Support NeoGAF

[Cooter]

I think you should join the military because you obviously believe in George W. Bush so much you would die for him. At least that's how you come off. It's not about having an opinion, it's your accepting of everything he says/does (besides stem cell research, i think you conceded this in another thread) and defending ANY factual attack against him with some kind of spin.

I don't agree with his immigration policy, his inability to VETO one spending bill, his proposal on gay marriage and parts of his stand on abortion to name a few.

Your definition of factual gave me a chuckle by the way.

 

[Chrono]

Here is a question for many at this forum. What if in 10-15 years Iraq is a fully functional democracy and the technological marvel of the Middle East? What will be your opinion of President Bush? Many people despised Reagan in the 80’s but there is no doubt that he freed many in Europe.

WHAT IF makes no sense if you look at the current situation.

Read master z's post and consider all those young Iraqis joining the islamist on a daily basis. Even when there will be NO Americans in Iraq those young people will be brainwashed with hatred and will start to move in iraq to apply shari'a and divide the country into sunnie/shi'ite/christian/etc... The more extremists iraq is breeding right now thanks to the mess the bigger the consequences in the long run are.

Yeah, Iraq might turn out just like you’re predicting. That prediction however doesn’t go well with the current reality in Iraq unfortunately.

 

[duderon]

Here is a question for many at this forum. What if in 10-15 years Iraq is a fully functional democracy and the technological marvel of the Middle East? What will be your opinion of President Bush? Many people despised Reagan in the 80’s but there is no doubt that he freed many in Europe.

I will say it will be another presidents doing because Bush has no plan to spread freedom, since he had no exit strategy. The end is not in sight, so it is impossible to predict what will happen in 10 years. If the fighting was dying down and soldiers weren't still being killed i would say this war was not a total bust, but even then i would have a very bad taste in my mouth from the way GWB has conducted himself in almost every other situation, surrounding the war and his domestic leadership of the US.

I don't agree with his immigration policy, his inability to VETO one spending bill, his proposal on gay marriage and parts of his stand on abortion to name a few.

Your definition of factual gave me a chuckle by the way.

Right, cause there are no facts backing up the failure of taxcuts to stimulate the economy, Saddam had no WMDs since 91', GWB has the worst environmental record of any pres, etc.

 

[Meier]

Here is a question for many at this forum. What if in 10-15 years Iraq is a fully functional democracy and the technological marvel of the Middle East? What will be your opinion of President Bush? Many people despised Reagan in the 80’s but there is no doubt that he freed many in Europe.

Most of them will spout off bullshit similar to what deadlifter just said, but the simple fact of the matter is that most of them dont even want to consider this as a possibility because it will shatter a large reason for their irrational hatred of President Bush.

 

[videogamer]

Most of them will spout off bullshit similar to what deadlifter just said, but the simple fact of the matter is that most of them dont even want to consider this as a possibility because it will shatter a large reason for their irrational hatred of President Bush.

"irrational"? You've been reading the forum long enough to hear our complaints, and they aren't all focused on Iraq.

 

[nathkenn]

I don't agree with his immigration policy, his inability to VETO one spending bill, his proposal on gay marriage and parts of his stand on abortion to name a few.

Your definition of factual gave me a chuckle by the way.

as it stands we have a choice now as far as gay marriage and abortion those of you who have moral concerns can do it you way and other folk can do it their way. but the bush drones want to make it law that we dont have a choice either way. so if you decide to change you mind, guess was you're fucked cuz the crazy zealot damn hick has screwed us all. seriously, before i was trying to understand different world views and peoples positions but at this point its just ridiculous, gaahh so angry

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I wouldn't personally. I believe in his morals as well as his ability to lead our country. Furthermore, I agree with nearly all of his political viewpoints.

Ability to lead our country!? WTF have the Republicans and Bush done in the last 4 years? Something beside a flawed bill such as No Child Left Behind™ please.

And Bush's morals are obviously top notch. Killing our troops for oil is definitely the moral highground.

 

[Cooter]

I have to run now but I will bring up this thread and answer your questions later.

Sorry.

 

[xsarien]

Here is a question for many at this forum. What if in 10-15 years Iraq is a fully functional democracy and the technological marvel of the Middle East? What will be your opinion of President Bush? Many people despised Reagan in the 80’s but there is no doubt that he freed many in Europe.

And what if we're wrong? What if, all things being equal, the country becomes another theocracy? We'll have another Iran.

Think, man. THINK. Put down the talking points, close the window to Instapundit, Newsmax, and Fox News and T-H-I-N-K.

This entire operation was based on hunches, assumptions, hopes, overly optimistic views of how it'd play out, and actions before thought. So far, every step in that process has been proven invalid, and at worst, deadly.

More accurately, foreign policy should never be based on such nebulous ideas; Bush has explained his "nation-building" flip flop on 9/11. That holds no water; Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, the country was never a DIRECT threat to the United States (Blix has stated in interviews too numerous to count that they didn't need much more time to wrap up the inspections), and since Saddam was overthrown, the place has become the very type of spot we wanted to avoid: a haven for terrorists.

The "War on Terror," as futile as it is to wage war on a tactic, needs focus; it needs absolute international backing beyond three major powers; it needs to acknowledge missteps and, most importantly, that the United States certainly doesn't hold the monopoly on terrorist acts.

The people who blindly follow our current policies say that "Well, we've never been attacked since 9/11" as some kind of measurement of success. That's beyond moronic, and reaches all kinds of dangerous levels of stupid. 9/11 was being planned for years, it was coordinated by more than a dozen Saudis operating in and out of the country, and exploited a very loose security system in the United States' air traffic.

What, again, you people who follow the Neocon mantra that freedom is the cure to end all woes fail to consider is that to some civilizations, religion is paramount. Not freedom, not money, not trade, not McDonald's, not MTV. Religion. As long as they stay true to their religion, they can't - and probably won't - care about much else. Realize that and our entire approach to the war on terror becomes indicted in the very convincing case that all we're doing is making a bad problem worse.

And the whipped cream topping on all of this? The nature of a terrorist. You can't "take the war to them" if they're already here; you can't "take the war to them" when a terrorist is just as likely to be created in Buffalo as they would be in Baghdad. The very essence is flawed. Approaching this as a military issue would be hilariously myopic if the consequences weren't so dire. Kerry's said many times that it should be treated as a law enforcement issue. The man's right, taking that view would allow a much broader view - and much smarter approach - of and to terrorism as a whole.

But go on, defend the indefensible. Worldwide, terrorist activities are up since 2001, maybe Bush thinks that number means that they're playing more pinochle than ever before.

I have to run now but I will bring up this thread and answer your questions later.

Sorry.

Translation: I can't defend my nigh-hypocritical support of President Bush.

 

[duderon]

Actually, just the opposite is true. It simply wouldn't be enough.

I don't hate Bush, I simply feel that he has done a bad job as president, has made many mistakes, and overall really screwed things up. The war in Iraq is one of a number of mistakes, and even if it turns out well 15 years from now, that only partially mitigates the complete, colossal disaster it is today.

For my opinion of Bush to change, a number of things would have to happen (while he is still president):
Patriot Act revoked
Tax cuts repealed
Lost jobs recovered
Deficit spending stopped
Current deficit partially payed off
Osama captured
War in Iraq to turn out well (that could happen a few years down the road)
I'd also love it if he stopped giving the impression that he's stupid every time he speaks, but that's not a requirement.

If all or even most of these happened, then yes, I would change my mind about Bush.

A lot of people are throwing around the phrase "exit strategy" these days. It's more than just a buzzword (buzzphrase?). Habit #2 of the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is "Begin with the end in mind." Plan not only where you start and the direction you go, but what happens when you arrive. Or if you don't arrive. Without that, you will never know what you're doing.

Lack of an exit strategy is what caused so many people to lose tons of money in the stock market a few years back. People with exit strategies made fortunes.

To add to the list:

Stop fear mongoring
Pass numerous environmental bills
Pass laws against big business
Admit wrong doings
Mend foreign policy relations
Stop decieving (Saddam connected to al Qaeda therefore connected to 9/11)

edit: I've got to run too LOLOLOLOL!!! :bigfuckingrolleyes

 

[Kifimbo]

Ability to lead our country!? WTF have the Republicans and Bush done in the last 4 years?

As a Canadian, I think Bush made the USA a bigger threat to world peace than any other country (except maybe North Korea, Pakistan and Iran).

The fact that it is unheard of doesn't mean the people are not starving for it. I agree it is idealistic a bit but my belief is that freedom will spread and cannot be contained once the people get a taste of it.

Freedom will never spread in these countries, because they have a totally different culture. You can't impose your culture and your religion like the Bush administration is doing. You only spread hate when you do that.

 

[Zaptruder]

Most of them will spout off bullshit similar to what deadlifter just said, but the simple fact of the matter is that most of them dont even want to consider this as a possibility because it will shatter a large reason for their irrational hatred of President Bush.

Well, if you examine east Germany and Russia, you'll find those two places still in rather dire circumstances, with heaps and heaps of social problems.

If George W Bush does manage to somehow achieve what IMO is a very unlikely goal, completely revolutionizing and changing the middle east through Iraq, then he'll definetly deserve kudos for it.

However, all the current signs point towards something like that not been the case.

With George W Bush... it's like you're buying alot of lotto tickets over a long amount of time. If it goes well, you might have a small chance of a great outcome. But what's likely, and if you examine the numbers, you'll find that you've really just thrown away alot of money over time.

 

[Incognito]

has meier listed one reason why he's voting for bush beyond the usual "feel good" pivots? all he's doing is firing off faulty reasoning and ad hominem attacks.

and i don't know in what world u have to live in to think we can impose a democracy, such as ours, in an under-developed country where a portion of the population despises the USA.

maybe, SHOCK, they dont want our form of democracy. and it's taken some 200+ years for our democracy to evolve to its current state, so if you're thinking iraq will magically be changed within 10-15 years then you're smoking something unusual -- probably passed out at the bush/cheney 04 rallies..

 

[Outlaw Pro Mod]

There's no point in trying to respond to any of you guys here on the OT, cause you've already made up your minds about Bush, what us supporters of him say now is irrelevant.

Very true.

And to be fair I think the same thing could be said about some of those against Kerry. The difference is that the Bush supporters actually know why they support Bush and why they oppose Kerry.

 

[Matlock]

Man, I love how the partisan beliefs are still dividing without logic, even though pleas have been made for actual explanations.

One side may or may not love Kerry, but will vote for him just to prevent Bush from getting back in.

The other side loves Bush's Christian Neoconism, and will back it to the death (or even after a small shunning of a family member or two).

Gotta love it.

 

[Alcibiades]

I'd stop supporting him if something like Day After Tomorrow starts happening...

 

[etiolate]

Christians should be offended by the thought Bush represents their faith.

 

[Makura]

Most of them will spout off bullshit similar to what deadlifter just said, but the simple fact of the matter is that most of them dont even want to consider this as a possibility because it will shatter a large reason for their irrational hatred of President Bush.

I agree. Look at the way the MSM and the left is either ignoring or spinning the recent election success in Afganistan. I think that gives us all a good indicator as to how the success of this administration will be portrayed in the future by academia and the intelligentsia.

 

[Makura]

Christians should be offended by the thought Bush represents their faith.

Why?

 

[Alcibiades]

actually, if john kerry were to say he'd pull all troops out of iraq beginning on jan 22nd, he'd lose my vote in an instant.

if john kerry were to say he'd continue to lower taxes, my vote would be gone.

if john kerry were to say stem cell research is fine where it's at right now, he'd lose my vote.

i'm not "hardcore" by any stretch of the imagniation. i'm not even a democrat; in fact a registered R E P U B L I C A N. however, i don't let the party affiliation cloud my judgement concerning the facts.

then that makes it easy for the other side, just mirror what you said

if george bush were to say he's raise taxes, he'd lose my vote

if george bush were to say abortion is fine with Roe. V. Wade, he'd lose my vote (though I'm not for banning stem cell research, and don't think Bush is either).

if george bush were to re-instate the draft through congressional approval, he'd lose my vote.

i'm not "hardcore" by any stretch either, I actually am a registered D E M O C R A T (Webb Co., Pct. 1). so what? I support Democrats to the US and Texas House of Representatives and US Senate (Ron Kirk last time around, Henry Cuellar-Laredo/SA district, Chet Edwards-Brazos County District, though I can only vote in one county).

party registration is of little significance and splitting the ticket is an old tale, nothing special in today's times when 1/3 of the country is supposedly "independent" (doesn't mean they don't believe strongly in the "War on Terror" and will support Bush or Kerry this time around and vote differently next time).

As far as the normal Republican base, I think that for right-winging people that follow "mainstream conservative values" (whatever that means), Bush could piss people off by being more like Kerry or more like Alan Keyes, he's like a medium for that side of the political spectrum.

 

[etiolate]

Why?

Modesty? Turn the other cheek?

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

why do you have to support bush?

can no bush supporter provided ample justification for their reasons?

hey, I tried. No one would give any good reasons.

 

[cvxfreak]

I have to run now but I will bring up this thread and answer your questions later.

Sorry.

We'll be waiting.

Anyway, I don't want to offer my opinion, because it's virtually the same all the smart people's opinions in this thread. So, take a gander at who you find intelligent, reasonable and coherent, and you've got my views.

 

[xsarien]

I agree. Look at the way the MSM and the left is either ignoring or spinning the recent election success in Afganistan. I think that gives us all a good indicator as to how the success of this administration will be portrayed in the future by academia and the intelligentsia.

You'll note that it'll be hard to find anyone who was adamantly opposed to going into Afghanistan. Iraq is a completely different beast.

 

[Makura]

Modesty? Turn the other cheek?

I'm a born-again Christian and I read my Bible almost daily. "Turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with being a pacifist to the point of suicide. Jesus is giving an example of how we should act in our personal relations with other people, even if they hate us. I do not believe he is talking about a nation's defense.

 

[Makura]

You'll note that it'll be hard to find anyone who was adamantly opposed to going into Afghanistan. Iraq is a completely different beast.

I think you missed my point: "I think that gives us all a good indicator..."

 

[xsarien]

I think you missed my point: "I think that gives us all a good indicator..."

It would if the conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq were even remotely similar.

 

[Lonestar]

I'm voting for Bush, simply because "Lonestar" is against it.

 

[Lonestar]

"... did you even read the thread?"

I didn't, do I get a sarcastic comment!!!!

 

[GG-Duo]

I'm a born-again Christian and I read my Bible almost daily. "Turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with being a pacifist to the point of suicide. Jesus is giving an example of how we should act in our personal relations with other people, even if they hate us. I do not believe he is talking about a nation's defense.

You're right, turn the other cheek doesn't mean suicide, but I have never seen a passage in the Bible that approves of "pre-emptive defense".

Also, I don't understand how you can cherry-pick Jesus' teaching like that.

 

[Cooter]

Translation: I can't defend my nigh-hypocritical support of President Bush.

Translation: I had to go and now I’m back doing just what I said I would do.

I think you're missing the point, buddy. The point is, if you think the army is so great, and this war is so helpful, that everyone who's died in Iraq died a hero, that they're doing the right thing; if you truly believe that, why have you not put your money where your mouth is?

I got your point but it's irrelevant, buddy. Yes I think our military is an awesome machine and yes, I do believe the war will be helpful to our national security and the Middle-East’s security in the long run but me not enlisting doesn’t discredit my opinion. With a 2-year-old daughter and a very weary wife, the situation is a bit more complicated. I do truly believe they are hero’s and are doing what’s right but do they need me. If something in the future occurs and it is clear that the military needs new soldiers then I will be there. At the moment I’ll honor the soldiers and never forget what they are doing for us.

These soldiers enlisted on their own free will to fight for their country and that is what they are doing. You act as if they didn’t choose to join voluntarily and young men and women are being pulled out of their homes and shipped off to certain death.

I think I'll keep this one for the next time you run your mouth off about celebrities who voice their political beliefs.

Celebrities voicing their opinions on anything besides acting or coping with fame = irrelevant.
Soldiers voicing their opinions on their commander and chief and the war they are in = relevant.

Freedom will never spread in these countries, because they have a totally different culture. You can't impose your culture and your religion like the Bush administration is doing. You only spread hate when you do that.

No one is imposing culture or religion. Democracy isn’t against Muslim culture.

 

[Incognito]

I got your point but it's irrelevant, buddy. Yes I think our military is an awesome machine and yes, I do believe the war will be helpful to our national security and the Middle-East’s security in the long run but me not enlisting doesn’t discredit my opinion. With a 2-year-old daughter and a very weary wife, the situation is a bit more complicated. I do truly believe they are hero’s and are doing what’s right but do they need me. If something in the future occurs and it is clear that the military needs new soldiers then I will be there. At the moment I’ll honor the soldiers and never forget what they are doing for us.

i agree with this sentiment. i know a lot of people who would fight for the country, if called, but as it is, the circumstances in their own lifes are just too great to stop life and fight the war in iraq.

sure, if iran or NK were to be on our door steps, then i think u'd see a ton of people signing up.

being pro-bush and not enlisted shouldn't discredit an opinion.

 

[Kifimbo]

Celebrities voicing their opinions on anything besides acting or coping with fame = irrelevant.
Soldiers voicing their opinions on their commander and chief and the war they are in = relevant.

Huh.

Generally, celebrities (actors and musicians) are way more intelligent than soldiers. They have a better judgement and they can see the whole picture. It's not the case with soldiers.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Here is a question for many at this forum. What if in 10-15 years Iraq is a fully functional democracy and the technological marvel of the Middle East? What will be your opinion of President Bush?

Poor. I don't think the ends justifying fudging the reasoning and execution thus far.

I'd stop supporting him if something like Day After Tomorrow starts happening...

When it's too late to do any good? That's an easy out.

I agree. Look at the way the MSM and the left is either ignoring or spinning the recent election success in Afganistan.

MSM? And hey, if massive voter fraud is success... yay success?

 

[Loki]

Huh.

Generally, celebrities (actors and musicians) are way more intelligent than soldiers. They have a better judgement and they can see the whole picture. It's not the case with soldiers.

That's a silly blanket statement to make. If I showed you the list of prominent actors and musicians who never graduated high school or completed more than 2 years of college, your head would spin. What makes them so erudite? Do you honestly think they do much reading beyond their scripts? Let's be real here-- they're attending parties and living the life, not reading up on historical trends and political theory. There are exceptions, obviously, but I honestly don't see how you can say that-- as a group-- celebrities are not only "more intelligent" than soldiers, but "way more intelligent".


It's just a silly thing to say, and frankly, I can't imagine what basis you'd have to make such a statement.

 

[Makura]

MSM = mainstream media

 

[Alcibiades]

That's a silly blanket statement to make. If I showed you the list of prominent actors and musicians who never graduated high school or completed more than 2 years of college, your head would spin. What makes them so erudite? Do you honestly think they do much reading beyond their scripts? Let's be real here-- they're attending parties and living the life, not reading up on historical trends and political theory. There are exceptions, obviously, but I honestly don't see how you can say that-- as a group-- celebrities are not only "more intelligent" than soldiers, but "way more intelligent".


It's just a silly thing to say, and frankly, I can't imagine what basis you'd have to make such a statement.

if you don't vote you'll get raped...

true story...

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

Huh.

Generally, celebrities (actors and musicians) are way more intelligent than soldiers. They have a better judgement and they can see the whole picture. It's not the case with soldiers.

so you're saying that a person like Woody Harrelson is smarter than a soldier who is doing psy-ops?

In general, most soldiers (those that do not choose to be grunts, like my brother) are smarter than your average celebrity. Plus, there are a few people on the board who have relatives in the military or are in the military themselves who would disagree with your statement. Soldiers cannot see the big picture? I think they see it better than anyone else.

 

[Stele]

That's a silly blanket statement to make. If I showed you the list of prominent actors and musicians who never graduated high school or completed more than 2 years of college, your head would spin. What makes them so erudite? Do you honestly think they do much reading beyond their scripts? Let's be real here-- they're attending parties and living the life, not reading up on historical trends and political theory. There are exceptions, obviously, but I honestly don't see how you can say that-- as a group-- celebrities are not only "more intelligent" than soldiers, but "way more intelligent".


It's just a silly thing to say, and frankly, I can't imagine what basis you'd have to make such a statement.

Way to make a blanket statement to debunk a blank statement, genius. FACT: Most soldiers enlist, because they are from low-income families with little to no educational opportunities. And once they enlist, they don't exactly move up the economic ladder. Celebrities, by default, are freed from economic burdens. That frees up time and resources to pursue their quirks, and many times that does involve intellectual pursuit.

 

[maharg]

Making blanket statements about intelligence based on profession is incredibly dense.

 

[Loki]

if you don't vote you'll get raped...

true story...

???

I don't follow...

 

[xsarien]

Celebrities voicing their opinions on anything besides acting or coping with fame = irrelevant.
Soldiers voicing their opinions on their commander and chief and the war they are in = relevant.

Why do you think the military supports Bush almost 4 to 1? Let me answer my own question, because they share my views. If the new rule in this country is that you have to be in the military to have an opinion then most of us should shut up now. Following that lead, if you are not an economist then you can't have an opinion about the economy and if you are not in the medical industry then you can't have an opinion on our healthcare situation. What you're saying is ridiculous.

Reconcile these two stances, because as they stand they're in complete contradiction with each other.

 

[Alcibiades]

???

I don't follow...

cameron diaz said that on Oprah or some day-time talk show...

heard it made her look silly...

 

[Stele]

LoL @ Cooter. Quite frankly, I find those soldiers that listen to Drowning Pool while killing civilians' opinion irrelevant on just about everything. Fuck, I think they should get shot in the face. Just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you're a good person by far.

 

[Loki]

Way to make a blanket statement to debunk a blank statement, genius. FACT: Most soldiers enlist, because they are from low-income families with little to no educational opportunities. And once they enlist, they don't exactly move up the economic ladder. Celebrities, by default, are freed from economic burdens. That frees up time and resources to pursue their quirks, and many times that does involve intellectual pursuit.

That's true enough, but education has nothing to do with intelligence. The ability to "see the big picture" has to do with BOTH-- one has to have the knowledge base AND the requisite intelligence to make sense of it all. His original statement was that celebrities "see the big picture", which would be a function (at least partly) of intelligence.


I also do not think that "better judgment" necessarily comes with increased levels of education; he said that celebrities have better judgment than soldiers as a group, and that they are "way" more intelligent. Further, does "way more intelligent" and "much better judgment" = more time to read? Yes or no. So every person who reads, say, 20 hours per week will be more intelligent than someone who reads 5? Your "argument" is silly, and totally irrelevant to the statement he made, which is likely false, or, in any event, cannot be proven (and so should not be made).


Fact: many prominent celebrities (including many of the most politically vocal ones) never finished high school-- and not because they had started hitting it big prior to graduating, either. What does that say about their "intelligence" level? If a person who lacks the intelligence and initiative to finish HS later in life happens to have more leisure time to read (assuming they DO use it to read), does that make him or her better able to process and analyze the information than their less privileged counterparts? You're also kidding yourself if you think that most celebrities sit around reading Chomsky (well, maybe Chomsky-- flavor of the decade and all ) and other political theorists. Even if they did, however, that doesn't make them better equipped to form sound judgments about things unless you also assume that they are in possession of a greater (innate) intelligence than soldiers. Given the number of them who couldn't (or didn't see fit to) graduate HS or complete more than two years of college, I'd say that's a tenuous supposition.


Point of fact: As maharg said, you cannot make blanket statements about people's intelligence based on their profession; I tried to point that out, and perhaps went a bit towards the other end in overgeneralizing myself, but I don't feel that I did; my personal view is that I think you'd find the same number of people who go out of their way to read and become learned on political issues among actors as you would among the rest of society, including soldiers. No more or less, despite their increased free time.

 

[Koopa]

I got your point but it's irrelevant, buddy. Yes I think our military is an awesome machine and yes, I do believe the war will be helpful to our national security and the Middle-East’s security in the long run but me not enlisting doesn’t discredit my opinion. With a 2-year-old daughter and a very weary wife, the situation is a bit more complicated. I do truly believe they are hero’s and are doing what’s right but do they need me. If something in the future occurs and it is clear that the military needs new soldiers then I will be there. At the moment I’ll honor the soldiers and never forget what they are doing for us.

So you're serious about actually joining the military for a cause that is questionable at best.

I just want to know when America became the the worlds protector and seer for freedom? Human existance has lead to many things in this past but could be undone through one mans own vision from his lord and savior. This guy is a born agian christian, how can one say they believe in his morals?

Do you know what a born again christian is? Is someone who fucked up soo badly in there life or did enough drugs to get a perception that they themselves are an extension of what god wants.

Presidents in our history have been great men, George Bush is not a great man, either was Clinton and Reagon, infact the last great president that lead this country was Eisenhower. Although Kennedy was exceptional. Im not comparing Kerry to Eisenhower or Kennedy for that matter.

George Bush was never prepared to lead this country in a direction it has headed, his own policy before 911 was basically getting the people he knew in high places more control over their own fiscal responcibilitys and engaging in coffer filling for those who benifited most from the tax cut. How can a person who honestly thinks that he has done more good for this world then harm? This country in itself is worse off then when he became president, and the world., where to start?

North Korea has a nuclear weapons program and more then likely are testing them, bullshit to think that huge ass mushroom cloud over that country was anything other then a weapons test. Iran... our neighbor to Iraq is also doing the same thing.

I hate to say it because I do beleave that the people of Iraq deserve the fundamental right to live a prosperious life under any cercumstances but who gave us the power to make that happen, according to George Bush, God did. I understand the values of doing good but this is ending up like just another police action, but in a country that has what this country needs to survive.

Now on to George Bush's leadership. Thsi country was founded by extrodinarly great men who saw a place where people could life out from under the opression of a tyrant. The only real difference between are situation 240 years ago vs. Iraqs today, Could you actually imagine the french comming to this country and majority of them fighting the British for are own freedom? Thats a hard one to swallow and I can see where most Iraq's stand on this, Another country envades there savrign country, removes the leadership in place and sticks around for 2 years fighting viciously with the old reigim. Ontop of all this we has no buisness there in the first place.

Good leadership does not tell one thing to the people who pay for this war, fight this war and sopport this war. Then come back 6 months later give the rich people back 87b and then turn around and tell the public the war is gonna cost us 120b.

120 billion dollars.

Is it me or do most rational people remove people who arnt responciple for fiscal spending? Not only did he waste 120 Billion dollars, he gave back 87 Billion to the top 1% of this country.

Never trust a crack head with your money. I say... never ever trust someone who has done cociane with your money. You wont have any left and your shit will be missing.

But its not his fault, the world itself lacks great leadership. Next stop, nucular annihilation.

I just hope all of you have done every fucked up thing possible with in the law, and hopefully a few outside to make your life really count, Its a shame we voted in a president who went ahead and wasted our lifes for us. Fuck second hand smoke, Reelect Dubba a second term.

But hey, thats what god wants. right?

 

[Ollie Pooch]

fuck.

i can't believe anyone is thinking of electing this man - his head is so clouded with his own misguided faith that he thinks every crazy thing he's doing is right - did any of you not read the article in the other thread about bush's 'decision making' process? in case you didn't here it is. http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19209

i am eternally grateful that i don't live in america. this guy's not looking out for anyone's interests but his own.

 

[Kifimbo]

you cannot make blanket statements about people's intelligence based on their profession

Then you cannot make blanket statements about whether or not an opinion is relevant based on their profession like Cooter did.

 

[Stele]

Snip

You could have said all that in one easily condensed paragraph, and the first time around. How the hell you managed to drag this to Chomsky I don't even care to deduce, but my argument come from two very simple rationales -- most people are not bright, and the largest group of 'not bright' people are the lower class, by design, because they are also the largest group in general. I didn't claim all celebrities are brilliant, but I see more of them than soldier-philosophers.

 

[Cooter]

these two stances, because as they stand they're in complete contradiction with each other.

Anyone can have an opinion but that doesn't make one more relevant than another. If I had access to the public why should they listen to my political ideaology? It goes for anyone on this forum. My beef is with you trying to discredit my opinion on this war soley for the reason I am not in the military. My opinion is just as valid as yours but you or I have no merit trying to preach to the masses.