Bush Will Lose...Unfortunately

I don't believe I was being bashed too badly...but eh, I'm a big boy, I can take it... If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here...

British intel, U.S. intel, Egyptian intel, etc...all said the same thing. Dont monday morning quarterback it. I believe the real reason was the oil for food scandal. AND...Saddams behavior raised more questions about whether he had WMD or not. He bluffed and then got his a$$ kicked. Keep in mind that if Russia, China, France and Germany werent on the take and Saddam knew that OUR supposed Allies meant business...this whole war wouldnt be an issue. But they were on the take.

Excellent rebuttal, but if the intelligence wasn't strong enough to convince the rest of the world, then it should not have been acted upon. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted, but there was a way to go about this without going it alone...

So your OK with our Allies and the UN undermining sanctions that were set when the first gulf war ended. Its ok to line the pockets of Saddam so he can support terrorists? It's ok for our once sworn enemies to illegally buy oil, sell arms and import/export goods for the benefit of a dictator?

Of course not, but diplomacy, such as exposing a few of those ties, to cause them to then switch gears and join a coalition, would have been a better tactic.

By head fox I assume you mean Saddam...He wasnt in a cage. How long do you think he was to remain in a cage when we was getting rich off of the Oil for food monies and he was gaining support from the corrupt UN and other nations? Your wrong...He was being given the keys to the locks on that cage.

No, I meant AFTER his capture. We are now in a position to work with the rest of the world and try to mend some of those fences, but Bush and Haliburton aren't about to let that happen.

Wrong, Bush did sign the form 180, Kerry hasnt. Enough with the AWOL bit. He served and the false documents that CBS came up with didnt work. He served and just because he wasnt called up, no big deal. I have a bigger problem with Kerry claiming to be a war hero and then bashing the rest of us when he got back. Remember, Bush served over 5 years, Kerry did 4 months and was released under dubious circumstances.

I'm not so sure on that, but will certainly check it out. This AWOL bit was WAY before CBS' documents....and was an issue during the LAST election. Bush was missing for months of service (tantamount to AWOL)...the CBS docs were about disobeying an order....it's the missing time I'm referring to.

I believe if your a public servant, you had better make a stand for something. You obviously havent seen or reviewed his senate record. There is a very good reason that career politicians dont win elections...they have a public record that EVERYONE CAN LOOK AT. If you took the time to review his voting record and look at his career...you wouldnt be as impressed as you seem to be.

I never claimed to be impressed by Kerry...he's simply the lesser of two evils... I HAVE looked at his record, and yes, I'll agree fully that he's an absentee senator (most are), but to try and say he flip-flopped, because he didn't agree with ALL of a bill, is sheer misrepresentation.

I cant believe you can say that with a straight face...but maybe you didnt, I couldnt see you. Have you seen any of the major news networks pick up on the stories of the day. No, everything you see is whats wrong with Iraq, the economy, etc. No one, not you, not major news outlets are asking the hard questions of John Kerry. George Bush cant hide, he has been in the spotlight since day one. I can see your blindness or unwillingness to consider I'm right about media bias.

Or it's because there ARE problems in Iraq, and it makes for better news? Up until a few months ago, almost everyone here was screaming at how Bush seemed to be controlling the media like a puppet, throughout the entire war! I will concede that this appears to have shifted somewhat lately, but it's a recent shift...

Wrong again...the surplus you bring up was a PROJECTION over 10 years. There was never a TRILLION dollar+ surplus. The huge deficit is also a product of paying for many of the social programs and liabilities we have as a society. Nevermind the airline bailouts after 9/11. As for oil prices, the war in iraq, the storms in the mexican gulf, etc are the reasons for high oil prices. Keep in mind that Europe and other nations pay twice what we do, so OUR prices are NOT through the roof. As far as losing jobs...our unemployment rate is the same when Clinton was in office...go figure. Dont use political talking points to state your position.

It's always a projection...as for the war, well, we know who went there don't we?

You keep talking about "multi-million dollar companies...", I run a small business that makes about 2.2 mil. a year, but I'm still a small business. I have 5 employees...still a small business. Get off the BUSH for big business bandwagon. You know that John Kerry / Teresa Kerry made 6.8 mill. last year and paid taxes of about 13%. Bush made $680K(approx) and paid at 30%...now who do you think is BIG BUSINESS. The democratic ticket is loaded with a career politician and an ambulance chaser and your taking about multi million dollar companies. Give me a break...Again...do your homework and forget the liberal talking points. Geez....

Are you saying that Bush isn't for tax cuts for big business? No need to go there...too bad you aren't Bush's speech writer though, as you can argue far more intelligently than our CIC....

Bush didnt claim to be a war hero. No one that I know of came forward to dispute his record...oh yeah, Dan Rather did with FAKE DOCUMENTS. Keep in mind that Bush did his time. You sound like a Clinton fan and I'm guilty, I voted for him the first time...but come on...he is a certified draft dodger. I agree it doesnt matter, but dont claim that your "...reporting for duty" and then not release your records so we can see the truth.

Actually, I am no fan of Clinton, and actually voted for Bush Sr. I'll agree that Clinton is a draft dodger...and that Kerry made a bad move with the war hero bit. I've already gone into Bush's record, so no need to go there again...

Talking points...your age (lack of) is showing through. Yeah, he's an ignorant hick...who somehow became a 2 term governor and current president. What does it say that 50% of america will vote for him? He probably wont win, but many will vote for him. If he really is a dumb hick, he really pulled one out of the hat...wouldnt you agree?

Actually, I'm in my 30's... The answers to your questions are Daddy and Daddy. It says that 50% of our country is willing to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. He probably will win, and for the same reason I just mentioned... I'm a hick myself, but I'd like to think I'm not a dumb one...

On a side note, I have to say that's probably the best defense of Bush I've seen so far!

No, I dont care how he speaks, I only care about the content of what he says. I only care about what he actually does, not about what he promises. I dont want a slick talking politician, with empty promises and dreams. You sound like a kid that puts $2000 wheels on a $500 car, its all flash, no substance. I still dont know what Kerry stands for...and you cant possibly know either.

You obviously know nothing about me... I'm a working stiff with a wife and kid and I drive a rather non-flashy van, hehe...

Dont worry about what the world thinks about you...its pathetic. Dont worry, your guy will be in office soon. By the way, when do you get out of college?

Nice....a personal attack...(which I won't warn you on, but others might) Amazing how you just shot yourself in the foot, and suddenly made most of your excellent points suddenly lose their impact by resorting to such a tactic...*sigh*... I would never call someone "pathetic" based on who they were voting for.... You've raised excellent points why you support your candidate. I don't happen to agree with them, but I certainly wouldn't call you "pathetic" for your choice either....perhaps thats the differentiating factor between us?





[edit on 14-10-2004 by Gazrok]

You people keep referring to the almighty UN. I have posted and others have posted the Oil for Food scandal that our beloved French, Russian, Chinese and German have been implicated in. Why would we assume that the UN and its lap dogs, would do the right thing? You keep going on with the same rhetoric. Lets investigate, and maybe we'll see exactly why these so called Allies didnt do anything to support us. It's no wonder they didnt support us, why bite the hand that was feeding you (Saddam). Give me a break. Not one of you Bush haters or US haters has once addressed this issue. Because if it were true, and we dont know yet, then the US and Bush just put a stop to the biggest fraud in history. And your precious UN and others were the main culprits. OPEN YOUR EYES...YOU JUST MIGHT SEE.

For starters, can you turn the condescendency dial to the left, a little bit...
Good. Now we can talk.

I seriously doubt that the benefits of Germans and others, from collaborating with Iraq, were that great. Sure there were some. But on the grand scale, they wouldn't be enough to really direct their relations with the US nad/or policies on how to best combat terror.

In addition, to be honorable, the US should have quit the UN and then attack Iraq. If you are a member of an organization, abide by the rules, for gossake. Doing otherwise just looks terrible.

The countries you mention (France, Germany, Russia) all have experienced the terror of ground war in their own land, and occupation. The US haven't.
This is at least one difference in attitude towards the war...

MY APOLOGIES...IT WAS UNCALLED FOR

I don't believe I was being bashed too badly...but eh, I'm a big boy, I can take it... If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here...

"Excellent rebuttal, but if the intelligence wasn't strong enough to convince the rest of the world, then it should not have been acted upon. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted, but there was a way to go about this without going it alone..."

The fact is, we dont know how strong the intel was or wasnt. But if I were the President, and I know that we had sanctions and the UN was supposed to be supervising them...I would have done the same thing. Lets forget about the WMD, I've already conceded that they were not there. I'm the (President) and I'm not about to let this thug (Saddam) thumb his nose at me while my SUPPOSED Allies are on the take. I know you dont think its that big a deal, but do I want Saddam, Russia and China getting rich, selling arms and secrets? Come on...forget your party lines and see the truth. No way...I wouldnt stand by and watch that...So we took Saddam out and ended the Oil for Russia, China, France and Germany store. That middle eastern 7-11 got shut down.

"Of course not, but diplomacy, such as exposing a few of those ties, to cause them to then switch gears and join a coalition, would have been a better tactic."

So you actually think that exposing those ties would have worked? You dont think that THEY knew, that WE knew? They didnt think we have the NUTS to go in and do what we did. If it were Kerry, they would have been right. But they bet on the wrong horse and Bush went in and ended it for them. We cant even get you people (Democrats) to see that this is a huge scandal now!...do you really think that Bush could have gone to the media to expose this and gain support. He doesnt have support now. And assume that I'm right, does it change your view? It doesnt, because your party wont let you consider that we had to go in and stop this. Forget the WMD, that was the only excuse the ignorant would accept at the time. This goes far deeper that most understand.

"No, I meant AFTER his capture. We are now in a position to work with the rest of the world and try to mend some of those fences, but Bush and Haliburton aren't about to let that happen."

Haliburton!!! Give me a break. Did you know that one of Kerry's campaign staffers (and not a receptionist) is a lobbyist that earned over $500K directly from Haliburton last year. He on the payroll. Just goes to prove my point...Kerry says its judgment for thee but not for me. As for mending some fences...why should we mend fences...we asked for support. We werent the ones undermining sanctions, taking oil and selling weapons. They need to mend with us.

"I'm not so sure on that, but will certainly check it out. This AWOL bit was WAY before CBS' documents....and was an issue during the LAST election. Bush was missing for months of service (tantamount to AWOL)...the CBS docs were about disobeying an order....it's the missing time I'm referring to."

Correct...the AWOL bit is a distraction from Kerry's real record. Bush had to answer those questions when he first ran for governor. Even if Bush went missing for months, he served his country longer than Kerry (4 Months)...Not to mention that he currently serves his country in the highest capacity today... Give the man his due.

"I never claimed to be impressed by Kerry...he's simply the lesser of two evils... I HAVE looked at his record, and yes, I'll agree fully that he's an absentee senator (most are), but to try and say he flip-flopped, because he didn't agree with ALL of a bill, is sheer misrepresentation."

So he's an absentee senator and you think he deserves to be President. I hold the office in higher regard than that. Whether you agree with all of the bill or not...make a stand. He didnt show up enough to have any influence. He accomplished little in his 20 years. Ask yourself this question...Before these elections...when did you hear his name? I've heard of Lieberman, Daschle, Gore, Lott, Kennedy...do I need to go on? Dont reward him with the position...he doesnt deserve it.

"Or it's because there ARE problems in Iraq, and it makes for better news? Up until a few months ago, almost everyone here was screaming at how Bush seemed to be controlling the media like a puppet, throughout the entire war! I will concede that this appears to have shifted somewhat lately, but it's a recent shift..."

There are problems...Obvious. But I know that we are not killing Iraqis, the Extremists are. We are helping them rebuild their country...just like we did with Germany and Japan. I cant believe you think George Bush controlled the media. Did you know that over 80% of the media...reporters, newspapers, columnists, etc. are registered DEMOCRATS...Give me a break. I see no stories on CNN, CBS, NBC, FRONTLINE, ABC, ETC about the OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL, about the progress we are making. The schools that are opening, the water, electricity, sewer systems...on and on and on. NO, lets focus on the people that died for BUSHS war. Lets get BUSH for being AWOL 30 years ago (courtesy of DAN RATHER)...lets forget about John Kerry's senate record, the absent senator. How about the phony medals that the Navy says dont exist? How about the 200 Swifties who have been ignored...exept when one is caught in a lie. What about the amount of times Kerry has changed his position? Get your head out of the sand and start researching for yourself.

"It's always a projection...as for the war, well, we know who went there don't we?"

Right, so lets stop acting like there were piles of money somewhere.

"Are you saying that Bush isn't for tax cuts for big business? No need to go there...too bad you aren't Bush's speech writer though, as you can argue far more intelligently than our CIC...."

No, I agree that he is for big business, and small business. You should be asking why John and Teresa Kerry wont release their tax records...every other President and candidate has done so. Why not them? You talk about Bush being for Big Business...Kerry has been estimated to have earned 6 million dollars last year and its been speculated that he paid 13% taxes. We know for a fact that Bush made $600K+ and paid 30% taxes. Now he made his taxes public...I ask again...why wont Kerry? Your beloved media wont ask that question...cause if he answered it...there would be a lot of explaining to do.

"Actually, I am no fan of Clinton, and actually voted for Bush Sr. I'll agree that Clinton is a draft dodger...and that Kerry made a bad move with the war hero bit. I've already gone into Bush's record, so no need to go there again..."

Correct...

"Actually, I'm in my 30's... The answers to your questions are Daddy and Daddy. It says that 50% of our country is willing to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. He probably will win, and for the same reason I just mentioned... I'm a hick myself, but I'd like to think I'm not a dumb one..."

Hey...arent Hick and Dumb synonymous....just kidding

"On a side note, I have to say that's probably the best defense of Bush I've seen so far!"

Wasnt trying to defend...I just think we need to see both candidates for who they are. I feel safer with Bush in office. He's not a panderer that will say anything to get in office. And I firmly believe that Kerry doesnt deserve the office. Bush IS the lesser of two evils.

"You obviously know nothing about me... I'm a working stiff with a wife and kid and I drive a rather non-flashy van, hehe..."

Is there a Lynnard Skynnard tape in the 8 track?

"Nice....a personal attack...(which I won't warn you on, but others might) Amazing how you just shot yourself in the foot, and suddenly made most of your excellent points suddenly lose their impact by resorting to such a tactic...*sigh*... I would never call someone "pathetic" based on who they were voting for.... You've raised excellent points why you support your candidate. I don't happen to agree with them, but I certainly wouldn't call you "pathetic" for your choice either....perhaps thats the differentiating factor between us?"

I didnt mean to call you pathetic for who you were voting for...I meant that its pathetic that some people really care what the UN or France, Germany, China or Russia thinks about us. We have NEVER been well liked by any of them anyway. They only like us when they need our help...which has been often.

For starters, YOU can turn the condescendency dial to the MIDDLE a little.

Now we can talk...

"I seriously doubt that the benefits of Germans and others, from collaborating with Iraq, were that great. Sure there were some. But on the grand scale, they wouldn't be enough to really direct their relations with the US nad/or policies on how to best combat terror."

First of all, it doesnt sound like you know just how deep this issue is. 3-7 billion dollars of oil, cash, weapons..PER VIOLATOR is not something to dismiss. Obviously if you gave any kind of consideration to what I said or what is being discovered, your statement about the "grand scale..." wouldnt have the dismissive tone that it does.

"In addition, to be honorable, the US should have quit the UN and then attack Iraq. If you are a member of an organization, abide by the rules, for gossake. Doing otherwise just looks terrible."

Your worried about being HONORABLE? Is it honorable to undermine sanctions? Is it honorable to oversee the fraud, and the under the table transactions? Is it honorable to refuse to support the US in its time of need just because your on the take? And you have the nerve to question the US as a "MEMBER" and "abide by the rules..."??? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Oh...I see..."just looks terrible." GOOD LORD whats wrong with you?

"The countries you mention (France, Germany, Russia) all have experienced the terror of ground war in their own land, and occupation. The US haven't.
This is at least one difference in attitude towards the war..."

Wrong...we too have experienced war on our land. I dont want to get into a history lesson here but your wrong. Every country you have mentioned above has experienced war in one form or another. France waged war to expand territory, to conquer. Germany waged war to expand territory, to conquer. Russia has waged war to expand territory, to conquer. When in the history of the United States have we waged war to expand our territory or to conquer? We havent invaded any country in an attempt to occupy. We defeated Japan...we rebuilt it and left. We defeated Nazi Germany...we rebuilt it and left. I could go on...and I'm sure you'll have a few snide remarks...but your dead wrong. We do not occupy any countries. We have forces deployed, but you can hardly call it occupation. I can see your brain working already.

Originally posted by Gazrok

The hatred for Bush is so rampant that its beyond explanation

It's rather easy to explain. We hate having an ignorant hick who's borderline retarded (despite his paid for Ivy League degree) representing our nation to the world.

Gazrok,

What do you mean by Borderline!!!! How dare you say that someone that screwed this country up as much as Bush did isn't 100% retarded....LMAO

[edit on 14-10-2004 by thethrall_nb]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, hehe... If he was COMPLETELY retarded, he wouldn't have made it through college, even with Daddy's help...so I went with borderline....

Gazrock

MY APOLOGIES...IT WAS UNCALLED FOR

Apology accepted. Nothing gets heated like religion or politics, hehe...

BTW, you may want to use the quote commands to separate my points from your rebuttals in the last post, to make it clearer...I almost missed that you added those in...thanks!

Well, a couple of points.

Yeah. France, germany, Russia, all opposed the war cuz they knew they would get burned, and were in thick like thieves with saddam and his gang. I knew that before the oil for food scandal ever came out.

However, explain to me how Saddam Hussein was "supporting terrorists". The CIA has yet to provide a single shred of evidence that saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden and his gang. In fact, all evidenmce states the opposite. Saddam was well know for ruthlessly killing and imprisoning radical clerics, and Bin Laden often refered to saddam as a "godless socialist".

Sorry, Im still waiting for sufficent evidence that there was a good reason we got stuck in Iraq. And so far, Bush's lame attempts to explain the whole thing have failed msierably.

He was not truthful on the WMD issue. We get there and suddenly, we release a hornets nest.

Iraq had no problems with terrorist bombings or training camps when Saddam was in power, seeing how he spent alot of effort to kill off as many as he could. After all, religous extremists, who basically, are the number one and 2 classifications of terrorists who threaten us, also were a threat to him, one he dealt with using a heavy hand.

As far as Bush is concerned......I have a feeling hell win the election. i see more Bush rump licking than i do criticism, unfortunately, thats because my roomate has the TV on Fox News all the time, and wont watch other new channels, sadly.

But i dont think Bush has gotten that much negative press. I see more attacks on Kerry than Bush.

By the way, Im not a democrat or republican. I simply do not buy the BS this admin has been trying to force feed me.

Originally posted by azheat
You people keep referring to the almighty UN. I have posted and others have posted the Oil for Food scandal that our beloved French, Russian, Chinese and German have been implicated in. Why would we assume that the UN and its lap dogs, would do the right thing? You keep going on with the same rhetoric. Lets investigate, and maybe we'll see exactly why these so called Allies didnt do anything to support us. It's no wonder they didnt support us, why bite the hand that was feeding you (Saddam). Give me a break. Not one of you Bush haters or US haters has once addressed this issue. Because if it were true, and we dont know yet, then the US and Bush just put a stop to the biggest fraud in history. And your precious UN and others were the main culprits. OPEN YOUR EYES...YOU JUST MIGHT SEE.

You sure it wasn't EUROPE and Saddam in bed together, hoping to convince him to abandon the soon to be worthless dollar for the up and rising euro???

This would change the situation just a tad wouldn't it....hey, there's an attack on our economy also going on....so, if this is true, in what light would this put our economic policies in? We seem to be playing in their hands, aren't we? giving our jobs away to china, investing our resources in iraq, and raising up a massive debt and thus weakening our dollar.

However, explain to me how Saddam Hussein was "supporting terrorists". The CIA has yet to provide a single shred of evidence that saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden and his gang. In fact, all evidenmce states the opposite. Saddam was well know for ruthlessly killing and imprisoning radical clerics, and Bin Laden often refered to saddam as a "godless socialist".

To be honest, Saddam's contributions to the families of suicide bombers is well known, so yes, thats supporting terrorism. You are correct though, that so far ties to Al Queda have not been proven sufficiently, nor is Saddam considered a key player in the financial support of terror. For that, you'd have to go a little lower on the map, and to the left a bit, to find Bush's Saudi pals...