The Desert Colossus

I think hes a fairly good president, he made the right choices for our country over the years.

yeah right! He is such a stupid idiot. Look at gas prices. he is like the king of oil! Its even been told that he cheated the election. If he hadnt been elected there is a possibility that the twin towers may not have fallen. The terrorist gropes have something against bush's dad. I dont like him. period.

So Bush is somehow responsible for the behavior of radical Islamic extremists who hate us because of our freedom?  Interesting.

I voted him as 'good.'  I like the guy, I trust his beliefs, but there is always a way to be better.

What really p***** me off (I have said this before) is the way people try to paint him as someone who is dumb.  They say he is stupid because he stumbles over some words in his speeches.  So what?  The man is obviously dyslexic.  As a person with dyslexia (or something similar) I can tell you that it is not a retardation of any sort.  His brain is fully functional like everyone's.  Just because he can't say "nuclear" doesn't show a damn thing about his IQ.  Believe me, for some people there are just certain words and phrases that are hard to say.  For the life of me, I can not say "rear wheel drive."  I have to say RWD to avoid embarrasment, and then everyone looks at me like "WTF?"

Whocares Edit: Please no cussing. Please? *Puts on sad face*

I like his dad just fine, but him not so much I mean I like him more than kerry but come on I'm glad that hes only alowed 2 terms.

QuoteIf he hadnt been elected there is a possibility that the twin towers may not have fallen.

Stop right there.  You're just saying what the liberal media is telling you.  The truth is that Al Queda gained power during the Clinton administration.  Clinton did nothing to try and stop Al Queda.  Oh wait, I forgot.  He sent ONE courtesy cruise missle to try and take out Saddam, and it never even made it to it's target.  Also, Bush is not the reason for oil prices, the reason for oil prices is the radical Islamic millitants that just don't happen to like Bush and his "Western" views.  THAT'S the reason oil is going up.  It doesn't matter what President we have, people like Kim Jong Il are going to hate us no matter what.

He's not good, period!

I think of him as ok and I somewhat agree with ZV. ;)

This is an example of the liberal media at work. Celebrities and punk rockers fill the youth of today's mind with filth and thoughts of our president being horrible. If you bought a GM vehicle they have a plan that allows you to pay only 1.99 a gallon for a whole year.

Not to step on your point Sephiroth, but GM is on a downslope on business.

yup and what do you mean about and rock filth >:(

George Bush has nothing to do with gas Prices, its depends on where you live and how high the taxes are! it also depends on the radical islams in other countries, charging $72 a barrel for a gallon of agas!

Thank you Masterkey, thank you.

Oh, and by the way, how did George Bush "cheat the elections" hmmm? Explain to me how liberals see this in him winning.

Quote from: EmeraldLink2.0 on July 07, 2006, 07:38:04 AM
yup and what do you mean about and rock filth >:(

A lot of the media and entertainment are liberally biased.  They are somehow messed up enough to think GWB is worse than the terrorists and stuff.

but rock is like the very soul of everybody. :'(

Yes, the media has a liberal bias.  That's where they got the term, "The liberal media".  Hollywood is liberal, New York is liberal.  

ya but New York is one of the souls of the united states

Yeah, the liberal soul.  Listen, while New York is run by Hillary Clinton, it's my enemy.

ya I also hate hillary clinton. >:(

i live in New York and i cant stand the liberals here! They get on my nerves! They have no idea about anyhting happening in the world, they just spew out what they think, like the New York Times. They have no regard for the sfaety of others and out nation! i cant stand them!

are they really that bad there. :-[

QuoteCelebrities and punk rockers fill the youth of today's mind with filth and thoughts of our president being horrible.

Give examples of celebrities who fill my mind with filth, celebrities say what they think. Are you saying that they  do it on purpose? I have in no way been influenced by singers etc.
I don't like Bush he has made little or no progress, for the country. Is he working?

personally I think all he cares about is himself. :)

Hollywood, almost exclusively liberal, uses its status to force their opinions on people.  They don't only express their opinions, they act like they can run the country.

George Clooney, Alec Baldwin, I can go on.

Gamefreak, have you ever watched Team America?

Can't say I have.

that movie was somewhat funny. :)

did any of you watch Ferenheight nine eleven? Aparently not >:(

Michael Moore is a liar.  Don't believe anything he puts out.

what do you mean don't believe him. ;)

It all really depends on where you live in the country, you know. Areas in the United States such as New York and Miami are going to be almost exclusively Liberal because a lot of the people who live there are from other countries. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

Anyways, it sounds like everyone who's Liberal on these boards are just saying that George Bush sucks, and everyone who's Conservative is saying that everything that the media says is a lie. Well, I ask you: where are we supposed to get our information if everything that the media says about our president is supposedly a lie/biased? Honestly, I have no idea where the Conservatives here are getting their information from if the media is so Liberal.

But that's all besides the point. Now, it's pretty obvious that 9/11 would have probably happened no matter who was president. In fact, I've never heard of ANYONE suggesting that it might not have happened, strange as that may seem to some of you. Now, I'm not saying that I think GWB is a good president. On the contrary, it seems like America has been having a lot of problems since he was elected, but maybe that's just because he happened to become president around the same time that I began becoming even semi-interested in politics.

Either way, has anyone even pointed out anything good that George Bush has done? 'Cause all I've really heard are bad things from the Liberals here and "Lies! All lies!" from the Conservatives. Seriously, though, someone point out something good that GWB has done so that this can be a valid discussion...

well I guess he helped out a litle with katrina. ;)

QuoteSeriously, though, someone point out something good that GWB has done so that this can be a valid discussion...

That is largely dependent on my conservative views.  I like him because of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act among many things I consider moral issues.  Also, I like the fact that we dethroned Saddam Hussein and turned around the Afghan government.  I won't even go into economics because I don't know enough about them to know if ... I'm an idiot.  Let's just leave it at that.

 :o say what.

Sometimes I get frustrated with myself.  I have a hard time saying what is on my mind.

 :o say what again.

I can point 0ut soemthing good George bush has done. Hes protected our country from MANY terrorist attacks. Amost everyday, i hear of a plot that was thwarted, thanks to his efforts. So hes does do work, yes, using the FBI.

what do you mean he wasn't able to stop the 9/11 attack. ;)

ok, im about to make a really long post, so bear with me. :-*

In my opinion, the only reason 9/11 took place was because Bill Clinton, our last ignorant, lying president, did absolutely nothing in office. He got nothing accomplished. His term was a joke! It was like a reality show with all the publicty over the stuff he did! He lied on multiple occasions, just like John Kerry. While he was dealing with his personal problems here, Osama and the gang were planning attacks on us and perfecting their planning techniques, while the FBI and CIA who were under the control of a liberal government did nothing to stop it, they were to busy competing with each other for fame. It was Clintons laziness and ignorance at the time that caused 9/11. If we had had a good, responsible president in at the time, I believ we would have had a small chance at stopping 9/11, not a 0% chance like we had! >:(

well we did have a chance with that one guy that knew the 9/11 thing was going to happen but they didn't question him enough. ;)

yea, cuz of the idiotic FBI and CIA at the time.

ya I know right they the golden oppurtunity to stop the 9/11 attack but no they just had to put that in guy jail. ;)

yeah...maybe now they can redeem themselves for all the LIVES LOST >:(

I don't think they can ever redeem themselves after that happened and I think it's partly there fault too. ;)

They will never be looked at the same way again after their fatal errors...ever...

Bill Clinton made several cuts to the FBI and CIA during his term.  Thus lowering our chance of having a preemptive strike on Al Queda.

That just proves my point more: Bill clinton did NOTHING during his term as president,he was useless!

that is true I can't wait till the next elections.

I'll be able to vote in the next presidential election.  And I'm probably going to register as a Republican when I vote.

Things Clinton did: Decreased the federal deficit and turned it into a surplus
Made peace with several countries
We didn't have war during his 8 years, whereas we had war with bush sr.
Improved education.

Things Bush has done:
Destroyed the surplus and turned it into a  several hundred BILLION dollar deficit.
Appointed Brown as head of FEMA (who needs a horse judge as the leader of our disaster program?)
Made war with Iraq
Is cutting education and has had plans to cut a whole lot of other stuff to pay for his moronic financial plan that blew up the surplus.

Maybe the only reason that conservatives hate the liberal media is because they hate the truth? How can one that defends his freedom to express himself be labeled as a traitor when our country is supposed to be about freedom? It is written in the first amendment that we are to have a free and independant press. Would you rather have a press that is controlled by the government and gives you lies and rosy things that dillude yourself from reality? Then watch Fox News, and watch as your freedoms become almost nonexistant.

say what. :-X

I'm saying that the only reason that republicans don't like the media is because they are very paranoid and think that all other sides of the equation are wrong. seriously, man, if the truth is so liberal, then why don't they start worrying about what is actually happening. Because right now, it seems as if all they do is go about their own things spouting so called patriotism while locking people away without either a trial  or acknowledgement of other's rights.

The truth is liberal, get over it.

can you put that into what I can understand. ;)

how bout this: the liberals are anti-patriotic, sonstantly bashing bush and asking him to take us out of iraq. Why would that be smart? The democracy would fall. All liberals do is bash bush and go for a withdral when no withdrawl is needed. And clinton was the cause for the war, it was his fault.

oh ok now I inderstand. :)

So are you saying that we're bad people for attacking Iraq?

no they deserved to be attacked after how many innocent deaths they caused. >:(

Not you, I can see where you're coming from, but I was talking to Darkphantomime or whatever his name is.  It really makes me mad when people blame America for it's actions.  

im canadian, so i could care less how good a president bush is . ;)

yeah,people always make america out to be the bad guy because we're a superpower. Iraq was killing thousands and a threat to the world, what were we supposed to do?

Not to mention the fact that they attacked us.

Wait, your getting all mixed up, not once did Iraq attack us. We shouldn't even be in Iraq as is. Iraq is draining too much of our resources when the real battle is in Syria and Pakistan and the Palistini-Isreali conflict. Iraq had nothing  to do with 9/11. Think about the facts people. The government is not to be trusted to provide information. That's why you gotta have an independant source that is more likely to tell the truth.

Iraq never attacked us, and whatever excuses that Bush and Cheney gave for making us attack them are proven to be false. To this day, not one WMD has been found in Iraq. To this day, Even graver things there are to worry about than Iraq. Iraq is nothing more than a diversion for the real threat. And I hope that one before it's too late, we will come out of our shells and stop arguing about this stupid war and take a look at what is really happening.

I'm not saying we're bad guys for attacking Iraq initially. I'm saying its high time that we focused our attention on other, more important matters, like Palestine, Iran, and North Korea. And don't try to mince my words. Because this is the truth of this war, we are becoming in danger, where the rest of the world won't even care if we get attacked or not. This is the fact of the matter that the president would rather have you not believe.

very good point darkphantomime :)

Wait just one second.

Al Queda attacked us, Al Queda is in Iraq, therefore, Iraq attacked us.  Iraq is harboring Al Queda, and Al Queda attacked us, so for you to say that Iraq did nothing, is just illogical.

And, even more illogical, is the fact you said thatb Iraq is not a threat. Are you saying if we left Iraq,it would be fine? i dont think so. It'd become like Lebanoin, which also harbors terror. ANYWHERE thath harbors terror must be destroyed.

Also, we killed Musab al Zarqawi, one of Al Queda's leaders, in Iraq.

You people are missing my point. Al Qaeda is everywhere, not just in Iraq. While Iraq harbored Al Qaeda, the government of Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. look at this way people, it's YOU that's not making any sense. almost all the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians, yet for some reason, we're in Iraq. Why don't we just up and attack Syria? or Iran? or North  Korea? Or Saudi Arabia? Or all those other countries  in the middle east. Face it people, Iraq isn't the only country with Al Qaeda, believe it or not. There are other countries that are even more of a threat now  thanat any other time. The more we focus our resources on Iraq, the more we are blinded by other uprisings.

You people are just being completely idiotic and ignorant. Bush said it himself once, our enemy is not just one country, or any group of countries, but a whole legion that's everywhere. But instead of being smart, our president has kept us in one country for how long now? Nearly 5 freakin' years.

I keep telling you, Iraq is draining our resources. Even now, while we don't realize it, there are others. Iraq is nothing more but a scapegoat for the president.

What country harbors the most members of Al Qaeda? Surprise, surprise ladies and gentlemen, it's not Iraq, It's pakistan.

But instead, your saying it's Iraq's fault. Iraq is everyone's scapegoat. And we have turned a blind eye to the rest of the world. And that has made our fate all the worse.

QuoteYou people are just being completely idiotic and ignorant.

I'm going to ignore that since we're arguing.

1-dont insult other memebrs while debating.


2-Youre the one who is being illogical, dark phantomine.We dont have the resources or manpower to up and go attack every arab country, do you have any idea how much it would cost?

I dont like him that much and I know some thingshe couldnt have prevented and all that but I dont know I think his dad was way better.

thaths pretty much waht i think, Naboru

yeah I generally have good points  :)

yeha...his dad was better, but the one now isnt so bad..hes okay...

say what. :-X

read the posts...it'll all make sense :)

Please stop that if that's all you're going to contribute.

say what. :-X

He is saying dont contribute unless it is a worthy post

I don't get a word you are saying. :-X

ugg...dont post unless it is a good one.

who are you talking about. :-\

George Bush :-*

like these stupid little posts that contribute nothing to discussion.

oh okay. :)

like that  :)

I still think george bush needs to be replaced. ::)

And that's fine if you think that, we just don't need all the "say what" posts littering the topic.  If you think he should be replaced, would you care to elaborate on why?

thank you gamefreak...I said the same thing.

because personally all he thinks sabout his trying to get some publicity for himself. ::)

I dont I mean everybody knows who he is. Hes the freakin president.

So he is continuing his course while his approval rating is down, and that is showing that he wants to be popular?  How does that make sense?

yes that too.

You guys are the ones who are insulting yourselves with your ignorance of today's events. First, to clear up some points, you need to read my posts again. You are made to think that there is no distinguishment among the middle east. But your ignoring my points.

1. Almost all of the hijackers of 9/11 were saudi arabic, NOT Iraqi.
2. There is absolutely NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

And because you guys have gone on about this, you've lost your point and focus. I'm not saying that we should attack the whole of the middle east. I'm saying that this war in Iraq has been lead by nothing but misinformation and trickery since the very beginning. Bush lied about so many stuff, that its caused more problems than its solved. WAY more problems than it could ever have solved. Since the very beginning, Iraq has been no more but a huge drain on our resources, believe it or not. And we are paying too much attention to Iraq. I'm saying we should pay attention to the whole place, because if we don't, our ignorance will cost us dearly.

And you people, you saying that I am illogical, and countering with your own opinionated arguments makes this debate even more of a lost cause. I'm relying on facts, which if you will ask anyone in this country or the rest of the free world, are irrefutable. If you really think that our current president is a good, or even, great president, then you need look no further thanthe history books for comparision. Bush can bearly bloody speak in proper English. I don't know what language you people are hearing everytime he speaks. But it is NOT english. Ask any high school or college English professor, and they'll give you quite a few examples of Bush-isms.

And to this point, I must add, the more that Bush tries to protect our freedoms, the less freedoms we end up having. Look it up in the constitution, and you'll see that under no circumstances can any of these freedoms be denied, as they have been denied under 'King' George Bush. That, in itself, is treason and an insult to this country which you claim to love.

He's terrible! :P

There's no connnection between 9/11 and Iraq? Yeah...were have you been? Saddam Hussein was funding terrorist organizations that helped plan 9/11 and execute 9/11, so to say that there is no connection is completely irrelevent. And we're not in iraq because of 9/11, we're in iraq because a psychotic dictator supposedly held nuclear weaponry, which was recently found in the area.

And what facts are you relying on? Ones created by the liberal party to seem true? Obviously,you have been terribly misinformed abou the events of this entire situation by the party you seem to listen to.

And i dont think its fair to criticize or hate bush JUST because of the way he speaks. Are you kidding me? That's immature and childish.

And what freedoms has bush denied? Phone-tapping was only done to protect people like you, not take away your freedoms under "King" Bush. And treason is when you betray your country, not supposedly "take away peoples freedoms" as you claim to have happened.

^ yep pretty much

QuoteAnd you people, you saying that I am illogical, and countering with your own opinionated arguments makes this debate even more of a lost cause.

Ironic, because you're forming your own opinion.

On the topic at hand, even if the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, Al Queda is rooted in Iraq.  And there's been foreign operatives who have been stopped in other countries such as Canada and Britain, who were not of Arab descent.

Adding to waht he said, even though they're Saudi Arabian doesnt mean we should go "Oh yeah, they're from Suadi Arabia, lets go blow them up." You dont war with a country because your enemy is FROM there. You only war with places were your enemy is rooted.

Exactly, just because of thier nationality, it doesn't mean we should attack their country of origin, we should attack the group's country of origin, which in this case is Iraq.

and now, gamefreak has solidified my point. Thank you! :)

First of all, where is your evidence that Al Qaeda is rooted in Iraq? Seconf of all, where are the nuclear weapons supposedly found in Iraq?
You people are twisting around my words, yet again. Give me one Iota of evidence that Iraq is the head of Al Qaeda, and tell me why that the very head of that organization has never set foot in that country. Tell me why Osama bin Ladin based his operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and give cause for which you have neglected.

That our president can bearly speak is an embarressement to this country. Tell me that you did not feel embarressed or displeased when Bush said "Ob/gyn's should be allowed to practice their love on women."

Give me evidence of what I have asked, Fox News will not be accepted as a source, Period.

QuoteThat our president can bearly speak is an embarressement to this country.

On the contrary to what you said before, that sure sounds like an opinion.

I have said before, that kind of statement angers me, political views aside.  I'm dyslexic or something like that and I can tell you from personal experience, it is sometimes hard to talk.  My tongue gets tied up by a lot of words and phrases.  I'm pretty certain Bush has does what he does for a similar reason so when people call him dumb because of that is personally insulting.

Yes, a speech impediment(spelling?) or personal handicap does not limit one's intellegence.  Look at Stephen Hawking for example.


Listen, there is fact.  But there are two ways to view it.  Whether you agree with it or not is your own moral choice.  But everybody uses fact to form thier own opinion.

Quote from: darkphantomime on August 14, 2006, 01:52:16 PM
Give me evidence of what I have asked, Fox News will not be accepted as a source, Period.

You know why Fox news cant be a source or point? becuase you liberals know that they speak the truth.

And YOU'RE twisting OUR words. You said give evidence of why Iraq is head of al Queda. Nobody said it was the head, we said it was funneling money to the group for support,and many of its members where there. He never set foot in that country because it is the obvious most violent place there. That's common sense why hes not there. And there are soldiers in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as a matter of fact, and he set his operation there because it is a safer place for him to be.
Oh, and there was news in the washington post about nuclear weapons in Iraqi areas, why dont you look it up on google?

Yes, Fox can't be used as a source because it's conservative, so you would expect us to find a reference from CNN or something, but we wouldn't get any good feedback from them since they're a left leaning news station and therefore we wouldn't be able to make a comeback.

QuoteFirst of all, where is your evidence that Al Qaeda is rooted in Iraq?

The fact that Al Queda attacks us day and night in Iraq.  The fact that we've taken out several high ranking Al Queda officials in Iraq, including Musab Al Zarqawi.

But almost all of those guys that we've taken out in Iraq were part of Musab al Zaqari's section. The reason Fox news cannot be trusted is it has lied on multiple occaisions, and has done so to provoke passion. If you really give an excuse that the left media cannot be trusted simply because you believe it to be 'left' shows that you only care for what you would like to hear.  Open up to this world, and you will see that Fox news is an almost exact replicate of communist controlled media. Media controlled by the state. Answer me this question: if given a choice, would you take after the 'official' story given by the government, or by another source that has the capability to delve inside and tell the truth?

You aren't the only one who is disabled, you fool. I carry a very rare disability, believe it or not. One day I will become both Blind and Deaf, but disability is no excuse to how one performs, or acts in public, especially with public office. I may be losing both my sight and hearing, but I can play the piano and enjoy classical music. I go blind, but still I paint and draw things beyond us.

Ahh, and for the Iraq part, you kept saying repeatedly that Iraq IS al Qaeda. You also said that it was Iraq whom attacked us.

You are made to think and believe in things which are given for the sake of passion. With what blood does a person spill first? His own, or his enemies? If you listen to a source that gives information that you would rather hear  rather than the horrible truth, it shows that people have become dilluded. Whether one is connected to world affairs or not doesn't matter, because it is by the individuals. Ask yourselves this: With what information did Bush cite for his plan of war for Iraq? A source that was meant to bow to his own wishes. This is the result when  something like this happens: when you alter the truth to give answer to the man in power, simply for favor's sake.

If you would rather live in a world  where media like Fox news is dominant, then granted, move to Russia or China, and see how much you like it then and there.

I couldnt agree more, although I didnt nder stand half of that. lmao! Well thats america today. Bush says a couple fancy words to confuse people too stupid to understand what they meen, and they vote for him. America is so lazy its almost alarming. Bush will run this country into the ground. Many people also have reason to believe that bush is in cahoots with the terrorists. Thats all hear say though, I cant be certain.

Please don't call me a fool.

Me? I didnt call you a fool.  ;)

He's talking about me, DW isn't the only disabled one on this site. And to make an excuse of dyslixia or ADHD for how you act or speak in public is indeed a very grave disgrace. Especially if your in political office, which Bush shouldn't be.

I was talking about the small technicality of mispronouncing words.  And I never assumed that I was the only person with a disablity on this site.

Are you saying you won't make mistakes when your disability reaches its full height?  You won't every once in a while hit the B key instead of the C key?  Me, I can read, but I read slow.  I love reading too.  Yet I often read the same line over again.  No matter how severe a disability, it can sometimes screw up how we preform.

I have a rare disabillity too it does not have to do with speach but I understand what you are saying. I cant write well, does that make me stupid? No...its the same thing with speech.

Yeah, that's the main thing I wanted to say.  It doesn't make anyone dumb.  That seems a common opinion of Bush-bashers that he is somehow lower in intelligence because he can't speak well.

Um, hate to burst your bubble, but we don't hate him because he can't speak well. NOOO.

We hate him because he's made the most stupid mistakes of any president nin modern history! He freaking spent all our money! We are in a freaking war that's not gonna end. And because he won't listen to the bloody people and will only follow Cheney. He has demonstrated this time and again with his handling of Katrina, of Iraq, and the way he believes in Rummy, no matter what happens. This guy is a complete moron,not because he can bearly speak, but because he keeps making the dumbest decisions.

Quote from: darkphantomime on August 14, 2006, 12:59:08 AM
Bush can bearly bloody speak in proper English. I don't know what language you people are hearing everytime he speaks. But it is NOT english. Ask any high school or college English professor, and they'll give you quite a few examples of Bush-isms.

Well you seem to feel strongly about it however.

QuoteUm, hate to burst your bubble, but we don't hate him because he can't speak well. NOOO.

That is not even close to what I said.  I said that I don't like it when people call him dumb for not speaking well.

Umm, he IS dumb, but no because he can't speak well. Because he's made the stupidest mistakes over and over. Read my previous posts DW, and if you are able to understand, things would become more clearer.

QuoteThe reason Fox news cannot be trusted is it has lied on multiple occaisions, and has done so to provoke passion.

And CNN and NBC haven't?

CNN and NBC lied during the elecions between Bush and Kerry, exposed by who else but FOX NEWS CHANNEL. Hpw can i trust these other stations when they lie during an impotant election?

And there are soo many things i hear on Fox news that i only hear half of on say ABC or CNN. Why is that? Answer why i only hear half on other stations (liberal) and both on Fox (conservative AND liberal).

Also,you cant possibly tell me that CNN or ABC are not cointrolled. They're controlled by none other than Hollywood. The lberals force the stations to hire only liberals to force their opinions on people. Like on CNN, when a conservative went on to talk about his book, the 4 interviewers bashed him and wouldnt even let him speak. And you dare tell me these other stations are fair and balanced? I dont think so.

You must be a real conspiracy theorist to think that everything conservative, like Fox or any conservative people are owned and controlled by the government. YOU'RE the one that being brainwashed by the liberal party into the ideas, not the other way around.

Quote from Masterkey:

CNN and NBC lied during the elecions between Bush and Kerry, exposed by who else but FOX NEWS CHANNEL. Hpw can i trust these other stations when they lie during an impotant election?

And there are soo many things i hear on Fox news that i only hear half of on say ABC or CNN. Why is that? Answer why i only hear half on other stations (liberal) and both on Fox (conservative AND liberal).


But It's you whose getting sucked into the conspiracy thread. Fox news tells you this stuff without giving any evidence to support it, meaning you believe whatever they say, like a little puppet who has none of his own voice.

A true news organization is not concerned with so called 'fair and balanced' reporting. A true news organization is concerned with authinticity and finding the truth, not for taking and manipulating our passions on a whim. IF you need an example, look how they are manipulating you, and tell me that I am wrong, bbut you will only say that I am wrong because of your stubborn belief. There is the truth, and then, there is an attempt to destroy unity. Do you believe what the tabloids say? Things that no paper in there right mind would print?  

And once again I ask, what makes CNN and NBC so pure and full of good intentions?

GF is right. you only hear half the things on CNN that fox says because fox tells you everything about the issue. cnn and nbc talk about how the war is "bad" and it's all bush's "fault" fox will tell you the good and bad about the issue.

The Reason CNN and NBC are so much better, is that they at least will be trusted enough to tell the truth. In the end, what matters is the reality, the truth, the reality of the matter of every singlie day. Do we really want to dillude ourselves with what we want to here? Or would we rather have the truth of the matter?

It's a little something called integrity that Fox news will never be able to have. Because in the end, when they present two sides that are so far left and right. that neither viewpoint becomes trustworthy, or desirable. In the end all it does is P*** everyone off, because in the end, there is no neutral argument, there is no truth.

But at least with CNN, no one's fighting. It's just a calm manner to know and report the truth, because in the end, that's all that really matters.

1- CNN and NBC are the ones that are lting to you. You have seriously been brainwashed into thinming everyhting a Conservative syas is wrong and a huge lie.

2-Im no puppet who has no voice of his own. I disagree with many things FOX news says, but i disagree with more things NBC and CNN say so i watch Fox news. And please tell me your joking when you say Fox gives no evidence, it gives a whole bevy of evidence you wont find on CNNor NBC or ABC

3- How can NBC or CNN be "finding the truth" when they (as i wil say again) LIED TO MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD DURING THE ELECTION?

4-On Fox,people dont fight, they debate. The reason no one fights on CNN or NBC is because they're all the same party: Liberal.

I dont like fox news but I dont think it lies I used to have to watch it at my grandmas.

According to darkphantomine,if you watch it you're being a controlled puppet who has no opinion >:(

i know, I dont think any news is bad.

Quote from Masterkey:

2-Im no puppet who has no voice of his own. I disagree with many things FOX news says, but i disagree with more things NBC and CNN say so i watch Fox news. And please tell me your joking when you say Fox gives no evidence, it gives a whole bevy of evidence you wont find on CNNor NBC or ABC

3- How can NBC or CNN be "finding the truth" when they (as i wil say again) LIED TO MAKE BUSH LOOK BAD DURING THE ELECTION?

4-On Fox,people dont fight, they debate.

We're fighting right now aren't we? We are heading in a very nasty direction, aren't we? When debate gets so emotional, and so strong, it eventually turns into an all out fight. You are fighting to prove your point, likewise I am as well.

Give me an example of this evidence, then. Give me an example with reliable sources. You are meant to think that all other news sources lie because it's you that's been brainwashed to follow them. Which is why you are more favored for Fox than any other source. Give me one shred of evidence, one iota of hard cold fact that this has been done. Fox is competing with all the other news outlets, so of course they will use underhanded tactics like they do with you. Are you one of those people that think "whoever is not with me is against me"? That is complete idiocy, open your mind to the rest of the world. Because at least somewhere, there are those who are actually sane enough to look at the issues, not divide  by politcal party A or B. You ever heard of a neutral person? That's why our democracy is failing, there are only two main parties. But look at every other developped country in the world, they all consist of multi-party platforms.

If you want to destroy all things liberal, then you can kiss good-bye your rights as an american, your freedoms of speech, of petition, of assembly, of press, and of Religion. You can also kiss goodbye your right to make money at a job, or your right to an education. If you think Liberals, and by extension, liberty is bad, then you should destroy all your rights and freedoms which are granted under the constitution and amendments thereto.

Yeah guys, put that in your pipe and smoke it! :P Darkphantomime has incredible opinions, and retorts! And as for him being brainwashed. You're the ones who are being brainwashed by society. The government knows too many things that we dont. And although some of dont like to admit it, America can be a very sleezy country. It all depends omn who is running office. And at this point, we are the most hated country in the world. And as for what i have to say. One word. Google!

"It is likely that more than 50% of the U.S. population is strongly dissatisfied with the ascendancy of George W. Bush to the office of President. There are three likely reasons:

1. Bush won the election under questionable circumstances;
2. Bush has espoused a reactionary platform that places him far to the right of mainstream America;
3. Bush has demonstrated none of the intellectual attributes expected of a president.

In the interest of democracy, one could discredit election gripes (point number one) as being unfair to our longstanding electoral college process.  Also, one might disregard Bush's agenda (point number two) because the
hallmark of the United States Constitution is tolerance for divergent political and moral beliefs.
However, point number three leads to a more egregious problem, namely that a rather anonymous man, with no distinguishing ambition or vision has, by virtue of family wealth and connection, been installed as President of the
United States. Even the most cursory glance at George W. Bush's history and character builds a strong case for charges of nepotism and cronyism. Such a glaring display of favoritism, to benefit an individual with no considerable
talent, runs counter to the spirit of competition and fair play that has driven the engine of American capitalism for more than two hundred years.
There is a way to tangibly and immediately raise a voice in protest of  George W. Bush as President. For the remainder of his term, conscientious Americans should simply write "Bush Is a Fraud" on all U.S.
currency that passes through their hands."

I found that contend on this page
http://www.iuptown.com/WatchDubya/BushIsAFraud.htm (http://www.iuptown.com/WatchDubya/BushIsAFraud.htm)

man this topic is starting to become a war. ;)

Yeah it is. Darkphantomime and I VS TDC :-*

I don't even get what are you'll are saying. ;)

This topic will be locked if we cannot debate without fighting.  We are supposed to get along here, and if it starts to look like our political beliefs are going to interfere with that, say 'bye bye' to this topic.

I agree with both sides both have good points. I dont like Bush but I know some stuff isnt his fault.

okay my opinion is that george bush is a bad president. ::)

yes and care to elaborate?

1- Im not saying all other News stations lie, and im not saying that i think they all lie and are terrible. You twisted and exaggerated my words.

2-Youn misunderstood,i am very different than wjat it apperas you think. The whole "if your not with me, your against me" thing is completely idiocy and thats NOT what i think under any cicumstance. Im very willing to see the opinions of other, but when they becomne so far left its hard to see your point and even consider it, and its the same with the far right. I'm conservbative, but not psychotic far right. I DO agree with some democrat ideas.

3-You totally misunderstood again. i dont want to destroy all things liberal, actually i think its essential to this country if they stay around. And what are you talking about when you say that wihtout liberals, we lose allour rights.How does that even make sense? And liberty and liberal are totally different. one makes sense while the other is ridiculous.

For the record i do not watch the news.  my two ways of getting news is being told by people or hearing about it on the colbert report and the report is not a largely credible source like the news channels but it works.

all TV stations lie. if they told nothing but truth the world would be chaotic. Remember what happened when truman's real plan for WWII was leaked? Remember what happened when the New York Times was stupid and leaked out confidential govermental information? People got angry and started fighting like we are on this topic. in my oppinion if they keep up their liberalness(even a word?) they will turn into a tv version of the new york times and leak out tons of information we are better off not knowing.

but wouldnt that leave us ignorant?

not really. i'm saying that confidential material like plans to take out terrorists should be left to the goverment to know and us to find out when it happens.

The New York Times released plans to take out Osama Bin Laden. Now any spies that bin laden might have here now know our plans and can tell them to osama

All news have a "spin" on the news.  Again I'll reiterate.  There is fact, but there is also the way you view fact.  If you view the fact of the Iraqi War, you can decide whether you agree and disagree with it, and that leads to opinion.  

And actually, Sephiroth, The Times leaked a method on tracking Osama, not actually taking him out.

good pint, it wouldnt be ignorance, it would be more for safety.

And i do watch fox news now for the o'riely factor. It's a pretty good show.

Larry the Cable guy was on Hannity and Colmes one day (I used to watch that show religiously) and he said he make Bill O'Reily look like a communist by comparison.

another reason for me to dislike him...

He was joking of course.

i still don't like him

And GF the O'reily factor is the no spin zone, you should have known that

I think he's a total JERK (edit: gamefreak) HEAD!

I know it's censored, but we know what you mean, and it's pretty offensive.  We're here for a mature political discussion.  If you don't like George W. Bush, then that's ok.  But you don't need to be this strong about it.

Sincerely Gamefreak

watch the swears link

I took care of it, and Link104, that'll be a first warning for you, please refrain from swearing unless absolutely necessary.

maybe this topic shiuld be locked before someone gets banned?

No, the topic is still on course with nothing bad happening except for the warning.  It can still continue if we can refrain from outbursts like that.

alright, but gotta be careful...emotions can run high and people get angry in political debates.

I know, but we just have to be mature enough to not lose our cool like that.

Quote from: Gamefreak on August 18, 2006, 10:01:36 AM
I took care of it, and Link104, that'll be a first warning for you, please refrain from swearing unless absolutely necessary.

Sorry.

It's ok, just try to refrain from it from now on.  However, this should get back on topic.

I voted OK, because I think he's had an equally positive and negative effect on the country. On one had he's prosecuted the War on Terror well, so much so we've basically crippled the Al Qaeda leadership and prevented any further terror attacks on US soil, and he also helped keep the economy out of recession following 9/11 and kept the economy puttering along well enough since then. On the other hand, he's pursued a lot of stupid policies, like his stance on illegal immigration and allowing the Europeans to play footsy with Iran and NK, rather than using Hardball diplomacy backed up with strict sanctions and possibly force if whatever forbid it ever came to that.

I'm also a little mad at his betrayal of basic conservative principles like smaller government and the pursual of ineffective social policies that have consequently driven me into the Libertarian camp.

That said, I'll head back to my undisclosed location.  ::)

Well Jack, that certantly is a good point, but just think, even now Canada has started a thing against him, and is even starting to think about suceeding, plus, in his point of view, the war on terror comes first, BEFORE the economy, which in my point of veiw, is COMPLETLY wrong. There you go, that's my reason, end of story.

Quote from: Link104 on August 23, 2006, 10:33:27 AMthe war on terror comes first, BEFORE the economy, which in my point of veiw, is COMPLETLY wrong.

Wait, two questions: one, what do you mean about Canada? I didn't really catch what you said there.

Second: putting the war before the economy makes perfect sense. What good would watching the economy do and ignoring terror if that means the possibility of a nuke attack or some other serious terror attack, which would that in turn lead to a serious economic shockwave which could in turn crash the stock market.

He really has not done that bad with the economy, the US right now has one of the lowest unemployment rates in our history, and the highest number of job we've ever had. Our economy has been growing at @ 4% every quarter, which for a multi-trillion dollar economy means billions and billions of dollars in growth.

Ultimately he's trying to balance the two, and I think he's done a good job in that regard.

Well said.  It's important that the war on terror is fought with diligence, if we let up on them, they might attack again.

And on what you said about Canada...There was a terror plot foiled there, but that doesn't mean Canada is trying to get us.

hes done good.I watched his press conference on Fox and he made many good points about Iraq, Iran, and the war.

I'll shut up, now. :-*

You don't need to shut up link

Yeah, just think your ideas through.  I'm always open to other people's opinions.  That's the fun in debating things.  

Go ahead, tell us what you think. After all, thats why i made this topic.

Quoteand the way he believes in Rummy, no matter what happens]and the way he believes in Rummy, no matter what happens

I'm bringing this back in light of recent events such as Rumsfeld getting fired.  So door's open again, debate away.

The thing about Presidents is you cannot judge them until they have left office. You may want to criticize them ore praise them as much as you want but the key factor is what have they done that will make a lasting impact. I voted that President Bush (and that is how he and every former President should be addressed) has done ok so far. He has had to deal with things that only 1 other President has ever dealt with and that was an attack on US soil. However his problem was the people he appointed as advisors as they have proved to be terrible. Is all the problems in America his fault? No. Has he helped the situation? No. But history will judge him and no one can make a valid argument until years after he has left the Presidency.

History HAS ALREADY judged him. Just look at Rolling Stone. They tallied him as the worst president in Amercan History. He even has the worst congress. Now I'm starting to think that this should be locked.

Well of course everyone has opinions and that is yours and that is fine but come on, citing Rolling Stone? They know as much about politics as I do about taming alligators which of course is none.

Why should this be locked?

Quote from: Link104 on December 06, 2006, 03:52:44 AM
History HAS ALREADY judged him. Just look at Rolling Stone. They tallied him as the worst president in Amercan History. He even has the worst congress. Now I'm starting to think that this should be locked.

Six words: Liberal media magazine; spews Liberal lies.

I don't care too much for Bush.

Well, nowing that, I must go and shake a snowglobe.

i think he hasn't been doing the best job *cough*reagan or lincoln*cough* but he hasn't done the worst job*cough*hoover*cough*

In my opininion, FDR was one of the best presidents ever.  

Quote from: Dr. Rabies on December 07, 2006, 06:32:05 PM
i think he hasn't been doing the best job *cough*reagan or lincoln*cough* but he hasn't done the worst job*cough*hoover*cough*

No do be hating on Hoover, he did the best he could with the situation he was given to him by Harding and Coolidge. Hoover is not as bad as others like Nixon, Pierce, Fillmore, or the absoulute worst president of all time (ask any historian) Buccannan.

id have to say the worst president was Clinton. Call me a flying conservative freak, but he was TERRIBLE.

I dont agree with bush on practically anything. I dont hate him as a person but I do hate him as a president.

Ok, I don't mind if some people in the recent past of this topic don't like Bush, but this is a debate topic more than anything.  So just posting "I don't like Bush" is not really a point to be made; however, you can add on to that by elaborating on why you don't like Bush.

I said I didn't agree with him on the issues such as iraq and taxes. ;)

And that's fine, but you need to be a little in depth.  Just saying "I don't agree" is not a valid debate.  So if you'd like to explain on why you don't agree with Bush.  Then go ahead.

I wouldlove to hear the reason, my friend.

Well I dont think its fair that he gives tax breaks to the rich and raises taxes for the poor! Hes just supports corporate america! It sucks!

now i am no bush lover, but it would probally be a good idea to lock this tpoic for this thing goes on for years :'(

No, it doesn't need to be locked.  We're all mature here(I hope) and can contain our feelings about it to well thought out thoughts and feelings depicting what we feel.

I hate to try digging a little deeper, but you could you give examples about how Bush supports corporate America?

Corporate armerica? the only section hes probally aided are the oil and construction companies he and dick cheney own...

Now is that what you're thinking, or is that what you've heard from leftist extremists like Michael Moore who will go to no ends to shame the President.

"Now, why did your girlfriend break up with you?"
"It was George Bush's fault"

no becuase its true, if you wish for me to exsplain i shall do so later, i;'m going to the movies ;D! if you guys wnat a full blown GB rant just ask me, i cna probally do about a 4 page long esay on just why Bush is a bad president(and all of my stuff is true as well, i'm not one to start babling crap that isnt true)

I would like to see that.  I haven't had a good debate in a long time.  Back then it was me, Master(Christmas)Key, and Dr. Rabies vs. TwilightZelda, Darkphantomime, and Zelda Veteran and that quieted down a while ago, so a reprise of the heated but calm debate would be appreciated.

yaih! i wont be leaving until 9! let the rant begin!!!!

Why George Bush is the person i'd most like to kill

Now here i go! Why bush is the perosn i;d most like to kill boils down to 3 things, 1.hes a moron, 2. hes corrupt, and 3.Cheney

This man has done many bad things to this earth, from cutting down on cleer air acts to giving away jobs to contracters with out a bidding process( normal for any construction style job many companies would sum up there money and place a bid, and it would go to the lowest) but in this case they just went out and gave projects to Cheneys company(i cnat rmeber the name but he is also the heir to it, that or former vise president) which is pure BS for contracters like my father(but they were mostly projects in Iraq, so i diddnt hurt us too badly) they have cut many many MANY projects that would seriosly help america(including i'm pretty sure at least 3 different automobile fule source ones) he blow off the balance defeacet the day he went in office(Clinton had an 15 billion(might have been trillion) dollar surplus(money thats left over after america has payed off all its debts) he openly KNEW 9-11 was comeing but he did NOTHING(which was in fact a good plan becuase that would give him the leave to do basicly what ever he wanted, probbably cheney thought of it though) has left the capture of Osama to the welcoming hands of iraqi overlords(i'm not kidding he realy did let them hunt him instead of US troops) he has basicly made us perhaps the most hated country in the UN and the world(with the exception of france of course ;D) he has allowed the tortuing of  iraqi civilions, he also has allowed more and more logging companies to CLEAR CUT  forest(even a few park forests) and to top it off hes a friggin STONER, hell they CAUGHT this guy huffing weed wile he was in office(dont beilve me, watch Feirheight911) And for what? more money in his packet? more power to the bush family? to personaly run the USA into the ground so he can start a Dicttaaraship?or just becuase hes such a dumb ass he has no idea of the impact of his decisions? that i leave to you to answer, ponder the answer, for these are the facts(well probally a 3rd of them, couldnt remebr them all on the fly) remeber them well

so my fellow posters what did you think of THAT? and that stuff is ALL true, also for those who are pro Bush i sugest going to your local movie store and renting Feirenhieght911 you'd have to ignoring the truth to say Bush is a good president after seeing that.

Ah, this brings back fond memories.

1. Michael Moore is on the same level (though on different sides) as Ann Coulter (who I also disagree with).  Both will go to no ends to shame the opposite party.  None of them will ever have anything good to say about the party they're against.

2. Even if George Bush knew about 9/11(and that's a pretty big if), he had a shattered FBI and CIA from Clinton's presidency.  Clinton made several cuts to our intellegence.  So any signs we might have had about 9/11 happening would have been hard to pick up.

3. I don't think the weed thing is a valid argument.  If memory serves, that happened quite a long time ago.  So to judge his presidency on that is pretty out there.

4. I believe that during Bill Clinton's presidency, Saudi Arabia captured Osama, and offered him to us.  Bill Clinton denied saying that we had nothing against him.

5. With the circumstances of 9/11 (see above for my reasoning on that), I think George Bush did a very fine job handling the economy.

Quote from: Sabata on December 13, 2006, 06:50:37 PM
3.Cheney

Yeah um a reason you hate someone cant be because another person exists...

Sorry, but I don't have much of an opinion on George Bush, Tony Blair on the other hand...
One thing I have to say is in response to this:

Quotehe has basicly made us perhaps the most hated country in the UN and the world(with the exception of france of course

That is not true. Firstly, the America thing, you are not hated. Nobody blames America, even if they are anti-the iraq war. You can't hate a country just because of its leader.
And secondly, who hates France? You can't just guess who hates who, it doesn't work like that.

Quote3.Cheney

Yeah, you can't hate bush because you hate Cheney.  You hate Cheney then.

Note as ought would be noting still,
thy poll hath made it's own argument.
50% have declared Bush a terrible president

Nay to say that all be blamed by either conspirator of each side
As to wit ought be by other's find
The thing about this here
As twould be doubted  by either mind
that Bush would travel by such thoughts of mere
is to say such criticism in its own havoc of neither thus assumed liberal truths or lies
Thus may one take connnotation thus
Bias hath it's own derilective must


To blame, it is such a moment
but things are as they are
and no other thing may be ventured back before us
when history must make way for future's dust
thus may debate and argument end in rile
when tear at each other's throats, bleed defile.


Heehee, sorry about the above rhyming scheme
I've been reading too much old british literature of late
thus it has affected me in a way to taint
as would be from mind to solemn theme.

George Bush is as politically inept as he is intellectually. He does a lot more for his own benefit than he does for his nation. He's not that great. I gave him an F.

Thus is now a majority rule, 51% decree in one voice,
a failure at most for his own points.

darn, I JUST can't stop rhyming.

Quote from: Dominique on December 14, 2006, 02:59:45 PM
George Bush is as politically inept as he is intellectually. He does a lot more for his own benefit than he does for his nation. He's not that great. I gave him an F.

Again, as I've said to many people.  Can you back that up please.  Instead of making a statement, say something to back it up.

twillight you havent been to Eorope lately have you ;D they hate our guts, i myself have seen them protetsing in the streets against the US, and the french bit was joke(but realy nobody realy likes the french)

GF the reason chewney is a reason is becuase he is like Gremon Wyrmtongue(cant think of a good zelda one) he wispers in Bushes ear, Bush obeys. nough said

Quote from: Sabata on December 14, 2006, 05:23:04 PM
twillight you havent been to Eorope lately have you ;D they hate our guts, i myself have seen them protetsing in the streets against the US, and the french bit was joke(but realy nobody realy likes the french)

GF the reason chewney is a reason is becuase he is like Gremon Wyrmtongue(cant think of a good zelda one) he wispers in Bushes ear, Bush obeys. nough said

Umm... Sabata? TZ LIVES in europe, she's british as a matter of fact...

AND I"M FRENCH

So I take personal offense when you say no one likes us... and what about our good ole canadian imp? How about making fun of HIM?

Nah, but seriously, *slaps glove across sabata's cheek*, you sir, I challenge to a duel!

QuoteGF the reason chewney is a reason is becuase he is like Gremon Wyrmtongue(cant think of a good zelda one) he wispers in Bushes ear, Bush obeys. nough said

Prove it, that's all I can say.  Prove to me that George Bush does all that Dick Cheney says to him.

Quote from: Gamefreak on December 13, 2006, 06:33:27 PM
I would like to see that.  I haven't had a good debate in a long time.  Back then it was me, Master(Christmas)Key, and Dr. Rabies vs. TwilightZelda, Darkphantomime, and Zelda Veteran and that quieted down a while ago, so a reprise of the heated but calm debate would be appreciated.

Good times, my friend. Anyway, back to debating.

People, i can see the odds are stacked against GF. So it is time for me, the MasterKey, to weigh in.

Let's start hten, shall we.
1- All of Europe hates the Untied States. End of story. There are constant rallies and other protests against us because, with the exception of Great Britain, we are powerful and they are not because they have been WEAKENED by the secular-progresive movement. The only exception to this trule, thank god there is one, is Britain. You name a country in Europe, they hate us because they are drove by the seculars, and to the seculars like Michael Moore (who bashes our country in European media daily, by the way. he sadi americans are idiots and the bid bussinesses own us all) America is evil.

2- There is absolutely no evidnece whatsoever that Bush listens to everything Cheney says. Were did you get that from, our "friends" at the New York Times, or the idiots who used to spew their garbage on Air America (which is, thank god, now out of bussiness). You cannot trust wha6t these radical liberals/seculars say. They are completely out of whack from normal society. All they want is to destroy traditionalists and our Judeo-Christian values, which i will say they have done successfully everywhere in Europe except for our blessed exception, Britain.

3- Let me just talk a little biut about this whole "Bush is Stupid" idea that most of you misinformed people think is true. There are no facts in the world that can give us concrete evience he is not bright. He's stupid cause he mis-pronounces words? Thats just terrible and mean-spirited, maybe he's dyslexic or maybe he just gets nervous. He's stupid cause he pronounces other words differently and they sound wrong? My friends,that is called an accent. Now repeat it with me: Accent. He is a Texan, that how they pronounce words. That does not mean he is stupid in any way. Once again, who told you that, the 100% truthful National Enquirer? (sarcasm intended). THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED, they are PARTISAN PAPERS.

With that said, go ahead, either tear me apart or support me.

OH god, not this ALL over again...

First of all, why don't you ask a few people who actually LIVE in europe yourself? There are a few people on this very site that do indeed live in europe. Ask THEM what they think europe thinks of the US and for what Reasons. Evilslayer lives in Norway, TZ lives in Britain, and Lady Nintendo lives in the Netherlands. I'd recommend PMing them yourself to find out their opinions rather than fill this board with your own.



AND CAN WE PLEASE HAVE PROPER SPELLING AND GRAMMAR??!

Seriously, Masterkey's above statement has so many english errors, it's not even funny. Not going off at him, but Sabata has also made the same mistakes.

You've gotta accept that being informed about the world is secular by definition. And if we are made to think that it is seculars who hate us, then pray tell, does that make the countries in the Middle East secular?

Gentlemen,  if we make generalities without specifics, then we are lost in this debate. Saying either that George Bush is stupid, or that Europe hates us because of 'secularism' is a very big generality. Without being specific on what details, what actions, what specific things that have been reported to back up as evidence.

And are we also to ignore the fact that the US has a history of secularism? Masterkey's blaming is way too broad, and is in turn blaming one broad idea, without looking and seperating them in bullets, each showing conclusiveness to back up reason.

If caring about the world and worldly events is evil, if not being ignorant, and thus classified as 'secular' means being evil, then I am not apathetic, I am someone who actually cares.

We are simply reviving old things and arguments when things are changing at this very moment. No longer does it matter that Europe hates us or has hated us, we have to think about what's happening in the NOW, rather than try to mix up emotions about what arguments have been displayed in the PAST.

And right now, Iraq is in a civil war. Look up the following definitions on any encyclopedia or dictionary: Secular, Civil War, and Worldliness. Just so that we may not shed more blood where blood shouldn't be shed.

An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world go blind.

QuoteAll of Europe hates the Untied States. End of story.

I'm going to have to disagree there.  You can't say ALL of Europe hates us.  Even though you did say Britain is on our side, you're implying that every single person in Europe is our enemy.  Sorry, but after being in an official debate club for awhile, you have to choose your words; or else, they'll be misconstrued.

Ok, i was a general in my above statament. And yes, Mr. Darkpahntomime, ill try to be the perfect speller next time, alright? And maybe ALL of Europe doesnt hate us. But some of them do. But back to debating.

I have a problem with the statement that the U.S. has a history of secularism. This is utterly amnd absolutely incorrect. On the contrary, the Founding Fathers, which the seculars seem to think they are representing, have the complete opposite idea. The U.S. had been traditionalist since 1776. The Founding Fathers, i can almost say with 100% sureness, did not approve of abortion (lets not get into that), a government that "nurtures" its citizens into success, and a gov't that redistributes the wealth of the rich. This is what the secular progressives want, my friends. And since some of us here are so bent on detail, let's look at each of them.

The secular progressives, who want us to have a government that redistributes the wealth of the rich and gives it to the poor is off the charts ridiculous. This is the exactly the opposite of what the Founders wanted. They wanted a governemnt that gets out of the way, one that allows the poeple to make money through capitalism and oppurtunity. Giving the rich's money to the poor so they can get by is not a good idea. Why should a rich man have to pay for another mans failure through taxes and whatnot? If the seculars win, they will redistribute wealth, and in turn, success, to the poor and the middle class. This is not a democracy my friends, this would then be a Socialist government.

The seculars also believe in something called restorative justice. What is that, you ask? It's a type of system that doesnt give criminals jail time, its gives them maybe a few days and then some "nurturing" help in the hospital (see that word nurturing again?) This is so retarded that i cant even fathom how its even got its own name. And if you want DETAIL that this happens, lets look at a case that happened not too long ago. This case, my friends, is about a girl who was repeatedly raped by her babysitter for 4 years. The family, of course, went to court and the rapsit lost. But thanks to good ol' restorative justice, the man got 60 days for scarring this girl. It took a NATIONAL OUTCRY to get the man just 3 years in prison. This is what the seculars want, and more for restorative justice.

And to clarify, i never said, or "IMPLIED" that secularism is evil. It's just, to me, the worst way the world can go. Oh, and since detail is so important, i would like some detail about the points DP made. Also, when i say seculars, i mean secular progressives.

You've read Bill O' Reiley's Culture Warrior haven't you?

Of course i have. It made me realize some things. I'm guessing you have to, right? (by the way, none of the things i said were directly quoted from Mr. O'Reilly). Let me clarify that the issues i have pointed out are secular-traditionalist, not liberal-conservative.

My friends, I am tired of this debate. If we bicker all the more, it ruins the spirit of the holiday. A thing that masterkey hypocritically claims to bring forth.

NOw please, let us stop arguing over this, it's really a sickening thing.

What is the point of all of this view? To take a view for blame and distortion for one's assertive agenda? The people have already decided, they need a change. Already over half of the people coming here have voted him as terrible. You could go off on a limb and blame 'liberal media', but in the end, you have to accept the fact the people will think and feel how they will feel, that is the purpose of democracy, and for freedom of the press from the state. THAT is why some view the media as 'liberal', because they cannot take this criticism against '"MY" party'. But ask yourselves, would you rather have a press that is controlled by the government? A press that allows itself to be censored, the voice of fact and reason to be stiffled so that those who are in power, stay in power?

If we were, as Masterkey decries, a land of socialism, such to the extent as to be near communism, then we would not have a media that is free from influence of the government. Let me be clear on what this influence could escalate to if we were not with a free media. We would lose the right to make our own judgments and opinions, we would be silenced, kept from making our own choices and freedoms.

Our capatalist system has also gotten lost. People have gotten over-rich. Do people really need Billions of dollars, as with the Walton family of Wal-Mart? Any economical system, no matter how 'pure' it seems, still has a possibility of corruption. Do people really need to be so irresponsible with things as to take over other's areas without a real perception of local understanding?

I am a poor man, I live only slightly above the poverty level, if I do live above it.

Did Jesus himself not advocate helping the poor and lame? The Sick and weak? The meek and hungry?

These programs are designed to ensure that people actually LIVE, rather than starve. In a country of wealth, it's people are all the more important if they are themselves poor, while others are rich. That is why the rich have to give to the poor. To sustain the people. And even if you were to blame that the people not being able to keep a job is their own fault, then you pay little mind to how much control the industrial executives have, when it is they that control whether one gets fired, or works.

If socialism is a bad thing, then tell me, does that make a child who is forced to work and not go to school, a good thing?

Well, it's not really socialist, but we do have some socialist programs.  The public goods rationale is one of them.

No offense but who really gives a dam.
I am sick of  people bitching about our president.
Bush aint no abe lincoln but hes better than nothing.
do you think being president is easy? Its hard work.

stop whining and be grateful for what you have.I could be ALOT worse.



I  dont give a dam about what our president does.

There's a lot of things I could say about this subject from my (and the British general public's) point of view, but it's clear that you don't want to discuss it any more. But I hope you let me pass this interesting fact.

(I think, i might be wrong) The highest qualification George W. Bush ever got at school was a C, and most of his qualifications are Ds. Are these qualifications good enough to run his country and essentially dictate the rest of the world?

I'm also sick of Tony Blair essentially being Bush's bitch.

Do you have any proof?  Sorry, it's just that I'm sick of hearing things that may or may not be true.  I'm not interested in those.

If we have access to any number of famous people's grades, then what question is there that we already have access to Dubya's?

If you dont believe the above, here's a link  that shows his Yale Transcript.

http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp

Still don't believe him?

Grades are meaningless when it comes to everything.  I know this because I get C's and D's yet everyone I know knows that I'm well above average inteligence.  And George W. Bush attended college a long time ago, it makes little sense to base his presidency off of what he did in high school.

Umm... don't you mean college, not high school?  :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\

But there be little point, fact for fact... Then I'd guess it'd be fair to say that Al Gore's transcript is also meaningless. Al Gore's IQ was when he started as a freshman, 136, and when he became a senior of college, 137.  My own IQ is 138, which in fact, is quite high.

What matters not is what happened in the past, yet I cannot stand others who say  these words, and then use 'past experiences' as points for attack against the other party *coughswiftboatveteransfortruthcoughcough*

In the end, it is all made meaningless, but it'd be an interesting thing to see how Bush's IQ score was during college...

I suppose I agree, but still I quote from a magazine which I read, depiciting the President giving a prayer:

"Bring us this day, our daily dead"

Do you agree?

(P.S. I hope Democrats win next time - the U.S. may be a rich country, but I know there are extremely poor parts (worse than UK) because I have seen with my own eyes the poorer parts of it)

BTW have you heard of FDR?

Quote from: teedy_man on January 09, 2007, 11:57:57 PM
I suppose I agree, but still I quote from a magazine which I read, depiciting the President giving a prayer:

"Bring us this day, our daily dead"

Do you agree?

(P.S. I hope Democrats win next time - the U.S. may be a rich country, but I know there are extremely poor parts (worse than UK) because I have seen with my own eyes the poorer parts of it)

BTW have you heard of FDR?

You should never compare presidents with their party, I won't mention which party I am with lets just say I voted two different parties in 2000 and 2004. But you mention FDR for Democrats, Republicans will counter with Lincoln.

I don't agree with some decisions that Bush has made, but he is going in the general right direction. We should have pulled out of the war a while back, but we wouldn't have this problem in the first place if somebody had checked up on Saddam's weapons when his time was up, instead of waiting a few more years.

Quote(P.S. I hope Democrats win next time - the U.S. may be a rich country, but I know there are extremely poor parts (worse than UK) because I have seen with my own eyes the poorer parts of it)

What do you expect them to do?  Make it so they're not poor anymore?  If you ask me, that sounds like Communism.

QuoteI suppose I agree, but still I quote from a magazine which I read, depiciting the President giving a prayer:

"Bring us this day, our daily dead"

Do you agree?

Again, what proof do you have?  Just because a magazine says it, it's true?

Man, this topic just keeps getting spit back up.

ALRIGHTY, let's continue our chat. In terms of the war, i think we wouldn't be in this whole mess if the President before Bush wasn't so.....faulted (coughCLINTONcough)

Anyway, about people being poor, it's not Bush or the governments fault. It's their own fault SOME OF THE TIME. Other times, it may be something else. In either case, it isn't the governments job to dig them out of the ghetto. Thats against the principles of America. Im not saying we cant help them, we just can't provide them with succees, becuase, as Gf said, it's a Communistic view.

This sounds a LOT like the view that "The New Deal" of the great depression never should have been. THink about it this way people: if the new deal had never been, we would never have had a plan to get ourselves back up. If america didn't get back up in the '40's and still under an economical depression, things would've gotten a lot worse. The Nazi's would have won, and they would have  conquered us. But I'm straying from my point...

If you really think that having the government help you out is a bad thing, then do you also happen to think that the government making a regulated mininum wage a bad thing too?

If our world were completely governed by capatilism, it would be no better if our world had been governed completly by communism. Evenually the power of the system grows to such a level, that it becomes absolute. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hmm... All I can say about George Bush (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z2TE2_3jQQo) is that he had better start shaping things up before his presidency (http://youtube.com/watch?v=klvM2HOMYLQ&mode=related&search=) ends. I think his only hope is his Right Hand man (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bECYCuwaNJM&mode=related&search=), and that still seems hopeless. Anyways, perhaps he'll persue another career (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ONMQjrMnB6M) after he's out of the house.

QuoteTHink about it this way people: if the new deal had never been, we would never have had a plan to get ourselves back up.

Not entirely true.  While the New Deal contributed to the economic regrowth of America, World War 2 had the greatest effect.  Because all of our factories had to convert to making war supplies, more people were being hired, so more people were getting back on their feet.

And your view on a government enforced mininum wage and what I said about communism and capatilism having equal power to corrupt?

I'm against the raise in minimum wage.

Hmm... would you mind telling your view of this?

Are you also against the very idea of the mininum wage; that the mininum wage should have in fact, never existed?

Quote from: Darkphantomime on January 13, 2007, 01:12:26 PM
And your view on a government enforced mininum wage and what I said about communism and capatilism having equal power to corrupt?

You see, I think of this argument as invalid. Any type of government has equal power to corrupt. This includes captalism, communism, monarchy, dictatorship, whatever.

Yes, there is capitalism in America. But the amount of corruption in the U.S is much less than it was in, say the Soviet Union. Do you know why? it's because of the way our government is run. if we were to change that,our country would be far worse off.

Look in the post before that...

Quote from: Darkphantomime on January 12, 2007, 05:05:04 PMIf our world were completely governed by capatilism, it would be no better if our world had been governed completly by communism. Evenually the power of the system grows to such a level, that it becomes absolute. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The reason we haven't corrupted is because we take a varied approach... it's not 100% capatalism, it's not 100% socialism.

What I'm saying is, you miss the point if you think our country is well off because its a capatalist country. It's how i is because its a mixed economy. Ever read 1984? That book was banned in one state because it was  'pro-communism'.  But they miss the point entirely of the book and how the world turned out the way it turned out.

A novel for the failure of communism and socialism: Animal Farm. By the same author. Not one absolute will survive long; the people will resist.

Quote from: Darkphantomime on January 14, 2007, 09:31:50 AM
That book was banned in one state because it was  'pro-communism'.

A novel for the failure of communism and socialism: Animal Farm. By the same author. Not one absolute will survive long enough until the people resist.

If they banned a book, that's against freedom of speech, i might add.

Oh, and i did read Animal Farm. good book by George Orwell. But,give or take, i was wrong. Our country is only partly capitalist, which is why it succeeds.

Right, I don't think a pure Capitalist society would work.  Government interventions such as the Public Goods Rationale and minimum wage(to an extent) are necessary.

I'm not against minimum wage, I'm just against raising it higher than it already is, because employers are going to have to raise prices in order to compensate for the extra money they're paying employees.

The mininum wage was raised ten years ago. In that time, our economy has experienced inflation: Prices have rised on many many things and this has in turn, raised the cost of living. To those who are unfamiliar with that term, cost of living is the money that one has to have in order to survive. This includes all the utuility bills, rent, food, gas, car bills, etc.

QuoteThe minimum wage fell about 29% in real terms between 1979 and 2003. For the median worker, real hourly earnings have increased since 1979, however for the lowest deciles, there have been significant falls in the real wage without much fall in the rate of unemployment.  

from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mininum_wage#Recent_trends_in_the_U.S.

The thing that must be acknowledged here is that in real terms, IE: when we adjust for inflation, we can actually buy LESS than what we could afford on mininum wage back in '97. This trend has been in place since the '70's.