush unfairly?) or do I need to explain to you how theres no correlation between intelligence and public speaking. This is exactly what Im talking about. People listen to the media and dont see all the facts. Whether you agree with iraq or his take on several other issues. He hasnt hurt the country in any way. Neither makes him an idiot or a monster.

[graywolf624]

I decided to add something to economy statement. In 1996 Alan Greenspan called the economy a bubble saying we were experiencing irrational exuberance. He (easily the most powerful man in terms of money in the US) said that if not stopped we would get this recession(which by the numbers is a return to norm, not a catastrophy). He couldn't implement his fixes so we ended up in recession (no man controls the economy, we all do).

[Vansquish]

I agree..presidents don't have much of an effect on the economy, however, Bush continually talked it down as he was climbing the ladder to the presidency. I never compared him to Hitler, nor will I. Saddam is much closer on that count. I won't deny that Bush has his heart in the right place with regards to the country, but I cannot disregard the fact that he and many of his compatriots have interests at heart that run parallel to and sometimes at cross-purposes with the national interests.
He is an oilbaron, and he has oilbaron friends. I don't know whether or not that was a factor in Iraq, and I don't care to speculate on it. The idea that Bush wants to drill in Alaska, within our National Parks system and in doing so destroy much of what has been protected so diligently really fries me. He doesn't seem to have any interest in the environment. Witness the fact that during his presidency he helped put a loophole into place so that massive vehicles, i.e. large SUV's would get their owners tax-breaks (but only if the owners are in the highest tax bracket to begin with), and if you happen to be a company in search of fleet vehicles for work-related transportation, you can get the entire price of a brand new H2 written off as a work expense, that is better proof of his oil-ties, and questionable interests.
On a different angle, the idea of marriage being a sacred institution between a man and a woman is all well and good. What of the people who don't fall under that category? The LGBT community of the USA is not a small group. Millions of American men will never fall in love with a woman, but with a man, and the same goes for the Lesbian community. What right does the government have to say what Marriage is, and how it can be recognized. If marriage is a sacred vow between two loving individuals and it is verified in some sort of religious ceremony, then the government, by the nature of the United States Constitution cannot interfere. The separation between church and state has been thinning under the Bush regime, and when he is re-elected, it will likely fail even more severely.
Back on the foreign policy thing...
I cannot say that Clinton was perfect, I don't think that any president we've ever had could be thusly classified, but he was a truly brilliant speaker. He could hold an audience, make crucial points, and react to questions with intelligent answers. Bush, when asked direct questions about controversial topics, defaults to tangential conversations, and skirts the issue. If that is intelligence, then he has lots of it. Clinton made a hash of a couple of sorties in foreign countries, most notably the Chinese Embassy bombing and the fly-over bombardments he ordered. However, on the whole he managed to keep tensions low enough that they were below the boiling point. North Korea was not too unmanageable, the Palestinians and the Israelis were sitting and talking...there was one of the longest cease-fires in Israel's history during the Clinton administration. Bush cannot seem to act with any sort of international dignity. He makes remarks that are not well thought out, "crusades" etc..., and makes preemptive moves. The US has not gotten its reputation as a world power by first-strike operations. We have lost face, and if nothing else, that makes Bush unworthy of his position.

There is a difference between a bad president and a bad person. I do not think that Bush is evil or that he has malice for the people of our country, but I do not think he should be in this position of power.

[Vansquish]

I remember that statement by Greenspan, and he most definetely has the greatest impact on our economic numbers. However, by percentage, we experienced a greater fall than in the '29 stock market crash. Whether or not it was a "return to norm" it is still a stock market crash and it did impact the economy and lose thousands of people their jobs.

[graywolf624]

First on the economy- those thousands of people that lost jobs. That puts us at 6 percent unemployment. Better then average in history. The stock market. The price per earning ratio says that stocks are still inflated. It wasn't all that big a deal.

[graywolf624]

See but that still isn't bad president even. Thats disagrees with your political opinions. Still 2 different things.

First. On foreign policy. We haven't lost face with the countries that matter. You do realize how many countries backed us? Just because Russia Germany and France didn't doesnt mean we jumped the gun. Do I need to point out who iraqs biggest trading partners are. If you want to disagree with the war thats fine, but we havent lost face.

Gay marriage- yet another opinion issue. Your right govt shouldnt have a say.. marriage is a religious thing. The religions should tell them to stuff it and the government should quit caring about whos married. Thats my opinon. Does that make me a poor potential president? If the govt gives marriage to gays whats next? Palygamists? People who like animals? Nip it in the butt and get rid of marriage rights. Make it a religious thing again.

SUVS- All I have to say is.. There is no correlation between gas usage and pollution. Oil usage is not a bad thing. Oil dependency may be in which case we should consider minor pipelines in alaska. Still opinion topics.. nothing to do with good or bad.. sorry.

"large SUV's would get their owners tax-breaks (but only if the owners are in the highest tax bracket to begin with"

Oh now come on please... No such thing exists. Thats like saying the tax cut was only for the rich or that the rich pay less. The rich pay more.. more by numbers and more by percent.


Lastly the flubs. I think I have to post the goreisms for you. No one made a big deal about them. No one should be making a good deal about Bush.

tensions low enough that they were below the boiling point. North Korea was not too unmanageable, the Palestinians and the Israelis were sitting and talking...there was one of the longest cease-fires in Israel's history during the Clinton administration


He didnt do the economy and he didnt do that.

He could hold an audience, make crucial points, and react

He could lie and manipulate instead of tell you the truth. Which is better?

Goreisms- http://www.joke-archives.com/political/goreisms.html

All of this means he disagrees with your political opinions. Are all republicans or anyone else who doesnt have the same political views as yourself bad presidents or senators?
I'm not even a republican and I can see that the man is a good president.

[Vansquish]

SUVS- All I have to say is.. There is no correlation between gas usage and pollution. Oil usage is not a bad thing. Oil dependency may be in which case we should consider minor pipelines in alaska. Still opinion topics.. nothing to do with good or bad.. sorry.

Quote:
"large SUV's would get their owners tax-breaks (but only if the owners are in the highest tax bracket to begin with"


Oh now come on please... No such thing exists. Thats like saying the tax cut was only for the rich or that the rich pay less. The rich pay more.. more by numbers and more by percent.


Are you shitting me?!?! No...wait, I forgot, fossil fuels burn clean. I'm not going to argue this idiocy.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c108:3:./temp/~c108VsHIB1:e15249:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/Business/hybrid_suv_tax0301001.html

If you want more proof, go on google, or go look at congress.gov and type in SUV...see what comes up. There is a tax loophole that Bush capitalized on and made every effort to enlarge. As it stands now, people running small businesses can buy an Excursion for $47,000 and write off something on the order of $32-35k as a business expenditure and be reimbursed. If that's not bad enough, there is also a caveat that allows those in the highest tax bracket to capitalize on the same loophole. In addition, you probably didn't realize it, but vehicles that weigh more than 6000lbs gross weight do not have to publish fuel consumption figures. Once again a failing of the elephants of America.

[graywolf624]

Are you shitting me?!?! No...wait, I forgot, fossil fuels burn clean. I'm not going to argue this idiocy.

No I am not. There is little correlation between the amount of fuel burned and the amount of emission emitted. Please read about technology and how it has changed what is emitted. In fact.. the difference between what is even considered pollution differs in areas. Europe cares less about sulfur, we care less about co2. Not to mention global warming has not been proven.


There is a tax loophole that Bush capitalized on and made every effort to enlarge. As it stands now, people running small businesses can buy an Excursion for $47,000 and write off something on the order of $32-35k as a business expenditure and be reimbursed. If that's not bad enough, there is also a caveat that allows those in the highest tax bracket to capitalize on the same loophole.

There is nothing in there about highest tax brackets. Furthermore the point of the bill is to allow for a tax breaks for businesses to build capital. If their is a loop hole perhaps a) you should blame the people who wrote the bill(not bush). b) you should get them to adjust it so it says something like trucks that are actually used for business. Oh wait thats the way it is worded. They have to need the trucks.. Contrary to popular belief an suv is useful for small businesses. There is nothing in either article that says they have to be in a top bracket. IT says they can get a credit up to a certain dollar amount. Heck it isn't even a new policy. Its been around for decades. It was just increased. As youll see if you read the whole article.

[graywolf624]

To add my personal opinion now that weve covered this wasnt sinister.

I'm for a flat tax rate. Aka rich pay more poor pay less but they pay the same by percent. No loop holes allowed. Any other system breeds loopholes.
Thats my opinion on the matter. I also think Bush spends too much money. Im agaisnt social programs.
My opinions and political stance is different from his.
That being said I recognize that he is a good president. He doesnt take us rediculously towards his political standpoint. He stays true to his political stance and doesnt waver off it.
Thats a good president. You get what you thought you were gonna get.. no more no less.
Regardless of your political stance or his.

[fakepower]

i like oral prayer in the white house rather than oral sex.... but thats just me,

[blah]

Sorry graywolf, but he started a war on lies, Thats not good leadership. I dont think he is a good president at all. 3 Million jobs have been lost, and his tax breaks are not helping anyone but the rich.

[graywolf624]

Sorry graywolf, but he started a war on lies, Thats not good leadership. I dont think he is a good president at all. 3 Million jobs have been lost, and his tax breaks are not helping anyone but the rich.

Thats just bs. Funny but I got a refund check larger then usual. So did everyone else. 3 million jobs. What your missing is that we have 6 percent unemployment. If you ignore the fake high from 96-99 this is better then normal(before 96 below 6 percent unemployment was thought impossible). Also so good that most countries would kill to be in our position.
The war on lies. What lies? It took us a year to find Saddam so theres no proof that we wont find wmd. Even furthermore he felt they were there. Whether they were is not starting on lies. Bad info maybe but not lies. There is no proof of lies in the white house. Hes not the perfect president and I dont like his opinions. But please look at other sources before basis things on the clinton news network(cnn).


Do you consider someone who makes under 20k rich? Cause I got a tax break and thats all I made.
Do you consider the fact that the top 1 percent of our economy pays 35 percent of our governments taxes that they are getting some sort of free ride. How about that over 125000 dollars means your part of a group that pays 50 percent.

Sorry this is more opinion. And incorrect assumptions at that. Please base your opinions on fact. Aka if you want to support social programs go ahead. But dont assume because republicans dont that they are against the little guy. The tax cuts werent just for the rich. The rich got a portion just as everyone else did. Or are you saying that hard work shouldnt be rewarded by being allowed to keep their money?

[graywolf624]

and more on iraq. For the record saddam did at one point have wmd, he did have proven terrorist ties. Bush went to war with him because he thought him a threat to our well being.
Was he right, thats an opinion. Does it make him a bad president.. NO.

If you want to disagree with a persons political leanings then do so with an objective eye. Do not assume that republicans are out to give everything to the rich or that they went to war for their own gains. They really do think of things from these angles that you miss. Its not about giving to the rich to them its about rewarding those who work hard. It isnt about going to war with iraq over oil to them(if it were wed be taking their oil. we arent) its about national worry over iraq. Now whether you agree with these opinions reflects none on the intentions of the individuals.

I use to be a republican and I see where they are comming from. Don't let others tell you its some evil plan.

[blah]

It was proven months ago those Unemployment level numbers were flawed. Bush said that Saddam had Current WMDs, and he did not have terrorism ties, bush also said he had ties to al queda, that was proven to be off.

[graywolf624]

It was proven months ago those Unemployment level numbers were flawed. Bush said that Saddam had Current WMDs, and he did not have terrorism ties, bush also said he had ties to al queda, that was proven to be off.

Proof what proof. Those unemployment level numbers are not that much flawed. Do you even know how they are achieved? Any difference in them would be consistant judging by the fact theyve been used consistantly for many decades.
The truth of the matter is that some high profile fields are firing. The other truth is that others are suffering labor shortage.
The truth also is that the stock market is still considered unrealistically high or in a bubble by many economists.
The truth is that gdp is increasing..

OH so the fact that they found a head chieftan of al queda last week in iraq doesnt constitute ties? How about that Saddam offered a bounty for attacks on israelis. 2 known facts.

Please read what I added to my last post as well. Maybe you guys will learn to just disagree with their opinions after Im done.. Instead of monsterize republicans

[SFDMALEX]

Thanks god I never got into politics.....these arguments are the worst....

[graywolf624]

Bush said that Saddam had Current WMDs

First off that hasn't proven false. Second it was reasonable to assume if he previously had them that he still did. Remember the man booted out weapons inspecters. If you want to call it bad intel fine. That still by no means equals lies.

I'm not saying you have to agree with the decisions.
I am saying that you need to realize these things aren't done out of evil.

[mrzonda]

I don't know a lot about American politics, but I do know a few things (forgive me if I restate things that have been posted before):

Bush is a pretty good leader. Look at how he rallied the country after Sept 11. He was down at Ground Zero a few days later talking to the rescue workers.

He might not be the smartest guy in the world, but I think he gives great speeches. I think I've watched all of his State of the Union Addresses, and they've all been very well done as far as I'm concerned.

Bush didn't kill the economy. Sept 11. did. Maybe the economy was going to go into a recession anyway, but how many airline companies had to make huge cuts just to stay afloat? How much did the stock market drop in the days after?

I support the American war on Iraq because the UN stood around and did nothing while Sadam broke resolution after resolution. You can't say that the world isn't a safer place because Sadam isn't in power anymore.

Finally, over the last few months, I've been ashamed to be Canadian over the past few months because of the way our government stood around and did nothing to support our neighbours, among a few of the other sick things that are going around in our country now.

My 2 cents. :)

[blah]

Ok so graywolf, them finding a guy in iraq after they caught saddam, and the war was over proves what? he could have gone in there after the war. Saddam offered money to the FAMILIES of suicide bombers, not to terrorist organizations. Also graywolf, almost everyday the white house is recanting slowly about the WMD claims, so that was a lie. What high profile fields are firing? What i see is a bunch of retirements coming soon because the baby boom generation is reaching that age, i also see companies moving jobs out of the country.

Mr. Zonda Bush gives horrible speeches im sorry, Hitler gave great speeches, Bush just doesnt do well on that level. I think one of the few things he does well is give a tough face.

[Not Your Average Joe]

If you really want to know more about American foreign policy here's a link for you. If you want to know even more look around the site. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

[graywolf624]

Ok so graywolf, them finding a guy in iraq after they caught saddam, and the war was over proves what? he could have gone in there after the war. Saddam offered money to the FAMILIES of suicide bombers, not to terrorist organizations.

What is your definitiont of terrorist. A suicide bomber isn't a member of a terrorist organization or a terrorist to you? I said supports terrorism. I think that equals.


Also graywolf, almost everyday the white house is recanting slowly about the WMD claims, so that was a lie. What high profile fields are firing? What i see is a bunch of retirements coming soon because the baby boom generation is reaching that age, i also see companies moving jobs out of the country.

Still no tech on how our economy is doing bad. Firing fields. IT.. Yes there is an outsourcing but thats not the cause of it.
Manufacturing- same thing.
What people seem to forget is that recessions serve as a re3distribution of wealth and a shift in fields. For every field thats disappearing theres another building back up.


Also graywolf, almost everyday the white house is recanting slowly about the WMD claims, so that was a lie


Still no. You said the guy could come in. How about the wmd go out? That isn't possible? Yet again the point is they believed they were there and iraq was a threat to our security. I said before whether they were correct is an opinion. It wasnt done for some sinister motive though.

[graywolf624]

If you really want to know more about American foreign policy here's a link for you. If you want to know even more look around the site

What is this site? I disagree with the way they feel policy should go. Certainly isn't the definition of the US foreign policy. Just what someone feels it should be. Still it proves my point as before.


Personally I feel the US has to just keep out of all conflict. We just make ourselves a target getting involved. No one likes us unless we help them and only when we help them. Let them handle their own issues.(aka Im anti us in israel. Anti us in iraq. Anti us in bosnia. Anti us in korea. They are going to fight with or without us. Let them do it without us and we can fix our own problems. At least in that way people quit criticizing us for helping someone they dont think we should or helping where they dont want us too.



That being said I don't think someones evil or bad for being involved there.

edit-
And before someone accuses me of all about me. I believe in capitalism and competition as the key to a good nation. I give to charity and care. I just believe in a hand up not a hand out.

In actuallity this last bit is the only portion where Ive been political this whole time. The rest is just trying to point out that republicans aren't evil. I dont want to convert you to my way of thinking. Nor does it bother me what you believe. It does bother me that you think others are using something evily when they are not.

[SFDMALEX]

You guys having fun?

[graywolf624]

You guys having fun?

Not particularly. I'm defending someone I don't even agree withs policies. I just really hate that if someone has a different political philosphy they are evil. I see it on both sides. The republicans are said to only be for the rich. Then people say the democrats are communists that either just want power for themselves or want to give things to people for votes. I disagree for the most part with both.

I'm not a democrat or a republican. Frankly they aren't that much different. I understand their arguements/reasonings and base my leanings on that. To assume that either side is evil though .. that is a poor way to formulate ones opinion.

[Not Your Average Joe]

Certainly isn't the definition of the US foreign policy. Just what someone feels it should be.

This is true, however some of the people who signed that statement are today implementing US foreign policy, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to name a couple.

[graywolf624]

This is true, however some of the people who signed that statement are today implementing US foreign policy, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to name a couple

Good point. Either way it also shows the exact point I'm trying to make.
Opinions of how something that run republican or democrat do not equal bad or evil. It iis merely a matter of what you believe should be done to achieve the same goal. Safety for the world.

[blah]

Graywolf, have you called any of those "patriotic" companies for help as of lately? 9 times out of 10 you will get some guy from India who cant even speak a lick of english. Try calling dell. yet no one seems to want to do crap about this, im not blaming bush or anything, but some of his friends are fucking over our country.

[graywolf624]

Graywolf, have you called any of those "patriotic" companies for help as of lately? 9 times out of 10 you will get some guy from India who cant even speak a lick of english. Try calling dell. yet no one seems to want to do crap about this, im not blaming bush or anything, but some of his friends are fucking over our country.

First off what does this have to do with companies in the first place. Being republican has nothing to do with companies. As for the shift to abroad. That is happening everywhere. Heck china is upset because their labor is getting out sourced. I personally dont think its an issue because I believe in free trade which should result if other countries continue the current path. When we export our work to other countries as long as we have a shift to new fields we win. We get cheaper products for the customers. More profits for our country. More taxes for our country. As long as we shift our selves to other fields that are not exported. You can argue that this shift isn't occuring but at the moment it isn't failing us at any sort of bothersome rate. Our unemployment rate is right at what is believed to be our natural rate of unemployment. A rate we had for decades before the false bubble of 96-99. We simply aren't nor have we since the 80s had a really bad economic time. Our version of poor is can't afford a ps2 for crying out loud. The government has no right or place to put restrictions on where the jobs go. They need to encourage what allows these technological advancements to occur. Innovation. Discovering new fields that wont there.

The same thing has happened throughout time. When we replaced jobs with machines during the industrial revolution the same shout was heard. It didn't work like that.

What to do about it or if is a matter of opinion as well. Still not good or bad government but instead your take on the situation. If you can show me that tech advancement won't transfer the jobs to other fields then I'll believe you. At the moment though there are more then a few fields with labor shortage in the US.

[blah]

Where did i even say republican?

[graywolf624]

Where did i even say republican?

We are talking about Bush and his administration. Republicans. Thats what this is about. The fact that they do have reasons.

The companies leave to make money. I don't think it has anything to do with patriotism either way. It's not supposed to be.

Capitalism and free trade work because of competition. Thus the freedom to move and make money elsewhere.
It's based on the idea that if we move the cheap jobs elsewhere we will find something to do that we are better at then they. Their always is a comparitive advantage. Thats what your supposed to play too.
There is no such thing as an alturistic act. Everything ultimately is selfish. And my opinion is that the best system takes advantage of that fact. Others are of the persuasion that competition will fail.. Or that some people start out with an unfair advantage so we must level the playing field. Thats where political views come in.

[blah]

Im not going off if hes a republican, im just saying in general hes not the greatest weve had.

[graywolf624]

Im not going off if hes a republican, im just saying in general hes not the greatest weve had.

I never said he was the greatest. I said he wasn't bad. I also said his policies weren't evil.

[blah]

i never said they were evil either.

[snacky]

hahaha, that's freaken hilarious.

check out Gdub's niece, lauren bush, wowzers. I want bush . hehe

[graywolf624]

I never said they were evil either.


You said he was a bad president and several people (not necessarily here) have compared him to hitler.
He is neither. He is also not some slave to corporations. Neither is his administration. They just have a belief set that is different then yours.

[snacky]

GDub's got bad taste in cars, he drives a pickup, not a sportscar

[blah]

I never said they were evil either.


You said he was a bad president and several people (not necessarily here) have compared him to hitler.
He is neither. He is also not some slave to corporations. Neither is his administration. They just have a belief set that is different then yours.

if you dont think hes a slave to corporations then your blind, those non bidding contracts in iraq, which happen to go to his friends dont tell you anything? And saying hes a bad presiden, which in my opnion he is, doesnt make him hitler. Hitler killed 6 million jews, and hitler was a 20x better speaker.

[graywolf624]

if you dont think hes a slave to corporations then your blind, those non bidding contracts in iraq, which happen to go to his friends dont tell you anything?

The fact that only one contract went to anyone even remotely linked to his organization. This group was already in place so they could respond automatically. The issue was investigated and no issue with wrong doing was found.

Every action Bush has made is a republican ideal. Republicans contrary to popular belief are not all in league with corporations. Many of them are middle class people that believe in the same ideals the president does.

It's still a matter of opinion of the presidents actions rather then good or bad president. The man has done nothing wrong or immoral. The man has also always to our knowledged acted in line with his personal beliefs. If his beliefs were wrong. Fine.. But don't go putting alterior motives to the mans actions. You have no right (or insite) to judge what drives him. Neither do I.

[blah]

The Haliburton deals are still bieng dealt with, also just a quick note, if what that former CIA guy says is true, then that would make things very interesting do you not agree? I still think there was no reason to go into iraq, iraq was clearly not a threat, North Korea is a threat, Iran is still a threat, Saudi Arabia is a threat.

[graywolf624]

if what that former CIA guy says is true, then that would make things very interesting do you not agree?

Are you refering to the guy who says the us was planning an attack for iraq. Of course it is true. The difference is that we also have a planned attack for every other country. It is called smart planning. Would it shock you to realize we had the same type of set plans to attack canada.

On Bush basing the war on lies, I think so very much.
Graywolf you said he didnt base it on lies cuz he feelt it could be there.................
Come on, thats a kindergarten argument, You just dont go to war cuz you got a feeling.


It isn't some kindergarden arguement.
Saddam had wmd at one point. He used them against his own people. He broke resolution after resolution. He gave money to terrorists and their families. It was reasonable to assume he did have wmd. The opinion part is when you drop the lies comment. And realize maybe he did believe that. As many republicans do. And then from there say ok I think we werent in trouble so we shouldnt have gone. Don't assume lies without proof. It cheapens your arguement and is an ASSumption.


alot of people around the world is feed up with the way America puts them self above everybody else

Thats just the thing. We don't. I told you before I dont think we should be involved anywhere. Issolationism and take care of our own problems. Frankly we are damned if we do or dont. If we help we get criticized if we dont we get criticised. I consider myself no better then anyone else. However, we are unfairly criticized and judged. I consider part of it to be the fact that idiots in our govt think we should be involved as world police (any situation where the people have been killing each other for 1000 of years is not going to be fixed by us. Just a waste of troop in my opinion). Another part is the media which always has an agenda. Then a smaller part is probably jealousy on the other side.

Either way this is exactly why I snapped on this post. People say americans are ignorant to everyone but themselves. Isn't saying that in itself ignorant about americans or putting yourself above americans in a way?



On foreign politics I can state my opinoins, With the wmd there are probably not any, and this is something that I think even Bush have realised


Thats a good start. If I were going for a political discussion Id now ask you what you think about the posibility the wmd are now in syria or elsewhere. Since its not we will drop that.

[graywolf624]

To sum up my beef. Base things on policies and opinions; not mud slinging. You cannot sit here and tell me you know bush is lieing. You can't sit here and tell me you think he is in league with corporations. You cannot read the mans mind and frankly it is unprovable. Mr. Bush isnt the only one who wanted to go to war given the situation in Iraq. So did the republicans. So would many of them even today despite finding no wmd (though im still not sure they dont exist). Does that mean they care about oil? no. Did we take any of iraqs oil? no. Have we done anything imperialistic in the slightest over the last century? no. It means that they believed and still believe that Iraq was a threat to the safety of the United States. By proxy you are saying that these people only live to serve corporations. That these people all just want oil.

Quit mud slinging and judge the policies not the man.

[Vansquish]

I suppose that's true, Bush has been relatively predictable, but for my views, he is not a "good" president.

I am not a child, please do not treat me as one. My father has worked in the auto industry for some 31 years at this point. I worked for Ford a couple of years back doing engine diagnostic software in pursuit of both power and stoichiatric efficiency, whereby we would get the most out of the fuel with the fewest emissions. I know how the temperatures of combustion in particular determine the amount of NOx production as well as a variety of other Nitrogen and carbon-based compunds.
I am well aware of the sorts of emissions regulations that have been put into place, as I've been privied to goings on in the car industry since I was 3. The fact that the US seems to care more about Sulfur production and that Europe has stricter regulations regarding CO2 does not have much to do with what I was trying to say. The process of combusting fossil fuels, be they gasoline or diesel, is one that can only be made somewhat efficient, and will always have roughly the same amount of emissions for the a given amount of fuel burned. What has changed over the years is the technology to help bring standards of efficiency up, improving gas mileage and the emissions that actually reach the atmosphere. The catalytic converter was an enormous step in the right direction, but it is not perfect. Even in modern cars fitted with these devices, a given amount of gasoline usage produces a given amount of noxious toxins. You are correct that technology is taking leaps and bounds forward to help fossil-fuel powered vehicles run more cleanly, but there is a limit which cannot be exceeded. Gas-burning vehicles will never be perfect from an emissions standpoint. Even with California's attempts to improve emissions of production vehicles, witness LEV, ULEV, SULEV, and PZEV, there will always be some amount of noxious emissions created in combustion.

With regards to the bill, it was intended for farmers to buy their farming equipment and vehicles so that they could build capital, but it has become a commonplace excuse for buying large vehicles. You can apply for that tax break if you own your own business. If you apply that to the American public, I think you'll find that most of the people who own their own companies fit into one of the higher tax brackets, so my statement, in its essence, is still true.

[graywolf624]

I know how the temperatures of combustion in particular determine the amount of NOx production as well as a variety of other Nitrogen and carbon-based compunds.

Never said you didnt and I didnt treat you like a kid. You questioned my statement about emissions and I explained it to you. Clearly you misunderstood what I meant the first time.


The catalytic converter was an enormous step in the right direction, but it is not perfect. Even in modern cars fitted with these devices, a given amount of gasoline usage produces a given amount of noxious toxins. You are correct that technology is taking leaps and bounds forward to help fossil-fuel powered vehicles run more cleanly, but there is a limit which cannot be exceeded. Gas-burning vehicles will never be perfect from an emissions standpoint. Even with California's attempts to improve emissions of production vehicles, witness LEV, ULEV, SULEV, and PZEV, there will always be some amount of noxious emissions created in combustion.

I never said thier wouldn't be. I said to say that someone in a suv pollutes more then said girl in a camaro is not necessarily correct. I also said that suvs do have some uses that other vehicles don't. We have vehicles with far higher mpg then some of our sulev even that aren't. I won't go more in depth on what my opinions on global warming are. Though Im sure you got the hint. In terms of the switch to no combustion engines. That will happen with time. The government shouldnt be pushing it though. It'll happen when its gonna happen and not before. Not to mention us car pollution is so small on the scale of polutants to worry about. Our govt pollutes more then any other group. Then we have 3rd world polluters. And yes. It is an issue that no one agrees on what pollution to protect against. Has nothing to do with your statement, it was something I threw in. Frankly Bush has not ruled in on any major environmental issues with respect to bills. Well other then kyoto which frankly had more to do with the manner of control rather then the controls in general.




If you apply that to the American public, I think you'll find that most of the people who own their own companies fit into one of the higher tax brackets

Actually the majority of small businesses are people in the middle class. I should know, my father use to be one of them. Either way you can hardly blame it on Bush.


and its not called smart planning its called paranoia.

Not on the government scale it isn't. I would be afraid if the govt wasn't prepared for almost every eventuality.


You say that I assume lies without proof and this cheapens my argument, well you and your great Administration have been over there for a year searched high and low for them without anything coming up.
So dont come here and say that I need proof to say what as of now is a fact, its you that should try to find the proof not me.
That cheapens your arguments not mine.


First off. You can't prove something doesnt exist ever. Second off. You are still missing the point. We went to war because we worried about Iraq attacking us in some way. Whether it be terrorism, wmd, whatever. You can't prove that not to be true and you cant put words in their mouths. By association you are telling me that I cant believe in what I do. That some how rather then being motivated to give flat tax rates or cut taxes because I think it will encourage everyone to work harder and people who deserve it will do well. That instead somehow Im for corporations. Or in terms of the war. That every friend I have who backs and still back the war did so because they stand to gain. What did we gain from the war? What did Bush gain from the war? The only things I can truly point to is our own safety.

Do you realize that even Clinton had to fire missles at Iraq? They were still a worry from our stand point. We took care of our fears. That is what our leaders believe and that is what the republican citizens believe. Whether they are right is where the discussion of good politics begins. Otherwise you really are just mudslinging. I donno if I am conveying my point well on this. I'm not saying your being against the war is wrong. I am saying its unfair to call bush a liar. You can say he made a poor decision or the fear is irrational. That we had no reason to worry. In that case you aren't putting thoughts into our leaders heads.


It is a fact that a very small part of the American people ever travel outside America, this is not helping expanding the horizon of the common American.
People that never see other cultures and countries are less open to other ways of thinking, I dont think isolation is the way to go for the US.

I concur. I've been to germany amd the surrounding nations a few times and speak some german. Albeit I have poor grammar.
edit- One could say the same thing for the people that bash America. That perhaps they should visit us first. Tourism is a funny thing. I've found that some locals look down on tourists because of cultural differences and a feeling that they are disrupting thie homes. I hear it from you about US visitors but I have heard it hear about visitors from some other countries. I personally think that labeling any one nation with such a bad stigma is unfair. I may be a pain in the ass that will call someone out every time they give false information, but I am well aware I am no better, brighter, or stronger then anyone else. The reality is my political philospophy relies on just that. The belief that the only thing that would distinguish how well you do in an open capitalistic society would be your willingness to work harder. The belief that the US has no right to get involved in any skermish that doesnt involve them because who are we to judge which side is right? Thats my belief set. I understand the other belief sets. Everything from anarchy up to communism even if I don't agree with them.

[graywolf624]

Lets put things in perspective for you.
We all know France Germany and Russia were the leading trading partners of Iraq. We also know that France and Russia sold them most of their military hardware.

If I wanted to I could make the same sort of assumption as people do about Bush in regards to germany and france. That perhaps they didnt want to lose their trading partner or wanted to hide some rule they broke. I wouldn't make such an assumption because their is no way of knowing what they were thinking and nothing hidden has been found. (Just as no oil has been taken for ourselves).
As such this as just as much invalid as a statement that Bush lied. Both have no place in a rational discussion of policy. Instead of assuming some underlying reasoning or person we should look at the actual actions and reasons as set down by the people involved.

[scubywrxr]

Guys lets stop this already.. we meant to laugh.. remember? :roll:

[blah]

hey graywolf, guess where iraq got most of its weapons program help, and money to buy that stuff. They got it from us, so you cannot blamde france, and russia for making a proft.

[graywolf624]

hey graywolf, guess where iraq got most of its weapons program help, and money to buy that stuff. They got it from us, so you cannot blamde france, and russia for making a proft.

Actually no..
Most of Iraqs weapons programs came from France and Russia.
Read the book Every man a tiger by Tom Clancy and Retired general chuck horner- in charge of the air war during persian gulf. They used russian planes and french defense systems. Our fault comes in putting Saddam into power oh so long ago.
And I am not blaming them either. I'm just trying to get you to start judging bush on his actions not on what you think the reasons were for his actions.

[blah]

Our fault comes to were we Funded, and helped him build his weapons programs, basically handed him bio weapons, this is what i mean by weapons programs, not some tanks, and planes. Ok if you want me to judge bush on his actions lets see. He went to war on false presumptions, has lost 500 american lives for nothing so far, sure sadaam is gone, but what may come from this has the potential of bieng 10x worse, has lost most of our allies, ruined the UN, basically made it your either following everything we do, or your a enemy, hes making it so there cant be any nuetrality.

[graywolf624]

Our fault comes to were we Funded, and helped him build his weapons programs, basically handed him bio weapons, this is what i mean by weapons programs, not some tanks, and planes.

Nope.. wrong again. We never funded his weapon program. We put him in power. We funded irans weapons program with guns.(Iran contra). Iran and Iraq.. Well lets just say we dont have to worry about tech sharing there.


He went to war on false presumptions


He went to war under the belief that iraq was a threat to us.


but what may come from this has the potential of bieng 10x worse


Ok so then why doesnt someone come up with an idea to set things right now. I swear. The only reason Dean is losing now is that he fails to push what should happen now. All he does is mud sling.


has lost most of our allies

Which ones might these be?
We still have most of 13 countries from europe on our side. We still have australia. We don't have france Germany Russia and Canada. We havent forced anyone out of neutrality in the slightest. They werent involved they arent enemies. Id like to see you make a reasonable case where bush has made any of the countries mentioned above an enemy.

Lets see some more allys involved there: South Korea. Need I go on. Yet somehow this thing is unilateral or those govts got pushed into acting that way.. Hogwash....

[blah]

what can those 13 countires do in terms of military. POLAND HAS THE 3RD LARGEST PART OF OUR COALITION IN IRAQ! How said is that? France, Germany, and Russia all have pretty good militarys. And we did fund Iraqs Military Programs, we helped them develop their Weapons when iran turned on us.

[graywolf624]

France, Germany, and Russia all have pretty good militarys. And we did fund Iraqs Military Programs, we helped them develop their Weapons when iran turned on us.

Prove it!

How said is that? France, Germany, and Russia all have pretty good militarys

So we should chose our stand point on important issues based on the size of other peoples military?

[graywolf624]

"At this time, 34 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom."

Oh and by the way.. The statement of above us.. Blah your getting fairly close to that with such a statement in regards to our allys.

[blah]

When those issues involve american lives that could be saved, also note that lots of soilderrs are not allowed to go home right now because of this. This so called Coalition of the Willing is bullshit, we are paying half these countries off, for "assitance" what assitance can these countries do. What do i have to prove, its a known fact how saddam got the gas that he used on the kurds, and iranians, we helped him.

[graywolf624]

When those issues involve american lives that could be saved, also note that lots of soilderrs are not allowed to go home right now because of this. This so called Coalition of the Willing is bullshit, we are paying half these countries off, for "assitance" what assitance can these countries do. What do i have to prove, its a known fact how saddam got the gas that he used on the kurds, and iranians, we helped him.

Prove it with a link. Its standard operating procedure when you make a claim that can be proven true or false to back it up with a link. A negative cant be proven a postive can. Thus the burden of truth falls with you. Humour me since you obviously know something im not privy too.

And we aren't paying most of these countries off despite what you might think. The 13 countries in europe for example have commented on why they are siding with the US. Their official reasons. To protect them while joining the EU from the posibility that France or germany will try to take them over. They said they know the US would be there for them if ever that happened and thats alot of the why. There was a good piece on that recently in the news. Complete with an interview with the guy in charge of poland. UK is not with us for assistance either. sigh.

Edit- Just to make this absolutly clear one last time before I go to bed though. Because I really worry about someone missing my disclaimers and misinterpreting the statements about france and germany. I in no way believe that they acted the way they did with respect to iraq because of their economic ties or some ulterior motive. It is meerly an analogy. Thank you and good nite all.

[graywolf624]

and I and almost everybody without a hidden agenda are saying that Iraq wasnt a treath to the US.

And what pray tell is my agenda? What are the agenda of the republican party members not in the white house? You can argue that the threat wasn't there. Your entitled to that opinion. And frankly you came very close to what Im trying to get you to do. Then you added hidden agenda. Saying crap like hidden agenda is basically accusing every principle I was brought up to believe as being about some hidden agenda. For instance you are accusing my parents of only caring about oil. Be fair. Don't say its some hidden agenda. Say you disagree with them being a threat and leave it at that. Thats fair. Saying they lied as you said below cant be proven. Furthermore, the underlying reasons may be not enough for you. But they are enough for those people. You have no right to say they couldnt have that belief no matter how right or wrong. I have every confidence we believed they had biological weapons and they were a threat to our national security. I did then and I do now. Whether they did or not does not a lie make.

You don't get my point in this whole discussion at all. I dont want to convince you they were right. I dont care if you support Iraq. I do care that you accuse my president and my former party with amoral actions with no proof. In other words if you want to say we irrationally think that without iraq we are safer. Then I will say ok.
But when you say some bs like hidden agenda. That is tantamount to an accusation based on no facts.

I want people to step back and make their own discision. Forget the rhetoric. Realize that perhaps Bush and the republicans really were concerned as such and they do believe the way they do. Then address that belief. Rather then accuse them of not holding those beliefs.


And the US sure likes to belive that they are the one to put other nations straight.
What about the whole no American soldier should be trialed in the war crimes court. that a load of crap, why shouldnt a American soldier or leader be trialed, doesnt the same laws that America use on others apply to you?



See heres another thing that ticks me off. You look at us and say we believe this. Your still doing the labeling. What part of the US did you visit. Each part is about as different as a nation in Europe(other then the language). And as for war crimes. My personal take is the whole war crimes thing is a crock of shit on either side. In any situation only the losers of a war are tried. Thus giving someone no reason not to break the rules as long as they win. Aka Im against all war crimes. I dont have to justify every action.

Iraq got lots of weapons from the US, cuz you feed them weapons in the war against Iran, well actually you sold weapons to both sides.


Most of the recent stuff came from France and Russia. . Not to mention this point isn't even important to this arguement.


You are more than implying that Germany and France didnt want to loose a trading partner, IMO.

Nope. Honestly I'll say this.. If you are willing to drop it right after I say it I'll tell you my personal opinion on why germany and france backed out. It isn't a fact based statement. And is very much inflamatory.


I will not use a fiction novel by a american writer as a fact book, even if Tom Clancy are very acurate in his facts in his books.

This isn't a fiction book. This particular book is nonfiction. One of a few he has writen with the man in charge of the us air war


You could have taken his power in the Iran war, you could taken it in the Gulfwar but no, you let him go then.

I couldn't agree with you more on that point. I also believe if we told israel to stuff it we wouldnt have had 911. Thats just me though. Thats my personal political opinion.
based thought though and it probably will piss some people off.

[graywolf624]

To add one thing. My only point to this whole discussion. And very much I think I am not communicating it well. It isnt I think you are children or anything like that. It is that I see you dont understand where Im coming from.

I dont want you to come over to the republicans feelings on the war. (considering mine even conflicts with them) I only want you to understand that they had their reasons. They are honorable people. Now maybe those reasons are stupid. But they still had those reasons. This is my point. This is also why it ticks me off. Its one thing to politically argue. Its another to question the honor of a political way of thinking. I will end here.

[fedezyl]

France and Germany, as a lot of Eurpean countries do, have an ever increasing portion of their population who are arabs or muslims, so going to war against an arab country may cause a bit of a stir....
I still think that the U.S. has no wright to invade a country just because they "beleive" it's a threat, tell me why they haven't invaded North Korea yet? maybe because Bush is afraid of getting a nuke in his ass...or tell me a nuclear bomb is less of a threat than a terrorist??

[graywolf624]

I still think that the U.S. has no wright to invade a country just because they "beleive" it's a threat, tell me why they haven't invaded North Korea yet? maybe because Bush is afraid of getting a nuke in his ass...or tell me a nuclear bomb is less of a threat than a terrorist??

Ok your entitled to that no right take. I'm not talking here to change a valid political opinion. Thats all I wanted.

As for why not attack north korea. I can handle that one. Think big brother to korea. Communist country. Bigger then the US. Has nukes. Has been involved in every war in that area that we have in some way.
As much as Im against it Im sure wed be there if not for china.

The other lesser reason is the american people only stomach so many wars.


I worry about korea daily. What will happen there remains to be seen. As I said before though, as long as we arent a target Im not for us going in.

As for bush. Hes in danger of losing the republican vote for being too democrat. As I said the man sticks to his beliefs.. whether I agree or not.
I'm not pushing his political views. All I am trying to do is say their is an underlying belief structure.. whether flawed or not.. behind these things.

[fedezyl]

the thing I care the least is about the honour of a political party, specially since the decisions of that particular political party is causing such an instability in the world...
Besides....I remember several tragic facts of history where the U.S. was involved....
Nobody called the U.S. terrorists when they supported Pinochet and the Military in Argentina while they killed thousands of innocent people, when they teached those same militars torture techniques....
I know you may think that the U.S. is a saviour to the third world or something, i'm sorry I still can't get over all those people who died for no reason here in South America thanks to the U.S. foreign politics of keeping South America from socialist ideas, not to mention all the Vietnamies that died in the Vietnam war, or even the Americans that died there too, in the name of Capitalism, so, in a history of the U.S. not making any sense on why they go to war only to test their expensive toys or imposing ideas and getting an economical advantage, why should I beleive now after all this that the U.S. went to war with Irak for a honourable reason?

[graywolf624]

I know you may think that the U.S. is a saviour to the third world or something

Actually I don't. As Ive said throughtout this thread im against us military involved anywhere. We have no right to chose sides and it cant be solved by us anyway.

why should I beleive now after all this that the U.S. went to war with Irak for a honourable reason?

Sigh. These were honourable reasons in the minds of the people that supported them. The people involved thought communism would take over and harm the world. It is honourable whether you agree with the why. Honour is following your principles no matter who is with you or against (or even how irrational it may be). As stated above I am against.

A wise man once said you must open your mind and see the other mans point in order to rip it apart. It does you no good to just say it is about hidden agendas.

[fedezyl]

I see your point and respect it, but I still don't understand why they have to kill people to follow "honourable" reasons, there's no honour on killing innocents, whatever your ideals may be, there's always another way to violence....
Lot's of people in the U.S. regard the war as something necessary for the U.S. safety, those are people who never suffered war in their own country, no foreign soldier ever set foot in the U.S., they never bombed their cities or killed their women and children because of an "error", maybe that's why Europeans and Americans have such a different view on war....it's a totally different thing when you lost a father, a brother or a grand father at war...
My father spent the whole world war in France before coming here, he's jewish and had to run and hide all the time...i'm sorry, i'll never ever agree with any war, no matter how "honourable" a cause may be...violence only leads to more violence...

[graywolf624]

Yeah, you make some good points.
The only thing I would add is to stress how not everyone in the US is for the war.

Take me for example. :) I'm not for military involvement unless the people attack US shores. If someone were to invade the US though.. Theyd have to pry the gun from my cold dead hands.

[fedezyl]

yeah I understand, being invaded is a totally different thing, I too would react in the same way, but that's not what's going on right now....
The sad thing is, even though the U.S. is a democracy, and there's people like you who have a mind of their own and are sensible people, the majority is just brainwashed by a media that is totally controlled by the goverenement...
I was living in the U.S. when the war in Irak started, and for the whole period it lasted I never saw images of dead soldiers, and the children and women that were killed, or the innocents that died, I saw those images when I came home....
An ignorant person is the easiest person to control....if not look at what Fidel Castro did in Cuba, he forbid the access to internet to poor people, people that don't pay their phone bills in dollars, thus preventing them from seing what's really going on, inform themselves....

[graywolf624]

Actually the media isn't controlled by the government. The issue is the media is controlled by two different political forces. CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are controlled by the democrats. Our countries social programs group. They are the anti bush group.

Then the other side republicans seem to control fox news and its connections.

There is no unbiased option. You either get the war bush is right or he is a lieing capitalist greed monger oil baron. Nothing is in between.


The reason for the no show of blood though is what is socially acceptable. We have this thing where nudity and violence are not acceptable on networking tv. Our people threw a fit because we showed people at 911. Its just not accepted here.

To us citizens Maxim is considered risque. Same with playboy(yet honestly it is no worse then things ive seen in mainstream news magazines in other countires).
If I opened jabbasworld at work Id prolly be fired. You can be sued for sexual harassment by forcing a women to look at a picture of a women who is naked.

[blah]

thats such a loud of bullshit saying that those companies are for democrats. If that were true, why didnt CBS show the reagans? ABC is not democrat either, its owned by the disney company, a very very conservative company, CNN is more of a nuetral if you ask me than most, NBC is not democrat either, they are owned by GE.

[graywolf624]

If that were true, why didnt CBS show the reagans? ABC is not democrat either, its owned by the disney company, a very very conservative company, CNN is more of a nuetral if you ask me than most, NBC is not democrat either, they are owned by GE.

If you think these companies are conservative you are full of it. Would it suprise you to hear that ge and turner broadcasting company.. owners of nbc and formerly cnn respectively are 2 of the largest contributers to the democratic party?
Read their articles they are slanted democrat. Moreover Michael Eisner is a democrat(head of Disney). If you watch their news program you can clearly see they are bias. CNN is the worse one of all. Every story they give has a slant. From the headlines that instead of being nutural and saying no wmd found they scream bush lied. Instead of bush cuts taxes across the board they scream bush cuts taxes for the rich. They couldnt report right if if fell in their ass.
You want proof. Look at the number of people who defend the conservative view on their shows and the amount of time they get. Hell cnns site is the one with the comercial comparing bush to hitler. its a nonremoveable popup.

You want to know why cnn didnt show the regans. IT is because they stepped over the line. It went from known fact in the back of peoples minds.. to obvious..

[Vansquish]

I wouldn't say that the media is exactly "controlled" by the government, but it does have some iota of influence over it...BLAH is completely correct in his assessment of ownership regarding ABC, NBC and CNN. They are NOT controlled by democrats and people with anti-Bush leanings. They are republican owned, and most certainly propagate more conservative information than anything else. However, graywolf has a point. There is almost no way of getting unbiased news. Even the BBC is and ITN have become unreliable sources of late, so it is very difficult to sift through what is fact and what is fiction.

With regard to my statement concerning small-businesses, I didn't mean to imply that only the rich could start small businesses. I was pointing to the fact that in order to start a small business, there has to be a certain investment of capital to begin with. As a result, the lower classes are not all that likely to produce masses of small-business owners. Rather, the upper and upper strata of the middle classes would tend to make up most of the small business owners in the USA. My mother is an exception to that rule, so I do actually realize that small business owners do not, by definition, have to belong to the upper crust of American society.

[graywolf624]

Current topics on CNN:
White House raising cost of Medicare overhaul

How about some historical references...
http://www.mediaresearch.org/videobias/vidbias.asp

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/28/93208.shtml

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2003/12/28/DavidJSanders/97678.html

cbs...
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/01/28/FairComment/This-Just.In.Liberal.Media.Bias.Is.Alive.And.Well-161499.shtml

[graywolf624]

"ownership regarding ABC, NBC and CNN. They are NOT controlled by democrats and people with anti-Bush leanings. They are republican owned, and most certainly propagate more conservative information than anything else."

The facts don't back that. The ceos of the respective ownership companies are democrats. Search google for media bias. 90 percent of the articles are on our democratic news media. The republicans have been claiming bias media for about 10 years. Now that they have fox news suddenly everyone thinks its the other way.

CNN.. owned up till recently by Ted turner- wife of the infamous democrat hanoi jane....

Disney corporation- ceo Michael Eisner- one of the beiggest democrats.
"Michael Eisner is a veteran money-maker overseeing all things Disney. Eisner is also a veteran donor to political causes and candidates. Some of the past recipients of his wealth have been Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), and Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL)."

[graywolf624]

Rather, the upper and upper strata of the middle classes would tend to make up most of the small business owners in the USA. My mother is an exception to that rule, so I do actually realize that small business owners do not, by definition, have to belong to the upper crust of American society.

The fact still remains that 90 percent of Americas small businesses are middle class owners. Most of them are one person or family affairs.

[Vansquish]

CEO's do not necessarily exert their political leanings on the companies they control...just as Bush cannot exert his on the American public.

The sources you cited are no less biased than any others I might expect to encounter.

[blah]

Just because of what the CEO does with his personal mony, doesnt make that company democrat. They are giving to whom they think can help them the best. CEOs do that all the time, its called lobbying, you should know this. Also if you think the media is liberal, look at how they attacked dean, and clinton. Your starting to sound like that bitch Ann Coulter, she complains so much.

[graywolf624]

Also if you think the media is liberal, look at how they attacked dean, and clinton. Your starting to sound like that bitch Ann Coulter, she complains so much.

Ladies and gentleman example number one of someone who is bias.. Ann coulter is a bitch huh... So I guess the cbs liberal that left and said they were liberal bias is bias the other way?

Funny but cnn never attacks clinton. Please read their headlines and their quotes.

You know what I'll take it on the issues.. Simple yes or no to some facts..

Gun control:
Did you know that all recent studies have shown no decrease in gun use or violent crimes in situations where gun control were implemented. UK has more violent crime per capita then the US.

Taxes:
Did you know that everyone including the poorest person got a piece of the recent tax cut?

Do you know that the top 1 percent of the US population in money pay 30 percent of the taxes and that the top 2 percent pay 50 percent? Did you know that the majority of people who are millionares parents weren't?

Thats just facts youll never see on those bias stations. One more.. And this is a direct shot.. And I want a direct answer from both of you.
Did either of you realize how many countries were supporting us if they didnt watch fox news. If you watch cnn everyones against us with no mention of whos for us. You proved it yourself. I heard blah tell me repeatedly that wed lost all our allys. All and a few are two completly different beasts. I dont care if you think we paid them off(which most of them we didn't).

They say bush is an oil baron and he lied about the wmd, that he knew there were no wmd. The only thing is. There is no truth to back this up.. Objective reporting. There is no proof between lie or misinformation.


And now I'll give you my hypothesis why. More tech minded people in the US tend to be more conservative while people more creative tend to be democrats. We all know teachers by and whole of engish and social studies are democrats (its been proven). As such almost every journalist produced is a democrat.

Care to refute that 9 x out of 10 you turn on cnn and theres 1 conservative to 2 or 3 democrats. Care to refute that their headlines are setup to be bias. Care to refute that they misquote..

Ok we will go through examples recently from each network.
2. CNN’s Brown Forwards Rumor Bush Knew in Advance Evidence False
Like ABC, CNN’s NewsNight with Aaron Brown led with attacks on the administration’s credibility, but Brown stretched his own credibility by picking up on a rumor, “a story that's been circulating on the Web today that there was at some point a conversation between the President and a CIA consultant where the consultant directly told the President that this African uranium deal was bogus.” Brown’s raising of such an uncorroborated story befuddled CNN reporter David Ensor, who speaking slowly as he fumbled for words, told Brown: “I have no way to confirm that story and it is somewhat suspect I would say...”

1. ABC Hypes Anti-Bush Protest and Media Question in South Africa
As if the average African or even African leader were peppering President Bush with questions about his evidence for going to war with Iraq, ABC’s Peter Jennings opened his Wednesday broadcast by trumpeting how “the Bush administration is obliged again to defend its case for war in Iraq -- from Africa to Capitol Hill.” In fact, it was a U.S. reporter who brought up the subject in Pretoria. ABC also showcased what CBS and NBC ignored, a mere thousand protesters. ABC displayed a poster with Bush sporting a Hitler mustache, before running a soundbite from a protester who proclaimed: “We believe that George Bush is a threat to humanity and the planet.”
4. Jennings and Reynolds Belittle Meagerness of Tax Cut
ABC’s Peter Jennings belittled the tax cut on Tuesday night, asking: “Will three extra dollars stimulate the national economy?” Dean Reynolds talked to a couple who appreciated their $15 more a week and a woman who dismissed as “nothing” the $3 more she will now be able to keep every two weeks. Dean quoted experts on both sides of the argument about whether the tax cut will boost the economy, but he ended his piece by ridiculing the amount of the tax cut. Referring to the husband in the couple getting $15 per week, Reynolds snidely observed: “He may use some of his windfall to restore that '57 Chevy in his garage. And at 15 bucks a week, he figures the job would be done in about 20 years.”

5. CBS Sees “Hunger in the Heartland” with Car Lines for Food
Exactly a week after the CBS Evening News trumpeted the return of homelessness to America on a scale never seen before, the program will feature a story on how in George Bush’s America there’s “hunger in the heartland” with huge numbers of people “waiting in line for free food.”
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030520.asp#4


1. Only Jennings Ignores Pro-Troops Rally in New York City
No anti-war protest has been too small to earn coverage from ABC's Peter Jennings who in recent months has highlighted anti-war events involving just a few hundred people, a “virtual” protest and even one guy who jumped off a bridge, but on Thursday night, while CBS and NBC noted a pro-troops rally featuring 15,000 in New York City, Jennings could not manage to mention it on World News Tonight.

I can show you numerous more examples. How about the famous protests. Like the ones against iraq... How about the protests for going to iraq.. Did you see them?

[blah]

Do you know why rich people pay taxes, because they can afford to, those percentages are not hurting their life styles. Ok Gray, your not understanding something here, Poland has the 3rd largest force in Iraq, who cars if 100 countries support you, if those 100 countries cant help you.

[graywolf624]

I think I'll make this challenge simpler. If you can tell me with a straight face that this headline "White House raising cost of Medicare overhaul " from cnns politics page is not insinuating that the white house is hurting medicare and raising costs as the evil corporate group.. Then I'll shut up.

[blah]

Dude why are you looking so hard into that, your making it sound like a conspiracy. on another point, im not talking and you cant see my face. Also, just today on Yahoo news, which is AP/Rueters, where all the news people get their stuff, it was reported that REPBULICANS, were unhappy with bush, because of his plans for cutting the budget wont even make a dent in the defecit.

[graywolf624]

Do you know why rich people pay taxes, because they can afford to, those percentages are not hurting their life styles. Ok Gray, your not understanding something here, Poland has the 3rd largest force in Iraq, who cars if 100 countries support you, if those 100 countries cant help you.

What you don't understand is that we shouldn't be basing our work on how many troops defend us. We should base it on what we think is right. By saying we lost all our allies you imply everyone disagrees with what we are doing. I just proved that implication wrong. But cnn would fail to mention who agrees. That slant.. That these people are against you but fail to mention who is for you.. Is bias.


<my political belief on>
Afford to or hurting their lifestyles doesnt make it right. They earned that money and they deserve what they earned. All your doing is encouraging people not to work and taking it from people that earned it.
<my political belief off>
I dont care if they can afford it. The media portrays that the rich dont pay anything.. That Bush gives them everything and everyone else pays the bills.

[graywolf624]

Dude why are you looking so hard into that, your making it sound like a conspiracy. on another point, im not talking and you cant see my face. Also, just today on Yahoo news, which is AP/Rueters, where all the news people get their stuff, it was reported that REPBULICANS, were unhappy with bush, because of his plans for cutting the budget wont even make a dent in the defecit.

Its not a conspiracy. I explained my opinion of it. It just pisses me off. As it is I have to unbrainwash my kid every time he comes home from school to keep him from being democrat. That isn't right. Then I turn on tv and I have to do the same thing. It isn't a conspiracy.. Most other then cnn and fox prolly don't even realize they did it.. IT is a concern.

Ap/reuters is one of the few sources I trust. And yes the Republicans are mad at bush.. He is barely a republican.. Which makes him even further away from my beliefs. He is spending.. conservatism is about less govt not more. I think both parties are on the verge of a possible split. The democrats have major upheaval between the radicals and the moderates and so do the republicans.

[blah]

Lets see, how come most of the UN did not help us in iraq? Or NATO for that matter? CNN has mentioned who helps in iraq before, so why do you keep saying that? You do not speak for the entire nation when you said , "We should base it on what we think is right" Hitler thought killing millions of jews was right as did alot of people in the SS, does that make what he did right? no, so by saying what we feel is right is incredibly arogant, and we shouldnt do things like that.

[graywolf624]

Lets see, how come most of the UN did not help us in iraq? Or NATO for that matter? CNN has mentioned who helps in iraq before, so why do you keep saying that? You do not speak for the entire nation when you said , "We should base it on what we think is right" Hitler thought killing millions of jews was right as did alot of people in the SS, does that make what he did right? no, so by saying what we feel is right is incredibly arogant, and we shouldnt do things like that.

What is most of the UN? How many countries would you count as most? How many backed us the first time we went to iraq? Was the disparity between the number of nations all that high?
Cnn has not mentioned who helps iraq... not once in a front line article.. they have repeatedly posted whos against in front line article.
And here we go with the bush is hitler comparisons.
You do not speak for the entire nation when you said , "We should base it on what we think is right"

No I don't but clearly the vast majority of americans back the war there. Otherwise Bush wouldnt have the approval rating he does.
and obviously he has other countries that agree with him..

Oh and I got the number of nations that were in the coalition for the gulf war.

Guess what.. Its the same number of countries.

[graywolf624]

Support in persian gulf war:
The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Support in iraq for this war:
"At this time, 34 countries, in addition to the United States, have contributed a total of approximately 22,000 troops to ongoing stability operations in Iraq. These 34 are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom."

Oh wait.. I screwed up.. thats 1 more country for this war..

[blah]

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2003/11/troops_in_iraq.html Theres the list of People helping us in iraq, with the number of troops. Wow we got 34 members out of 191 to go with us.

Complete list of UN members from the UN http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html

CNN has mentioned who is helping, maybe not in frontline, but i said CNN has mentioned, i never mentioned frontline. Also its showing that frontline is through PBS not cnn, when i looked it up.

Heres a link to the Countries involved in the Gulf War, compare the number of troops.
http://www.desert-storm.com/War/nations.html

[graywolf624]

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2003/11/troops_in_iraq.html Theres the list of People helping us in iraq, with the number of troops. Wow we got 34 members out of 191 to go with us.

Complete list of UN members from the UN http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html

CNN has mentioned who is helping, maybe not in frontline, but i said CNN has mentioned, i never mentioned frontline. Also its showing that frontline is through PBS not cnn, when i looked it up.

Heres a link to the Countries involved in the Gulf War, compare the number of troops.

We got 33 last time. No one went against us last time. How many of those un members wouldnt go to war unless they were under attack?
By frontline I meant the front page of their site. One of the key headlines.

AS for number of troops. How is that important? Did we need more troops. Seems to me that we won the war. Now the issue is how do we rebuild.

If you want to suggest that having the same number of countries back us now and then somehow equates to losing all our allies. I am prepared to hear it. If you want to suggest that the entire world is against us this time when they weren't last time. Id like to hear the explanation why?

Now in all seriousness. Before I say the next thing I want you all to know that I respect every one of you in this thread. I am going for a clarkson type attitude.. take it or leave it.. with my posts.. Ok here we go.

You said before Blah that Bush had lost america all its allys. You also said he lied and he was in league with the corporations. Where did you get these ideas from? If your parents aren't big into politics Id bet it was the tv. These aren't things people just come up with on their own.
It isn't a conspiracy.. Both sides mud sling.. It isn't evil either. But it is a major problem when people should consider all the facts in each case.

[blah]

Were not under attack gray, iraq never attacked us, so what are you talking about? Number of troops is important, because everyday you hear about the pentagon calling up reserves, canceling plans for troops to go home. The war againest saddam may have been won, but the war in Iraq is far from over. There is lots of resistance in that country, mainly coming from the surronding countries where the muslim clerics have openly called down jihad on our troops in iraq. If we dont scuff this out soon, this could become a Vietnam.

[graywolf624]

It isnt a comparison of the actions of hitler and bush, its a comparison that you say its ok, because feelt something is right to do.

There is a fine line between ousting a dictator because you believe it is right and killing millions of defenseless jews because you think your the master race.


How many of these countries is supporting this war cuz of pressure or hidden agendas?
Well I can tell you that several of the countries from Eastern Europe is supporting it to easier be accepted as a part of EU.
For my country I can say it is because our leaders got no guts and cant say no because they want to be friends with Bush and Blair.

First off the pressure or hidden agenda thing. That played a part in some in both wars. That being said there are plenty that don't. Plenty of those eastern european countries are also helping because and I quote "We feel that germany and france may break their promise to take care of us in the case of an invasion as they have in the past. We know the the US will be there. " As for your last point. Personally I think that is a crock decided on by people that just want to think conspiracy theory. Is it possible your leaders think saddam should be ousted? Everyone is so quick to think that people have amoral reasons or other reasons then what they say. Why can't anyone who is against the war even consider that perhaps the leaders agree?


Were not under attack gray, iraq never attacked us, so what are you talking about? Number of troops is important, because everyday you hear about the pentagon calling up reserves, canceling plans for troops to go home. The war againest saddam may have been won, but the war in Iraq is far from over. There is lots of resistance in that country, mainly coming from the surronding countries where the muslim clerics have openly called down jihad on our troops in iraq. If we dont scuff this out soon, this could become a Vietnam.

I realize we aren;t under attack.. But the number of troops aren;t important. We could have a million troops and the attacks wouldnt stop. These arent military incursions. These are kids and gorrila warriors taking pot shots at soldiers randomly.

[graywolf624]

Now I prefaced my statements to everything with there is no such thing as an unselfish act. Even if the selfish part is just the feeling of helping a cause you think is right.
Very few if any countries ever act even just for that helping feeling. I could run through a list of the countries we had to give stuff to for the persian gulf. I could argue that the same reasons poland and the like are on our side now.. could easily be placed with us back then.

[blah]

The attacks would stop if we had more troops over there, if we had more troops thats tighter security, and more eyes and ears around the town, which would give us a better chance at finding out about attacks. Also these arent kids, and guerilla soilders taking pot shots, most of the attacks are well thought out and planned. Such as road side bombings, ambushes, not to mention the attack on the hotel where an american ambassador was staying. Also about the hitler comment, fine heres another example using hitler, Hitler and many germans thought it was right for them to invade poland, and to Annex the Rhineland, and other countries, does that make it right what they did? Also remember that when hitler invaded his propagandist reported that they were defending the Fatherland from threats.

[graywolf624]

The attacks would stop if we had more troops over there, if we had more troops thats tighter security, and more eyes and ears around the town, which would give us a better chance at finding out about attacks.

I point to the example of Vietnam and then hope you get what I am thinking.


Also these arent kids, and guerilla soilders taking pot shots, most of the attacks are well thought out and planned. Such as road side bombings, ambushes, not to mention the attack on the hotel where an american ambassador was staying.

Where does well planned out and guerilla soldiers and kids have a departure. They are well planed out.. No one said that. But they are going to happen no matter how many troops we have their.


Hitler and many germans thought it was right for them to invade poland, and to Annex the Rhineland, and other countries, does that make it right what they did? Also remember that when hitler invaded his propagandist reported that they were defending the Fatherland from threats

There is a difference here as well. The word annex. Bush is not annexing Iraq. Not in any way. He has not exhibited any imperialistic tendencies. Moreover the Polish regime didnt pay terrorists, invade their neighboring countries, h arborer weapons of mass destruction at one point, refuse to allow weapons of mass destruction inspection, gas their own people... need I go on.

[blah]

The attacks would stop if we had more troops over there, if we had more troops thats tighter security, and more eyes and ears around the town, which would give us a better chance at finding out about attacks.

I point to the example of Vietnam and then hope you get what I am thinking.


Also these arent kids, and guerilla soilders taking pot shots, most of the attacks are well thought out and planned. Such as road side bombings, ambushes, not to mention the attack on the hotel where an american ambassador was staying.

Where does well planned out and guerilla soldiers and kids have a departure. They are well planed out.. No one said that. But they are going to happen no matter how many troops we have their.


Hitler and many germans thought it was right for them to invade poland, and to Annex the Rhineland, and other countries, does that make it right what they did? Also remember that when hitler invaded his propagandist reported that they were defending the Fatherland from threats

There is a difference here as well. The word annex. Bush is not annexing Iraq. Not in any way. He has not exhibited any imperialistic tendencies. Moreover the Polish regime didnt pay terrorists, invade their neighboring countries, h arborer weapons of mass destruction at one point, refuse to allow weapons of mass destruction inspection, gas their own people... need I go on.

Unlike vietnam we have full control of iraq, there is no north and south, so that doesnt work. In vietnam our mistake was that we would bomb, then stop, bomb then stop, we needed to keep it up but we didnt.

[graywolf624]

Do you really think its right for a country to invade another, because the leader of the invading country have a feeling?

Well for me this isn't about thinking it is right. That being said. If the country has a history of attacking other countries, opressing its people and attacking them, funding terrorism, denying mandatory inspections to make sure they don't have wmd, and hating my own country. Plus our intel says he is producing more wmd(whether that was right or wrong.)... Then yes. I do think the leader has the right to invade before they find themselves as the target.


<my own opinion>
My position on the war is interesting. I think it needed to be done. But I feel they should have done it before. (original gulf war... though please note the un mandate then was not to go after saddam). I also feel this whole situation could be avoided if we didnt play world cop 20 years ago. You cant stop people who have been fighting for 1000s of years from doing so.. You only make yourself a target.
<my opinion off>

[graywolf624]

Unlike vietnam we have full control of vietnam, there is no north and south, so that doesnt work. In vietnam our mistake was that we would bomb, then stop, bomb then stop, we needed to keep it up but we didnt.

Well actually the real reason we failed in iraq is that we would take a hill then just give it back.. That being said it is a proven fact that regardless of the number of troops you arent gonna stop a small group of nuts from doing something like shooting at troops. I pointed to vietnam because even deep inside south vietnam we had the same problems.. In areas that were considered friendly territory.. From the vietcong. How many troops and police officers are in the US? Yet 911 happened. The number of troops isn't the issue. In fact they are planning to cut down the number of troops. Furthermore, they could send far more then are there if they wished even from our own country. The issue is the atmosphere where a small group of people hates us and there is no order to the country. If we can figure out how to start setup their govt we will be in good shape.

[graywolf624]

How did Iraq threaten USA in this case?

Actually your terrorism statement is exactly what I would say. We feared they were working on a nuclear program as well as that they would use anthrax and stuff against us at a local level. I know your not from america so you probably didnt hear about how worried we were of this stuff coming here. We screwed up our entire way of life for fear of terrorists.. damn patriot act.

And to refute your statement of terrorists in every country in the world. There arent terrorists in every country that would do anything to hurt america. There arent guys that pay said terrorists and the family there of. There arent alot of countries that foster and encourage this terrorism. Personally I don't believe Saddam was an immediate threat to the us. I do feel that eventually the threat would be realized. Even if it would be 20 years from now with uday in charge. Can you honestly argue that you dont believe if saddam had wmd and he though he could get away with it he wouldnt use it against the US?


Whether you think thats a rational fear is up to you. Personaly I think we needed to get rid of saddam and afghanastan only because of our past screw ups.. After that we should say here you got such a problem with this germany.. you put a good regime in there. either that or do it and get it done with. then we keep out of middle east forever more. But Im not Bush. I dont control these things.

[graywolf624]

Im resisting the urge I have to tell you what I think of france and germany..:)
I'm a good boy.. I wont say anything inflammatory:)

[blah]

with the UN sanctions on Iraq within 20 years i think there would have been a coop, the people would have finally risen up and took their country back. Also Gray right now there are terrorist in our country, should we go with martial law to protect ourselves? Should we let such things as the patriot act, which is clearly unconstituional, be allowed to rule the day, and just throw out our constituional rights?

[graywolf624]

with the UN sanctions on Iraq within 20 years i think there would have been a coop, the people would have finally risen up and took their country back

Doubt it. The people were scared shitless of him.. Very rarely does a coop happen with that type of fear in place without help from an outside force. He just killed the people that opposed him or even could oppose him..


Also Gray right now there are terrorist in our country, should we go with martial law to protect ourselves? Should we let such things as the patriot act, which is clearly unconstituional, be allowed to rule the day, and just throw out our constituional rights?

Preaching to the choir here...Im a libertarian here not a republican remember?

[blah]

im just asking a question though, do you think we should, because the way bush is going now and congress is just passing law after law, you should be very upset yourself bieng a libertarian, we will be under martial law when ever we reach a certain threat level, and we wont have any consitutional rights. we must stop living in fear, thats what is blinding most americans.

[graywolf624]

im just asking a question though, do you think we should, because the way bush is going now and congress is just passing law after law, you should be very upset yourself bieng a libertarian, we will be under martial law when ever we reach a certain threat level, and we wont have any consitutional rights. we must stop living in fear, thats what is blinding most americans.

I have the same concerns you have. Unfortunately I also realize this isn't just a republican thing. The patriot act was only opposed by a handful of people.(if I remember right we are talking 3 or 4 in the senate) Not all of them were even democrat.
I'm against all big government so it greatly disturbs me.

[blah]

Yea, i never said it was a republican thing, but bush is the one making all this crap up. Im not attacking the whole republican party, just some of the reall assholes. The democrats need to stop bieng pussys and go out and speak up, and not worry about bieng claimed un patriotic. right now, i dont think there is anyone in congress with a backbone, except maybe ted kennedy, and hillary clinton.

[graywolf624]

Yea, i never said it was a republican thing, but bush is the one making all this crap up. Im not attacking the whole republican party, just some of the reall assholes

Its not really bush either. He doesnt help matters. The real problem is the news media.. and this one isnt a bias thing.. Their sensationalism in regards to failures in safety checks has led to this.

Please dont ever say something like back bone in conjunction with the uber bitch and a kennedy(the one who lets women drown in his car no less)

[blah]

Right now they are the ones with back bones, cuz they actually show their disguist for what is going on. Also i dont think its sesationalism with the security flaws, hell look around you next time in a government building, on a airplane, or any where you think security should be tight, you will find elemntary things that shouldnt be, its way to easy if you really wanted to to commit a terrorist act int his country, i do not feel that Homeland securtity has done a pat on the back job

[graywolf624]

Also i dont think its sesationalism with the security flaws, hell look around you next time in a government building, on a airplane, or any where you think security should be tight, you will find elemntary things that shouldnt be, its way to easy if you really wanted to to commit a terrorist act int his country, i do not feel that Homeland securtity has done a pat on the back job

I agree with that part.

[graywolf624]

And getting out of the middle east would probably be good for the region, cuz if you pulled out of Israel maybe they would stop striking down on the Palestine people, and let them have the land that Israel stole in the illegal occupations.

No arguements here. Though I think world wide our troops should only be on our own soil/ at our bases abroad/ and at sea.. not in any skermish.

The chance of Saddam using wmd and getting away with it is zero, and I dont care to get tangled up in fairytails.

It may be a fairy tail to you. But honestly I and many other people are 100 percent convinced that eventually iraq would strike at us in some significant manner. All it would take were him to get some plutonium (or anthrax in a water supply for that matter) and a terrorist act like 911. It could be down right untraceable. I dont think it would have been soon as I said.. But I feel it would come to pass if we didnt do something.. I just wish I could rewind time and tell israel that they should defend themselves instead of using us as some sorta big brother.

[graywolf624]

I think of it like this.. If people insist we must be the cops.. If you know someone has commited crimes in the past and he skips out on his proobation or breaks parole then you arrest him. Saddam broke parole by not allowing the wmd..

You don't do these things to punish. You do them because if you dont there is no incentive for the person to continue to do worse unchecked.

I think I will address the france issue indirectly. It is a common feeling among many americans that france (unless it is a direct advantage to her) will not back a war until they are marching down the streets of france. See wwII example. I dont go as far as many to declare them chicken or something. I consider they may be conciencious objectors or something. That being said I don't see them enforcing the wmd inspections on iraq in any way. We had to fight them on the persian gulf too if you remember.
That is my opinion and I am sorry it is so inflammatory. I have nothing against the french people or france. This opinion isn't limited to the US. many smaller members of the EU are wary of whether france would come to their aide if need be.

[blah]

I agree on the Isreal thing too. I think we need to give isreal its true independence, let them solve the way out of the whole they dug. Isreal needs to stop attacking its neighbors, they are basically asking for trouble from the arab world.

[blah]

I dont think the french are very grateful at all, as Eddie Izzard said, sometimes they can be wel...fucking french.

[Jabba]

A joke is a joke but please no more anti-Bush and anti-American threads. :?