I always believed that the first time in modern history the popular vote went one way and the electoral vote went the other, that would be the death of the electoral college. I was wrong on that one.
The irony is that the 2000 election is a prime example of what the electoral college was designed to do. The framers worried that the densely populated states would dominate the elections and the less populated states would have little say about who was elected president. The Electoral college was the compromise to this dilemma and it still works today.
As afr as France and Germany agreeing, yes a rare occasion, but I sure the business they were doing with Iraq gave them common ground.
I just wanted to take time to say thanks all of you out there who like to begin their posts with the phrase “Bush is so stupid” or “Bush is such a Moron”. These types of phrases let me know immediately that your post has no credibility and I do not need to waste my time reading the rest of it. This is a real time saver when reading this left leaning board and allows me to get to the intelligent posts quickly.
The first time I heard this kind of talk about GWB and his intelligence was from Ann Richards when he was running for Governor. He beat her in the election.
The next time I heard this was during the Presidential election against Al Gore. He beat him in the election.
The next time I heard this was during the tax cut debates. He won that political fight.
The next time I heard this was during the political debate on going into Iraq and how “stupid” he was and how smart Europe is. He got his way on this issue as well.
Two points to consider here…
1) My .02, I wouldn’t be calling someone stupid if they keep beating me in the political debate, because if they are stupid, that must mean I was an absolute f**king moron.
2) The next time you want to call GWB stupid, please be prepared to show your own intelligence by posting your resume and showing it’s superiority to Bush’s resume. Minimum requirements will include an MBA from Harvard or Yale, being a CEO of a company, Jet pilot, Governor of a major state and election to a High federal office. If you can’t match these, then calling him stupid goes back to point one, that must mean you are an absolute f**king moron.
BTW, I do criticize Kerry and Clinton for their positions, but I NEVER make the mistake of thinking they are stupid, they just hold differing positions from my own.
curriculum vitae; as a CEO he was a failure -- his oil company went belly up. He was handed the Texas Rangers on a silver platter.
Jet pilot? Are you serious? If he ever showed up for duty, he was training on an obsolete plane that had no chance of ever seeing combat. Compare this to JFK, whose father, Joseph Kennedy actually had to pull strings to get JFK INTO combat.
I call him stupid because he sounds stupid when he speaks, as if he is merely parroting words which someone else wrote for him.
On the rare occasion he is allowed by his handlers to speak extemporaneously, his speech is constantly filed with "uh" and he makes gaffes like calling the war against Iraq a "crusade."
He may very well be a genius but he sounds like a dunce.
BTW, his father had probably the best resume of any President -- Navy Pilot, Yale, Congress, CIA Director, UN Ambassador, VP -- and he was a one-term Pres.
I have seen some people call Bush stupid or even moronic.
However, he is neither.
Stupid and moronic are mental conditions one has no choice over. They are born that way and cannot improve their lot in life.
Bush is ignorant. He chooses to be ignorant by ignoring facts and history.
This is worse than being born stupid or moronic, because Bush chooses to remain ignorant.
The nation is worse for having Bush as POTUS.
It's the left that wants to go the Neville Chamberlain route. Talk about ignoring history!!
He's not ignoring facts, he is just coming to different conclusions than you would like. Got a problem with that, run for POTUS, oh, but is your resume up to the task?
Back to my original point, if you disagree with his conclusions, fine, perhaps one of you is ignorant, but maybe you need to be looking at the man in the mirror?
You write:
"It's the left that wants to go the Neville Chamberlain route. Talk about ignoring history!!"
How ill informed can one be? How could you possibly compare Hitler's Germany + Imperial Japan of the 30s, major industrial powers, building fighter planes+battleships+submarines +tanks, and being on the verge of developing nuclear weapons with either Iraq or Afghanistan of even today? These are poor countries, don't even make a handgun. Hitler wanted to rule the world, and put the "inferior" races into total submission or "eliminate."
Let's not forget, without us, they brought Europe and Asia to their knees with military force.
Can you see Afghanistan or Iraq, or even the whole Axis of Evil being cable of such a feat today?
How could you possibly make a statement like that? You remind me of Sancho Panza to the Neocons. If you don't know who Sancho Panza is, I am sure one of our Spanish Speaking friends or a literate one would explain it much better than I could.
Do a little bit of thinking, don't permit your brain to be washed and waxed.
Do you not understand ANYTHING that is going on here? You don't need thousands of tanks or hundreds of missles. Look what they accomplished in New York with just two aircraft (Oh Yeah, can't talk about that on the left!)
Come with us Quiet American, to the 21st century. Here we have perfected nerve agents and have managed to get nuclear weapons down to the size of a briefcase.
Your argument is ignorant because they don't have to manufacture these new weapons, all they have to do is buy them!!
-- Modified on 5/31/2004 1:09:19 PM
Son, if you have enough depth to reach the conclusion that they can attack, and damage with minimal resources, then you are smart enough to take the next step:
What do you mean by "they?"
For a moment, let's assume you mean the muslims. Then,
1] Are you advocating we annihilate 1.4 B muslims in 57 countries? If not, then what exactly are you proposing???
2] How difficult is it if "they" develop the idea that the U.S. masses are bent on "eliminating" them, to resort to all possible options?
3] Is there any way in hell we can stop such an avalanche, specially that now seems the rest of the world is tilting against us??? And you yourself claim acquiring WMD takes only money? They sure have enough resources to be able to buy the stuff.
4] You claimed how easy it was to acquire WMD, how do we know “they” don’t already have them? Didn’t you see the Pakistani Scientist, the Godfather of their nuclear arsenal, selling the secrets in the open market? Pakistan is one of the most radical Islamic countries, remember they were in bed with Taliban. They already have the nuclear bomb. Get it?
And, you need to define precisely what political, military, or economic objectives we will be achieving by bombing 57 muslim countries, when not a single European country’s population is favoring us?
The most dangerous thing we can do, is to unify "them" against us, with Europeans either non-committal, or tilting towards "their" side.
Even if you look at polls here, most Americans are smart enough not to fall for the kind of traps you people are setting for us.
We now know the kind of bs you fed us regarding Iraq, costing us 100s of billions, making the world a lot less safe, and damaging our reputation in the eyes of the world. But you don't care.
Child, "they" is simply defined.
"Those persons who would excute terrorist acts against the United States or those who would aid them in any fashion"
So in response to your questions
1) Are you implying that all 1.4B Arabs are terrorists. I do not agree with that view. What I am proposign is trying to eliminate any possible sources of weapons or finance for terrorists groups. You should check out the Bush doctrine for more details.
2) if by "they", you mean terroist, well before 9-11 we were not really bothering them and you can see what that got us. Maybe you consider those 3000 people acceptable losses, but I do not. If you are refering to "they" as all Arabs, then I do not share your prejudicial views.
3) So what are you saying, we shoudn't even try? That is not an option! An you are right about their resources to buy, that is why we need to assure they do not have a source.
4) This goes back to point 3, even if they have them then what? You don't want to stop them from aquiring more? I see all these questions afterwards about how will we do this or that. I believe the best approach to date is the Bush doctrine, so at least the right has a plan. I've yet to see the left really propose anything except bowing at the altar of the UN.
It was your test ballon to bomb all Arab nations, and I pity you if you actually have that kind of prejudice in your heart. My fight is againt terrorists.
There are no 1.4B Arabs in the world. There are 1.4 Muslims. I hate to enlighten you a bit, not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs, not all Palestinians are Muslims either.
I bet you can't even define what the word Arab refers to.
Do everyone a favor, read the proclamations of terrorists post 911, find out why they claimed they attacked us.
Also, find out the nationalities of the 911-terrorists, you will be surprised that none came from Iraq or Afghanistan, or Axis of Evil countries. I will post something on this later.
Hey, here's an idea, Quiet American is losing his argument so lets attack the intelligence of the poster!!!
WEAK.......
BTW, I tend to post on here at about 2:00am and don't really bother with things like spell checker, I'm not writing a novel.
Almost all of the highjackers came from Saudi Arabia. Are you suggesting we attack that country? Last time I checked we don't attack governments because of the acts of individual citizens of that country.
One last item, I am member of Mensa with a 140+ IQ. Most people posting here are pretty intelligent, they just share different views. If I remember correctly, this whole strand started about people like you calling people stupid because they did not share their views.
THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT!!!
Well, how can I debate with you when you don't even get your facts straight?
1] Comparing Iraq with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany as a threat? Bringing up poor Neville into this
2] Indicating there are about 1.4 Billion Arabs out there? There are probably 150 Million Arabs, but there are 1.4 B muslims
3] I never suggested we attack any country, you did; and now because 15 of the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia, you claim I am suggesting attacking Saudi Arabia.
What fuels you, is not universal values, rather hate and unchecked emotions.
What a great analysis, of course off point and wrong...
1) Who said Iraq?? I said terrorists. And what do you mean poor Neville? We should learn from history!!
2) Get off of it. We are talking about terrorists!! Would it help if I drew you a picture? Quit trying to implicate all Muslims!!
3) You're the one who first floated the balloon of bombing 57 coutries
"And, you need to define precisely what political, military, or economic objectives we will be achieving by bombing 57 muslim countries, when not a single European country’s population is favoring us? "
The natual liberal reaction, "He's a conservative, so he must be full of hate and hate speech". How typically liberal!! What a clever line, I've never heard that one used!!!
I never would have guessed it!! Quite Man is actually Al Sharpton!!
He did NOT attack your intelligence. He attacked the education and information you have received and used to develop your viewpoints. This is a key distinction, which, frankly, anyone with a 140+ IQ should have been able to grasp.
Is the ability to read between the lines. And besides, since he doesn't know me from Adam, this would really make his attack pointless as he knows neither my educational background or information sources I rely on. He just doesn't like the conclusions I draw.
Too Bad...
-- Modified on 6/4/2004 5:41:01 PM
Decreased taxes stimulate the economy and actually bring more more into government coffers (since the tax cut seems to be one of your major compalints).
This has ALWAYS been the case, JFK (Democrat) believed this, implemented this and it WORKED!!
I have no problem with tax cuts, as part of a rational spending program. But they are irresponsible and dangerous to the economy when they coincide with spending increases, such as Bush has done.
Bush's spending is my problem. And if he insists on spending, he needs to fund it. As it is, he has caused us at least a decade's worth of economic damage so far.
The war in Iraq is justified...
1) George Bush declared was on terroist, not just Al Quida
2) Saddam actively supported terrorists by paying 10K to the families of suicide bombers (maybe they were not Al Quida, but this is besides the point, refer to point #1)
3) Iraq routinely fired on our Aircraft in the no-fly zone
4) WMDs. I'll be the first to admit I don't know. Maybe they never existed, maybe they were shipped out of the country, maybe we haven't found them yet, but guess what, you don't know either. The problem here is that with or without them, GWB said we could not wait for an imminent threat ot take action. This guy and a country, the money and the means to produce the worst types of weapens imaginable. Even without the WMDs on hand, he was a threat and all "REASONABLE" diplomatic mesaures had been exhausted...
Bush justified this war based on WMDs that represented an IMMINENT THREAT to US. Not to Iraqis. That was the ONLY justification he used. EVERYTHING ELSE is revisionist history, and insufficient to justify 800+ and counting deaths of Brave Americans, and $200 Billion + of American treasury.
If Shrub made the case you make NOW, 18 months ago, he would NEVER have gotten Congressional approval to go to war. The fact is, the case he made was bogus. The case you make now is entirely inadequate revisionism.
BTW, the Iraqi No Fly Zone is THIER sovereign airspace, imposed on them by us. Why shouldn't they fire on us when we overfly their nation?
The fact is, Saddam support of Hamas is an entirely inadequate justification for our overthrowing them. Hamas may be terrorists in YOUR mind, but to the Palestinians, and MOST of the Arab world, they are freedom fighters. It is entirely different than Al Qaida, who is OUR sworn enemy, and has attacked US, inflicting great harm on us. We desire to be a fair broker of peace between the Israel and the Palestinians, we cannot crush Hammas. It completely removes our legitimacy to the Palastinians. You need to come up with a better rationale to justify attacking Saddam, because THIS ONE is specifically NOT in our national interest.
I didn't write or compile this, it's available all over the internet.
This is a humor site, but somehow I'm not laughing.
-- Modified on 5/31/2004 4:08:18 PM
And that list of accomplishments certainly is prime evidence of a stupid President in action.
And here is something for Kerry's Resume
http://magic-city-news.com/article_961.shtml
Let's face it, we can find this dribble all day, my point was if you want to say GWB is stupid, you should be able to prove you are not...
We're still waiting Puck...
Here you go. This is ridiculously easy, as the man is in fact an idiot. Every time he speaks without a statement prepared by Rove and his minions he proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I do not feel that either the posters here from the left or the right are stupid, occasionally irritating maybe, but not stupid. So please respect each other, all of you have posted thought provoking information and all of you have posted stuff that should have not been posted. I see a high level of intellect when I read many posts from both sides. The fact that you read, make judgements and express your opinions, in my view, means that none of you are stupid. A stupid person is someone who can perform none of the functions that I listed.
It would also be great if each of you can describe the politicians that you seriously disagree with without calling them stupid, or as I have read, a cadaver (in reference to Kerry), or any other name.
The current situation of whether vice president Cheney directed contracts to Haliburton without allowing other companies that we capable of performing the work bid on the contracts will work itself out. If there is something to hide and an attempt to hide it, the drumbeat of public disapproval will force facts out in the open.
It is too bad that GWB is such an easy target for these extreme claims. To many of us this administration is incapable of conducting itself with any form of humility - Besides the Bible (???) they seemingly feel they can operate above the law.
In a (too less than) perfect world ``If there is something to hide and an attempt to hide it, the drumbeat of public disapproval will force facts out in the open''. However, I fear you are giving the American public too much credit.
Certainly, the truth will eventually surface, given that we survive - I don't mean to be a doomsday sayer (so dramatic) but with our current Supreme Commander this doesn't seem so far fetched.
If you don't let little things like facts get in the way when making your charges.
As far as above the law, until we hear something as stupid as "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" as we did from the last administration, I don't see left having much a case on this.
say, using the WTC attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq. Or, do you believe Iraq was responsible ?
And please, do you equate "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" to the seemingly countless number of STUPID things your Hero has said.
The man is a target just based on how Stupid he looks. I'm being juvenille, I know, but it is widely believed nonetheless.
Among other ``things'', I believe the man will go down in history as providing the most comedic material EVER. EVER, in all of history I say.
Now, back to what is important. Do you understand peoples resentment of the disgusting use of the WTC attacks to invade Iraq ?
And for the record, I don't believe Bush is stupid. I think he's stupid looking (this may actually serve him). But more importantly, I think he's a coward and one of the smallest men ever conceived. I at least had respect for his father as a man (as far as politicians go).
How can I fight such logic, "he is stupid looking"
Maybe you can draft Paris Hilton as Kerry's VP??
Subject: Bush Resume
RESUME
====================
George W. Bush
The White House, USA
Please note the records and references near the end. --
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
=========================
LAW ENFORCEMENT:
----------------
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol.
I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days.
My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.
I was previously only arrested two other times for destruction of university property, and theft of an 8 foot high wreath from the front of a hotel, but daddy got me out of those.
COLLEGE:
--------
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
I was a cheerleader.
MILITARY:
---------
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
---------------------
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our right-wing friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
-------------------------------------
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union.
During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
-----------------------------
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest number of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period.
After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did! so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community.
I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families - in war time.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for ttacking Iraq, then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.
I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
-----------------------
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
------------------------------------------
PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
- Thank You,
W.
The fact is, most of the "accomplishments" that you claim for Bush were actually positions that he basically inherited due to his family connections. He got into Yale, and then later Harvard B-School, with terrible grades and mediocre test scores, only because of family connections. During his time in these institutions, he barely made gentleman's C's, while becoming an alcoholic and Coke abuser.
It was through family connections that he became the Republican nominee for Governor in Texas, and the Republican nomination for president. He only was a CEO because he bought an oil company with family money. He then proceeded to run it into the ground.
He was basically given a sweetheart deal to be the figurehead owner of the Texas Rangers. We saw how successful that franchise was during his tenure as owner.
And as President, he has presided over converting a budget surplus to the largest deficit in history, gotten us into a disasterous war for no appropriate purpose (the WMD rationale has been proven bogus by events) other than apparently to deliver the spoils of the Iraqi oil industry to his campaign donors.
And when asked what mistakes he's made thus far in his Presidency, he can't think of ANY. Which, BY DEFINITION, shows him to either be an idiot or a liar, or both.
And if it's resumes that you look for in a President, surely, you could not for a minute, suggest with a straight face, that both Al Gore's resume, and John McCain's resumes did not completely dwarf the resume that Bush brought into the last Presidential election.
Nepotism. Oh gee, I had no idea this happened in this world!?
Of course his Dad helped him get started. What do you think Al Gore's father did for a living? But I didn't hear any bitching there. If you can't be consistent with your arguments, do us a favor and don't bother presenting them at all. BTW, Al Gore flunked out of seminary school, I would rather have a C average POTUS than a guy who flunked GOD.
As far as the deficit, I am not crazy about his spending habits either, but right now the War on Terror is more important, and if Kerry is elected we will require French approval for anything we do. NO THANKS!!
In regards to apologizing, it's the left that is in love with this concept. An apology doesn't accomplish a damn thing, especially when you are apologizing for the actions of others.
If you want an apology so bad, ask Carter for one for gutting the CIA and ruining our intelligence structure in the Middle East years ago. I'm not waiting for one, because I realize it doesn't accomplish dick!!
Gore may have flunked out of bible school but so far GWB is flunking The Presidency (but he passed with flying colours [pun intended] on his pretend fighter pilot assignment).
BTW, flunking out of bible school may be a sign of his ability to ``think on his own''. But then, I wouldn't know I flunked CCD (if it's still called that) - Yet, I've done okay in institutions of higher learning (though arguably, nothing is higher than Bible school).
And please, pardon my ignorance in thinkin I may post my opinion in this forum (or any for that matter) without clearing YOUR AUTHORIZATION for consistency.
I'm just pointing out that if you are going to bitch about one side and look at the other with Rose colored glasses, then your arguments should not be taken seriously.
Hell, I keep hearing all this criticism about the Bush plan of action, but I'm not hearing anything about what the left would do
(except get buy in from all the other nations, but they fail to address what they would do if they couldn't get that).
Bitch, Bitch, Bitch, how about some ideas!!
Oh, we do know what Kerry will do, he has called for more troops!
that will certainly start us on the right track.
In case you don't know, all this bitchin is about the fact that we are in a war that is supposed to be one waged against terrorism. Yet, where's Osama ? Hell, if those responsible for the WTC attacks were captured I'de buy Bush a drink. But the sad fact remains that this is the Bushies War - not a war on Terrorism. In fact, we are now viewed by many as the bad guys - Who else, but Bush could have accomplished such a feat ?
Bush invading Iraq is like the old cartoon of losing your keys in the alley but looking for them in the street cause the light is better there - In Bush's case, invading Iraq suits his political agenda better than bringing the terrorists to justice.
There are certain people who simply cannot get a plan accomplished, because of what they stand for. That is the case with Bush, and with getting cooperation from foreign leaders. Because Bush has thumbed them in the eyes, they will simply not do anything to support him. The same programs will get foreign support, if it is someone other than Bush who is advocating them.
That being said, it is also clear that cleaning up Bush's mess is a job for someone other than Bush, simply because Bush himself has no international credibility on Iraq, because of how he denigrated the U.N. prior to the invasion.
And frankly, when it comes to exiting Iraq in a manner that engenders international cooperation, we'd be stupid not to bring other nations into the fold by giving them enough of what they want to garner their cooperation.
And one of the things that they want is Bush's head on a platter (figuratively). And I am happy to grant them that concession. Obviously, Bush is not. So we voters will do it for him.
There's a hell of an idea!!! Maybe next time you guys can demand a recount in Paris!!
Our system proved that it was broken in the last election, when we got a President who LOST the popular vote, by a substantial margin. So, frankly, I'd be up for replacing the electoral system with anything that was truly representative of the will of the people. And if France and Germany agree on anything, that's an event so rare that attention must be paid to it. And they agree that Bush's Iraq Policy is a catastrophe.
I always believed that the first time in modern history the popular vote went one way and the electoral vote went the other, that would be the death of the electoral college. I was wrong on that one.
The irony is that the 2000 election is a prime example of what the electoral college was designed to do. The framers worried that the densely populated states would dominate the elections and the less populated states would have little say about who was elected president. The Electoral college was the compromise to this dilemma and it still works today.
As afr as France and Germany agreeing, yes a rare occasion, but I sure the business they were doing with Iraq gave them common ground.
You give Mensa a bad name. Are you sure you didn't mean Menses? I could believe you were qualified for that.
-- Modified on 6/4/2004 6:05:09 PM
Once again proving my point that his arguments are so illogical that he can't win the debate so he must resort to name calling.
What you hate is I'm right and you don't have the logical arguments to prove otherwise so you must resort to this.
You should re-read the original post on this thread about calling someone stupid when you can't even beat them in a political debate.
This is simple fact. The reason that his failure to acknowledge any mistakes is a major problem is NOT that we are looking for an apology for his mistakes. We are looking for some evidence that the man LEARNS from his mistakes, and will therefore not repeat them. But in failing to acknowledge that he's even made any, he insures that he will NOT be learning from them. This is clear evidence of stupidity.
And anyone ELSE who would claim that Bush has not yet made any mistakes as President is also stupid or a liar or both.
Here's an easy one: Claiming that the mission was accomplished in Iraq a year ago on the Aircraft carrier. Perhaps his flight suit had cut off the circulation to his brain. Or else, perhaps he's just naturally stupid.
Here's another easy one: Claiming that we had evidence that Saddam was purchasing fissionable material in Africa in the 2003 State of the Union message, despite the fact that the CIA had already concluded that this was based on a bogus report.
He should apologize because he got bad intelligence?? I think you should be asking Mr. Carter for that apology since he is the one that gutted the CIA.
As fas as Mission accomplished, we have the coutry, Saddam and his sons captured/killed. What do you call that? Are there problems with insurgents? Yes. Is this major conflict? NO
Yes we have lost 800 fine servicemen over there and I too hate it. But I keep hearing these Vietnam comparisons. At the current loss rate it would take about 100 years to equal our losses in Vietnam. BTW, how many people died in car accidents last year??
It is not an apology we are looking for. It is the recognition by Bush of the mistakes that Bush has made, so that he does not repeat them. Instead, we get this arrogance of "I can't think of any mistakes I've made". This simply proves that the man is either completely stupid, or so arrogant that he has no qualms about lying to the American public.
And if you also do not believe that he has made any mistakes, the same holds for you.
And, BTW, what he said, over ONE YEAR AGO, was that the Mission in Iraq was accomplished. Since then, over 600 Americans have been killed, and we STILL don't have any assurance of a stable Iraq that will not spawn numerous Terrorist cells. THAT was the damn mission, to make Iraq safe from spawning terror cells. And right now, Al Qaida has FAR MORE ability to operate in Iraq than they EVER had under Saddam. So I guess that anyone with a functioning brain should be able to conclude THAT mission has NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED by any means. Despite the expenditure of over $200 Billion Dollars, our standing in the international community, and over 800 Brave American lives so far, and counting.
They just want the clip to pay again and again saying even Bush knows he screwed up...
GWB is too smart for that. BTW, what you claim to be mistakes most people on the right do not. Bottom line here is he believes he is doing the right thing and doesn't owe anyone an apology for doing his job as POTUS.
I agree with him!!
Geez, our military manages to simultaneously fight two major campaigns in Europe and the Pacific theatre for 4 years and now 50 years later we are not capable of handling a third world country and conducting a man hunt at the same time. Good to see you have so much confidence in our men in uniform.
BTW, when you bash Bush for not finding Osama, just be upfront and bash the military. They have their standing orders to capture this man. I have heard the argument that we should be concentrating on finding Osama and not be in Iraq, but that goes back to my first point.
The fact is, we pulled out more than half of our forces in the Afghanistan theater in order to support the Iraq war. And, I certainly have no problem bashing the folks who PLANNED our military invasion of Iraq - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith. All of the ACTUAL military people who were involved said that we should have well over 200K troops on the ground in Iraq to maintain order once the Government was overthrown. All of THOSE military people (Including Anthony Zinni, Tommy Franks, Eric Shinseki, etc.) have been "retired" or over-ruled by Rumsfeld despite the fact that their estimated manpower requirements have been proven correct by events on the ground.
And, BTW, flunking seminary school is probably a sign of an unwillingness to accept dogma without questioning it's origins, a sign of an independent mind. I would never be so bold as to claim that Seminary School emanates from GOD, as you did. Seminary School emanates from flawed humans who do not accept alternate views of God from their own. And as such, failing to embrace these doctrines is no failing at all. And, in fact, Gore's resume differed from that of Bush in a few key areas prior to the last election: Gore had been VP of the country, Gore had been in the Senate for several terms, Gore had FOUGHT in Vietnam, and Gore had never run a company into the ground through incompetent management, as Bush had. Gore also had never gotten a DUI.
And BTW, tell me how Bush's resume stacked up to that of John McCain when they were each running for the Presidency. Can you honestly claim that Bush's resume could hold a candle to that of McCain, in terms of personal sacrifice and achievement on behalf of the nation?
From Snopes
http://www.snopes.com/military/goreviet.htm
During his 1988 presidential campaign, Gore issued brochures containing a photo of himself with an M-16 rifle, which created the false impression that he had served as an infantryman, even though his only real combat experience was interviewing other GIs who really had been in combat. Gore defended his use of the photo to reporters in 1987 by proclaiming:
I carried that rifle all over Vietnam and walked like that in every part of the country. I was not involved in fire fights. I was not in the infantry. I was in areas where combat took place. I did not see combat myself. I was fired upon. The engineers frequently took fire, but we usually had a critical mass of bulldozers and equipment that made it mostly harrassment fire
And he left early to boot...as did Kerry! They both went to Nam for one reason IMO, political capital!!
btw, gotta agree with ya on John McCain!
bb
-- Modified on 6/2/2004 6:21:18 PM
Which is what Dumbya did during the Vietnam War.
Prove it...
Most people post opinions here and that's fine, but you just stated he was AWOL as a hard fact, so back it up.
If you can, you will be on the front page of the New York Times.
BTW, sorry to see you think so little of our reservists.
-- Modified on 6/3/2004 11:27:51 PM
And, BTW, it WAS on the front page of the New York Times when he released those pay records and the period from late May '73 to early December '73 was missing.
I think highly of our reservists WHO FULFILL THEIR COMMITMENTS. And I think quite lowly of those, like Bush, who reneg on them and use their family connections to get them off the hook.
Check you facts on the link below...
Correcting your errors is becoming a full time job...
Having enough points is not the same as fulfilling one's commitment. Just ask the current soldiers who are not being allowed to retire because we are short troops for Iraq. The fact is, Bush didn't show up for over 5 months of duty between May and December of 1973. Bush didn't have leave, and he didn't show up. That = AWOL.
What you are descibing is illegal. If there is so much proof, where are the charges. With the number of Bush haters out there, if this thing had any truth behind it, they would be running with this to the hilt. Bottomn line there is no proof!!!
"Repeat a lie loudly enough and often enough and people will begin to believe it"
But it is certainly appropriat not to vote for the man, given his deficient character on this issue, and others (such as DUIs, which he got expunged from the records while he was Texas Governor) etc.
repeat the truth loudly enough and people will begin to believe it as well. And that's what I'm doing. This is MORE than sufficient evidence to justify voting the man out of high office.
Unlike our esteemed pretender-in-chief and all of his cabinet (except for Powell).
Next think I know you will be telling me guys go after girls for their looks!!
Of course his dad helped him get started! Half of the people of the Hollywood left all got their "big break" because mommy or daddy were in the industry. What do you think Al Gore's father did for a living? I never heard anybody on the left complaining about that! Give us all a break, if you can't be consistent in your arguments, please don't even bother posting them. BTW, Al Gore flunked out of seminary school. I would rather have a C average student from an Ivy League school than some guy who flunked GOD!
As far as his spending goes, I too am not pleased with his spending habits, but right now the #1 issue is the war on terror, and if Kerry is elected, we will have to get permission from the French to do anything. NO THANKS!!
As far as apologies go, that is a concept the left fell in love with. However, they seem to not grasp the fact that an apology does not accomplish squat, especially if you are apologizing for the actions of someone else. If you want an apology so bad, why not ask Carter for one for gutting the CIA and ruining our ability to gather intelligence in the Middle East. I'm not asking for one because I unerstand the concept that it will not accomplish dick!!
There is no evidence that, despite Bush's misleading comments after 9/11, Saddam had much of a connection, if any, with Al Queda and world-wide terrorism. While Saddam did support the suicide bombers in Palestine with rewards, there is no evidence he was involved in any activities directly against the United States.
Further, it is now clear that Bush's WMD story was a bunch of bunk used to gain support for a questionable policy.
Bush's claim that we have brought freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq is laughable. What freedom do they have? The freedom to fear walking outside because at any moment they may be blown up?
There is no question that Saddam was a bad person. However, he was no worse than many other leaders around the world (Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe comes to mind) about whom the U.S. does nothing. One of the things we liked to point to about how bad a person Saddam was is the fact he tortured prisoners. Of course, now it doesn't look like he had a monopoly on that, does it?
Bush's Iraq policy was not well thought out and we are paying the price. It is clear this administration was only prepared for the easy part of the war--defeating the Iraqi military. It was not prepared to win the peace. For that it should be held accountable and booted out.
Bush is a second-rate mind with a gun-slinger mentality. "Shoot first and ask questions later." He keeps trying to charcterize the war in Iraq as a war against terror because that is the only way he can justify the loss of 800+ American lives in pursuit of his wrong-headed, yes "stupid," policy. If the American people stop long enough to actually think about the whys and wherefores of the war in Iraq, they would throw Bush out on his ear.
Frankly, Bush has made me ashamed to be an American. He has also made me afraid to be an American anywhere but in the U.S., because now people I don't know all around the world want to kill me. That has never been the case under any other President.
If you think you are safer under Bush, think again.
History will not treat Bush well. That, of course, assumes that we will survive as a race long enough for history to treat Bush at all. "Stupid" is not the right word for Bush--"buffoon" is.
In anticipation that history (as we know it) might not last all that long under a 2nd Bush "43" administration, historians are already willing to render a verdict on George W.
How about something a little less biased, like the DNC.
You can tell how slanted this article is by simply looking at the numbers assigned to Carter, definately the worst POTUS in modern times.
Well, you know the saying, those who can do (GWB), those who can't teach (McElvaine)
Let's face it, we may never know where the WMDs are because we had to dick around with the UN for so long Iraq had plenty of time to hide them in conjenction with a neighboring country.
As far as I am concerned, the fact that he was paying 10K to homicide bombers and regularly firing on our aircraft during the "peace" is enough to justify our move into Iraq.
The fact is, Saddam was on the Al Qaida enemies list. If you don't realize this, I suggest that you get yourself informed.
GWB said this is a war on terror, not just Al Qaida. He mentioned Hammas is his post Sept 11th speech. Of course, if you think Hammas is O.K. then I guess you have a point.
The fact is, Bush aggressively supporting Israel over the Palestinians is the main way that we have STRENGTHENED Al Qaida's support in the Arab world, and helped them to recruit.
Bush LIED in his justification for overthrowing Saddam by saying that Saddam was linked with 9/11. THAT link NEVER EXISTED. It was a LIE, plain and simple, by Bush.
The fact is, Al Qaida is an enemy of the U.S. An enemy who attacked us and killed nearly 3000 of us, on our own soil. What Bush did specifically in Iraq has unquestionably STRENGTHENED THAT PARTICULAR ENEMY. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply in denial.
So what you are saying is we should allow terrorist to dictate our foreign policy. Hell, Hamas is killing people so lets change our foreign policy and let Isreal go its own way. And the next time someone doesn't like our foreign poicy, all they have to do is commit a few terrorist acts and we will cave to them.
Now I see your point Mr. sdstud Chamberlain
With this thought pattern, Hitler would still be burning Jews...
BYW, if you think he lied about Iraq, check out this link.
The fact is, Al Qaida despises us, and they tap into the widespread view that we take the Israeli side in the Palestinian conflict, while hypocritically claiming to act as a mediator. In that situation, we need to target our own enemies and interests first.
If we were to crush Hamas, we would do Israel a big favor, but it would be a DISASTER for the U.S., in terms of our relationship with the entire Arab world. We need to put our interests first here. And we need to do what it takes to wipe out Al Qaida, while promoting democracy in the rest of the Arab world.
Being a drunkard until the age of 40 does not rank hight on my list of qualifications for President.
Just because someone has the political machine behind them does not mean they have a strong resume. As many others on this thread have noted, Bush does not have a history of success at much of anything. Yes, he won at least one election (there are those who would question your comment that he defeated Gore), but what has he done since? Not much.
He got me a nice tax cut 
there is much you ``don't know about''.
llcar can't handle the debate so let's attack the intelligence of the poster. You know, we can all sit here and call each other stupid, but its kind of a pointless exercise.
THANKS FOR PROVING MY FIRST POINT OF THIS POST!!
Please see my original posts regarding those who call someone stupid but consistently looses debates to them.
Your obnoxious response ? I understand that is your style, but that you may have received a nice tax deduction this year is surely not for debate - Regardless, I really don't care.
In fact, I don't care about whether or not any individual received tax cuts this year (let's say your boy achieved tax relief for some - BFD). For some reason I'm more concerned with the fact that there is a war going on that is being waged by the kind who only care about winning - I.e., achieving THEIR agenda - At the cost of human lives !!! Honor is an unknown concept to these people (and I'm being generous with my claims and use of the term people).
I'm just curious, if you play pool, say 8 ball, do you get giddy when your opponent scratches on the 8 ball ? I bet you do.
The whole point I was making with this thread is that "Hey. maybe we can have some debate without calling each other stupid and other names".
In your last two posts, you have claimed how little I know and said you are being generous by calling the administration people.
This is what I mean by proving my point about resorting to personal attacks.
As far as agendas, I thought the war on terror was the agenda of all Americans. You may not agree with the course GWB is pursuing, but to say it is a presonal agenda is short sighted...
I've got another name for you ...
HYPOCRIT
Maybe some of your Republican friends can explain the meaning to you - But I doubt it.
BTW, believing the Iraq invasion is a war on terror is BLIND.
about the UN - Afterall, don't you advocate ``not bowing down at the alter of the UN'' (to use someone elses phrase).
But I suppose that when the US does it that's entirely different. You either care about the UN or you don't - Not just when it suits you !!!!!
Oh, what is it the kids say nowadays ...
HYPOCRIT
but since we are, we had to act. Nothing would make me happier than if we dropped out of that useless body. Since we contribute more money and more military forces to the UN than any other country, snubbing the UN is basically snubbing the US at this point.
BTW, if you love the UN so much, how come you have no problem with Saddam spitting on 12 of their resolutions...
whose the HYPOCRIT now
Hey what do you know, your style is so easy to use ....
Thanks !!!
You're welcome
Dr. Phil is a joke, don't think its funny, too bad.
But comparing that to someone calling someone stupid, ignorant or many of the other slanders I see used on this board is ridiculous.
Look at your own comments!! You imply that Republicans are not intelligent enough to define HYPOCRIT, well based on you last post, I think a fair definition would be:
This goes back to my original point, you claim GWB and the right are so stupid, but they keep beating you in the political arena.
Not something I would want to advertise...
-- Modified on 6/3/2004 11:26:33 PM
Of course I have a sense of humor - I'm continuing to respond to your posts aren't I ? It's all good to me.
Now, I'm so sorry I hurt your feelings by calling GWB stupid. It's charming how protective you are of him (call Kerry whatever - I don't care).
Next, I did say your Republican friends. I would venture to say that for this cohort it's not for their general lack of intelligence, but that they are generally HYPOCRITs (before you get your panties in a bunch, see (*) below). It is akin to GWB identifying another STUPID person as STUPID - You see, they are both STUPID. Get it ?
Lastly, success in politics is not equivalent to intelligence. In fact, GWB proves this by contradiction.
(*) BTW, I don't mean Republicans are generally HYPOCRITs at the level of GWB and colleagues. People in general can be HYPOCRITs. But clearly this administration and its cheerleaders have taken it to a new level.
-- Modified on 6/4/2004 8:22:53 AM
I knew when I started this thread it would kick up a fire storm. Like you indicated also, I actually tend to be laughing my ass off when I read these and write responses. I find it hilarious how upset people get on this board...
Politics and Religion, the odds of actually changing someones mind is almost nil...
But I do LOVE a good political debate even though I know it will not change anyones mind, it makes everybody think. Unfortunately, I get on this and other boards and see "this guy is stupid, that guy is dumb, I can't believe how ignorant, etc."
This is just people naturally venting, but like I said earlier, I actually believe all these guys (Reagen, Kerry, Bush, Clinton, Newt, Daschle) are all highly intelligent. Let's face it, they have all had impacts on US policy and a bunch of guys writing snippets on a political board calling any of them stupid is pretty weak...
I guess what I am saying is I wish we had two boards, a political forum board and a political bitch board.
One final thought which I do agree with, people DO act in their own self interest which is why as some point we are all HYPOCRITS.
Two examples to close with
1) Replublicans looking the other way while GWB does too much discretionary spending
2) Democrats willing to vote for a man who wants to send more troops to Iraq while saying they want our troops out
I JUST GOTTA SCREAM!!!!!!!
In consideration of my local taxes increasing and the near non existant relief for middle income earners such as myself, my overall tax burden has INCREASED!!!!
Less Fed help into local coffers = higher local taxes
Corporations given the go ahead to hide new taxes by calling them "Fees" or "Funds" also on the rise as a new era of tax hits us (has hit already)expect more of these creative tax terms (and the denial that they are taxes) in the near future. . .
Not sure what state you are in, but if that is the case, then that does suck. In regards to Corporate taxes, I agree that they do put their taxes into the price of their products and pass it on. But that is why I have never understood people complaining about "Corporate Welfare". If we do tax corporations more or remove their tax breaks, do we really think we are screwing them? The consumer will wind up paying these...
When someone cuts taxes, but increases spending, the tax cut is really just a deferral, and in fact the taxes to pay for the spending are simply being passed to the future, and multiplied in the process.
If you are in favor of borrowing from future generations for your own use, that's your prerogative, but don't fool yourself that anything other than this is what's going on.
This totally ignores the implications of debt as a % of GDP. If you feel like you should not have gotten a tax break, write the IRS an additional check, I'm sure they'll take it.
As for me, I'll keep my check...
And BTW, the ramifications of massive deficit spending are well understood, except, obviously, by you. I think it's time for you to ask Mensa for a re-test. The Republicans, when they were not being hypocrites, used to regard their abhorrence for deficit spending as their bedrock principle. Now their only bedrock principle seems to be, we must win the election at all costs, including the cost of our integrity.
what's wrong??
Starting to lose another debate? Keep your wits about you man!!
And please, do put your money where you're mouth is, that will make it all the sweeter as GWB assumes his second term!
BTW, did you see the job numbers today, over another 200,000 jobs created this month and the numbers are still climbing!! So much for Kerry's "where are the jobs" claim.
BTW, when people get jobs, they pay taxes! Looks like the tax cut to stimulate the economy has worked and now the revenues will start increasing and cut the debt. But don't hurt yourself trying to figure this out, its not like you are in Mensa
The reason I am so committed is that it is for the good of the country. No other reason.