PDA

View Full Version : George Bush's Top 50 Accomplishments


FieryEyed
01-30-2005, 01:06 PM
George W. Bush's 50 greatest accomplishments


1.) I attacked and took over two countries.

2.) I spent the US surplus and bankrupted the US treasury.

3.) I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy)

4.) I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

5.) I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

6.) I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

7.) I am the first president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

8.) In my first year in office I set the all-time record for the most days on vacation by any president in US history (tough to beat my dad's, but I did).

9.) After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over the worst security failure in US history.

10.) I set the record for most campaign raising trips by any president in US history.

11.) In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

12.) I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.

13.) I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month period.

14.) I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any other president in US history.

15.) I set the record for fewest press conferences of any president since the advent of TV.

16.) I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

17.) I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history.

18.) I cut health-care benefits for war veterans.

19.) I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any one person in the history of mankind.

20.) I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.

21.) I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

22.) Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US histiry (the poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her).

23.) I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.

24.) I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.

25.) I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.

26.) I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the US.

27.) I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any other president in US history (Reagan was hard to beat, but I did it!!!)

28.) I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations to remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.

29.) I am the first president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the Elections Monitoring Board.

30.) I removed more checks and balances and have the least congressional oversight of any presidential administration in US history.

31.) I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

32.) I withdrew from the World Court Of Law.

33.) I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.

34.) I am the first president in US history to refuse United Nations elections inspectors access during the 2002 elections.

35.) I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for the most corporate campaign donations.

36.) The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of EnronCorporation)

37.) I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.

38.) I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).

39.) I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.

40.) I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

41.) I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

42.) I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

43.) I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated US laws by not selling their huge investments in corporations that later made bids for gov. contracts.

44.) I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.

45.) I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the Civil War.

46.) I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

47.) I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).

48.)I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of war. I refused to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

49.) All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records of any SEC investigation into my insider trading or bankrupted companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

50.) All minutes of meetings of any public corporations for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

Viv
01-30-2005, 01:40 PM
Don't forget #51

51) Despite the multitude of contrived allegations the American people elected me overwhelmingly to a second term (not even the Dem. beloved Clinton had the popular vote) in the largest voter turnout in the countries history.

Feleron
01-30-2005, 01:46 PM
2.) I spent the US surplus and bankrupted the US treasury.
We have not declared bankruptcy; in fact, aren't even close to bankruptcy.

3.) I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not easy)
Not adjusted for inflation or if compared to the size of the economy.

5.) I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
Not as a percent of the stock market. You can't compare a drop of a couple thousand when the stockmarket was even over two thousand until very recently.

12.) I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US history.
There is a BIG difference between cutting benefits and not extending benefits beyond what is already provided for in law.

16.) I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
That one I'm curious, what are you talking about?

17.) I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any other US president in history.
Um, laws and executive orders can't amend the Constitution. Only Amendments to the Constitution can do that.

20.) I dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
Which treaties? He did exercise the opt-out in the ABM treaty, but I'm honestly curious which other ones.

23.) I am the first president in US history to have all 50 states of the union simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
Actually, many States have had record surpluses in the last few years. And, of course, you realize the Pres. doesn't set tax and spending for the States, right?

24.) I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in any country in the history of the world.
Um, most of that fraud was going on long before January 2001.

25.) I am the first president in US history to order a US attack and military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
Are you serious on this one? Try Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and that is only in the last 20 years.

28.) I am the first president in US history to compel the United Nations to remove the US from the Human Rights Commission.
The UN didn't have anything to do with that (and for the record we are current members of the HRC). Our European "allies" voted against us to show their displeasure with our policies. And looking at the makeup of the HRC, being a member is nothing to be proud of.

31.) I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
The UN rendered itself irrelevant.

32.) I withdrew from the World Court Of Law.
Do you mean the ICC? We are still members of the World Court. And even Clinton opposed the ICC.

33.) I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
The IRC has been to Guantanamo multiple times. And by Al Qeada and Taliban fighters don't meet the definition of POWs (whether they should be treated as POWs is a different issue).

37.) I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
I think Bill Clinton paid WAY more attention to polls and focus groups.

38.) I am the first president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied, saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1).
I didn't hear about the code to Air Force 1, but the President didn't run and hide. In fact, the Secret Service wanted to send the President to NORAD during 9/11 but W refused and personally ordered the plane to Washington.

39.) I am the first US president to establish a secret shadow government.
A secret shadow government? Do they fly around in secret black helicopters? Puh-leaze.

45.) I have created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided that the US has been since the Civil War.
Yeah, I mean the country was totally united during Impeachment, the first Gulf War, Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, etc. And, considering he won the first popular vote majority since 1988, I wouldn't say the country is divided.

46.) I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Um, the recession started in March 2001. I doubt the President has the power to do that after being in office for only 6 weeks.

48.)I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of war. I refused to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
Actually, he served way more than his required time in the Texas Air National Guard, volunteered for Vietnam (was turned down because the was an air force surplus of pilots at the time and the air force didn't use the type of aircraft he had experience flying). He met all of his obligations under the Alamaba National Guard, and LEGALLY received permission to take time off to work on a senatorially campaign. He know all this because W signed the form permitting his military records to be released. Something John Kerry never did, so we don't really know his story for the four months he was in Vietnam.

49.) All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records of any SEC investigation into my insider trading or bankrupted companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
Actually, his records as Governor were sealed in accordance with Texas state law (same as Ann Richards were). W later waved the provision and opened up his records.

50.) All minutes of meetings of any public corporations for which I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
All in accordance with state and federal law.

FieryEyed
01-30-2005, 02:00 PM
First off, this list comes from my sister who is a journalist for the US Army.

Secondly, you are obviously a republican so you are going to believe the republican side of all these issues. I on the other hand am a democrat, and this is mostly information from the democratic party. The republicans sugar coat every negative detail about their party and the democrats to the same. If you were to make a list like this about any democratic president, they would be harsher FACTS than I would care to hear, but I would still accept them as true.

And third, if all the records for George Bush in Texas werent available for the public, along with all the meetings while he was in office because of state and federal laws, how come they are available for every other president in history?

Now if you would excuse me, I have to go attend to my morning sickness, since I am the kind of person every right wing republican is so against.... An unwed mother who is prochoice and all for overtime pay!

jkimpton
01-30-2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Viv
Don't forget #51

51) Despite the multitude of contrived allegations the American people elected me overwhelmingly to a second term (not even the Dem. beloved Clinton had the popular vote) in the largest voter turnout in the countries history.

And I won by a whole three percent! It's a landslide, I tell you!

Cami2
01-30-2005, 02:03 PM
Applause to Feleron. I won't even respond to this crap.

FieryEyed
01-30-2005, 02:13 PM
Well, if you are a republican, then dont read this. You can start your won positive list about Bush, but good luck getting to 50!

Feleron
01-30-2005, 02:19 PM
Hey Fiery Eyed, maybe if you could stop spewing venom for a while and actually approach things with an open mind for a minute, you might realize that I posted FACTS to dispute what you posted (and asked a honest question in one that you didn't reply to, I guess you don't really know?).

And, for the record, I am not a Republican and didn't vote for W. I am someone with an open mind, who cares about facts, and doesn't accept everything I hear as gospel truth (even if it is something I want to hear or agrees with what I think). I am also pro-choice, my sister is a single mother, and I believe in OT (even though I don't get it because I am salary-exempt). Sorry to explode your little prejudged stereotypes.

Viv
01-30-2005, 02:22 PM
We could just make-up some ridculous lies...but wait that been done...HERE.

And Feleron that was lovely.
**joins Cami in applause**

Kir'rei
01-30-2005, 02:37 PM
31.) I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.


I've always found this rather ironic. Our major reason for war with Iraq was the fact that they were going against the orders of the UN and making weapons of mass destruction. So, in response, WE went against the orders of the UN and declared war on Iraq.

"How dare you disobey the UN! Now I will disobey the UN to teach you a lesson!"

Caishaurianne
01-30-2005, 02:45 PM
Feleron, I believe #16 is referring to the California energy crisis. Energy production there was privatized, but the private companies manipulated production to capitalize on the market. Could you tell me more about #23?

As for that list...well, I just don't care enough at the moment to respond to every item. I have to say that I agree with Feleron about quite a few of them (obviously I disagree on others), and some of those issues are subjective. And the "secret shadow government"...Uhhh...I agree that Bush should be more open and less political, but that phrase just gives the impression of paranoia.

Anyway, a few quick points:
The economic issues have been manipulated by both sides, largely because most people don't know enough about it to realize when they're seeing propaganda. The stock market drop and such had been brewing through YEARS of overspeculation, but Bush's tax cuts aren't exactly the ideal solution.

The National Guard issue has ambiguous evidence, and maybe if I cared more I would research it enough to form an opinion, but you know what? It was decades ago and I don't exactly think Vietnam was a noble war, anyway.

Saying "even Clinton" probably doesn't have the impact you intend it to. ^_^ Aside from a few issues, Clinton was fairly moderate, and many true "liberals" consider him downright conservative.

I have a lot of reasons to oppose Bush ("I'm a liberal! Ask me how!" ;) :p ), but these lists tend to simplify issues to the point of polemic accusations. Regardless, to assert that Bush's majority means that our nation is not divided or that Bush won "overwhelmingly" is simply incorrect.

FieryEyed
01-30-2005, 02:56 PM
Listen, I didnt write this. I made mention about this list in the Negative Things About Bush thred and was asked to show it. I did and if you have a problem with it, you needn't read it. And sorry if I am a bit bitter about these sorts of thigs, but they have effected my family severely. And the issued mentioned in the list are not rediculous lies. I am quite sorry for those of you who cannot see the flaws in our government, but follow it so blindly. Truely told, I am not at all happy with the way things in our government have been going for some time. If I were actually old enough to have more of an opinion durring the Clinton administration, I am sure I would have all the democrats pointing fingers at me if I mentioned things about him I didnt like. And I knw we all make mistakes so I dont hold much against Bush for having a criminal record and making bad choices while in office, but if he could just admit that he has been wrong on accasions and try to make a mends instead of just digging himself in a deeper whole, I could maybe have a little resepct for him. But you cant go and accuse me of spewing venom while you do the same. They are not pre-judged stereotypes, and yes I am aware of the question you asked and I felt an answer was not neccessary.

I did not want to get into a huge political arguement here and I am sure thanks to this I am not much liked around here anymore, so I guess I will just go on my merry little way and let the rest of you pass your own judgements upon me for having my own opinion of things.

Feleron
01-30-2005, 02:59 PM
If #16 was referring to the California energy crisis, that started in June 2000. 8 months before W was sworn in. I live in California and was working for an "interruptable customer" at that time, so trust me on this. And W continued the Clinton administration policy of requiring energy producers to sell to California.

Oh, and I'm not disputing our nation isn't divided, just that it is any more divided now than it has been recently.

Caishaurianne
01-30-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by FieryEyed
But you cant go and accuse me of spewing venom while you do the same. They are not pre-judged stereotypes, and yes I am aware of the question you asked and I felt an answer was not neccessary.

I did not want to get into a huge political arguement here and I am sure thanks to this I am not much liked around here anymore, so I guess I will just go on my merry little way and let the rest of you pass your own judgements upon me for having my own opinion of things.

Whoa whoa whoa! Don't get too upset here. There are quite a few of us who love debates just for the sake of ripping arguments apart, and it's usually not personal. I can't imagine anyone hating you simply for posting one of the tens/hundreds of political lists/essays that we've seen.

I believe Feleron's comment about venom was not aimed at your differing opinion, but the fact that you assumed that he would be "against" you for being a pro-choice, unwed mother. That was an assumption. No one appreciates people making assumptions about them (particularly when the assumption is wrong). He was pissed. He told you so. There's no reason to let it drive you away.

Viv
01-30-2005, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Caishaurianne

I have a lot of reasons to oppose Bush ("I'm a liberal! Ask me how!" ;) :p ), but these lists tend to simplify issues to the point of polemic accusations. Regardless, to assert that Bush's majority means that our nation is not divided or that Bush won "overwhelmingly" is simply incorrect.

Okay I admit that "overwhelmingly" is a bit of a strecht but that was not my point. Nor did I ever say that this country was not a country divide, because it is and it troubles me.

My point was simply that dispite all these allegations (not any of which is new) the American people did vote him into a second term which means one of two things:1) the greater amount of the populace do not believe the allegations to be true or 2) they simply did not care. I have more faith in this country than to believe it to be #2.

If you do however find evidence (not conjucture) that GW has acted to the detriment of this nation please do let me know as I do believe that it is our duty to monitor (and challenge when appropriate) our leaders actions.

BTW: Did I say beloved of the liberals? No I don't think I did, simply because I never would, there are degrees to liberalism just as there are degrees of conservatism. Neither fit into a nice tidy little box.

I have always interperated moderate as politically cautious, but that's just me.

FieryEyed
01-30-2005, 03:42 PM
Oh you would be surprised. MY best frind didnt talk to me for 3 months when I tried to explain to her how Bush overturning the abortion laws would be futile and make things worse. She is an uber-christian though, and it made it rough. And now we arent really friends anymore, we will just talk civily at church. Its kinda sad. I should have learned from that to keep my mouth shut.

Oh, and if you wanted to hear the paraniod side to this arguement, I could get into how my mother rants and raves about the elections being rigged. Which is a possibilty, but I dont think Bush could have pulled it off. It would take an evil mastermind like Ross Perot.

Viv
01-30-2005, 03:50 PM
FieryEyed I am truely sorry for your experience with your friend but not all repulicans... or christians for that matter... will react as your friend did.

Expect more from people and very often you will see it, expect the worst and you will definately see it.

Caishaurianne
01-30-2005, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Viv
Okay I admit that "overwhelmingly" is a bit of a strecht but that was not my point. Nor did I ever say that this country was not a country divide, because it is and it troubles me.

My point was simply that dispite all these allegations (not any of which is new) the American people did vote him into a second term which means one of two things:1) the greater amount of the populace do not believe the allegations to be true or 2) they simply did not care. I have more faith in this country than to believe it to be #2.


I was quoting Feleron on "divided". I agree with you that the majority of the populous did not believe allegations, did not care, or (third option!) didn't hear much about them. My distaste for exaggeration is not an attack.

Originally posted by Viv

BTW: Did I say beloved of the liberals? No I don't think I did, simply because I never would, there are degrees to liberalism just as there are degrees of conservatism. Neither fit into a nice tidy little box.

I have always interperated moderate as politically cautious, but that's just me.

I'm not sure where "beloved" comes in. I agree with this whole quote, but...did I miss something? Are you still talking to me, or were your first couple paragraphs the only ones that applied to my quote?

PS I've commented previously on Bush's foreign policy, economic policy, social policy, etc. I'm in the middle of unpacking now, but if you'll remind me tonight I'll copy and paste a quick run-down of my opposition to many of those policies.

jkimpton
01-30-2005, 04:04 PM
I'm one of those people who likes to pick stuff apart relentlessly, and I freely admit to being a troublemaker, but 99% of the time I don't carry disagreements outside the discussion itself. I've met a couple of people who truly were the scum of the earth *including* their political beliefs, but I haven't run across any of those here.

Viv
01-30-2005, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Caishaurianne
I'm not sure where "beloved" comes in.


The "beloved" was actually from me.Dem. beloved Clinton


Originally posted by Caishaurianne
[/B]I agree with this whole quote, but...did I miss something? Are you still talking to me, or were your first couple paragraphs the only ones that applied to my quote?


Actually though most of it was a response to you the invitation for evidence of wrong doing was open to everyone. As I have said elsewhere I did indeed vote for GW but his comments of late lead me to believe the boy needs a very close eye kept on him. As far as I am concerned he is walking a fine line.

FieryEyed
01-30-2005, 04:34 PM
Well, did you hear what he said the day his winning was announced. He said "I gained collateral durring this election and I plan to use it however I want"

Those were his exact words, and the only reason I remember them so well is that he was being such a smug bastard when he said it (please excuse my language).

I cant tell you how much was i hoping for Bush to get the popular vote and Kerry to get the electoral and have the supreme court vote him into office. It would have been SUCH a slap in the face!

Feleron
01-30-2005, 04:34 PM
FieryEyed, I have no problem with your first post. I disagreed with a lot of it and posted rebuttals (and a question which you still haven't answered). And then, because I dared to disagree with you, you proceeded to make serval judgements about me, putting me down and then writing me off. My reply to that was based on your intolerance of anyone disagreeing with you. I'm not surprised at all about you loosing a friend over a disagreement. You then proceeded to announce you were leaving the board, and then came back to write another post.

In college I was good friends with the president of Campus Crusade for Christ. I took her to a Pride Festival, she took me to a Bible study. We disagreed on many things, but were still friends because we accepted other opinions and never demonized people. I think that is a lesson many people could learn from.

FieryEyed
01-30-2005, 04:40 PM
I didnt mean leaving forever. Just for a short while because I cant seem to stop yakking.

Caishaurianne
01-30-2005, 04:45 PM
Viv: Sorry--I didn't connect the "beloved" to my Clinton comment, which was in reference to Feleron's statement that "even Clinton opposed the ICC". I was also being mildly facetious. I find it amusing that conservatives see the Democratic party as liberal and liberals see the Democratic party as conservative. (Again, take "conservative" and "liberal" with a grain of salt. I consider myself moderate, but I frequently refer to myself as "liberal" simply because that's how most people view me.)

Chian D'en
01-30-2005, 06:11 PM
I asked Fieryeyed to post this, so any replys about the spirt of the orginial posts, please direct at me.
All these are replys to Feleron's post.
1) We have not declared bankruptcy; in fact, aren't even close to bankruptcy.
Yet the amount we have added to the defiect is so exhorbitant that it seems highly impractical to think there is much of anything, if anything at all in the treasury.
2) Not adjusted for inflation or if compared to the size of the economy.
This true (so no one can accuse me of being utterly closed minded on this) the biggest defict, factors taken into consideration, was under Regean in 1986. However, for sheer dollars, Bush does have the record.
3) Not as a percent of the stock market. You can't compare a drop of a couple thousand when the stockmarket was even over two thousand until very recently.
It is not saying as a precent of the stock market, it is simply the biggest drop.
4) There is a BIG difference between cutting benefits and not extending benefits beyond what is already provided for in law.
I'm not sure on this, but if before the benefits were above what is provided by the law, and afterwards were at the level provided for by the law, wouldn't that mean that spending on these benefits had been cut?
5) The energy crisis is being tackled by other people and I confess to not knowing to much on that to begin with.
6) Um, laws and executive orders can't amend the Constitution. Only Amendments to the Constitution can do that.
I am making an assumption, and I very well could be wrong here, but as a Bush-backer you *might* be in the group of people that is always telling people that his "Bushisms" shouldn't be criticized so why get caught up in semantics now? The point is clearly made, he signed more laws and executive orders into law than any other president.
7) Which treaties? He did exercise the opt-out in the ABM treaty, but I'm honestly curious which other ones.
The Kyoto treaty is another one.
8) Actually, many States have had record surpluses in the last few years. And, of course, you realize the Pres. doesn't set tax and spending for the States, right?
In the past few years many states have been doing better, and, while the president does not set spending and tax rates, he does contribute to the overall economic climate, which does affect the States financial status does it not?
9)As to the replies to 25- Yugoslavia- the US invasion of Yugoslavia was conducted in conjunction with NATO, therefore is not covered by the criteria of the item.
Grendada was not a soverign nation when we invaded, it had been through four years of revolution.

10) The UN didn't have anything to do with that (and for the record we are current members of the HRC). Our European "allies" voted against us to show their displeasure with our policies. And looking at the makeup of the HRC, being a member is nothing to be proud of.
1) How can the UN have "nothing to do with" something that involves people being removed from the HRC? The HRC is PART of the UN.
2) And our ALLIES voted against us, we were removed and have since been readded (yes this list needs to be updated)
3) And as for the makeup of the HRC, I agree, it is nothing to be proud of, as a country that uses the death penalty, we have no business there.

11) The UN rendered itself irrelevant.
If the UN rendered itself irrelevant, why did we ask for their help in Iraq? Why were so many people enraged by their refusal? If the UN is worthless, why do some mant people care about it. And I'm not going to go into the colossal arogance behind that statement further than pointing it out.

12)Do you mean the ICC? We are still members of the World Court. And even Clinton opposed the ICC.
I'm assuming that the World Court was intended to be the ICC, and even if Clinton did not approve, he DID join, making that statement true (given that it is about the ICC)

13) The IRC has been to Guantanamo multiple times. And by Al Qeada and Taliban fighters don't meet the definition of POWs (whether they should be treated as POWs is a different issue).
I'm guessing that this is more out of date information on this list ( there is some as I recall seeing it some time ago) and as for the Taliban fighters not being POWs, considering they were soliders fighting under a legitimate government taken prisoner by an invading army during a time of declared war, what the Hell IS A POW IF NOT THAT?! Just because we say they aren't doesn't make it so.

14) I think Bill Clinton paid WAY more attention to polls and focus groups.
Money, not attention was the issue adressed.

15) Actually, his records as Governor were sealed in accordance with Texas state law (same as Ann Richards were). W later waved the provision and opened up his records.
Ummm yeah they were released, but edited to the point where very little information is available.

16) Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
All in accordance with state and federal law."
What state law covers the activies of the President in DC?

Feleron
01-30-2005, 07:28 PM
Crap, the board crashed when I tried to upload my response. Let me redo it without the quotes.

1. We sell bonds to make up the difference. When people refuse to buy US bonds, then we will be bankrupt.

3. Yes, but the answer is the same as #2. You can't compare apples to oranges.

4. Law provides people with unemployment benefits for a certain amount of time (x weeks). Congress voted several times to extend the benefits (x + y weeks). Then Congress, along with the Administration, decided not to continue to extend the benefits. If you applied for benefits now, you would get x weeks of benefits. Only in Washington would that be considered a cut.

5. Fair enough.

6. I make fun of the "Bushisms" all the time. In fact, I've gotten into the habit of calling everything romatical now! And don't confuse my disagreeing with the post as being a "Bush-backer". And laws and executive orders can't amend the Constitution.

7. The original post said he dissolved treaties. Kyoto is actually in effect. You did know that, right? Europe, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand (Australia also refused to ratify Kyoto) all have to buy emissions from Russia to cover their increases. Removing a signature from a treaty doesn't dissolve it.

9. Again, the original post was about the UN, and international support. The UN did not support NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia. Russia and China vigorously opposed it. Kofi Anan declared it illegal. As a side note - I was outside the country when the bombings started, and trust me I got an earful of unilateral, militaristic Americans.
And Grenada was very much a sovergn nation. Having a revolution doesn't negate your sovergnty.

10. Misstatement on my part, I oppologize for that. When I said the UN, I meant the beaurocracy and Security Council. The HRC is chosen by votes of all the members, and is a semi-independant organization.

11. That is a subjective evaluation, so I don't see much point in arguing it out.

12. The World Court is very different from the ICC. The World Court was set up decades ago to arbitrate disputes between countries. The ICC is something new that arrests and prosecutes (or will when it gets going) individuals.

13. The Geneva Conventions are very specific on how fighters have to qualify as legitimate armies. They have to have a defined hierarchy and chain of command, wear regular uniforms, be issued ID (papers, dog tags, etc.), be parties to the Conventions, and be obeying the Conventions themselves. Al Qaeda fails on all counts, and the Taliban only meets the first requirement. Now, whether or not they should be treated as POWs is a different matter. Also, please realize that POWs cannot be interregated, and can be held until the end of the war, which based on the nature on the War on Terror, means they could be dying of old age in Cuba.

14. I don't have any information on money spent on focus groups, can you link to a website that does?

15. Again, in accordance with State law.

16. The state reference was to his records as governor. As for the Energy Task Force, people sued over the records and lost. Federal law does allow the executive a lot of privacy to allow it to function. Whether the records should be released is again, a separate issue. Also, please remember that Hillary tried to keep her records on her health reform task force sealed too. She lost most of her lawsuit because she wasn't a recognized member of the government.

Guest101
01-30-2005, 08:21 PM
People People... I would like to point out that this list is mostly factual. It is skewed horribly, yes, but not inaccurate(Except for in places where the situation has changed since the creation of the list).

And, I would say that the most scathing points there are some of the ones least reputed:

11.) In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

19.) I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any one person in the history of mankind.

21.) I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in US history.

40.) I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).

41.) I am the first US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.(not just Europe... much of the rest of the world as well)




Furthermore, Viv... there is a third possibility: This list didn't exist at the time of the election, or was not readily available to the ignorant parts of the American populace. And, I assure you, most of the ignorant parts voted Bush.


Disclaimer: That is, by no means, saying that all Bush supporters are ignorant, just that the majority of the ignorant voted Bush due to 'Homer Simpson Syndrome': People liked him because he was just 'one of the guys' and because he was always PORTRAYED as being good in the end.(Not to mention the fact that he's dumb as a doorknob.)

Chian D'en
01-30-2005, 08:21 PM
Hahah I get the feeling that we might bounce back and forth for a little while (pretty much once one of us gets tired)
2 and 3) One may not be able to compare to apples to oranges, but I was merely illustrating that these were both statements of fact, albeilt slanted facts, but facts nonetheless.

4) The amount of weeks was lessened, that means it was a cut.

6) I apologize, I did say that I was making some assumptions in my post. And as for laws and orders amending the Constitution, that is a matter of relativity, to one person, it might seem to amend the Constitution, to others, it might not, like I said, merely an issue of the offical title and the recognition of the SC.

7) I was well aware that Kyoto was still in effect and am perfectly willing to concied that point, I did not read the original post closely enough. But here is another treaty he dissolved: The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

9) If NATO, an international organization, supported the attack on Yugoslavia, doesn't that make it an action with international approval? Note that the "Coaltion of the Willing" does not meet this criteria because it was not a pre exisiting group.

12) I am compeled to agree with you in regards to the World Court, however, my reply was to you statement on about the fact that it may have been a confuision between that and the ICC (in defense of that, in most media, the ICC is reffered to as the World Court)

14) Hmm sorry, I can't seem to find any. Maybe it was the shadow government hiding them from us hahahaha!

Chian D'en
01-30-2005, 08:28 PM
And with that, I am no longer entitled to my previous title, and have descarded it in favor of something much more appropriate for the role I seem to play on these boards: Je deviens the Left Wing Troll.

Feleron
01-30-2005, 10:38 PM
I'll still disagree with you on #4. Simply because something wasn't increased, doesn't mean it was cut. The extension was only temporary. Be very careful here, you are on a slippery slope. Bush's tax cuts are only temporary, so if they are allowed to expire that would be a tax increase right? Wow, Chian'den you and Carl Rove are about to be on the same side of an argument. ;)

Okay, and so when you say international approval you just mean NATO approval? So as long as Europe agrees with us, we can do whatever we want? Cool deal.

Kir'rei
01-30-2005, 10:42 PM
Although many (most, probably) of the points in the original post are exaggerated, they ARE based on truths. George Bush is not exactly the destructive force this list makes him out to be, but each of these points is inspired by something he or his administration has actually done. The exaggeration of the post is just a way to draw more attention to the issues (though I would rather just talk about the topics without the exaggeration). Anyway, a good way to look at this post is to realize the fact that it IS based somehow on truth. Although that's hard to do with so much exaggeration.

Actually, I think posts like this do exactly the opposite of what they intend. They draw attention alright, but they also spread only half-true information, and they don't do anything but make Bush-supporters defensive. That's not exactly a way to achieve reasonable argument. Myself, I think it would be more effective just to go with the truth (lord knows, there's enough of it against Bush that we don't NEED to exaggerate!)

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Personally, I don't think this post has done much except make people angry (on both sides). A more logical and fact-based argument would have worked better. Just my opinion, though.

Sorry if this doesn't make any sense. I just realized that I've been typing sort of in a half-daze---I'm kind of tired tonight. If it doesn't make sense, just ignore me, lol. ;)

Chian D'en
01-30-2005, 11:02 PM
Indeed #4 is a slippery slope, and as for Mr. Rove, I find him admirably ruthless though disturbingly unscrupulous, and I would deny under torture that I ever agreed with him ;)
And as for the NATO thing, I wasn't saying that if Europe agrees with us it's all good, that wasn't the point, I was merely saying that NATO, as an international org, does bring international support to something.

Caishaurianne
01-30-2005, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Feleron
I'll still disagree with you on #4. Simply because something wasn't increased, doesn't mean it was cut. The extension was only temporary. Be very careful here, you are on a slippery slope. Bush's tax cuts are only temporary, so if they are allowed to expire that would be a tax increase right?

::shrug::
It's a cut to the status quo (the extra weeks) but not to the actual obligation (law without the "we're so nice" extras). If people would just discuss the actuality of what is going on like y'all are doing, the spin of a vague, undefined "cutting unemployment" or "voted for higher taxes (however many hundred) times" wouldn't work.

Viv
01-31-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Guest101

Furthermore, Viv... there is a third possibility: This list didn't exist at the time of the election, or was not readily available to the ignorant parts of the American populace. And, I assure you, most of the ignorant parts voted Bush.


Disclaimer: That is, by no means, saying that all Bush supporters are ignorant, just that the majority of the ignorant voted Bush due to 'Homer Simpson Syndrome': People liked him because he was just 'one of the guys' and because he was always PORTRAYED as being good in the end.(Not to mention the fact that he's dumb as a doorknob.)

That this particular list did not exist on election day is irrelavent, all the allegations made there-in were already well circulated. That you think so lowly of your fellow countrymen is sad indeed. Is it possible that those who do not agree with you are not ignorant but simply have different priorities.

BTW: You do yourself a disservice reverting to childish name calling after making articulate arguments. Your arguments should have been enough, they were well thought out and logical. I assure you that your opponents would have taken you more seriously had you left out that last bit.

Viv
01-31-2005, 03:23 PM
Oh Feleron,
I know you edited your post with the offer but I truely was interested in any truely naughty things GW has been up to lately. My lack of response was not lack of interest but rather I was just to tried to get into anything last night.

Guest101
01-31-2005, 03:43 PM
Thank you for making the assumption that I am American. I do not have a low opinion of my fellow countrymen, my countrymen just happen to not be Americans.

Furthermore, every group of people to ever exist has had 'ignorant parts' so my claiming that the US has a portion that is ignorant is not showing disrespect, merely admitting a fact.

And, While yes, that last part was a childish insult, it is a very widely known opinion that one of the main reasons Bush got elected was because of people in the less 'civilized' regions of the United States saw him as 'just one of the guys'. And, I would say, its fairly accurate.\


Edit: Read my disclaimer: I said that that was, by no means, saying that all Bush supporters were ignorant. Merely that the majority OF the ignorant are Bush supporters. Someone disagreeing with me does not make them ignorant, of course not. That'd be foolish and ridiculous for me to think.

Viv
01-31-2005, 04:42 PM
My apologies for making the assumption that you were an American, as I am an American, it was not meant as insult but I get the distinct impression that you think it is.

As for there being ignorant people everywhere...well of course I agree...however you were simply being insulting to me personally (and anyone else that holds my views collectively) and not in any way attempting to edify me as to the abundance of ignorance in the world in general or my country in particular.

Disclaimer: I know when I am being prodded with a hot poker and I poke back.
:p

Saint Kiy
01-31-2005, 05:07 PM
Guest 101- for the record, I am from Texas...a red state, and in the south, therefore, I assume this is one of the less civilized areas of which you speak, mostly because I have encountered that attitude about my home state more than once. Let me clear something up for you, we are civilized. We have modern plumbing, electricity, and cars. We do not use outhouses, we are literate, we do not go to the local general store to haggle over the price of eggs we brought to town in our horse drawn buggies. I do not know what it is like where you are from, but just because we like "good ole boys", that does NOT mean we are ignorant. Texas is home to many fine community colleges and excellent universities. If people anywhere in Texas, or in the US are "ignorant about Bush" it is because they choose to be. I know plenty of "ignorant" people who voted for Kerry as well. I would be more careful of your phrasing if you do not wish to offend people on this board. I am not the only person here who might take offense to the "less civilized" comments, as I am not the only one here from a rural area.

Caishaurianne
01-31-2005, 05:57 PM
Guest, by "civilized" were you referring to social policy (for instance, capital punishment)? Infrastructure? Economic diversification and interdependence? I'm a little confused.

As for ignorance...well, polls and pundits are pretty clear that Bush supporters tend to focus on "moral values" and Kerry supporters on policy. Additionally, there is a strong perception on both sides of the political spectrum that the college-educated/intelligentia are predominantly dem/liberal. Given all that, Guest's perception that the ignorant are more likely to vote for Bush is neither uncommon nor unreasonable. (Though the comment about Bush being dumb as a post wasn't helpful at all.) The question is whether he is CORRECT in that perception.

Viv, I know it sounded like (he?) was implying that everyone who voted for Bush is ignorant, but I do not think he meant it that way (especially since he said so right from the beginning). He did not saying that ignorant people voted for Bush because only the ignorant would agree with/like him. He said that the ignorant are more likely to be swayed by someone who projects the "good ol' boy" image that they can identify with and that that person was Bush in the last two elections. That has nothing to do with Bush's policies.

Feleron
01-31-2005, 07:59 PM
Oh Feleron, I know you edited your post with the offer but I truely was interested in any truely naughty things GW has been up to lately. My lack of response was not lack of interest but rather I was just to tried to get into anything last night.
? You lost me there.

there is a strong perception on both sides of the political spectrum that the college-educated/intelligentia are predominantly dem/liberal. Given all that, Guest's perception that the ignorant are more likely to vote for Bush is neither uncommon nor unreasonable. (Though the comment about Bush being dumb as a post wasn't helpful at all.) The question is whether he is CORRECT in that perception.
Actually, Kerry won among people with a high school diploma or less and among those with post graduate education. Bush won among those with some college or a 4 year degree.

And to rebut Guest101's rather ignorant statements about the US, I've been acused of me a "Bush-backer" here in this thread, and I live in a very blue state.

And as for the NATO thing, I wasn't saying that if Europe agrees with us it's all good, that wasn't the point, I was merely saying that NATO, as an international org, does bring international support to something
To quote Collin Powell "The mission will determine the coalition, not the other way around."

Chian D'en
01-31-2005, 09:56 PM
1) The red state vs. blue state divide is utterly pointless, there are bound to be exceptions to the rule.

2) I accused you of being a "Bush-backer" for the simple reason that you were, in fact supporting Bush.

3) Charming quote, utterly irrelevent to the issue of weither or not NATO's approval gives international backing to a military action though.

Feleron
01-31-2005, 10:04 PM
The quote is totally on point. You said the bombing of sovergn, not-a-threat-to-the-US Yugoslavia was ok, becuase NATO participated and NATO is an international institution existing before the war. For the war with Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing was put together for the war. Something needed to be done, so W got together nations and got it done. He didn't get together a bunch of nation, then ask what we should do.

Cami2
01-31-2005, 10:05 PM
I want to say something on the first one. It puzzled me for two days which two countries Bush invaded. If you are talking about Afghanistan as one of them, Bin Laden had taken that country over first and was invading it and tearing it up. The US went in to stop his destruction. I'm puzzled and not sure if you mean Afghanistan but just wanted to clear that one up and you are right those are exaggerated beyond reason IMO. I thought it was a joke though.

Chian D'en
01-31-2005, 10:15 PM
I never once said that the involvement of NATO justified the conflict in Yugoslavia. I merely stated that as we did have international support on that, from a pre-existing orginization, we had international aid and therefore, it was covered by the statement in the original post. The morality of war is not a topic of debate I'd care to get into.

Guest101
01-31-2005, 10:28 PM
Thank you, Caisha. That was exactly what I was saying.

What I was implying by the use of the word 'civilized' was a perception, not my personal opinion. I have not visited the United States very often, or very deeply, so I cannot personally comment on how civilized a place there is. Which is why the word 'civilized' was placed in quotes... to show that I was going based on common perception, not personal opinion. I apologize for not clarifying that. I was referring to those areas of the United States that are seen as being the less civilized. And, if you look at it, the trend seems to be accurate, most areas seen as 'less civilized' did vote Bush.


And, I do not judge a person based on which state the live in... from what I've seen, most of the people here aren't the type to be swayed by what the norm for their region is.


(Oh, and while I am glad I am not in the US because I personally wouldn't want Bush for a leader; I do not take being assumed to be in the US as an insult. So don't feel too bad about it Viv. ;))

Caishaurianne
02-01-2005, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Feleron

Actually, Kerry won among people with a high school diploma or less and among those with post graduate education. Bush won among those with some college or a 4 year degree.


Almost.

Those with NO high school education favored Kerry by 1%. High school graduates, those with some college, and college graduates (4 year) favored Bush by 5-8%. Those with a post-graduate education favored Kerry by 11% (12 if you toss Nader votes in with Kerry's).

Those with no high school and post-grad were more likely to vote for Kerry and those with high school, some college, or a bachelor's degree were more likely to vote for Bush. However, because of the HOW MUCH each group favored Bush/Kerry, Kerry and Bush each got 49% (with Nader getting 1%) of the college graduate vote and...wait for it...those with no college degree favored Bush (53%) to Kerry (47%).

Look! A link! And it's happy to see you! (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html)

Not that that proves anything, as those who attended college aren't necessarily more engaged, but the statistics you referred to were misleading. :)

Regardless, I want to make clear that I was earlier refering to a perception while questioning the accuracy of that perception.

Chani
02-01-2005, 01:48 AM
I want to say something on the first one. It puzzled me for two days which two countries Bush invaded. If you are talking about Afghanistan as one of them, Bin Laden had taken that country over first and was invading it and tearing it up. The US went in to stop his destruction. I'm puzzled and not sure if you mean Afghanistan but just wanted to clear that one up and you are right those are exaggerated beyond reason IMO. I thought it was a joke though.

Uhh.. what?

Osama Bin Laden did not invade Afghanistan, nor did he "tear it up." And the US certainly did not invade to "stop his destruction."

a) Bin Laden was not a militant leader, he was a terrorist leader.
b) Bin Laden was a guest of the Taliban who were unwilling to hand him over to International jurisdiction. That is not to say he didn't have links with the Taliban, but neither does it state that he owned or controlled them. Infact The Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan, arose from the religious schools set up during the mujahideen's war against the Soviet invasion - in which Bin Laden took part. After the Soviet army withdrew in 1989, fighting erupted among mujahideen factions. In response to the chaos, the fundamentalist Taliban was formed and within two years it captured most of the country. The Taliban gave bin Laden sanctuary in 1996.
c) The Taliban government itself had numerous popular and unpopular laws/controls... but doesn't every country. They met with western criticism because of their "pure islamic state" which limited human rights for women and girls. They were percieved by many of their people as a good influence however through thier anti-corruption, their ending of warlord strife, the infrastructure that they built and decreased crime from what it was. By western standards these were often brutally carried out, but it was better than the previous chaos for many, and STILL doesn't show destruction of the county.

The US governement took advantage of the Taliban's refusal to topple the regime (that could potentially be a threat in the future as well as it's provision of sanctuary for terrorists).

Cami2
02-01-2005, 07:08 AM
I saw Bin Laden on the news fighting the rebels in Afghanistan. He was riding down the street carrying rifles with his men and patrolling it and controlling it before the US went in. It looked like a war zone and things were getting torn up. Those poor rebels, we should have helped them out sooner. I saw it for a fact and heard about the terrible things Laden did in Afghanistan, he took the place over or was trying to till the rebels and the US put a stop to him. People in Afghanistan did not want him there at all and hated him much like Iraq but it was obvious Bin Laden had brought destruction to that city. I saw it with my own eyes on the WORLD NEWS not American News World News. I think it's wild that people defend Bin Laden now and that is what it seems like to me sorry if that's not your intentions.

Chani
02-01-2005, 10:37 AM
Fighting rebels and invading are two very different concepts. Bin Laden did not invade Afghanistan and even if he were involved in the fighting, he was not in charge of the Taliban. He was merely being harboured there. Just because the United States chose to back this uprising does not make it a legitimate cause, nor can you blame the devistation caused on the Taliban's forces alone. There are two combatants in each war and both do the damage.

"I saw it for a fact and heard about the terrible things Laden did in Afghanistan, he took the place over or was trying to till the rebels and the US put a stop to him."

Again, Bin Laden did not have that kind of power in Afghanistan. Infact, one could argue he himself was a liberator of the country from the abortive Soviet occupation. He was also not trying to "take over the country" as that would make him as much of a rebel against the Taliban as the Northern Allience (they would even be fighting superficially for the same cause!!!). If you ask a Northern Allience member why he was fighting, he would not say "Because of Osama" but rather "because of the Taliban." The US government itself acknowledges it was trying to take down the Taliban regime, rather than Osama Bin Laden.

Rice: "The key here is ....[to] also to loosen the grip of the Taliban on the country so that the kind of protection that Osama bin Laden has enjoyed from being in a country that's harboring him is going to be broken."

I would also like to mention that not everything on the news can be trusted, and particularly during times of war can be highly scewed. Also, I am not defending Bin Laden, but I am making sure he is not reviled for the wrong reasons. Truth is more important here than emotion. If one is objective one can see he isn't just the evil, mass murdering psychopath everyone seems to perceive him as.

Cami2
02-01-2005, 01:44 PM
I don't think they can cover up live action as it's happening. Bin Laden was trying to take control of the city and the rebels were fighting him. I saw him patrolling the streets with the rifles and keeping everyone under his control. I can't believe anyone would defend a crazy as***ole like him. And he is that. I don't understand anyone hating Bush more than Saddam or Bin Laden, it makes no sense to me but it's your right to feel that way. I just don't see it that way.

Caishaurianne
02-01-2005, 02:01 PM
Chani neither said nor implied that she hates Bush more than bin Laden, and it is insulting for you to continue to accuse anyone who sees the situation as more complicated than black and white of such.

Fact: Osama was a guest/ally of the Taliban. The Northern Alliance was a rebel group. Though we may consider the Taliban F***ed up and the Northern Alliance may have been justified in their opposition, supporting the government of a country against rebels is not "invading"/trying to take over.

Chani is not defending Osama, she is defending truth, which regularly takes a beating.

SunrunnerGal
02-01-2005, 02:24 PM
Also, I am not defending Bin Laden, but I am making sure he is not reviled for the wrong reasons.

Not to mention that Chani said it RIGHT HERE.

Cami2
02-01-2005, 04:12 PM
I think the other side is ignorant and the other side thinks we are ignorant. I'm so sorry the country is so divided now Breaks my heart things are like this and have gotten to this point. It didn't sound like truth to me so I interpreted it that way.

Cami2
02-01-2005, 04:22 PM
By the way I wasn't referring to what Chani said. I was referring to the list and the way other people seem to feel on the other side about Afghanistan. I was saying it in general not one particular person on the board or anyone here. I know others feel that way and it just amazes me that they do.

jkimpton
02-01-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Chani
Infact, one could argue he himself was a liberator of the country from the abortive Soviet occupation.

(with help from the US!)

Caishaurianne
02-01-2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Cami2
By the way I wasn't referring to what Chani said. I was referring to the list and the way other people seem to feel on the other side about Afghanistan. I was saying it in general not one particular person on the board or anyone here. I know others feel that way and it just amazes me that they do.

I'll accept that. The reason you were perceived to have attacked Chani was because, while debating with her, you first said, "I think it's wild that people defend Bin Laden now and that is what it seems like to me sorry if that's not your intentions," and then said, "I don't understand anyone hating Bush more than Saddam or Bin Laden, it makes no sense to me but it's your right to feel that way," as part of your response to her. Gotta be careful with those pronouns and such! ;)

Moving on...

When you say:
Originally posted by Cami2
I think the other side is ignorant and the other side thinks we are ignorant. I'm so sorry the country is so divided now Breaks my heart things are like this and have gotten to this point. It didn't sound like truth to me so I interpreted it that way.
you imply that this is a matter of partisan opinion. (I assume you were talking about whether the US or Osama "invaded" Afghanistan?) It is not. The definition of "invading" a country is that a presence is established in that country through force, with the general goal of toppleing the government of that country. The US established its presence in Afghanistan through military action in an effort to unseat the Taliban. Osama was invited to Afghanistan by the Taliban, who he did not try to overthrow. By the clear standards of the definition, the US action qualifies as invading and Osama's action doesn't. That is not a matter of partisan opinion.

What is a matter of opinion and up for interpretation is the moral nature of our invasion and Osama's activities. I believe that the reason you are disagreeing is because you are not considering the definition of "invade", but the association of invading with badness or "evil". To be clear, the fact that the US invaded does not mean that doing so was unjustified. The fact that Osama's activities in Afghanistan did not constitute invasion does not mean that those activities were good.

Cami2
02-01-2005, 05:38 PM
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I think that Bin Laden was trying to overthrow their government as well or else he was making his stand there on his war against the US. I'm not sure what his motives were but what I heard from a woman that escaped Afghanistan and brought her kids to America so she could feed them said her husband died while fighting against Bin Laden. They were not wanting him in their country and were fighting to keep him from taking it over. That was what I have gathered from the information I heard from her. I figure she knew what was going on. It was sad, she said women couldn't work there so after her husband died her children just starved. She had to get them out of that country to live. She hated Bin Laden and what he had done to her country. Maybe that's where my hatred for him comes from so deeply.

Davvi
02-01-2005, 07:04 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guest101

And, While yes, that last part was a childish insult, it is a very widely known opinion that one of the main reasons Bush got elected was because of people in the less 'civilized' regions of the United States saw him as 'just one of the guys'. And, I would say, its fairly accurate.\

How would you know he was elected by the less civilized, if you are not even from here? (this is a question, not a snap remark)

As for the list. Yes it is skewed, as would one be if Kerry was in office. I could go well over the 10,000 charactor limit on all of this. But time is to short. So I will say that anytime you use words such as largest, most, worst, etc. You are likely to begin to loose accuracey. (not always).

Taking just the one comment about the most secret president :cool: How would you know. Media and written documents from Grant's days were far less. Who knows what was said. Much of Washingtons time has been passed down by word of mouth or was written after the fact. An it was skewed. JFK broke laws on a daily basis, most were moral or drug related, but he did. You don't think there are skeletons in his closet? Or the Rosevelts, or any other President. Lyndon Johnson, and Dwight E. were good ole boys. Bet they have some files in Texas that are edited for mature content;) .

Here is just a sampling of Politics and the Presidency from Hamilton's time. And of course there is speculation. Point being. Just becuase someone reports it or lists it. Does not mean someone should not Question It. But it show's that many Presidents and other politicians had secrets, and some kept them, and some got out.
*******
In 1794, Hamilton became intimately involved with Maria Reynolds, an affair that damaged his reputation and prevented him from rising further in politics. Reynolds' husband blackmailed Hamilton for money, though he was content to permit sexual liaisons between Hamilton and his wife. When James Reynolds was arrested for counterfeiting, he contacted several prominent Jeffersonian Republicans, most notably James Monroe. When they visited Hamilton with their suspicions of malfeasance, he stressed his innocence, while admitting to an affair with Maria Reynolds. Monroe promised to keep details from public knowledge, but Thomas Jefferson had no such compunctions. Hamilton was forced to publish a confession of his affair, which shocked his family and supporters. A duel with Monroe over his supposed breach was averted by then-Senator Aaron Burr.

Ironically, Burr would later represent Maria Reynolds in her divorce lawsuit, leading some to suspect he set Hamilton up. However, Hamilton's relationship with Burr had been cordial during their years as New York lawyers; in fact, their families often met for social occasions. When Burr defeated Hamilton's father-in-law Philip Schuyler in the 1791 Senate race, Hamilton began a secret campaign to destroy his rival, who had sought the presidential nomination in 1796 and would do so again in 1800.

Hamilton's resignation as Secretary of the Treasury in 1795 did not remove him from public life. With the resumption of his law practice, he remained close to Washington as an adviser and friend. Hamilton is believed to have influenced Washington in the composition of his Farewell Address. Relations between Hamilton and Washington's successor, John Adams, were frequently strained and Hamilton's attempts to frustrate Adams' adoption as presidential candidate of the Federalist Party split the party and contributed to the victory of the Jeffersonian Republicans in the election of 1800.

Hamilton's role in ensuring Jefferson was subsequently selected as president, rather than Burr, marked Hamilton's first bold stroke against his erstwhile friend. Burr sought the New York governorship in 1804, first running as a Federalist, then as an independent. One newspaper referred to a "despicable opinion" that a Dr. Charles D. Cooper attributed to Hamilton about Burr. Sensing a chance to regain political honor, Burr demanded an apology. Hamilton refused on the grounds that he could not recall the instance the newspaper mentioned.

A duel was set July 11 on a rocky ledge in Weehawken, New Jersey, the same place where Hamilton's son Phillip had lost a duel three years earlier defending his father's honor. At dawn, the duel began, and Burr shot Hamilton below his chest. Hamilton, who opposed dueling because of his son's death, may have fired his shot into the air. Others have speculated he could have misfired his pistol, one of a pair that belonged to his family. Hamilton died the next day and was interred in the Trinity Churchyard Cemetery in Manhattan. Burr fled New York under charges of murder and later of treason. He died in 1836, having squandered his fortune and being almost universally reviled because of his 1807 conspiracy trial.

So I had to add these items too

Four Presidents have been elected without a plurality of popular votes:

* John Quincy Adams - trailed Andrew Jackson by 44,804 votes in the 1824 election
o However, in six of the then twenty-four states in 1824, the electors were chosen by the state legislature, with no popular vote.
* Rutherford B. Hayes - trailed Samuel J. Tilden by 264,292 votes in the 1876 election
* Benjamin Harrison - trailed Grover Cleveland 95,713 votes in the 1888 election
* George W. Bush - trailed Al Gore by 540,520 votes in the 2000 election


And this link will tell you all kinds of stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._President#Presidential_salary_and_perks

Oh and here is a cool link to the CIA Bet they know all kinds of things about all the Kings horses and all the Kings men, but will never tell you.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html:cool:

Caishaurianne
02-01-2005, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Davvi
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guest101
Hamilton, who opposed dueling because of his son's death, may have fired his shot into the air.

I always have trouble deciding whether delopers are brave and honorable or stupid and honorable. ^_^



Anyway, interesting reading, Davvi!

ladyfantasy
02-01-2005, 09:52 PM
Based on the statistics that Caish posted from CNN, the people most likely to vote for Bush are:

-white
-male
-high income
-old(er)
-non unionized
-part-time worker
-non-working women
-high school to college education
-republican (okay, *obviously*)
-conservative
-voted before
-Protestant/Catholic
-white evangelical/born again
-church going
-in the military/were in the military
-married with children under eighteen
-straight
-own a gun
-with terrorism, moral values and taxes being on your priority list for voting
-Bush's faith, honesty, leadership and potential for change (but...not intelligence...interesting...) was important
-believe that US is safer from terrorism with Bush
-approve of Bush's decision to go to war
-believe things are going well in Iraq
-enthusiastic about the Bush administration
-believe Kerry only says what he wants people to hear
-think Iraq is part of the war on terrorism
-thinks Bush pays more attention to ordinary Americans
-unconcerned about health care
-pro-lifer
-anti same-sex marriage
-voted for Bush in the last election
-thinks the economy's good
-believes US is going in the right direction
-concerned about terrorism
-job situation in their area is better
-pro-tax cuts
-pro-Iraq war
-from the South/Midwest
-from small towns/cities

Now...understand that for some, the percentage difference was a few percent, I just took the highest. However, seeing as Bush *won* by a few percent in the popular vote, it's all okay.

Chiana
02-02-2005, 07:23 AM
It was sad, she said women couldn't work there so after her husband died her children just starved. She had to get them out of that country to live. She hated Bin Laden and what he had done to her country.

It was the Taliban that did that. When they came into power they said that women were not allowed to work. Women were also not allowed to see male doctoes either but becuase women were not able to work there were no female doctors. Go figure?! Women were also not allowed an education.

I always though this was an odd one but the Afgani's were not allowed to fly kites. I presume because kites are viewed as a Western item.

Cami2
02-02-2005, 07:34 AM
People need to come to Texas before judging the way things are here. It's as modern as any city. No horses in the street except at rodeo time when the trail riders arrive for the rodeo that's once a year. I like rock music, not country. I like futuristic things and Houston is as modern as they come. We don't have outhouses. Village Builders makes a home with four bathrooms in it and one we are considering moving to. Come to these less civilized areas and decide for yourself before you judge things. I get upset at people from the New England States that think we are murderers here for the death pentalty. All the people here don't approve of the death penalty that's the Government's decision. I'm getting off the subject but I am offended as well for the comments made insulting Texas.

SunrunnerGal
02-02-2005, 08:10 AM
Please show me where someone insulted Texas, because I've read through this whole thread, and mustamistit. (Must have missed it.)

Davvi
02-02-2005, 08:20 AM
Cami2 I am from New England Did you not just do what you asked others not too. Who said I had an opinion on your Justice system?:cool:


Easy Sunny. No going Radio Shack ;) :D
:cool:

FieryEyed
02-02-2005, 10:13 AM
haha, dont feel bad. Where I am from, people think you eat possum and marry your cousin. But we dont.

I prefer rabbit! ::g::

Guest101
02-02-2005, 10:46 AM
SunrunnerGal I think she is referring to my posts where I lump Texas in with the states SEEN as less civilized. Because, well, it is seen that way. My point comes down to perception. The areas seen as less civilized tended to vote Bush.


As for how I know which States went which way, there were all sorts of online news sites that were running counts as the election results went in. I know which places are seen as less 'civilized' and I followed the election. And most of those places came up Red.

FieryEyed
02-02-2005, 10:54 AM
yeah, unfortunatly, Missouri was a red state. I did my part, I voted Dem. Its too bad we couldnt be more like Illinois. They voted for KErry by almost 80%. Smart folk there.

You know what is odd though. Colorado, which is full of socially consious hippes is a red state. I guess it is all the rich people. I mean, Cherry Creek is one of the 10 richest neighborhoods in the US.

Cami2
02-02-2005, 10:55 AM
I wasn't meaning to insult New England just that I heard some awful things from people their about how the death penalty is here. That doesn't mean everyone from there believes that way. No offense intended just trying to use a sample but it went badly. I have relatives from New England and love it up there from what I hear just thought they were hard on Texas with their feelings toward the way things are here. They called us horrible things but that was just a few people. I don't think everyone thinks that way. Yes I got the feeling less civilized meant Texas and the way it is here with Bush.

SunrunnerGal
02-02-2005, 11:28 AM
Sorry, off topic, but....

I was born and raised here in Texas. Sorry, but there is a VERY LARGE portion of our state that is less civilized. I can drive 10 minutes north on Highway 59 and see the type of "landscape" that people associate with backwoods hillbillies. It's in a lot of Texas towns; we just happen to live in one of the cities where it's not. I know plenty of people that fit the perception.

I'm not insulted that people see Texas that way, and you shouldn't be either, Cami2. I love Texas, and I'll probably never leave, but I know I'm not like a lot of people here.

Now, when people say that Houstonians are "less civilized," that's when my "dukes" come up! ;)

FieryEyed
02-02-2005, 11:33 AM
I dont even have to drive 10 miles. My highschool is in a town called Cottleville. The school is the biggest thing there. My friend Bernie has a farm about 1/2 mile from the school that we would play extreme paintballing on when we were in school. You get two people on a four wheeler and the one on the back has a paintball gun. You drive into eachother and shoot eachother. Oh, and their house could qualify as a shack!

Caishaurianne
02-02-2005, 11:37 AM
::shrug::
There are negative stereotypes about every region. I've lived in quite a few of them, and everyone is outraged by the stereotypes about their own region, but feels free to make insulting generalizations about the other regions. Sometimes it has a kernel of truth, and is simply so exaggerated and generalized as to be offensive. It gets old fast, but people aren't likely to abandon those stereotypes unless they see evidence that disproves them. (Either studies of those regions or actually visiting them.)

Cami2
02-02-2005, 12:04 PM
Their's always a part of any state that's backwoods without internet or modern conviences. The big cities of Dallas and Houston are very modern same as I'm sure other big cities. I think I get upset at the way people think we talk so southern and ride horses and don't have cars anywhere. But like it was said if you visit, you could change your mind about a place

Aladra
02-02-2005, 12:24 PM
There are many areas in Florida that are as hick-town as you get. Get away from Miami, and Tampa, and Orlando, and the beaches, and woo-boy! I think the majority of the radio stations around the panhandle are country/western music.

Caishaurianne
02-02-2005, 12:34 PM
<--from the panhandle (I'd say it's about half and half between country and rock. You're SO right, though, that northern Florida is part of the American South (culturally) and southern Florida is way different.)

<--wishes she could ride a horse around town :( Personally, I don't consider technology the test of civilization.

Cami2
02-02-2005, 01:20 PM
I think it evens out all over it's the people and the government that makes the state the way it is. I love the small towns. I think it would be so cool to go out and just no everybody and all go to the same church. Someday we might retire some place like that. I think this state is getting less and less republican. I know a lot of people that didn't vote for Bush here.

ladyfantasy
02-02-2005, 02:03 PM
...the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion.

Three. Hundred. BILLION. Dollars.

300 billion and people are dying beacuse they don't have fresh water.
300 billion and people are living in substandard conditions.
300 billion and people who have been affected by the tsunami have lost everything.
300 billion and pople don't have the basic necessities in life.
300 billion and children are illiterate because their education is terrible.
300 billion and the homeless are dying because it is simply too cold.

That's three hundred billion dollars that the US spent on the war on terrorism, three hundred billion dollars spent making guns and bombs and bullets and having people on both sides die.

Three hundred billion dollars that is wasted that could've been spent on helping people instead of killing them.

That is was Bush has accomplished. Good job.

SunrunnerGal
02-02-2005, 03:15 PM
*stomps feet and jumps up and down, screaming like a madwoman*

Yes, yes, yes, YES!!!

$300 billion dollars that could have been spent on AMERICAN SOIL, at the least. I've said it once, and I'll say it a million more times, most likely:

Iraqi freedom? What about American freedom? 'Cause trust me, there are millions of Americans that aren't "free".

*jumps down off psycho soapbox*

(Whoa, did I use enough italics??)

ladyfantasy
02-02-2005, 03:53 PM
:p

And let's not forget that the $300 billion will probably go up before this is over.

http://www.costofwar.com

I think this is a Sunny site-showing how much has been spent on the war (and the current number on that site is *half* of what actually is) and how it could've been spent somewhere, like Sunny said, on American soil-new public school teachers, low-cost housing, health care, scholarships, and world things that I believe are more deserving that Saddam Hussien-world hunger, aids, immunization and such.

For example, the running cuont is 152 billion on that site. So if I double whatever estimates it has, with the estimate of $300 000 000 000 being double that,
-40 million kids could've been paid for to go to a year of Headstart
-180 million kids could've been insured for health care
-5 million public school teachers could have been hired for one year
-14 million four year scholarships could have been provided
-2 and half million additional housing units could've been built
-12 years of global anti hunger could have been paid for
-30 years of fully funded world-wide AIDS programs could've been paid for
-every child around the world could have been given basic immunizations for 100 years

Cami2
02-02-2005, 04:04 PM
They had to do something about the terrorist though. They froze their assets and broke up their ring. We knew it would cost a lot to stop these madmen. I'm grateful they are doing something to keep them from getting stronger and more of a problem later. But that's just how I feel.

ladyfantasy
02-02-2005, 04:07 PM
Yeah, well, fighting terrorism is a lovely ambition, it really is, but tell the next homeless person you see who's cold, starving, on the streets, that the money that would've gone to feeding, clothing, giving them shelter, the money that their fellow Americans paid in their taxes, that THEY had possibly paid in their taxes before they were homeless, went instead to freeing a place and people that they don't even care about. Because they're going to die sooner from not having health care even for their children, not having food to put on a nonexistent table, than they are from any terrorist threats, I guarentee you that.

SunrunnerGal
02-02-2005, 04:11 PM
We knew it would cost a lot

From what I understand (no source, sorry), nobody knew it would top $300B.

I certainly didn't feel $300B+ worth of threat from Saddam. I'm more threatened by the kid on the street who has nothing to lose and kills me and my kid for the $20 in my pocket.

Capturing Saddam and bin Laden will NEVER STOP TERRORISM. *sighs* Defense is sometimes the best offense (that's what they teach us in martial arts.)

ladyfantasy
02-02-2005, 04:28 PM
What is happening in Iraq at the moment is likely making the situation worse. Iraqis are resentful of what the US is doing, you know. They aren't happy their home is being bombed, that their innocent civilians are being killed. If I were Iraqi, I'd probably think George Bush is the terrorist. Because what is terror really? Isn't terror living your life in fear that any day you or someone you love could very easily be dead? Isn't terror when you may not make it to next week, much less see your child graduate from high school or get married?

Because that is terror. That is what Iraqi people have to live through, this kind of anguish. Dubya's paid the price and more for whatever was inflicted on 9/11, believe me. You talk of these people whose families died that day? Tragic, yes. Horrible, yes. But these people have to live through this day after day after day.

It is NOT solving the problem. In ten years, when these ten year olds whose mother died from an explosion when she as washing the dishes and father was killed because he happened to do something that was just a toe out of line, what do you REALLY think they'll do? Go and praise W for all he's done? No. They are going to try and make the US pay for the terror THEY have experienced. It's not right, but resentment and anger and bitterness will build up.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

Cami2
02-03-2005, 07:07 AM
I've said this before the news is reporting the ten percent of Iraqian's that are upset with us. 90 Percent are in favor and they are happy for what we are doing there. I know what I saw the other day in the news looked like they are very pleased with things. It didn't look like their city was being bombed. I think that's what we interpret. It looked like the fighting was outside the city and I know that's where our troops are trying to keep it, away from the city itself. I bet in reality their are more Iraqians that are in favor of being free. I know I would be whatever it took. Even if it meant my life I think I'd want to be free once in my life. But that's just me. The citizens can flee to another safety zone and from what I hear most have. That's just how I honestly feel about it but I do hope with the elections that it's a step forward to ending the war. I hope for that soon.

Davvi
02-03-2005, 08:42 AM
It is a catch 22 sometimes

Also to play Devil's Advocate. Yes $300,000,000,000 is a large some of money to spend, and could help many other causes, ambitions, goals, etc. But much of that money goes to factories that make things, and people work at the factories, and handle the shippping and produce the raw materials, and work at the electric company to supply the power, and all these people go buy food with the money they make, and people work in the stores selling the food, and they make money, and these are the people that send in their Sunami donations, or support the food kitchens, or send the kids to school which employes the teachers, and janitors, and the contractors that built the buildings, that were made with materials at factories, which employe more people, who pay the taxes that support the welfare, that gives money to people who need it, so they can cover the rent, so the landlord can buy his car, that he gets from the car dealer, who employes more people, who buy Melanie's books, so Melanie, and her publisher can go out and buy paper and office stuff to make more books, and the people at Staples are happy to take the money so they can buy more items to stock the shelves, which were built in more factories, that probably were oversees, so they were sent on ships, which run on fuel which may have been produced in Texas, which uses the money to build cities, like Houston, which supplies many more jobs to allow people to get money to fly on planes to visit New Zealand, where they see the Lord of the Rings filming locations, and while there go to the Embassy Theater to see the movie Troy, which was produced on a film set which employeed a gaffer or two, who took their money and bought a snowmobile to go riding in Glacier National Park during mud season because they were on crack, which was sold by a drug dealer, who makes money by avioding the police, who work to catch him, but since they haven't yet, the drug dealer has the chance to buy a diamond ring, which makes the jewler happy, because now she can go to the local gun shop to get her new skeet gun, this allows Browning to make more money to produce more guns, and so employe people who happen to like to eat chicken, and will cook it on a grill with their favorite sauce which comes from Wales of all places, so that the person in Wales can operate a business, and eventually I run out of steam, and you get the point, by reading the longest run on sentece that will never win a Nobel Prize which is made with gold, pulled from the ground in South Africa next to the diamond mine which uses the big dump trucks whose spark pulgs were made in South Dakota, on a tuesday.

So how many people actually read all that on their computer, which was made in... No I won't start again. Point being..... I forgot. Oh no wait. Point being that the $ is not really the true issue, money comes and goes one way or another. Always something for it to go to. So it is a bad measure of success or failure on it's own. And in my mind often is of little value to me in a discussion of moral, ideals, and opinions.

So what was the original Topic. Should we just make a general topic called poltics, war, and other heated topics. I think we had one before. :cool:

Aladra
02-03-2005, 09:46 AM
Ha! Did you have fun, Davvi? ;)

SunrunnerGal
02-03-2005, 10:14 AM
Ok, devil's advocate's devil advocate, at your service.

If that $300B was truly put back into our economy as you claim, why are we still in a downward spiral? Not to be picky, but I'd like to see how many/which American citizens have seen the benefit of their $300B paycheck. And don't you dare say Halliburton employees...lol....

Other than the military, I suppose. Then again, they sure aren't seeing much of that $300B, are they? Except in Iraq, where they're in danger, and now we're back to be beginning of the circle.

Guest101
02-03-2005, 10:53 AM
Cami2, to put this one into perspective here: read what Collan said to Sarra in Ruins of Ambrai(the part about people and change, when they're alone together after the jail scene). I think that sums up why they wouldn't be 'happy' about these changes.

Davvi
02-03-2005, 11:51 AM
Running to a meeting DA, But Military personnel are part of the $300B and so some (smaller portion) would have already been spent because they were paying out that money anyway.

mad cow
02-03-2005, 12:30 PM
hello im new her so plz dont maul me.... :D

i live in london and i guess im part of the 71% of europeans who dont support bush. i went an protested and everything. but the thing is that he has really done anything that past american presidents have done. in fact, as someone said b4, the terrorism stems from the desions that were made several years ago to combat commuinism.

but the thing i dont really like about the current american climate is that eventho bush is trying to spread democracy, he himself and kerry were bought by richer US companies. i mean during the elections both of them spent millions of dollars a day on advertising and etc. all this money came from sponsors who were companies, these companies would have the ear of whoever made president. am i right? if this is so then the government isnt really for the people but for some millionaire wanting more millions. i know about the law that says only $2000 can b given to a candidate, but u can give any amount to a party. i hope this issue will b resolved cos it would b a shame if it continued.

lol if i have just chatted a load of bollox plz tell me :D

SunrunnerGal
02-03-2005, 12:42 PM
According to Glenin, they're not getting much of it. (Sorry for dragging you into it, Glenin!)

Davvi
02-03-2005, 03:09 PM
Back from meeting. What I am saying Sunny is that we spend money on some of the troops, equipment, food, training, etc. Now if we did not have troops in combat there now, some would be home, but others would still be on bases in other locations including forigen soil, ie. Germany, Japan, Cuba, etc. Instead they are in Iraq. The ships at sea are now there, but normally might be in Virginia. They might be out participating in War Games (oxymoron in my eyes). And to keep Glenin involved, she will be paid if we are at war or not. We all would prefer not, but she wil get paid (and I guess she deserves that:p ) So we would be spending a chunk of this money anyway. If it were a company it would be similar to either charging the cost to general operating, or a specific project. But in the end it still comes out of the same wallet. OURS.

Aladra
02-03-2005, 03:36 PM
Is the cost any higher to pay a soldier who is serving time in a war zone (Iraq, Afghanistan) than one who is serving time at home or abroad? (I have a friend and her hubby in the AF who lived in England for years, by request.. and later they want to go to Japan) IMO it should be, but anyway...

But to break down the costs, you'd have
~emplyee (soldier) pay- which may or may not be costing more.. I don't know..
~supplies: weapons, machinery, clothing- which are probably made, at least the basic components, in China. lol I've seen American flag merchandise with "made in China" on the bottom.. how sad. Is that money paid for goods and services (thanks, middle school social studies!) going to Americans, or to contractors who have factories overseas? Another question I don't know.
~transportation- how much to get large groups over there, and once they are there. Including parts, fuel, etc. Are the parts made in this country? And I know we don't get a lot of our fuel from here. But I guess there would be money going into paying the servicepeople who fly the planes, etc. So that money is going back to the economy.
~Humanitarian aid- doctors and medical supplies for the Iraqis, food, clothing, etc. Same as above.

Davvi
02-03-2005, 04:21 PM
As far a service for Hazard duty. I believe at one time there was a difference. I don't know now. Glenin What say ye.

Any item oversees still means money for the importers, and wholesale and retail folks, plus the truckers who haul it to K-Mart in Hoboken.

Point being some not all money is still spent, so the $300,000,000,000 is only partialy (probably a large part) due to actual war. Remember you don't need to build more bombs if you don't drop any. So it is hard to say what the war truely cost. I just think people love to say big numbers as a pure basis. I hear the news do that all the time.:cool:

Saint Kiy
02-03-2005, 05:18 PM
My husband is making a little more while he is overseas in Iraq. He gets hazardous duty pay, fire pay, combat pay (or something similar) and since we're married we also get seperation pay. A whole 100 bucks a month to compensate us for all the time and memories lost, and being seperated during my pregnancy. But yes, deployed soldiers make a little more money. About three hundred a month, I think it is.

Caishaurianne
02-03-2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Davvi
Running to a meeting DA, But Military personnel are part of the $300B and so some (smaller portion) would have already been spent because they were paying out that money anyway.

Yeah--the military might not pay much, but it's the single largest employer in the US, so it still spends a huge amount of money on employee salary.

$100,000 bombs are a bit of a drain, too. ;)

Small tangent:

The issue of raising (retroactive to October 2001) the death benefits for servicemen killed abroad has recently come up, echoing calls for pay increases.

The one-time, tax-free "death gratuity" paid to survivors of military men and women killed in the line of duty is currently $12,420 and the insurance about $250,000. The proposed legislation would push them up to $100,000 and $400,000 respectively.

To be honest, it makes me nervous. The problem is that no one can legitimately argue that servicement DON'T deserve that increase. It would be hard to argue that they deserve anything less than a six-figure income and $10 million dollar insurance policy. The problem--once again--is that raising pay for the entirety of the military and death benefits for those killed in action would be enormously expensive, and I don't trust our politicians/media not to equate a concern for fiscal responsibility with being "anti-military".

I don't see the death benefits becoming a huge expenditure (and if they do, we have bigger things to worry about than the money), so I'm all cool with that. As for military pay...I'd be perfectly willing to pay more in taxes to make their pay reasonable, but I'm also a little wary of raising pay at a time when neither party is displaying a great deal of fiscal responsibility.

I'm not any too happy that so much is being spent on a war of dubious legality that has negatively impacted American credibility abroad, either.

SunrunnerGal
02-03-2005, 07:56 PM
Sure, the money may be going back into American pockets, in a round about kind of way.

$3B or $300B; doesn't really matter to me. It would be better spent not on Iraqi Freedom. Sorry, I know that's rude, but I feel we've nosed into everyone else's business for far too long. Without much gratitude.

Speaking of the $300B: This is not part of the original "military spending" package that GWB spoke about when he was first elected. This is just for this particular war, right? Somehow I'm under the impression that this figure is just associated with this "war on terror". The "allocated" military budget is a separate animal, that we've already ridden outside of the $300B figure.

Am I misinformed? Someone? Anyone?

(Uh oh...I see Feleron is online....*dons flame suit* :D)

Davvi
02-03-2005, 08:14 PM
Sunny That is why I am not sure about using the money we spent quote. I think parts of it get lumped together. It certainly costs more to go to war. Fuel alone is huge, as well as shipping, and ammunition. But the way govt. funds things it is tough to tell. And what he says he wants to spend on military, and how it gets accounted I belive are two different beasts. There is some overlapping.

Now does this count as one of his top 50 acomplisments. Well just spending that much money is amazing.:cool:

SunrunnerGal
02-03-2005, 08:16 PM
In the spirit of the original post, sure it does! Doesn't this have something to do with the amazing way this administration has pulled us out of a budget surplus?

Quite the accomplishment, eh? :D

Cami2
02-03-2005, 08:24 PM
I think it was money that needed to be spent but too bad it had to be so much.

Saint Kiy
02-03-2005, 09:11 PM
Sunny, don't feel bad, a lot of people I used to work with felt the same way. They felt the money would have been better spent at home, and I can honestly say, I agree.

ladyfantasy
02-03-2005, 09:13 PM
Yep...lots of money. It's about a hundred times as much Donald Trump is worth.

I can't imagine EVER spending that kind of money in my life. Something to say 'bout George-I bet he outspends his wife ;)

SunrunnerGal
02-03-2005, 09:17 PM
Wow...thanks, Saint Kiy. That means a lot coming from a serviceman's wife. *hugs*

Caishaurianne
02-03-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by SunrunnerGal

Speaking of the $300B: This is not part of the original "military spending" package that GWB spoke about when he was first elected. This is just for this particular war, right? Somehow I'm under the impression that this figure is just associated with this "war on terror". The "allocated" military budget is a separate animal, that we've already ridden outside of the $300B figure.


The $300 billion figure includes some personnel costs. After all, the war has required that hazardous duty pay costs go up, thousands of Reserve personnel be called to active duty, and thousands more have been recruited (30,000 new recruits in the army alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office's projections for the fiscal year 2005 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5864&sequence=0); though that is only supposed to last until 2007). It also includes the war in Afghanistan and some other bits and pieces of spending (such as Palestine) associated with the "War on Terror". I'm not sure how much of the money we spend on personnel costs is included in that $300 bil figure and how much is part of the normal (peacetime) defense budget; HOWEVER, I can say that the $105 billion dollars earmarked for fiscal year 2005 is supplemental to the Pentagon's annual $400 billion budget. (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20050125:MTFH90735_ 2005-01-25_18-46-32_N25324815:1)


Here's a fun little estimate of the total costs of the war. Hello deficit!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/25/iraq.spending.ap/

SunrunnerGal
02-03-2005, 09:46 PM
Yep, that was the info I was looking for: how much was originally budgeted for the "normal" defense budget.

Even better, how much have we spent in Afghanistan versus what we're spending in Iraq, versus what we're going to spend in Iran, versus what we're going to spend in whatever other country may be 1) Hiding WMDs, 2) Harboring terrorists, 3) Were part of the attacks on 9-11, 4) in dire need of liberating. (And, depending on how cynical you are, 5) hoarding mass quanties of oil...) *halo*

By the way; where is Osama bin Laden?

Big accomplishment? He's got the mastermind behind 9-11 pinned down to one country! Yay!

Caishaurianne
02-03-2005, 09:50 PM
You forgot 6) Looked at us funny. ;) :p

Lindren
02-03-2005, 09:55 PM
I just feel the need to throw this out there. Iraq is not part of the War on Terror, since there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Unless, wait...is it really being lumped in with it anyway?

Saddam Hussein is not a nice guy...evil dictator, sure...but he had nothing to do with our invasion of Afghanistan and 9/11. We invaded Iraq because...uh...well it was implied that bin Laden was connected to Hussein...then it was stated that Hussein had WMDs...which it turned out he didn't...and hadn't since the early 1990s......so we invaded Iraq because....Hussein was "evil" and there was a chance that he might possibly have WMDs? Well, you know, as long as it's a good, solid reason.

I, personally, would like to see some of that 300 billion spent to fix the social security system, instead of this really odd idea that Bush has now...actually I don't even understand it... So we put money in savings accounts, and then that money goes into some kind of market? Or...anyone want to explain this to me?

Cami2
02-03-2005, 10:06 PM
We went after Saddam because of his suspicious behavior and he wouldn't let us come in to investigate what weapons he had when that was suppose to have been a regular thing and to free the nation from his regime. We are fighting the terrorist now in Iraq because they are swarming in to help the Iraqi's. But I won't go over and over about that. I just heard something tonight disturbing. I'm going to hear the news in the next few days. I was just told a few people from the UN were doing some corruption with Saddam during the time the UN was deciding whether or not they should go to war. I'll find out more details but it sounds to me like Saddam was doing illegal activity and got found out. Something to do with food and bribery money. I'm sure the news will down play it but I'm anxious to hear about this. I think he was a brilliant man but a very dangerous one who I'm grateful is out of power. Scares me to think of how dangerous he would become if he wasn't there already. But that's how I feel. I'd say more on this info. I got but I need to hear it on the news. I'll say more when I know more.

Caishaurianne
02-03-2005, 10:15 PM
Cami2, do a search under "Oil for Food". You'll find plenty of coverage.

Cami2
02-04-2005, 12:18 AM
I don't think it's the latest thing of what was just found out but I'll give it a try.

Caishaurianne
02-04-2005, 01:34 AM
The Oil for Food scandal broke approximately a year ago, when an Iraqi newspaper made allegations that it was currupt. Since then, it has been investigated extensively. The most recent bit of news (which just broke, so it's probably what you heard) is that Secretary General Kofi Annan will be disciplining two key officials for a conflict of interest. It was discovered that a significant contract was awarded to a friend of the head of the Oil for Food program. Annan plans to discipline both Benon V. Sevan (head of the program) and Joseph Stephanides (who oversaw the selection of the program's major contractors). The conflict of interest is the only definite issue. There have also been allegations that they benefited personally, but those allegations are still being investigated.

Because Sevan has already retired, it is uncertain what sort of disciplinary action Kofi will take.

Chian D'en
02-04-2005, 01:37 AM
Actually, Saddam's undermining of the oil for food program was used as a reason why invaded them, last week I think... or was that to spread the sweet air of freedom through our army of compassion? So many reasons, makes my head spin...

Caishaurianne
02-04-2005, 01:46 AM
That's a little different, I believe. In the beginning of the war, part of the "Saddam is a mad man" justification was that he was not passing on the food to his people. The Oil for Food scandal, on the other hand, consists of a whole bundle of suspicions regarding corruption, kickbacks, the UN's resistance to the Iraqi war, etc., etc., etc.

Chian D'en
02-04-2005, 06:35 AM
Nope, last week or this week I heard some of a press conference claiming that it was that he was undermining the UN's resolution and the oil for food program.

Feleron
02-04-2005, 07:49 AM
Oil for Food is being covered but not nearly to the extent that it should be. It is the largest financial scandel in the WORLD EVER. But compare it to the number of stories on Enron. It has long been known that Saddam was using Oil for Food money to build palaces. And it was reported in the run up to the War about the abuses going on in the program, about how Mercedes and BMWs were being purchased from the Oil for Food savings. It was also pointed out that France and Russia both had lucrative Oil for Food contracts and that that might be a factor in their opposition to removing Saddam (it has since been revealed that several prominent Russian and French businessmen and politians were receiving kickbacks from the program). It was also pointed out that Oil for Food become the single largest source of revinue for the UN (3% of each contract went strait to the UN Secretariate). The accusation of massive kickbacks and bribes didn't start until after the fall of Saddam and his records were opened up.

And as an update, the scandel is unfolding. Kojo Annan (Kofi's son) has finally admitted to helping negotiate oil contracts. This after long denying it and saying there was no conflict of interest.

We've also seen the first indictments in the scandal (Americans being indicted since the other countries aren't actively pursuing this).

Davvi
02-04-2005, 09:15 AM
Gee now there is a surprise.

And the war on terror is not just about 9/11. It is on all acts of terror. The USS Cole, the emabassises (sp), etc. It may go into Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, where ever it hides. George the bloodhound shall sniff it out. :cool:

SunrunnerGal
02-04-2005, 09:53 AM
And bankrupt our country in the process.

Oh, wait...he's (his administration, I can be fair) already accomplished that! Hehehe...

Lindren
02-04-2005, 10:48 AM
Okay, now I'll get all philosophical. What gives us the right to go in and decide that someone is a terrorist? Before you go screaming at me about how horrible these people are (never said they weren't), who made us world police? Well, us. No one else. We're just our own little police unit (not so little), beating up people we don't agree with and who are oppressing their people. EXCEPT, there also has to be some gain in it for the US to go and overthrow a country (we haven't gone in over the UN's head to the DR Congo, have we?). So if this "War of Terror" (an abstract concept; it'll probably work as well as LBJ's "War on Poverty") were really about "terror", I would think we would be going into Africa, among other places. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but the first thing I think of when I think of Iraq is, well, oil. And then I look at the gas prices...and then I look at the companies over in Iraq...and, well, can you really blame me for being cynical? (That's a rhetorical question.)

As for the whole Oil for Food scandal, that was only discovered after the war broke out, it was not the reason we went to war. We went to war on a suspicion, with everyone against us, but that could not stop us from the unbelievable arrogance to....sigh.

See, lots of people are against us because lots of people like to have tangible reasons for wars and invasions and the like. Silly people, who needs those? If people started wars just because they didn't like the leader of a country, the U.S. would be under an attack from most of the world. It's not the U.S. and the rest of the world, as apparently lots of Americans see it. It's the world, which includes the US. Montana doesn't go attacking Venezuela without the rest of the U.S.

The U.S. apparently wants to be world dictator. Or maybe we're being like South Carolina and seceding from the union? Whatever we're doing, it's not exactly increasing stability. I take that back, people are much more sure now that they hate the U.S. Doesn't that make you feel all safe at night? The world hates us because of this war (among other things, like arrogance). We are only increasing the amount of terrorism. We're killing civilians over in Iraq. Lots of them. Doesn't that make us terrorists? Could anyone be so callous as to dismiss all the death and destruction over there, brushing it off as the price of war? Well, except that now it's the price of peace, war being over and all. You can't fight fire with fire. Well, you can, but it sure does make a mess of things, and both of you get burned.

And no takers on explaining the social security thing? I honestly just don't get it.

Guest101
02-04-2005, 12:11 PM
Except for one thing, Lindren, I would agree with everything you say there.

No, America isn't a group of terrorists, but neither are the terrorists. A TERRORIST is someone who performs actions for the PRIMARY intention of causing fear. Neither the US, nor Bin Ladin, are truly terrorists. Bin Ladin's goal was obviously to get the most news coverage and kill the most people. Not to cause the most fear. The US' goal is so ambiguous that I really don't know it anymore... but I don't think its fear.

dragons_fire
02-04-2005, 04:34 PM
He can spell his name correctly. -using dot to dots!

Cami2
02-04-2005, 06:22 PM
Well now that's not positive that's bashing him again and should be in the negative thread. Well Bin Ladin certainly got me scared to death, he put fear in me. He said America would see a dark day and said an attack was coming that would cause us to fall. It happened a month later. I was scared shitless. sorry but I couldn't think of a better word to describe that fear. When you attack a country that's not in war time and kill civilians that's terrorism in my book. The only mistake Bush has done was not take that man seriously when the threat came.

dragons_fire
02-05-2005, 06:43 AM
Sorry, I didnt think that bush being able to spell was positive or negative-just amusing.

Cami2
02-05-2005, 07:39 AM
I know it depends on the side you are on but it wasn't amusing He wouldn't be president if he couldn't spell. That would be worrisome if we had a president that couldn't spell.

Aladra
02-05-2005, 12:12 PM
That would be worrisome if we had a president that couldn't spell.
You know, I'd really like to see a rough draft of his on a speech or notes or something..

Cami2
02-05-2005, 01:44 PM
LOL but doesn't someone else write it for him. I doubt he writes it out himself. But I don't know how it works. And I'd think going to Yale you have to be pretty smart and Yale doesn't let anyone pass just because of their father. They would get an awful reputation if they did that and it was found out.

Sean
02-06-2005, 10:06 PM
*laughs* Yes, Cami, Yale does let anyone get through given enough bribes. Post-Secondary Schools, especially those really famous ones, are incredibly corrupt. Which does, quite handily, explain Bush. Bush does nothing on his own merit... he either uses trickery and exagerration or his father's reputation and money...

Cami2
02-07-2005, 01:12 PM
It doesn't work that way in those prestigious schools though Sean. Not in real life. I know people like to discredit his intelligence but the man did graduate Yale and that school will not give out their scholarship because of a famous father, no matter who he is. It doesn't work like that in the US. I think the people should give W. an SAT test though just to clear up all of these assumptions about his intelligence. I'd hate to think a president of the US got his degree from Kmart. lol

Chian D'en
02-07-2005, 02:30 PM
The SAT is an inherently biased test which is best predicted by the amount of money the parents make, rather than IQ.

Kir'rei
02-07-2005, 02:45 PM
I have a friend who goes to Yale. She lives on a floor of 35 students, 28 of whom had at least one parent who went to Yale. Although I suppose it is possible that smart parents always raise smart kids, this nonetheless leads me to believe that there is more than a little favoritism going on in that school.

Glenin
02-07-2005, 02:47 PM
The SAT is biased, but that's not precicely what it's biased towards. It's biased towards the school district. A subtle difference, but a big one when you are a lower middle class person struggling to make ends meet in a school district filled with rich people. So you got a good education. Doesn't mean you have any money.

Kir'rei
02-07-2005, 02:47 PM
And look at my school, NYU. More than a little prestigious. Do you think the Olsen twins got in here because of the grades? The same goes for the son of a President, I would think.

Cami2
02-07-2005, 05:20 PM
I'm sure the Olsen Twins had to have some smarts to get in. I don't think they got in by parents alone. I'm sure they might have helped a little. But you still have to have a decent grade to get in. They won't let a person making F's come in the school any prestigous school. Back then when W. went to the University, his father had not been the president. He wasn't a famous and important person then. But it's all speculation on people that don't like W.

Chian D'en
02-07-2005, 06:04 PM
His father was the head of the CIA at the time, I'd say that that would put him rather high up.

Sean
02-08-2005, 09:45 AM
Exactly... head of the CIA = prestige. Prestige + money = acceptance. Acceptance + 'Gentleman's 'C'' = Bush passing Yale.



Also, Cami, look at it this way... if your university has, lets say, big celebrities going through it... it makes YOUR university more prominent. Having the SON of the HEAD of the CIA would be like a gift from God to them, even if the guy wasn't very bright.

To FAIL that person would've been DISASTROUS for their prestige. They can't AFFORD to have important people as enemies... where dya think a lot of their funding comes from?


Edit: And yes, it works more like this in real life than it does in stories, that's for sure.

jkimpton
02-08-2005, 09:59 AM
Bush also slid through school on a C average...

Cami2
02-08-2005, 11:05 AM
I would need more proof of this happening in these schools. I don't know that Bush got a C average how did you find that out and do you know for sure he got a C average? I want to see his report card. I don't know what any famous persons grades were in school. I know famous people do get into schools but they have to have grades to get there too. Clinton seemed to me like he was not an intelligent person and I don't know what grades he got in school. Not something I worry about though most of the time. It's all how one feels about the president though.

Sean
02-08-2005, 11:18 AM
people with famous relatives usually DON'T need the grades to get into the universities...

Clinton seemed, from a foreign perspective, to be very intelligent...


As for why they mentioned the C average... during the war-times... people were given what was called a 'gentleman's 'C'' to prevent people in university from being drafted to war. (Anyone care to clarify any details... I've only heard of it in passing...)


Cami... I may be cynical, but at least I'm not convinced of the inherent purity of people who have do deal with politicians, celebrities, and executives constantly...

Cami2
02-08-2005, 12:03 PM
I know no one is pure in politics but no one is stupid that becomes the president either. Clinton did not appear to be intelligent to me just as Bush appears that way to others here. But I'm sure Clinton and W. both had the best education and got the real grades. Just how we view the presidents we like or don't like. I know schools like Yale are very strict on how someone is allowed to come in their school I don't think they make it easy on anyone. This is just more Bush Bashing though.

Sean
02-08-2005, 12:11 PM
No, Cami, its not Bush Bashing... its admitting a fact. Those administrators and executives on the schoolboard are CORRUPT. They pushed someone who DID NOT deserve to pass a prestigious university through because of his father's power and the war...

Money opens all doors in this world Cami. Quite literally. Enough money, combined with a bit of influence, can get someone anywhere.

jkimpton
02-08-2005, 03:34 PM
The C average is standard knowledge; Bush openly admitted it in a commencement speech.

A rather scathing essay which also mentions what Sean's been talking about:



By Ellis Henican Newsday

"To those of you who received honors, awards, and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students, I say you too can be president of the United States." George W. Bush, Yale commencement address, 33 years after graduation

He was a C student at Phillips Andover. He got a not-so-stellar 1206 on his SATs - 566 verbal, 640 math. That was a full 180 points below the median score for the Yale University class of '68. But boola-boola for him! In the fall of 1964, George W. Bush was welcomed inside Yale's ivy-covered walls as a "legacy admittee." And why not? The wisecracking Texas teen had something far more powerful than dumb ol' test scores or silly grades. He had a father, George H.W. Bush, who was a rich and prominent Yale alum. And a grandfather, too. Prescott S. Bush, the aristocratic Connecticut senator, was even a Yale trustee.

A merit decision by a highly selective admissions committee? Not even close. If this wasn't affirmative action, nothing is. Affirmative action for rich, white kids whose daddy and granddaddy also went to Yale. And of course, this particular unlevel playing field denied a place to some higher-scoring, harder-working student who made a single, tragic mistake - not being born as well as the Bushes. Tough luck for him or her.

But wait! Wasn't that just the kind of squeezed-out student that now-President Bush was supposedly speaking for when his Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court challenging the affirmative-action program at the University of Michigan? First, Bus inaccurately derided the Michigan plan as "quotas." Then he got all moralistic, saying that giving a leg up to black or Latino applicants i "divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution." That kind of system, he complained, "unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students."

It's unfair? Unfair like being ushered into the Ivy League by Popp and Gramps? Unfair like getting into Yale with a 1206 and Cs? Unfair like having an entire educational career - and much of professional life - delivered by rich white boy affirmative action? And in W's case, the special boosts didn't begin or end with the admissions committee at Yale. Had the future president's name been, say, "Arbusto" instead of Bush, would he even have made it as far as Andover, the tony prep school that was also up to its crinkled nose in Bushes?

At Andover, Bush never got his name on the honor roll, even one term. The published record shows that on his very first essay assignment, the future president's grade was zero. "Disgraceful," the teacher wrote in bright red ink.

With a prep-school record this sad, his college counselor suggested, maybe he ought consider applying to a safety school in case things didn't work out at Yale. Bush chose the University of Texas. But he never had to fall back on Austin, the Bush name packed such a wallop at Yale. And once classes started in New Haven, this third generation Yalie continued not to impress academically. Oh, his easy manner won him plenty of friends on campus. He was active in his fraternity, rising eventually to president. He made the cheerleading squad and the super-secret Skull and Bones society. But there is little evidence he did much book-cracking along the way.

Freshman year, his grades put him in the 21st percentile of his class, meaning four-fifths of his classmates did better than the Future Leader of the Free World. And in the years that followed, young W never pulled his average above a C. His college transcript, in an eye-popping leak to The New Yorker magazine, showed a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a 71 in Introduction to International Relations, to cite two examples that could mean something in hindsight.

Now, none of this is any cause for shame. Lots of people do poorly in college and succeed grandly in life. And a crucial lesson was obviously learned. The playing field is never level, whatever people say. Just make sure the tilt is your way. As it was for George W. Bush. His own family-sponsored affirmative-action plan kept pulling through. Despite the Yale grades, he was accepted at the Harvard Business School. Despite repeated business failures, cronies of his father's kept bailing him out.

His big-jackpot investment, the Texas Rangers baseball team, was pretty much a gift from pals of his dad. And the rest, as they say in the Ivy League, is Bush family history.

Cami2
02-09-2005, 07:38 AM
It's natural for someone who doesn't like Bush to think the worst of him. I'm sure their was some influence but he still had to make the grades once in the college. No one gets to be president and not make the grades. Not in the US. I know money is in there somewhere but he still had to make the grades or at least an average grade.

jkimpton
02-09-2005, 10:05 AM
Cami, we're talking about YALE. Ivy League. The land of masochistic overachievers. Do you seriously think a C average student with a 1200 SAT score would get in without some serious money changing hands?

You talk about people bashing Bush just because they don't like him; how about people who are willfully blind to his faults because they DO like him?

ladyfantasy
02-09-2005, 05:41 PM
Just because we're saying that Bush didn't do well in school doesn't mean we're saying that he's dumb as a stump.

(Okay, so some *are*, but...)

You can admit that he cheated his way through Yale, that he wasn't that fantastic of a student, that he did do bad stuff...and you can still think he's a good president. I don't, personally...

You must look at all possibilities, Cami, because though you see his virtues you don't like to see his faults, and in order to really appreciate him you have to see him as he is.

drizzt
02-09-2005, 06:20 PM
one thing that bush has done right is that he at least keeps his pants on in the oval office ( we all hope) dont need any more of that stuff.

Hollis
02-09-2005, 07:06 PM
*standing up for the rain of rotten tomatoes*

I'd rather have someone who had marital indescretions and was mortified and admitted wrongdoing and went through hundreds of hours of family counseling, than someone who will never admit to any mistakes.

that's crazy.

drizzt
02-09-2005, 07:12 PM
i admit bush is not perfect
but i live in clinton country and the people hate him more here then probley any where else.
i was just commenting on one thing bush has done right i dont think any pres is going to do what all the world is going to like

Sean
02-09-2005, 07:16 PM
accroding to one guy I was gaming with today... Bush is the best president the US has ever had... and, by his reasoning, I'd agree.

He claimed that all politicians were good for were giving the citizens comedy... and, if that's the case, Bush really IS the best there has ever been.

drizzt
02-09-2005, 07:33 PM
lol never thought of it that way ha ha

jkimpton
02-09-2005, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Hollis
I'd rather have someone who had marital indescretions and was mortified and admitted wrongdoing and went through hundreds of hours of family counseling, than someone who will never admit to any mistakes.

As the bumper sticker says, "No one died when Clinton lied."

What's truly ironic is that at least two of the hardcore conservatives (Hyde and Gingrich) calling for censure of Clinton were guilty of some serious marital infidelities of their own.

The local strip clubs and escort services also love it when there's an RNC in town - they're booked up the whole week. Ahh, hypocrisy.

azridar
02-09-2005, 08:49 PM
I posted this original post at a website where I mod, and had to delete the sucker in less than a week! Talk about opening Pandora's Box, the Dem's and Rep's were at each others throats!!! Still, interesting stuff. ;)

Davvi
02-09-2005, 08:55 PM
The local strip clubs and escort services also love it when there's an RNC in town - they're booked up the whole week. Ahh, hypocrisy. [/B][/QUOTE]

That happens when any convention is in town:cool:

jkimpton
02-09-2005, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Davvi
The local strip clubs and escort services also love it when there's an RNC in town - they're booked up the whole week. Ahh, hypocrisy.

That happens when any convention is in town:cool: [/B]

Oh, of course - but the RNC toots the family values horn more loudly than most, which is what's so hypocritical about it.

Sela
02-14-2005, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Davvi
The local strip clubs and escort services also love it when there's an RNC in town - they're booked up the whole week. Ahh, hypocrisy.

That happens when any convention is in town:cool: [/B][/QUOTE]

Political conventions.
I doubt the people at things like gaming conventions can pull themselves away to buy an escort.;)