Bush admits mistakes

First saw this topic in Chinese, could not believe it, thought it was a bad translation or something.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/26/politics/main1661989.shtml

[ QUOTE ]
"I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner, you know," Mr. Bush said softly.


[/ QUOTE ]

 

Wow...I never thought that man would actually say something even remotely intelligent during his lifetime! /versus/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

He admitted that he should not have used such "tough talk"? I was hoping that he had admitted to mistakes on something more important.

 

Even if you're absolutely convinced that Bush is an "idiot", the manner in which you criticize him for this is childish and idiotic in itself. It's tantamount to a five year old yelling back at someone whom they don't like, "oh yeah? well you're stupid!"
The man's from Texas, that's just their manner. They speak in slang, and often misspeak. Lyndon Johnson, while much more eloquent than Bush, often did the same thing. I've been there plenty of times; believe me, he's truly representative of them, for better or worse. We elect Presidents to get the job done, not based on their public speaking skills. If you want someone who sounds nice, vote for George Clooney or Ben Affleck.
If you don't like Bush, find a more intelligent and original way to criticize him, other than "he's an idiot!" or "Bush Lied, Thousands died" or "Where are the weapons of mass destruction, huh?" It's all rhetoric, however, if most liberals could get past the childish rhetoric and actually discuss policy in depth and intelligently, I suppose more of them would be elected.

Wait- isn't this a VF message board? Oh well, guess someone's gotta bash Bush everywhere.

 

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:

Even if you're absolutely convinced that Bush is an "idiot", the manner in which you criticize him for this is childish and idiotic in itself. It's tantamount to a five year old yelling back at someone whom they don't like, "oh yeah? well you're stupid!"
The man's from Texas, that's just their manner. They speak in slang, and often misspeak. Lyndon Johnson, while much more eloquent than Bush, often did the same thing. I've been there plenty of times; believe me, he's truly representative of them, for better or worse. We elect Presidents to get the job done, not based on their public speaking skills. If you want someone who sounds nice, vote for George Clooney or Ben Affleck.
If you don't like Bush, find a more intelligent and original way to criticize him, other than "he's an idiot!" or "Bush Lied, Thousands died" or "Where are the weapons of mass destruction, huh?" It's all rhetoric, however, if most liberals could get past the childish rhetoric and actually discuss policy in depth and intelligently, I suppose more of them would be elected.

Wait- isn't this a VF message board? Oh well, guess someone's gotta bash Bush everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man you made an account just to say that? i don't think anyone called him an idiot just yet, although maybe it was implied. This is the general board. And (as the polls prove) people generally don't like the president right now.

The whole bush subject has been done to death on this board, but I love showing my distaste for the guy . I honestly believe the current administration is (let me try to be conscise) evil. The figurehead of the current white house 'ministration' is a big evil, pampered from birth, war dodging, doofus-mouthed, naive, liar with no poise or humanity left in his hollowed out carcus. He's a puppet and he's scum. is that better than me calling him stupid?

edit: oh and the fact that he realized in the past that he spoke doofusly won't make it any better. You can atone with god (if you believe in these things) but his words are in part resposible for the hatred that grows in parts of the world that people already might not have liked us in before. You think these people aren't listening all over the world? And people around the world think everyone in the US LOVES the pres. Oh man where are the assassins of ye olde time, maybe a nice reagen treatment will get his ass moving in the right direction.

damn i was trying not to put in the whole assassination scenario. DAMN YOU EDIT BUTTON

 

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:

Even if you're absolutely convinced that Bush is an "idiot", the manner in which you criticize him for this is childish and idiotic in itself. It's tantamount to a five year old yelling back at someone whom they don't like, "oh yeah? well you're stupid!"
The man's from Texas, that's just their manner. They speak in slang, and often misspeak. Lyndon Johnson, while much more eloquent than Bush, often did the same thing. I've been there plenty of times; believe me, he's truly representative of them, for better or worse. We elect Presidents to get the job done, not based on their public speaking skills. If you want someone who sounds nice, vote for George Clooney or Ben Affleck.
If you don't like Bush, find a more intelligent and original way to criticize him, other than "he's an idiot!" or "Bush Lied, Thousands died" or "Where are the weapons of mass destruction, huh?" It's all rhetoric, however, if most liberals could get past the childish rhetoric and actually discuss policy in depth and intelligently, I suppose more of them would be elected.

Wait- isn't this a VF message board? Oh well, guess someone's gotta bash Bush everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK

What jobs did he get done?
Did he get him Dead or Alive?
Did he balance the budget?
How about them WMD's?
How is your economy doing lately?
What about your civil liberties?
What about Katrina?

Need we go on?

His total failure as a president is common knoledge, we dont need to list his shitty record every fucking time.
It suffices to just say that he is a total fucktard and an idiot.

 

Well thank you all for proving my point, by resorting to calling him a "fucktard" and "evil". However, as for a little lesson in how government works, I'll have to answer you point by point.

Dead Or Alive: No, he didn't. One could argue that bin Laden is a total non-factor, considering that he's relegated to running and hiding, and therefore cannot be concerned with attack planning. Either way, we actually did capture the guy who planned 9/11 (Khalid Sheik Muhammed) and have killed off most of the Al Qaeda top leadership; and there has not been an attack on our soil since 9/11, but I guess we just got lucky, huh?

Budget: This is my main problem with Bush, however, it isn't completely his fault. While he hasn't done much to solve our budget problems, the budget is technically the responsibility of the Congress. There's not much Bush can do if Congress refuses to end their pork-barrell spending and various entitlement programs. He can veto, but they could easily overturn it. It's not just Republicans, Democrats are just as bad. Most Congresses do not balance the budget, we just got lucky in the 90's (Oh yeah, who controlled Congress when they balanced the budget? Republicans, that's right.)

WMD's: I would have accepted the Democratization argument over the WMD argument for going into Iraq, but I wouldn't say Bush lied: not only did the CIA claim the weapons were there, but so did French intelligence, Russian intelligence, British intelligence, the Czechs, the Spanish, the Israelis...there was enough info out there to safely assume WMD existed in Iraq, and might I also add that we still don't know whether or not the WMD were transported to Syria or not. The Duelfer report even concluded that this might have been the case, and Saddam has plenty of time to do so.

Economy: Are you brain dead? The economy is doing better than it ever has. Our GDP is growing at over 4.4%, faster than it has since the '80's. Unemployment is currently lower than it ever was during the Clinton administration, and jobs are being created at a very fast pace. The NASDAQ and S&P were also on pace to set record levels, although that probably doesn't mean anything to those who oppose capitalism. Right now, I'd say the economy is the one thing you really cannot argue against, unless you really do envy those stagnant welfare economies in Europe. You might want to move to France, where nobody under the age of 30 can find a job, or Germany, where unemployment is always extremely high and growth always under 2%.

Civil liberties: Um...my civil liberties are fine. In fact, how whiny do you have to be to live in America and complain about your civil liberties? You know how good we have it here? You can cite the PATRIOT Act or the wire-tapping bills, but really, my day to day life has not changed since 9/11, sorry, don't know about you. Personally, I don't have a problem if the government wants to wiretap phones that have been calling suspected Al Qaeda operatives, or phones that receive outside calls from suspected numbers, but that's just me...oh right, and according to Gallup polls, that's also about 60% of everyone else. But I don't like to go by polls, people can be very fickle. Bush was at 60% approval two and a half years ago, 90% just after 9/11, 50% as of last year, and he happens to have bad numbers now. As I said: people are fickle.

Katrina: FEMA failed on their part, sure, but disasters are the responsibility of local government. Louisianna is known for having one of the most corrupt governments in the United States; they failed their own people. If the local New York government could get credit for helping its people during and after 9/11, as Guiliani and his office did, then surely New Orleans government and the Mayor could receive the blame for failing its people during Katrina, no?

But again, it's all a matter of opinion. You might want to interpret the facts differently than I do, but knowing the facts in the first place tends to help. The problem with you people is that your hatred for this President, no matter what he does, overshadows your ability to reason. It's just the cool thing to do if you're young; hate Bush! Call him an idiot! But that cannot substitute for actually, you know...knowing what the hell you're talking about!

 

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:

One could argue that bin Laden is a total non-factor, considering that he's relegated to running and hiding, and therefore cannot be concerned with attack planning.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Starting a sentence with "One could," pretty much translates to saying "I could." So, I'm guessing you think Bin-Laden is now a non-factor. You talk about facts and I can't see how this is fact. I can run and hide from you while simultaneously planning an attack on your left kneecap. But not only is Bin Laden not planning an attack, according to you, he's not even concerned with it. I'm guessing you didn't think this through or you see Bin Laden as severly lacking in mental capacity.

 

Well, first off, you need a lesson in semantics. When I use the phrase "one could" I am merely stating that it is a plausible argument to make. Do I believe he is a non-factor? In some ways, yes. When your number one priority is to escape from capture and stay alive in general, it tends to diminish your capacity to plan correctly in other areas. No, I don't believe bin Laden is planning and running at once, at least not to his full capabilities. Because we are putting so much pressure on Al Qaeda, they are weakened compared to pre-9/11, when they had all the time in the world to plan in Afghanistan. Most analysts concur that bin Laden is simply a figure-head, and not really the top operative. Hell, this is how most companies in general act, and that's really what al Qaeda is. They are the center of an organization with many branches, and it is probably more important to catch the guys who are in the various countries involved in the direct planning of attacks rather than the figurehead himself. All in all, nobody really knows exactly what bin Laden is up to. He could be dying for all we know. But the consensus seems to be, and this is from all over the world of political science (if you bother to read journals, newspapers, or think-tank data, which I necessarily have to due to it being my major), is that bin Laden right now has been neutralized as is not as important as his top men are.

 

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:

Well thank you all for proving my point, by resorting to calling him a "fucktard" and "evil". However, as for a little lesson in how government works

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh snap i'm about to get schooled!

[ QUOTE ]

I'll have to answer you point by point.

Dead Or Alive: No, he didn't. One could argue that bin Laden is a total non-factor, considering that he's relegated to running and hiding, and therefore cannot be concerned with attack planning. Either way, we actually did capture the guy who planned 9/11 (Khalid Sheik Muhammed) and have killed off most of the Al Qaeda top leadership; and there has not been an attack on our soil since 9/11, but I guess we just got lucky, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

Osama bin Laden is one of the most influental people to the middle eastern terrorist world. When we went to war in afganistan it was imperative that we capture him (or kill him) and put him on trial. It was one of Bush's main points about invading afganistan, and he stated many times that he wanted him dead or alive. *stifles laughter* . Now that he is far out of the presidents hands (hold on to your seats people, he's about to flip flop) he no longer worries about him. Oh and no more attacks on american soil doesnt mean americans and other people around the world aren't dieing, including our troops, newsman, and civilians in Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]

Budget: This is my main problem with Bush, however, it isn't completely his fault. While he hasn't done much to solve our budget problems, the budget is technically the responsibility of the Congress. There's not much Bush can do if Congress refuses to end their pork-barrell spending and various entitlement programs. He can veto, but they could easily overturn it. It's not just Republicans, Democrats are just as bad. Most Congresses do not balance the budget, we just got lucky in the 90's (Oh yeah, who controlled Congress when they balanced the budget? Republicans, that's right.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I am sure presidential veto and approval doesn't come into the whole bill signing procedure at all. Damn that school house rock! Even still the clinton administration did a much better job at leading the same congress. (like 90% of them are still there today, so its the same assholes)

[ QUOTE ]

WMD's: I would have accepted the Democratization argument over the WMD argument for going into Iraq, but I wouldn't say Bush lied: not only did the CIA claim the weapons were there, but so did French intelligence, Russian intelligence, British intelligence, the Czechs, the Spanish, the Israelis...there was enough info out there to safely assume WMD existed in Iraq, and might I also add that we still don't know whether or not the WMD were transported to Syria or not. The Duelfer report even concluded that this might have been the case, and Saddam has plenty of time to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iran, north Korea. Two very hostile countries that sure poke more shit at the US than Iran that will have nuclear weapons. Not that those wars aren't inevitable but those are two examples of places that had more warning signs than Iraq. I wonder why Bush chose that one first. Oh yeah then the LOOSE ties with Al Queada that proved completely non factual. Misdirection and outright lies moved this country into that war, not just imaginary WMD's.

[ QUOTE ]

Economy: Are you brain dead? The economy is doing better than it ever has.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe just a bit of exaggeration? Maybe, well maybe you'll back it up with some cool percentages.

[ QUOTE ]
Our GDP is growing at over 4.4%, faster than it has since the '80's. Unemployment is currently lower than it ever was during the Clinton administration, and jobs are being created at a very fast pace.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're either lieing through your teeth, or ignorant. Either of which is unexcusable. Then again maybe I am reading this chart wrong. Lets have some fun with this chart shall we? During the years of 1996 to 2000, who was president? Clinton! thats right, except you timmy, Jesus was not the president. Notice the steady decline in unemployment, all the way up to the end of 2000. Then KERBLAMMO! And you'll notice 2000 holds the honor of the lowest unemployment rate at least on that graph.

[ QUOTE ]
The NASDAQ and S&P were also on pace to set record levels, although that probably doesn't mean anything to those who oppose capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he just call us commies? *looks around* Did he?

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, I'd say the economy is the one thing you really cannot argue against, unless you really do envy those stagnant welfare economies in Europe. You might want to move to France, where nobody under the age of 30 can find a job, or Germany, where unemployment is always extremely high and growth always under 2%.

[/ QUOTE ]

After a reccession and 6 terrible years we are finally starting to pick up some steam. i wouldn't call this a triumph. In fact lets look at some more statistics. HOLY CHARTING BULLSHIT BATMAN.



I cant believe it either, Doc. Does that say in full color that we had better GDP during the clinton years? WTF DIE CHART-MAN DIE. Ok i know using these "statistics" from our "government" is dirty fighting for replicans, but I am starting to get the feeling you're full of it.

[ QUOTE ]

Civil liberties: Um...my civil liberties are fine. In fact, how whiny do you have to be to live in America and complain about your civil liberties? You know how good we have it here? You can cite the PATRIOT Act or the wire-tapping bills,

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how you just gloss over that shit. Thats great. Paranoia is good for a country that wants to stay free. America is set up on ideals and laws. The law says that you can't tap phones without a warrant. The president just cant obey the law when he feels like it. None of us can. What if he came in your home and shot you, no warrant no reason? Would him being the president or you being suspected of being a terrorist be an ok reason for that? So why would it be ok if ANYONE ordered the tapping of ANY citizen without a warrant.

This goes on to prisoners being held indefinitely with no legal access or quick and speedy trial and all that other stuff we americans tout over the less civilized countries. Thats not cool because its breaking the law. Oh its in another country! Does that mean morality and ethics hold no sway over americans out of the country?

My point is, the law is the law, and the president has broken it. This might not effect you right now, but you aren't the center of the world you selfish naive bastard, cuz I know from activism, being wiretapped and investigated by spooks isnt cute and it scares off people who would otherwise be active.

[ QUOTE ]
but really, my day to day life has not changed since 9/11, sorry, don't know about you. Personally, I don't have a problem if the government wants to wiretap phones that have been calling suspected Al Qaeda operatives, or phones that receive outside calls from suspected numbers, but that's just me...oh right, and according to Gallup polls, that's also about 60% of everyone else. But I don't like to go by polls, people can be very fickle. Bush was at 60% approval two and a half years ago, 90% just after 9/11, 50% as of last year, and he happens to have bad numbers now. As I said: people are fickle.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people are dumb, but even the dumbest american can now see he is doing a bad job. 90% after 9/11. Who is gonna critisize the president after the worst terrorist attack on american soil? Fer-duh. 50% pfft, what is that supposed to be a good number? He's par? Even still that was before him and his administration ruined Iraq and all those scandals hit the fan. Haven't recent gallop polls showed him below 30%? If any of the above figures means anything this one definitely means the people are pissed at him.

[ QUOTE ]

Katrina: FEMA failed on their part, sure, but disasters are the responsibility of local government. Louisianna is known for having one of the most corrupt governments in the United States; they failed their own people. If the local New York government could get credit for helping its people during and after 9/11, as Guiliani and his office did, then surely New Orleans government and the Mayor could receive the blame for failing its people during Katrina, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

The curruption in New Orleans is evident, obvious and discussed, as is the corruption and cronyism in the whitehouse. If Bush hadn't appointed somone completely wrong for the job then maybe some of the hardship could have been allieviated by fema's help. But Bush did appoint some asshole, who did a horrible job and then he resigned or got fired (does it even matter). *rolls eyes*

[ QUOTE ]
But again, it's all a matter of opinion. You might want to interpret the facts differently than I do, but knowing the facts in the first place tends to help. The problem with you people is that your hatred for this President, no matter what he does, overshadows your ability to reason. It's just the cool thing to do if you're young; hate Bush! Call him an idiot! But that cannot substitute for actually, you know...knowing what the hell you're talking about!

[/ QUOTE ]



I love it when somone so rooted in fiction uses a phrase like that doozy. Obviously, your misguided, or your just doing this for kicks and making my feel better about hating our president and his administration.

The acuality of the situation is simple. This president walked in the door, with nearly limitless possibilities ahead of him, and squandered it. The projected national surplus is now the one of the worst debts in our history. 9/11 which could have united all the nations of the world to the US's cause was squandered by a meaningless war in Iraq. The unemployment rate was soooooooooooo loooooooow and going down even more until the year 2001 when Bush took office, then BAM reccession. I could blame all this stuff on Bush but i dont, its him AND his administration that makes the day to day BS and flip flopping and lies unbearable. He's just a puppet.

ps: i totally zinged you

 

I recommend you choose your words more carefully. When I read things like "cannot" - well, that sounds absolute. I don't think you know for sure and your words imply that you do. I have difficulty believing you.

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
Budget: This is my main problem with Bush, however, it isn't completely his fault. While he hasn't done much to solve our budget problems, the budget is technically the responsibility of the Congress. There's not much Bush can do if Congress refuses to end their pork-barrell spending and various entitlement programs. He can veto, but they could easily overturn it. It's not just Republicans, Democrats are just as bad. Most Congresses do not balance the budget, we just got lucky in the 90's (Oh yeah, who controlled Congress when they balanced the budget? Republicans, that's right.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton + Republican Congress = good budget because of Republicans in congress.
Bush + Republican Congress = bad budget because of Democrats in congress.

Go team, go! GOP! GOP! GOP! IT's NOT our fault! Ever!

Sure, the budget probably isn't all Bush's fault - even if he calls for money to be spent on the war and (I'm guessing) vetos any bills that call for taxes to offset the costs.

Sounds silly to me when you call Bush on something and then make sure to defend him in the same breath. Have some balls. It's OK to support someone less than 100%.

 

You zinged me? LOL. Well I'm glad to see that you think so. Anyway, I never claimed that the average GDP over the course of the Bush administration and the average unemployment rate were higher than during Clinton's term. But if you want to talk about the current state of the economy, you really cannot make a bad conclusion. Sure, gas prices are very high, but gas consumption has generally not dropped, indicating that people are still able to pay for it due to how well the economy is generally doing. The first quarter of this year saw GDP grow at an annual rate of 5.3%. At no time during the Clinton years did growth ever reach above the 4.4% mark. Check out the stats: http://bss.sfsu.edu/potepan/Paris/sect6.xls Copy and paste, for some reason my HTML is disabled. If you don't feel you can't trust the university stats, I'm sure you could find them over at the Labor department site. Your stats conveniently leave out the years of 1993-1994, Clinton's first two years in which the economy was in terrible condition, with unemployment over 6% and growth under 3%. Not that I am implying this was necessarily Clinton's fault, because it was not, but it does change your stat averages considerably. The Economist's website (Economist.com) also has plenty of stats for you to look at, if you are sincerely interested.
You also cannot blame the recession on Bush. It was a result of two events: the bursting of the internet "bubble economy" which was built up in the '90's, and 9/11, which obviously shocked not only the U.S. economy but the world economy as well. The difference is, the U.S. has gotten over this economic shock while many other countries, most notably in Europe, have not. Since 2004, the U.S. economy has performed marvelously, and while much of what happens to the economy has nothing to do with the President in the first place (he is one man, markets pretty much run themselves, unless legislation interferes with it in any type of specific way), the Bush tax cuts helped grow the economy again (that's what tax cuts tend to do). Personal income has also rose, and I'll say again, higher than at any point during the Clinton administration (since 2004).
Either way you slice it, no matter how you choose to argue the stats compared to one era or another, the economy has performed exceptionally well since 2004. I really don't see how you could argue against that point. Look at our economy, then look at the EU, look at Canada, look at other parts of the modern world; the US economy is their envy. I don't remember people burning cars for a month the last time we changed our labor laws, as they did in France.

There were many reasons we went into Iraq. Some argue (and I would agree) that if a functioning democratic regime can be established in Iraq, it will be a great influence in the rest of the Muslim world. Will it happen? It might, or it might not. I tend to think it will, but the war is not over yet, and despite all the setbacks we've experienced in Iraq, their government has shown great resiliency. There is some hope there, like it or not.

I was not implying you or anyone else were "commies". To be opposed to capitalism isn't to be a communist. However, Democrats and liberals in this country are akin to socialists. Sorry, but support for socialized medicine and healthcare (as Hillary Clinton and most Democrats did in 1993-1994 when it was up for vote) would be considered socialist policy. In Europe, they have no problem calling such policies socialist, and in fact, the parties that support them are called Social Democrats. Here, they are just Democrats, not Socialists, mainly because it would be a stigmatism. However, I say they should just admit to what they are.

Like I said before, I will not defend Bush on the budget or Katrina. But Katrina was more the state government's fault than anything. As far as I'm concerned, it was their problem, and if they had listened to the analysis of their levees that had been telling them for the last 40 years that they need to be stronger, perhaps Katrina could have been avoided.
I am a conservative, so I believe in small government, and even more so in a balanced budget, and there is no doubt that Bush is a big spender. But Congress, despite Bush, are even worse! And, in case you didn't notice, I didn't mention the veto. I know you couldn't resist "zinging" me, but you cannot zing for not mentioning something when in fact did. A veto on the budget would simply be a maneuver for good press, and at best would accomplish a slightly leaner budget. Budget vetos can be easily overturned, especially when the President is vetoing his own party's majority vote! Again, someone who understands how government works would know this.

I appreciate your position on Bush, but I'm afraid, just like most other liberals, you argue like a petulent child. Now if zinging someone consists of celebrating because you looked at a growth chart for the first time in your life, despite your ability to actually interpret statistics or your apparent inability to find statistics that actually PAINT THE ENTIRE PICTURE, then fine, you zinged me. However, in reality, no matter how many funny pictures of Owl's, or sarcastic gotchas you throw into your bare bones argument, you still have to go beyond basic rhetoric and, as I said...KNOW A THING OR TWO ABOUT THE TOPIC! It's easy to say, "Bush came to office and then BAM a recession" but it makes no sense if you cannot explain why a recession happened, or why he was particularly responsible for it. What you do is simply link Bush's name with any and all disasters, and say "see! see! It's his fault!" But guilt by association does nothing for me. By the way you argue, I can tell you're probably younger than 18. If not, God help you in college.

 

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
...if you want to talk about the current state of the economy, you really cannot make a bad conclusion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here goes...

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
Sure, gas prices are very high, but gas consumption has generally not dropped, indicating that people are still able to pay for it due to how well the economy is generally doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think gas is a fixed monthly expense for many people. I continue to buy gas to go to work. I can still afford it. Many others are putting it on credit cards. I don't count that as "still able to pay for it."

My "bad" conclusion: personal debt is increasing nationwide.

Please stop with the absolute statements.


[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
There were many reasons we went into Iraq ... There is some hope there, like it or not.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think there is about 9.37% hope. Not my kind of odds. I don't like it.

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
I am a conservative, so I believe in small government, and even more so in a balanced budget, and there is no doubt that Bush is a big spender. But Congress, despite Bush, are even worse!


[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your taking personal stake in your views. I've heard and read that we've got the opposite of small government right now. I believe it. I don't expect you to jump ship to another party and I don't understand your support of what's happening right now. I've noticed you're not just saying that everything is perfect and it suprises me you're not railing against the current adminstration.


Here's what I'd like you to remove from your approach:

Insults...

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
Again, someone who understands how government works would know this.


[/ QUOTE ]


Broad generalizations and name-calling...

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
I appreciate your position on Bush, but I'm afraid, just like most other liberals, you argue like a petulent child.


[/ QUOTE ]


Finally, as childish as you think Vith_Dos is, I doubt you're forced to reply in the tone of the condesending parent...

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
By the way you argue, I can tell you're probably younger than 18. If not, God help you in college.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you have the right to conduct yourself as you see fit. I think you'll increase your discussion prowess if you expand your awareness.

 

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
You zinged me!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I know. I sure did. It was fun. but enough about me, hows the bologna hole today?

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed that the average GDP over the course of the Bush administration and the average unemployment rate were higher than during Clinton's term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you couldn't. It would make the current administrations claims of a great economy look pretty idiotic. Weeeeeeee.

[ QUOTE ]
But if you want to talk about the current state of the economy, you really cannot make a bad conclusion. Sure, gas prices are very high, but gas consumption has generally not dropped, indicating that people are still able to pay for it due to how well the economy is generally doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gas? Who said anything about gas? *looks around* You cooking? *knocks over the water pitcher and everyone runs in every direction*

seriously, In a country where debt is the bane of the middle class and lower class, you're telling me such outragous gass prices aren't putting a hurt on those who were already in a tight spot? But I am not gonna argue about this for the whole reason of gas price inflation seems sketchy to me.

[ QUOTE ]
The first quarter of this year saw GDP grow at an annual rate of 5.3%. At no time during the Clinton years did growth ever reach above the 4.4% mark. Check out the stats: http://bss.sfsu.edu/potepan/Paris/sect6.xls Copy and paste, for some reason my HTML is disabled. If you don't feel you can't trust the university stats, I'm sure you could find them over at the Labor department site. Your stats conveniently leave out the years of 1993-1994, Clinton's first two years in which the economy was in terrible condition, with unemployment over 6% and growth under 3%.Not that I am implying this was necessarily Clinton's fault, because it was not, but it does change your stat averages considerably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush seniors time had come to a close and after 2 years of things seeming down the economy got amped, the unemployment rate fell and by the end of the term Clinton's administration hand in hand with congress made this country better than its possibly ever been. Now maybe bush's admin, + congress can do the same thing, but it will have taken him 6 years, a term and a half for the pres to get back to the clinton adminstration endnote. And whats with this growth % you keep bringing up. Even with that AWESOME GROWTH (hand jerking motion) the economy is still not as good as it was when clinton left office. When i look at those stats I see things getting better within 2 years of clinton taking office and getting progressively better until he left. Then, back to Bush business as usual. Back to the deficit, back to high unemployment rates. Not to mention real wages gain has slowed to a crawl within the last few years. This economy hopefully is on the bounce back (finally), but its still not up to the clinton years.

[ QUOTE ]
You also cannot blame the recession on Bush. It was a result of two events: the bursting of the internet "bubble economy" which was built up in the '90's, and 9/11, which obviously shocked not only the U.S. economy but the world economy as well. The difference is, the U.S. has gotten over this economic shock while many other countries, most notably in Europe, have not. Since 2004, the U.S. economy has performed marvelously, and while much of what happens to the economy has nothing to do with the President in the first place (he is one man, markets pretty much run themselves, unless legislation interferes with it in any type of specific way), the Bush tax cuts helped grow the economy again (that's what tax cuts tend to do). Personal income has also rose, and I'll say again, higher than at any point during the Clinton administration (since 2004).

[/ QUOTE ]

Please please please give me a statistic or a chart or a website (a credible one) where it shows how Bush's trickle down (the end of a corperate penis) economics helped middle and lower class income at all. Please, I really want to understand. And is this adjusted for time period? Explain.

[ QUOTE ]
Either way you slice it, no matter how you choose to argue the stats compared to one era or another, the economy has performed exceptionally well since 2004. I really don't see how you could argue against that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we took 10 steps back during his first term and 2 steps forward near the middle of the second term and you want me to lick the presidents balls? gimmie a break.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at our economy, then look at the EU, look at Canada, look at other parts of the modern world; the US economy is their envy.

[/ QUOTE ]

When has america not been beating the pants off nearly all other countries in the world economically?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember people burning cars for a month the last time we changed our labor laws, as they did in France.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time we changed our labor laws? We change our labor laws all the time. Just because the common worker isnt informed about what congress is doing doesn't make many of the things they do right. Like lets say

Bush + Congress help make some profit for those that donate

fucker sells out the common day worker at every turn

[ QUOTE ]
There were many reasons we went into Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of which are bs, but continue

[ QUOTE ]
Some argue (and I would agree) that if a functioning democratic regime can be established in Iraq, it will be a great influence in the rest of the Muslim world. Will it happen? It might, or it might not. I tend to think it will, but the war is not over yet, and despite all the setbacks we've experienced in Iraq, their government has shown great resiliency. There is some hope there, like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like it or not that there is hope? Are you gonna ask me if i support our troops next? I will be short on this issue. There were many many ways we could help the people of the middle east that would have had positive benifits for everyone. A long lasting bloody Iraqi war and terrible occupation led by a tactless leader who calls on a crusade against people who believe in jihad's is not on that list.

[ QUOTE ]
I was not implying you or anyone else were "commies".

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly it was a joke but if you took me seriously *rolls eyes* continue*

[ QUOTE ]
To be opposed to capitalism isn't to be a communist. However, Democrats and liberals in this country are akin to socialists. Sorry, but support for socialized medicine and healthcare (as Hillary Clinton and most Democrats did in 1993-1994 when it was up for vote) would be considered socialist policy. In Europe, they have no problem calling such policies socialist, and in fact, the parties that support them are called Social Democrats. Here, they are just Democrats, not Socialists, mainly because it would be a stigmatism. However, I say they should just admit to what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love that. No socialist policy could possibly work, and our wonderful system in place right now is just spitting out daisies. Clearly this is the moment for reform. The healthcare system in the US is failing us, there must be change.

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, I will not defend Bush on the budget or Katrina.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just did defend his... oh nevermind.

[ QUOTE ]
But Katrina was more the state government's fault than anything. As far as I'm concerned, it was their problem, and if they had listened to the analysis of their levees that had been telling them for the last 40 years that they need to be stronger, perhaps Katrina could have been avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but the fact that it did happen and there wasn't any real response from the federal government for 2 days makes that whole situation an eyesore for everyone.

[ QUOTE ]
I am a conservative, so I believe in small government,

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you support this administration then? Even republicans will admit this administration is all about executive power cowering them all.

[ QUOTE ]
and even more so in a balanced budget, and there is no doubt that Bush is a big spender.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok lets remember this

[ QUOTE ]
But Congress, despite Bush, are even worse! And, in case you didn't notice, I didn't mention the veto. I know you couldn't resist "zinging" me, but you cannot zing for not mentioning something when in fact did...

[/ QUOTE ]

Anybody with any sense of humor would know that the zinging was the entire post, which most of my points you did not address, agreed to or poorly rebutted to. bish.

[ QUOTE ]
A veto on the budget would simply be a maneuver for good press, and at best would accomplish a slightly leaner budget. yatta yatta yatta.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your a clown. To say a president doesn't have sway over congress is complete horseshit. Its a republican congress passing ridiculous bills which he signs off happily in his own ignorant world. He sure did try to sway people into trying to change the medicare system, though he did fail miserably.

[ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your position on Bush, but I'm afraid, just like most other liberals, you argue like a petulent child.
Now if zinging someone consists of celebrating because you looked at a growth chart for the first time in your life, despite your ability to actually interpret statistics or your apparent inability to find statistics that actually PAINT THE ENTIRE PICTURE, then fine, you zinged me. However, in reality, no matter how many funny pictures of Owl's, or sarcastic gotchas you throw into your bare bones argument, you still have to go beyond basic rhetoric and, as I said...KNOW A THING OR TWO ABOUT THE TOPIC! It's easy to say, "Bush came to office and then BAM a recession" but it makes no sense if you cannot explain why a recession happened, or why he was particularly responsible for it. What you do is simply link Bush's name with any and all disasters, and say "see! see! It's his fault!" But guilt by association does nothing for me. By the way you argue, I can tell you're probably younger than 18. If not, God help you in college.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh Noes, My feelings!!!! Where to start, where to start.

A) I have no need to defend myself, and my arguments are cogent backed up with statistical and factual evidence.

B) Lets look at what is more important to you in the past few years. Economics, (a point you say you wont defend bush on but backtrack and try your hardest). Thats the only thing you seem to be interested in, everything else you sort of gloss over easily.

C) -- brief note here, I would liken a republican to a Sith initiate (not that his hasn't been done before) just something to keep in mind-- Your black heart knows only how well you and your wallet are doing. I think you summed it up best when you said,

[ QUOTE ]
but really, my day to day life has not changed since 9/11, sorry, don't know about you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really don't see there are tons of people who aren't doing just dandy in the US. I say people are being locked up indefinitely in US run prisons around the world, you say look at the GDP. People in New Orleans were in desperate need of help for two days and our FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM sat on their asses. You aren't mad about that? I can hear you now, well if they fixed the levees and weren't corrupt , blah blah blah.

[ QUOTE ]
but really, my day to day life has not changed since 9/11, sorry, don't know about you.

[/ QUOTE ]

D) You really don't know about me. I am a business owner in one of the most well to do counties in the united states, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about the world around me. And you're wrong when you say I am a liberal. I know you sith guys only see things as black and white concerning political issues, but try to pull your eyes out of monochrome mode and see something for once.

E) What does it take for a president and his administration to be evil in your eyes? Breaking the law, multiple checks. Screwing up world altering events, like 9/11 for their own personal gain. check. Inflaming already disasterous tentions in an area of the world that already hates us. Check. Making a fool of himself in public numerous times. Check. Ignoring major problems all around the world to pursue bogus allegations. Check. Tamany halling out nearly every government position he could get his sith hands around. Check. Dividing our nation even further with idiotic topics that will disappear once elections are over. Check. The list goes on. I just don't feel like typing it all.

If you don't see these things as an afront to not only our country, the world and all of humanity you are scum. and I am not joking here. You'd have to be grade A scum (or ignorant) to think the president is doing a good job.

ps: zing? yes i totally zinged you. (scum)

 

Just to interject some rationality into this discussion . . .

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:

The man's from Texas, that's just their manner. They speak in slang, and often misspeak. Lyndon Johnson, while much more eloquent than Bush, often did the same thing. I've been there plenty of times; believe me, he's truly representative of them, for better or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yessir, and us all puts on ah cowboy hats 'fore we ride ah hoss to skewl. Damn, boy, you shure got us texans pegged.

Oh, wait, it sez here dubya was born in some place call 'new haven connecticut' and went to sum skewl called 'yale'. My texus publik skewl gee-og-ra-fee aint too good, but I think thats up there in yankee country. Guess dubya aint no texan after all. Is his his good ole boy act jest a pose.?

 

Well, Vith_Dos has apparently gotten off his rocker completely, convincing himself that A: Republicans are akin to characters from Star Wars (Somebody needs to move out of their mother's basement and meet a female), and B: I have somehow agreed to or ignored his points, and finally C: He has zinged me, something which, usually, people don't proclaim about their own arguments until someone else has said it. But whatever. Your argument had no depth to it, all you really do is paste and copy my argument, and write something sarcastic. Again, this is how 13 year olds argue.

Anyway, Plague, everyone makes absolute statements. You can safely assume that what I'm saying is opinion without me having to predicate my every sentence with "IN MY HUMBLE OPINION." If I speak in absolutes, it's because I absolutely believe in what I'm saying...it's called conviction, and people tend to believe you when you have it. If you don't want to believe me, fine, no one said you had to. Just making my argument. I have not and will not defend Bush on the budget! However, I will defend him from receiving the entire blame for the budget. I never blamed Democrats, I said they are JUST AS BAD as Republicans, not worse. Nice of you to mischaracterize my statements, though. The purse strings of government are controlled by Congress, and pork-barrell spending has skyrocketed since the Clinton years; unusual huh, considering that it's "90% of the same guys" as Vith so eloquently put it. And let's not pretend everything was fine and dandy between Clinton and Congress post-'94. I think it was in '96 or '97 when the government shut down briefly because of the budget impasse between Clinton and Gingrich (which ultimately cost Gingrich his job). They FINALLY worked out a deal, after much political bloodshed, to balance the budget. I give the most credit to congress for that, and a bit of credit to Clinton (Congress should always get the most credit). And now that spending is out of control, I remain constant: I blame Congress for most of it, and Bush for a bit of it. And no, when a Presiden't approval ratings are low, he has almost ZERO influence on Congress, especially when its run by his own party, because none of them want to support an unpopular President during an election year. Again, common political sense.

The chances you give us for succeeding in Iraq, in my opinion, are too low. It seems to me that most people expected the situation to be perfect after a couple of years (I admit, the government perpetuated that scenario itself). In this fast-service society, I am not surprised that people demand immediate results, and want everything now now now. But in the case of wars, it doesn't operate like that. The media harps on every single bad story coming out of Iraq, does not report on all provinces, only the troubled ones in the south and in Baghdad. When was the last time anybody read about the good things our troops are doing there? Or are we to believe that nothing good ever happens there, our troops get nothing accomplished, and it's all downhill? Sorry, I refuse to be a pre-emptive defeatist (a friend of mine coined the term) and believe all is lost before we have even left. People seem to forget that in most countries where there has been a complete governmental and societal upheaval (including in our own if you look back a couple centuries), there is chaos for a long time afterward. Democracy really is a process, and I don't doubt that instances of civil war will continue (although sparingly, as a total civil war has not broken out), and there will continue to be terrorist attacks there for a long time. But the real measuring stick of success should be how their newly rebuilt society deals with these troubles, and gets through them. The people there voted in high numbers, they finally worked out a constitution, and have finally established a government. And it's only been three years, not long if you consider countries that have been in a similar position.

I never said I thought this administration was doing such a great job. I think there are some issues (such as the economy, taxes, the war on terror, foreign policy, appointment of originalist-minded judges) which, from my point of view and coming from my political beliefs, they've done a great job on. If you asked me what I think of the Bush administratin on immigration, the budget, the growth of government, his ability to communicate his agenda properly, then I will probably give him a poor write up. I am mildly happy with this administration currently. I love how the economy's been doing in the last few years, I hate current gas prices but that's really out of the President's reach, and has more to do with foreign consumption of oil in China, and, sadly, Wall Street's mood every time they hear of the possibility of a terrorist attack, the hostitility of oil rich countries (countries that are normally hostile toward us no matter who is in charge in DC). People in general can afford the prices, and if they couldn't they'd find ways to consume less oil, yet consumption has remained constant. It may seem out of the ordinary to you, but that is what typically happens when oil prices rise. However, in the past, the prices usually rose while GDP and income dropped, whereas in this case they have risen with prices. Therefore, people are not willing to consume less, albeit angrily.

I will defend the President, though, against people who make absurd claims regarding what is and isn't his fault without explaining WHY it is. It's all guilt by association: liberals will place Bush's name in the same sentence of a disaster or hot button issue and blame him for it, all in one sentence without giving any kind of rational explanation. BUSH failed us during KATRINA. BUSH is responsible for the BUDGET. BUSH lied about WMDs. BUSH has us bogged down in IRAQ. Bush is an IDIOT! But somehow, nobody ever connects the dots on these claims and explains why they are true. And when you dare question liberal groupthink on the issue, they can only reply with insult, sarcasm, or absurdity. OK, you may be one of the few who can actually explain his position, and I sincerely applaud you for that, but most (like Vith-Dos) argue like typical liberal brats. They can't just disagree with the President, he has to be EVIL! They can't just oppose the war, it has to be an imperialist exercise of fascism! They're extremists, and shame on me for not doing a better job of relegating them to isolation instead of actually trying to argue with them...there's no point in it! It is, yes, like arguing with a small child. Yeah, I'll throw out some insults here and there if it gets heated enough, and when my opponent is bratty enough, but at least I can back up my point of view reasonably. I mean, what do you want, a chart, poll, and a balance sheet everytime I make a point? 12 academic sources everytime we argue on the budget? Sorry, I'll save my energy for my term papers. Vith gave me a very simplistic chart on growth during a 6 year period, I gave him a more detailed one. And he's demanding more info from me? lol. I make my assertions based on everything I read and conclude from Foreign Affairs, the Economist, to the more ideological National Review and Weekly Standard, and of course the dailys. None of you are providing sources, so why should I? That's what an argment is (or should be): educated opinion! Some, though, prefer to limit their arguments to sarcastic one-liners with hints of opinion in them. Sad but true. This is what I mean of the difference between rational explanation and wacko leftist claims.

 

[ QUOTE ]
KoD said:

Just to interject some rationality into this discussion . . .

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:

The man's from Texas, that's just their manner. They speak in slang, and often misspeak. Lyndon Johnson, while much more eloquent than Bush, often did the same thing. I've been there plenty of times; believe me, he's truly representative of them, for better or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yessir, and us all puts on ah cowboy hats 'fore we ride ah hoss to skewl. Damn, boy, you shure got us texans pegged.

Oh, wait, it sez here dubya was born in some place call 'new haven connecticut' and went to sum skewl called 'yale'. My texus publik skewl gee-og-ra-fee aint too good, but I think thats up there in yankee country. Guess dubya aint no texan after all. Is his his good ole boy act jest a pose.?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it could be pre-senile dementia. I hear that gets around quite a bit down south there!

 

Hey you admitted I zinged you, and that I was right on many points, but I still argue like a 13 year old. Man i keep falling down that slippery slope of age huh? Well your a big man to admit it.

I'm not gonna quote you more than once for the sake of brevity this time. The reason for quoting you is simple. If you break down your logic and talking points its obvious you are full of shit. Plain and simple. You make broad statements and pull statistics out of your ass and don't expect to be asked where all this comes from. Ooook. When I ask you about how the president is doing on a moral level you go back to the economy. It seems the economy is the only thing you can talk about and even on that point you dog congress/bush admin. and prraise them at the same time. How many times are you gonna keep bringing that up. In truth you dont give a shit about anything other than your pocket, (you sith scum). You will not respond to these issues because you cannot, that would require empathy. The more you talk, the more like an Sith you seem.

You're first post was in response to an argument nobody was having. Nobody said I think bush is an idiot. In fact most of what you said came straight out of your ass.

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't like Bush, find a more intelligent and original way to criticize him, other than "he's an idiot!" or "Bush Lied, Thousands died" or "Where are the weapons of mass destruction, huh?" It's all rhetoric, however, if most liberals could get past the childish rhetoric and actually discuss policy in depth and intelligently, I suppose more of them would be elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Negativity. Only one sentance from Luddie made you bug out like that? It was your whacke dout response that got people like wtf? he is an idiot. I was definitely gonna keep my opinion to myself.

Anyways, Why call you a sith (scum)? why be comical and sarcastic in my responses? why ask you for proof (which i only did once and you most likely cannot find proof of)? why even bother you at all? Because your obvious evil is comical to me. You have no moral objections only money on your slime encrusted, one track, brain. Its the utter truth, five post, and not a hint at what your moral standpoint on the president is. Because morally you proably think he's just dandy dont ya? But go ahead and show your sith colors and try to make up for the fact that your interest in polotics is only material. I'd bet you'd glance by another genocide in Africa just to read about the next big thing in wall street. Just like all the other Sith scum that come to these boards your arguments are severly misguided and I guess I won't waste another keystroke talking to you. (after these) Oh come to New York or New Jersey. i am sure we could play some fun VF!

ps: /versus/images/graemlins/lol.gif

 

[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
Anyway, Plague, everyone makes absolute statements. You can safely assume that what I'm saying is opinion without me having to predicate my every sentence with "IN MY HUMBLE OPINION." If I speak in absolutes, it's because I absolutely believe in what I'm saying...it's called conviction, and people tend to believe you when you have it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I work hard not to make absolute statements. I run into too many situations where there's another viewpoint to consider. It might be extra work to write "I think," and it gives ownership to my statements. My argument that many people are putting gas on credit and increasing personal debt indicates there could be a "bad" part of today's economy. You deny that with your absolute statement. Maybe you don't believe increasing personal debt is something to worry about. That would be your opinion. Maybe you don't think credit card debt is on the rise. Maybe you choose to ignore it and continue to say everything is peachy. I can't tell from the finality in your sentences. It sounds to me like your mind is closed to new information and/or stuff you don't like to hear.

You maintain "people in general can still pay for gas." You haven't said how many. What if it's only 40%? I'm thinking you don't care as long as you aren't one of the 60% spending themselves into oblivion. Prices DOUBLED in a relatively short period of time - this had an impact on everything that requires fuel - manufacturing, transportation, shipping, and more. It appears as if you're ignoring this. I think parts of the economy are probably fine and parts are not. Depends who you ask.

I know what conviction is. I have it, too. Please don't patronize me.


[ QUOTE ]
WARCHILD said:
I never said I thought this administration was doing such a great job. I think there are some issues (such as the economy, taxes, the war on terror, foreign policy, appointment of originalist-minded judges) which, from my point of view and coming from my political beliefs, they've done a great job on

[/ QUOTE ]

I think our foreign policy can be mostly summed up to "fuck you - we're the best country in the world - we'll do what we want. Oh? You don't like it? Have a punch in the face." We don't appear to have many friends across the globe and we don't appear to be out to help the world right now. This bothers me.

Re: the war on terror... If you have time, please read Imperial Hubris. I learned quite a bit from what's inside.

 

Vith- I only sarcastically said you zinged me. Since that is the only way in which you conduct yourself, I figured you'd understand it. I didn't bring up the moral perspective because, well, most of everyone's posts focused on my comments concerning the budget and the economy. You throw all these counter arguments on the economy at me, of course I am going to respond. I can sum up pretty easily my thoughts on Bush's morality: just fine! No, I don't care that Jack Abramoff was spotted a mile out into the background of a white house dinner photo, it is circumstantial. No, I don't find it coincidental that he was once an oil man, and now we're in oil rich Iraq; it's simply guilt by association without any real proof. In fact, I support the war in Iraq almost strictly based on moral and strategic grounds. I don't dog Bush and Congress and then complement them on the same issue. You are just put off by the fact that I won't completely support Bush on every issue; I'm human, some issues I will agree with him on, and others I won't. Doesn't mean I'm being contradictory, but that I am showing the different sides of my opinion on Bush. Sorry to disappoint!

Plague- I'd rather look at our foreign policy as full of strength. To a degree, yes, I actually do believe in using strong arm tactics against other nations when it comes to policy. The truth is, when dealing with nations such as Iran and North Korea, you can't trust them, and must deal with them firmly. North Korea has violated every agreement we ever had with them, and Iran has rejected our more moderate previous offers to them concerning enrichment. We were actually going to let them enrich but on Russian soil, but they even rejected that. To me, it's obvious they want the bomb, and I'm glad we have an administration that will take a hard line stance with them. And if the UN and EU want to ally with us and help, fine. But neither organization may dictate our foreign policy to us. You can think what you want about Iraq, and why we went in, but I'll say this: the entire reason the UN and nations like France and Russia didn't allow us the Security Council vote to invade the country was out of economic interests. Remember the Oil for Food Scandal? I mean, talk about corruption...
As the strongest nation in the world, we have a responsibility to act like it. It's been this way forever, the strongest nation (whenever there is a clear strongest) should not pretend as if it's equal with every other nation for the sake of unity. That's nonsense; there needs to be an enforced reciprocity in our foreign dealings with nations, and if they refuse to hold up their end of the bargains we make with them (i.e. the PLO not curbing terrorism in Israel despite being given land, Iran violating IAEA rules, North Korea violating agreements) then we should not turn the other cheek. To do so would be to reveal ourselves as weak, and to encourage such encroachments upon our foreign policy. Look back at how our past Presidents handled the league of nations, or how Truman handled the UN during Korea, or FDR's foreign policy; this kind of strong arming is practically in our blood. With the exception of Clinton and Carter, most Presidents have viewed these organizations as symbolically important but realistically weak. Case in point: over 20% of the UN's funds are provided by the US (could be even more at this point), they would never ever sanction us. When Congress threatened to cut funding last year, the UN got scared and starting paying lip service to reforming their body. The UN, whether they like it or not, are an organization based on spreading the post WWII ideals which the United States itself promulgated in the first place. They are our brainchild in so many ways, and simply the heir to the League of Nations' failed legacy. Name me a genocide they actually prevented! With this under consideration, why would we take orders from them? Why wouldn't we thumb our noses at them when they decide to oppose us like they did prior to Iraq? As for the EU, Germany now has a pro-US Chancellor, and France's next President may well be Nicholas Sarkozy, who is also very pro US. Spain, Italy, the UK, South Korea, Australia, Poland, and most of Eastern Europe supported the invasion, yet because the almighty France, Russia, and Germany opposed us, it was made into a big deal. A good portion of the international community supported us, let's not forget that, and important nations, too (not just the tiny ones Michael Moore poked fun at in his movie).

Anyway, I'll try to end it here, lol. Nice arguing with you Plague, at least you're somewhat civil. Maybe next time we'll have a discussion about something VF related! lol Vith...SEEK HELP, urgently! You've let those Star Wars movies get to you again...find a female, fast! Please, for your own good!


Later dudes...