2004 Reasons to Boot Bush...

[RougeUnderoos]

Oh yeah, and before anyone says "oh okay then I guess you think 300 thousand is okay and he's a great guy", know this - that's lame and it won't work.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 17 2004, 12:24 AM
Anyways I am sure that Bush didn't pull a Hitler and start commanding the Armies around. That is up to the people who are the military minds, who know more about the war than anyone here.

Actually George Bush had very little to do with the invasion of Iraq except to sign the executive order. The invasion of Iraq was the work of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz bulldogged the Pentagon and Cheney got the intel lined up. Its been said in numerous places that the military did not want the invasion of Iraq and that it was the civilians at the Pentagon that made the invasion happen. Bush is nothing more than a face man doing and saying what he is told by his advisors. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are the trio behind the invasion of Iraq, not Bush.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Sep 16 2004, 11:41 PM

So in 2 posts you have called me a moron and a tool. But since you are a self admitted Bush fan i'm sure you have it a lot worse. Those are some pretty good Bush comebacks. yawn.

So you've turned Bush supporter into Bush fan? That's a nice extrapolation on your part. I'm hardly a Bush cheerleader.

But I'll stand behind the names I've thrown out at you because you've proven it over and over again to be true.

Jumping into a thread (twice) and calling people who disagree with you brainwashed is the ultimate in cool.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Sep 17 2004, 12:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Sep 17 2004, 12:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 17 2004, 12:24 AM
This is the most self serving load of bull I have ever read... the good fight? huh? So let me get this straight due to the fact that they are your opinions that automatically makes the fight the good fight?

It's a figure of speech.

You are really over sensitive. [/b][/quote]
Aside from the most of the world agreeing with you part, I am in the same boat. This is so exhausting and emotionally draining. At least I know others (and those who disagree) feel the same way. That is one reason I might vote for Kerry. I agree with Lurch that the level of hatred everywhere would probably decrease. I'm mystified, truly, at why the world despises Bush at the level they do..and this has been from day 1...but I can't ignore that it does.

Look at me...I just gave a "I'm not Bush" reason for voting for Kerry! :blush:

[Displaced Flames fan]

Camaron...you still don't have a grasp on the concept of what a lie is. Try again.

The threat thing was a joke. Sorry.

Can you prove that US oil exports from Iraq have increased since the war? They could've just bought the oil from Saddam. Illegal, yes, but that didn't stop France and Russia. It would've been much cheaper and much safer politically. Logic...it's a bitch, isn't it?



edited to clarify which Iraqi oil exports I was referring to.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 16 2004, 11:43 PM
Wow Dis, you have my sympathies.# I look at a lot of Americans and realize why they would vote for Bush.# They don't know any better.# They have been drilled since childhood that the President wouldn't lie and that what he says is true.# They happily believe that and hop along the yellow brick road.#

But then there's people like yourself.# Intelligent people who just refuse to even make the effort to take a look at the issues and see what is going on in their own country.# I had dinner last night with my wife's boss (President of her university) and he decided to talk politics.# He was just like you and wasn't that informed about what was going on in his own country, but was enamoured with the charisma of Bush, ignoring all the short comings of the President.# After I danced circles around him for a couple hours he finally admitted that he needed to do a little more research on the subject at hand, especially the practices of Bush's neo-con partners in crime.# It will be interesting to see if that Bush voter changes his mind after doing a little more research and realizing what liers Bush and Co. are.

BTW...# as long as I live the US and have family in the US I have something at stake and it means I am in the same boat as all Americans, kind of like your wife.# You should remember that Its people with view like the ones you just expressed, only those who have a right to voice an opinion in the country are the ones born here, that make it so easy to hate Americans and wish for their demise and embarassment on the world stage.# But having that happen would see a lot of friends here get hurt as well as myself.# So while I would love for you to have to eat a huge steam @$#% sandwich with the downfall of the American Empire under your buddy Bush, I'll have to hope that enough of the yokels down here make the right decision to prevent that from happening and elect Kerry to fix things.

Lanny, I just disagree with you about what is going on. I AM informed. I just don't buy all the elaborate conspiracy theories that you do. For example, there are Limbaughites right now, those on the far right, who think the Kerry campaign is behind the CBS bogus documents story that attempted to prove Bush's service as less than honorable. I think it's laughable. I think it's simply a matter of CBS wanting to believe something to be true (They've done this in the past as well) and going with a story no other reputable news agency would ever consider going with. Kerry and his people had nothing to do with it...although I'm sure the guy who started the ball rolling is a Kerry supporter....but that means nothing.

As for your last paragraph (at least the first part) you are right and I apologize, although I didn't mean what you think I did. I've never questioned your right to voice your opinion, just that you do so as an American. That's all I meant, but you are right...given your situation, I shouldn't have said that. Apologies.


BTW..do you really find Bush THAT charismatic? He's no Al Gore to be sure, but I don't think he even approaches Clinton or Kennedy or Reagan with his charisma.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Dis, no problem. We go way back and I'm not going to let a discussion on politics ruin a friendship. Jesus man, this is what makes this enjoyable and worth coming back to the board over and over again. Locking horns with guys I know and respect because the challenge me. Its fun going at it with you and Tranny, although the conspiracy theorist stuff does get old after a while.

I agree with you 100% on the CBS thing. I think they got duped by someone, likely a Kerry supporter, and they are just trying to save his candidates election chances. What they say about any publicity is true and it has helped Kerry's cause, its just unfortunate that an institution like Dan Rather and CBS got run over in the process. Why couldn't they take out FoxNews and Bill O'Reilly!!!



Is Bush charismatic? Yeah, I think so. His down home country boy schtick really plays well, especially out here in Arizona. The folks I work with think he walks on water. It doesn't matter what he does or what he says, they just love the guy and point to his "everyday man" persona. I don't think he's charismatic on the international stage, but he sells really well in the US. Is that charisma enough to carry him through this election? The debates will decide that. Personally I think we need someone who will have more credit internationally, and that;s where I think Kerry is a better fit. Add to that, Kerry doesn't bring the PNACers with him. We'll see what happens, but I think the country needs a change.

BTW... I think Kerry has run one of the worst campaigns in a very long time. He's managed to keep the focus off of Bush and his continual bumbling of issues. Kerry really needs to pull it together right now if he hopes to get back into the election. The next month will tell the story one way of the other. I hope, for America's sake, that Kerry pulls it together and shows he is worth a shot as president.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 17 2004, 12:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 17 2004, 12:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 16 2004, 06:24 PM
Everyone knows that Saddam killed millions upon millions of people, we can all agree upon that.

Actually, no we can't agree on that.

I think estimates are about 300 thousand Iraqis. The US backed Iran vs. Iraq war is something else, but even if you count that one I don't think you can say "he killed millions upon millions of people".

You don't need to exaggerate to prove he was a bad guy who deserves the noose. [/b][/quote]
I was sure he had over 1 million deaths under his belt and more than likely there were thousands that we didn't know about. This is a man who used poison gas against his own people. So is it not possible that due to the United States intervention thousands of lives have been saved.

Sorry the fact that it was a saying never really crossed my mind there.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Sep 17 2004, 03:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Sep 17 2004, 03:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Actually, no we can't agree on that.

I think estimates are about 300 thousand Iraqis. The US backed Iran vs. Iraq war is something else, but even if you count that one I don't think you can say "he killed millions upon millions of people".

You don't need to exaggerate to prove he was a bad guy who deserves the noose.

I was sure he had over 1 million deaths under his belt and more than likely there were thousands that we didn't know about. This is a man who used poison gas against his own people. So is it not possible that due to the United States intervention thousands of lives have been saved.

Sorry the fact that it was a saying never really crossed my mind there. [/b][/quote]
400,000 #####es, by conservtive estimates, who are lying in mass graves after the first Gulf war

1 million, by conservative estimates, lost to the Iran-Iraq meatgrinder he started.

5000 Kurds by mustard gas

100,000 Marsh Arabs

10's of thousands in the first gulf war

10's of thousands lost because he saw a way to profiteer off of medicines supposedly to go to the needy.


Just a tad more than 300K

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by HOZ@Sep 17 2004, 01:39 AM
400,000 #####es, by conservtive estimates, who are lying in mass graves after the first Gulf war

1 million, by conservative estimates, lost to the Iran-Iraq meatgrinder he started.

5000 Kurds by mustard gas

100,000 Marsh Arabs

10's of thousands in the first gulf war

10's of thousands lost because he saw a way to profiteer off of medicines supposedly to go to the needy.


Just a tad more than 300K

Well, Saddam was backed and supported by the USA in the war against Iran. This was also when he gassed the Kurds, no one raised a fuss then about that. At the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi's were encouraged to revolt by the Bush Sr. admin with promised American aid, but when they did they recieved no help from Bush Sr. Saddam moved south, crushed that revolt, then moved North and eliminated the northern one...

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

God Damn this tread is frustrating.

I'm no Bush fan, and I don't know a whole lot about Kerry, so I'm not gonna get into it either way. But I do have a beef with the Bush supporters.

It seems every point that everyone throws out as a reason to vote for Kerry is suddenly interpreted as dismissed as "I'm not Bush".

Okay, so if I say a reason to vote for Kerry is that he has a plan to restore the 1million jobs that have been lost under Bush. Clearly that can be interpreted as "I'm not Bush", but it's still a legitimate point.

I can also say Kerry will try to garner more internatioal support for the situation in Iraq, something that Bush won't do. Again a real issue, but again something that's been interpreted as "I'm not Bush".

Guys, any opposing view that Kerry has can be interpreted as "I'm not Bush". That's kinda the platform of every politician in the hisotry of politics. "This guy says this, well I say the opposite, becasue I'm not him". "THis guy wants to do this, well I don't becasue I'm not him".

Basically I'm saying that offhandedly dismissing any Kerry point as "I'm not Bush" is comming off as incredibly ignorant.

[Cowperson]

In fairness, from the network that brought you Dan Rather, here's a reason to boot Kerry.

A critical examination of Kerrynomics from a guest columnist, a Wall Street type and probably a Republican, at CBSnews.com.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/...ain644097.shtml

Cowperson

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 16 2004, 04:48 PM
Did Chretien ever lie to Canadians to get them into an ILLEGAL military action where billions of dollars have been wasted and a thousand Canadians have been killed? Nope. Oh, and did Chretien ever surround himself with a bunch of neo-conservative idiots with a documented action plan for global domination? Nope. I could give a rats ass about Bush, the guy is an ignoramous. I care about getting Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company the hell out of power before they get us into a bigger conflict with a country that actually DOES have WMD! I thought Reagan was nut job who had penchant for pushing the envelope, but these guys are way right of him. They need to be stopped before its too late, even if that means putting a milque toast President into the Whitehouse.

If you believe all that ... fine. I don't. I just don't.

Sometimes things boil down to common sense, not conspiracy. No government body would go to that much work to lie and invade a country and not just plant the WMD when they didn't find them.

You can believe whatever you want to believe ... feel free ... but like I said, I'll stick to common sense, and common sense tells me that this anti-Bush phenomenon in the U.S. borders on insanity from where I sit.

(I compared Chretian to Kerry by the way, not Bush)

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard@Sep 16 2004, 05:24 PM
Anyways I am sure that Bush didn't pull a Hitler and start commanding the Armies around. That is up to the people who are the military minds, who know more about the war than anyone here.

Although this is what I find really funny, well not as much funny but ironic. Everyone knows that Saddam killed millions upon millions of people, we can all agree upon that. ... But I guess you guys must all be racists for valuing the lives of the 1000 American servicemen who died over those who likely would have died if Saddam stayed in power.

Everything is a ballence. Through invading Iraq is it not possible that George Bush saved thousands of lives in the long run?

The info is coming out that the Bush adminstration is micromanaging the war and not doing a very good job of listening to the generals on the ground. Not only are they doing that now, but they didn't listen before going to war.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversat...zinni-con0.html

Yes Saddam was a bad guy and a mass murderer. Does that justify killing 20,000 Iraqi civilians as part of the action to "free" them. That seems like an awful lot of collateral damage.

GWB has a hidden agenda that he is unwilling to share. If he'd just come out and say what the plan is, at least then there could be a debate. He keeps running on non-issues, straw men and smoke screens. Politics at its worst.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 17 2004, 06:01 PM
In fairness, from the network that brought you Dan Rather, here's a reason to boot Kerry.

A critical examination of Kerrynomics from a guest columnist, a Wall Street type and probably a Republican, at CBSnews.com.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/17/...ain644097.shtml

Cowperson

Haha... Republicans talking economics. You think the American people would learn about republican "reaganonmics" after he totally screwed up the American economy, running it into massive debt.

Sorry but Supply side Economics = worthless in its current form.

While it might be nice to imagine that if you give money back to large corparations which Bush's Tax cut did, it just does not work.

The Theory behind it is that these companies will get the extra money, then expand and hire more people. Well all it does in reality is line the pockets of the companies involved and barely makes a dent in jobs.

Basically all it does is run up debt.

Also cow I noticed that was in the "opinion" section as well

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by FlamesAllTheWay+Sep 17 2004, 04:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAllTheWay @ Sep 17 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-HOZ@Sep 17 2004, 01:39 AM
400,000 #####es, by conservtive estimates, who are lying in mass graves after the first Gulf war

1 million, by conservative estimates, lost to the Iran-Iraq meatgrinder he started.

5000 Kurds by mustard gas

100,000 Marsh Arabs

10's of thousands in the first gulf war

10's of thousands lost because he saw a way to profiteer off of medicines supposedly to go to the needy.


Just a tad more than 300K

Well, Saddam was backed and supported by the USA in the war against Iran. This was also when he gassed the Kurds, no one raised a fuss then about that. At the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi's were encouraged to revolt by the Bush Sr. admin with promised American aid, but when they did they recieved no help from Bush Sr. Saddam moved south, crushed that revolt, then moved North and eliminated the northern one... [/b][/quote]
Not only did the USA not give them the aid, but there were reports that they looked the other way and let Hussein use the 'no-fly zone' to fly.

Bush sr. believed that a stable Iraq under Hussein was preferable to a war ravaged, terrorist haven.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@Sep 17 2004, 06:26 PM
Also cow I noticed that was in the "opinion" section as well

I advertised it up front as an opinion and probably from a Republican on Wall Street. No secrets there.

I said in this forum before the conflict in Iraq that I hoped GW Bush was unelected in 2004, for reasons other than the war. Economics being one. I was in an epic debate as a critic of Reaganomics on this board only a few months ago.

I posted the link for examination in the interests of fairness.

Cowperson

[Lurch]

A critical examination of Kerrynomics from a guest columnist, a Wall Street type and probably a Republican, at CBSnews.com.

You and I must have different views of what critical means - to me, it means logical and informed, whereas this article is simply contrarian.

Some of the points:

1. Outsourcing: ascribes a 'translation' to Kerry that is in his own mind only - America clearly does have loopholes that incent companies to outsource. ONE outcome may be increased trade friction, but it is possible to improve the system without alienating partners. His 'prediction' is an opinion not backed by any fact, analysis, rationale, etc.
2. Trying to discredit by commenting on the "98%" tax-cut issue when less than 50% of Americans pay taxes. Clearly, Kerry's number comes from is plan to increase taxes on the top 2% of earners (as outlined in the exact same article - at least maintain internal consistency if you want any credibility with me).
3. Suggesting that all trial lawyers file frivolous lawsuits and Edwards, by implication, is at the root of insurance and malpractice costs. If anything, I would think having Edwards on board with this lends strength to the Kerry position in that he has an excellent trial lawyer to help him draft the bill such that it has the desired effect.
4. On the broadband issue, the author suggests Kerry should look at his 'comrades' in Congress. First, note the use of comrades to try and make Kerry look extreme left - nice use of loaded language in a 'critical' article. Second, isn't Congress controlled by Republicans, or am I missing something?
5. Finally, and the most grievous misstatement in the article wrt Kerry's wife not paying taxes, etc. Do you, or anyone else out there, not recognize that Bush's very public agenda is for an 'ownership' society where capital does not pay taxes. Any tax cuts to Heinz-Kerry wrt dividend taxes, capital gains, etc. are at the heart of Bush's policy. Where does anyone get off suggesting Kerry's plan benefits the rich like his wife, while bending over the poor sap with a $200,000/yr job. This is ridiculous beyond belief.

Read with a critical eye - someone working as an investment advisor supports the Bush agenda wherein wealth and dividends should not be taxed, i.e. stock prices will be inflated relative to the current tax structure where wealth is taxed at least to a small degree.

There are valid points to be made against Kerrynomics, but this article contained exactly one. It isn't clear to me that Kerry can accomplish his spending goals without raising taxes across the board or maintaining high deficits. IMO, the rest of the article fails miserably if you want to call it 'critical'.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 17 2004, 06:36 PM
There are valid points to be made against Kerrynomics, but this article contained exactly one. It isn't clear to me that Kerry can accomplish his spending goals without raising taxes across the board or maintaining high deficits. IMO, the rest of the article fails miserably if you want to call it 'critical'.

In your opinion.

The article is obviously critical of Kerrynomics. You may offer counterpoints to the argument presented, which is fair, but to say its not a criticism of Kerry is rather bizarre.

Everybody has got an opinion. And a spin.

Cowperson

[Savvy27]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 16 2004, 11:18 PM


Sorry going to war and telling people things which aren't true in order to drum up support for the war would be considered warmongering.

They didn't lie. Logic...follow it.

You know Dis its kind of sick to see American Soldiers guarding Haliburton oil fields in Iraq LONG before the war is over - but no, they decided to divert military resources to guard Haliburton.

1. They are not Haliburton oil fields, they are Iraqi oil fields.
2. They had to be guarded to protect the economic interests of the Iraqi people and civilian employess. I guess you feel all the evil Haliburton employees should have been left to fend for themselves?

Equally more disgusting is the handing out of these contracts before the first Soldiers set foot on Iraq soil

How is that disgusting? It's called planning. They wanted to get the system up and running ASAP so the Iraqi's could get back on their feet ASAP. It's not rocket science.

They didn't lie. Logic...follow it.

Terrorist attack coordinated by Osama Bin Laden, suggest connection between him and Saddam, realize that nobody believes Saddam and Osama to be connected, suggest WMD's present in Iraq, wait for UN to investigate... realize that nobody believes there are WMD's in Iraq, suggest to LIBERATE Iraqi's, everyone realizes that Saddam is a prick, INVADE Iraq.

It's not nearly as logical as I was hoping.

1. They are not Haliburton oil fields, they are Iraqi oil fields.

So Haliburton isn't profiting from the oil in Iraq?

2. They had to be guarded to protect the economic interests of the Iraqi people and civilian employess. I guess you feel all the evil Haliburton employees should have been left to fend for themselves?

Maybe the Haliburton employees shouldn't be there at all. If its the Iraqi's oil and they need it to recover from the war, they should be training and employing Iraqi people to profit from THEIR oil.

How is that disgusting? It's called planning. They wanted to get the system up and running ASAP so the Iraqi's could get back on their feet ASAP. It's not rocket science.

Don't you find it a little confusing that they did such a stellar job of planning how to drill for oil, but they have yet to develop a plan for exiting the country that they are occupying?

Edit... didn't notice the second page and didn't see this had been responded to.