The U.S. Military, abuse & paintball :(

[RoamingStorm]

well hey then good for him

I dont like bush because:

1) I think that after his dads tax ideas continued this countries slow regression Clinton comes up with a new tax plan.. you know one based off of entry level economics. that says if peoplel have more to spend they will do so. It scores big, cleaning up alot of gov't debt, getting thousands of people jobs. Then bush comes along and uses his daddys plan again to try fix the economy.

2) I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because they admitted housing and supporting Bin Laden. What did Saddam have to do with any of this? he didnt supply weapons, he didnt house Al Queda, he didnt have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hey we got him, for crimes he committed 15 years ago, our invason of Iraq 3 years ago was supported by false pretenses which didnt exist. I didnt support going in because there were the wrong reasons. If they had said that they were going in for the sole purpose of removing a sadistic dictator who tortured his own people, killed at will, etc. To re-establish a gov't that the country decides is right, I would have been supportive.

3) He doesnt have the qualifications of being a president. Minor military backround, C student at a school he got into because of a Legacy. Known for recklesness and irresponsibility in his teen years. His religion seems to cloud his judgement from time to time

[Baby Huey]

well hey then good for him

I dont like bush because:

3) He doesnt have the qualifications of being a president. Minor military backround, C student at a school he got into because of a Legacy. Known for recklesness and irresponsibility in his teen years. His religion seems to cloud his judgement from time to time

Alternatives, Al gore or John Kerry

Depends on how you hope he makes his decisions.

[Magglerock]

The link requires registration to read, which I refuse to do, as its only a tool for on-line rags to increase their ad revenue. But I assume islomafascists were shot with paintball guns? And the problem is? These people are the worst of the worst - bloodthirsty, theotocratic fascists who want all non-muslims to die a horrible death. I could care less what we do to them, and even less if its in an effort to stop a terrorist attack. The only thing I'm upset about is that they arn't using real firearms to shoot the scum instead hobbyists' implements that we all regularly endure every weekend.

[Magglerock]

well hey then good for him

I dont like bush because:

1) I think that after his dads tax ideas continued this countries slow regression Clinton comes up with a new tax plan.. you know one based off of entry level economics. that says if peoplel have more to spend they will do so. It scores big, cleaning up alot of gov't debt, getting thousands of people jobs. Then bush comes along and uses his daddys plan again to try fix the economy.

2) I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because they admitted housing and supporting Bin Laden. What did Saddam have to do with any of this? he didnt supply weapons, he didnt house Al Queda, he didnt have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hey we got him, for crimes he committed 15 years ago, our invason of Iraq 3 years ago was supported by false pretenses which didnt exist. I didnt support going in because there were the wrong reasons. If they had said that they were going in for the sole purpose of removing a sadistic dictator who tortured his own people, killed at will, etc. To re-establish a gov't that the country decides is right, I would have been supportive.

3) He doesnt have the qualifications of being a president. Minor military backround, C student at a school he got into because of a Legacy. Known for recklesness and irresponsibility in his teen years. His religion seems to cloud his judgement from time to time

All fair (if misguided - especially the economics portion) critiques. What I don't understand is what that has to do with the war on terror? Do you prefer islofascist dictators to a democratically elected official? Are you denying the real threat possed by terrorism, and willing to live (or rather, die) under the boot of intolerant, theotocratic monsters? "Well, Bush is intolerant, blah, bla, blah" - go read the Koran sometime. Ask those living under the Taliban and Hussien what "intolerance" really means. I don't get you people. Spend less time getting your news from MTV and more time thinking for yourself.

[Lohman446]

1) I think that after his dads tax ideas continued this countries slow regression Clinton comes up with a new tax plan.. you know one based off of entry level economics. that says if peoplel have more to spend they will do so. It scores big, cleaning up alot of gov't debt, getting thousands of people jobs. Then bush comes along and uses his daddys plan again to try fix the economy.

Just for curiosity's sake. Elaborate? It almost sounds like your applying reagonomics to the general public rather than the idea of large corporations having more and spending more...

[RoamingStorm]

From what I understand Bush Sr. had an economic policy which included tax breaks for the wealthy upperclass citizens, thinking that the wealthy will redistribute the money and help the overall economy. This didnt happy, the rich spent the same amount of money and kept the rest getting richer with tax breaks, While when Clinton was in office the economy boomed, and Jobs went up, incomes went up, some of the national debt was cleared up. Now we have the largest deficit in history, less jobs, and plenty of other issues contributing to a recession. Ive seen friends and family lose jobs, money, business owners locally go bankrupt, this idea of "globalization" is hurting our economy at home. Too few politicians realize this, So from my understanding and based off of those opinions I think Bush was a poor choice

edit: also to answer the question, I said that I feel we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, in my post previous it clearly states that if our goal was to establish freedom for the Iraqis then I would be for it. However we went in under the excue, withough UN approval, that we were searching for weapons that did not exist. We went in for the wrong reason, but we achieved something worth going in for.

[Lohman446]

From what I understand Bush Sr. had an economic policy which included tax breaks for the wealthy upperclass citizens, thinking that the wealthy will redistribute the money and help the overall economy. This didnt happy, the rich spent the same amount of money and kept the rest getting richer with tax breaks, While when Clinton was in office the economy boomed, and Jobs went up, incomes went up, some of the national debt was cleared up. Now we have the largest deficit in history, less jobs, and plenty of other issues contributing to a recession. Ive seen friends and family lose jobs, money, business owners locally go bankrupt, this idea of "globalization" is hurting our economy at home. Too few politicians realize this, So from my understanding and based off of those opinions I think Bush was a poor choice

The theory you are stating was Bush's is commonly referred to as Reagonomics (needless to say they were not truly Bush's). Conservatives will make an argument that is at least partially supported by "base entry level economics" that reagonomics did in fact work. First off - the economy moves in cycles. Secondly anything one does takes time. Clinton surely cannot honestly take credit for the economy that was in place when he entered office, or the long term effects of it that resulted in the "boom" during his time. The current recession, if one actually looks at indicators of trends started before Bush (W) took office. Granted things could have been handled better but to say the economy was good when Clinton was in office so he must have done well, or to blame the current economic situation (either the recovery or the continued downturn depending on what side you are on) on the current President is simplistic, and more often than not, simply wrong.

As to the idea of "globalization" hurting our economy - who signed NAFTA? Who opened up trade with China? Keep in mind this had sweeping bipartisan support though. American business could compete in the world market if properly supported, and allowed to properly compete (see my various rants on the current state of organized labor in America).

You are trying to see things in far too black and white of issues. You cannot simplify it as far as you have wanted to as the economy is based on far too many things, most of them well outside the scope of control of the executive branch.

Edit: Oddly enough I do lay some of the blame of todays economy at the foot of Reagonomics. Not for the reasons you have outlined but for an unforseen effect. Large business given more money did not invest it on better / more workers. They invested in increased productivity through technology. This allowed them to boost productivity without hiring more qualified or more employees over time. Think of the amount of entry level jobs lost to the automation of grocery store checkouts for a simplified example.

[RoamingStorm]

or for the research of better technology.. could you please link me to some of these rants?

[dahoeb]

roamingstorm,
do you realize that Saddam's generals even believed they had WMD's? The only person in iraq who knew the truth was saddam. The dictators plan was to basically use that belief against us, believing the threat of them would prevent us from invading. If the saddams own generals believed they had weapons of mass destruction, could you really blame bush? Saddam spent a lot of resources and time for years, making the the world think that he had WMD's.

[Killer V]

All politicians are corrupt even the senior class president in high school. Toture is a necessary evil imo.

[RoamingStorm]

but he didnt, and no one could prove he didnt, because its pretty hard to verify that if it wasnt true, we invaded based upon an assumption. He made people think he did for his own protection

[Lohman446]

but he didnt, and no one could prove he didnt, because its pretty hard to verify that if it wasnt true, we invaded based upon an assumption. He made people think he did for his own protection

Its nearly impossible to prove a negative. Prove for instance that you are simply not a brain in a bottle with various sensory inputs put into your mind through electronic pulses generated by a machine. Hard to disprove.

We beleive Saddam had chemical weapons because we know what he had in the 70s and 80s and what technology we shared with him. We beleived he had chemical weapons because he actually used some against the kurdish resistance. We beleive he had them because he had failed to destroy them in a verifiable manner. We beleive he had them because he would not allow UN inspectors free and full access to records. Does all of this mean he had them? No, not necessarily, but it surely points to the probability that he did, and more alarmingly was willing to use them.

History though teaches us that any occupation of the middle east is doomed to failure. Democracy and those leaders that are part of what will be perceived as a "puppet" regime are doomed to failure. I beleive, in hindsight and further consideration of the events of history, that there had to be a better way of dealing with Saddam through diplomacy.

[Tunaman]

Everybody just listen to wabc 770am(I wouldn't know what station it would be where you live)-Sean Hannity, Rush Limbough, Mark Levine, all Great Americans. I listen everyday...whenever I can find time. These guys know the truth like the rest of us Great Americans. I wouldn't watch the Liberal News Media if you paid me to. Fox News ...thats the only one. Where is all the news coverage of US Soldiers kicking butt? The Liberals make me sick. I am done now...but there is a lot more I can't say here.

[bleachit]

that there had to be a better way of dealing with Saddam through diplomacy.

IMO, the UN was made a total fool by Saddam in their attempts to deal with him diplomatically. He needed dealing with, now he is dealt with. what happened happened, and now, I believe, the Iraqi people are better off. a little off topic, but thats where things lie now, leaving Iraq now leaves the Iraqi people in a precarious situation...

[RoamingStorm]

not a big fan of Rush, hes too opinionated for my tastes