Haters
Ok. Why does everyone hate George W. Bush so much?
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 5,318
RATE
10
Posted: 2009-12-18 19:32:43
Psst.
Responses (94) / Sorted by points
Because i would rather have my freedoms and civl liberties than a false hope of security. Patriot Act took away hebeas corpus(legal action a person can use to seek relief from unlawful detention) allowing american citizens to be detained if "suspected of terrorism" (which was never really defined). The Patriot Act is unconstitutional when it allows private communications of law-biding citizens to be intercepted by law enforcement agencies. Do you really want Big-Brother snooping through you and your families phone calls e-mails and voice messages?
Here's an example of the Act in action.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Maddison
Here's an example of the Act in action.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Maddison
But back to your original question, I don't hate G.W. Bush. I thought he was pretty funny really. I don't really think our President makes a difference anymore, it's the administration pulling the strings that fucks things up. Obama administration hasn't done anything different than the Bush administration thus far. Bush just got a bum-rap because he never went on Oprah or the tonight show, and he didn't make the cover of every magazine. Thats just my opinion, take it or leave it.
I don't really care I haven't done anything wrong. Also it's not like an individual is listening to your conversation. First a computer filters through millions of calls and if it picks up a word like bomb, terror, gun, kill and maybe even jihad it bumps it up to another computer hat does a better job of filtering. Then once it passes through enough filters, it is pushed through to a person. So most of your conversations are just filtered into a computer then once the program decodes that your call is normal, it moves on to another call.
If you're going to call the war in Afghanistan legitimate, then so must the Iraq war really.
The war in Afghanistan is to find Osama and take down the taliban, because they're a terrorist organization responsible for the death of a lot of civilians.
Saddam Hussein and his regime were responsible for the brutal murders and maiming of thousands of civilians.
Don't seem to be overly different to me, if anything the war in Iraq is more justified, as they were responsible for a lot more deaths, Afghanistan was just personal revenge. I'm not saying Afghanistan wasn't justified, but if you're gonna say it is then Iraq is too.
The war in Afghanistan is to find Osama and take down the taliban, because they're a terrorist organization responsible for the death of a lot of civilians.
Saddam Hussein and his regime were responsible for the brutal murders and maiming of thousands of civilians.
Don't seem to be overly different to me, if anything the war in Iraq is more justified, as they were responsible for a lot more deaths, Afghanistan was just personal revenge. I'm not saying Afghanistan wasn't justified, but if you're gonna say it is then Iraq is too.
He was bad for science.
He spoke poorly, embarrassing the citizens of United States.
He gave tax breaks to the rich.
He deregulated markets and then bailed out the companies that killed themselves.
His administration tried to rename French fries to Freedom Fries.
He declared that “major combat operations “had ended in Iraq.
He fired 12 US Attorney’s for political reasons.
He gave no bid contracts to Halliburton.
He bullied the United Nations and other countries
The national debt grew by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.
He hurt the environment.
He championed the Patriot Act
He Used fear and scare tactics.
He didn’t put Enough Resources into Afghanistan.
He had his men try to force a hospitalized Attorney General to sign off on illegal wiretaps.
He didn’t change a failed strategy in Iraq until there was a major loss of Republican seats.
He outed an undercover CIA agent.
He waited forever to do anything about hurricane Katrina.
He Invaded Iraq
He Authorized Water-boarding.
He spoke poorly, embarrassing the citizens of United States.
He gave tax breaks to the rich.
He deregulated markets and then bailed out the companies that killed themselves.
His administration tried to rename French fries to Freedom Fries.
He declared that “major combat operations “had ended in Iraq.
He fired 12 US Attorney’s for political reasons.
He gave no bid contracts to Halliburton.
He bullied the United Nations and other countries
The national debt grew by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency.
He hurt the environment.
He championed the Patriot Act
He Used fear and scare tactics.
He didn’t put Enough Resources into Afghanistan.
He had his men try to force a hospitalized Attorney General to sign off on illegal wiretaps.
He didn’t change a failed strategy in Iraq until there was a major loss of Republican seats.
He outed an undercover CIA agent.
He waited forever to do anything about hurricane Katrina.
He Invaded Iraq
He Authorized Water-boarding.
Ok how did he Hurt the environent? Who cares about how we torture TERRORISTS? Also what we considire "torture" is no where near what real torture is. Also the patriot act as to protect you. Why do you care if big brother is listening to your conversations. You arn't doing anything wrong are you? If you are doing something wrong well the govt. should be looking at you.
woh, woh, woh, don’t attack me jofus,ertrov,dhuegz,(men im shure).but let me explain the reasons... jeeze chop me head off..1)his speech,.He graduated From Yale., and yet the man still speaks poorly,2). rich people,His reasoning is that rich people would invest back into the economy by growing businesses and investing in the markets. Of course super rich people don’t really need more money, so they just put it in an interest earning account. This was plainly obvious at the end of Bush’s term when the economy took a nose dive. That tax break money left the stock market like rats fleeing a sinking ship,3) companies that killed, This was the cause of the economy going to hell. Deregulation caused a big fake bubble, which popped full of badly written mortgages and crooked hedge funds. Worse still, he helped these companies by giving them tax payer money. And he’s a conservative?,4)ill let the French fries go because, that was more of an opinion than n e thing, but still, that just made us look fuckin stupid.5)major combat operation., Even though, years later we had the so called “Surge”. He even had a nice mission accomplished banner behind him. This man suffered from verbal premature ejaculation on National Television. 6)national debt, It was the biggest increase under any president in U.S history. The man claimed to be a conservative and then ran up a largest bill ever. At the end of his presidency the economy was tanking. He basically pulled a dine and dash on the American people and all the real conservatives that voted for him., but then again I really don’t compare him to obama.6)the environment, George Bush campaigned on regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Then he turned around and didn’t sign Kyoto. That is just the beginning. if you don’t believe me then read more,www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/16/greenpolitics-g
eorgebush 7)patriot act, it might as well be called the “spy on Americans” act. Well that’s my opinion, I like my privacy, thank you. 8)resources. George got so worked up over Iraq, he almost forgot that he was running another war. A war that was justified. In essence, the lack of resources in Afghanistan made us less safe. The Taliban are back up to their Pre-September 11 strength. He dropped the ball. 9) Katrina, It was an act of God, but when you sit on your hands for days after god thumps you one, each passing minute of indecision makes you loathed. Again, my opinion. 10) water-boarding… America is an idea. We are supposed to be the good guys. Being the good guys is why we won the cold war. Authorizing something that is against the Geneva Conventions, makes us look just as bad as the terrorist that wefight, in the eyes of the rest of the world. We are supposed to be the people on higher ground. The people with God on our side, the morally right. And before someone makes a comment saying that water-boarding is not against the Geneva Conventions, read the Third Geneva Convention.www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e
63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68
eorgebush 7)patriot act, it might as well be called the “spy on Americans” act. Well that’s my opinion, I like my privacy, thank you. 8)resources. George got so worked up over Iraq, he almost forgot that he was running another war. A war that was justified. In essence, the lack of resources in Afghanistan made us less safe. The Taliban are back up to their Pre-September 11 strength. He dropped the ball. 9) Katrina, It was an act of God, but when you sit on your hands for days after god thumps you one, each passing minute of indecision makes you loathed. Again, my opinion. 10) water-boarding… America is an idea. We are supposed to be the good guys. Being the good guys is why we won the cold war. Authorizing something that is against the Geneva Conventions, makes us look just as bad as the terrorist that wefight, in the eyes of the rest of the world. We are supposed to be the people on higher ground. The people with God on our side, the morally right. And before someone makes a comment saying that water-boarding is not against the Geneva Conventions, read the Third Geneva Convention.www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e
63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68
Biggest increase in spending ever I'm pretty sure was President Obama. He tripled our deficit. Also with the Geneva Conventions, these Jihadists that we are dealing with are not soldiers. They are criminal thugs who tell parents of mentally challenged children that the only way for their child to go to paradise is for them to blow themselves up in a market full of innocent people. That means that the rules laid down by the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them. They also do not wear a standardized uniform or follow the rules of war.
OK, you know what? i give up. i made many good points, and i stick to my beliefs, there's a soldier loosing his life today, for our freedom as Americans... the least i could do is exercise my freedom of speech, so you asked "Why does everyone hate George W. Bush so much?" so i decided to put my two cents in. but OK, then i regret putting my views out for every one to see.stupid move, my bad...well thank you jofus19992, and ertrov for your debate, and your views. here in Arizona no one really argues about this stuff... jofus you changed my mind on Water-boarding.congratulations.and thanks for being civilized.aside from calling me "ignorant".
Hey, friend, I meant no offense. I thought we were just having a friendly debate. No one is stopping you from using your freedom of speech, but the same goes for us. You did make some god points, sorry if it seemed like we were attacking you. Thank you for being open-minded about the water-boarding thing, that earns you a lot of respect in my book. And to prove there are no hard feelings, I went ahead and uprated your posts.
thx guy,appreciate it.and as for the points thing, thx, i really don't care about ranking, but it was the thought that counts, i have alot of respect for you guys too. especially for joe. the post "for those who serve us", i think your great for posting something like that for bacon... cuddos to u.
You hate someone because they speak poorly? (shallow much?)
The rich provide jobs, and the top 10% of our country pay 90% of the taxes.
Obama just spent billions bailing out companies.
Who the hell cares what french fries are called?
Major combat operations HAVE ended in Iraq.
The United Nations are pushovers with no real influence anyway.
Obama has almost doubled the national debt since Bush, and its only been one year.
Bush never did anything to harm the environment.
The Patriot Act is for your own fucking protection.
How are you going to complain about Bush not putting enough resources into Afghanistan, but bitch about him invading Iraq?
Bush was actually doing stuff for hurricane Katrina before it even hit.
No one was to blame, there was just a lack of rescources.
Concerning water-boarding, do you honestly feel sorry for terrorists who would'nt even hesitate to torture, rape, and kill you. I say fuck'em.
The rich provide jobs, and the top 10% of our country pay 90% of the taxes.
Obama just spent billions bailing out companies.
Who the hell cares what french fries are called?
Major combat operations HAVE ended in Iraq.
The United Nations are pushovers with no real influence anyway.
Obama has almost doubled the national debt since Bush, and its only been one year.
Bush never did anything to harm the environment.
The Patriot Act is for your own fucking protection.
How are you going to complain about Bush not putting enough resources into Afghanistan, but bitch about him invading Iraq?
Bush was actually doing stuff for hurricane Katrina before it even hit.
No one was to blame, there was just a lack of rescources.
Concerning water-boarding, do you honestly feel sorry for terrorists who would'nt even hesitate to torture, rape, and kill you. I say fuck'em.
hey Ertorv here is a another goodone for ya shutt up! Bush sucks the cockular divice
I don't necessarily hate Geroge Bush. I'm sure he is a well-meaning person who tried his best during his time in office.
However, I am not a fan of his administration.
I will make my points far more specific than I normally would, because I am sure they will soon be debated : ).
1. Torture. The Bush Administration used torture fairly consistently as a means to attempt to garner information. However, torture has never been proven to illicit information, and often has brought out false information leading to hours of wasted work. The Bush Administration's torture tactics never produced clear results, this the American government was causing pain for no gain whatsoever.
2. Disregard for the UN/our nation's reputation. One of the main reasons I dislike the Bush years is that it put America in horrific international standing. Some opposition from other countries was admittedly unwarranted, but many countries had legitimate beefs with America in the Bush era. Mostly regarding the war(s).
3. The amount of time spent vacationing. 1,020 days. More than 1/3rd of his presidency.
4. His disregard for major scientific advancement/principles. Namely stem cell research, global warming, and evolution.
I'll leave it at that for now : ).
However, I am not a fan of his administration.
I will make my points far more specific than I normally would, because I am sure they will soon be debated : ).
1. Torture. The Bush Administration used torture fairly consistently as a means to attempt to garner information. However, torture has never been proven to illicit information, and often has brought out false information leading to hours of wasted work. The Bush Administration's torture tactics never produced clear results, this the American government was causing pain for no gain whatsoever.
2. Disregard for the UN/our nation's reputation. One of the main reasons I dislike the Bush years is that it put America in horrific international standing. Some opposition from other countries was admittedly unwarranted, but many countries had legitimate beefs with America in the Bush era. Mostly regarding the war(s).
3. The amount of time spent vacationing. 1,020 days. More than 1/3rd of his presidency.
4. His disregard for major scientific advancement/principles. Namely stem cell research, global warming, and evolution.
I'll leave it at that for now : ).
I'm already in too many arguments with you, lol, so I'll answer just a couple. He didn't care about the UN because it's useless! The UN never accomplishes anything. Also, he did promote adult stem cell research, which is better as it doesn't involve murdering unborn infants. Global warming is actually a cycle that happened in the middle ages as well, so we aren't the main cause (don't believe me, research it). And evolution is just one of many theories of the origin of reality. Like it really needs any more attention.
Haha, very fair (the too many arguments part : ) ). We simply have generally opposing worldviews, and that is fine!
The UN is one of the world's largest givers of aid in the world. Over 50 million refugees have received some form of UN aid since 1951. It is also well-held that the UN has been instrumental in 172 confirmed peace agreements, thus it is one of the most instrumental peace-keeping organizations the world has to offer. Far from useless in my opinion. It also remains one of the only platforms on which to have global discussions.
Bush was very against stem cell research, saying it "crossed a moral boundary." www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html
I have researched global warming extensively, being a scoffer myself originally. However, overwhelming scientific consensus dictates that we are, in fact, a major cause of global climate change, and that global climate change will have extremely deleterious effects on our environment. www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.ht
ml
We can discuss evolution elsewhere, but let me say that it is the only hypothesis to have gained the theory status, scientifically speaking. I encourage you to return to the "Bible" thread or the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread and continue our evolutionary debate there. You've bowed out for some time now : ).
The UN is one of the world's largest givers of aid in the world. Over 50 million refugees have received some form of UN aid since 1951. It is also well-held that the UN has been instrumental in 172 confirmed peace agreements, thus it is one of the most instrumental peace-keeping organizations the world has to offer. Far from useless in my opinion. It also remains one of the only platforms on which to have global discussions.
Bush was very against stem cell research, saying it "crossed a moral boundary." www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/19/stemcells.veto/index.html
I have researched global warming extensively, being a scoffer myself originally. However, overwhelming scientific consensus dictates that we are, in fact, a major cause of global climate change, and that global climate change will have extremely deleterious effects on our environment. www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.ht
ml
We can discuss evolution elsewhere, but let me say that it is the only hypothesis to have gained the theory status, scientifically speaking. I encourage you to return to the "Bible" thread or the "Evolution vs. Creationism" thread and continue our evolutionary debate there. You've bowed out for some time now : ).
Sure, but they certainly aren't useless.
And I'm fully aware of his criteria that stem cell research must pass to be Oked. It was outdated and very harmful to the research as a whole. Along with his outright veto of the main bill.
We good on Global warming then?
And I'm fully aware of his criteria that stem cell research must pass to be Oked. It was outdated and very harmful to the research as a whole. Along with his outright veto of the main bill.
We good on Global warming then?
I'll admit I was rash to say useless.
My point is that he had a problem with embryonic stem cell research, because it encourages abortions to get more samples for research. (my opinions on the murder of babies aside) He encouraged research of adult stem cell research.
Not "good", but I doubt I can convince you otherwise.
My point is that he had a problem with embryonic stem cell research, because it encourages abortions to get more samples for research. (my opinions on the murder of babies aside) He encouraged research of adult stem cell research.
Not "good", but I doubt I can convince you otherwise.
It's not me you must convince, it's the scientific community. Unless you are trying to get me to disregard an evidentiary basis : ).
And embryonic stem cell research doesn't encourage abortions... statistically that claim is baseless.
So: I dislike him because of his tarnishing of the US's foreign image/disregard of the UN, torture, amount of vacation, and scientific disregard. These all seem to remain fairly unchallenged.
And embryonic stem cell research doesn't encourage abortions... statistically that claim is baseless.
So: I dislike him because of his tarnishing of the US's foreign image/disregard of the UN, torture, amount of vacation, and scientific disregard. These all seem to remain fairly unchallenged.
First of all, I would hesitate to even call it torture, because those same people that "don't deserve it" would do in some cases a hundred times worse things to others. It's very soft torture. And do you think that we should not put kidnappers in prison? Because we're "sinking to their level"?
Posted: 2009-12-21 10:55:13 Report
Torture: the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
So, yes, we must call it torture.
And what do you mean very soft torture? Read the release. It's chilling. Waterboarded over 200 times? Even those who profess waterboarding to be no more than a slight rinse don't last a single minute. And often far, far less than that. Take Mancow for instance:
forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=98383
Prison is in no way torture. Prison is protection for the country that needs protecting, without committing physical harm to the imprisoned. A reasoned response for the breaking of societal law is to be removed from that society.
So, yes, we must call it torture.
And what do you mean very soft torture? Read the release. It's chilling. Waterboarded over 200 times? Even those who profess waterboarding to be no more than a slight rinse don't last a single minute. And often far, far less than that. Take Mancow for instance:
forums.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=98383
Prison is in no way torture. Prison is protection for the country that needs protecting, without committing physical harm to the imprisoned. A reasoned response for the breaking of societal law is to be removed from that society.
Posted: 2009-12-21 23:19:54 Report
But this torture will leave no permanant scaring or dismemberment. But it does cause very very extreme discomfort. Also a person who has really been totured will be against it entirely. Ex. John McCain. But i would bet anything that these terrorists who have been waterboarded would still not hesitate to cut of an
Americans fingers one-by-one probably just for the he'll of it or cut his head off Or tie a rope around his penis so he cant urinate then force him to drink ungodly amounts of fluids so his bladder will explode.
Americans fingers one-by-one probably just for the he'll of it or cut his head off Or tie a rope around his penis so he cant urinate then force him to drink ungodly amounts of fluids so his bladder will explode.
Posted: 2009-12-22 17:34:50 Report
No permanent scarring or dismemberment except permanent psychological degradation.
I am confused by the second part of your post. You postulate a universal principle, then give a counterexample to disprove the rule.
And yes, horrible things occur in the world. America needs to be a beacon of civilization, not a facade of innocence covering a torturous center.
I am confused by the second part of your post. You postulate a universal principle, then give a counterexample to disprove the rule.
And yes, horrible things occur in the world. America needs to be a beacon of civilization, not a facade of innocence covering a torturous center.
Posted: 2009-12-22 21:14:48 Report
Sorry if i wasnt clear. I ley my emotions get the best of me. I was trying to say that waterboarding doesnt leave mental scars like real torture does. A terrorist who has been waterboarded wouldnt hesitate to torture americans in the ways that I gave above. But someone who has really been tortured like John McCain would be against torture even in it's slightest fashion. If this didn't clarify it for you please tell me.
Posted: 2009-12-23 06:40:49 Report
Ok only two of you gave real reasons. The first few would only work if you personally knew him. But with you intelligent ones thank you.
Iraq is kind of a touchy subject. The first bush should have finished it. But I also do beleive that Saddam did have WMD or was atleast close to finishing some so we did need to go there.
Iraq is kind of a touchy subject. The first bush should have finished it. But I also do beleive that Saddam did have WMD or was atleast close to finishing some so we did need to go there.
They could have easily buried the weapons on the deserts and how do you explain the genocide on the Kurds. He used chemical weapons on them. And with the length of the wars, you have to be patient. You can't just leave and half-ass it. We have to make sure that we are finnished and did a food job before we leave either country. That is what hurt us after the first gulf war.
Because a lot of people don't know the facts, and criticize the man's every mistake, as if they think someone else would be perfect. (Obama has already fucked up more than Bush, and with Obama, it's been America he's fucking up, not mainly a war somewhere else) Also, people who criticize the war in Afghanistan are idiots. Have you forgotten 911? I haven't, and I'm ashamed that some "Americans" don't have the guts or the honor to want to fight back. President Bush got us through that crisis, and had the balls to go after the terrorists who did it. And as far as the war in Iraq, it doesn't matter if he had WMD or not. He was a tyrant, oppressing people who couldn't defend themselves. It's our responsibility, as a country with the ability to help, to do so, for the betterment of mankind through protection of the innocent. And for those who criticize him for little, stupid things, like pronouncing words incorrectly, when is the last time you gave a flawless speech to thousands of people, without letting your nerves get the best of you? Just look how many mistakes our new president has made in speeches, and he is otherwise a highly trained, and excellent speaker. There is no doubt that Bush wasn't perfect, but no one is.
I am simply going to address one thing in your post: "It doesn't matter if he had WMD or not."
YES, it does. Bush went to war without Congressional approval because it was an "emergency situation." This is allowed by the Constitution only if there truly is an emergency situation. However, Iraq had absolutely no connection to 9/11, and had no WMDs. Thus, Bush, as acting President, violated the very Constitution he was sworn to uphold.
It definitely matters that there were, in fact, no WMDs.
YES, it does. Bush went to war without Congressional approval because it was an "emergency situation." This is allowed by the Constitution only if there truly is an emergency situation. However, Iraq had absolutely no connection to 9/11, and had no WMDs. Thus, Bush, as acting President, violated the very Constitution he was sworn to uphold.
It definitely matters that there were, in fact, no WMDs.
Dongman: There is a difference between faith and stupidity. Just think about what that might mean before responding.
Logos: I'll agree that he shouldn't have used the possibility of WMDs as a reason, because it was deceptive. But I do believe we had every reason to go to war. And we still don't know if there were WMDs. We haven't found Bin Laden either, so maybe he never existed. (sarcasm)
Logos: I'll agree that he shouldn't have used the possibility of WMDs as a reason, because it was deceptive. But I do believe we had every reason to go to war. And we still don't know if there were WMDs. We haven't found Bin Laden either, so maybe he never existed. (sarcasm)
The Kurdish killings are often misrepresented. www.rense.com/general74/kurds.htm.
Also, that was before Iraq #1, in which we rounded up the WMDs and disposed of them. Confiscated, if you will.
Also, sure, there is a slight (and I mean slight) possibility that there were/are missed WMDs. However, the fact that we have not found them tells us that the intelligence used to get us into the war (bypassing congress) was incomplete at best, and completely fabricated at worst. Once again, calling Constitutionality into question.
Also, that was before Iraq #1, in which we rounded up the WMDs and disposed of them. Confiscated, if you will.
Also, sure, there is a slight (and I mean slight) possibility that there were/are missed WMDs. However, the fact that we have not found them tells us that the intelligence used to get us into the war (bypassing congress) was incomplete at best, and completely fabricated at worst. Once again, calling Constitutionality into question.
Well one thing I didn't like about bush was the way he was not firm on WMD's. We have satelite imagery of convoys of some sort of weapons going into Syria before we invaded. What he should have done is quit taking crap from people and take a stand.
I understand and appreciate that opinion (that we didn't do a thorough job the first time), but I would tend to disagree. The fact that we didn't even find a single trace of evidence for any form of WMD leads me to believe we did a good job the first time through. As per that first post:
1. I did some research and couldn't find any sources for the satellite imagery. Can you provide one?
2. That's not how American government works. It's not about one man leading a charge despite a country's opposition, it's about listening to the will of the people and deciding when and how to do what based on the people's desire, not one man's unsubstantiated accusations.
1. I did some research and couldn't find any sources for the satellite imagery. Can you provide one?
2. That's not how American government works. It's not about one man leading a charge despite a country's opposition, it's about listening to the will of the people and deciding when and how to do what based on the people's desire, not one man's unsubstantiated accusations.
Well I'm sorry about that satelite imagery. (think I spelled that wrong). I completely messed up on that. I used a source of whom I did trust. I just took his word as fact. But shortly after reading your post I was perplexed so I did some reasearch myself and found the same conclusion you did. I'm sorry and will never use this source again
without more thourough research. But I still beleive that saddam had wmd's. He still could have buried them in the dessert dismantled them ecetora. But
here are some sources that support the genocide and use of wmd's or chemical weapons.
Www.gendercide.org/genocideinkurdistan.HTML
news.BBC.co.uk/2/hi/Europe/4555000.STM
without more thourough research. But I still beleive that saddam had wmd's. He still could have buried them in the dessert dismantled them ecetora. But
here are some sources that support the genocide and use of wmd's or chemical weapons.
Www.gendercide.org/genocideinkurdistan.HTML
news.BBC.co.uk/2/hi/Europe/4555000.STM
The first article you gave was interesting, yet still doesn't account for all or nearly all WMDs being disposed of the first run through. And it also seems to promote many things I would expect to be against your worldview: that is global cooperation and a form of melding of judicial systems internationally. But I could be wrong.
The second link isn't working for me, I'm sorry.
ANd thanks for the admission of the satellite imagery, no harm done, no need for apology. Simple mistakes are perfectly acceptable : ). We all make them, and I'm sure I will shortly.
The second link isn't working for me, I'm sorry.
ANd thanks for the admission of the satellite imagery, no harm done, no need for apology. Simple mistakes are perfectly acceptable : ). We all make them, and I'm sure I will shortly.
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
...I didn't like him because he went into Iraq for REVENGE for his dad - and said it was because they had 'weapons of mass destruction!'
Becuase everyone has got to hate on whoever is famous. Its just natural anymore. Like 9/11, everyone hates on him becuase he didnt do anything. The man was sitting in a classroom... what was he supposed to do? Jump up and scream "OH GOD THEYRE KILLING US ALL!!!!!" in front of a bunch of little kids so you feel that he did something "good"? Everyone hates on Bieber becuase he sucks at singing. Well hes a very succesful singer whos getting more money and will be getting more pussy than you will ever have accomplished. Everyone hates on twilight, well that book/movie is pulling in lump sums of cash, gay vampires or not. So like i said, everyone hates on anyone and anything for attention
Well this is a little old now but here is why I don't like Bush. He was warned before 9/11 that there was going to be an attack on the U.S. from Bin Laden himself. He didn't do anything to highten security or nothing. He could of atleast made 9/11 not as bad if he would of took action when people were telling him that we were in trouble
Also, don't blame him for his father's actions. And the war in Iraq wasn't about the twin towers attack, that was the war in Afghanistan. He went to war in Iraq to correct the mistake his father made by not finishing there, so you could say he was willing to embarrass his dad to do the right thing. He wasn't doing it because his dad told him to.
He's a dumbass. plain and simple.
Obama doesn't say stupid things? So "Cinco de quatro" or miscounting how many presidents there have been, or stopping to let the prompter catch up, or smacking a fly and telling the camera man to zoom in on it; those aren't stupid? And he didn't do anything to earn the prize. In fact, he's gotten a lot of heat for even accepting it, because he didn't deserve it.
I would agree that, yes, Obama does misspeak sometimes. But his oratory skills are leagues above that of Bush, and he doesn't misspeak nearly as much.
Bushisms:politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
Obamaisms:politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-is
ms.htm
Comparing the level of mistakes in speech seen above, Obama unquestionably comes out the victory in speech and rhetoric.
Bushisms:politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
Obamaisms:politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-is
ms.htm
Comparing the level of mistakes in speech seen above, Obama unquestionably comes out the victory in speech and rhetoric.
Posted: 2009-12-21 13:40:59 Report
Awww, but that's why debate is so fun... because who knows, maybe there is something one of us haven't heard. And I simply enjoy intelligent conversation...
And I do appreciate your willingness to continue it : ). It's a mark of... hmm... a good spirit : P. If you will.
And I do appreciate your willingness to continue it : ). It's a mark of... hmm... a good spirit : P. If you will.
Posted: 2009-12-22 21:08:14 Report
I view the "Agree to Disagree" as a cop-out in a debate unless the participants have truly reached a place where opinion is the only difference. I have provided evidentiary backing for my position, let's see some from yours before we chalk it up to simply oppositional political opinion : ).
Posted: 2009-12-21 23:03:27 Report
Well that is your opinion and here is the place where our only differences are in opinion. I do beleive that people can agree to disagree.
Ok I'll be honest. It's a pain in the ass to type on my itouch. This thing is normally the only way I can get on the Internet and I can't copy and paste my sources. I really am sorry. I'm glad you are an inrelligant debator and don't just say ignorant comments like "bush sucks the cockular device". Or "he's an ass hole". Let's just face the facts, no matter how long we debate I'm not going to change your political views and you are not going to change mine.
Ok I'll be honest. It's a pain in the ass to type on my itouch. This thing is normally the only way I can get on the Internet and I can't copy and paste my sources. I really am sorry. I'm glad you are an inrelligant debator and don't just say ignorant comments like "bush sucks the cockular device". Or "he's an ass hole". Let's just face the facts, no matter how long we debate I'm not going to change your political views and you are not going to change mine.
Posted: 2009-12-22 17:47:54 Report
Now that we both see the other's points, and agree they are at least somewhat reasonable ( ; ) ), I would invite you to check out the "The Bible, Your Opinion?" thread I started a while back. Posts there have been sporadic, and I definitely don't think the discussion has come to such a nice conclusion like this one.
Posted: 2009-12-23 06:52:31 Report
he didn't deserve it, and even he knew that!
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
Post a response
Related posts
