Anyone else want Bush re-elected?

[undevil]

Over the democratic nominees up right now, I doupt Bush will lose the next election.

I personally wouldn't mind if he was the next president. I think he is doing a good job, and the economy is finally getting out of a slum. Of course the liberals try to make it seem like the economy is doing bad with their propaganda attempts, but if you look at real polls you will realise we are doing pretty good.

[Hrith]

I do, please US citizens, re-elect him !

I have two main reasons
1 - there's that French puppet show where Bush is a HILARIOUS retard.
2 - it's hella fun to see people demonstrating against him here in Europe. On a personal basis, I do not like Bush, but his policies haven't affect my life in any way, so >_> and our President was against the war in Iraq, but I love it when people knock on my door and ask me to put a giant "STOP BUSH" banner on my window : I ask why I should, and their pseudo-arguments are so lame compared to mine, they leave making such a face, cannot stop laughing http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

[derBauer]

On 2004-01-31 07:50, undevil wrote:
liberals try to make it seem like the economy is doing bad with their propaganda attempts, but if you look at real polls you will realise we are doing pretty good.



You don't have to look at any polls, you look at real information. Unemployment is way down, the markets are way up, interest rates are way down, and new home ownership is the highest in over 20 years.

Of course, liberals will argue the market was higher during Clinton years, but it turns out that was the era of corporate book burning, and idiots investing in .com busts.
9/11 also took about 2,000 points out of the Dow but liberals seem to have forgotten what happen that day and blame Bush for the market dropping late '01-02.

For those who complain about the price of the war on terror, at least Bush is doing something besides hiding in hos office getting head from an intern. That was Clinton's response to the first WTC bombing in '93. I'd rather have a president that makes the tough choice rather than one who doesn't care when our country is bombed.

[Blitzkommando]

I as well would like to see him re-elected. Sure he spends way too much but he may slow down a bit, or maybe not. But with the economic boon we've been having we do have some more money to spend. And apparently people forgot about what the Clinton administration did to the military. They cut spending, closed bases and generally spit in their faces. Gee what a nice way to thank the people who protect the nation. Anyway the 5 Democrats running... all they can seem to do is insult Bush and come up with no plans of their own. That and insulting each other. The Democratic party is no longer united. We all know it. Read A National Party no More. That and Bias and Arrogance. Good books.

[derBauer]

On 2004-01-31 10:41, BLITZKOMMANDO wrote:
Read A National Party no More. That and Bias and Arrogance. Good books.



Read The Washington Times too.

[undevil]

Also listen to the Democratic statement after Bush's last speech.

She basically copied half of the shit he said in her own words and burned him for some more decent shit he said.

*Quick, lets copy what the president sais and make him look like the badguy here!*

[anwserman]

I don't like Bush, but given the recent slew of Democratic people.... ugh. No wonder why people don't vote anymore, only morons run.

And that goes for all parties, too.

[Ness]

I dont want Bush re-elected because:

1. He wants to impose his Christain values on the nation via Constitututional amendments

2. He thinks the Patriot Act is necessary

3. Him being re lected will result in for more years of ecomonic recession.

4. He will continue his "War on Terrorism" which means that he will continue removing dictators from power.

[undevil]

On 2004-01-31 11:06, anwserman wrote:
I don't like Bush, but given the recent slew of Democratic people.... ugh. No wonder why people don't vote anymore, only morons run.

And that goes for all parties, too.



Agreed.

One thing I do like about Bush a lot is that he is one of the most down to earth presidents we have had in a long time.

He does care about being re-elected, but he isn't making that a main priority. He is more focused on doing his job in the best way he can. That is a real president. Clinton started campaingning heavily like six months before he was re-elected?

[undevil]

Who cares if he removes bad people from power?

Also just because he wants to impose his Christian beliefs on laws doesn't mean that congress actually passes these laws.

[LollipopLolita]

bad to who? hell, bush can be considered bad in certain places.

[Ness]

On 2004-01-31 11:16, undevil wrote:
Who cares if he removes bad people from power?

Also just because he wants to impose his Christian beliefs on laws doesn't mean that congress actually passes these laws.



Umm.... how old are you?

The Republicans control both the House and the Senate so anything Bush proposes has a good chance of making it through.

Also attacking countries just to remove dictators from power is no reason to goto war. I consider Bush to be a bad person (not to the Bin Laden extreme, but still a bad person).

[undevil]

Bad to normal people in society.

If anyone tells me Saddam wasn't a bad leader, then you got some issues. The guy killed thousands upon thousands of his own people with his own hands or his armies. The guy let his brother or whoever he was rape hundreds of school girls while he was in power. He was a madman, and a danger.

[LollipopLolita]

you truth isn't everyone's Truth. your norm isn't everyone's norm. your society isn't everyone's society. everything is relative.

[Ness]

On 2004-01-31 11:23, undevil wrote:
Bad to normal people in society.

If anyone tells me Saddam wasn't a bad leader, then you got some issues. The guy killed thousands upon thousands of his own people with his own hands or his armies. The guy let his brother or whoever he was rape hundreds of school girls while he was in power. He was a madman, and a danger.



As ture at that may be, he didn't attack us. The US has always had the policy to only fight in defense. Wehn we went to Iraq, we invaded them. That means that Noth Korea can invade South Korea, Russia can invade Georgia, and Isreal can run the Plaestinians into Jordan.

[Robo47]

Most of my Democrat friends keep talking about how the Democrat nominees are complete idiots.

[undevil]

On 2004-01-31 11:25, Robo47 wrote:
Most of my Democrat friends keep talking about how the Democrat nominees are complete idiots.




I wouldn't care if a democratic nominee won but these guys they have running right now are just complete f*cktards.

And one of them looks like Mr.Roger.

[undevil]

I like Al Sharpton though, but I don't think he is smart enough to be president either.

[Ness]

Why are you evading my points?

Anyway....

Honestly don't think that Bush was ready to be President.

[LollipopLolita]

undevil, try to keep to one post instead of two consecutive ones. please everyone cut down on the spam in rants

[Blitzkommando]

As ture at that may be, he didn't attack us. The US has always had the policy to only fight in defense.

Wahahahaha! Good joke there! What about, oh I don't know, Tripoli? How about Vietnam? Korean Conflict? Or maybe Kosovo? Hmm... Seems to me like we've attacked outside defense quite a few times there. And what about the first Desert Storm? According to that many of our wars were not based on our standards. WWI even. Now tell me, these were cases when either our Allies or the Almighty UN decided that we should attack. Come on there's more examples. How about the Spanish American War? How was Spain a threat to us?

[Ness]

On 2004-01-31 11:31, BLITZKOMMANDO wrote:


Wahahahaha! Good joke there! What about, oh I don't know, Tripoli? How about Vietnam? Korean Conflict? Or maybe Kosovo? Hmm... Seems to me like we've attacked outside defense quite a few times there. And what about the first Desert Storm?

All of which were sanctioned by the UN and NATO. We were defending all those people from reuthlessness of their agressors and snince most of those countries wer part (or had affiliation with) NATO, we were bacially just defending NATO.


According to that many of our wars were not based on our standards. WWI even. Now tell me, these were cases when either our Allies or the Almighty UN decided that we should attack. Come on there's more examples. How about the Spanish American War? How was Spain a threat to us?

[/quote]

The Spanish=American War had something do with trade laws and attacks on US ships. In WWI US civilian ships were being assualted by German submarines.

[Blitzkommando]

The Spanish=American War had something do with trade laws and attacks on US ships. In WWI US civilian ships were being assualted by German submarines.

1. Which turned out to be false. The ships were not attacked by the Spanish and infact were blown up due to poor containment of the gunpowder storage.
2. Which the Germans gave clear warnings to! It was in the newspapers, from the German government, that they would attack ships deemed as possible carriers of contraband.

And you avoided my point entirely. None of those wars presented a clear and present threat to the US. Sure NATO and the UN sanctioned them, but remember, those are NOT the US and hopefully never will be. (even though the majority of NATO/UN troops are always Americans) So what is your excuse to these conflicts? You said that the US had a policy of not attacking if it was not for defensive purposes. These were not for US defense purposes. They were for other countries. Am I saying I disagree with them? No. I am just making a point that they were not for the defense of the US, which would null your point.

[Ness]

On 2004-01-31 11:46, BLITZKOMMANDO wrote:
1. Which turned out to be false. The ships were not attacked by the Spanish and infact were blown up due to poor containment of the gunpowder storage.


Well, my mistake.


2. Which the Germans gave clear warnings to! It was in the newspapers, from the German government, that they would attack ships deemed as possible carriers of contraband.

Like german newspapers are really going to help US citizens. "Bob, don't take those people on that cruise because the Gewrman newspaper said it would attack any ship that may contain contraband!" Also, I could place a warning in the newspaper than anyone that comes with 10 of my house will be gunned down, but that doesn't justify the action.




And you avoided my point entirely. None of those wars presented a clear and present threat to the US. Sure NATO and the UN sanctioned them, but remember, those are NOT the US and hopefully never will be. (even though the majority of NATO/UN troops are always Americans) So what is your excuse to these conflicts? You said that the US had a policy of not attacking if it was not for defensive purposes. These were not for US defense purposes. They were for other countries. Am I saying I disagree with them? No. I am just making a point that they were not for the defense of the US, which would null your point.



I said that the US is only supposed to fight in defense, but I didn't say the defense of the US. Kosovo, Korea, Veitnam, and several opther were all in the defense of a certian group of people. For Kosovo it was the Albanians, and for Korea it was the Koreans.

[Hrith]

On 2004-01-31 11:23, undevil wrote:
Bad to normal people in society.
Lolita already replied to that, but don't ever use that word again http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif


If anyone tells me Saddam wasn't a bad leader, then you got some issues. The guy killed thousands upon thousands of his own people with his own hands or his armies. The guy let his brother or whoever he was rape hundreds of school girls while he was in power. He was a madman, and a danger.
Here comes the brainwashed American.
Remember Bush is in favour of Death Penalty and against abortion, talk about human rights...
Church and State in the US are supposed to be separated.
How many innocent people did Bush kill this year ? (I'm not as immoral as to quote a figure)
And what about the everlasting aspirations of world domination of USA ?
I'm not saying America asked for what happened on September 11th, but it's reciprocal >_>
Speaking of which, the CIA still doesn't know whether it was a setup or not, it probably wasn't (CIA that is to be thanked for training Bin Laden so well).

You need more info to talk.

[undevil]

On 2004-01-31 11:56, Kefka wrote:


On 2004-01-31 11:23, undevil wrote:
Bad to normal people in society.
Lolita already replied to that, but don't ever use that word again http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_disapprove.gif


If anyone tells me Saddam wasn't a bad leader, then you got some issues. The guy killed thousands upon thousands of his own people with his own hands or his armies. The guy let his brother or whoever he was rape hundreds of school girls while he was in power. He was a madman, and a danger.
Here comes the brainwashed American.
Remember Bush is in favour of Death Penalty and against abortion, talk about human rights...
Church and State in the US are supposed to be separated.
How many innocent people did Bush kill this year ? (I'm not as immoral as to quote a figure)
And what about the everlasting aspirations of world domination of USA ?
I'm not saying America asked for what happened on September 11th, but it's reciprocal >_>
Speaking of which, the CIA still doesn't know whether it was a setup or not, it probably wasn't (CIA that is to be thanked for training Bin Laden so well).

You need more info to talk.



All your info is solely off propaganda and false statement. And who did Bush kill? He sent our armies to Iraq and of course they killed Iraqui soldiers, but all leaders do that. In a war, people die. It is a fact.

The death penalty is totally justified. Many people who are against the death penalty, but lose a loved one due to the acts of another man, are all for the death penalty afterwards.

As for killing babies, I don't think it is right. I don't agree with what he wants though. I think people should be able to choose to get an abortion if wanted. Especially victims of rape.

[Blitzkommando]

On 2004-01-31 11:54, Ness wrote:


On 2004-01-31 11:46, BLITZKOMMANDO wrote:
1. Which turned out to be false. The ships were not attacked by the Spanish and infact were blown up due to poor containment of the gunpowder storage.


Well, my mistake.


2. Which the Germans gave clear warnings to! It was in the newspapers, from the German government, that they would attack ships deemed as possible carriers of contraband.

Like german newspapers are really going to help US citizens. "Bob, don't take those people on that cruise because the Gewrman newspaper said it would attack any ship that may contain contraband!" Also, I could place a warning in the newspaper than anyone that comes with 10 of my house will be gunned down, but that doesn't justify the action.




And you avoided my point entirely. None of those wars presented a clear and present threat to the US. Sure NATO and the UN sanctioned them, but remember, those are NOT the US and hopefully never will be. (even though the majority of NATO/UN troops are always Americans) So what is your excuse to these conflicts? You said that the US had a policy of not attacking if it was not for defensive purposes. These were not for US defense purposes. They were for other countries. Am I saying I disagree with them? No. I am just making a point that they were not for the defense of the US, which would null your point.



I said that the US is only supposed to fight in defense, but I didn't say the defense of the US. Kosovo, Korea, Veitnam, and several opther were all in the defense of a certian group of people. For Kosovo it was the Albanians, and for Korea it was the Koreans.



About the Newspapers. Apparently you didn't get my point. Those newspapers were THE LONDON TIMES, NEW YORK TIME among others! In other words NONGERMAN newspapers. Thank you.

[Bradicus]

On 2004-01-31 11:04, undevil wrote:
*Quick, lets copy what the president sais and make him look like the badguy here!*


if that was a crime.... there would be no politicians...

[Shattered_weasel]

What most of you pathetic politicical retards are arguing about is shit that doesn't even apply to you.

1. The War - just shut the crap up you aint in the war so why are you even talking about it.

2. Death Penelty - Let 'em die. It aint you so who gives a shit.

3. Abortion - If some chick wants to be stoopid enough to get knocked up and fuck some one there has to be consiquences. Except for rape.

[Cheep]

I don't think he's done a good job. He went to war which cost the country billions. That really made me mad. He gave like $60 billion to the war and less than 1 billion to africa. THen there's that space plan... That war was overkill, they probably weren't any weapons of mass destruction anyway. They could have caught Sadam some other way. Why is he apposed to gay marriage? Let people do what they want. Cananda does http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif There is a weak dollar and enconomy. There is also alot of uniployment, but I think thats going up. I heard a thing on npr that said all the 3 preisdents from Texas had weak dollars and economy and went to a poorly planned war. hmmm...I don't like him even though I have no say, I'm 12 and not an American citizen. I'm canadian, and I want to go back. Besides I can't stand hearing him speak, he pauses on every third word. That's all I have to say, I'm sorry if you disagree.

[undevil]

On 2004-01-31 20:40, Cheep wrote:
I don't think he's done a good job. He went to war which cost the country billions. That really made me mad. He gave like $60 billion to the war and less than 1 billion to africa. THen there's that space plan... That war was overkill, they probably weren't any weapons of mass destruction anyway. They could have caught Sadam some other way. Why is he apposed to gay marriage? Let people do what they want. Cananda does http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif There is a weak dollar and enconomy. There is also alot of uniployment, but I think thats going up. I heard a thing on npr that said all the 3 preisdents from Texas had weak dollars and economy and went to a poorly planned war. hmmm...I don't like him even though I have no say, I'm 12 and not an American citizen. I'm canadian, and I want to go back. Besides I can't stand hearing him speak, he pauses on every third word. That's all I have to say, I'm sorry if you disagree.



Don't make fun of how Texans talk.

Africa has been recieving lots of money, not just from us. We are doing more then our part.

[Hrith]

On 2004-01-31 12:07, undevil wrote:
All your info is solely off propaganda and false statement. And who did Bush kill? He sent our armies to Iraq and of course they killed Iraqui soldiers, but all leaders do that. In a war, people die. It is a fact.
So much for the people that died in the Twin Towers. And that army your so proud of are a bunch of cowards that just bombed Iraq, killing mainly innocent citizens they were supposed to "rescue".


The death penalty is totally justified.
That is not even an argument, tell me how it is justified.


Many people who are against the death penalty, but lose a loved one due to the acts of another man, are all for the death penalty afterwards.
Kids... look up "justice" in a dictionary, you may learn a new word.

Next time, kid, read info that does not come from within your borders >_>

[Amiadon]

I disagree with Bush on most counts, and would prefer it if he were not re-elected. Plus, Cheep is right. His lag time between words is annoying.



Don't make fun of how Texans talk.

If you actually read her post properly, she was reffering to Bush, and not Texans. Saying something like "I really hate that girl!" does not mean that person hates all girls. Basic logic.


Africa has been recieving lots of money, not just from us. We are doing more then our part.

I bet you get to sleep at night thinking how great your president is, and that he uses all your taxes to feed starving children and generally help the world.

[derBauer]

On 2004-01-31 22:06, Kefka wrote:

So much for the people that died in the Twin Towers. And that army your so proud of are a bunch of cowards that just bombed Iraq, killing mainly innocent citizens they were supposed to "rescue".



You better learn the meaning of shut the fuck up before you call the army a bunch of cowards again. My goddam brother is over there and I'm pretty fucking sure he didn't ask to put his ass on the line each day for Iraqis. I don't know who the fuck you are, or where you live, but I'm sure he would be glad to show you what a coward he is if you like to call him that to his face. I can tell you right now you'd be thinking differently once you were coughing up piss and blood.
It is one thing to criticize Bush for his war in Iraq, it is another to call the Army a bunch of cowards, and I suggest you not fuck things up again.

[undevil]

On 2004-01-31 22:06, Kefka wrote:

So much for the people that died in the Twin Towers. And that army your so proud of are a bunch of cowards that just bombed Iraq, killing mainly innocent citizens they were supposed to "rescue".


That is not even an argument, tell me how it is justified.


Kids... look up "justice" in a dictionary, you may learn a new word.

Next time, kid, read info that does not come from within your borders >_>

[/quote]

First off you basterd, my uncle died in this fucking war. He wasn't a coward, and the only innocent people he might have killed were on accident. You think they purpously kill innocent people in Iraq? That is some of the more dumber bullshit I have ever read.

My uncle didn't die like a coward. He died because some basterd felt it was his need to car bomb their building. He was one of the few that did die.

You don't call our US Army cowards. They have done more shit in their life then you will ever do in yours. They are putting their lives on the line for us, and it will be worth it in the end when some basterd like Saddam decides to pour chemicals into our water. But wait! He can't because we captured him!

Death penalty is justified because it is like an eye for an eye. You killed a man, now you are going to die. No excuses. You rob from a bank, you do jail time. You rape a woman, you do jail time. Jail time isn't enough justice for a man who killed another man.

[-Luke-]

Look. I am not going to pretend the way I feel about the war is right, its just how I see it. And, I know there is no point in discussing that, but about the death penalty, my problem with that is its a human life. A person who thinks they can decide whether they can kill someone or not is stupid. A murderer does not have the right to decide to take someone's life, and neither does a court, even if they are doing it for justice. I know how those families feel, my cousin was murdered, and I myself wanted to kill the guilty person. But I know now that it wouldn't have been enough. It wouldn't have made me feel better.
Luke

[Hrith]

On 2004-02-01 06:31, undevil wrote:
The only innocent people he might have killed were on accident.
Talk about an excuse ! it better have been ! innocent people always die by accident, try making sense next time.

And the cowards are the ones who make the decisions >_> I thought that was obvious. In the army soldiers, whatever their grade, can only obey, thus your uncle, and brother, were obeying cowards, is it better put this way ?

And this is a rant forum not a insult one so stop calling me names, it only makes you seem all the more immature and ruins your credibility. Talking with such passion is not necessarily bad, but it shows your total lack of objectivity.


Death penalty is justified because it is like an eye for an eye. You killed a man, now you are going to die.
I see you didn't look up "Justice".......



On 2004-02-01 08:13, L_evans wrote:
Look. I am not going to pretend the way I feel about the war is right, its just how I see it. And, I know there is no point in discussing that, but about the death penalty, my problem with that is its a human life. A person who thinks they can decide whether they can kill someone or not is stupid. A murderer does not have the right to decide to take someone's life, and neither does a court, even if they are doing it for justice. I know how those families feel, my cousin was murdered, and I myself wanted to kill the guilty person. But I know now that it wouldn't have been enough. It wouldn't have made me feel better.
Luke
Exactly, and besides not making you feel better nor reviving your cousin, this would have been a passionate act. JUSTICE IS NOT TO HAVE ANY FEELING.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kefka on 2004-02-01 09:12 ]</font>

[-Luke-]

Exactly. It wouldn't have helped. I honestly don't think I would feel any better if he had died. I am free, my cousin is somewhere better, dunno if its heaven, and that guy is rotting the rest of his life away in jail.
Luke

[undevil]

They aren't cowards. They risk their lifes every minute of every day for the USA. That is not being a coward.

[Dangerous55]

Kefka, what the hell?


Who exactly are you calling a coward here? I Private has to follow a Major's orders, does that make the Major a coward? Or is a Specialist a coward when he orders a Private?

I hope you are not calling the Generals cowards for using missiles instead of just sending a mass infantry attack? Are they cowards because some innocents died(who you act as if Bush went over there and killed them himself) when we used cruise missiles? Innocents die in every war.


So I ask you again, who are the cowards and why?