The President of the United States

[totalia]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
You'd might want to think about waiting another 4 years before moving here.

lol. Unfortunately, that's out of the question. I love my fiance and so I will brave Bush's stupidity and hope he doesn't get anyone I love killed so that I can be with the man I love.

 

[jellymoon]

Here is the real story of the staged takedown of the statue.

Yet another example of Bush's lies. . . .

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm


I'm sure Bush saw this on TV and it is what inspired his truly compelling: "Mission Accomplished."

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
A friend sent me this and I wanted to share it with everyone (author is unknown). Some will agree, others will disagree and I'm sure some will state that the information is wrong or incorrect.



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January ..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

So shouldn't you rather try to solve the problems in YOUR country instead of messing up other countries
A country which has to lock away 2.1 million people, which is about 1% of your adult population, has a severe social problem.

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by jellymoon
Well, when Clinton lied no one died.

That is why my motto is:
ANYONE BUT BUSH IN '04--- even if it is Donald Duck!!!

This is why you should have to take a test before you are allowed to vote!

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by jellymoon
Here is the real story of the staged takedown of the statue.

Yet another example of Bush's lies. . . .

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm


I'm sure Bush saw this on TV and it is what inspired his truly compelling: "Mission Accomplished."

"Another example"? You haven't given ANY example yet, including this one. I didn't even see President Bush in the Iraqi square the day the statue fell...I guess I missed it.

This is why you should have to take a test before you are allowed to vote!

I can't say I'm in favor of a test prior to voting, but I certainly get your point.

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
"


I can't say I'm in favor of a test prior to voting, but I certainly get your point.

Tongue in cheek! You may be the only one who gets it.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Viking

A country which has to lock away 2.1 million people, which is about 1% of your adult population, has a severe social problem.

Um, where else would you like us to put criminals?

Are you saying that we're too socially irresponsible which allows people with criminal potential to become actual criminals?

Would the legalization of certain activities and substances be on our short list too?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by JPN4265
Tongue in cheek! You may be the only one who gets it.

Well, actually, this is funny, because just the other day I said the same thing to my husband. Of course, the truth is, alas, people of all intelligence are permitted to vote.

I don't know if I really should even bring the following up, but, what the hey. . .I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago, and they did a "man on the street" segment. The announcer asked about 5 people (separately) who the V.P. was. . .3 of them didn't know. They then asked them (still separately) who the Secretary of State was, and the same three didn't know! They asked them who the (most likely) Democratic candidate was. One said, "Nader?" The other 4 knew. They asked them if they were planning to vote and for whom they intended to vote. 2 said Bush (no surprise here, they were the 2 that knew who the VP and S of S was!) . Now here's something: One of the "democrats" said Kerry, but then, after more discussion, he said he'd still be 17 during the next election! He didn't know he wasn't even permitted to vote until the announcer told him! Out of the other 2, one said Kerry, and the last guy (who had said Nader) said he would be in Italy during the election, and wasn't planning to vote.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It floors me that when you ask pointed questions to Kerry supporters--SUCH AS pointing out specifically when Bush lied, they remain silent or change the subject. All of us proved here beyond a doubt that Bush and his administration, in fact, have not lied. Not about WMD, not about reasons we went to war, not about anything. In fact, there is no disputing these reasons given. They are completely factual--based on events that truly happened, and truths.

And, even when each of the arguments they profess to believe are refuted and shown not to be true, it makes no difference. Can it be true? Can facts REALLY not matter to these people?

I've been following a thread elsewhere on Disboards where people list what they love about Disneyworld. There is a lot I love about Disneyworld. There is also so much I love about America that so many of you, it seems, just don't get.

 

[faithinkarma]

I will tell you how I explain the truth regarding the toppling of the statue of Saddam. I see it as many many happy Iraqis reveling in the fact that the dicatatorship they were living under was finally ended. I don't see this as propaganda in your sense. I see it as footage of happy Iraqis filmed and then shown to the general public. As for the American soldiers there? Well, to me that's not a negative, nor does it prove anything "manufactured".

You see no problem with reporting there were thousands and thousands of Iraqis when there were in fact fewer than two hundred? And then you complain that no one will continue to debate with you? You only allow for your own personal interpretation of the facts. You dismiss anyone's opinion but your own. You are provided with pictures; you are provided with direct quotes, and you dismiss any that suggest your premise is mistaken. No offense, but you are sounding like someone who believes they are so much smarter than everyone else, that everyone should just simply accept what you say and save themselves the effort of thinking it through with their own puny brains.




A poster can change their name, but they cannot change their tune.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
You see no problem with reporting there were thousands and thousands of Iraqis when there were in fact fewer than two hundred? And then you complain that no one will continue to debate with you? You only allow for your own personal interpretation of the facts. You dismiss anyone's opinion but your own. You are provided with pictures; you are provided with direct quotes, and you dismiss any that suggest your premise is mistaken. No offense, but you are sounding like someone who believes they are so much smarter than everyone else, that everyone should just simply accept what you say and save themselves the effort of thinking it through with their own puny brains.

Hmmm, FIK, I did go to that article, and it really doesn't prove a thing. . .even if the military DID pull the statue down, there were STILL MANY ELATED IRAQIS--very happy to assist with the event! It actually makes sense that the military would help topple the statue. This DOES NOT prove your point. . .it really doesn't.

Conversely, however, the Bush supporters on this site HAVE proved that Bush didn't lie. . .not about WMD, not about reasons to go to war, etc. Clearly, there are facts, not feelings, supporting our position. Furthermore, there are the facts that many weapons have been found and that it has been suspiciously absent from much of the mainstream press--or relegated to back pages. That Bush lied has been the crux of the liberals' issues regarding their hatred of Bush. So, when that's refuted, shown to be completely untrue despite the democrats' continual rhetoric, I (we) wonder. . .why do you still say he lied? And, about what? Certainly not about the things we have already discussed.

To be honest, I think half the people here are as smart or smarter than me. They go out of the way to think things through, stay on the issues instead of refusing to debate, and have formed opinions based on information that has been established to be true. It really hasn't anything to do with "agreeing" with my position. It has to do with, if you're a liberal, being able to say, "It doesn't matter if I like Bush or not, but, gee, bush didn't lie (since he clearly didn't--as has been PROVEN)" instead of spouting the same untruths that we hear Al Gore, Joe Wilson, Terry McAullife, and JOHN KERRY spewing every day. It has to do with saying, "Gee, even though the press hasn't reported it widely, it IS true that these weapons were found". All this is true. . .so, no, if people won't acknowledge this, despite the FACT that it is TRUE and I can SOURCE this, and you can FIND it on google or anywhere else, I have a hard time respecting your intelligence. No offense intended, of course.

In an ideal world, there'd be peace throughout. That's what I wish we had. We don't, because there is a large segment of this world whose actual ideology includes teaching that killing the rest of the population who don't share that ideology until there is only one religious ideology is absolutely correct! They don't believe in religious freedom. They don't believe in dissent. . they don't believe in free thinking. And, haha to all of you who will pretend to think this is Bush I'm talking about. Shame on you. All we WANT is to live in peace without fear, without being scared to get in the bus, go to Sbarros, go in the subway. . .that's it. And, these people who are planning to interrupt our peaceful existence with acts of overt and covert terrorism must be stopped in their tracks. Period. They must be not permitted to make nuclear weapons, not permitted to maintain biochemical and chemical weapons, etc., etc. And, yes, I am thrilled that the United States is the last Superpower. Better us than the former Soviet Union. Better us than just about any country in the Middle East. We value freedom. They do not. Our Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness--theirs do/did not. We have the "American Dream'. There is no equivalent to this.

 

[Kendra17]

I just wanted to add that I LOVE THIS THREAD! I am having so much fun!

 

[faithinkarma]

Hmmm, FIK, I did go to that article, and it really doesn't prove a thing. . .even if the military DID pull the statue down, there were STILL MANY ELATED IRAQIS--very happy to assist with the event! It actually makes sense that the military would help topple the statue. This DOES NOT prove your point. . .it really doesn't.

If you discount the article, how can you do so to the picture? You see no difference between thousands upon thousands of cheering Iraqis and "fewer than two hundred"? You truly do not understand how the story was altered to give an erroneous impression? ? Then I simply do not know what to say to you.

I am glad you are enjoying the thread but I can only foresee going round and round in circles. yesterday I gave you a quote from the president and you dismissed it saying I had misinterpreted it. by which I assume you meant I had not interpreted it the same way as you. And yet when Robins tried to explain to you that there are different truths from different perspectives, you insist there is only one truth. I don't doubt that you believe this, but can you see how there seems little point in continuing to debate with someone who believes only their view of the truth should prevail?

The best debates are ones where you give a little and take a little. you learn something new, and perhaps pass along a new perspective to another. When someone believes it is appropriate to tell a story about some misinformed 17 year old as proof that everyone on the opposite side of the political spectrum is dumb....what discussion can there be?

And with that I am out of here and on with my day.

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Well, actually, this is funny, because just the other day I said the same thing to my husband. Of course, the truth is, alas, people of all intelligence are permitted to vote.

Oh gee, what a shame we got rid of the literacy tests used to disenfranchise so many voters.

How do you feel about bringing back the "grandfather clause" and the "poll tax"? Surely a well-informed person such as yourself knows what those are. If not, let me educate you.

The "literacy test", the "grandfather clause", and the "poll tax" were things segregationist morons used to keep inferiors (eg. black citizens) from voting.

There's a message in their somewhere. Follow the bouncing prose.

Originally posted by Kendra17
I don't know if I really should even bring the following up, but, what the hey. . .I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago, and they did a "man on the street" segment.

What a surprise.............a Hannity fan.

Originally posted by Kendra17
All of us proved here beyond a doubt that Bush and his administration, in fact, have not lied. Not about WMD, not about reasons we went to war, not about anything. In fact, there is no disputing these reasons given. They are completely factual--based on events that truly happened, and truths.

Us? Do you mean Bush orgasmatrons who can't see beyond their own hero worship of Bush?

Originally posted by Kendra17
And, even when each of the arguments they profess to believe are refuted and shown not to be true, it makes no difference. Can it be true? Can facts REALLY not matter to these people?

Finally, something we agree on.. Those on my side of the aisle ask the same about those on the other side of the aise.

Originally posted by Kendra17
There is also so much I love about America that so many of you, it seems, just don't get.

Hey, thanks for coming along. No telling what we would've done without you.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
A symbolic margarita perhaps?

Oh I was thinking more along the lines of a "loser leave town" thing. You know, the loser leaves the DIS. Up for it?

Richard

 

[JPN4265]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Oh I was thinking more along the lines of a "loser leave town" thing. You know, the loser leaves the DIS. Up for it?

Richard

This is priceless! Good idea, if you get any takers.

 

[KristiKelly]

never mind, photo didn't take

 

[Kendra17]

ThAnswr. . .you are 100% correct regarding the literacy tests; if I wasn't clear about that, let me restate that it was tongue in cheek--a response to some other posters who had stated something similar--also tongue in cheek.

Both you and FIK seem to think that the complaints I and other Bush supporters have made regarding the Dems are similar to yours, and other Kerry supporters, complaints against us (me).

They are not, and I'll tell you why.

The Democratic mantra has been, "Bush lied". This is stated, or yelled at the top of the yellers' lungs, over and over again. Well, on this board, we have absolutely proven that Bush has not lied. This isn't a matter of opinion. . .this is factual. There has not been any lies regarding the war with Iraq. Look back at all the posts again, if need be. I have not been the only one refuting this accusation. Point by point, over again, we have deconstructed the liberals' posts. At one point, there was even a concession on the liberals' end. That poster said, "well, even if he didn't lie, look up Bush Lies on the web, and see what you come up with". So, was that person admitting that BUsh did indeed not lie, but still thinks that because many people still either think he did, or are spreading false information (i.e., lying) that argument is still valid?

As an adjunct to the "Bush lied" mantra, the liberals have often said that there was no weapons program. Considering that many biological and chemical weapons have actually been discovered in Iraq, not to mention long-range missles,how can this argument hold water? Not to mention the news last week that stated it is absolutely factual that the Iraqis were attempting to purchase Uranium and uranium oxide from Niger. Hmmm, this is another absolute PROOF that your argument regarding these weapons is flimsy.

We have now eliminated the liberals' top two arguments regarding Bush's lying and faulty reasons for going to war.

To top it off, other arguments liberals such as yourself have used include that we were completely unjustified to go to war. Well, on prior posts, we have discussed at length reasons why we were absolutely justified to go to war. That the "first" Gulf War wasn't actually over. There was no Peace treaty. There was a Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. According to this agreement, Iraq had to follow a number of rules. They broke many of these rules, including shooting at our planes constantly, which is in REALITY an Act of War. Furthermore, they did not cooperate with the Weapons Inspections, which was a necessity to keep the Cessation of Hostiilities agreement valid. So, acknowledging they did not honor their part of the bargain IS, in fact, acknowledging we were justified in going to war.

What subsequently follows once these three (and others, maybe, we have discussed) arguments are discovered to be faulty, is that Bush isn't a bad President. You have to have REASONS to state Bush is a bad President. Your reasons are faulty.

Conversely, when you give me an article regarding the toppling of the statue of Saddam, what does that prove? It proves that the military took a photo opportunity, or footage opportunity WITH the Iraqis all to eager to assist. I don't understand how this pokes holes in anything that I said. So, it wasn't exactly as we thought. It's da*n close. It makes sense, it's not offensive to me at all. And, if it's offensive to you, well, okay. But, it doesn't change anything regarding our foreign policy. Not one iota. I never thought, watching the original footage, that there were "thousands" of Iraqis. I thought there were a lot of Iraqis, and they were overjoyed to participate in the toppling of the statue of Saddam. Actually, even with your information, this is still the truth. The only difference is that the military assisted by pulling the statue over. But, I saw military in the footage, so this is STILL not shocking or surprising. I'm really not trying to rain on your parade here. I'm not trying to discount what you are stating but, truthfully, this isn't a shock or a surprise. The Iraqis were still there. They were still happy. The military actually did the major toppling while eager Iraqis were climbing on the statue with smiles on their faces. Okay. This isn't confusing or bewildering to me.

Furthermore, this isn't the crux of our (Republicans) argument. Even if we conceded this one point, which doesn't seem to change much, our argument is STILL by far stronger and more sensible. Plus, there is nothing you can come back with when we've deconstructed your arguments, except say that they are relative. . .which, they are not.

All you do is state you hate Bush. Well, our argument has absolutely nothing to do with Kerry.And, believe me it could. . .he's being investigated presently (Judicial watch. . .), he's flip flopped on major issues consistently. He has admitted to war crimes. The list goes on and on. . .and that's not even what we've been discussing--yet.

You've been attacking Bush using the same rhetoric every other liberal uses, and we've been saying those attacks aren't justifiable. And, we've given you facts as to why they aren't justifiable, and why your position isn't defensible. You have absolutely not done the same.

About what robinrs stated: All I am saying is that I believe many people have erroneous information, and they have opinions based on misperceptions and erroneous information or feelings that may be based on misperceptions and erroneous information.

And, yes, there is only one truth, FIK. There are many opinions and feelings but there is only one truth. Somebody is right, somebody is wrong. Even if both parties believe themselves to be right, the truth is there is only one right. We were correct in going into Iraq, were correct in going into Afghanistan, or we were not. The Islamists were either correct, that is did the right moral thing, when they toppled the World Trade Center, or they were not.

This isn't a gray area to anyone with a spine. Some things are bad and some things are good. I can admit to you that I know there are many in the Middle East and elsewhere that believe wholeheartedly that toppling the World Trade Center was a good thing. Despite the most fervent belief that committing acts of terror are good things to do, that doesn't make it so. Despite the fact that many believe TARGETING innocent civilians to kill is acceptable, it's simply NOT.

 

[artgrowden]

"Considering that many biological and chemical weapons have actually been discovered in Iraq, not to mention long-range missles,how can this argument hold water?"

Hunh? Where? Bush himself even admits they haven't found any:

"Although we haven't found the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq, and America is safer today because we did," Bush said, reiterating a Monday speech in which he said "we were right to go into Iraq."

I'm not a Liberal and up until this fiasco, I was a Bush supporter but we can't afford 4 more years of this bunch.

Now, the more I read, the more dead set against him I am.

 

[totalia]

OK, you want an example of Bush lying? How about Iraq? He said they had WMD's and thats why he attacked the country. He lied about that. Then tried to change the reason that he attacked the country to cover his own butt.

How about an example of foreign policy?

Just with Canada alone (and no I'm not including other examples because this is the country I know best though there are plenty of those two).

Bet you didn't even know what Canada did for the States during 9/11. We closed our borders with you. Then we took all of the planes still in the air and had them flown to OUR airports to unload them. Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people landed in our country. We took the chance that YOUR OWN wasn't willing to. The chance they would blow up on our own airstrips near millions of people. THEN we fed and boarded these people for weeks. Clothing, food, blankets, housing, medical care, you name it, we gave it FREE. During that time, we sent firetrucks, medicines, and boxes and boxes of goods like clothing and blood, doctor's, nurses, firemen and paramedics into your country to help you. We spent billions of dollars and asked nothing in return for that help. What we did was more than ANYONE else in the WORLD did. We even went into Afghanistan to fight at the side of the American military and yes some of our own DIED on the field.

What did we receive for the things we did? Not even a thank you. Bush decided that he would thank every other country in the world that gave him even a tiny bit of help and completely ignored Canada as though we didn't even exist. That's gratitude for you.

When Bush was asked later why he didn't thank Canada, he got this sheepish look on his face and said in a real quiet voice "Well, we just considered Canada brothers so we didn't think thanks were needed."

You know why he really didn't thank Canada? Because he forgot.

What kind of president FORGETS to thank his closest ally and neighbor that willingling put its own people into danger and spent billions to help his country?

That alone is enough to get me to dislike the man, never mind lying about Iraq, using 9/11 as part of his campaign to get himself reelected (deplorable action in itself), scaring the daylights out of his own citizens with the "terrorism warning system" that has YET to actually provide anything and his people are beginning to ignore it completely, giving the finger to the only world governing body and yet still expecting to belong to it and to have it clean up the mess after he made it instead of rebuilding what he destroyed.

Do I like Bush? Definately not. Remove him. Anyone has to be better than this incredibly stupid man.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by artgrowden
"Considering that many biological and chemical weapons have actually been discovered in Iraq, not to mention long-range missles,how can this argument hold water?"

Hunh? Where? Bush himself even admits they haven't found any:

"Although we haven't found the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq, and America is safer today because we did," Bush said, reiterating a Monday speech in which he said "we were right to go into Iraq."

I'm not a Liberal and up until this fiasco, I was a Bush supporter but we can't afford 4 more years of this bunch.

Now, the more I read, the more dead set against him I am.

Chemical, biological, and other banned weapons found in Iraq, so far, since 2003:
- Brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever
- Ricin
- Sarin
- Aflatoxin
- Mustard gas
- Long-range missiles
- Nuclear centrifuges
- 20 Al Samoud 2 missile engines
- 16 Sarin and Mustard Warheads.
* 3900 POUNDS of powdered uranium, cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium.