If Bush is a liar then . . .

Hey Wildkow:

Ask them to name one person currently serving who is serving against their will.

OR, if they are serving, and disagree with the war they are fighting, why are they not pulling the "objector" trigger?

The FACT is, no one out there is being forced to fight. No one is going to shoot them if they throw down their rifle and say, "F this".

This usually gets their panties in an uproar... :lol:

 

Its so funny how we can all look at the same thing and see it so differently.. because your comments on Bush is exactly the way I feel about the democrats....

They tell you exactly what you want to hear and then change thier story to fit popular demand and then when they get in office they do nothing.. Its all about them and not serving anyone but thier own profit. They operate without passion or conviction and can't make a decision one way or another but want to please all parties at once so they accomplish nothing.
They act like a confused child who can't decide which way to go when a car is coming down the street, so they do nothing and get ran over by the danger coming head on.

They are not proactive about anything for fear of offending anyone.. so they do nothing until the danger has passed and then they act to put out fires that could have been avoided.

I believe the best defense is a good offense. You look at any team, nation, business, or company... if you don't live with that philosophy, you get ran over and abused and taken advantage. Bush is not perfect, but I believe he is sincere and has a heart as big as texas. He may think with his heart more than his head, but I would rather have him at the helm when danger comes far more than those pussies like John Kerry, and Al Gore any day!.. Where would we be now if they had gotten into office?

Sometimes standing for peace is the way to war and standing for war is the way to peace!... if you don't understand that.. you don't understand basic human nature and live in a cloud and have never lived on the streets or dealt with ruthless people who care little about themselves and nothing about you.

Too many have been spoiled and live in ivory towers of bliss and comfort and spew out blasphemy down below to anyone who risk thier pleasure comforts being disturbed.

This country was founded with blood... thats why we rule rather than be ruled.

Those of you who want to be cowards and hide when there are real threats at hand, deserve to have your fears come upon you. The only way to deal with danger is to face it.... never run from it!... thats a basic lesson of life?

Many are depressed and dysfunctional because they never learned that basic lesson of faith and preserverence.

If you don't control your circumstances, they will control you.

We cannot live is such a fashion to where we just let life happen to us!!! We must plan and prepare for calamity to avoid it.

Whether you support the president or not.. why curse the darkness?.. why not find solutions?.... The fact is that he is trying to do good and many with weak hearts cannot stand against a fierce enemy with boldness that they cannot understand.
Who will stand against them then?.. no one?

Our enemy wants us eradicated off the face of the earth with an intense hatred... if you play patticake with them, they will win!

I have had some call me paranoid... At least my head is not in the sand... have you looked around??? Have you really looked around at what is going on in this world?

What exactly is keeping it from happening here?... wake up! wake up!.... from your deep sleep!

Those who have nothing to die for have nothing to live for either.

 

WHAT THE **** IS THIS POST ALL ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!

I come here to get away from BS like this.

TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE!!! :angry: :angry: :angry:

 

You are excused because you are a PSYCHO and you spit PSYCHOBABBLE

 

And you are DANGEROULSY STUPID

 

If your weatherman gets the forcast wrong, then you get rained on. If a President makes the wrong call about going to war, thousands of people die. All evidence suggests that Bush was looking for a reason to go to war with Iraq for a long time. Was there evidence that Saddam was trying to get his hands on WMDs? Absolutely. However, all evidence was that he had been spectacularly unsuccessful in acquiring these weapons since the early 90s. People told Bush this, but he chose to listen to people that were telling him that Saddam was trying to aquire Uranium and was building WMDs. I don't dispute that there were people telling Bush this; he just chose to ignore other evidence that didn't support his plan. It seems to me that if a president is going to make the choice to go to war, there needs to be overwhelming evidence that it needs to happen.

While Bush might not be solely to blame for the bad choice of going to war, he is completely to blame for surrounding himself with "advisors" that are really just "yes" men and don't provide him with any real debate. If you surround yourself with people that have your same narrow world view, then of course they are going to give you advice that fits in nicely with what you would like to do.

You say that Bush didn't "cherry pick" information, but there's strong evidence in other areas that he does this. Just look at his science policy: there's good evidence that the Bush administration has edited the global warming reports that government scientists have presented. He takes the rediculous pro-intelligent design position, without really listening to the reasons that it's not science.

Basically, he has his own world view and looks only at evidence that supports that world view. If something contradicts what he believes, then it must not be worthwhile evidence.

 

I disagree to some extent.

While at the same time, he must surround himself with those who won't be obstructionists so he can be effective. Remember, first and foremost, we elected him, he is a representative of the majority. He, ideally, reflects the values of those who elected him.

Blame Bush all you want, however, America voted him into office twice.

 

There's a difference between being an obstructionist and being a voice of reason. If the president has gone off his rocker, then you want someone to say, "Gee, maybe we should consider this other alternative, Mr. President." I agree that once the decision has been made, you want everyone working toward the common goal, but a (powerful) voice inside the White House saying something like, "We need to make damn sure that Iraq has WMDs. Oh. And by the way, the war might not be as easy as other people are saying. . . " would have been a good thing.

Oh. I think there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I will point out that he was not representative of the majority when he went to war with Iraq. No matter what you think about the 2000 election, I don't think that anyone would try to make the case that Bush recieved votes from a majority of Americans (or, even, voting Americans).

And, the second time around (in 2004), he mostly got elected because he scared the bejesus out of the electorate. Basically, it was, "Vote for Bush. If you vote for Kerry, the terrorists will come to your homes, kill you, and steal your children."

 

Herein lies the problem though. The differentiation depends upon whom you're asking. Obviously, the chorus of anti-Bush folks on PC would call almost any advisor challenging Bush a 'voice of reason'... Given that core differentiation, any arguement below this leve is almost a moot point.

I completely disagree. Congress was behind him, you know, once again, the people WE elected to represent us.

...and I don't agree with this either. If 51% (or so, whatever it was) is not a majority, what?, we should suddenly redefine majority as 60/40?

As for the second point, I refer to my first. You can claim he did this, he did that, he scared everyone into anything, but in the end, the people took action at the polls. If anything, it would make more rational sense to blame society for being "gullible", but not Bush.

 

Wildkow: "The military isn't for everyone and it's hard to understand why anyone would want to lay aside college, before finishing, and go into the military."

To protect your country ? Because of the imminent threat of WMD ? Because terrorists are HERE, NOW ? Because the president you believe, says that america has to go to two wars, today ?

Ohhhh, that is just BS for your *neighbor*. right.

Chickenhawk hypocritical cowards.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Once again, the most supposed, open minded, rational, open to discussion types, are the FIRST to get angry and hurl insults... :lol: :lol:

 

Dude, chill... that can be perceived as being very "right-winged".... :lol:

 

I understand your point. However, I think that any president (republican or democrat) should have at least one "smart person that often disagrees with them." If you can convince that person that you're on the right path, you know that you can convince most people. If you can't convince that person, at least you've had to think about the problem carefully.

Yes. Congress was behind him. HOWEVER, he was an incredibly popular president and the congressional representatives and the senators had their own jobs to worry about. Never-the-less, I will absolutely concede the point that the supposed "representatives of the people" were behind the war.

Bush started the Iraq war in 2003. At that time, he had been "elected" by a minority of the popular vote. Even more to the point, more people had voted for someone else than voted for him (Gore: 48.4%, Bush: 47.9%).

I absolutely think the American electorate can be gullible. But I absolutely blame Bush's team for stooping to the level of fear to get votes. I also think that the Democrats have proven themselves spectacularly incompetent in combating some of the Republican tactics in recent years, but that's a topic for another day.

 

I cannot say I disagree with this approach.

I wanted to focus on this point a bit. So what should we do when it comes that close? In my off-the-top-of-my-head opinion, maybe we should do what many sports implement: the overtime concept. If an election is THAT close, I think it might stand to reason to delay the election, or go into some sort of "tie-breaker" rules, like, for example, a 3 hour national, live, non-scripted debate, or until such time as a clear majority arises. Would it REALLY be a big deal if an election was delayed for another, let's say, 6 months, chock full of "tie-breaker" mechanisms? In hindsight, seems like it would be a small price to pay given the resultant strife it seems to have caused...

I still tend to disagree with this. While you can certainly make a case for such, I think it's somewhat analogous to buying a car. If you believe the seedy used car salesman, you've no one really to blame but yourself for getting stuck with a crappy car.

 

LOL, true!