Staredit Network

For all the people who hate Bush for whatever reason it may be, you need to get out more often and read a lot more into whats going on. Bush isn't a bad president, he isn't even a bad guy. And he certainly isn't a moron like everyone says and thinks he is.

He won for one simple reason, there is a war going on. And no one wants to change president when we still have to deal with all this crap in Iraq. They want it all the way it's going now without any interference from someone like Kerry, who I believe wanted to rush the process going on in Iraq. Which would only end badly.

Take note I just saw this thread and only skimmed through it. But I don't have the time now or for the next two weeks to read this entire thread and then post this. So just bear with me.

Yeah, right... And that's why they end up all here.
And if you see the link in that subject, it proves that the red states (Bush supporters) possess in average less I.Q. than the blue ones. So, see the facts straight n' stop fussing pointless crap (further).
It's been so long that issue 1st started that I can't recall the colours right, but wth. It's there, never the less. Go check it, if you wanna.

Glad you pointed that out (stereotype thingy), but that's why we all must find the mid term (balance) to reach the best solution(s) possible in government.



That from the person who in the same post (see above quote) calls us, lazy and stupid.
Yes, we're agressive since you lot (extra-conservatives and/or Bush lovers) provoke us with those lines. Said it before and gonna say it again: "It's the Action-Reaction pair of Newton." Basic Phisics on the move. Just sit tight and it won't happen... again.



Read the above answer to the same matter. Average rings any bells?

-----------
M.Army, please prove he's (Bush) good Pres in what way? (Stated in post #299 amidst a sentence)
Social and enviromental policies goin' to the dust (just to name a few)!?! If that's it, I fully concur with ya...



Because we still feel like it. (That, if I dare to be so bold to talk for many other fellas here.)
Just wanna see you make us... (goin' away from this thread.)



Then prove him being a good Pres... (as asked to many of you Bush supporters.)
Not a moron he says... and jumping into a war without full knowledge of the reasons presented is!?! Just clear me on that one (doubt).

And he won for a reason... Osama and the fear he generated in that video just before the ellections, helped him a lot. Many think that to fight an extremist, another is needed. If you haven't ralized already, Bush drove away from it's natural supporters with the war in Iraq crap. And please tell me how can that be possible after such disaster like the 9/11th occured. 'Cause he tried to divert attentions and jumped into conclusions (for instance the WMD's excuse), just to pull it off.

I ain't gonna pick on you further 'till you see the full extent of this thread and all here linked and proved. After that, I still want to see you prove me that Bush is a good Pres.

Are you serious? Have no not been paying attention to anything he has done the past 4 years? His actions speak for themselves. He has helped this world become a better place. I dont think anyone who has half a brain would disagree with that.

Pfft. This thread is officially bull .

Either
A) It belongs in the garbage forum
or
B) locked.


It's old and pointless, because those who support bush or those who are against him will not change their minds.

This topic is...



Everything that has been posted is being posted again.

It's not old and pointless, it's the fact people keep insulting everyone else saying "omg Bush sucks!" or "Bush is more intelligent than all of you idiots". Wow, great discussion indeed.

Well A lot of People replying in this thread has no idea about politics and still hates bush. A president is a president, in the old days, you dont like a leader, Ure DEAD.

all i have to say is "kerry edwards, bringing full sentances back to the white house"

You can't get any serious discussions on this site. I forgot about that in my absence.

Seriously, there are less than 20 adults here. You can't expect every 11-15 years old to know politics, and thus, you shouldn't expect anything from them. Geez.

Google search: Politics forums. Problem solved: Plenty of intelligent people to pwn and get pwned by.

Bush doesnt stay true to his word??? and kerry does?

Kerry: "I voted for more military spending before i voted against it!"

may not be military spending but he did say the rest.

What about Bush's "exaggeration" during the debates, I found that pretty funny.

I didn't really read all tha things yall put but... Busch won cuz he CHEATED!!

Cloak(U), oh come on!
You're making making Shadow_Paladin and Chu's statements correct!

Although, there is truth in that not every 15 year old knows about politics. (I could care less about the news, but I reply about the parts that I know about)

Basan, it was wrong of me to say the word "stupid" because, of course, there are pretty stupid republicans too. BUT what I was trying to say was that since there is an overwhelming majority of democrats, how come Democrats can't win? Maybe they're too poor to get to a poll? Nah it can't be that... Maybe they don't care? I don't know... but the facts are the facts... they don't vote! (>.<)

Now the "Anger" point I was making was that I hear much more of Democrats blowing their top than of Republicans (republican propaganda ). So putting that thought into consideration I was defending AGAINST it by the 4:1 and 6:1 ratio - think of it this way.

Lets say you have 10 Bonuses and 100 Edmunds (10:1 ratio). By analyzing the facts we discover that 10% in both species are short-tempered and blow their top. Later, we see news stories of the species in a very tense debate. Please tell me, who would be shown as the angry group, the one with 1 short-tempered person, or the one with the 10 short-tempered people? Even though the statistics are equal, the number is very different.

My end point was my (you could say "biased") thought was that democrats are more aggressive or 'pushy' than republicans, beyond the 4:1 or 6:1 ratio.

Also, you read my states argument that it could have been a recording of BOTH parties, not just the Democrats or just the Republicans. When i replied to this, I tried to check to see if i misread it, but the website was unavailable .

In addition (to everyone), Please don't group with "We Republicans" or" You Democrats". Don't group people within the stereotype! Like this misrepresentation, for example:

I called the "majority" of Democrats who don't vote stupid and lazy (if i meant "all" then i would be cruel-hearted because some people may not want to get involved in politics because they are currently doing important work or something like that). Then theres that "You lot" thing. Humans are individuals. It is wrong to group them with a such of stereotype by saying that they are something. You could say that you conservatives APPEAR to just want to insult us for some reason, or that you SEEM to be typing to me just to piss me off. When talking about a extremely large group, you can't be definite what people are and are not because of how diverse humans are.

Finally, always look at the other side. Sadly, he's speaking the truth about the majority of this thread sigh... I wonder if he'll ever look at this post again...

My bad, THIS is the last thing... As Shadow said that no one knows about politics, could you guys explain when you're making a statement like this:

It would sorta help for those who don't follow to the news and for people who have forgotten about it to refresh us with facts! Ok I'm done . <(^.^)>

Humans are not individumals, or however you say it. Now get back to work! *Cracks whip*

EDIT: (Just noticed it has to be "serious") Kirby, I hate it when we always have to explain to other people that when we say "All" or anything like that, (Directed towards a label) we don't really mean every single one of them. It's like explaining to a person how to tie their shoes. (Which someone hasn't told me yet. But that's not the point.)

i bet he did (that bastard)

Oh, right...
The standing down of Kioto's environmental agreement, social policies and working stats 'till late in those 4 years, just got worse. Jumping into a war without solid proofs of WMD's and no U.N. approval. Conservative attempts to ban gay marriage from the U.S. constitucional law. Diverting attentions from losing tracks of the real guilty party to the 9/11th. A few that I reminded.
If these are his good deeds, I stand corrected... or not.



Well... You can always look elsewheres.
Already read the intire thread, btw?



Just don't go back to flip flopping... It's proved that they both do or may do it. They're politics. What else did you expect?
I dare you to pick on other subject being 'cussed. Or readin' the thread to it's fullest extent, if you haven't already.



In case you didn't noticed this is the serious debate area. If you won't use any interesting views that may support your claim or mature debating skills, just please restrain yourself from even posting here, ok? Tks.
When it gets to the 10th time (from sayin' the same), I'll surely burst!



Maybe 'cause their candidate wasn't appealing enough? Osama's video instilled fear into some ppl and they changed their minds? *Points with a dash of irony*

Linkage, please. A couple news sites that state that Democrats don't vote will be enough.



And you know why we blow our top more than you? 'Cause we don't like the fella in that's currently in the White House. If it happened to be the other way 'round, conservatives (especially extra ones), would have fits against liberals in there as well.
Agression draws agression. My Newton's pair still works...

Statistically, they will be the same. The different numbers (the more the merrier) only reinforce that tendency. And that's my point of view.



Note that I didn't said conservatives, just extra ones and Bush lovers (not supporters).
I'm just against any extremism, either righ-wing, left or even religious.
Yes, we're individuals and individuals try to identify themselves with groups. It's in our nature to socialize and avoid lonelyness. So, if you were offended by my remarks sorry, but you relate yourself to that category I above stated.

I always try to look into the other side's points of view just to figure out on my own if they're solid or easily countered. That's what makes a good debate worth it.

The real point is that no one here, that is Pro-Bush sustained their points as I asked. I've proven mine (debating reasons stated, link proof, replies to what I've seen with proofs, etc.). So, they didn't proved theirs on what account? Can't be proven, that's the only conclusion I can extract from it. Thus, I'm right when saying that they come and fuss pointless stuff.



Only reinforced my point. Lack of proofs from both sides. But worse from the Bush supporters side (no proofs).
I'm not worried from who doesn't present proofs and is kinda liberal like me. I've proven many of these for them in earlier thread links. And doin' so I know most of'em to be true.

-------
On another issue,

Please any mod/admin can perform a thread lockdown? I guess it surpassed it's usefulness. If so, thanks a million!
Anyone who wants to continue this debate with me, feel free to do it by the PM system. (Or start another thread maybe in another area, if you don't want to prove what you allegate when asked.)

Well, I was studying about why Bush won in school last month, so I'll post the four most important reasons:

1. There was a proposition proposing whether gay marriage should be accepted or not. A lot of Christian's (Hey, that's my name!) who hadn't voted in the past elections went out to vote AGAINST gay marriage because all Christian's believe it's wrong. Christian's tend to be on the Republican side, so they voted for Bush, since they were already at the polls.

2. As we all know, the elections were at the time of which USA was at war with Iraq. In the entire US history, an incumbent (what Bush was at election; a president reunning for reelection) who was running in time of war has NEVER lost.

3. 55% of Hispanics voted for Gore (Democratic) the last election. This year, only 45% voted for Kerry. The other 10% voted for Bush, and he got more votes that way. (I don't remember if this was important or not)

4. The electoral vote number of each state shifted since the last election; and electoral votes from Democratic states went to Republican states, so Bush also got more votes that way.

Well, there are more reasons, but I just can't seem to remember them right now

i dunno what yall are still arguing about... i already said it.. Busch won cuz he..
C H E A T E D end of topic gg no re

He won just because of the war? When Truman took over during world war II the transition was fine. we actually won the war because he allowd the atomic bomb to be dropped on two islands.



HOW IS IT A BETTER PLACE??? We are in war. (technically were not) but, HOW IS THAT GOOD AND MAKES THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE?


Want to know what i think? Well, when people like you spam about how it should be locked; that is was makes it spam.


i'm 14 i probably know more about politics than a majority of the adults that post here that just say "bush won cuz he is betterererrerererer.


I don't think thats true information. I'm Christian and i didn't vote for Bush. I don't want gay marrige but, their are more important issues than that. Also, not ALL Christians think it's wrong...


Yes, but, during World War II we had Roosevelt for 13 years. (I think or 12 or sumthing) Then he died. Truman became president and everything was fine. we actually beat Japan.



LOL i wish that we found out he cheated somehow. Also, you have to put out more information than HE CHEATED or u might get warned or something. Just post that in the Garbage Section if your going to type stuff like that.

Umm.....ALL Christian's would have to because in the Ten Commandments there was something said about people of the same sex NOT marrying. Wouldn't Christian's have to 'follow' this?

I
V2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
V3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

II
V4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
V5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me;
V6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep My commandments.

III
V7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.


IV
V8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
V9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
V10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
V11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

V
V12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

VI
V13 Thou shalt not kill.

[COLOR=yellow]VII
V14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

VIII
V15 Thou shalt not steal.

IX
V16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

X
V17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.


[I did not see anything about gay marrige. Tell me if you do, please.

I think it might be under "Do not commit adultery", but we only see that as "Don't have sex with someone else after you're married." But that would be a worthless debate because it could just be a vague association. Let's just look at the stories in the Bible. Story time! <(^.^)> (Green background information, Orange reaffirms a point, Red shows the point, Gray is unimportant for the point)

Genesis 19: 1-10, under the title "Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed."
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. "My lords", he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, "No my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under protection of my roof."
"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

Now for all of you who don't have a clue about Sodom and Gomorrah, it is the two cities made somewhat after the Flood that was just as immoral as the people before the Flood. God was in great pain at the immorality and sinful lust of these cities, so he destroyed them.(meh God doesn't do that anymore -.-) Look at the orange above the red "so that we can have sex with them." Not a couple of men from Sodom, not a group of men from Sodom, not an army of men from Sodom, ALL of the men from Sodom came to have sex with these two men (that were actually angels) whose I guess heavenly bodies uh.. turned them on (>.<)

Now please tell me, do you think that this was one of the main factors of God destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, not just adultery, but having so many men
diluted that they would do immoral acts with one another?

n2o, at the end of each of your phrases for color=yellow (/w brackets) and put "/color" (/w brackets) at the end of each phrase before each new change of color ok?
color=? moooo /color <-- like that.. but add the [] for color=? and /color

Please enlighten us with the 'proverbial light' you carry. Our dark souls won't allows us to see that...
Not the the 2000 year old book again!?! Geez... you should know better. Read the whole thread, please.

For that matter, I had Christian education, just happen to condone gay marriage and so do my old folk (father). So, just don't go that path, ok?
Not all christians are as conservative as you try to associate'em with.



That was from the Genesis book (I think it's kinda separated with the Bible itself). Those cities were judged to be clensed even before the arrival of the soon to be corrupted angels as you stated. And from just watching back during it's destruction, one of Abraham's wifes was turned into salt. Now tell me that God still allows multiple married wifes nowadays (christian principles, from the Vatican I believe).

Here's also a dic search for Sodom. No visible connection with homosexuality there.

Found an interesting reviewing point from that tale, that methinks' worth linking.

---------------
Please fellas, don't turn it even easier to counter by bringing religion to the debate at hand, ok? And if it wasn't in this thread, it was in this one (religion and homosexuality). Sorry, if I've mistaken them. But If I recall correctly, it was also debated here before this being alluded once more.

Man, in 50 years the U.S. will continue to be a world super power.We will kick canadas ass to hell and back.We will be the first to settle on other planets and take over europe.We are the next Germany, but 3x's as powerful.

In an interesting PM just received from someone debating this thread with the title 'God replies', I just found necessary to clear this point of view (as asked).
The whole PM will only be quoted here, upon positive confirmation from that person that I can do so. Don't even ask any further details than the ones provided, so far.



Just used that to illustrate that the christian principles of that time (polygamy) aren't even recognized today (in most christian comunities), so don't come back with the Bible.
The whole idea was for me to infer that many of those principles need a little tweaking 1st, just before getting nearer of the common people such as I.
And since following many of'em is impossible nowadays, why not quitting with the religious implies. If it doesn't say it straight, to me is plain n' simple, it simply isn't the target they're heading.

Btw, prostitution was another of the sins that made God judge those cities, before the arrival of Abraham in his attempt to spread the good word of those times (read do what God said him to do)... if they ever existed (Sodom and Gomorra).



Nothing really interesting to add to the debate, please just stop spammin' and perhaps provoking anyone else who wants to have some serious debate on the matters at hand. If you want to join in, read the intire thread (if you haven't already) and then post in a related way, of some sort.
Then again, if you want to start your own thread with that garbage, just do it in the proper section, ok?
Geez... Has anyone read this (Serious Debate section rules), on top of that same area? Is that hard to read carefully? Wt... *Calms down and just lets it slide by*