February 10, 200422 yr Here is my whole opinion on the Bush/Iraq situation. I've thought for a while (pre-9/11) that Saddam was a bad man/ruler for his country, and potentially a threat to world security. To be quite honest, when the news came out that said that he had been planning this war before 9/11, I wasn't too surprised. I was more surprised that people were shocked by it. There was no doubt in my mind that he was going to go do what his dad couldn't finish. That being said, I don't agree with how the Republican administration there went about dealing with this. I strongly believe that we did this long before we had any reason to, and even if we had to go right away, I believe that we should have waited for the United Nations instead of acting by ourselves. I'll come out and admit it, I am a conservative. I'm registered to vote as a Republican, but trust me, I'm not the biggest Bush supporter. I believe that some of his programs are flawed (No Child Left Behind Act is the first one that comes to mind) and his war in Iraq was pre-mature. I haven't given too much thought to the presidential elections in November, mostly because I want to see who the Democrats put up against Bush. Although I am conservative, I like Kerry a lot, and if it were Kerry v. Bush, that would be extremely interesting (for me at least). I hope for everyone here who calls Bush voters ignorant and stupid can stand behind what they are saying by voting in November. I have many friends that complain about my political views (because they are all liberal), but won't vote or anything. The one thing, however, that scares me about voting for a Democratic candidate is how they will handle the Iraq situation. I am afriad that if we get the wrong Democrat in office, that he will rush the U.S. forces out of Iraq too quickly and only cause more problems. Bush, IMO, screwed up in going about war with Iraq, but we're in it, and we have to make sure that we get out by not causing more problems than good. Depending on who the Democrats put up to run, I'm not sure who will be best to make that happen. Just as a quick sidenote here, I haven't noticed it too often here, but since when has it been a crime to be conservative? I am in two political science classes this semester in Gettysburg, and the one teacher is almost a socialist liberal who tells us everyday how liberals are smarter and better than conservatives. I have another teacher who feeds us liberal propoganda through Plato's "Republic". He takes examples and shows how conservatives know how to drive a country in the ground and don't know anything about politics. Yes, George Bush is a conservative, but there are conservatives that don't agree with what he does (me, I still kind of on the fence with him, but the whole Iraq thing really bothers me). When Bill Clinton went through his tough times, I for one, and the conservatives I knew then, did not lump all liberals together as bad and screwing up. I don't really like not being able to speak in Poli. Sci. classes in fear of really pissing off a teacher by saying I'm conservative. It's very hypocritical and, to be quite honest with you, I'm tired of it. I shouldn't feel like I need to drop a class because I don't align politcally with my teacher? It's absurd, and it's not just there. There are a lot of liberals (and I thank you very much if you are not one of them) who lump all conservatives together as evil and bad.
February 10, 200422 yr Author I'm registered to vote as a Republican, but trust me, I'm not the biggest Bush supporter. I believe that some of his programs are flawed (No Child Left Behind Act is the first one that comes to mind) and his war in Iraq was pre-mature. Premature to say the least, but I am also a registered republican and I'm voting libertarian in the presidential election. I'm not some liberal who's extremely biased against Bush because of my standing. I hate Bush for being against everything I stand for (decreased spending and not bombing people for no reason.) I am pro the effort and afghanistan, I would most likely be pro an effort in North Korea. War can be justifiable. War against Iraq was not and we were leid to. I hope for everyone here who calls Bush voters ignorant and stupid can stand behind what they are saying by voting in November. I have many friends that complain about my political views (because they are all liberal), but won't vote or anything. If you don't vote you have no right to complain. Luckily, non-voters are idiots and we're better off without their votes. The one thing, however, that scares me about voting for a Democratic candidate is how they will handle the Iraq situation. I am afriad that if we get the wrong Democrat in office, that he will rush the U.S. forces out of Iraq too quickly and only cause more problems. Bush, IMO, screwed up in going about war with Iraq, but we're in it, and we have to make sure that we get out by not causing more problems than good. Depending on who the Democrats put up to run, I'm not sure who will be best to make that happen. Agreed, we have to make sure we don't pull a Bush Sr. and pull out support in afghanistan (which led to 9-11 in a way.) When you are in, you have to make sure the job is done and the country is stable, like after WW2. Just as a quick sidenote here, I haven't noticed it too often here, but since when has it been a crime to be conservative? I am in two political science classes this semester in Gettysburg, and the one teacher is almost a socialist liberal who tells us everyday how liberals are smarter and better than conservatives. I have another teacher who feeds us liberal propoganda through Plato's "Republic". He takes examples and shows how conservatives know how to drive a country in the ground and don't know anything about politics. The university level is scaringly liberal, but you have to learn to live with it. Plato was pro totalitarianism... Yes, George Bush is a conservative No he's not. Maybe he's a social conservative (if you consider killing people good christian values), but he's definitely not a good economic conservative. In fact, he's amongst the worst in history. Overall, good post.
February 10, 200422 yr Yes, George Bush is a conservative No he's not. Maybe he's a social conservative (if you consider killing people good christian values), but he's definitely not a good economic conservative. In fact, he's amongst the worst in history. First, I meant to type that George Bush is a Republican, not conservative. He is by far the worst conservative in terms of spending.
February 10, 200422 yr Saddam is not as bad as hitler. Who started the war Bush or Saddam? Bush. Hitler started wars too. Who killed his political enemies like Hitler/Stalin, Bush or Sadam? Saddam. Making a comparison between the two isn't easy making your point about stepping in during World War II a bad one. Lcyberlina said that people follow Bush even though he stands against everything a rational person would demand, that being a balanced budget, not starting up wars with fabricated evidence and lying about it, and ect. What you yourself fail to grasp angels is that Bush lied to YOU and the American people to put us into a VERY expensive war and he drove up our budget with the neo-conservatives that don't stand for fiscal responsibility. George W. Bush is not even under inquiry for wrong doing. But did he commit wrong, yes or no? HE COMMITTED MANY WRONGFUL ACTS, especially the war on Iraq. He lied to your face, we're spending hundreds of billions, how do you not get it? To not understand something so simple and layed out for you borders upon immense ignorance. George W. Bush did not lie to me, he clearly stated this war with Iraq was a "U.S. preememptive action." U.S. preememptive action, get that! Thank God we did'nt wait as long as Roosevelt did in WWII. The deficit spending concerns me, but these have been recession years, so there is little that can be done. The Mars mission proposal seems to be ill-timed but not a crime. But I don't get overly concerned about it, because the U.S. Constitution states in Amendment XIV, Section 4: "The Validity of the public debt of the the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." "Authorized by law" and "shall not be questioned" stand out. The funds for the war in Iraqi are authorized by law by the U.S. Congress so the U.S. law states that you cannot question it.
February 10, 200422 yr um.... that meant insurrection or rebellion INSIDE the territory of the nation. when did Iraq become within our jurisdiction?
February 10, 200422 yr um.... that meant insurrection or rebellion INSIDE the territory of the nation. when did Iraq become within our jurisdiction? You are distorting the U.S. Constitution which you liberals do not value anyways. That quote clearly says "including!" "The Validity of the public debt of the the United States, authorized by law, including ......." Here is clear example that a Bush Basher distorts facts, so all Bush Bashers are idiots, if I use Lcyberlina reasonings.
February 10, 200422 yr how am i distorting the Constitution.... aren't you doing that also.... I am interpreting the Constitution as it applied in 1789.
February 10, 200422 yr Author George W. Bush did not lie to me, he clearly stated this war with Iraq was a "U.S. preememptive action." U.S. preememptive action, get that! Thank God we did'nt wait as long as Roosevelt did in WWII. Yeah, preemptive because IRAQ SUPPSOEDLY HAD WEAPONS...GET THAT??? You obviously don't. Bush is quoted saying that he knows for certain Iraq had threatening weapons. Powell shown PICTURES of weapon facilities. Photographic, audio, and intelligence lies compounded with verbal lying. So HE LIED TO YOU, get it through your head. And no, IRaq wasn't nazi germany. If anything, saddam was too busy building his palaces and what not. His military has radically decreased in size, he wasn't going to take over Europe and try to kill entire ethnicities of people. The deficit spending concerns me, but these have been recession years, so there is little that can be done. Yeah, you can not pass prescription drug care legislation, bomb IRaq for no reason, pass tax cuts, pass the no child left behind, make a department of homeland security, increase other bureaucracies, and increase military girth. "Little can be done" is the biggest understatement on Earth. But I don't get overly concerned about it, because the U.S. Constitution states in Amendment XIV, Section 4: "The Validity of the public debt of the the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." "Authorized by law" and "shall not be questioned" stand out. The funds for the war in Iraqi are authorized by law by the U.S. Congress so the U.S. law states that you cannot question it. Are you friggin'....I'm not going to even say it. That pretty much says that in times of war deficit spending (like in the revolutionary and war of 1812 wars) is allowable for the very survival of the nation. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE "PRE-EMPTIVE" measures, especially those of a country like Iraq which posed no threat whatsoever. That does not justify all of his budget increases and the fact that the WAR ON IRAQ is NOT JUSTIFIED, all spending FOR IT is therefore wrong. We have to now pay the costs for Bush's and his supporters stupiditiy.
February 10, 200422 yr "Authorized by law" and "shall not be questioned" stand out. The funds for the war in Iraqi are authorized by law by the U.S. Congress so the U.S. law states that you cannot question it. WTF????????? You think this section of the Constitution squelches public debate about the deficit? :pullhair
February 10, 200422 yr Author You are distorting the U.S. Constitution which you liberals do not value anyways. That quote clearly says "including!" "The Validity of the public debt of the the United States, authorized by law, including ......." Here is clear example that a Bush Basher distorts facts, so all Bush Bashers are idiots, if I use Lcyberlina reasonings. dude, it deals with only inside the country "including pensions and yada yada for rebellion and resurrection." Read the black and white print. The spending is only justified if it helps the country's DEFENSE and IRaq is certainly not the case. Bush supporters are to a degree stupid. I'm very surprised Alkazoid supprots Bush. Nonetheless, if you cannot admit to the obvious fallacies of bush, you're just ignorant.
February 10, 200422 yr i thought alkazoid was a dean supporter. or perhaps you are thinking of clapinski.....
February 10, 200422 yr When is U.S. Federal "Public debt" restricted to the inside of the U.S. only. It is not! The point is the U.S. is deficit based government and there is no use in worrying about the U.S. Federal deficit. I'm not going to pay it, so who cares. Taxes are high worldwide. When the economy is favorable those are times the debt can be repaid. This section of the U.S. Constitution prevents suits, public debate over the approved debt of the U.S. Federal government. It deals with "public debt" as it states and includes those additional situations of insurrection or rebellion which forsaw Indian wars, the Civil War, etc. Public debt includes foreign wars or engagements of the U.S.
February 10, 200422 yr i thought alkazoid was a dean supporter. or perhaps you are thinking of clapinski..... What?
February 10, 200422 yr Am. 14, section 4, means that public debts shall not be questioned as legal debts, not that the citizenry cannot debate them as sound policy. Dork :dork
February 10, 200422 yr Hey, Genius -- Am. 14, section 4, means that public debts shall not be questioned as legal debts, not that the citizenry cannot debate them as sound policy. Dork :dork I never stated that, Faggot!
February 10, 200422 yr But I don't get overly concerned about it, because the U.S. Constitution states in Amendment XIV, Section 4: "The Validity of the public debt of the the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." "Authorized by law" and "shall not be questioned" stand out. The funds for the war in Iraqi are authorized by law by the U.S. Congress so the U.S. law states that you cannot question it. You didn't, hayseed? :hayseed
February 10, 200422 yr Author i thought alkazoid was a dean supporter. or perhaps you are thinking of clapinski..... alkazoid explicitly said he's voting Bush in a thread (he gave 10 reasons or something), but clapinski seems like a smart guy.
February 10, 200422 yr Author exposing him! The point is the U.S. is deficit based government and there is no use in worrying about the U.S. Federal deficit. I'm not going to pay it, so who cares. Taxes are high worldwide. When the economy is favorable those are times the debt can be repaid. Uh, the deficit is over 7 trillion dollars AND YOU THE TAXPAYER pays INTEREST every year, Hundreds of billions of dollars go towards paying down INTEREST OF THE DEBT instead of back in our pockets. 2003 fiscally was an excellent year, yet we ran a deficit. Why? Because of UNSOUND economic policy. And still, your head is so thick you still don't admit you were lied to, that all the allegations were false.
February 10, 200422 yr i thought alkazoid was a dean supporter. or perhaps you are thinking of clapinski..... alkazoid explicitly said he's voting Bush in a thread (he gave 10 reasons or something), but clapinski seems like a smart guy. Alkazoid is for Dean not Bush. His Avatar is Hurricanes for Dean for America or something. He always saying the media screwed Dean which it did. He's a Dean guy.
February 10, 200422 yr Hey, Genius -- Am. 14, section 4, means that public debts shall not be questioned as legal debts, not that the citizenry cannot debate them as sound policy. Dork :dork I never stated that, Faggot! OK. What is wrong with you? Why do you have to offend people? Being against Bush doesn't mean we all are liberals. BTW Liberals are not equal to communists, but I suppose you're unable to see the difference. There are many colors in between Black and White honey. Being a Liberal is not a dirty thing. It just means we oppose the politics of this administration. However, you don't have to be a "liberal" to oppose Bush. Bush is a liar. End of story.
February 10, 200422 yr I suppose you can't read what he called me. And you claim Bush supporters can't think and are not regular people. All this from an illegal immigrant. Actually I don't care whom wins, but I will vote for George W. Bush. This is just a mental exercise for me.
February 10, 200422 yr Author I suppose you can't read what he called me. And you claim Bush supporters can't think and are not regular people. All this from an illegal immigrant. Actually I don't care whom wins, but I will vote for George W. Bush. This is just a mental exercise for me. Fine, flaunt your ignorance, but its pathetic that you just shrug off the truth so you can "honestly" vote for Bush. You are a despicable American. And don't bash someone for immigrating here, at least she supports getting a man out WHO IS DESTROYING AMERICA. Maybe not qutie destory, but hurting nonetheless. Lcyberlina is American, don't be bashing her for doing what a good American does- participate in ademocracy and stay informed. You are so poorly informed evidence right in front of you cannot even force a concession fom "Wow, Bush fuc*ed me." If you can intelligently participate in a democracy, get the hell out of America. P.S. Mental excercise? What are you excercising? You haven't made a single good point.
February 10, 200422 yr Author Post from Alkazoid on page 3 of "Who is cooler" well, i'm probably going to vote for bush since i'm not particularly fond of kerry. reasons why people vote for bush: 1) tax cuts, including taxes on income, capital gains, estate, and dividends 2) stronger markets 3) tort reform on malpractice lawsuits 4) superior national security (i support the patriot act, btw) 5) stronger businesses and industries 6) tougher on crime 7) supports better "family values" 8) supports the place of religion in public institutions 9) more powerful military 10) wants to privatize social security, thereby making it more efficient 11) holding schools accountable for poor performance 12) school vouchers
February 10, 200422 yr Author Who appointed you power, Saddam? Go back to Israel, Bozo! Oh my God, your counter argument is so good! You're such an enlightened man. Fool. Go to Iraq and basque in the glory of what you support. Beleive me, they're ignorant democracy will suit you well.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.