Bush Puts a Cancer on the Presidency

[Leader of Men]

I dont like getting involved in politics

Besides, I dont like the choices I've been offered this time around

[kwvarga]

lancaster.. isnt that where Drexel is?

[greg]

Bob, as you clearly know I agree with you 100%. I think however that if we are going to ever acomplish anything we need to run on principle of uniting not dividing.

As the book points out which i just read and gave you a recomendation for, this is the most divided the country has ever been. It is sad but true. Since the Bush administration we have become more and more divided not just among ourselfs but with the rest of the world.

I think that the downright mean name calling and general mudslinging should actually stop. This does not mean we can not defend ourselves, I think in these lies that Bush is spreading about Kerry that he should show honest research giving the truth, and if what Bush is saying is true he should simply confirm it and not try to cover it up.

For the record however I did feel at one point that we should have attack for attack. I've come up and e-mailed Kerry several times with various issues that Bush has said about him, or stirred in the press which were 100% fictious. Kerry's response you might ask? hmm, why don't i simply cut and past from an e-mail sent back from his campaign manager:

John Kerry understands and shares your concerns about the current Bush
administration. We are aware that their campaign gear is made in Burma.
Our campaign gear is made by Financial Innovations, INC. in America.

This was in reference to the fact that Bush had banned imports from Burma, however his campaign t-shirts were manufactured there. This was no major offense grant it, but Bush at the same time was attacking Kerry on a variety of issues, most of then of "wavering" on his stances. Which by the way are highly exagerated, but I felt it would be a good response to show that Bush wavers in that he helps push policy that seems to not apply to him somehow.

However, I sat and thought about it for a while and decided no this is not the way that we should do this, instead we simply have to stand up and be honest with the people about the administration, but at the same time trying to promote unity, and for what it is worth Kerry does attempt to show the same opinion. Later in that e-mail the campaign manager wrote:

John Kerry believes Americans don't want to take the country back, they
want to take it forward.

by simply responding attack for attack we are doing nothing more than assisting Bush in his efforts to divide the country, and divide us from the rest of the world. Kerry has decided to try a different route and is moving in the area of not attacking Bush. He has from time to time to be sure, but not anywhere near on the scale that the Bush administration has done. The administration has simply brought out lie after lie, exageration after exageration about Kerry, the same way he did against McCain (who for the record I do like very much, and there would have been a good chance I would have voted for him in 2000 had he been the nominee) and the same way he did against Gore in the general election.

Also, at least on the Clarke issue. You can not simply say the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Clarke was the very first counterterrorism advisor. He knows more about terrorism than anyone else.

Lets see what the Bush administration has to say about Clarke and his role:

"Vice President Dick Cheney said Clarke "wasn't in the loop" on major decisions and may hold a personal grudge against Rice."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...rke/index.html

Hmm, stop and think about this one for a minute. If Clarke "wasn't in the loop" for counterterrorism then why not? Again, the guy had been around since the beginning of terrorism in the country. If he was not in on the loop then that is a case against the Bush administration that they were not taking it seriously by not allowing someone who they re-appointed to a position he had served in since Regan. In fact this one is true. Clarke was not in on the loop. The Bush administration ignored him and refused to even listen to him since day 1. Shortly after Bush took office Clarke begin saying that it was possible that there could be a terror attack based on what he had seen recently, and the Bush administration simply ignored him. Good one Dick, you got it right.

Others like to say that Clarke is doing it for to sell books and to enhance his image

""Your government failed you," he said, "and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness.""
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ony/index.html

that sounds like a guy wanting to enhance his personal image if i've ever seen one, i mean, saying that you failed 290 million people is a great way to do that one.

They also argue that he was doing it to enhance his career and get a more "prominate position".

However Clarke while under oath said clearly that he would not accept a position under Kerry if he is offered one, and that he has no desire to work in the government again.

[John Scott]

Compar,

You want to blame the pres for people losing jobs? Is the US a communist state? Well, ok, yes it is a communist state. But it shouldn't be. People need to find their own work.

And, Iraq... should we have left SH in power? Is that what you're suggesting?

[Leader of Men]

Yes, please tell me again there are "No WMDs"...

If one more person says that I'm going to punch them in the face.

If he doesn't have WMD, please let me know how these innocent people were really killed.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Leader of Men

I dont like getting involved in politics

You're very smart. Politics is just a bunch of people throwing idiotic things at each other, anyway

[kwvarga]

greg.. you still havent answered my question.

[Leader of Men]

Originally Posted by Brian

You're very smart. Politics is just a bunch of people throwing idiotic things at each other, anyway

Yes, but now look what I've done

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Leader of Men

Yes, but now look what I've done

That's ok, we all do it. It's a disease ... o_O For some of us, it has spread throughout our bodies and is incurable, for the others it has been detained and one day will be removed. I hope my desire to become a politician goes away. I don't care to become a prominent republican in this liberal state anyways ... I've been called enough bad names without being some prominent political freak

Hopefully when this election is over and I help bush get re-elected my desire will go away. I think it has to do with the fact that I've never seen any celebrity or politician as close to a "friend" as bush, oh well ^_^

Hmm, I need to work on my comparisons.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Brian

And it's my challenege to you to prove that fox-news is a right wing media source

good, i like this one..hmm, lets see:

Sean Hannity: Don't think I even need to attempt at this one, but I'll do it just for fun anyway
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

O'Reilly: My personal favorite. First, simply watch it him when he goes on the air and has a liberal guest, he cuts them off any time they attempt to say anything. But no that is not proof enough.

O Reilly registered as a republican. A week before the story was released he changed his affiliation to independent. He cited that he "didn't see a box for independent so he simply left it blank and they filled it in for him" Well there are two problems with this. Below and to the left of the box where he checked that he is republican was a box labled "I do not wish to enroll in party" Maybe that was too many words for him. Yet however, if you know the slightest thing about hand writting you will know that people tend to be reasonably consistent in how they do things, like check boxes. Just above where he clearly checked republican was a box asking if he was a US citizen, which was checked yes. Now, the check marks look very identical, in fact, just being an observer i'd personally argue that they are from the same person. Then again, who knows, maybe he left both of them blank because he couldn't find the box for Yes under the citizen question, so lets throw even that one out.

Lets just resort back to the good old method of issues. I like this one. O' Reilly claims to be : "Among being against the death penalty, Bill O'Reilly has quite a list of liberal views. He's pro-choice, pro gay adoption, pro civil unions, pro gun control, pro decriminalization of marijuana, supports tough environmental legislation due to his belief in global warming and supports campaign finance reform -- all traditionally LIBERAL positions on major issues."

Gay adoption
" That being said, there is no question that a child is better off in a mainstream home with responsible heterosexual parents. "
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48127,00.html

Abortion (townhall.com by the way is an extremly conservative site, the fact that they call O'Reilly a "Conservative Columnist" should say something)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20010908.shtml

I could go on, but I am tired of the guy, lets move on

Colmes: Yeah, democrat. Though watch the show sometime, the guy never gets a word in. In addition read his book sometime. He tells how they treat him like crap at fox telling him to go get them coffee, mop floors, and just all sorts of general crap work. The only reason they keep him on is so that they can say they have a democrat.

ok, so you get the basic idea of where this is going about those who host the shows.

lets just look at the creater Roger Ailes, this is my absolute favorite: This guy is about as republican as you can get. He acts as a GOP political consultant, helped with the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush SR. campaigns. Was refered to as the "Dark prince of right wing attack politics". He helped produce Rush Limbaugh's tv show along with other things.

All in all, i'd say fox is fairly conservative.

[Brian]

Hmm, the type of reply I could expect from a liberal. Tis what I expected.

[greg]

Originally Posted by theSpear

greg.. you still havent answered my question.

which question was that... i guess i lost it somewhere. sorry i was answering brians

[Leader of Men]

My picture didn't turn anyone republican?

[Brian]

No LoM ... our right wing conspiracies don't seem to be working anymore.

[Brian]

Well, I'm no longer taking place in this debate. Greg knows why, i just talked to him on IM. I think for now on I'll just stick for sports debates.

Adios

[Leader of Men]

Everyone needs to have a listen to these:
#1
#2
#3 - the original

[greg]

while i do not feel like listening to them, it appears to be dean bashes.

I am fine with those, i never personally liked dean in the first place. I think the internet thing was good, the first step in what will be an evolutionary process... however he is not a good guy.

If you all remember I worked around the Clark campaign for quite a while, and I learned a lot about Dean while working on that. His campaign teams would go around and vandalize the Clark and Kerry campaign offices, vans, tear up signs, and harass campaigners. They were quite ruthless in the way they did it. It was more like a mob than a campaign team. I am still suprised to this day that none of it got on the news. We started carrying a video camera around just on the off chance that they would do something to us, however they had decided to pull out of OK city the day that we got there, so nothing eventfull happen that we could catch.

Because of that I lost all respect for the guy. The Clark campaign people were really nice however. Though i must admit extremely unproductive. there are several things i saw in my weekend in the campaign office that were not productive means to win a campaign, and we actually won that one, so i can only imagine how bad it was in states where we lost.

[kwvarga]

i still havent got an answer to my question...

[compar]

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Compar,

You want to blame the pres for people losing jobs? Is the US a communist state? Well, ok, yes it is a communist state. But it shouldn't be. People need to find their own work.

The question of whether or not the President has any influence on job creation is valid. But let me simply ask you this. If we had had a strong growing economy with a lot of new jobs created during the past two years who do you think would be taking credit for it?

Do you think Bush's campaign commercials would say "America is a great country to live in. Strong economy, lots of new jobs, but of course as President I had nothing with"?

So if the President is going to take the credit he also has to take the heat when the economy and jobs aren't good.

And, Iraq... should we have left SH in power? Is that what you're suggesting?

Saddam was just none of your business. There is absolutely no documented connection between him and 9/11. Civilized first world nations don't start wars. They protect themselves. They defend others from aggressors, but they don't unilaterally start wars.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by theSpear

UN is worthless. again.. the UN is worthless. I hope you realize that. UN is worthless. uhm, one more time: UN is worthless.

Do you know why the UN was created, and what it's purpose is? It has been established amongst others to prevent any single nation to wage war, in other words, eliminate the possibility of unilateral action (Hitler's actions were the main reason for this protocol... "Never again").

While on the subject of Hitler, Bush reminds me a lot of him. Here it is, paraphrased nicely:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articl...itler-Bush.htm

On other fronts, forgetting the war for a minute, I am sickened by the argument made by the Administation that: "All you have to do is figure out who Osama would vote for, and vote for the other guy". There is more to government "who the enemy would vote for". Bush is well on the way to make abortion illegal again, is denying equal rights to gays and lesbians (politics and religion don't mix, but Bush is too dumb to know that), is probably the only politician in a very very long time to execute metally challenged individuals, and much much more.

People like compar are the only reason not all of the world hates the USA. It is sad that so many people cannot see (well, realise) that not all of USA shares Bush's grim vision of the future, and maybe compar can help the world realise this simple fact.

Bush is trying to "organise freedom", which is an oxymoron. I wonder how many Iraqies with dead and crippled family members are thankful to him. Bush said that the UN is taking too long to find WMD, and that those WMD could be used any day... that is why the US should go in without waiting for the UN. Well my friend, over a year later, no WMD. Plus, Bush kicked out the UN all together, so if WMD are claimed to be found, there is no witnesses (so Bush can plant them, and find them when it is most convenient). In the mean while, the UN would have combed through just as much of the land as the US army has, if the Admin spent a fraction of the cost they spent on war, in helping the UN and getting more inspectors.

Anyway, I could go on and on and on, as I already demonstrated. I have a feeling that those who agree already know all this, and those who do not stopped reading a long time ago, or my words are falling on "blind eyes"...