Democratic primary!

[RobbyZero]

Im not interested in politics but Bush is the most retarded president it seems...

Bring back the scandalist! :P

No but seriously...He's a tard at times..

EDIT---

Then again here in Canada you got retarded frogs running the cities and country fuck...Guess it could be worse...

But presidency is for us to worry about and for you to control!

[makaveli121212]

look anyone who opposes bush obviously doesnt know what he/she is talking about...sure im biased but the facts are there, things are looking good for our country, and if the country is doing well then so is her leader...President Bush

[VxDx]

VXDX: Unfairly biased? So anyone who has an opinion is "unfairly biased?"

No, but I thought that that was how you might take my comment.

To say that your imaginary conversation isn't unfairly biased would be to say that mine wasn't either.

[User6773]

look anyone who opposes bush obviously doesnt know what he/she is talking about

You're wrong. But the majority of Bush-haters don't have their facts straight.

I'm real lazy and I really don't care a lot about Bush, I was just making a point that you made a blatently one sided arguement. If you want, look up any anti-bush site, and you will find statements that they claim are "100%" true, that completely contradict what you said. I'm not saying that I know who is right, and in fact I support the war in Iraq, but I am saying that what you said originally is unfairly biased.

Basically you're juxtaposing making a one-sided argument (and all arguments are one-sided) with being "unfairly biased". This suggests that you think that every argument needs to present the opposition in a positive light.

Your argument was one-sided, too. Like my argument, it was biased. Because that's what arguments are! But neither of us were "unfair" in our arguments. I'm not bashing you, VxDx, but just because an argument is biased or one-sided doesn't make it unfair. Arguments are supposed to present only one side of the case.

[jewpinthethird]

See, the thing is, we didnt have any real reason to be in Iraq. Sure, they may have been a threat to US security, but North Korea isnt? The whole "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" thing was pretty much lies. They fact that the US LIED TO THE U.N. IS VERY VERY SAD. That says a lot about the administration.

Meanwhile, we have another country that we know for sure has weapons of mass destruction that CAN REACH THE WEST COAST FROM, and is willing to use them. But what does Bush care? <sarcasm>I mean, after all, all the west coast is is just hippies, chinks, gooks, japs, and beaners. </sarcasm>

Yes, it is good that Saddam is no longer in power. That is one less threat the US has to worry about. If the US managed to do it without lying, and pissing off the rest of the world, I would be fine with that. But a government that lies to its citizens is no government that I want to support.

Anyone remember anything about the Spanish-American war? You know, the war American started with Spain to free Cuba...and protect our sugar cane that was in their country. And the event that lead to the start of the war...you know, how "Spain" sank the US ship the Maine, killing all that was on board..well, it really wasnt Spain that sank it, actually it was a problem with the ammunition storage. But most believed it was Spain that did it.

Yeah, well, after we conquered Spain, we tried to set up democracy in Cuba, while at the same time taking their Sugar Cane to pay off our debts. Well, Cubans didnt like that, and cast out all American forces. Yeah, and then Spain became communist, and then you know some bad things happened like: the "Bay of Pigs", and the Cuban Missle Crisis.

For some reason, that sounds a lot like the events that are going on now....I dont know, someone smart once said "History repeats itself"....

And if you dont believe me, pick up a US history book.

[MalReynolds]

They have books devoted to the history of the US? Holy shit!


Mal

[User6773]

See, the thing is, we didnt have any real reason to be in Iraq. Sure, they may have been a threat to US security, but North Korea isnt? The whole "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" thing was pretty much lies. They fact that the US LIED TO THE U.N. IS VERY VERY SAD. That says a lot about the administration.

Let's put you in Saddam's shoes for a minute.
You know these things:
A) You've been trying to cover up secret military facilities from the UN for years
B) The US has spy reports of where your WMDs are
C) The US is looking for your WMDs
D) The US has the most powerful army in the world
E) You're screwed when the US marches in, and they'll find your WMDs
F) You have 2 months, give or take, to prepare
G) Using the WMDs screws over your country
H) You can't back down or surrender, otherwise you won't be able to possibly appear as a martyr later.

What do you do? Just sit there? No, you go and start dismantling and hiding your WMDs. This is exactly what Saddam has done. We have found in Iraq parts that nuclear weapons could be built out of within hours. I have more evidence to support this theory if you wish.

North Korea is a far lesser threat because they don't HATE us. Saddam actually HATED us, and he believed he had a divine mission to put a stop to us. Ever read Iraqi news reports? All the reports on the war before the fall of Baghdad say the same thing: "Allah will protect us and not allow the demonic enemy to enter our land" or something to that effect. When we're viewed as demons, they'll try to destroy us.

[Anticrombie0909]

Here's why I hate Bush.

1.He decieved us, by subtly making us think that Saddam had a part in 9-11 (there is no evidence henceforth to support that, in fact there is evidence to discredit that accusation).
2.He wasted billions of dollars unneccessarily.
3.He called the United Nations 'futile and useless' after they refused to help him with the war (no joke, his exact words).
4.He went ahead with the war anyway, initially without even Congress's approval.
5.He had a 'shoot first and ask questions later' war strategy, and now we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and no idea what to do with them.
6.His plan was to rebuild the government, but basically he just gave them a lobotomy. They may have been malicious before, but now they're useless.
7.He wants to rubuild their economy, by basically borrowing ever increasing amounts of our money, and raising the deficeit further.
8.He choked on a pretzel.

Does this sound like a successful president? Even freakin President Hoover didn't make this many mistakes.

[VxDx]

9. Everyone who's cool does.

[MalReynolds]

Yeah, I so fucken choked on a pretzel once. You have no idea how bad it hurts, neither. You see, your intelligence does not directly correlate with how well you swallow pretzels. Otherwise, you wouldn't see any mentally defecient people with pretzels.

Or you would, depending on the population.

Mal

[User6773]

1.He decieved us, by subtly making us think that Saddam had a part in 9-11 (there is no evidence henceforth to support that, in fact there is evidence to discredit that accusation).

When did he ever imply this? Saddam's been an enemy of the U.S. all along and an Al-Qaeda supporter.

2.He wasted billions of dollars unneccessarily.

A) On what?
B) What president hasn't in the last 50 years?

3.He called the United Nations 'futile and useless' after they refused to help him with the war (no joke, his exact words).

The UN ~is~ futile and useless. They're really an all-talk-and-no-action organization.

4.He went ahead with the war anyway, initially without even Congress's approval.

He had Congress's approval from the start.

5.He had a 'shoot first and ask questions later' war strategy, and now we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and no idea what to do with them.

We have 130,000 troops that have a very definite, defined mission.

6.His plan was to rebuild the government, but basically he just gave them a lobotomy. They may have been malicious before, but now they're useless.

Read the link in my post 2 posts ago and you'll understand why Saddam needed to go. We're working on the new government. You can't set one up overnight!


7.He wants to rubuild their economy, by basically borrowing ever increasing amounts of our money, and raising the deficeit further.

First you criticize him for NOT helping the Iraqi government, now you criticize him for helping it? What is it?

8.He choked on a pretzel.

Your ad hominem attack is irrelevant to Bush's ability as a President. Did you know President Clinton got the flu once? GASP! Presidents are HUMAN! They suffer HUMAN PROBLEMS! ~shock~

[jewpinthethird]

North Korea is a far lesser threat because they don't HATE us. Saddam actually HATED us, and he believed he had a divine mission to put a stop to us. Ever read Iraqi news reports? All the reports on the war before the fall of Baghdad say the same thing: "Allah will protect us and not allow the demonic enemy to enter our land" or something to that effect. When we're viewed as demons, they'll try to destroy us.

If Saddam hated us so much, then why didnt he nuke us in the first place? What is the point in having them? What good is hiding them?

North Korea is looking to the two largest in Nuking range (the US and Japan) for help because their economy is suffering. They have made numerous threats to Japan (I know this for a fact because I met the Japanese ambassador last year when he gave a talk on the problem with North Korea). We know N.Korea has nukes, we dont know if Iraq does. We know N. Korea is begging for attention (much like how the Japanese did before they attacked Pearl Harbor, for the same reason too).

But you cant deny that the rest of the world hates us. Millions of people from all over the world protested, George W. Bush called them "Focus Groups". Face it, those who support the war are the minority.

[heyhey11]

1.He decieved us, by subtly making us think that Saddam had a part in 9-11 (there is no evidence henceforth to support that, in fact there is evidence to discredit that accusation).

When did he ever imply this? Saddam's been an enemy of the U.S. all along and an Al-Qaeda supporter.

2.He wasted billions of dollars unneccessarily.

A) On what?
B) What president hasn't in the last 50 years?

3.He called the United Nations 'futile and useless' after they refused to help him with the war (no joke, his exact words).

The UN ~is~ futile and useless. They're really an all-talk-and-no-action organization.

4.He went ahead with the war anyway, initially without even Congress's approval.

He had Congress's approval from the start.

5.He had a 'shoot first and ask questions later' war strategy, and now we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and no idea what to do with them.

We have 130,000 troops that have a very definite, defined mission.

6.His plan was to rebuild the government, but basically he just gave them a lobotomy. They may have been malicious before, but now they're useless.

Read the link in my post 2 posts ago and you'll understand why Saddam needed to go. We're working on the new government. You can't set one up overnight!


7.He wants to rubuild their economy, by basically borrowing ever increasing amounts of our money, and raising the deficeit further.

First you criticize him for NOT helping the Iraqi government, now you criticize him for helping it? What is it?

8.He choked on a pretzel.

Your ad hominem attack is irrelevant to Bush's ability as a President. Did you know President Clinton got the flu once? GASP! Presidents are HUMAN! They suffer HUMAN PROBLEMS! ~shock~

Anticrombie0909 wrote:

He's borrowed billions of wasted dollars for a war that didn't need to be fought


Like how Clinton spent $2 billion a year on the "war on drugs", even though illegal drug use didn't decline at all during his administration? At least we freed a people from an oppressive dictator. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030603-7.html

Anticrombie0909 wrote:
Half the US thinks the war in Iraq was a bad idea from the start


Half the US are Democrats. And people who are affiliated to a major party feel the knee-jerk need to oppose the other party on all issues, which is silly. No war should be a freaking partisan issue! But idiot politicians - Republicans AND Democrats - insist on making everything a partisan issue to perpetuate the two-party system.

Anticrombie0909 wrote:
he's screwed over the war anyway by keeping troops there far longer than needed


If America left now, Iraq would plunge into greater chaos as small militant and insurgent groups made violent claims to power. We're actually keeping the loss of life down by staying there!

Anticrombie0909 wrote:
as losses continue to mount from our own ineptitude


Let's not forget that we have the strongest military force in the world, far from "inept" at doing anything. Which is why Baghdad fell within days of our entry with minimal loss of blood. In addition, the death toll over there is 497. Four hundred and ninety seven. And that's ALL Coalition forces, not just U.S. troops. By comparison, U.S. deaths in the Korean war numbered 36,940. And you probably forgot the Korean war ever happened.

Anticrombie0909 wrote:
he has no idea how to form a working government there


That's not Bush's job.

Anticrombie0909 wrote:
and basically is screwing over everything he tries to fix.


Despite the fact that bin Laden's on the run, the Saddam regime is gone, the economy is up, joblessness is down, and most Americans approve of Bush? Your statement appears to be rooted in many falsehoods.

Anticrombie0909 wrote:

Add that to the market being at an almost all-time low in the last year and you've got one man who's name is mud.



The economy is UP! Stock market has surpassed 10,000 for the first time since 9-11. Any economic "recession" we faced was simply an aftereffect of a terrorist attack - i.e. out of Bush's control.

Now usaully i would just be like PWNED (which you were anti) but since this is the critical thinking thread i will express opinion too. See Anti is right in a sense that Bush has made mistakes FROM A DEMOCRATIC OPINION. From the opinion of Republicans he was extremely smart and has only made a few mistakes not a list full of them. HE also will win the election because of his finding of Saddam he has a lot of american support

[makaveli121212]

If Saddam hated us so much, then why didnt he nuke us in the first place? What is the point in having them? What good is hiding them?

But you cant deny that the rest of the world hates us. Millions of people from all over the world protested, George W. Bush called them "Focus Groups". Face it, those who support the war are the minority.

his nukes cant rech the US form iraq...the point in having them is to be ablw to defend themselves if something breaks out in the middle east...if they hide them weapons inspectors wont find them...oh and i dont think spain ever went communist...and come on jewpin, before we went into iraq, did you think iraq had weapons of mass destruction...of course you did everyone did...and of course they have them, why else would they keep weapons inspectors out...just becuase we havent found stockpiles of them dont mean they arent there...we have found chemical weapons, but just not thousands of them

[jewpinthethird]

Before we INVADED Iraq, I didnt give a sh*t about them. Sure, I dont watch the news like totally much, but if something big happens...I'll know about it.

I just feel that WAR is the absolute last resort.

See, what Bush did with his whole "shoot first and ask questions later approach" is, if Iraq did have WMDs and got rid of them, there is no proof now.