Bush Puts a Cancer on the Presidency - Page 3

John Scott · 04-01-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

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.

So, as long as Hitler was just gassing German Jews, we should have left him alone? If you walk by a park and a woman not related to you is being raped, you wish them well and go about your business?

John Scott · 04-01-2004, 01:32 PM

Quote:

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?

How did Clinton create jobs? By putting one out of every ten people in the US on the Gov't payroll. Smart idea? No. It has to be paid for some how - he did it by raising taxes. We could have 0% unemployment if we raise taxes to 50% of income and put all the unemployed (lazy ass) people on the Gov't payroll, but that is a dumb idea.

Fruit & Veg · 04-01-2004, 01:53 PM

Proof of Fox's total independence - http://blugg.com/stuff/foxs_view_of_the_bbc_player.htm

Not.

kwvarga · 04-01-2004, 03:03 PM

what.. Hitler = bush? Uhm. yeah. okay. You are "blind". Go uhm.. kill yourself please.

bytech · 04-01-2004, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

So, as long as Hitler was just gassing German Jews, we should have left him alone? If you walk by a park and a woman not related to you is being raped, you wish them well and go about your business?

You know the answer to that one.

Bush is after his own interests and avenging his daddy. Sadam has nothing to do with Osama, yet somehow Bush always manages to link them up. Show me the proof.

If you want to liberate Iraq, fine. Just don't tell me it is about the terrorism, 9/11, or something else. If you are going in to "save the people", turn yer arse (Bush) around, and go and help all the people who have been suffering much worse, much longer.

Bush Sr. left Iraq before the job was finished. The people were darn close to getting rid of Saddam... unfortunatelly that is when Bush Sr. decided that it was not the US war... so, Saddam went back into full power, and took it out on the people ten fold. This is why no one was cheering for the US this time around... last time they did that, Saddam was not removed, and those who cheered were killed along with their families...

Nope, this has nothing to do about security. It has everything to do with ego, money, and propaganda.

John Scott · 04-01-2004, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Bush is after his own interests and avenging his daddy. Sadam has nothing to do with Osama, yet somehow Bush always manages to link them up. Show me the proof.

Sorry, but no. Bush did not fight Saddam. The American soldiers fought the war. And no, Americans did not fight it for Bush. American soldiers fought it to free Iraq from a terrible murderer of a dictator.

Did Bush have ulterior motives? Maybe. Nobody knows for sure, except Bush. All these statements of "fact" are in fact speculation. And, whether he had ulterior motives or not has nothing to do with the justice of what we did. He could have ordered the war in order to impress his gay sex slave - the fact remains that the war was the right thing to do.

kwvarga · 04-01-2004, 05:55 PM

he could of ordered the war.. then when us said it wasnt right thing to do, turned around and pulled troops out like John Kerry would do. guy changes his mind on everything faster than a speeding rocket to the moon

bytech · 04-01-2004, 06:22 PM

If all of what I am saying is speculation, than anything else said is speculation. If you are only going to take it from the horses mouth, you've got wake up. Besides, nothing that bush says can be taken at face value anyway, so listening to him is useless. Everything he says, when it sort of makes sense which it seldom does, contradicts itself. Sorry guys.

Not sure about Kerry, as we don't hear much about him here... but to be quite honest, I really can't see how he can be worse than Bush.

Anyway, John is right about the American Soldiers fighting Saddam... that is one mistake I will not make again in saying otherwise. To say Bush fought is a disgrace to all those who really did... Bush wouldn't step on the front if it meant breaking the law (which he already demonstrated).

John Scott · 04-01-2004, 06:38 PM

Quote:

If all of what I am saying is speculation, than anything else said is speculation. If you are only going to take it from the horses mouth, you've got wake up.

No, Bytech, it always has been and always will be bad form to assign bad motives to good actions. The war was justifiable. It was a well deserved war. But Democrats refuse to give Bush credit, so they want to assign an ulterior motive to it. Bad form.

If you want to criticize him, don't make up motives. Just criticize his actions.

Quote:

Bush wouldn't step on the front if it meant breaking the law

Like that draft-dodging Clinton who sent our soldiers into Somalia with guns but no bullets because he didn't want anybody getting shot? Let's all thank Clinton for that. I'm sure he pissed himself when he saw those pictures of US soldiers being dragged through the streets naked and dead.

See how easy it is to attack a politician? Why? Cuz they are all scum. Lying scum. So forget the politicians, and focus on policy.

rtroxel · 04-01-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

I just recieved this from a friend in the USA. Grumpus, tell me there are no facts in this:

Would Grumpus apply these same standards to Saddam Hussein?

rtroxel · 04-01-2004, 08:10 PM

Quote:

But you have to wake up to reality sooner or later.

Yeah, let's hear it for "reality!"

I mean, why did the US send troops into the Netherlands in 1944???

Why did the US send troops into France in 1944??? How un-real can you get!

And why did Canada remain loyal to the British Empire? Now, that's being realistic!

kwvarga · 04-01-2004, 08:19 PM

lets be realistic: what the hell is rtoxel rambling on about?

John Scott · 04-01-2004, 08:22 PM

He's talking about the reality of why we went to war. (Because it was the right thing to do.)

rtroxel · 04-01-2004, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Civilized first world nations don't start wars.

That's right! The US started the war against Britain in 1776!

On the other hand, civilized and progressive nations like Canada and Australia remained loyal to Britain, and look what it's done for them!

rtroxel · 04-01-2004, 08:39 PM

Thanks, John.

You see, Spear, if you read books, you'll know that the US landed in Normandy, France in 1944, to rid that country of the Germans. The US also entered Holland in the Winter of 1944 to run the Germans out of that country, too.

After 1945, the US gave billions of dollars to those three countries so they could rebuild.

The US is trying to do something similar today in Iraq.

That's what the hell I'm talking about.

Immo · 04-02-2004, 02:48 AM

Despite the fact im English I thought Bush was doing a good job other than trying to take over the world. Thought some of his reforms have been quite good.

bytech · 04-02-2004, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

No, Bytech, it always has been and always will be bad form to assign bad motives to good actions. The war was justifiable. It was a well deserved war. But Democrats refuse to give Bush credit, so they want to assign an ulterior motive to it. Bad form.

I still don't see a single justifiable thing about this war. Bush's policy is to "spray and pray" (think a machine gun with bullets), hope to hit something that is a threat. Richard Clarke has hit the nail on the head over and over again.

The only reason the war started out so popular was because of the propaganda, and the dirty looks anyone criticising the admin received for even opening their mouth. People like Bill Maher getting kicked off air because they spoke out against Bush is a great example of muffled negative responses towards the Admin.

CNN and Fox were at the front of spreading the propaganda. I've never seen a less professional attempt to cover a news event as those two war mongering stations have done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

If you want to criticize him, don't make up motives. Just criticize his actions.

I think compar has already done that part through his list... Actions are sometimes not nearly as relevant as the reasons behind them. Think Robin Hood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Like that draft-dodging Clinton who sent our soldiers into Somalia with guns but no bullets because he didn't want anybody getting shot? Let's all thank Clinton for that. I'm sure he pissed himself when he saw those pictures of US soldiers being dragged through the streets naked and dead.

Don't know that much about Clinton (know nuff about Somalia, than again who doesn't after BHD), but I do know one thing: With Clinton the world was not in half the chaos it is now. Sure, you can blame the chaos on 9/11 and not Bush... but Bush is the one who invaded one of the very few Middle East countries that didn't hate the USA, while making it sound like this is a 9/11 "natural response". Not only that, Bush has made 9/10 of the world his enemy.

No, the sooner Bush gets out, the sooner things will improve. It is very frustrating to see a guy get into office, and take charge of places where people did not elect him. This is not a democracy. It is tyrany. No one in Iraq voted for Bush, yet they have him showing his visions down their throats. I'd be really pissed if I was in Iraq...