the "accomplishments" of president bush...

[neal]

they should be publicly humiliated for that operation pipe dreams bullshit. strung up in the town square for all to see!! get some monkeys from to zoo to come and throw poo on them! monkeys yay!!
-neal

 

[kiyardo]

thats total bullshit. WMD and the 'imminent threat to our national safety' because of saddam's WMD was their whole justification to the american people. every fuckin speach up until the war started was about WMD this and WMD that. once they didnt find jack shit is when they stopped talking about them.
-neal

I thought the same thing as you. Even after the war ended, I told all my conservative friends that we NEED to find the WMD or this war was in vain. BUT, then I realized after reading through the UN resolution #17, and the context of the previous resolutions that it wasn't all about WMD. It was about DISCLOSURE. All Saddam had to do was to provide evidence that he got rid of his WMD.

BUT, because he didn't comply, the civilized world and the UN had no idea whether he had WMD or not. Based on the past (1988 gasing of the Kurds, and more recent small scale chemical attacks on his people) we rightly assumed he still had WMD, and was a threat.

Now, the war is over and we should still look for WMD, but one things for sure. Saddam doesn't have the resources he had to launch a WMD attack.

 

[kiyardo]

I am in full agreement with you kiyardo. It's great to see something else then the standard leftist argument on this board.

You sound like a libertarian, I am wrong?

Thnaks Hawk. No I'm a Republican with Libertarian views. I agree with most of what the Libertairans say, except for a few issues.

 

[Hawk]

Thnaks Hawk. No I'm a Republican with Libertarian views. I agree with most of what the Libertairans say, except for a few issues.

That's funny, I am a libertarian with some conservative views

 

[kiyardo]

Good lord.

Honor? Like the time he went AWOL to avoid military service? How about the THREE times he was arrested? How about his inability to speak the English language? (Is our children learning?).

He served in the military. He was arrested. So what. Many people were arrested when they were younger. His character now is entirely different. Clinton's character has not changed.

Dignity? He won the Republican nomination thanks in part to Karl Rove's push polling.

Bush was a lazy C- student in college, did that bring dignity to the office? What about Clinton? He was a Rhodes scholar.

He won the nomination by getting more votes. Just like he won the election by getting more votes, the electoral votes, which are the ones that matter.

Clinton was a Rhodes scholor, big deal. He also went over seas to protest the vietnam war, while he dodged the draft.

Clinton lied about consensual sex and the media talked about Monica 24/7 for months. But when Bush lies about the allocation of billions of dollars ("The vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom" - lie) the so-called liberal media is completely silent. It's good to see we americans have our priorities straight.

Bush never said that. He said that the tax cuts were for all those who pay taxes. The majority of the taxes are paid for by the rich anyway. They deserve the tax cuts and are penalized for being wealthy, which is grossly unfair. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. Where were you when the liberal media was hounding Bush on the tax cuts?

If you needed anymore proof just look at their kids. Bush's daughters were caught using fake IDs. They also had the secret service get one of their boyfriends out of jail! Don't even get me started on Jeb Bush.

Clinton's daughter? She graduates from Stanford in three years.

The liberal media left Chelsea alone during the Clinton years. Notice how they focused intently on the Bush twins to find every bit of dirt on them. Who knows what Chelsea did.

George W. Bush is a liar, an idiot, and a disgrace.

And Clinton isn't? Based on your criticism of Bush, you should really hate Bill Clinton.

 

[scanner313]

You're right, Clinton did fuck up when it came to fighting back against terrorism, however it was never seen on the scale of what occurred on 9/11. We know there are a lot of countries out there who hate us, want nothing but to see us all die, and take pot shots at us on a regular basis. The acts that occurred under Clinton weren't unique to his presidency. And don't go and get all high and mighty about George the Great either. He had no intention of getting tough with Al Qaida, Osama, or Saddam prior to 9/11. He was around and planning his presidency during all of the acts of terror that occurred during Clinton's tenure, but did he make an initiative against terror until 9/11, no. So don't try to villanize Clinton as the one who brought all this on. If Bush's dad got a second term and Clinton only 1, this still would have happened.

The bottom line is, Bush has done nothing to help the US out of the crisis it's in right now. His bullshit tax cuts have failed miserably. His war on terror has only made us more hated and more likely to be attacked again. His campaign favors are shining as blatantly as any could possibly be. He's a failure as a president and he should be ousted. He should have never gotten the Rep. nomination over McCain, but when all of the Rep. party is backing you, the Joe Shmo repubs. all fall in line and do as they are told, as always. Don't question anything, that would be wrong.

I'm not saying a Democrat needs to be our next president, I'm just saying it shouldn't be GWB.

Oh, and as for the Electoral college, that concept is a joke. We have the ability to count every vote cast in an election, but we don't. The idea of giving all of the electoral votes to one candidate, even if they only had 51% of the vote, is ludicrous! If the candidate won 75% of the vote in a state, they should get only 75% of the electoral votes. I think Vermont or New Hampshire have this policy, but I don't think any other state does. Why? It only makes sense. The "winner takes all" policy just means that your individual vote doesn't really matter. It makes it seem as though every person who voted against the winner for the state actually voted for them, because they got 100% of the electoral votes. It's an outdated, unfair system and it needs to be revoked. Screw the historical significance. This is the information age, and we can and should be counting the popular vote in all elections.

 

[kiyardo]

If you read my earlier post you would have seen the list of terrorist attacks on Americans and American interest during the Clinton years. The 1993 attack on the WTC was an act of war. It doesn't matter that 6 people died. The intent was to bring down that tower, and hopefully the other. The 1998 bombings on Africa were ACTS OF WAR. The President should have declared war, then. If Bush were president then, you better believe that he would have done something more than lob a couple of missiles.

The War on Terror has been a great success. Behind the scenes the Administration's policies have stopped hundreds of planned terror attacks. So, don't tell me the War on Terror hasn't been successful so far. Al Queda keeps releasing statements indicating that there will be an attack here and there and they will make 9/11 look small. But it hasn't happened. The fact is that Terrorist know that we will not falter, and we will not fail.

So, the question is: What would YOU do? Nothing? You'd let the Terrrorists go on bombing and torturing? You'd let Saddam continue to defy the international community and torture his own people? Thank God we have a president who knows how to kick the ass of those who threaten us. God bless George Bush.

Bush is by no means a perfect president in my opinion, but his tax cut policy is working. It is stimulating the economy slowly. The only problem with the tax cuts is that they should be greater. The dividend tax is unfair and should be done away with permenantly. The rich are unfairly taxed in this country. Everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes. And there should be no "child credit" handouts, thanks to the Republican Congress caving into the Democrats.

 

[scanner313]

It's amazing how Republicans fight in the name Bush and Democrats fight in the name of Clinton. It's as if neither could have done any wrong to those of the same party. I have to say though, the Republicans I've encountered are much more rapid defenders of their candiditate than Democrats.

It absolutely amazes me how people can get so tied up into one way of political thinking. I am not a Dem or a Repub and am proud not to be either. The people of this country need to move beyond the "2 party system" we've gotten stuck in. Way too many people use that same excuse of "Well, I really wanted to vote for (independent) but I knew he had no chance to win, so I voted for (major party)". Well, duh! If you don't vote for them then they obviously have no chance of winning. Every vote counts when given to a 3rd party candidate. It helps them get government funding for the next election. It helps get them on the ballot as opposed to having to petition the public. There are lots of benefits to casting your vote for them as opposed to just wasting it on a major party condidate. but, most people want to back a winner, or say that they tried to stop them. Wake up people! Vote for the candidate you actually would like to see win, even if they really don't have a chance. Don't waste your vote on the big guys as it's not really going to change anything anyway.

I love people who claim that Nader stole Gore's votes int he last election, or that Perot stole Bush Sr.'s votes in the '94 election. The people who voted for them wanted them to win, so they voted as they should. If they had wanted to vote Bush or Gore they would have.

Bottom lin eis that our government is supposed to be the peoples. They are not supposed to be some entity itself, but rather a fair representation of the American public. It's not. Period. And it never will be again unless the American people wake up and realize that the 2 major parties really don't have any interest in you or me. They care about themselves and their rich friends, that's it.

Anyway, Bush will not win reelection in 2004 unless he finds a way to steal it. History has shown that people vote along economic lines. When the economy is good, the encumbent gets reelected. When it's bad, they don't. that's the way it goes and has gone for many years. Bush Sr. was ousted because of the bad economy. Clinton was reelected because there was a good economy. It's as simple as that. If there isn't a major economic turnaround in the country before the next election then we'll be seeing a Democrat in the White House in 2005. I'll bet my money on that.

 

[scanner313]

If you read my earlier post you would have seen the list of terrorist attacks on Americans and American interest during the Clinton years. The 1993 attack on the WTC was an act of war. It doesn't matter that 6 people died. The intent was to bring down that tower, and hopefully the other. The 1998 bombings on Africa were ACTS OF WAR. The President should have declared war, then. If Bush were president then, you better believe that he would have done something more than lob a couple of missiles.

The War on Terror has been a great success. Behind the scenes the Administration's policies have stopped hundreds of planned terror attacks. So, don't tell me the War on Terror hasn't been successful so far. Al Queda keeps releasing statements indicating that there will be an attack here and there and they will make 9/11 look small. But it hasn't happened. The fact is that Terrorist know that we will not falter, and we will not fail.

So, the question is: What would YOU do? Nothing? You'd let the Terrrorists go on bombing and torturing? You'd let Saddam continue to defy the international community and torture his own people? Thank God we have a president who knows how to kick the ass of those who threaten us. God bless George Bush.

Bush is by no means a perfect president in my opinion, but his tax cut policy is working. It is stimulating the economy slowly. The only problem with the tax cuts is that they should be greater. The dividend tax is unfair and should be done away with permenantly. The rich are unfairly taxed in this country. Everyone should pay the same percentage in taxes. And there should be no "child credit" handouts, thanks to the Republican Congress caving into the Democrats.

You don't know that bush would have done anything differently in leui of the bombings of the WTC and the embassies in Africa. Sometimes it takes a major slap in the face to wake people up, and 9/11 was that slap. I'm not faulting Bush for not acting before the 9/11 attacks, but you're suggesting that somehow he would have done things differently if he was the president THEN. Well, he was the president BEFORE 9/11, and pushed no agenda regarding terrorism as a result of those previous attacks. If they were acts of war, they should still have been a hot issue for him. The Repubs always cry that Democrats are soft when it comes to the military, and having a tough face regarding foreign policy, but the fact of the matter is that they are just as reactive as the Dems until something like 9/11 comes along and forces them to be proactive. You don't know that anything would have been any different under Bush.

And as far as the war on terror being a success because they stopped some plots against the US? they should have been stopped before! This war on terror shouldn't have been necessary if the threats were seen. And don't give Bush the credit for this. He's reacting to a situation and I don't believe he's handling it all that well. He's not being straight with the American people about his agenda and it's leading many Americans to not trust him, as well as most of the rest of the world. It's bad policy. And the oil factor that keeps showing its ugly head isn't helping him either.

And the terrorists don't care that we're taking a harder stance against terror. They laugh at us and how they've effected our country. It's just a little harder for them to be creative now. It'll happen again, you can be sure of that. And just because there are threats of action doesn't mean there were actual plans. Hell, for all we know the Deparment of Homeland Security could be fabricating those reports to make it seem as though they are having some impact. It's not like we haven't been lied to by this administration before, or any other for that matter.

My point is, don't make Bush out to be a hero. He's not. He's a president who is doing what he thinks is best for the country in leui of a major event in history. He's not doing anything any other president wouldn't have done, Democrat or Republican. I don't blame him for all the problems with this country, but he's not a great leader and he's not doing much to get us out of it. His piddly tax cut was a joke. Like having an extra $300 per child is going to stimulate the economy. That money was going into peoples savings or going to buy food and other essentials. I'm sure there weren't too many middle class families out there who ran to the store to buy a new TV or Stereo with that new found wealth. It was a weak gesture at best. He should worry about running the deficit any higher before sending tax money back to the American people.

 

[kiyardo]

Well, we saw how Clinton acted against blatant terror attacks and we saw how Bush acted. To me, (and to the victims) the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania is the same thing as 9/11. What Bush 'could've done' pre-9/11 depended on the intel from the Clinton Administration. It wasn't the best of presidential transitions.

Nonetheless, you are right. Any president would have been forced to act after 9/11. But, those actions would be certainly different in approach, but not necessarily in method in some cases. Look at the December 1998 four day massive bombing campaign Clinton initiated for the EXACT same reasons Bush had for invading Iraq in March 2003. Clinton acted without the UN's blessing ro permission. He recieved no criticism from liberals. When Bush acts, he is nailed by the liberal media and Democrats.

Bush is a hero for not giving into politics on this issue. He doesn't care about polls and political pundits. He cars about the security of this country and it's freedoms (Although, I disagree with the Patriot Act)

You have a point about the tax cut. It was piddly. It's sad that the Bush tax cut was the third largest tax cut in history, only behind the Kennedy tax cuts of 1961 and the Reagan tax cuts of 1982. The tax cut should have been larger, much larger. And we need to bring down the deficit by cutting wasteful spending on social programs like education, and the endowment of the arts.

Government is way too big, and it needs to return to it's pure constitutional functions, only.

 

[kiyardo]

He was arrested, so what? I don't want a felon and a drunkard as my President. That is 'so what'.

Oh, and you had no problem with the serial purjerer, accused rapist and cheater as president. Nice try pal. It doesn't fly. Bill Clinton can womanize and subvert the rule of law in OFFICE compared to Bush's little partying in college over 25 years ago. Bush behaves responsibly, unlike your man Clinton.

Bill Clinton did not "dodge the draft", he had legal reprieve because he was a Rhodes scholar. Bush had illegally dodged the draft.

Clinton dodged the draft. Pure and simple. Legal or not, It was a dodge, thanks to his uncle. Bush served in the military and I'd like to see evidence that he illegally dodged the draft.

Bush did NOT win the electoral vote (in a legal sense), the reason he 'won' the state of Flordia is because the supreme court "justice" his father put on the bench refused to count 170,000 votes from Jeb Bush's state.

No, you are wrong, again. You liberals still can't get over losing the the 2000 election, can you? After three recounts, Bush WON the electoral vote. The Supreme Court stopped the senseless 4th recount. After the election was finally over. The liberal media went and did their own recounts and still, Bush won the election.

And you need to get your facts straight he *did* in fact say that the majority of his taxes cuts go to the bottom which was out-and-out lie. He said it in his first debate with Al Gore. If that wasn't enough he said the exact same thing when debating with John McCain: "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum". Don't call me a liar, you ignorant chimp.

Percentage wise, you are right. Bush NEVER claimed that the majority of taxes in pure numbers was going to the low wage earners, because they DON'T PAY THE MAJORITY OF THE TAXES. The rich do. That's the problem. Those who don't even pay taxes were getting a tax cut.

The bottom 60% ended up getting 14.7% of the tax cut.

And, why? Because 96% of the taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. It's simple math. So you can call me a chimp all you want, but it doesn't even take a chimp to understand basic math.

Clinton lied about a personal affair - I don't care about that. Bush has lied about taxes, schools, and foriegn policy - and, as a result he has screwed a lot of people out of the money they deserve and he's gotten a lot of people killed.

Give me an example where Bush lied about any of those things. What about the over 50 people surrounding Clinton who were killed? What about those poeple in Sudan working in a aspirin factory who were bombed by Clinton? Oh, how quick you are to judge Bush, but are easy on Clinton, who lied about way more than Monica. I'll give you one example: In 1992 he campaigned on a 'targeted tax cut' to the middle and low class. in 1993 EVERYONE recieved the largest tax increase in peace time history.

 

[kiyardo]

Accused rapist? That means nothing. Why is it that an accusation of Clinton is worthy of scorn, yet you demand proof of Bush's draft dodging (which I will gladly give you)? You have double standards.

Well, if you look at the sheer numbers of women who 'accused' Clinton of harrassment in many different levels, I think the case is pretty strong. But, they don't call him 'slick willie' for nothing, Do they?

Well it was legal and you're gonna have to come to terms with that.
As for Bush. you need proof? Here is what the commander of the unit to which he was assigned had to say: "Had he reported in I would have had some recall, and I do not. I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutentant from Texas, I would have remembered." - General William Turnipseed (5.23.2000). Kenneth Lott of the military office under Bush's jurisdiciton backs Turnipseed and said "... there would have been a record. We cannot find records to show he fufilled the requirements [to be certified]." He goes on to say "There should have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973."

I have no idea what this is in reference to. Was Bush procescuted for going AWOL? If so, let me see proof of this. You have TWO people saying he didn't 'report in' for some unknown thing. Whereas, Clinton wrote a letter to his Uncle Raymond saying that he despised the military and was scared to go to Vietnam. You're going to have to do better than that.

Oh please. Everyone knows that Jeb Bush & co. denied the right of thousands of people who were so-called felons. When it turned out that only 5% of the group that was denied their votes actually were. And if a recount was 'senseless' why not do it for the sake of completeness and fairness?

Another gratuitous assertion based on 2 1/2 year old Democratic talking points. Hello, McFly, we are in 2003 here! Jeb Bush & Co. disenfranchised no one. It was the DEMOCRATS who didn't want to count the military ballots. The senseless recount was after the 3rd time. The Democrats would've kept counting until Al Gore won. In other words, they would have cheated. And, BTW, More than half of the Supreme Court Justices were either Clinton Appointees or Pre-Bush apointees. The vote was 5-4.

---"Bush NEVER claimed that the majority of taxes in pure numbers was going to the low wage earners, because they DON'T PAY THE MAJORITY OF THE TAXES. The rich do. That's the problem. Those who don't even pay taxes were getting a tax cut."

Yes he did claim that. It was implied in this statement. "The majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom." It is clear that he is talking about cuts in numerical values, not percentages. The fact that the rich pay more is irrelevant.

Nope. You obviously don't understand basic tax rates and the way basic percentages work. It's basic reasoning. YOu are just trying to find Bush in a lie and you cannot.

I pointed out that he lied about tax cuts. He said the majority goes to the bottom which it didn't. You can argue all day that the wealthy deserve their money - and that's fine - but he lied about it, it is as simple as that. The majority went to the top tier of the economic hierarchy. Maybe you could enlighten me on his school policies. What legislative measures has he taken to "Leave no child behind"? It was all campaign BS, a 'lie', if you will.

Actually, you failed miserably to find Bush in a lie about taxes, but conveniently ignore my argument about Clinton's big lie about taxes. George H. W. Bush, our 41st president lied about 'no new taxes' and it cost him the election. Clinton lied about tax cuts in 1993 and he won in 1996 because he is a great politician. Well, I like G.W. Bush, because he is less political than any president we've had since Reagan. He is real, unlike Clinton.

His "Leave No Child Behind" Program was well intended, but all it turned into was a love fest between Bush and Ted Kennedy. It turned out to hemorage more money into the Department of Education than at any other time in history. It was and is a failure IMO of the Bush Administration. We need to abolish the NEA.

Foreign policy? Does that even require explanation?

Yes, It does. How has Bush messed up our foreign policy?

 

[lizard]

The Boston globe did a wonderful series about how George W. Bush used family influence to vault himself over a already existing waiting list of slots in the Texas National Guard. (State National Guards are notoriously politically connected). Then, he simply stopped going to his drills.

Therefore, his stunt of flying to the aircraft carrier is a crock of shit, him strutting about in his flight suit.

This does not of course obsolve Clinton of his own weasely behavior.

It's startling how many of the Republican leadership found a way to weasel their way out of military service, also including such media fat heads as Bill O'Reilly and Rush "I'm a Moron" Limbaugh.

 

[speed]

I am not part of this argument- but I was stunned by this statement by Kiyardo:

And we need to bring down the deficit by cutting wasteful spending on social programs like education, and the endowment of the arts.

Education? The fed gov spends little on education- this is left to the states. Not to mention the fact our educational system is a complete and utter joke- what do you think 87billion dollars would do for it? I mean we got poor teachers, dumb teachers as they are poor, crumbling schools with no equipment.

As for the arts- you heathen barbarian- If I am correct I believe the fed gov spends a little over 200 or 300 million on the arts- big fucking deal, thats adrop in the bucket- the arts are supported primarily by the rich and corporate sponsers anyway. And just what will be the lasting testament to our society- if there are no cultural or artistic achievements? Every great country lavishly spent on the arts in the past- even the fucking Nazis- if it was state sponsered and approved of course. God you republicans are humorless heathens, it is disgusting- education and the arts- fuck you.

 

[kiyardo]

By 'they' you mean people like Sean Hannity and Oliver North (who had the distiguished pleasure of being at the center of the Iran Contra controversy) and other right-wing fanatics and cheerleaders. In other words, people with zero credibility. But maybe you're right. After all, 'they' don't call Bush 'the commander-in-thief' for nothing. Do they?

'They' in fact don't call bUsh commander-in-thief'. Only YOU do. hehe. Ollie North has more credibility in his little finger than Bill or Hitlary Clinton have in their entire bodies combined.

Again your double standards come to light. You claim Bush is innocent because he was never charged. Yet you damn Clinton for accusations of the 'sheer' number of women (most of which were wholly without merit). Pathetic.

I never claimed Bush was innocent by a lack of charge . I just asked for a more convincing argument and if there was a record of a charge of going AWOL. Can you find anything more than two people saying he didn't show up somewhere? And how does not showing up somewhere in Alabama equate to dodging the draft?

I'm gonna have to do better then work off the statement of his commmanding officer and the records (or lack there of) of his service? Nah my explanation is more than damning.

If that's a damning statement, then your logic and debate skills are seriously flawed.

Nothing wrong with gratuitous assertions so long as they are true.

But the problem is that it is not true, and you have failed to backup your argument. Hence the definition of a gratuitous assertion.

That is arguably the most useless and irrelevant nugget of trivia I've ever heard. The five justices who decided to stop the vote count and subvert the will of the people were Republican; That is the important piece of trivia.

Not when you're blaming the appointees on G.W. Bush's father. The really important factor is the 4 who voted against it were democrats, who actively tried to subvert the Constitution and steal the election for Al Gore and the Democrats, who tried to stop the count of thousands of military absentee ballots.

Again, irrelevant. It doesn't matter who pays what. "The majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom". It didn't. He lied.

I, unlike you admit when I'm wrong, and you are just burying yourself here. you should quit while you're ahead. Just because Al Franken devotes a whole chapter to what he thought Bush may have implied in a primary debate does not make it true.

No, Dubya is the most political president we have ever had thanks to his right-hand-man Karl Rove (proponent of the most dishonest campaigning method ever: push polling) and the rabid right wing media (Faux News) and their endless, inane babble about how anyone who doesn't support the President is unpatriotic or a traitor (Ann Coulter).

I normally agree with most of what Ann Coulter says, but I don't think that those who disagree with the President are traitors or unpatriotic, so you are right and hasve a good point there. I honestly don't know much about this 'push polling', but it doesn't sound as bad as the DNC 'pushing' the homeless to vote for them by handing out cigarettes in Minnisota.

The reason Clinton won another term in office is because of peace and prosperity. Unemployment was down, Crime was down, the economy was good, etc, etc, etc.[

The fact of the matter is Clinton was fiscally responsible and able to balance the budget and had to keep all options on the table to get the job done.

You are right again. People didn't want to rock the boat. The economy was good. But, the Clinton shouldn't get all the credit. Look who had the majority in Congress, Republicans. They helped to balance the budget.

---His "Leave No Child Behind" Program was well intended, but all it turned into was a love fest between Bush and Ted Kennedy. It turned out to hemorage more money into the Department of Education than at any other time in history. It was and is a failure IMO of the Bush Administration. We need to abolish the NEA.

So I was right. Thanks for pointing that out.

No problem. You were right. And, your agreeance with me on this issue must mean that you are against federal spending on education.

Does sqandering the good will of the entire world and getting terrorists to hate us even more constitute messing up foriegn policy? We've lost lots of credibility because of entering a war under false pretenses. When other countries see our President >>lie<< about the weapon threat in the State of the Union address it makes the war look unjust.

We didn't enter the war with Iraq under false prestenses at all. Even France and Germany agreed that Hussein had WMD. They and the Security Council agreed that Hussein was not forthcoming in that 12,000 page report about what happened to their weapons programs. The statement in the State of the Union was not proven to be false. Our intel caved to political pressure because they could not necessarily prove it in and of themselves. BUT, British Intelligence, which is what we used to back the statement up, stand by the charge.

The fact of the matter is the Iraq war was a zero-sum game in terms of eliminating terrorism. Any terrorist threat eliminated from Iraq has been counterbalanced by the increased fanaticism of terrorists elsewhere. The fact of the matter is that terrorists from Iraq's bordering countries have entered the country and killed dozens of Iraqi citizens due to their contempt of the United States. And it's only just begun.

So what. We will hunt them down and destroy them. You forget that all during the 90's and even some in the 80s (Beirut) we cowered to terrorists. Did the attacks stop? No, they got worse. Remember 9/11?! It took 4 years to establich elections in post war Germany, we are doing the right thing in Iraq, and contrary to your partisan pessimism, things are going remarkebly well in Iraq. There hasn't been a single soldier killed in 8 days in Iraq. And, of the 140,000 military and other US personel, that record is pretty good.

oh, and BTW, if you respond to this, please learn to use the quote tags. It makes it easier to keep track of the arguments.

 

[kiyardo]

I am not part of this argument- but I was stunned by this statement by Kiyardo:

And we need to bring down the deficit by cutting wasteful spending on social programs like education, and the endowment of the arts.

Education? The fed gov spends little on education- this is left to the states. Not to mention the fact our educational system is a complete and utter joke- what do you think 87billion dollars would do for it? I mean we got poor teachers, dumb teachers as they are poor, crumbling schools with no equipment.

The federal government spends more on education than the money we are sending to Iraq. Education should only be left for the states and local government. Get the federal government out of education. There is no Constitutional mandate for it.

As for the arts- you heathen barbarian- If I am correct I believe the fed gov spends a little over 200 or 300 million on the arts- big fucking deal, thats adrop in the bucket- the arts are supported primarily by the rich and corporate sponsers anyway. And just what will be the lasting testament to our society- if there are no cultural or artistic achievements? Every great country lavishly spent on the arts in the past- even the fucking Nazis- if it was state sponsered and approved of course. God you republicans are humorless heathens, it is disgusting- education and the arts- fuck you.

Oh, I'm a barbarian? HAHAHAHA. It's your mode of thinking that helps to create massive deficits, because of senseless federal government programs like money for the arts. That measly 200 or 300 million is what you might think is allocated for the arts, but look at the other monies put into the arts from other funds, education being the biggest. And, what authority under the constitution does the federal governement to fund the arts? None. If you think that without the federal government there will be no artistic acheivement, then it is you who is the barbarian.

I guess Nevermore have made no artistic acheivements? BWHAHAHAHAH

 

[lizard]

could there possibly be a more important thing for our nation's future than education. With this farce in Iraq costing over a bil. a month, we could spend millions more on education and it would at least give us something in return.

Ann Coulter is very possibly the most repulsive creature ever allowed into a publishing house. her sweeping denounciations of whole groups of people tars her as the worst sort of political bigot. When she is confronted about her obvious falsehoods she cowers like a child. The fact that the online conservative publication National Review fired her tells you all you need to know. (You can read their hilarious explanation as to why they fired her at http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml . If you want to read a fair and fact filled book about the lies and distortions put forth by the right in this country, read Joe Conason's Big Lies. Very enlightening.

I am really looking forward to reading the Franken book. It is so funny that that windbag Bill O'Reilley had Fox initiate that lawsuit against him...it has raised book sales by thousands!

 

[kiyardo]

Agreed about education. That's the very reason why we need to keep the federal government out of it. Ann Coulter is right about most everything she says. Like you though, I disagree with her lumping every liberal into a particular category end demonizing the entire group. It is a form of bigotry. But, there are plenty more liberals that do that but worse than Coulter. Look at Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Gray Davis, and Hillary Clinton. (remember the vast right wing conspiracy?)

 

[Ihreil Junkenstein]

Here's a clue, It's Kidtardo. He's a sock puppet fucker of the 4th degree. Ignore him.

 

[Lies and Perfidy]

Eggzaktlee. You can't argue with someone who's decided that they're already right, which is Kiyardo...he gives up a few minor points to disguise that fact, but he's so far right of those he argues that he apparently can't hear half of what they're saying.