George W. Bush:A Dictator in the making or a President with a noble cause?

Nicely said ANOK.

I have to agree with you.Governments around the world,U.S in particular controls the money.Hence,there's where Capitalism is born I guess.The moment we are controlled by the money,that is when money becomes God."In God we trust" printed on the back of the U.S note,seemingly weird to have such phrase printed on dollar bill.With Bush around,they should re-write it into "In Money we trust".

However,to put things in place,I think oil is money.With the control of oil,money easily flows into one's hand.Consequently,George W. Bush's ultimate agenda is oil and to do so he needs to get it from the source.Where better to plot his charade than the Middle East-a place flooded with conflicts.Furthermore,most of the world's oil comes from the Middle East and planting the seed of oil domination there but with a different reason to the world is Bush's speical ability.Therefore,I feel Bush indeed has an oil-money agenda going on.

Shouting In The Mirror

Originally posted by indano
You assume that I am wrong when I say Bush is a moron.

Wrong. I am assuming nothing.

You are making the assumption in this case, and you are wrong.

I don't know if he's a moron or not. I doubt it, but maybe you're right. Maybe he his.

Your Bushism links are irrelevant to my point, which is that you cannot be right, based on your own claims.

My assumptions have nothing to do with it, just your inherently irrational and self-discrediting statement.

Having To Repeat It More Slowly

I thought I made my point reasonably well the first time, but you don't seem to get it.

Here it is again. I'm really not trying to be sarcastic, but you're proving to be a slow learner, and I really want you to understand why you're wrong, so you can correct your error and improve.

Case 1: If Bush Is A Moron

Bush defeated John Kerry in the presidential election. If Bush is a moron, that means that John Kerry lost to a moron, making him stupider than a moron.

What kind of person would vote for someone stupider than a moron? Someone stupider than someone stupider than a moron.

That's a pretty sad place to be on the intellectual food chain, and a great argument against supporting Kerry or agreeing with his supporters, which, by your own definition, must be some pretty stupid people.

I don't think they're stupid, myself, just misguided because they've been lied to by the Democrats.

Case 2: If Bush Is Not A Moron

Then you are lying to me by saying he is. If you are lying to me about that, then you'll lie to me about whatever you want.

Therefore, I would have to be a moron to trust you.

Last Call For The Logic Train

That's as clear as I can make it.

I hope you get my point and stop insulting a president who is either smarter or more honest than you are – and quite possibly both.

If not, well, I tried.

Just remember: My point is based on what you told me, and your position collapses under a very simple logical analysis.

I'm just asking that you think about this, and try to adopt a more logical stance.

If you want to gain my agreement, the first step is to start making sense.

Logic can help with this. Check into it.

Majic,
I say Bush is a moron based upon his words and actions. I can change the terminology if you like to something more appropriate. Maybe I should call him a "part-time dummy" or some other name. Bush could still be a moron or whatever else you want to call him and win an election. That does not make Kerry more supid or less stupid. Campaigns are won by groups of people projecting the image they want the people see. In this case Bush's campaigners got enough of the people to agree with his campaign to win. Once again...this does not make Kerry or his supporters lower on the intellectual ladder than Bush. One campaign won over another not one man. I do not believe I can get this point across to you as you have your opinion. If you feel I am lying to you or whatever else I truly am sorry. It seems that unless I say only good things about Bush and stop insulting him, according to your words, you will just continue to put me down. So be it. I mean no offence to you and accept your opinion as that, an opinion. Good day to you.
GOD bless America. I love my country but unless America changes from what it is today the future does not seem so bright.

Just Not Getting It

indano, I'm sorry you just aren't getting it.

Someday, I hope you do.

In the meantime, I have explained in the clearest terms I can why can't agree with your thesis on the most fundamental grounds.

I wish you well in your quest for knowledge, but if you are going to deny the obvious, I can't say I'm optimistic about it.

When you base a argument on unsubstantiated and infantile insults, it proves nothing other than your own inability to comment intelligently on the topic.

Intelligent people rely on facts to make their cases, unintelligent people rely on bluster, lies, personal attacks and the self-inflated authority of their emotionally-derived opinions.

That is not good enough for me, because I value facts and honesty over slander and lies. It's that simple.

If we can't come to an understanding on this, further discussion is pointless.

I wish you well, but will likely not spend much time reading your posts until I see evidence of an improvement in the coherence of your thinking.

Those are harsh terms, but that is my honest opinion. It is not intended to deride you as a person (I think you are probably a very good person at heart).

But your behavior is not compatible with meaningful discussion.

I may be willing to offer further advice for improving your online discussion skills, but only if you demonstrate that the time I would spend doing so wouldn't be as fruitless as what I have already invested so far.

Good luck with your studies.

[edit on 2/16/2005 by Majic]

responding to the openning post (i did not read most of the other posts), i'd say this:

his cause WOULD have been noble had it been true and straight forward throughout the whole process, not meaning that security details be broadcast, but that he talk to us more. nobility, in this sense of the word, requires unflinching heroism, not secretive politicking. i am not saying that the administration lied about the WMD's, because i don't think they did. maybe exaggerated a little, but not lied. i am not saying that they lied about liberating Iraq, because i think they did the best they could have done about that. but they never once mentioned (out loud) the necessity for the US to have some oversight into the mid-east oil business. i DO think this is a necessity, now, especially with all the factors involving oil around the globe, but i think it should have been mentioned as one factor in this effort. i also believe the stability of the area was threatened and not right now, but over the next few years, will be stabilized to the point where it will calm the region into a place more accepting of democratic government. democratic governments are stable governments. they are more open to capitalism or socialism rather than communism or marxism. these are all factors which should have been explained to a further degree and were not and because of that, the noble act looks much less noble, in fact, because it is not. it was done more for the stability of oil, for access to it and for the stability of the US economy than for anything else. freeing Iraq was only one step toward that. looking for WMD was only one step toward that. destroying much of the infrastructure, as well as the structures themselves was only a part of that, to be remedied by the mortgaged Iraq offering oil and/or discounts on it as well as space enough to build a military base, in repayment for the rebuilding of the country.

i don't have an easy answer. it COULD have been a noble act, but it was not carried out like a hero would so it, like an honest, hard working, blue-collar guy would do it. it was carried out like a lawyer would do it if he had a gun.

as far as bush becoming a dictator? well, yeah, it can happen to a great many people, and yeah, if it can happen to you, you shouldn't be in office, but if it could happen to you, do you know well enough that you shouldn't be in office if you don't have the wearwithall to keep the level of power in your hands from affecting you and your responsibilities to your country and the world?

then again, you are the most powerful man in the history of the world right now.........

....and the most hated because of it........

is it really because you did things people disagree with, or is it because people will disagree with it because you are the most powerful man in the world right now?

Originally posted by BeefotronX
I believe that Majic's point was that if Bush IS a moron, then that makes the Democrats incredibly pathetic because they're so incompetent that they're losing to a moron, and thus the argument that Bush is a moron doesn't automatically make the opposition party a better choice.

It just means that the majority of voters are morons too. 4 out of 5 intelligent people know that the majority of society are idiots.

Originally posted by Majic
It is inherently wrong, and in fact, cannot even be logically right.

If you are right, and Bush is a moron, then his opponents were defeated by a moron. To vote for someone stupid enough to lose to a moron is to vote for someone stupider than a moron.

If you are wrong, then you are lying about this man, slandering him falsely. That would make you a liar, and if you lie to me about one thing, you'll sure as hell lie to me about anything else you want to lie about.

I recommend giving some more thought to the matter.

i find a flaw in your logic, here. you have boiled a complex issue into a neat 'with us or against us' package.
a presidential race is all spin and no substance. it is a matter of image, not intelligence.
let's face it, if a guy came up to you and said, 'don't misunderestimate me, americans need to put food on the family, the past is over', or any of the hundreds of MORONIC bush quotes, you'd think to yourself, 'what a moron!'.
or if a guy said, 'in order to maintain freedom for americans, i will give the police unprecedented powers to arrest and detain anyone at all without evidence, warrant or trial', would you not think he was schizophrenic?

after careful logical deliberation, i have decided that bush is a moron, and mad as a hatter.

I still can't believe that the majority of the folks here think that there is a difference between Dems and Repub's. 2 sides of the same coin people! C'mon!

Bush is an idiot and we are all right there along as well for letting him become president. We are a sick society with very fu**ed up priorities.

TW

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Tapeworm]

[edit on 16-2-2005 by Tapeworm]

Whatever the matter is,isn't democrats and republicans suppose to have a same view point which is an equal society for all?

Anyways,I'm don't really understand the difference between a democrat and republican.All I know is Bush is a republican.Anyone can share with me what's their difference?I would really like to know about these stuffs though.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by crisko
Wrong, only Texas can leave the Union leagally.

That's up for debate. It was, and still is, being debated.
From what I've read, I DO think states have a right to leave.
But this is a topic for a different thread ... perhaps I'll start it.

I'm not sure if you've started a thread specifically on secession rights of the states, but here is an interesting article that outlines both the arguments for and against it. After reading it myself, I feel that due to ambiguous wording in the Constitution, any and all states in this country have the right to secede, if they so feel it necessary. Supporting this, I provide a quote from this article, which includes a quote from the 10th amendment to the Constitution:

There had to be a specific constitutional prohibition on secession for it to be illegal. Conversely, there did not have to be a specific constitutional affirmation of the right of secession for it to be legal. Why? Because the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The full article can be found here: www.bonniebluepublishing.com...

If you have started a thread regarding this, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with a link. It's a discussion I'd very much like to join.

Originally posted by Heartagram
Whatever the matter is,isn't democrats and republicans suppose to have a same view point which is an equal society for all?

Anyways,I'm don't really understand the difference between a democrat and republican.All I know is Bush is a republican.Anyone can share with me what's their difference?I would really like to know about these stuffs though.

The nutshell version is simple:

Both parties do have the vision of freedom and justice for all. However, it's their means to an end that differ. Republicans (at least the original intent of the Republican party), choose to do that through a minimalistic government. A government that stays out of our lives, except for important issues (further definition of what is an important issue varies depending on who you talk to). Republicans are conservatives. Their core beliefs reflect this.

Democrats, on the other hand, are liberal in nature, which means using the government to create laws to govern everything. They try to keep as many individual freedoms as possible, while providing a highly structured means to prove our liberties are being given in a fair and just manner.

This is only the fundamentals of each party. I neither support nor oppose either party in this post, as I am simply trying to provide basic information to answer a valid question.

The long version... Well, I'm not going to even get started in here. Entire libraries of books have been written on the subject, outlining and detailing every imaginable aspect of the similarities and differences between these two major parties, as well as political parties of the past, and smaller parties in existence today.

Thanks dude for the info.

Anyways,Bush being a republican and all and with the definition of what a republican does,I think he's way over his head.Doing stuffs against the international law.Well,I don't think Bush should be in politics to be honest.However,Bush senior is in politics so it won't be appropriate for Bush Jr to work at a fast food outlet selling burgers right?