George Bush's acceptance speech.

Did anyone watch the Republican National Convention? I think I watched the whole thing. Arnold, Mcain, and Guliani were all great but I think Democratic Senator Zell Miller stole the show. His speech on Wednesday really energized the crowd
"Defend are country with what? Spitballs!"-Zell Miller

George Bush's speech was also great. He really went into detail about his plans for his next 4 years as president. I really liked the part about the privatization of healthcare, social security, and the new legislation against frivolis medical liability lawsuits.
"Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence."

George Bush also talked about John Kerry's record in the senate and why he shouldn't be president.
"His policies of tax and spend -- of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity -- are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future -- and we are not turning back."

You can read the whole speech here if you missed it
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=3422
Vote George Bush in November

 

yeah arnie made a great speech.

1. "america is back!" apart from not making any grammatical sense, what does that even mean? back from what? from the brink? does he mean that in the last four years have been shit but now america is good?
2. he said that guys who are pessimistic about the economy are "economic girly-men". i guess he would know all about economics, being a movie star, and lets face it movie stars are the best economists. here are some facts:
in 2003, the US trade deficit reached $489billion. this is the worst in history for a single year.
in 2001, the projected national surplus for the united states by the end of the decade was $5.6trillion. by mid-2004, US national debt was $7.22trillion.

fantastic!

and so now let's talk about your president. but where to begin? so many areas, so let's focus on one; the environment. president george bush decided not to ratify the Kyoto agreement. what does this mean? well it means that the USA is now under no obligation to cut it's emmissions.
this is Ok though, because compared to other countries, the USA doesn't emit much carbon dioxide. thank god!
oh waitaminute.. the USA accounts for 25% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the world. 25%! and that's for a country that has 5% of the world's population. brilliant!
alright, enviroment is an easy target. what now.. how about the poor? thankfully this is something george bush is good at. with 34.6m americans living below the poverty line (that's 1 in 8), your president realised something needed to be done; so he cut $300million from the federal programme that provides subsidies to poorfamilies so they can heat their homes.
but hey, at least he cut taxes! i mean in 2003 he cut capital gains and dividends taxes. this affected a massive 25% of the population of the USA. not just any 25%.. the richest 25% of course!

i honestly think you guys have found your thatcher; and my god if you vote him in for a second term i think there will be no nation on earth that will respect you any more. sad but true.
/versus/images/graemlins/frown.gif
ok rant over.

(all facts taken from The Independant, 03/09/2004)
(p.s, The Independant is a UK daily newspaper FYI /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:George Bush also talked about John Kerry's record in the senate and why he shouldn't be president.
"His policies of tax and spend -- of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity -- are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future -- and we are not turning back."


[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to the current president's policy of spend even though you don't have the money?

His foreign policy is disastrous. He's setting us up for a huge backlash with his misguided "War on Terror".

His economic policy is also a joke. Eventually you have to pay that money back to someone, and at the rate he's moving, the US dollar is going to be worthless in the next 10 years.

I'd vote Bush if I wasn't so damned afraid of where he's taking us. But at least he's a 'good, straight' religious man.

</sarcasm>

 

i'm actually voting for Bush.

yeah, yeah, the guy isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the drawer. can't hide/deny those blunders.

but hell, kerry, he down right scares me.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Painty_J said:

His economic policy is also a joke. Eventually you have to pay that money back to someone, and at the rate he's moving, the US dollar is going to be worthless in the next 10 years.


[/ QUOTE ]

hey, good news for me then, cuz i just LURRRVE importing against the dollar cuz the pound is hella strong.....

 

Rofl, did you say daily show with john stewart?

He made fun of zell miller so badly.. omfg.

A guy was interviewing him, and was like, "Do you hoenstly believe john kerry wants to defend our country with spitballs?"

and then zell is like, "it was a metaphor, i can't believe you're talking to me like this, im your guest and you're insulting me *end interview*"

next interview, zell miller: "I can't believe that last guy, you know i wish we still lived in the day and age where we could challenge people to duels"

it was the funniest shit ever.

 

I really have no idea what to say to you...do you own stock in Fox studios?

 

maybe you can just look at his location

 

[ QUOTE ]
Onny said:

president george bush decided not to ratify the Kyoto agreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll forgive you for not knowing this since it's probably not required reading in the UK, but in the states we have this thing called a constitution. And in clause 2 under Article 2, Section 2, the constitution says "[the president] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." The Kyoto treaty wasn't ratified because it was unpopular here. Apparently, most Americans want to be able to set there own emission standards for their own country. this doesn't mean we don't care about the envirorment it just means we want to maintain our own sovereign right to regulate carbon monoxide emissions in our own country. We can govern ourselves better than the United Nations.

[ QUOTE ]
Onny said:

alright, enviroment is an easy target. what now.. how about the poor? i mean in 2003 he cut capital gains and dividends taxes. this affected a massive 25% of the population of the USA. not just any 25%.. the richest 25% of course!

[/ QUOTE ]

apparently you've been reading the Democratic Party's talking points and have become their mouth. Greenspan supports George Bush's tax cuts, and I trust his advice over Terry Mcauliff's.
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040212-093059-5041r.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Onny said:

i honestly think you guys have found your thatcher; and my god if you vote him in for a second term i think there will be no nation on earth that will respect you any more. sad but true.
/versus/images/graemlins/frown.gif
ok rant over.
(all facts taken from The Independant, 03/09/2004)
(p.s, The Independant is a UK daily newspaper FYI /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people not like Margaret Thatcher, I've only heard good things about her. She seems to be the British, female equivilant of Ronald Reagan. And Ronald Reagan is the coolest.

[ QUOTE ]
Painty_J said:

[His economic policy is also a joke. </sarcasm>

[/ QUOTE ]

You look like a joke, George Bush is awsome.

 

actually carbon dioxide doesn't hurt the atmosphere as much as the halogens do. So really, it is chlorine emissions we need to be worried about.

And really, if you actually like bush, you have been brainwashed. play the anti bush game, it's very fun and educational.

http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html[/url

Also, I just read through most of his speech, and never once does he talk about what he did during his term. He just pretty much talked about what he would do if he were president.

Vote George W. Bush, so he can finish the work he never started.]

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:[ QUOTE ]
Painty_J said:

[His economic policy is also a joke. </sarcasm>

[/ QUOTE ]

You look like a joke, George Bush is awsome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...way to completely murder a quote. Been taking lessons from Murdoch and O'Reilly again?

For real...you know the kind of shit you get in for spending too much money you don't have? That's what the president and his administration have done: They've taken the US population as a giant credit card and borrowed massive amounts of money from us. Money that more than likely will never be payed back. That's gonna hurt the value of our money, and make our country poorer.

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:
apparently you've been reading the Democratic Party's talking points and have become their mouth. Greenspan supports George Bush's tax cuts, and I trust his advice over Terry Mcauliff's.
http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040212-093059-5041r.htm


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least you're right to agree with Greenspan...That man doesn't play party politics and hence, provides nonpartisan views on things that need to be said. What you don't understand (or intentionally igore) is that Greenspan ONLY supports extending the tax cuts IF the government cuts back on spending, in a HUGE way. If they are to extend the cuts, they need to cut back on spending by $1 trillion. Can you comprehend that number?

The government has been irresponsible with their spending and more importantly, with the future. They are spending and spending and spending, without even once looking ahead.

Here's a free history lesson: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/soc-f27.shtml

If you take the time to read through it, you'll get to the bottom and see where it talks about how both political parties are handling it. Yes, Kerry and Edwards blasted him for proposing social security cuts. Now let's think about this situation from a political standpoint: If your goal is to become president, even if it's for the benefit for the public, you can't directly support this kind of measure. It would incense probably the largest single group in society, and be political suicide. So before you start attacking either side for going against this, know why they did it.

Here's another quote on the tax cuts:
[ QUOTE ]
BusinessWeek noted that projected deficits over the next decade run to around $2.4 trillion but that if Bush succeeds in his campaign to make the temporary tax cuts permanent, then “the red ink would exceed $5.2 trillion.†In other words, if the tax cuts are made permanent, the deficit will be 100 percent worse than at present.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is why greenspan won't support extending the tax cuts without any kind of offsetting measures. We'd be in one hell of a big hole. What are Bush's current plans? Make the cuts permanent, with no real plan on how he's going to pay for it. Sounds like a great idea to me.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/gpan-f16.shtml

 

Bush vs Kerry is like a 3-7 matchup.

Kerry can just sit back and build meter whenever he wants. His pokes will out-prioritize Bush's in most situations, especially his standing strong. Bush can't dash-> throw much at all because of this. So Bush just has to wait it out and build meter himself and wait for Kerry to approach him. And even then, Bush has to depend on roll cancels and guess parries->super, especially if he's in the corner. Kerry's offense is just too much. Even if Bush DOES guess correctly and land a lucky super, he is without meter and can't close in for pressure after super very well, so the match is reset in Kerry's favor. He clearly controls this match.

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:
a load of junk....
...George Bush is awsome.

[/ QUOTE ]
are you for real?

 

I actually agree with you about the goverment needing to cut back on spending.We do need to slash goverment spending. More spending either means higher taxes or cutting into the national debt which places a burden on future generations.

The hard part about cutting spending is deciding what to cut. Military spending is through the roof but the military is even more nessasary now then it has been in a decade. Any politician who proposes cutting military spending will be labled unpatriotic come election time. Likewise, any politician advocating cuts to spending on social sevices like medicare, medicaid, or welfare, will be labled uncompassionate and anti-poor people come election day. this leads to a goverment that can only increase spending.

Republicans have some ideas about cutting spending like the privatization of Medicare, and social security and reforming the welfare system. But so far nothing significant has gotten done to reduce goverment spending. While George Bush has increased spending in his term, I'll trust his fiscal restraint over a Democrat any day.

*I was just responding to dumb accusation with an equaly dumb rebuttle*

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:While George Bush has increased spending in his term, I'll trust his fiscal restraint over a Democrat any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me this 'fiscal restraint'. He sees a chance to spend money, and the cash flows like water.

[ QUOTE ]
Military spending is through the roof but the military is even more nessasary now then it has been in a decade.

[/ QUOTE ]

The military spending is even more necessary now because Bush made it so.

You see, here's the whole problem with declaring open war on terrorism. You have a very large, concentrated force, fighting many very small, very dispersed forces. It's very easily possible to not catch them all because of their size and mobility. Now, when you go attacking them and more importantly, the countries they're based in (Afghanistan), you damn well better not destroy a thing that isn't Terrorist related. We haven't done that. In Afghanistan, we hit civilian buildings, caused civilian casualties. We've caused irreparable damage in the form of dangerous radiation from weapons we supposedly didn't use. Now, I'm not attacking our military for causing these civilian losses. I understand that in any war, no matter how hard you try, you're going to cause collateral damage.

The power of terrorist groups lies in their size and unorganized grouping. It doesn't take many people to quietly acquire a very big weapon, or make one, and use it. Hence, we have very small militant groups with a disproportionately high amount of military power.

The problem with this collateral damage is that the terrorists love it. It is raw recruiting material. They can pump this like mad to attract even more disgruntled extremists, so even if we kill a few of them, they've just recruited a few more. Due to their size and mobility, they're still just as dangerous as before, because they are capable of 'blindside' attacks on us much like 9/11.

Invading Iraq was a HORRIBLE thing to do in the war on terror. There was nobody actively linked to terror living in the country. You can throw at me that Saddam had meetings with terrorist officials, but nowhere has anyone proven that he was working with them to further terrorist plots. As counter-proof, I can tell you that Florida and Arizona aviation officials had meetings with terrorists too, and even TRAINED the terrorists. Anyways, I'm getting off topic. Back in the Gulf War of the 90s, we beat Saddam to a bloody stump. We all but removed him from power back then. I don't know why we didn't just take him out. Every year between the Gulf War and Operation Iraqi Freedom, we bombed Iraq on a nearly daily basis.

So roll to 2003. Saddam was defeated in the gulf war. He was pounded and unable to rebuild for the better part of a decade. At this point, he's pretty defenseless. He knows we're watching him very closely. It would be suicide for him to endorse terrorism because the moment he does anything for them, we're gonna come rolling in and crush him. The rest of the world knows Saddam is pretty much defenseless too.

We roll in and crush him like an ant. Now what do you think the terrorists are saying about this? Most certainly not "Oh shit, these guys are tough and strong!". No, they're looking at this as American greed for oil, crushing the weakest opponent they can find to satisfy their needs. Bingo, more recruiting material.

Now, I'm not saying we should go the pacifist route, because terrorist cells are going to exist no matter what we do. But we should have a little more foresight into how we behave around the world, because at present all our war for terror has gotten us is more enemies.

 

George Bush didn't attack the WTC. He didn't start this. But under his leadership the US will finish it. I could care less about how pissed off the terrorists are. What I care about is how many of them we can kill.

Are you suggesting things would be better if we had not attacked Afganistan? Would the world have been better off if Saddam and the Taliban were still in power?

Because of the actions of the United States, 50 million people no longer live under the rule of Saddam and the Taliban. Tell me thats not a good thing. Would you rather they still did? I assure you, the invasion of Iraq was a good thing and millions of Iraqis will testify to that.

I think I've already answered all you questions on a previous rediculously long, thread.
http://virtuafighter.com/versuscity/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=111478&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=16&vc=1

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:I think I've already answered all you questions on a previous rediculously long, thread.
http://virtuafighter.com/versuscity/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=111478&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=16&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary...You haven't answered a thing.

Don't take it for a moment that I believe that it's a 'bad thing' that the Iraqis don't have to fear Saddam anymore. It's good for them. You cannot ignore the effects it's going to have on terrorist groups though. We aren't gonna scare them: The people who are already IN these groups, as well as the people who join them, fully know and realize that they may die for their actions in such group. We might squeeze the recruitment numbers a small percentage, but not enough to damage the overall picture.

Perhaps a more discretionary approach would have worked. Instead of drumming up a hapless target like Saddam, we could have either done the research, or used the research we've already done, to find a much better target. Even then, open armed conflict is never going to eliminate terrorism, and is likely to never even reduce it significantly.

Look at the size of the groups involved here. Terrorism recruitment will only net them a handful of troops every time, whereas the army will only net them a few hundred troops. Now look at the relative size of the army versus the terrorist groups. The army is several thousand times bigger; a few hundred troops means nothing to them. A few dozen terrorists is a big deal, however. These terrorist groups aren't nearly as large as the forces they're fighting, so a couple dozen men can practically double their operating power.

The other problem is with open use of force. If the only methods you use to combat terrorism are open force and coersion/fear tactics, you will ALWAYS have people who are pissed off at you and will do anything it takes to get back at you. Actually, that's how this country became free: Britain forced us to do things their way, and enough of us got pissed enough to take the fight to them. Since Britian has an entire ocean between them and us, they weren't much of a threat. How do you think terrorists and insurgents feel about our 'expeditionary forces' in Iraq? They don't have the spectre of the entire US military looming over them, so what do they have to fear?

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush didn't attack the WTC. He didn't start this. But under his leadership the US will finish it. I could care less about how pissed off the terrorists are. What I care about is how many of them we can kill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under G-Dub's leadership, the US will finish it, but only by employing one tactic, unbridaled and full use of force. We won't explore any other options under his regime, and in the end we will be much the worse for it.

You could care less about how pissed the terrorists are? That's the same attitude they have to us: They only care how many of us they can kill. Maybe we should try to rise over this primitive human instinct for revenge and attempt to patch the problem over instead of annihilate everyone.

Let me ask one final question, relating again to the strength of terrorist forces vs our army: If the terrorists are this powerful when their forces are as small as they were pre 9-11, how powerful do you think they'll be once they finish recruiting from this last wave of attacks we've launched on innocents? They're gonna pick up more men than they've lost, so what do you think is going to happen to their strength?

 

George Bush's double digit lead in the polls

Panty_J, you keep criticizing George W's decisions but you never offer anything different that we should have done. You keep saying the use of force against force creates a cycle of violence that only makes the terrorists more powerful. George Bush is pushing for reforms toward democracy in the middle east instead of supporting totalitaring regimes, for the first time since the Carter administration. I think your looking too closely at the short term results of the Iraq war, In the long term the birth of a Democratic, pro-America, nation in the heart of the middle east will help bring about an end to the poverty and depair that results in terrorism. A stable democracy with resonsible goverment, under the protection and open to trade with the United States will flourish.

Do you disagree with the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptively attacking those countries that harbor terrorists and produce WMD's? What would you have done different?

George Bush now has a doulble digit lead over John Kerry in a new poll, Yeh! Go get em Georgie!

"With little more than eight weeks remaining to Election Day, a Newsweek survey gave the president a lead of 52-41 over Kerry, with independent Ralph Nader (news - web sites) at 3 percent. A Time Magazine poll released a day earlier also made it an 11-point race."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=3&u=/ap/campaign_rdp

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

George Bush didn't attack the WTC. He didn't start this. But under his leadership the US will finish it. I could care less about how pissed off the terrorists are. What I care about is how many of them we can kill.

Are you suggesting things would be better if we had not attacked Afganistan? Would the world have been better off if Saddam and the Taliban were still in power?

Because of the actions of the United States, 50 million people no longer live under the rule of Saddam and the Taliban. Tell me thats not a good thing. Would you rather they still did? I assure you, the invasion of Iraq was a good thing and millions of Iraqis will testify to that.

I think I've already answered all you questions on a previous rediculously long, thread.
http://virtuafighter.com/versuscity/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=111478&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=16&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

The Taliban is again in power in the majority of Afghanistan, in Afghanistan off course the same thing happened as with Osama Bin Laden, the Bush white house stopped caring.

I dont want to get further involved in this thread.

Bye

 

[ QUOTE ]
Fishie said:

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

George Bush didn't attack the WTC. He didn't start this. But under his leadership the US will finish it. I could care less about how pissed off the terrorists are. What I care about is how many of them we can kill.

Are you suggesting things would be better if we had not attacked Afganistan? Would the world have been better off if Saddam and the Taliban were still in power?

Because of the actions of the United States, 50 million people no longer live under the rule of Saddam and the Taliban. Tell me thats not a good thing. Would you rather they still did? I assure you, the invasion of Iraq was a good thing and millions of Iraqis will testify to that.

I think I've already answered all you questions on a previous rediculously long, thread.
http://virtuafighter.com/versuscity/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=111478&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=16&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

The Taliban is again in power in the majority of Afghanistan, in Afghanistan off course the same thing happened as with Osama Bin Laden, the Bush white house stopped caring.

I dont want to get further involved in this thread.

Bye

[/ QUOTE ]

Same thing is happening to Iraq, bits and pieces are being given back to the 'terrorist' every week. Just last week a city under siege was given up by 'coalition' forces to the terrorist that were fighting in it. Its a fun diversion to argue with Iamthepope but whats the point. His arguments are so flawed its not even worth it.

I am also done with this thread *poof*