Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 04-21-2004, 03:41 AM
VenusaurTrainer's Avatar
VenusaurTrainer Offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 1,387
Send a message via AIM to VenusaurTrainer Send a message via MSN to VenusaurTrainer Send a message via Yahoo to VenusaurTrainer
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-21-2004, 03:49 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusaurTrainer
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.

Quote:
"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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Gone.
Was never there.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Ours and future generations will have to pay for that debt.
No duh!
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-21-2004, 04:01 AM
VenusaurTrainer's Avatar
VenusaurTrainer Offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 1,387
Send a message via AIM to VenusaurTrainer Send a message via MSN to VenusaurTrainer Send a message via Yahoo to VenusaurTrainer
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Spider
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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-21-2004, 04:28 AM
Neo Emolga's Avatar
Neo Emolga Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Reading your mind
Posts: 21,704
Send a message via AIM to Neo Emolga
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusaurTrainer
Thanks for setting me strait CS.
He sure would make one DANGEROUS lawyer...

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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-21-2004, 04:58 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-21-2004, 05:07 AM
masaki's Avatar
masaki Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 335
Send a message via MSN to masaki
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

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.
__________________
insert sig here
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-21-2004, 01:15 PM
Seven's Avatar
Seven Offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 929
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-22-2004, 01:29 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-22-2004, 03:29 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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???)

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-24-2004, 02:10 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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".
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-25-2004, 05:14 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Spider
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-25-2004, 11:40 PM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
At what point in time did the ficticious character and situation I was referring to become fact?
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.
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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)

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-26-2004, 03:34 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

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.*
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-27-2004, 04:04 PM
Alakazam's Avatar
Alakazam Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: WPI
Posts: 2,721
Send a message via AIM to Alakazam
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Spider
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/arti...4/164421.shtml
along with


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! 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?!

"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

"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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmachameleon View Post
i wish all of you americans would get out of my country.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-27-2004, 04:05 PM
Alakazam's Avatar
Alakazam Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 2)
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: WPI
Posts: 2,721
Send a message via AIM to Alakazam
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Heh, myt post was too long <mandatroy double-post >

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. [b]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.

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?

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]
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmachameleon View Post
i wish all of you americans would get out of my country.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com