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
  #31  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:27 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
Oh gosh don't ever talk about 911 here.
Why not?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
*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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:51 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 Alakazam
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
Again, its just an obvious, apparent, moronic thing to point out
Little 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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.
Quote:
Oh, great...maybe some people knew what he meant, but is it a good thing to express the COMPLETE OPPOSITE intent of the administration?!
What he was doing was bringing up a point previously mentioned. "These People" was about the aformentioned terrorists.
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html

Last edited by Crimson Spider; 05-03-2004 at 02:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-03-2004, 02:52 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
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.

Quote:
"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.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-03-2004, 03:32 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
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-03-2004, 03:58 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crimson Spider
...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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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".
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-03-2004, 04:21 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 Alakazam
Heh, myt post was too long <mandatroy double-post >
Wait until you have to mandatorily triple post. That gets annoying.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
I really don't think I'm being nit-picky about his speech.
I do.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
Alright, now that the quotes are done...
DUDE! Please use the [quote ] 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.
Quote:
[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)
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
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!

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
[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)
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-03-2004, 03:05 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?

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
__________________
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
  #38  
Old 05-04-2004, 03:25 PM
gold's Avatar
gold Offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In England so no one ask.
Posts: 860
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-04-2004, 06:21 PM
Perkele's Avatar
Perkele Offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Out there.
Posts: 113
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

George Bush, the President of the United States, sucks. Big Time.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-05-2004, 12:58 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
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-05-2004, 01:13 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 Alakazam
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-05-2004, 01:50 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 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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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).
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-07-2004, 05:09 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
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?

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. [sarcasm]Excellent.[/sarcasm] , 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. [sarcasm] 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 -_-[/sarcasm]
__________________
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
  #44  
Old 05-08-2004, 02:00 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
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Crimsonspiderbanner2.jpg (14.7 KB, 37 views)
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-08-2004, 02:13 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?

It's a lot easier to use the [quote ] [/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 so
I 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.

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alakazam
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
[sarcasm] 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 -_-[/sarcasm]
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.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
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 04:36 AM.


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