PDA

View Full Version : George W. Bush: What do you think?


Alakazam
04-19-2004, 07:04 PM
Some of you may remember the thread I started entitled "Dark Lord Bush" back on the proboards forum, where I did not mean to get into a meaningful discussion about our current president, but it happened anyway.

In this thread, it is my intent for people to express and discuss their opinions about President George W. Bush and his current administration (including content about the Iraq War and the upcoming Presidential Election)


Alright, I'll start off by giving my opinion on Bush:


As many of you may already know, I do not support Bush. In fact, I despise him as a leader and as a human being. Before all of you who like Bush go berserk, allow me to explain the multitude of events/topics/facts/reasons that have led me to feel this way:

Reason #1: He was appointed by the US Supreme Court Back in November of 2000, the presidential election in the US was VERY close, closer than anyone thought possible. So close that the problems with punch-card ballots in a single state (Florida) were discussed endlessly because it could tip the results. Once all of the ballots had been counted (I'll note that the Florida ballots were counted at least three times for accuracy), Gore had recieveed more votes than Bush. However, Bush insisted that a group of a few hundred ballots were flawed, and that the voters had intented to vote for him. So, he took his case to the Supreme Court and won. Thus, Geroge W. Bush was not elected democratically, he was appointed by the Supreme Court (which was full of Republicans appointed by George Sr.).

Reason #2: George W. Bush is a fool I hope everyone who's reading this realizes that I will of course back this statment up extensively with facts. It's easy to say "[insert name here of person you hate] is stupid.", but I say so about Bush with confidence and sources. Please read the following qutoes made by the current US president:

"The question is rarely asked - Is our children learning?"

"It's your money, you paid for it."

"It must be a budget, it's got lots of numbers."

"Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."

"My views are one that speaks to freedom."

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling."

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." (NOTE: *apologizes for interrupting* The US has more nukes than any other country on Earth.)

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."

"I think war is a dangerous place."

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

"The great thing about America is everybody should vote."

"I understand small business growth. I was one."

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

George W. Bush makes grammer errors that any fourth-grader could easily correct. To me, that speaks volumes about his intelligence...or more accurately, a lack thereof. In my opinion, a man who has great trouble speaking his native tounge couldn't possibly have the competence to be in politics, let alone lead the United States of America. His lack of intelligence also shines through in his actions, as I will depict later.

<I'll finish this later; I've got to get off now>

Tamer Marco
04-19-2004, 09:12 PM
Another thing. My friend recieved a presidential fitness award and let me see it. Either Bush had a really bad printer or his handwriting sucks ass.


Bush lies all the time and the no-child-left-behind-act is a total fake. Thousands of kids everywhere who can't read will be passing this year and Bush made that statement to get elected again.


Bush stutters all the time like he doesn't even know his own speeches and if he thinks war is so dangerous why doesn't he call the troops back? America has done enough harm and should let them rebuild on their own foundation. And Iraqi's weren't the ones who really bombed the world trade center. If I remember right it was the packistan's not the Iraqi's.

Plenty of more reason's but it'll just take out the fun of debating.

Lord Celebi
04-19-2004, 10:43 PM
Bush stutters all the time like he doesn't even know his own speeches and if he thinks war is so dangerous why doesn't he call the troops back? America has done enough harm and should let them rebuild on their own foundation. And Iraqi's weren't the ones who really bombed the world trade center. If I remember right it was the packistan's not the Iraqi's.

Plenty of more reason's but it'll just take out the fun of debating.
The al-Quadeas were the ones who organized the 9/11 attacks (They're a part of the Taliban and are based in Afghanistan, Afghanistan didnt attack the Trade Center, it was the al-Queada who did it. I was just pointing it out to anyone who thinks it was Afghanistan.)

As most of you know, I am Anti-Bush (Mwahaha) and I was the only one brave enough in the last thread to question Syrus's power he was using in the thread to make this a Bush-sided argument (And I got into a heated debate that he never finished after I left a comment. He must of realized I was right and/or was too embarrased).

Neo Emolga
04-20-2004, 12:02 AM
Before I say anything, chances are good I'm probably not going to vote for Kerry. I just don't feel comfortable about him being if office, considering some of the things I've heard, he's not the "common man" people think he is, he's still rich as a king. But concerning Bush, it doesn't matter. He's already lost my vote...

I wish I could say this to the entire country, but everything that happens from this point on to the final day of voting is an act. You will see oil prices drop, you will start seeing a better economy, you will start seeing stocks go up but you know what? There's one universal purpose to it. Bush wants to us believe that we are making progress and it will stay that way if he is elected again. But that's complete crap, it's an idiotic strategy to get people to believe something that isn't true.

And people have begun to catch up on it. Bush should have done all these things for every year that he was in office, or at least to the best of his ability. Still, he has failed to do that. If we catch Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, chances are he's already been caught for quite some time, or some "critical" or "strategic" action had taken place to ensure his capture. If that's the real case, then something like this should have been done long ago. It would be extremely shameful to see something that should have been done to avenge the victims of 9/11 used as a beneficial tool for one's own purpose. You don't know how disgusted I would be if I saw that happen. Bush never really handled 9/11 very well, and I really have no clue as to how Gore would have handled it if he had been elected instead. It was only off by a few amount of votes...

With all that said, I don't believe Bush has been a fighter for the people of America, which is a real shame when we needed his support in some of the worst times of this election. Everything that was done for New York during those critical moments was done by Rudolph Giuliani, not by George Bush. There were so many ways Bush could have done a better job, but he decided not to simply because in his mind there were better solutions. He should have been thinking in terms of what the people wanted, not just what was going to be good for him. I can only hope it costs him the election.

With that said, I hope we get a better president in the years to come. America is a great and proud country. I can only hope we can get one individual who has those same qualities and will be willing to lead this nation with honor and responsibility.

Alakazam
04-20-2004, 12:19 PM
Reason #3: September 11th Dom't get me wrong, I don't blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, but I am appalled at the level of apathy he showed both before and after the attacks. In a memo (Presidential Daily Briefing) from August 6th, 2001, entitled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack within United States", Bush found out that al-Qaeda was palnning something, and he knew it may involve using planes as weapons. He and Condi Rice keep saying that this information was 'historical sata', and wasn't construed as a wraning. However, on July 18th of 2001, just two two weeks prior, both the FBI AND THE FAA released TERROR WARNINGS. So, how could the PDB NOT be construed as a warning?!

Bush keeps saying that he didn't know when or where or how it would happen. Well, that he didn't know how is a lie. He had intelligence that binLaden may be using aircraft as weapons (the military had even done multiple training scenarios where A PLANE FIES INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. As to where and when, of course he didn't know, we don't excpect him to. What does he excpect, a not from Al Qaeda explaining when and where they will attack? Please...

He maintains that the government did all they could with the information that they had. I say that that' just plain bulls**t. What could they have done, without knowing the specifics of the attack?

1.) Airport Security - security in airports (before 9/11) were almost non-existant in the US. It was pretty much a joke, with untrained personell as security officers in most places. There could have been some significant improvement in security to prepare for an attack through the air, as they did know it was going to happen.

2.) Public Relations - Some information should have been released to the American poeple, even if just by raising the terror alert status.


Not only did Bush not amply prepare us for the attack, he, to this day, will not claim responsibility for it.

<Still more reasons later>

Agent Orange
04-20-2004, 12:54 PM
Worst-President-Ever.


Here is a poem about him.


"There once was a man named Saddam,
Who I thought had a nuclear bomb,
So I started a war that few nations were for,
And now its the next Vietnam.

Mechaflame
04-20-2004, 02:41 PM
I hate Bush! I hate Bush! I hate Bush!
Bush can just suck my big, fat, hairy... toe! :biggrin: :smile: :happy: :shifty: :shhh: :redface: :sweat:

gold
04-20-2004, 05:50 PM
Ahhh...this is the thread for me!
I sound like master ROSHI...
anyway, have you noticed that Bush always pauses in his speeches?
It's because there's a guy hidden in the dumpster telling him what to say.
G. Bush changed his name illegally so his initials would be G.B., Great Britain, My country.(English national anthem plays)
and I will defend it!...sorry :redface:
Bush needs all the help he can get.
I made up a movie about him and put it on one of my non-pokemon-related sites.
I call it, "It's time to bomb saddam"
I think Ebaum stole it...
He rigged his election by taking away the right to vote from some of the public, voted twice and only counted the votes from a certain area supporting him.
He's stupid, Dumb and ... Well..... a.... mutters ...Hem hem, :redface:
G.W.B., I wonder what he wants to realize Tony Blair to notice...
Great whooo! Britan
Great wonder Britain
" WOW "
The choices are infinite.
Well almost.
Come to my story, Dark world, on ultra pokemon stories. :crackup: Puny mortals... :twisted:

Tamer Marco
04-20-2004, 06:31 PM
Come to my story, Dark world, on ultra pokemon stories. :crackup: Puny mortals... :twisted: You didn't write that story I saw it on another site. :rolleyes: One of your storys would be Ash getting sucked down a toilet with Pikachu and falling into the world of Ed, Edd and Eddy. :rolleyes:

Kerry and Bush are both idiots. Kerry: I'm a lazy jackass. Bush: SADDAM TRIED TO KILL MY DADDAY!

Bush had lied to us and ****** us long enough. Bush wants to kill someone for a crime that didn't actually work.

Agent Orange
04-20-2004, 06:52 PM
You didn't write that story I saw it on another site. :rolleyes: One of your storys would be Ash getting sucked down a toilet with Pikachu and falling into the world of Ed, Edd and Eddy. :rolleyes:

Kerry and Bush are both idiots. Kerry: I'm a lazy jackass. Bush: SADDAM TRIED TO KILL MY DADDAY!

Bush had lied to us and ****** us long enough. Bush wants to kill someone for a crime that didn't actually work.


When I saw that I thought it looked very Un-Goldish. His post count comes from 125 cans of spam if you get my hint.

I glad I caint vote yet because theres really no good choices this year.

VenusaurTrainer
04-20-2004, 07:57 PM
If John Kerry gets Ted Kennady [spelling] as his right hand it will hurt his votes.

plasmaball3000
04-20-2004, 10:09 PM
I don't like all of the wars his administration has gotten the US into. The fact the Iraq had WMD was never proven sufficiently, and has made almost every country in the world's public opinion of the US go WAY down. Not to mention all of the money these wars take. Does anyone remember the huge surplus we had in 2000? Gone. And our nation debt is getting way out of hand. Ours and future generations will have to pay for that debt. Plus, the baby boomers will be going into retirement soon, and considering we don't have enough money to pay them at the moment, how are they going to get social security checks?

To be fair though, I don't favor Kerry that much either. Most of what I've seen so far from his campaign is just anti-Bush propoganda.

Crimson Spider
04-21-2004, 02:13 AM
Well, I'm back, and in a political mood.


Reason #1: He was appointed by the US Supreme Court Back in November of 2000, the presidential election in the US was VERY close, closer than anyone thought possible. So close that the problems with punch-card ballots in a single state (Florida) were discussed endlessly because it could tip the results. Once all of the ballots had been counted (I'll note that the Florida ballots were counted at least three times for accuracy), Gore had recieveed more votes than Bush. However, Bush insisted that a group of a few hundred ballots were flawed, and that the voters had intented to vote for him. So, he took his case to the Supreme Court and won. Thus, Geroge W. Bush was not elected democratically, he was appointed by the Supreme Court (which was full of Republicans appointed by George Sr.).
That is the complete and utter opposite of what I heard and remember. I remember Bush winning Florida back before the rest of the states had their votes polled, and it was Al Gore that had wanted the recount. Specifically calling on a media report with the relative title of "Bush to still be in the lead?" having a picture of florida painted red. First a news website.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/4/164421.shtml
along with http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/cartoons/gore-hell.jpg


Reason #2: George W. Bush is a fool I hope everyone who's reading this realizes that I will of course back this statment up extensively with facts. It's easy to say "[insert name here of person you hate] is stupid.", but I say so about Bush with confidence and sources. Please read the following qutoes made by the current US president:So you mean to point out a few speach errors by speaches that aren't even his own while the general idea is still being passed effectively proves that someone is an idiot. Some of the smartest men in the world couldn't speak "effectively". Atleast he's not some fake polition who uses fancy words to make himself sound smart, but rather a more down-to-earth guy.

"The question is rarely asked - Is our children learning?"I don't find how this is dumb. Whether your community or not has this issue may affect your opinion, but this is an issue at my place. You see, no one really cares in Nevada. You take a test, you pass or fail, you move on.

"It's your money, you paid for it."That is taken out of context like no tomarrow.

"It must be a budget, it's got lots of numbers."Jockularity I guess doesn't run in your evalutaion of a person I guess. And second, was he just further pressing a point with a semi-serious statement? Context.

"Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."I once again don't see what's wrong here. Unless you are going to point out the use of the word "ain't".

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."Are these little dashes pauses or skipping parts of a quote? I once again don't see what is wrong with this statement. Please clarify your problem here.

"My views are one that speaks to freedom."Oh wow a slight misuse of a word. Ever call someone by the wrong name.

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling." I don't see what is wrong with this statement, again. The definition of appalling is used correctly here, that is Causing consternation or dismay; frightful

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."Once again taken out of context. It is very obvious that he was referancing to those who were violating the peacefulness of the Iraqis, and was referring to the violaters mentioned previously in the speach, or what the whole speach section was about.

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." (NOTE: *apologizes for interrupting* The US has more nukes than any other country on Earth.) That was in perspective of right now. We are NOT manufacturing nuclear weapons right now. Before, we were dumber. We know better now.

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." Simply put: he sees headlines in his very busy schedual only to be told them by the same people who make the headlines or the headlines are about, and skips the crap and moves onto the important stuff.

"I think war is a dangerous place."Once again an improper use of a word taken out of context disregarding the whole notion of the statement. Little reality check: when speaking to the nation, the rights words don't always come at the right time.

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." First of all, taken out of context failing to see the whole picture of what he is saying.

"The great thing about America is everybody should vote."I have commented on the "wrong word under pressure" thing before.

"I understand small business growth. I was one."He means he was in a small business. I commented on the pressure thing before.

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Families plate is probably what he meant. But once again, sometimes someone stammers when under pressure.

George W. Bush makes grammer errors that any fourth-grader could easily correct. To me, that speaks volumes about his intelligence...or more accurately, a lack thereof. In my opinion, a man who has great trouble speaking his native tounge couldn't possibly have the competence to be in politics, let alone lead the United States of America. His lack of intelligence also shines through in his actions, as I will depict later.
Excuse me while I laugh.
*heh heh heh ha ha ha*
Now let me ask you: what kind of invalid cheap underhanded ploy is this? The speach mistakes that a person makes while under pressure and taken out of context doesn't demean his ability to govern a country. He isn't spelling things out. Often times, he's saying stuff on-spot. Unless you can go up to your entire school, give a perfect speach with no grammatical multiple times over a period of 4 years with people asking questions both on the spot and through the mail because you are required of it, then you have no room to speak. I already said this, but some people aren't as much of a fluent speaker under pressure as others. Let me know once you can comprehend the different abilities of a person to speak.

Either Bush had a really bad printer or his handwriting sucks ass.Oh wow a persons motor skills and finess in a mass-written paper determins how good of a president he should be. Ever meet a doctor?

Bush lies all the time and the no-child-left-behind-act is a total fake.Exuse me while I laugh.

*heh heh heh heh ha ha ha ha!*
I am doing a report on the No child left behind act. Let me tell you: it's not fake. Do me a favor, and read this http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
This is the legal document of the No child left behind act. Trust me: he's not lying in ANYTHING he says, and I dare you to try to prove me wrong.

Thousands of kids everywhere who can't read will be passing this year and Bush made that statement to get elected again.
WRONGO! The Elementary and Secondary Education act was issued in 1965. In this act, it required a regular overhall of it's texts every 5-7 years, which the most recent overhall was called the no child left behind act. So unless he traveled back in time and made that president write that up so he can say that, your wrong. A kids ability to pass a grade does NOT invoid the No child left behind act, which (from what I've read from the whole frikken thing) mentions nothing about holding a child back. Don't associate stuff with the act until you know it.

Bush stutters all the time like he doesn't even know his own speechesDo me a favor and give me all the 386 pokemon in order. Right now, without going to any website.
and if he thinks war is so dangerous why doesn't he call the troops back?
I fail to see intellectual comprehension of this statement. He doesn't call the troops back because firstly he promised that he would liberate Iraq of terrorrism. Pulling the troops back would make him a liar. Second, the troops are in their not only for the Iraqis safety, but for America's safety aswell. It's like putting stricter rules on a school to prevent them from getting hurt.
America has done enough harm and should let them rebuild on their own foundation.
America has done far more good than harm, and they can't rebuild their foundation on their own.
And Iraqi's weren't the ones who really bombed the world trade center. If I remember right it was the packistan's not the Iraqi's.I guess you are amongst the most who can't seem to seperate the idea of the liberation of Iraq along the the true nature with the war on terrorrism and the fight in Afghanistan. We KNOW that Iraq didn't bomb us.

VenusaurTrainer
04-21-2004, 02:30 AM
Well, I'm back, and in a political mood.

That is the complete and utter opposite of what I heard and remember. I remember Bush winning Florida back before the rest of the states had their votes polled, and it was Al Gore that had wanted the recount. Specifically calling on a media report with the relative title of "Bush to still be in the lead?" having a picture of florida painted red. First a news website.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/4/164421.shtml
along with http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/cartoons/gore-hell.jpg


So you mean to point out a few speach errors by speaches that aren't even his own while the general idea is still being passed effectively proves that someone is an idiot. Some of the smartest men in the world couldn't speak "effectively". Atleast he's not some fake polition who uses fancy words to make himself sound smart, but rather a more down-to-earth guy.

I don't find how this is dumb. Whether your community or not has this issue may affect your opinion, but this is an issue at my place. You see, no one really cares in Nevada. You take a test, you pass or fail, you move on.

That is taken out of context like no tomarrow.

Jockularity I guess doesn't run in your evalutaion of a person I guess. And second, was he just further pressing a point with a semi-serious statement? Context.

I once again don't see what's wrong here. Unless you are going to point out the use of the word "ain't".

Are these little dashes pauses or skipping parts of a quote? I once again don't see what is wrong with this statement. Please clarify your problem here.

Oh wow a slight misuse of a word. Ever call someone by the wrong name.

I don't see what is wrong with this statement, again. The definition of appalling is used correctly here, that is Causing consternation or dismay; frightful

Once again taken out of context. It is very obvious that he was referancing to those who were violating the peacefulness of the Iraqis, and was referring to the violaters mentioned previously in the speach, or what the whole speach section was about.

That was in perspective of right now. We are NOT manufacturing nuclear weapons right now. Before, we were dumber. We know better now.

Simply put: he sees headlines in his very busy schedual only to be told them by the same people who make the headlines or the headlines are about, and skips the crap and moves onto the important stuff.

Once again an improper use of a word taken out of context disregarding the whole notion of the statement. Little reality check: when speaking to the nation, the rights words don't always come at the right time.

First of all, taken out of context failing to see the whole picture of what he is saying.

I have commented on the "wrong word under pressure" thing before.

He means he was in a small business. I commented on the pressure thing before.

Families plate is probably what he meant. But once again, sometimes someone stammers when under pressure.


Excuse me while I laugh.
*heh heh heh ha ha ha*
Now let me ask you: what kind of invalid cheap underhanded ploy is this? The speach mistakes that a person makes while under pressure and taken out of context doesn't demean his ability to govern a country. He isn't spelling things out. Often times, he's saying stuff on-spot. Unless you can go up to your entire school, give a perfect speach with no grammatical multiple times over a period of 4 years with people asking questions both on the spot and through the mail because you are required of it, then you have no room to speak. I already said this, but some people aren't as much of a fluent speaker under pressure as others. Let me know once you can comprehend the different abilities of a person to speak.

Oh wow a persons motor skills and finess in a mass-written paper determins how good of a president he should be. Ever meet a doctor?

Exuse me while I laugh.

*heh heh heh heh ha ha ha ha!*
I am doing a report on the No child left behind act. Let me tell you: it's not fake. Do me a favor, and read this http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
This is the legal document of the No child left behind act. Trust me: he's not lying in ANYTHING he says, and I dare you to try to prove me wrong.


WRONGO! The Elementary and Secondary Education act was issued in 1965. In this act, it required a regular overhall of it's texts every 5-7 years, which the most recent overhall was called the no child left behind act. So unless he traveled back in time and made that president write that up so he can say that, your wrong. A kids ability to pass a grade does NOT invoid the No child left behind act, which (from what I've read from the whole frikken thing) mentions nothing about holding a child back. Don't associate stuff with the act until you know it.

Do me a favor and give me all the 386 pokemon in order. Right now, without going to any website.
I fail to see intellectual comprehension of this statement. He doesn't call the troops back because firstly he promised that he would liberate Iraq of terrorrism. Pulling the troops back would make him a liar. Second, the troops are in their not only for the Iraqis safety, but for America's safety aswell. It's like putting stricter rules on a school to prevent them from getting hurt.
America has done far more good than harm, and they can't rebuild their foundation on their own.
I guess you are amongst the most who can't seem to seperate the idea of the liberation of Iraq along the the true nature with the war on terrorrism and the fight in Afghanistan. We KNOW that Iraq didn't bomb us.

Finally someone agrees with me. Lets say George W Bush did not send our troops to Iraq and Suddaum Hussiean had weapons of mass destruction. 4 years down the road USA is attacked by Suddaum with weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush made a great descion to take out Saddaum. Before he attacked us.

Crimson Spider
04-21-2004, 02:33 AM
It was issued long before Bush ever came into presidency for a regime change for Iraq in the to-do list of America. The debate was over to send ground troops into Iraq, since the aerial strikes were doing little to nothing. 9/11 inspired Bush to make his decision rather quickly.


I wish I could say this to the entire country, but everything that happens from this point on to the final day of voting is an act. You will see oil prices drop, you will start seeing a better economy, you will start seeing stocks go up but you know what? There's one universal purpose to it. Bush wants to us believe that we are making progress and it will stay that way if he is elected again. But that's complete crap, it's an idiotic strategy to get people to believe something that isn't true. I feel like I'm the only one here who can comprehend the presidental election. Oil prices WON"T drop, the economy WON'T get better. Simply put, these aren't simple things that the whims of someone who's president can do. And the stocks rising and falling is completely uncontrollable. Second, the media does the same *insert unapropriate word* thing! I don't see how come other people can't! We are making progress all right. Since the vast majority of media doesn't like Bush, they try to take advantage of it and only tell half of the story: the bad half.

And people have begun to catch up on it. Bush should have done all these things for every year that he was in office, or at least to the best of his ability.
You do realize it takes a few years for everything he signs to go into action, right? These things CAN'T be signed unless it gets proposed by someone else! No one proposes it, there is little he can do.
Still, he has failed to do that. If we catch Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, chances are he's already been caught for quite some time, or some "critical" or "strategic" action had taken place to ensure his capture.
Someone's a conspiracy nut.
If that's the real case, then something like this should have been done long ago. It would be extremely shameful to see something that should have been done to avenge the victims of 9/11 used as a beneficial tool for one's own purpose.
I believe you are referring to the advertisement that Bush put out that had a glimpse of firemen working together. I find this entire statement to be nit-picking and some underhanded and cheap ploy to further put down something that the opposing side doesn't like.
You don't know how disgusted I would be if I saw that happen. Bush never really handled 9/11 very well,
Opinion! Define well, from a non-hindsight view.
and I really have no clue as to how Gore would have handled it if he had been elected instead.He would've done the same thing, because that is what was proposed to him, signed by him, and sent into action, along with how much power he has.

With all that said, I don't believe Bush has been a fighter for the people of America, which is a real shame when we needed his support in some of the worst times of this election.
You mean of his term, right? All these "worst times" that you probably no longer hear about are taken care of! He isn't a "fighter", he's a leader.
Everything that was done for New York during those critical moments was done by Rudolph Giuliani, not by George Bush.
Opinion. I watch the news, too. Bush did a whole lot, like have Rudolph Giuliani do his work in the critical moments in New york.
There were so many ways Bush could have done a better job,
Name one.
but he decided not to simply because in his mind there were better solutions.
Which probably were.
He should have been thinking in terms of what the people wanted, not just what was going to be good for him. I can only hope it costs him the election.
That is what he was doing!


Reason #3: September 11th Dom't get me wrong, I don't blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, but I am appalled at the level of apathy he showed both before and after the attacks. In a memo (Presidential Daily Briefing) from August 6th, 2001, entitled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack within United States", Bush found out that al-Qaeda was palnning something, and he knew it may involve using planes as weapons. He and Condi Rice keep saying that this information was 'historical sata', and wasn't construed as a wraning. However, on July 18th of 2001, just two two weeks prior, both the FBI AND THE FAA released TERROR WARNINGS. So, how could the PDB NOT be construed as a warning?!
Hindsighted so much it's rediculess. Firstly, this was NOT issued first to Bush! It was givin to Clinton near the end of his term, and he decided what would and wouldn't happen. We've known that Al-Qaeda was planning junk long before Bush was president. In a DAILY briefing (meaning he sees document 365 days a year) it mentioned Osama bin Laden, among many of those who don't like America, The Planes and weapons and Hijacking was taken out of context, not only because those words appeared standing alone in the highlighted document, but also the very plan of Al-Qaeda to use plains was kept a very deep secret amongst Osama and his little friends. The PDB isn't a warning. It's a "here's what's goin' down" report. Nothing about action, or warning. Terror warnings are vague. For all we knew, they could've attack an embacy in Spain.

Let me clarify something for you: In Al-Qaeda, we waited for something to happen. Otherwise it would've been an unprovoked attack against people who could've been innoscent, and would've been until they did something. Now, for Iraq, we acted prior to before anything happened, and we found plenty of junk telling that he was going to do something to America. Now, you either complain about his inability to act on Al-Qaeda, or the un-provoked attack against Iraq. If you complain about both of them, you are being a hindsight perfectionist without a grip on reality. He did BOTH choices, and BOTH WERE WRONG to people like you. And BTW: there was way more stuff than just ONE PDB that suggested Iraq was doing something. By gosh we were right.

Bush keeps saying that he didn't know when or where or how it would happen. Well, that he didn't know how is a lie.
Prove it. Was it at New York? Even in America? This month? Next year? Were they going to bomb a plain? A building? Go on a shooting spree? You can't. In this PDB (the FBI also doesn't remember anything) that mentioned Osama, it didn't give nearly enough information to do something about it, nor any real motivation.
He had intelligence that binLaden may be using aircraft as weapons (the military had even done multiple training scenarios where A PLANE FIES INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. As to where and when, of course he didn't know, we don't excpect him to. What does he excpect, a not from Al Qaeda explaining when and where they will attack? Please... Those scenarios were done not for Al-Qaeda, but rather to test the structure of the World Trade Center. Don't forget that. From what I've seen, nothing was good enough for people like you, so go on and ramble away your contradicting nonsense.

He maintains that the government did all they could with the information that they had. I say that that' just plain bulls**t.Iraq, anyone? I also explained this before. And he doesn't get the final say. He doesn't have the ability or the right to say "Go invade Afghanistan". It has to be proposed to him by the Military. That didn't happen, so there wasn't a {insert inapropriate word here} thing he could've done. No president could've done anything.
What could they have done, without knowing the specifics of the attack?Or the specifics of what to do to prevent this, and the specifics if this is true or just another false alarm. Not everything in every PDB is fact, you know.

1.) Airport Security - security in airports (before 9/11) were almost non-existant in the US. It was pretty much a joke, with untrained personell as security officers in most places. There could have been some significant improvement in security to prepare for an attack through the air, as they did know it was going to happen.You do realize that even with airport security, a few people were able to pass onto airplanes with box-cutters even with the boost. The only way they caught a few of them was when they opened their bag to check. They put you through a metal dectector. They don't need trained personel. And how were they supposed to know that about a dozen people would go onto an airplane and take it over? Was one or two guys supposed to handle that? Hindsight is blind.

2.) Public Relations - Some information should have been released to the American poeple, even if just by raising the terror alert status.Yes, release shaky unproven data to the public to make them panic. They might aswell release very little bit and piece of information that the president ever gets. Little law here: you can't immediatly release things from the government into the public. It has to wait awhile.

Not only did Bush not amply prepare us for the attack, he, to this day, will not claim responsibility for it.I don't see how he was supposed to.

VenusaurTrainer
04-21-2004, 02:41 AM
I also highly support Bush on the Gay Act law. I think only a man and women should be married. If John Kerry was President he wouldnt do a thing.

Crimson Spider
04-21-2004, 02:49 AM
Finally someone agrees with me. Lets say George W Bush did not send our troops to Iraq and Suddaum Hussiean had weapons of mass destruction. 4 years down the road USA is attacked by Suddaum with weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush made a great descion to take out Saddaum. Before he attacked us.
Relax. I'm not going attack you. Just set a few things strait.

Firstly, Iraq did at one point in time have WMD. They destroyed it and their studies and information on it, and we didn't believe them. Satelites picked up a whole lotta nasty junk in Iraq when we were inspecting them, so we decided to strike.

Second, Iraq DID infact get Uranium Oxide from Africa. It's use was debatable. It was being used for two things (after we found out when we invaded): Power plants, and the construction of a WMD. You see, Saddam had quite a few weapon-creating programs in action when we inspected him. He denied their existance. If we had inspected a year later, we probably would've found something more solid than a bunch of in-action programs.

"There once was a man named Saddam,
Who I thought had a nuclear bomb,
So I started a war that few nations were for,
And now its the next Vietnam.Vietnam had no results. This war is having results.

I don't like all of the wars his administration has gotten the US into. The Administration doesn't like all the wars it has gotten itself into, and BTW: it isn't his administration. The people serving now were the same people who were serving for Clinton.
The fact the Iraq had WMD was never proven sufficiently,They didn't have WMD. They just had more evidence than Osama attacking America for it, and had programs making them.
and has made almost every country in the world's public opinion of the US go WAY down.
This is the media's fault. Not Bush's. Little lesson here: the media is a bunch of blood-sucking bastards.
Not to mention all of the money these wars take. Does anyone remember the huge surplus we had in 2000?
(Relizes his lack of knowledge on the matter). There was no surplus. NONE! The whole surplus/deficit notion came from a projection of the growth of the economy back in the 40s. We've been in a deficit for 50 years now.
Gone.Was never there.
And our nation debt is getting way out of hand.
Besides the fact that our nation debt has been reduced. O.K. I don't think you have the propper definition of a nations debt. So let me ask YOU: what is it?

Ours and future generations will have to pay for that debt.No duh!
Plus, the baby boomers will be going into retirement soon, and considering we don't have enough money to pay them at the moment, how are they going to get social security checks?We really do not know. That's part of why the Medicare program passed (not issued) slightly limits the range of the benifits. The Baby boomers would've put the medicare plan into debt.

To be fair though, I don't favor Kerry that much either. Most of what I've seen so far from his campaign is just anti-Bush propoganda. That isn't his campaign. It's other peoples accusations. He just passes them.

Bush had lied to us and ****** us long enough. Bush wants to kill someone for a crime that didn't actually work.Firstly, watch your mouth. Second, Gore would've done the same thing because it was in the nations to-do list from daddy Bush. A crime not working does not give reason to ignore what they did. If I tried to kill you, would you just shrug it off?

EDIT: Homosexual marriages is another topic. Don't bring it into here.

VenusaurTrainer
04-21-2004, 03:01 AM
Relax. I'm not going attack you. Just set a few things strait.

Firstly, Iraq did at one point in time have WMD. They destroyed it and their studies and information on it, and we didn't believe them. Satelites picked up a whole lotta nasty junk in Iraq when we were inspecting them, so we decided to strike.

Second, Iraq DID infact get Uranium Oxide from Africa. It's use was debatable. It was being used for two things (after we found out when we invaded): Power plants, and the construction of a WMD. You see, Saddam had quite a few weapon-creating programs in action when we inspected him. He denied their existance. If we had inspected a year later, we probably would've found something more solid than a bunch of in-action programs.

Thanks for setting me strait CS. :biggrin:

Neo Emolga
04-21-2004, 03:28 AM
Thanks for setting me strait CS. :biggrin:

He sure would make one DANGEROUS lawyer... :wink2:

And yes, the media is very talented at bending the truth and editing facts and replacing it with fiction. I try not to let it get in the way of my debate but it's rather difficult when 95% of the information out there is controled by media.

Kenny_C.002
04-21-2004, 03:58 AM
Crimson, you kept saying he's having grammar trouble because of him being "under pressure".

This is a statement that partially makes Bush a bad president. All of the presidential greats have a "golden tongue", thus they can speak well even under pressure. This is what makes a man a great leader of the country, him being able to speak (okay, half of it). You take that away from a president and he is now half-baked.

Presidents are always under tremendous pressure every single day, an obvious fact that common people know. If Bush cannot handle such pressure in such a small circumstance (ie speak to the public), what make one think that he will not make the wrong decisions when the pressure really comes crashing down?

Bush to me is just incapable of incredible greatness because of this single barrier. Taking things out of context, tho almost bad, is acceptable to a certain level. Constantly taking thins out of context is horrible. It's like having someone tailor every single word you're saying. A president should at least know how to effectively speak to the people with his speeches, using a balance of things out of context and others he wrote. It's too much out of context, and the rest he bends under the pressure. That's not good for a president.

masaki
04-21-2004, 04:07 AM
I didn't read every post. But does anyone think its true that GWB gave more time into the war in iraq because he found out that terrorists will assasinate his father? I don't know too much about it though because my friends was talkiing about it. And my facts my be a little off. If they are please share the corrections.

Seven
04-21-2004, 12:15 PM
I despise the "when you're not with us you're against us"-thing Bush likes to spread.

I also ahte how Bush treats foreign countries. He acts like every country wants to be like the US, and should be like the US. Such arrogance. Also, he always threatens to take action if a country doesn't listen to what he wants. (( Not war, but economic sanctions )). Even EU countries.

I also thin the Iraq war wasn't right, for the simple fact that US started the fighting. Saddam was a terrible man, yes, but it wasn't Bush his job to take care of it.

I'm not saying it's all Bush's fault, but he's the personification of it at least.

But meh, the way the US are run in general is stupid IMO. American culture isn't my thin either.

Whatever.

Crimson Spider
04-22-2004, 12:29 AM
Crimson, you kept saying he's having grammar trouble because of him being "under pressure".

This is a statement that partially makes Bush a bad president. All of the presidential greats have a "golden tongue", thus they can speak well even under pressure. This is what makes a man a great leader of the country, him being able to speak (okay, half of it). You take that away from a president and he is now half-baked.
Not everyone handles the same under pressure. Even though I have butterflies before I go speak to a large crowd, it goes away.
Tell me: who were the "presidential greats"? Placing someone under association because of some slight impediment isn't exactly the best determining factor for how good of a person that would be. I know some of the greatest minds in my school, and they don't get noticed simply because they can't express it. Doesn't change that they are a great mind, though.

Presidents are always under tremendous pressure every single day, an obvious fact that common people know. If Bush cannot handle such pressure in such a small circumstance (ie speak to the public), what make one think that he will not make the wrong decisions when the pressure really comes crashing down?The pressure of speaking to a large crowd is a whole lot more different than making a decision in a more private area. Since I was the computer-genius at my middle school, I was always the leader at group projects. Talking in front of that class was much harder than deciding if you were going to use powdered snow and hot glue or tape and white pieces of paper to construct the christmas banner for the school. And not everyone is as "fluent" with words as other people.

Bush to me is just incapable of incredible greatness because of this single barrier. Taking things out of context, tho almost bad, is acceptable to a certain level. Constantly taking thins out of context is horrible. It's like having someone tailor every single word you're saying. A president should at least know how to effectively speak to the people with his speeches, using a balance of things out of context and others he wrote. It's too much out of context, and the rest he bends under the pressure. That's not good for a president.I find that a good some of his speaches are actually quite well done (even though he probably isn't the one who writes them). It's these little pieces of text that people choose to point out.

Very wierd question: Which would y ou have lead you: a timid studdering genius, or a fluent and inspirational speaking idiot.

You said the genius of course. But he wouldn't seem smart though. The guy who can speak would seem better. More Charisma would lead you almost mindlessly towards the man who can speak, or the man who looks best for the job, rather than the man best for the Job.

I despise the "when you're not with us you're against us"-thing Bush likes to spread.I would like to know where you got that perception. And don't confuse it with the very different "when your not against us, your with us."

I also ahte how Bush treats foreign countries. He acts like every country wants to be like the US, and should be like the US. Such arrogance. Also, he always threatens to take action if a country doesn't listen to what he wants. (( Not war, but economic sanctions )). Even EU countries. I, again, would like to know how you got this perception. And the threatening thing: It's not him who's making the call there. It has to go through the house of represenatives and the senate before he can act on it. The ultimatum that has the obviously better choice is only part of a plan that the U.S. has been having for awhile.

I also thin the Iraq war wasn't right, for the simple fact that US started the fighting. Saddam was a terrible man, yes, but it wasn't Bush his job to take care of it. After Saddam tried to kill daddy Bush, he issued, and passed, a regime change for Iraq. Clinton followed through with it. W followed through with it. I have no doubt that Gore would've followed through with it either. Simply put, it was his job to take care of it, whether he liked it or not.

Kenny_C.002
04-22-2004, 02:29 AM
Not everyone handles the same under pressure. Even though I have butterflies before I go speak to a large crowd, it goes away.
Tell me: who were the "presidential greats"? Placing someone under association because of some slight impediment isn't exactly the best determining factor for how good of a person that would be. I know some of the greatest minds in my school, and they don't get noticed simply because they can't express it. Doesn't change that they are a great mind, though.

It doesn't mean that they have a "stupid mind" when they can't speak in front of the public. What I was trying to say here is that if he can't address to the public well, he can't lead the country with high "efficiency". The greatest minds don't need to speak, because their minds may be out of our comprehension, but they would speak at least in a highly understandable manner to the public if they must speak. It is their nature that most of what they would say is too much for hte public is too difficult for the public to understand. It's the same as speaking Latin to the general population. the population won't understand it, but if you speak the few english words you know you can communicate them with, you're making them understand. The fact that Bush is not outspoken when incredible grammatical errors shows that he's not the genius type.

Presidential Greats, such a Kennedy, have always marked themselves within history books. I, not having studied American history, rather just Canadian history, can only say that from the vague images given to me in Canadian history that Kennedy was highly outspoken and a very powerful president. You can say that this holds tru for someone like Trudeau, who was outspoken in many ways during his peak years. His genius had taken Canada to new highest at that time. It was when his genius and outspokenness (is that a word?) atarted to fade when he lost his people and eventually plunge his country into debt. Bush, being unable to achieve one of the two most important factors in being a good president, cannot possibly be anywhere near the word "great".

The pressure of speaking to a large crowd is a whole lot more different than making a decision in a more private area. Since I was the computer-genius at my middle school, I was always the leader at group projects. Talking in front of that class was much harder than deciding if you were going to use powdered snow and hot glue or tape and white pieces of paper to construct the christmas banner for the school. And not everyone is as "fluent" with words as other people.

You'd be surprised how similar the situations get. You're comparing the future of the US with deciding on what paper to use? That's like comparing what you should wear to school to what university you should go into. I can neither confirm or deny that you're a genius in school or not, but I can confirm that the great gifted people I know are well spoken and can handle the pressure of looming insanity known as contests. (I'm not getting anywhere and neighter are you???)

I find that a good some of his speaches are actually quite well done (even though he probably isn't the one who writes them). It's these little pieces of text that people choose to point out.

Very wierd question: Which would y ou have lead you: a timid studdering genius, or a fluent and inspirational speaking idiot.

You said the genius of course. But he wouldn't seem smart though. The guy who can speak would seem better. More Charisma would lead you almost mindlessly towards the man who can speak, or the man who looks best for the job, rather than the man best for the Job.

You even admit that his speeches aren't his writing entirely. Thus him being unable to write a good speech cannot speak well either under pressure.

The question's answer is obviously the genius, but you have to know that genii are completely ignorant to such matters known as politics. But the idiot, can still work because he has a team of non-elected men who will be aiding him and those men control the override against the president should the need be (aka the president doing something idiotic like thinking of atomic bombing anywhere). Having this said, no genius would join anyway, I'd settle with the idiot, being the only choice available.

The problem here is that Bush is not a genius that can't speak. He's not-so-smart, not necessarily an idiot, but not-so-smart. Add on that he cannot speak well in public. This makes for a subpar president. He is also oblivious to his own weaknesses, and him being a weaker president than the average president, thus not the best man for the job, as you were trying to continuously push.

Crimson Spider
04-24-2004, 01:10 AM
It doesn't mean that they have a "stupid mind" when they can't speak in front of the public. What I was trying to say here is that if he can't address to the public well, he can't lead the country with high "efficiency". I don't see why he couldn't.
The greatest minds don't need to speak, because their minds may be out of our comprehension, but they would speak at least in a highly understandable manner to the public if they must speak.That's not always how I see it happen. I can understand him just fine.
It is their nature that most of what they would say is too much for hte public is too difficult for the public to understand. It's the same as speaking Latin to the general population. the population won't understand it, but if you speak the few english words you know you can communicate them with, you're making them understand. The fact that Bush is not outspoken when incredible grammatical errors shows that he's not the genius type. Define Genius for me, please.

Presidential Greats, such a Kennedy, have always marked themselves within history books. I, not having studied American history, rather just Canadian history, can only say that from the vague images given to me in Canadian history that Kennedy was highly outspoken and a very powerful president.If I recall a few documentaries, Kennedy was liked because he appealed to the public, not because he was a great leader.
You can say that this holds true for someone like Trudeau, who was outspoken in many ways during his peak years. His genius had taken Canada to new highest at that time. It was when his genius and outspokenness (is that a word?) atarted to fade when he lost his people and eventually plunge his country into debt. Bush, being unable to achieve one of the two most important factors in being a good president, cannot possibly be anywhere near the word "great". Once again, I find the judgement on such things as handwriting, speach, and appearance to be inane. It's like taking the worst points of a person, and judging them on that. I addressed this before: not every single person can formulate the right words on the spot without any grammatical errors. What you are talking of is how many people follow him, and not how good of a president he is.

You'd be surprised how similar the situations get. You're comparing the future of the US with deciding on what paper to use?I comparing the general nature and properites of the situation, not what the situation is. This is called an "example". I don't know if your realize this or not, but my sister has the exact same problem. Graduated with high honors (4.1 GPA), doing very well in college. Can't speak worth a crap, but she can make very good decisions.
That's like comparing what you should wear to school to what university you should go into.One, you are not determining something that would affect others. Two, you can change what you chose. Three, you do not have a heavy burden of more than one person and an outcome on your shoulders.
I can neither confirm or deny that you're a genius in school or not, but I can confirm that the great gifted people I know are well spoken and can handle the pressure of looming insanity known as contests. (I'm not getting anywhere and neighter are you???) That's the thing. You see, the great gifted people who aren't well spoken generally aren't recognized as being great or gifted by the plebian around them, but that does not change the fact that they are gifted.

Something I'm gonna address right now: when I give an example, I am talking of the nature and properties of the situation, and not what the exact situation itself is. It piques me to no end when people do what you just did: miss the point completely and go off on something I only sparsely mentioned, skipping around the idea of what I've said. Do me a favor and don't do this again.


You even admit that his speeches aren't his writing entirely. Thus him being unable to write a good speech cannot speak well either under pressure.Thus, you cannot claim that these horrible speaches are his, and you cannot hold him accountable. Him being unable to right a good speach is assumption. Presidents have speach writers because they are better at writing speaches most of the time, and the Presidents generally don't have the time to write speaches. Though they do come up with answers to questions that they are asked on their own. And to my knowlegde, he just can't speak well, period.

The question's answer is obviously the genius, but you have to know that genii are completely ignorant to such matters known as politics. Um... genii? Yeah... going on, how are you so sure that the genious isn't ignorant to politics? That might be the field he specializes in.
But the idiot, can still work because he has a team of non-elected men who will be aiding him and those men control the override against the president should the need be (aka the president doing something idiotic like thinking of atomic bombing anywhere). Having this said, no genius would join anyway, I'd settle with the idiot, being the only choice available. It's a lot more complicated than that. You see, each time the president doesn't say yes to a bill, it goes back to the House of Represenatives, and then they vote on it again. Most of the time, they vote against it, instead of for it like they had previously. Quiz of the day: why?

Answer: the president is very influencial. There is something (believe it's called group polarization) of which when someone comes up with an idea, the larger the group is, the more it begans to sound like a good idea. Over time, it sounds better and better. Bay of Pigs is a perfect example. Now, you see, the idiot who proposes the nuking of everything would have a great positive influence towards the House of Represenatives. Though something that radical wouldn't be passed, other things that he proposes that would be rather stupid WOULD get passed, simply because it was him who said it (ever see trend-setters at schools? Most the time, they aren't the ones who thought of it).

But what about the timid genius? Well, he would still have quite an influence. I often times hear "Gee! I never thought of that!" said to me by people who don't even like me. When the genius sees a bill, and says no, the intelligence from him gets passed down to the many right below him. Since the one is smarter than the many, the smartest one possible would be the best choice. Group polarization doesn't always have to be negative.

The problem here is that Bush is not a genius that can't speak.He can speak. Just not to the perfection of someone who doesn't like him. "Only apes would eat those sour grapes".

He's not-so-smart, not necessarily an idiot, but not-so-smart.
According to his school record, he's quite smart. Sure, he may not know the exact organels in the optic nerves of a termite, from his speaches and his actions, he has a 3-dimensional thinking (the situation, what to do, what could happen, what will happen) that treats the problem, and not the side-effect. Finding these thinkers isn't always the easiest thing to do. In the Purloined letter, Dupin talks of a child in a school who had a crap-load of marbles due to a guessing game they played. That child thought 3-dimensionally.

Add on that he cannot speak well in public. This makes for a subpar president.
Ever heard of Durians? They are spiny, an ugly green, and smell like a dead frog. One of the best tasting fruits out there, but no one ever eats it.
He is also oblivious to his own weaknesses, and him being a weaker president than the average president,
Mere assumption and opinion. Back your statements.

thus not the best man for the job, as you were trying to continuously push.
"Beauty is only skin deep". Ever heard this? Prime example right here. Al Gore LOOKED like a better president, whith his fake-looking smile and all. The opposition tells you what you want to hear. But the statements you say are very similar to the statements that racists make. I've known some pretty nice kids who wear Mohawks.

Kenny_C.002
04-25-2004, 04:14 AM
I don't see why he couldn't.
That's not always how I see it happen. I can understand him just fine.
Define Genius for me, please.

According to you, a genius is a person with higher than normal, or signifcantly higher than normal, intelligence.

If I recall a few documentaries, Kennedy was liked because he appealed to the public, not because he was a great leader. Once again, I find the judgement on such things as handwriting, speach, and appearance to be inane. It's like taking the worst points of a person, and judging them on that. I addressed this before: not every single person can formulate the right words on the spot without any grammatical errors. What you are talking of is how many people follow him, and not how good of a president he is.

Okay. But it still does not prove that Bush is a great president that everyone should love.

I comparing the general nature and properites of the situation, not what the situation is. This is called an "example". I don't know if your realize this or not, but my sister has the exact same problem. Graduated with high honors (4.1 GPA), doing very well in college. Can't speak worth a crap, but she can make very good decisions.

Notice that her decisions only affect her.

One, you are not determining something that would affect others. Two, you can change what you chose. Three, you do not have a heavy burden of more than one person and an outcome on your shoulders.

Obviously I'm saying something situational and I am only comparing the weight of each decision. somethign that you wear on one day doesn't have a large impact on your life. The university has a large impact on your life, even a single year left out can have a tremendous impact on your life. I'm comparing the weight they carry and not what you were thinking.

That's the thing. You see, the great gifted people who aren't well spoken generally aren't recognized as being great or gifted by the plebian around them, but that does not change the fact that they are gifted.

Generally the idiots of a particular area can be easily identified. This does not change the fact taht they are idiots.

Something I'm gonna address right now: when I give an example, I am talking of the nature and properties of the situation, and not what the exact situation itself is. It piques me to no end when people do what you just did: miss the point completely and go off on something I only sparsely mentioned, skipping around the idea of what I've said. Do me a favor and don't do this again.

I think it's just an interpretation thing here. Again, I was using the nature and properites of situations, whereas you defined them as exacts.

Thus, you cannot claim that these horrible speaches are his, and you cannot hold him accountable. Him being unable to right a good speach is assumption. Presidents have speach writers because they are better at writing speaches most of the time, and the Presidents generally don't have the time to write speaches. Though they do come up with answers to questions that they are asked on their own. And to my knowlegde, he just can't speak well, period.

We can agree on something to the very least. He can't speak well.

[/quote] Um... genii? Yeah... going on, how are you so sure that the genious isn't ignorant to politics? That might be the field he specializes in.[/quote]

Because I am a long-time friend of this friend. I think I would know his personalities after spending so much time with this person.

[/quote] It's a lot more complicated than that. You see, each time the president doesn't say yes to a bill, it goes back to the House of Represenatives, and then they vote on it again. Most of the time, they vote against it, instead of for it like they had previously. Quiz of the day: why?

Answer: the president is very influencial. There is something (believe it's called group polarization) of which when someone comes up with an idea, the larger the group is, the more it begans to sound like a good idea. Over time, it sounds better and better. Bay of Pigs is a perfect example. Now, you see, the idiot who proposes the nuking of everything would have a great positive influence towards the House of Represenatives. Though something that radical wouldn't be passed, other things that he proposes that would be rather stupid WOULD get passed, simply because it was him who said it (ever see trend-setters at schools? Most the time, they aren't the ones who thought of it).

But what about the timid genius? Well, he would still have quite an influence. I often times hear "Gee! I never thought of that!" said to me by people who don't even like me. When the genius sees a bill, and says no, the intelligence from him gets passed down to the many right below him. Since the one is smarter than the many, the smartest one possible would be the best choice. Group polarization doesn't always have to be negative.[/quote]

So you're saying the smartest one always wins? Not always the case. The senate of the Canadian system are some of the smartest people around. Even they cannot stop the Prime Minister (Martin, who is a complete ******* for the Quebec thing) from doing what he's done. It would then be the same with the American President.

And not all group polarizations are negative, just a majority of them.

He can speak. Just not to the perfection of someone who doesn't like him. "Only apes would eat those sour grapes".
According to his school record, he's quite smart. Sure, he may not know the exact organels in the optic nerves of a termite, from his speaches and his actions, he has a 3-dimensional thinking (the situation, what to do, what could happen, what will happen) that treats the problem, and not the side-effect. Finding these thinkers isn't always the easiest thing to do. In the Purloined letter, Dupin talks of a child in a school who had a crap-load of marbles due to a guessing game they played. That child thought 3-dimensionally.

And being smart in school has nothing to do with being the great president he supposedly is. You can still be smart and be a complete idiot.

Ever heard of Durians? They are spiny, an ugly green, and smell like a dead frog. One of the best tasting fruits out there, but no one ever eats it.

They are considered as a delicacy with my people. They sell for such a ridiculously high price that it's hard to find it cheap enough to buy. btw, They smell nothing like a dead frog, more like the scent of...something really sweet (like it smells REALLY good). Thus the name of Durian means literally "To remember" (sorry about the incredibly rough translation). I mean, if I open a durian here, people would swarm here and take the freakin' thing before I can say "smells good". And just saying that if you don't believe me, they have chambers inside that cover yellow meat. Each piece of the yellow meat has a seed wihin, which tends to be brown. Opening the darn thing is so hard tho...

Mere assumption and opinion. Back your statements.

As you are assuming he is a great president, I am merely making the same assumption that he is oblivious.

I can still argue taht his weakness in speaking to the public as one of the reason. Since you agree with me here, I can safely assum that he is quite oblivious to he obvious weakness here.

"Beauty is only skin deep". Ever heard this? Prime example right here. Al Gore LOOKED like a better president, whith his fake-looking smile and all. The opposition tells you what you want to hear. But the statements you say are very similar to the statements that racists make. I've known some pretty nice kids who wear Mohawks.

Yes I have heard of that phrase, because I use it a lot. Do not stereotype me with the rascists, because that has nothing to do with anything that I said. You saying that means I can say that you're racist against Al Gore. Same idea.

Also, back everything you said about Gore up, consdiering taht it is all merely assumptions and opinions taht you are making here.

Crimson Spider
04-25-2004, 10:40 PM
According to you, a genius is a person with higher than normal, or signifcantly higher than normal, intelligence.I define genius more by wit than intelligence and memorization.

Okay. But it still does not prove that Bush is a great president that everyone should love.But it does prove that his mere speach impediment isn't a 100% accurate indicator of his ability to govern a country, or infact an indicator at all.

Notice that her decisions only affect her.
Where did you get that from? You see, my sister does make decisions that affect more than one person. Just not as often as I have. And last time I checked, him using the wrong word in a speach really only affects him, too.

Obviously I'm saying something situational and I am only comparing the weight of each decision. somethign that you wear on one day doesn't have a large impact on your life. The university has a large impact on your life, even a single year left out can have a tremendous impact on your life. I'm comparing the weight they carry and not what you were thinking.It isn't the weight of the decision that matters so much as the situation of which you make the decision. If you are standing in front of a podium with a crowd of 400 sitting down listening to you, and you have to announce which clothes you are going to wear next year, making that decision would be harder than picking the university in seclusion or with a few intellectuals such as counsilers, teachers, or close friends.

Generally the idiots of a particular area can be easily identified. This does not change the fact taht they are idiots.
Not from what I've seen. A person is only identified as an idiot if people want to identify them as an idiot. I mean, barely anyone knew my sister was smart aside from her friends and family, which isn't much. Even the smartest people will be called an idiot, just because people want to call them idiots. How this happens is that a person seeks out the smallest little thing, and flashes that around as absolute proof and fact, like saying someone stammers on occasion while speaking to a crowd, while refusing to see that that insignificant little flaw stops there.

I think it's just an interpretation thing here. Again, I was using the nature and properites of situations, whereas you defined them as exacts. Let me explain that statement, since you missed it again: I was comparing how the making of a decision in seclusion or with a select few intellectuals was a whole lot more easier than making it in front of a crowd. You didn't see my point, and went off about the weight of the decision, which wasn't what I was talking about.

We can agree on something to the very least. He can't speak well.
He can't speak to your standards is what we are agreeing on, not that he can't speak well. I think he speaks just fine.
Because I am a long-time friend of this friend. I think I would know his personalities after spending so much time with this person.At what point in time did the ficticious character and situation I was referring to become fact?

So you're saying the smartest one always wins? Not always the case. The senate of the Canadian system are some of the smartest people around. Even they cannot stop the Prime Minister (Martin, who is a complete ******* for the Quebec thing) from doing what he's done. It would then be the same with the American President.
O.K. You went off again. I am NOT talking about who would win! I am talking about who is best for the Job. I've already stated that the idiot would win. I'm not exactly an expert in Canadian government, but in the US, the House and the Senate can pass things even if the president says no. So the senate CAN stop the president from what he's doing. My point is that the president as a whole lotta more influence on the House and Senate and Advisors than they do. WHOLE lot more. Especially if that specific elected president has good charisma. Since the singular mind is more intelligent than the many, the singular mind's decision leads around the many like a sheppard and it's sheep.

And being smart in school has nothing to do with being the great president he supposedly is. You can still be smart and be a complete idiot. Being smart in president school DOES mean something. I find that contradictory statement you made to hold no ground. Sure, someone isn't the smartest when it comes to biology, but that doesn't mean that they can't repair and make computers like no tomarrow. And by standards set in society, you aren't going to find that computer-repair man in asia studying the Atlas Moth.

They are considered as a delicacy with my people. They sell for such a ridiculously high price that it's hard to find it cheap enough to buy. btw, They smell nothing like a dead frog, more like the scent of...something really sweet (like it smells REALLY good). Thus the name of Durian means literally "To remember" (sorry about the incredibly rough translation). I mean, if I open a durian here, people would swarm here and take the freakin' thing before I can say "smells good". And just saying that if you don't believe me, they have chambers inside that cover yellow meat. Each piece of the yellow meat has a seed wihin, which tends to be brown. Opening the darn thing is so hard tho...That's right... your a canadian. From what I've heard, the Durian smells like a dead animal IN AMERICA. That's what gets passed around here. I'm sure that the INSIDE of one smells great. I think the outside of an apple doesn't smell half as sweet as the inside. But good luck opening the thing! (yes, I did see on a nature show a man open a Durian up, so I know what the inside looks like. He said it smelt bad until you opened it, along with another cooking show I saw)

As you are assuming he is a great president, I am merely making the same assumption that he is oblivious.I am assuming that he is a good president. I don't know where everyone gets this "great from".

I can still argue taht his weakness in speaking to the public as one of the reason. Since you agree with me here, I can safely assum that he is quite oblivious to he obvious weakness here.Try not to base your assumptions off of your own assumptions. Like I said: I find his speach to be perfectly fine. It is you and YOUR standards that he doesn't meet. And how do you know he doesn't know that he doesn't know that he makes mistakes during his speaches?

Yes I have heard of that phrase, because I use it a lot. Do not stereotype me with the rascists, because that has nothing to do with anything that I said.
I stereotyped the base arguements and the nature of the statements along with the implications that you were making as the justification to the racism that I hear from the more intellecutal side of the biggitory group. Not you.
You saying that means I can say that you're racist against Al Gore. Same idea.Oh no no no no! Where are you getting this from? I was refering to your statments and your arguementive style for your claim, not you. You see, the only thing I've really said bad about Al Gore is that he wore a fake smile to the media. That is it.

Also, back everything you said about Gore up, consdiering taht it is all merely assumptions and opinions taht you are making here.

O.K. I already backed up the re-count thing. His fake smile came from observations that I've made from the popular folks (mostly of women), and rich-boys such as the 311 gang who like to flash a smile whenever there is a camara around. Anyone can tell that those smiles are fake, like the smile from a school picture. A true smile isn't forced at all. It just happens. And unless Gore got some unmentionably large amount of joy from a media camera being around, he was wearing a smile. And about Gore doing the same things as Bush: Clinton was following through with the regime change plan issued by daddy-Bush. Bush hadn't even signed that we would send in troops to Iraq until 911 happened.

Kenny_C.002
04-26-2004, 02:34 AM
Oh gosh don't ever talk about 911 here.

A basis of an argument for Bush being a weaker president than the "good president" you are saying is 911.

I have to give it to Bush that he did pretty much the only thing that he could possibly do so that the Americans (majority) would support him. Naturally, like all presidents, he comes to the Canadians for extra help. Smart thing to do, cosidering we have 1 helicopter and 10 planes that can barely make it to mach 1. On top of that, we have an army so big that the mafias (like any one of them) within Canada can wage war against us an actaully win. Yes asking for help is right, but not the Canadians.

Okay, so we send pretty much what we've got to help them out in the war on Afganistan. We have a idiot American bombing 4 of our Canadian soldiers. The American media called it "instrumental error", our media said "human error". Either way, Bush should have full claim of this terrible accident and well at least compensate for their families. Nothing. We had to compensate for the families of the 4 dead soldiers who died tragically for no reason. This also leads to us no longer helping the US in their war against terrorism.

Tell me, if severing national relations is a GOOD thing that a GOOD president would do, then I completely agree that Bush is a good president.

*Note: Canadian Media is different from American Media, so discrepencies, such as the ones shown above, are extremely common in news. I'm thinking that you might actually have different facts from this situation as I'm almost completely certain that this was covered up by the Government.*

Alakazam
04-27-2004, 03:04 PM
Well, I'm back, and in a political mood.

That is the complete and utter opposite of what I heard and remember. I remember Bush winning Florida back before the rest of the states had their votes polled, and it was Al Gore that had wanted the recount. Specifically calling on a media report with the relative title of "Bush to still be in the lead?" having a picture of florida painted red. First a news website.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/4/164421.shtml
along with http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/cartoons/gore-hell.jpg


So you mean to point out a few speach errors by speaches that aren't even his own while the general idea is still being passed effectively proves that someone is an idiot. Some of the smartest men in the world couldn't speak "effectively". Atleast he's not some fake polition who uses fancy words to make himself sound smart, but rather a more down-to-earth guy.

I don't find how this is dumb. Whether your community or not has this issue may affect your opinion, but this is an issue at my place. You see, no one really cares in Nevada. You take a test, you pass or fail, you move on.

That is taken out of context like no tomarrow.

Jockularity I guess doesn't run in your evalutaion of a person I guess. And second, was he just further pressing a point with a semi-serious statement? Context.

I once again don't see what's wrong here. Unless you are going to point out the use of the word "ain't".

Are these little dashes pauses or skipping parts of a quote? I once again don't see what is wrong with this statement. Please clarify your problem here.

Oh wow a slight misuse of a word. Ever call someone by the wrong name.

I don't see what is wrong with this statement, again. The definition of appalling is used correctly here, that is Causing consternation or dismay; frightful

Once again taken out of context. It is very obvious that he was referancing to those who were violating the peacefulness of the Iraqis, and was referring to the violaters mentioned previously in the speach, or what the whole speach section was about.

That was in perspective of right now. We are NOT manufacturing nuclear weapons right now. Before, we were dumber. We know better now.

Simply put: he sees headlines in his very busy schedual only to be told them by the same people who make the headlines or the headlines are about, and skips the crap and moves onto the important stuff.

Once again an improper use of a word taken out of context disregarding the whole notion of the statement. Little reality check: when speaking to the nation, the rights words don't always come at the right time.

First of all, taken out of context failing to see the whole picture of what he is saying.

I have commented on the "wrong word under pressure" thing before.

He means he was in a small business. I commented on the pressure thing before.

Families plate is probably what he meant. But once again, sometimes someone stammers when under pressure.


Excuse me while I laugh.
*heh heh heh ha ha ha*
Now let me ask you: what kind of invalid cheap underhanded ploy is this? The speach mistakes that a person makes while under pressure and taken out of context doesn't demean his ability to govern a country. He isn't spelling things out. Often times, he's saying stuff on-spot. Unless you can go up to your entire school, give a perfect speach with no grammatical multiple times over a period of 4 years with people asking questions both on the spot and through the mail because you are required of it, then you have no room to speak. I already said this, but some people aren't as much of a fluent speaker under pressure as others. Let me know once you can comprehend the different abilities of a person to speak.

Oh wow a persons motor skills and finess in a mass-written paper determins how good of a president he should be. Ever meet a doctor?

Exuse me while I laugh.

*heh heh heh heh ha ha ha ha!*
I am doing a report on the No child left behind act. Let me tell you: it's not fake. Do me a favor, and read this http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
This is the legal document of the No child left behind act. Trust me: he's not lying in ANYTHING he says, and I dare you to try to prove me wrong.


WRONGO! The Elementary and Secondary Education act was issued in 1965. In this act, it required a regular overhall of it's texts every 5-7 years, which the most recent overhall was called the no child left behind act. So unless he traveled back in time and made that president write that up so he can say that, your wrong. A kids ability to pass a grade does NOT invoid the No child left behind act, which (from what I've read from the whole frikken thing) mentions nothing about holding a child back. Don't associate stuff with the act until you know it.

Do me a favor and give me all the 386 pokemon in order. Right now, without going to any website.
I fail to see intellectual comprehension of this statement. He doesn't call the troops back because firstly he promised that he would liberate Iraq of terrorrism. Pulling the troops back would make him a liar. Second, the troops are in their not only for the Iraqis safety, but for America's safety aswell. It's like putting stricter rules on a school to prevent them from getting hurt.
America has done far more good than harm, and they can't rebuild their foundation on their own.
I guess you are amongst the most who can't seem to seperate the idea of the liberation of Iraq along the the true nature with the war on terrorrism and the fight in Afghanistan. We KNOW that Iraq didn't bomb us.

First, of all: thank you , CS. It's about time some opposition arose. A discussion is bland if it's one sided. Anyway, on to your reply:

For the sake of everyone here, I'll just list the quotes below and respond to your comments on them.

"The question is rarely asked - Is our children learning?"

What's dumb about it? He used the singular verb when it should have been plural...something that is taught in the lower levels of even the most destitute of schools. (It should have read "Are our children learning?")

"It's your money, you paid for it."

Taken out of context? Most likely, but it's still a stupid thing to say, no matter the context.

"It must be a budget, it's got lots of numbers."

Again, its just an obvious, apparent, moronic thing to point out

"Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."

The problem doesn't lie in the content, it's once again the grammer. "He and her"? No, no... it's either "he and she" or "his and her", not a mix. If that doesn't sound right to you, than you must not know english very well.

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."

What's the problem? It's not the pauses (yes, the dashes are auditory pauses in speech); it's the content this time. "...because killers kill." That statement sums up the whole quote...do I even have to say it? "...killers kill." Uh...yeah, killers kill. If they didn't, they wouldn't be killers! :rolleyes: It seems that GWB points obvious things out to us as if they are ground-breaking facts.

"My views are one that speaks to freedom."

Again, his views are one? A sing/plural error.

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling."

See above

"The ambassador and the general were briefing me on the—the vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world. And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."

Oh, great...maybe some people knew what he meant, but is it a good thing to express the COMPLETE OPPOSITE intent of the administration?! :think:

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." (NOTE: *apologizes for interrupting* The US has more nukes than any other country on Earth.)

The point is that we have done so in the past.

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."

It sounds like he's admitting that he doesn't pay much attention to intelligence to me.

"I think war is a dangerous place."

Again, such a statment would be ostricized in any first-grade class. Oh, and of your reality check: Are you telling me that none of his addresses arer prepared?

"We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."

It's not the content that I'm criticizing, and the context wouldn't fix this. Africa is a continent, not a nation :doh:

"The great thing about America is everybody should vote."

What pressure are you referring to?

"I understand small business growth. I was one."

I know what he meant, but the fact that he could have butchered our language so badly is depressing.

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."

Again, what pressure? Most of the things that you say he was under pressure about were domestic issues that aren't going to cuase any imminent threat.

Alakazam
04-27-2004, 03:05 PM
Heh, myt post was too long <mandatroy double-post :rolleyes: >

I realize that no one is a perfect speaker; I myself am not very good at public speaking, but I think that anyone that can make such horrendous errors muct not have much capacity to think about what they say. So how am I supposed to believe that he has any greater capacity to think about things before he acts? This is no 'underhanded ploy'; it is nothing more but making people pay attention to the things that he says and does, rather than mindlessly support GWB solely becuase he's a republican or because he wants to lower taxes. (I'm not saying that you fall into this category, but many people do)

I really don't think I'm being nit-picky about his speech. I wouldn't be able to give a perfect speech either, but I can honestly say that my level of speaking is far above what is represented by the quotes above.
----------

Alright, now that the quotes are done...

<On the recount> Okay. Point taken; I was misinformed. However, there are plenty of other reasons for me to despise the president.


Hindsighted so much it's rediculess. Firstly, this was NOT issued first to Bush! It was givin to Clinton near the end of his term, and he decided what would and wouldn't happen. Heh? Are you really trying to tell me that the PDB (called the Pdb because it is meant for the president) from 8/6/01 was given to Clinton when Bush had been elected some nine months eariler and had been in office since January of that year? Quite frankly, I don't believe you and I resent the concept of using the past administration as a scapegoat to explain away all of the current administration's fallacies. We've known that Al-Qaeda was planning junk long before Bush was president. In a DAILY briefing (meaning he sees document 365 days a year) it mentioned Osama bin Laden, among many of those who don't like America, The Planes and weapons and Hijacking was taken out of context, not only because those words appeared standing alone in the highlighted document, but also the very plan of Al-Qaeda to use plains was kept a very deep secret amongst Osama and his little friends. The PDB isn't a warning. It's a "here's what's goin' down" report. Nothing about action, or warning. Terror warnings are vague. For all we knew, they could've attack an embacy in Spain. I disagree. The title of the report was "bin Laden determined to attack WITHIN United States. Unless you wish to be ridiculous enough to say that embacies are technically on US soil, it is apparent that the title was meant to convey that an attack may happen within our borders. Furthermore, how in the world can a document talking about an attack that may happen in the country NOT be construed as a wraning!? Sure, he reads these every day, but I would hope that such a message would stand out in his mind (unless Bush ignores intelligence that may endanger Americans daily, which I wouldn't put past him)



Let me clarify something for you: In Al-Qaeda, we waited for something to happen. Otherwise it would've been an unprovoked attack against people who could've been innoscent, and would've been until they did something. Now, for Iraq, we acted prior to before anything happened, and we found plenty of junk telling that he was going to do something to America. Now, you either complain about his inability to act on Al-Qaeda, or the un-provoked attack against Iraq. If you complain about both of them, you are being a hindsight perfectionist without a grip on reality. He did BOTH choices, and BOTH WERE WRONG to people like you. And BTW: there was way more stuff than just ONE PDB that suggested Iraq was doing something. By gosh we were right.

[b]Though I understand how you could say that, I disagree. Unless the President recieved somthing like "Hussein determined to attack within US", those are two completely different scenarios. Let me clarify something for YOU: THERE WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S. FROM IRAQ! It has not been provenb, or even supported in the least. In fact, because there was no such threat, the Bush administration now denies ever using the term "imminent threat". This, to me, depicts the Bush administration admitting to themselves that there was no threat.

Oh, and IMO, the threat from Al-Qaeda as depicted in the 8/6 PDB was far greater than from Iraq. The threat from Iraq, IMO, was nothing more than ignorant paranoia.

Prove it. Was it at New York? Even in America? This month? Next year? Were they going to bomb a plain? A building? Go on a shooting spree? You can't. In this PDB (the FBI also doesn't remember anything) that mentioned Osama, it didn't give nearly enough information to do something about it, nor any real motivation.

Prove it? Sure. It says in the PDB that Al-Qaeda may use planes as weapons. Realistically, what more information do they need? Or could they possilbly obtain? Also, Bush claimed that more than 70 FBI investigations were launched on Al-Qaeda, yet no evidence of these have thus far been found. IMO, he (once again) lied to cover himself. Motivation!? Of course Al-Qaeda had motivation: they HATE MODERN WESTERN SOCIETY! It's in their very creed to hate us. Is there any such motive in the so-called "imminent threat" from Iraq? :rolleyes:

Those scenarios were done not for Al-Qaeda, but rather to test the structure of the World Trade Center. Don't forget that. From what I've seen, nothing was good enough for people like you, so go on and ramble away your contradicting nonsense.

Not done for Al-Qaeda...hmph. Does it really matter who is flying the planes? Would a soldier think to himself on 9/11 "Oh no! We did something almost exaclty like this in training, but not with Arabs flying the planes! I don't have any idea what to do!" I think not.

Iraq, anyone? I also explained this before. And he doesn't get the final say. He doesn't have the ability or the right to say "Go invade Afghanistan". It has to be proposed to him by the Military. That didn't happen, so there wasn't a {insert inapropriate word here} thing he could've done. No president could've done anything.

However, he does have a big influence on the cabinet which cannnot be denied. Have you ever heard of groupthink? Just because other may not have wanted to invade Iraq, they may not have neccessarily brought up their misgivings to Bush.

Or the specifics of what to do to prevent this, and the specifics if this is true or just another false alarm. Not everything in every PDB is fact, you know.

No, but I hope it would be considered as valuable information, and not inert data which shouldn't be acted upon.

You do realize that even with airport security, a few people were able to pass onto airplanes with box-cutters even with the boost. The only way they caught a few of them was when they opened their bag to check. They put you through a metal dectector. They don't need trained personel. And how were they supposed to know that about a dozen people would go onto an airplane and take it over? Was one or two guys supposed to handle that? Hindsight is blind.

Meh, my point is they didn't do everything they could to prevent 9/11. I don't think it could've be stopped, but having better security couldn
t possibly be a bad thing, could it?

Yes, release shaky unproven data to the public to make them panic. They might aswell release very little bit and piece of information that the president ever gets. Little law here: you can't immediatly release things from the government into the public. It has to wait awhile.

Okay, I digress. Such an action may not have been in the best interest of the public.

I don't see how he was supposed to.

[b]Becuase he didn't do anything to help prevent an attack that happened on his watch. He won't even admit that he could've done more. Pride is blind.[/QUOTE]

Crimson Spider
05-03-2004, 02:27 AM
Oh gosh don't ever talk about 911 here.Why not?

A basis of an argument for Bush being a weaker president than the "good president" you are saying is 911. The shakiest base ever. The whole PDA, the small little tidbits, people hypocritically expect these things to make a difference, where as even if he had done something, there is a good chance that it wouldn't have helped.

I have to give it to Bush that he did pretty much the only thing that he could possibly do so that the Americans (majority) would support him. And that would be? I find this whole "So america would support him" thing to be crap. The only time that ever happens is during election year. Otherwise, you aren't preforming. Your working.

Naturally, like all presidents, he comes to the Canadians for extra help. Smart thing to do, cosidering we have 1 helicopter and 10 planes that can barely make it to mach 1. On top of that, we have an army so big that the mafias (like any one of them) within Canada can wage war against us an actaully win. Yes asking for help is right, but not the Canadians.If I'm not mistaken, you weren't the only ones he asked for help from. Canada has one thing that we would need: man power. That's it!

Okay, so we send pretty much what we've got to help them out in the war on Afganistan. We have a idiot American bombing 4 of our Canadian soldiers. The American media called it "instrumental error", our media said "human error". Either way, Bush should have full claim of this terrible accident and well at least compensate for their families. Nothing. We had to compensate for the families of the 4 dead soldiers who died tragically for no reason. This also leads to us no longer helping the US in their war against terrorism.Someone doesn't seem to realize how far back you can branch the blame for an accident. Listen, either from human or instrumental, it was an "error". A mistake. A fluke. It's like pointing the blame exclusively at the parents of the columbine kids. You can't, simply because they weren't the ones holding the trigger, or planning it. It's something you just don't seem comeing. Another thing is that George Bush can't attend to ever little itty bitty need for each person. (If I'm not mistaken, you still have troops in Iraq, correct? I could've sworn that you did). He can't be held accountable for each person that gets mugged on the street.

Tell me, if severing national relations is a GOOD thing that a GOOD president would do, then I completely agree that Bush is a good president.Where did you get the idea that he is severing national relations? I have heard nothing about this, nor have I found anything about this. Let me guess: we can't buy drugs from you anymore? Is this what the national relations that's being severed that your talking about? From what I've heard from both parties, he is encouraging national relations.

*Note: Canadian Media is different from American Media, so discrepencies, such as the ones shown above, are extremely common in news. I'm thinking that you might actually have different facts from this situation as I'm almost completely certain that this was covered up by the Government.* The government doesn't control the media. The media is independantly controlled in America. That is why they are rediculously biased. Let me illustrate something for you.

*George bush walks into a neighborhood*
O.K. I want you guys to help me by selling lemonade.
*Little kids* Alright.
*Narrorator* One week later, one kid spills lemonade on another kid by accident. Whether it was the broken picture, or just human fumbeling error does not matter
*Little kid who got spilled on* I want 10 bucks for him spilling lemonade on me!
*George Bush* (deviating time from his schedual) I'm sorry, but I can't do that.
*Little kid who was spilled on* I HATE YOU!!!! (Tantrums off).

Uh... yeah.

Crimson Spider
05-03-2004, 02:51 AM
What's dumb about it? He used the singular verb when it should have been plural...something that is taught in the lower levels of even the most destitute of schools. (It should have read "Are our children learning?")
Well exuse me, but unless he's a grammer teacher or a dis-agreeing onlooker, he's not going to see that.

Taken out of context? Most likely, but it's still a stupid thing to say, no matter the context.I beg to differ! The context means a lot more than just the statement.

Again, its just an obvious, apparent, moronic thing to point outLittle note here: people are morons. People can miss some of the most openly seen things and mis-read clear directions. This is called a re-iinforcing statement.

The problem doesn't lie in the content, it's once again the grammer. "He and her"? No, no... it's either "he and she" or "his and her", not a mix. If that doesn't sound right to you, than you must not know english very well.I actually did see that little mistake. Like I said many times before: You don't always pick the exact right words at that moment. To me, the he or her means little to nothing.


What's the problem? It's not the pauses (yes, the dashes are auditory pauses in speech); it's the content this time. "...because killers kill." That statement sums up the whole quote...do I even have to say it? "...killers kill." Uh...yeah, killers kill. If they didn't, they wouldn't be killers! :rolleyes: It seems that GWB points obvious things out to us as if they are ground-breaking facts.Sounds like he had forgot what he was going to say in mid sentence. Anywho, these things may be obvious to you and me, but there are some people that have the inability to see these realizations. It isn't so much as knowing it, but acknowledging it, and that is what it does. People know about killers, and they know about killing, but they do not acknowledge that these killers raise up the death rate until it is brought up to them. Add Hindsight, and they think they acknowledged it all along.

Again, his views are one? A sing/plural error.A sing/plural error? Not one to talk, are you. Now go on about shortening the word and what you meant, and I'll just talk about how it applies to him.

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling."
See above
And the big deal is? I know he said "are", but unless you are either a grammer teacher, or someone who doesn't like him, it doesn't really matter.

Oh, great...maybe some people knew what he meant, but is it a good thing to express the COMPLETE OPPOSITE intent of the administration?! :think: What he was doing was bringing up a point previously mentioned. "These People" was about the aformentioned terrorists.
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." (NOTE: *apologizes for interrupting* The US has more nukes than any other country on Earth.)

The point is that we have done so in the past.
In the past. Not now. Add in the word more peaceful, and you have a complete idea.

It sounds like he's admitting that he doesn't pay much attention to intelligence to me.It sounds like he doesn't actually sit down and read the news, because he has to deal with it. He said he gets briefed by people who saw it anyway. He doesn't need to see it. He glances at it only to see what the media is saying. He has/will be givin the whole story, and he has to put up with it, unlike the media that only tells you part.

Again, such a statment would be ostricized in any first-grade class. Oh, and of your reality check: Are you telling me that none of his addresses arer prepared?I'm in Atech, and people make statements like that all the time. It comes from choosing the wrong word at the wrong time. That happened often when we had to memorize a 10-minute presentation about World War II, and present it. Written it isn't so much of a problem but speaking it's a lot more difficult. And "arer"? What's that? I'm sure his addresses are prepared firsthand, but so were our 10-minute presentations. We made mistakes on those where as they were perfect before, too. Not everything he says is prepared to a T though.

It's not the content that I'm criticizing, and the context wouldn't fix this. Africa is a continent, not a nation :doh: Goodness gracious he chose the wrong word! The penalty for that is death, you know.


What pressure are you referring to?
This statement comes out of the Blue. The pressure I'm refering to is the pressure of speaking to an entire nation. Though it isn't a complete scapegoat, it doesn't help his speach at all.

I know what he meant, but the fact that he could have butchered our language so badly is depressing.Quiz of the day: How many speaches has he givin?
Answer: A whole lot more than what can be comprised of in your posts commenting on his grammer.
Quiz of the week: How long are these speaches?
Answer: Lets see, if 10 minutes was 8 pages, that would mean that his half-hour speaches are about 24 pages long. And if he makes 1 mistake in 24 pages of speach, then by gum he's pretty good at grammer.

Again, what pressure? Most of the things that you say he was under pressure about were domestic issues that aren't going to cuase any imminent threat.
Again, the pressure of being in front of a crowd. It's not the issue. It's the hundreds of eyes and cameras staring at you while you speak. If you have a headache or are constipated at that time, your gonna talk whether you feel like it or not.

Kenny_C.002
05-03-2004, 02:52 AM
Why not?

The shakiest base ever. The whole PDA, the small little tidbits, people hypocritically expect these things to make a difference, where as even if he had done something, there is a good chance that it wouldn't have helped.

And that would be? I find this whole "So america would support him" thing to be crap. The only time that ever happens is during election year. Otherwise, you aren't preforming. Your working.
If I'm not mistaken, you weren't the only ones he asked for help from. Canada has one thing that we would need: man power. That's it!
Someone doesn't seem to realize how far back you can branch the blame for an accident. Listen, either from human or instrumental, it was an "error". A mistake. A fluke. It's like pointing the blame exclusively at the parents of the columbine kids. You can't, simply because they weren't the ones holding the trigger, or planning it. It's something you just don't seem comeing. Another thing is that George Bush can't attend to ever little itty bitty need for each person. (If I'm not mistaken, you still have troops in Iraq, correct? I could've sworn that you did). He can't be held accountable for each person that gets mugged on the street.

Where did you get the idea that he is severing national relations? I have heard nothing about this, nor have I found anything about this. Let me guess: we can't buy drugs from you anymore? Is this what the national relations that's being severed that your talking about? From what I've heard from both parties, he is encouraging national relations.

The government doesn't control the media. The media is independantly controlled in America. That is why they are rediculously biased. Let me illustrate something for you.

*George bush walks into a neighborhood*
O.K. I want you guys to help me by selling lemonade.
*Little kids* Alright.
*Narrorator* One week later, one kid spills lemonade on another kid by accident. Whether it was the broken picture, or just human fumbeling error does not matter
*Little kid who got spilled on* I want 10 bucks for him spilling lemonade on me!
*George Bush* (deviating time from his schedual) I'm sorry, but I can't do that.
*Little kid who was spilled on* I HATE YOU!!!! (Tantrums off).

Uh... yeah.

The control of the media within the US is different from the Canadian censors. Obviously if you are within the media premesis, you don't know the effects of the control within the media. Don't give me the crap about the narration above or anything of the like,because I'm talking about the core of the media, like the news, newspapers, radio, and other broadcast systems which are affected. Senerios such as that does not count as a part of the censors that they need to censor.

Second thing, what is the first thing he did on the war against Iraq? He bombed the living daylights out of them. We came in UNDER UN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PEACE WITHIN IRAQ. To boot, the Iraq people are all mad, since Bush bombed the living daylights out of them.

As a secondary thing, with the elections coming up, he goes to negotiate with the Iraq leaders. You're supposed to do the second thing first in the first place. I can say that the Roman Empire had its bases on negotiations (e.g. Agricola), and maintain of peace (pax Romanam). Bush, however, does not grasp that idea, thus have had the chicken UN oppose him (and failing to convert him)...main member includes CANADA. Aside from that, his negotiations now are pointless, as he's already done the permanent damage. Severing national relations? Definitely.

"I think Prime Minister Poutine is making the right choice in supporting me, I hope we will have a good talk in Toronto."
-referred to a question in which the reporter erred about Toronto instead of Ottawa.

This is taken from a broadcast in the past by CBC. Yes, Cretain (I can't spell his name either) is not Poutine in any way. Sure, bush knows his geographic regions when Toronto is the capital of Canada. Wait, doesn't Cretain get pissed off when he doesn't even know your name? It's not hard to correct the small errors just so everyone's happy, but no.

Crimson Spider
05-03-2004, 03:32 AM
The control of the media within the US is different from the Canadian censors. Obviously if you are within the media premesis, you don't know the effects of the control within the media. Don't give me the crap about the narration above or anything of the like,because I'm talking about the core of the media, like the news, newspapers, radio, and other broadcast systems which are affected. Senerios such as that does not count as a part of the censors that they need to censor....um... what are you going on about here? The control Of the media? You see, I was talking about who said what in the media. In America, the media is themselves. But you lost me on what you were going on about here. Please explain your statement.

Second thing, what is the first thing he did on the war against Iraq? He bombed the living daylights out of them. We came in UNDER UN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN PEACE WITHIN IRAQ. To boot, the Iraq people are all mad, since Bush bombed the living daylights out of them.We were bombing the living daylights out of Iraq long before Bush ever came in. He just allowed them to bomb certain places.

Second, the UN was crap. There had to be a unanimous decision in order to take action. England agreed. Ireland agreed. Oh but France! France got Greedy, and decided it didn't want war against Iraq because saddam was giving them money for their products. Later, France gave in and decided to send in units and help fund the U.S. The UN was established in order to prevent someone like Saddam from comeing into power and doing what he was doing.

As a secondary thing, with the elections coming up, he goes to negotiate with the Iraq leaders. You're supposed to do the second thing first in the first place. I can say that the Roman Empire had its bases on negotiations (e.g. Agricola), and maintain of peace (pax Romanam). Bush, however, does not grasp that idea, thus have had the chicken UN oppose him (and failing to convert him)...main member includes CANADA. Aside from that, his negotiations now are pointless, as he's already done the permanent damage. Severing national relations? Definitely.Don't you mean third? Your confusing me with the second thing first in the first place. That didn't make sense. The UN was comprised of nations in Europe. I don't ever remember Canada being one of the 4 nations the UN was comprised of. Only one member of the UN opposed him, and that was France. America still has plenty of relations with the UN. From Englands POV, their saying "It's about time France went with us".

This is taken from a broadcast in the past by CBC. Yes, Cretain (I can't spell his name either) is not Poutine in any way. Sure, bush knows his geographic regions when Toronto is the capital of Canada. Wait, doesn't Cretain get pissed off when he doesn't even know your name? It's not hard to correct the small errors just so everyone's happy, but no.
Everyone makes small mistakes. For all you know, he didn't realize it until after he spoke.

Kenny_C.002
05-03-2004, 03:58 AM
...um... what are you going on about here? The control Of the media? You see, I was talking about who said what in the media. In America, the media is themselves. But you lost me on what you were going on about here. Please explain your statement.

Sorry. I was saying that the governments all control what is to be broadcasted within their own country. Right now I'm talking about just American media being controlled to a certain extent by the American government.

We were bombing the living daylights out of Iraq long before Bush ever came in. He just allowed them to bomb certain places.

Not really. Thinking back, America never really went the way to negotiation to begin with. It's natural to bomb the living daylights out of anything that oppose them.

Second, the UN was crap. There had to be a unanimous decision in order to take action. England agreed. Ireland agreed. Oh but France! France got Greedy, and decided it didn't want war against Iraq because saddam was giving them money for their products. Later, France gave in and decided to send in units and help fund the U.S. The UN was established in order to prevent someone like Saddam from comeing into power and doing what he was doing.

YEs, it was a unanimous decision to TAKE ACTION, NOT TO BOMB THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF IRAQ TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY KILLING EVERYONE. They wanted action to ensure that people in both sides are safe. When they said "take action", they meant negotiations, not bombing.


Don't you mean third? Your confusing me with the second thing first in the first place. That didn't make sense. The UN was comprised of nations in Europe. I don't ever remember Canada being one of the 4 nations the UN was comprised of. Only one member of the UN opposed him, and that was France. America still has plenty of relations with the UN. From Englands POV, their saying "It's about time France went with us".

btw, Canada joined the UN in the past (I think it's some time after WW2).

As for the "about time" thing, see above.

Everyone makes small mistakes. For all you know, he didn't realize it until after he spoke.

Small mistakes is tolerable, but this is more of a large mistake when you say the Prime Minister's name a food. I doubt anyone could make a mistake between Cretian and Poutine, being completely different in pronounciation (I'm talking like proper language-wise). It's like calling Mr. Mao of China "Sir Macdonalds". It's not as simple as a "simple mistake".

Crimson Spider
05-03-2004, 04:21 AM
Heh, myt post was too long <mandatroy double-post :rolleyes: >Wait until you have to mandatorily triple post. That gets annoying.

I realize that no one is a perfect speaker; I myself am not very good at public speaking, but I think that anyone that can make such horrendous errors muct not have much capacity to think about what they say.
Apparently we don't think about the same thing. Even in speach class people made mistakes.
So how am I supposed to believe that he has any greater capacity to think about things before he acts?
I could've sworn that I talked extensively to Kenny about this. But I guess it must be repeated: From what I've observed through many years, the ability to speak in public does NOT effect a persons ability to make a decision in any way, shape, or form.

This is no 'underhanded ploy'; it is nothing more but making people pay attention to the things that he says and does, rather than mindlessly support GWB solely becuase he's a republican or because he wants to lower taxes. (I'm not saying that you fall into this category, but many people do)
Actually, it is. Having to resort to his grammer is a pathetic attempt at best. Why do you do it? You are trying to justify your dislike for him. The very first things you said was that he was an idiot, and then used ONLY this to prove it. You involuntarily seek such tiny things like this to back up your accusations. Basically saying is that "Oh. I'm saying this so people won't like Bush as much because I don't like him." Little note here: you are either going to support a man, or not, or not care. And that decision comes immediatly. It isn't deliberated. When this decision is made, you seek to justify it.

I really don't think I'm being nit-picky about his speech.I do.
I wouldn't be able to give a perfect speech either, but I can honestly say that my level of speaking is far above what is represented by the quotes above.O.K. Prove it.

Alright, now that the quotes are done...DUDE! Please use the and the [/quote ] (without the spaces) when you write. It makes things easier.
[quote]
Heh? Are you really trying to tell me that the PDB (called the Pdb because it is meant for the president) from 8/6/01 was given to Clinton when Bush had been elected some nine months eariler and had been in office since January of that year? Quite frankly, I don't believe you and I resent the concept of using the past administration as a scapegoat to explain away all of the current administration's fallacies.
I am not denying that the PDB was givin to Bush. I am saying that the whole issue of Alqaeda was givin to Clinton near the end of his term. Even the media mentions this. Why do you deny it? My point is that the Al-Qaeda issue was not exclusively Bush's handeling, and can NOT be pointed at Bush for the blame.
I disagree. The title of the report was "bin Laden determined to attack WITHIN United States. Unless you wish to be ridiculous enough to say that embacies are technically on US soil, it is apparent that the title was meant to convey that an attack may happen within our borders. Furthermore, how in the world can a document talking about an attack that may happen in the country NOT be construed as a wraning!? Sure, he reads these every day, but I would hope that such a message would stand out in his mind (unless Bush ignores intelligence that may endanger Americans daily, which I wouldn't put past him) The U.S. does own many other things besides the main states. But let me clear something up for you: The title "Bin Laden determined to attack with the United States" means little to nothing. That was wording chosen by the person who wrote the document, and does not mean fact. Also the PDB is the least important thing the president sees. If it was a document any higher up, he would've considered it. But seeing as it was the 150th one he's seen. Simply put: this PDB is basically crap. Barely anything at all. It's like taking a wadded up piece of trash from the garbage and treating it like it's an amendment. And you cannot blame Bush for everything in this, either. Bush doesn't remember this thing, neither does the FBI or the CIA or any other organization out there. EVERYONE doesn't remember it, and I find it rediculous that you would point the blame Squarely at Bush, where as it was actually the JOB of the many other people below him to investigate it. It isn't his job to jump at a PDB every day and act like it's the most important thing. It's the most useless thing.


[b]Though I understand how you could say that, I disagree. Unless the President recieved somthing like "Hussein determined to attack within US", those are two completely different scenarios. Let me clarify something for YOU: THERE WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S. FROM IRAQ! It has not been provenb, or even supported in the least. In fact, because there was no such threat, the Bush administration now denies ever using the term "imminent threat". This, to me, depicts the Bush administration admitting to themselves that there was no threat.Oh ho ho! There was an imminent threat from Iraq a few years ago! And there still was one! There was more than the most insignificant document in existance to the president that had warnings of Iraq. The evidence against Iraq was a 100 times greater than just one PDB! And the "Imminent threat" from Al-Qaeda doesn't exist either. That was a warning. It could've happened three years later. Not to mention the whole Al-Qaeda thing was handeled by Clinton, and not Bush. And what proof do you have that these documents weren't falsified, like 3 of the 4 documents that spoke of Saddam getting Uranium from Iraq? I find it very peculiar that NO ONE REMEMBERS!

Oh, and IMO, the threat from Al-Qaeda as depicted in the 8/6 PDB was far greater than from Iraq. The threat from Iraq, IMO, was nothing more than ignorant paranoia.Were born deaf or grown up that way? The decision for a regime change was issued long before Clinton was ever made president. The proven and justified threat from Iraq was because he tried to kill daddy Bush. Bush, after some motivation, decided to allow more ground troops into Iraq. Like I said a 100 times, There was more than a PDB against Iraq. And the 911 thing about the PDB was nothing more than ignorant paranoia, too. Seeing as it's only in a PDB and nothing else.

Prove it? Sure. It says in the PDB that Al-Qaeda may use planes as weapons. Realistically, what more information do they need? Or could they possilbly obtain? Also, Bush claimed that more than 70 FBI investigations were launched on Al-Qaeda, yet no evidence of these have thus far been found. IMO, he (once again) lied to cover himself. Motivation!? Of course Al-Qaeda had motivation: they HATE MODERN WESTERN SOCIETY! It's in their very creed to hate us. Is there any such motive in the so-called "imminent threat" from Iraq? :rolleyes: They need proof! There is much more of a difference from lying than not knowing. And from what I've seen from you, "no evidence" means a frikken lot. And also, he was TOLD that there was 70 FBI investiagions launched on Al-Qaeda, like he was told that there were Uranium Shipments from Africa to Iraq. He doesn't have time to observe each and every single investigation. Motivation for Iraq? Sure, he already tried it!


Not done for Al-Qaeda...hmph. Does it really matter who is flying the planes? Would a soldier think to himself on 9/11 "Oh no! We did something almost exaclty like this in training, but not with Arabs flying the planes! I don't have any idea what to do!" I think not.Yes, it does matter. You see, you were claiming they were testing the buildings of the trade center for Al-Qaeda. That is not the case. And when they tested the buildings, they passed! The building testing has no motivation for it related to Al-Qaeda.
However, he does have a big influence on the cabinet which cannnot be denied. Have you ever heard of groupthink? Just because other may not have wanted to invade Iraq, they may not have neccessarily brought up their misgivings to Bush.You do realize that I was lecturing Kenny on group polarization a little bit ago, right? You see, Bush does not hold all the information about Al-Qaeda. Other people do. All he was told was that Osama wanted to attack America possibly with planes, and that's it. He acknowledges this, so he can't do too much about it. Nor does he or any other person who ever had any contact with Al-Qaeda had any will to do it. Ask the FBI why they didn't say anything? It's their job.
No, but I hope it would be considered as valuable information, and not inert data which shouldn't be acted upon.It would be considered as mild-side information. It's information, not priority.

Meh, my point is they didn't do everything they could to prevent 9/11. I don't think it could've be stopped, but having better security couldn
t possibly be a bad thing, could it?Actually, it could've. Security costs money. Resources.
[b]Becuase he didn't do anything to help prevent an attack that happened on his watch. He won't even admit that he could've done more. Pride is blind. Doing more in vain is worse than doing nothing. Don't mistake pride for knowledge.

EDIT: I'll be back for you, Kenny. (have to shower)

Alakazam
05-03-2004, 03:05 PM
First of all, I must admit that I didn't pay as much attention to politics during Clinton's administration...and I realize that information that I don't ahev about that era may influence my opinion. However, I hate it when people blame everything on the prior president, and think the current president blameless.


Anyway, CS, I think you'd agree with me when I say that I think that debating singular quotes would be a total waste of our time, so I'll just compress my general rebuttal and moce on.

First of all, I posted 'sing' as shorthand for 'singular', and would never say 'sing' in public. However, I do get your point. The president makes lots of speeches, but his butchering of the English language has just been something that has always bugged me. I hope you realize that it is only one of the lesser, preliminary reaons I gave for my opposition to Bush; there's more to come.


Now, leaveing the president's speech behind us, I'd like to present my primary reason for disliking, no despising, the president: The Iraq War. I believe that, if we hadn't invaded Iraq 15 months ago, the only thing that would be different today would be that 700 more Americans would be alive, and countless more Iraqis. Bush started a war. Period. In my opinion, it was hardly provoked. He claimed that there was an immenant threat, that we would be attacked by WMDs. Were there any? No. In fact, the current administration now denies ever using the phrase 'imminant threat' to describe the situation with Iraq. Also, Bush filled the minds of the ignorant masses that Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda, and was responsible for 9/11. He preyed upon the weakness of the people after the disaster, rallying them towards a 'noble' cause.

Before the Iraq War, Colin Powell gave two/three (which I'll explain in a minute) reasons for the invasion of Iraq, in order of importance and priority:

1.) Retribution for 9/11 and destruction of a regime that harbors terrorists

2.) Destruction of the WMDs to destroy the threat to America

When a reporter asked about 'lioberating tghe oppressed Iraqi people' as a reason, Powell told him that it was a distant tertiary motive.

Alright now, reaons 1 and 2 are complete bull, as we now know, and the administartion is strectching that reason they labelled as 'tertiary' before the war as a noble, essential purpose for invading.

I have more reasons, but I'm guessing we should get through this one before moving on...I'm guessing it'll take a while -_- ;P

gold
05-04-2004, 03:25 PM
I think he changed his name so his initials were GB, Great britain.
He blackmails the prime minister.
We britons are very patriotic.
I hate Georgie.Bush, that is.

Perkele
05-04-2004, 06:21 PM
George Bush, the President of the United States, sucks. Big Time.

Crimson Spider
05-05-2004, 12:58 AM
Sorry. I was saying that the governments all control what is to be broadcasted within their own country. Right now I'm talking about just American media being controlled to a certain extent by the American government.I think that comes from the government limiting information to the media, because right now, the media (resident media) doesn't like Bush in the least bit. Even though they admit certain things about him, they have it as a side comment, and still try to blame Bush for every thing that goes wrong.

Not really. Thinking back, America never really went the way to negotiation to begin with. It's natural to bomb the living daylights out of anything that oppose them.O.K. Ever watch "Bowling for Columbine"?. Well, here's the most memorable part. You remember Monica Louisnky (I do not know how to spell her last name)? Well, during the Clinton's term, possibly in order to try to deviate attention from his many sex offenses, he O.K. ed a more intense attack against Iraq when they started giving us crap again. That's one thing I liked about him: he didn't take crap from no one.

YEs, it was a unanimous decision to TAKE ACTION, NOT TO BOMB THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF IRAQ TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY KILLING EVERYONE. They wanted action to ensure that people in both sides are safe. When they said "take action", they meant negotiations, not bombing.That certainly isn't the story I heard. It has to be a Unanimous decision to take action, not to not take action. Remember when they started calling French Fries Freedom Fries? That's why: France decided to not support the war. If it was a unanimous decision, then we wouldn't have singled out France. I seem to remember America delaying the attack against Iraq for quite awhile, eventually giving an ultimatum when some rediculously good evidence came forth.

btw, Canada joined the UN in the past (I think it's some time after WW2).I remember the UN being established after WWII in order to prevent cruel dictoral actions such as Hitler from occuring. I didn't know Canada joined up.

As for the "about time" thing, see above.
Soon after we went to war, the UN decided to help us out.

Small mistakes is tolerable, but this is more of a large mistake when you say the Prime Minister's name a food. I doubt anyone could make a mistake between Cretian and Poutine, being completely different in pronounciation (I'm talking like proper language-wise). It's like calling Mr. Mao of China "Sir Macdonalds". It's not as simple as a "simple mistake".

Proper language wise, "there", "their", and "they're" have quite noticable differences in their pronounciation. Remember: He is from Texas. Texans aren't exactly known to have the best grammer and pronounciation out there.

What I consider a "small mistake" is a mistake that means little to nothing. So he pronounced his name wrong. So what? It didn't cost America twenty mil` because of it.

Crimson Spider
05-05-2004, 01:13 AM
First of all, I must admit that I didn't pay as much attention to politics during Clinton's administration...and I realize that information that I don't ahev about that era may influence my opinion. However, I hate it when people blame everything on the prior president, and think the current president blameless.I hate when everyone blames the current president, and thinks that the previous president has no fault in the problem.

Anyway, CS, I think you'd agree with me when I say that I think that debating singular quotes would be a total waste of our time, so I'll just compress my general rebuttal and moce on.

First of all, I posted 'sing' as shorthand for 'singular', and would never say 'sing' in public. However, I do get your point. The president makes lots of speeches, but his butchering of the English language has just been something that has always bugged me. I hope you realize that it is only one of the lesser, preliminary reaons I gave for my opposition to Bush; there's more to come.
Um... you are taking consideration the amount of his very lengthy and copius amount of speaches that he doesn't make a mistake in, right?

Now, leaveing the president's speech behind us, I'd like to present my primary reason for disliking, no despising, the president: The Iraq War. I believe that, if we hadn't invaded Iraq 15 months ago, the only thing that would be different today would be that 700 more Americans would be alive, and countless more Iraqis. Bush started a war. Period.
I hope you are referring to Bush Senior, because the White House did pass his proposal for a regime change in Iraq after Saddam tried to kill him. Bush Junior signed the allowance of a foot-inavsion of Iraq along with another bombing
In my opinion, it was hardly provoked. He claimed that there was an immenant threat, that we would be attacked by WMDs. Were there any? No. Actually, they had the materials, had programs both funded and in progress, and were actually making the weapons. He called it an Imminent threat, because something so small as a guy in nowheresvill who didn't like us was one, and one of the richest men in the world also didn't like us and had the means to have a more immenant threat.

In fact, the current administration now denies ever using the phrase 'imminant threat' to describe the situation with Iraq. Also, Bush filled the minds of the ignorant masses that Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda, and was responsible for 9/11. He preyed upon the weakness of the people after the disaster, rallying them towards a 'noble' cause. Information from Al-Qaeda stated that Saddam help funded them. It turns out that they were wrong.

Something I'm going to clear up real quick: Bush doesn't "lie". Bush is told lies, which gets backed and he thinks it's true. He makes a speach about it, 3 months later they find it isn't true, and everyone points the blame at him. Don't they realize that HE was lied to first? Unless he personally goes on each investigation, he only knows what we know: what we're told.

Before the Iraq War, Colin Powell gave two/three (which I'll explain in a minute) reasons for the invasion of Iraq, in order of importance and priority:

1.) Retribution for 9/11 and destruction of a regime that harbors terrorists

2.) Destruction of the WMDs to destroy the threat to America

When a reporter asked about 'liberating tghe oppressed Iraqi people' as a reason, Powell told him that it was a distant tertiary motive.
The safety of America comes first.

Alright now, reaons 1 and 2 are complete bull, as we now know, and the administartion is strectching that reason they labelled as 'tertiary' before the war as a noble, essential purpose for invading. I bolded the true parts of the "Bull" and came out with a nice steer. Even if they are stretching the tertairy purpose, it was still a purpose.

Kenny_C.002
05-05-2004, 01:50 AM
I think that comes from the government limiting information to the media, because right now, the media (resident media) doesn't like Bush in the least bit. Even though they admit certain things about him, they have it as a side comment, and still try to blame Bush for every thing that goes wrong.

I think so too. I think the limited information you are getting in comparison to what we are getting can be quite different in mayn ways (one of my teachers live in both Canada and the US and she watches the news from both places, so we kinda pick bits and piece of info here and there).

As for the "blame to Bush and not to Clinton", I personally feel that both should have the blame. Since we are just talking about Bush, it seems that he is the only one getting the blame, but in reality we blame them both.

O.K. Ever watch "Bowling for Columbine"?. Well, here's the most memorable part. You remember Monica Louisnky (I do not know how to spell her last name)? Well, during the Clinton's term, possibly in order to try to deviate attention from his many sex offenses, he O.K. ed a more intense attack against Iraq when they started giving us crap again. That's one thing I liked about him: he didn't take crap from no one.

Yes. Michael Moore did many things that gets noticed around here. While some of his documentaries are quite true, they are often exaggerated to get the point through. It's his style to do so, so I don't blame him.

As for Clinton, he OKed the attack, which means America never negotiated to begin with.

That certainly isn't the story I heard. It has to be a Unanimous decision to take action, not to not take action. Remember when they started calling French Fries Freedom Fries? That's why: France decided to not support the war. If it was a unanimous decision, then we wouldn't have singled out France. I seem to remember America delaying the attack against Iraq for quite awhile, eventually giving an ultimatum when some rediculously good evidence came forth.

Yeah. Freedom fries are such because they don't want the attack on Iraq by America. They wanted negotiations. Notice that freedom fries sales did go up.

I remember the UN being established after WWII in order to prevent cruel dictoral actions such as Hitler from occuring. I didn't know Canada joined up.
Soon after we went to war, the UN decided to help us out.

Yeah we joined. Anyway, as for the UN deciding to join up, I mentioned the "chicken UN", didn't I?

Proper language wise, "there", "their", and "they're" have quite noticable differences in their pronounciation. Remember: He is from Texas. Texans aren't exactly known to have the best grammer and pronounciation out there.

What I consider a "small mistake" is a mistake that means little to nothing. So he pronounced his name wrong. So what? It didn't cost America twenty mil` because of it.

I think you did lose money in some ways, considering that free trade between the two countries were hindered during the last year. Thus a slight drop in the american economy (from this reason).

Alakazam
05-07-2004, 05:09 PM
I hate when everyone blames the current president, and thinks that the previous president has no fault in the problem.

Point taken.

Um... you are taking consideration the amount of his very lengthy and copius amount of speaches that he doesn't make a mistake in, right?

Okay, so maybe I'm being a bit fecicious about it

I hope you are referring to Bush Senior, because the White House did pass his proposal for a regime change in Iraq after Saddam tried to kill him. Bush Junior signed the allowance of a foot-inavsion of Iraq along with another bombing

I don't remember jack about Bush Sr. (since I was between the ages of 6 and 10 when he was in office), but maybe so

Actually, they had the materials, had programs both funded and in progress, and were actually making the weapons. He called it an Imminent threat, because something so small as a guy in nowheresvill who didn't like us was one, and one of the richest men in the world also didn't like us and had the means to have a more immenant threat.

Oh, so know you're saying that there was an imminent threat from Al-Qaeda? :think:

Information from Al-Qaeda stated that Saddam help funded them. It turns out that they were wrong.

So know we're acting upon intelligence from terrorists. Excellent. , that just furthers my view.

Something I'm going to clear up real quick: Bush doesn't "lie". Bush is told lies, which gets backed and he thinks it's true. He makes a speach about it, 3 months later they find it isn't true, and everyone points the blame at him. Don't they realize that HE was lied to first? Unless he personally goes on each investigation, he only knows what we know: what we're told.

Meh, I do agree that he is fed some crap, but I also refuse to believe that he is blameless in the intelligence fabrications.

The safety of America comes first.

I bolded the true parts of the "Bull" and came out with a nice steer. Even if they are stretching the tertairy purpose, it was still a purpose.

It was a purpose, but not a purpose important enough to warrant GOING TO WAR. My point is that the reasons for the invasion were completely incorrect, and I'd be willing to bet that the administration doesn't give a crap about the Iraqi people before the invasion, and fed that line to reporters to make them look better.

If the salvation of an oppresed people is enough purpose to go to war, than what's next? War with North Korea? Iran? Libya? Myanmar? Cuba? If so, who knows how many Americans will have to die needlessly.


While I'm at it, I may as well add another reason for my opposition to the president: the advocation of two-valued orientation. Before the Iraq War, propaganda was spread that basically said that since Iraq had funded (allegedly) Al-Qaeda that they must be evil, along with their best friends Iran and North Korea. Oh, you didn't know that Iraq and Iran are strong allies? Oh, yeah, you must have missed that memo. Since they are both unfriendly with the US, they must be in it together -_-

Crimson Spider
05-08-2004, 02:00 AM
I think so too. I think the limited information you are getting in comparison to what we are getting can be quite different in mayn ways (one of my teachers live in both Canada and the US and she watches the news from both places, so we kinda pick bits and piece of info here and there).
As for the "blame to Bush and not to Clinton", I personally feel that both should have the blame. Since we are just talking about Bush, it seems that he is the only one getting the blame, but in reality we blame them both. Your not the only one I was talking to. It's an issue I like to bring up.

As for Clinton, he OKed the attack, which means America never negotiated to begin with.Negotiations aren't always the best choice. When Al-Qaeda attacked, negotiation was out of the question. The already-issued regime change for Iraq meant that he had the right to O.K. the attack without negotiating with the opposing side.

Yeah. Freedom fries are such because they don't want the attack on Iraq by America. They wanted negotiations. Notice that freedom fries sales did go up.They went up? Well, the media stayed rather neutral on the issue, so I wouldn't know. They were getting money from Iraq, so they wanted a more peaceful negotiation to keep their change, and decided to not take immediate action. They weren't quite as inspired as us.

I think you did lose money in some ways, considering that free trade between the two countries were hindered during the last year. Thus a slight drop in the american economy (from this reason).
From his grammer alone? That would be a secondary side-effect. It wasn't him signing a deal to hinder the free trade, it was him pronouncing the word wrong.

Crimson Spider
05-08-2004, 02:13 AM
It's a lot easier to use the [/quote ] system.
[quote]I don't remember jack about Bush Sr. (since I was between the ages of 6 and 10 when he was in office), but maybe soI don't either. I got that from the media when they were talking about the War on Iraq. They quickly pointed blame at Bush Jr. for following the document, but the document and the fact that Clinton followed it as well was stated.

Oh, so know you're saying that there was an imminent threat from Al-Qaeda?
Apparently. Al-Qaeda was in the U.S. for a long time before Bush ever came into Presidency, and before Clinton knew anything about it.

So know we're acting upon intelligence from terrorists. Excellent. , that just furthers my view.The teorrorists didn't just hand the information over, you know.

Meh, I do agree that he is fed some crap, but I also refuse to believe that he is blameless in the intelligence fabrications. He is only blameless when he isn't told that the information could be false. Otherwise, you could point part of a finger at him.

It was a purpose, but not a purpose important enough to warrant GOING TO WAR. My point is that the reasons for the invasion were completely incorrect, and I'd be willing to bet that the administration doesn't give a crap about the Iraqi people before the invasion, and fed that line to reporters to make them look better.The backing for the solid, only applicable for the current situation came out to be half-true. They didn't have WMD: they were making them. Not quite as efficiant as an imminent threat, but they were making them. The terrorists don't neccisarily have to be from Al-Qaeda. But I do think they fed that line to reporters. Safety of America comes first.

If the salvation of an oppresed people is enough purpose to go to war, than what's next? War with North Korea? Iran? Libya? Myanmar? Cuba? If so, who knows how many Americans will have to die needlessly.That's the thing: It isn't. The reporters aren't denying the first two purposes. They're just stretching the third.

While I'm at it, I may as well add another reason for my opposition to the president: the advocation of two-valued orientation. Before the Iraq War, propaganda was spread that basically said that since Iraq had funded (allegedly) Al-Qaeda that they must be evil, along with their best friends Iran and North Korea.
Actually, it just have more back to the invasion and liberation of Iraq. A "Oh now THIS is the last straw!" thing.
Oh, you didn't know that Iraq and Iran are strong allies? Oh, yeah, you must have missed that memo. Since they are both unfriendly with the US, they must be in it together -_- I missed the Memo, because I was too busy reading about how Iraq and Iran didn't like eachother. I thought we were passed assumptions like this last quote. The Regime change came before Al-Qaeda ever launched an attack. They weren't just against us, they had evidence that they "HELPED" them. You know, like giving the gun to a kid so he can shoot someone. You can follow back that far on the ladder of blame.

Kenny_C.002
05-08-2004, 10:39 PM
Your not the only one I was talking to. It's an issue I like to bring up.

Okay sure. I'm still just saying my POV of this particular situation.

Negotiations aren't always the best choice. When Al-Qaeda attacked, negotiation was out of the question. The already-issued regime change for Iraq meant that he had the right to O.K. the attack without negotiating with the opposing side.

It's the fact taht they never really attempted negotiations before the attack had begun. If they knew of the attack to being with,they would have to be negotiating wtih the Al-Quaeda.

A second issue had come up while watching CBC a week ago. The Bush family has (yes, present tense) still a "link" with the Al-Qaeda. I mean, before the attack, Bush Sr. had been pumping money into Bin Laden's pockets (as they were allies before), helping him fuel his attack. Although this is unintentional and I don't give blame to the Bush family for this, it is the fact that the Bush family still does this that's what's wrong. This makes me wonder what the heck's wrong with Bush now. (Note: I am talking about a documentary, thus the information is tentative and can be subject to the documenter's "will". Thus I only point to the facts within the documentary and not the "facts" within it.)

They went up? Well, the media stayed rather neutral on the issue, so I wouldn't know. They were getting money from Iraq, so they wanted a more peaceful negotiation to keep their change, and decided to not take immediate action. They weren't quite as inspired as us.

But either way, negotiations would have been a better idea overall even though the short-term standards is more dangerous.

From his grammer alone? That would be a secondary side-effect. It wasn't him signing a deal to hinder the free trade, it was him pronouncing the word wrong.

No, crappy treaties if I recall (I believe the "wood treatie" of free trade was horrible to the Canadians. This is one that I can recall.). We just get pissed when he doesn't know our Prime Minister's name.

Lord Mullet
05-09-2004, 04:21 AM
www.theboywhocriediraq.com (http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com)
Dan Berman raises a lot of interesting points.