Staredit Network

Really? So we don't attack anyone that attacks us first? We just let them attack us until they attack another country? Really? That is new information to me. (/sarcasm\)

Job Growth Under Bush Set to Be Worst in 70 Years
Bush on track to be first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with fewer jobs than when he started.
(Average Monthly Growth in Employment During Presidency)

Kerry was hella better!!!

Bush is also the first president to have an attack like the one that took place on sept. 11th. And IRAQ didnt attack us so we are "helping" the iraqi people by getting rid of these terrori sts who are using their country as a battlefield. I put qoutations because we intentionally went there to get rid of saddam and rebuild the country and then these terrorists came in and started ing things up so what our military is going to do is purge as many of these people as they can from iraq. In doing that, the iraqis are being aided and they will have one of the most advanced countries when this whole thing is over, no matter how long it takes.

I agreed with most of the things you said for once. One of the parts i didn't agree with was the part about Iraq being one of the most advanced countries in the world. I'm sorry but, maybe in 1,000 years they will but, not right now, or even in 20 years.

Liar! Liar! Speech on Fire!
July 14, 2003
"On Tuesday, the White House finally came clean and admitted what everybody else already knew: George W. Bush lied about Iraq's alleged attempt to purchase uranium from the African nation of Niger in order to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. Here's what the White House statement said about Bush's inclusion of this lie in his 2003 State of the Union message:

'Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech.'"


The rest of the story

That makes no sense. I said we don't HELP countries that attack us. You said we dont ATTACK anyone that attacks us. Jeez learn to read plz k thx.

Why did bush win? Because it was rigged like last time of course!

Owned.




We went over this more than 1000 times... Wasn't it Osama Bin Laden that organized Sept. 11th? There was still no logical reason why the US went to Iraq other than for Bush's personal sake. The US has no right to conquer and take controll of Iraq. Iraq is already renamed "The USA in the East". The US didn't help Iraq, they destroyed it. They destroyed their way of life, their beliefs, etc. Yes, you're going to say "for the better"... but was it really? In your eyes it possibly was.

Look, those of you that support Bush, you lost this debate because you can't prove anything.

We lost the debate? What exactly have you 'proven'.

We haven't taken conrol over or conquered Iraq. We haven't destroyed their ways of life or their believes. We helped them. And most iraquies dont hate us. There are like 5 religious groups over there and most of them like us. The only one that doen't really like is is the one that saddam helped so much because he was part of that religion. Now that sadaam is out of power they aren't being pampered anymore. Lost the debate? Fine...w/e you have to tell yourself. But our president is in office...so you lost the election. BLAM

I'm wondering, did the soldiers in the Middle East have a chance to vote?

Probably not.

PearS, lost the election? I was never part of it.


Then why are there soldiers in there changing the way their government works?


PrOLoGiC, we have proven Bush's faults. Now prove his good deeds... if there are any.

We're not changing their government; we are giving them one because they didn't have one before. They had a dictatorship which is far from a government.

A dictatorship IS a type of government, albeit an oppressive one. Get that straight.

Wow that -8 employment thing. I knew Bush was a Pres but DAMN!! Well anyways it was rigged. All of em are rigged. Especially Washington they just forced him to be the Pres

If you would so kindly point yourself over to this 'government' site, it will point out that the U.S economy is doing nothing but getting stronger.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutp...ame=CE_cesbref1

and look at this:

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutp...ame=LN_cpsbref3

Unemployment is only 5.4% which is NOTHING compared to other countries.
Britian

Do any of you biased brainwashed bush-hating SEN members care to explain this?

Simpson, please report where you got your information.

[quote=N.Nightmare]ugh, ok, if this question doesn't prove it, i have no idea what will...ok here is the question for your post Basan, i'm only going to read the answer and nothing else....

Who won the United States Presidential Election of the year 2004?

George W. Bush / John Kerry / Ralph Nadar

and tihs is a rhetorical question (for those who do not know, rhetorical means without needing an answer)[/quote]

Stupidity at work (unfortunetly)... If u read closely what I've stated before u'd see that I'm not speaking 'bout election results! Deeds are the issue here.

[quote=N.Nightmare]...why do the past presidents win the elections?[/quote]

For that matter recall the 2000 election results. See a link on it in my previous posts. Need I say more?

[quote=Snipa]u know wut pisses me off? people who wont LET IT GO. Bush didnt win cause americans are dumb. bush won cause the democratic party stopped being a party of the people.[/quote]

Woa buddy... How about some Valium? Calm down n' post it better (short sentences, grammar, the works basically).
This is the serious discussion area, not the dump incomprehensible text area (aka garbage section).

[quote=Snipa]Instead it was a party of celebrities and left wing billionares. I infact was one of the RED STATES (GA) and I am not an idiot. nor are many of the people I know.[/quote]

Like A.Schwarzenegger!?! Or my link 'bout it (I.Q.)? I'm not saying ur an idiot but from the way u post, it sure begins 2 look like it!

[quote=Snipa]I can just see beyond a reasonable doubt that bush was better than kerry. Im not saying bush was the best candidate. I myself would of loved for Zell Miller to be prez (if u dont know, hes the democrat from Georgia who was at the repub convention) Im black and when people ask. "But your black...why didnt you want kerry to win?" Simple; I wanted the best choice to win. I wouldnt want kerry even though its obvious my race votes more democrat. But the democratic party, as i said has lost the support of mainstream america.[/quote]

Stubborness part nr.3 n' stereotypes.
See my above reply 2 N.Nightmare (Bush better than Kerry part).
Stereotypes aren't the issue. Coloured folks can vote in whomever they want. If they vote more democrat, that's just because they relate more 2'em. Maybe due 2 social policies they defend... (better than republicans that is.)

[quote=Snipa]Bush wont bring in the draft. First of all, hes not an as*hole. He didnt lie to the american people. If u say he did, then the entire GOVERNMENT did and so did other countries who got the same intell about iraq, including kerry and the democrats. HE VOTED FOR THE F**KING WAR! Everyone thought it was the right thing to do, but when it goes a little sour people say "Oh this is ALL bush's fault" A second reason the draft wont come back is because drafted soldiers are horrible choises to defend our country. Thats why our military is so small, they are all professional soldiers. Draftees dont get trained as well as full time or even reservist soldiers. We lost vietnam and korea, both with draftees. I doubt any political leader would forget that. 3rd of all....Bush didnt wanna get drafted so he joined the air national guard.....Why in the world would he bring the draft back if hes against it?![/quote]

Did he pass any law 'bout it recently (forbidding drafts)? I think not! So, he might resort 2 it any day of the week he wants 2. (Afterall he's not currently in the army.)

About the war in Iraq I'm just gonna stick this up. Post proof of the so called WMD's he said Saddam had.
Even the U.K. has revised their position on the Iraq issue, but they're gonna keep there just 'cause they made a mistake n' now are tryin' 2 fix it. See my previous post 2 find a link 'bout it. Or this was a blatant lie? No proven links relating Iraq with the 9/11th. See my sample of 'credible' intel the U.S. tried 2 feed upon the U.N. 4 reasons in2 marching over Iraq just as an example of ur government credibility. In case u still have any doubts here's the 9/11th comission report.
If u want some proofs as well, related to the Hans Blix personel reports of WMD's (U.N. inspectors) in Iraq, I'll gladly provide'em.

Said it be4 and gonna say it again. How can u put the world against the U.S. after 9/11th? Ask Bush.

Draftees or not it was the system the U.S. had at the time.
Not goin' over history but if I recall it right, u won the Korea war ending up in the 36º parallel border it still is today.

[quote=Snipa]Like I said, Bush is not an as*hole. People dont like him cause he made judgements. Maybe they were wrong and maybe they were the best he could do, but he had to make em. We cant tell if its a mistake now. Only history will tell. In 100 years, it could be possible that this was the conflict that caused the world to come together. Often people forget why soldiers are in the Middleast. Its not a war on afgh ans or iraqis. Its a war on terrorism in general. If we dont fight them over there then we have to deal with em on american soil. And for u people who are sayin we americans are stupid for voting for bush, explain to me how wed be smart for voting for kerry? Or maybe we should be more like the canadian government who has like -0- armed forces and depends on the United states to keep them safe. So have something good to say or shut ur GOD DAMN MOUTH![/quote]

See my links above then. Bad judgements n' diverting attentions is what he does best.

War on terrrorism... in general u say!?! Why not Iran 4 starters? Since they're teching 2 nuclear power and all that jazz.
Iraq was much easier 2 put down, wasn't it?
Just didn't found it easy 2 catch Bin Laden? Let's divert attentions in2 Iraq...

History already tells us. The world's countries aren't coming together with the current U.S. policy(ies). They're driving apart from the U.S., actually. I wonder why?

Btw, u (U.S.) have 1 of the largest armies in the world. Not the crap u stated here somewhere.
And do u know why they don't need as many troops as u do? They don't provoke the major muslim states as u did! Smart thinking n' policies perhaps?

ADDITION: [quote=Pears]Even if Saddam didn't directly attack us doesn't mean he isn't affiliated with the terrorist orginazation that did? By taking Saddam out we weaken the terrorists resources.[/quote]

So why not Iran (again)? They support terrorism even more!
Afterall the mullahs (religious leaders) there said that they'd destroy the U.S., if they had the chance.

[quote=Pears]So you're saying the iraquis aren't dangerous?[/quote]

No, I'm only sayin' that baathist followers (Saddam's party ppl) are the most dangerous 1's. And if the senior Bush didn't coward up in '91 (Desert Storm), Saddam wouldn't be a threat 4 so many years in the future.
If u see the news Al-Zarcahawi is a real problem in Iraq and isn't even a national threat. I believe that many more terrorists there (Middle East) share the same ideas. "Why risk goin' 2 the U.S.? Let's get a bomb n' drive in2 Iraq!" - That's what some of'em might think!

[quote=Pears]Oh and I didn't read most of the other posts. Freakin essays lol =p.[/quote]

Sure... links taken from news sites n' others. What u have 2 tell urself...
Interesting. Dumb but interesting never the less. I still lack 2 see some links of urs provin' ur stuff up.

[quote=Pears]We totally dominated in WW2. Haven't you seen all those movies about Easy company or w/e. They aren't fictional movies O_o. And hello Japan.[/quote]

No, u didn't. U only entered in it's final stages. The U.S. helped a lot, I grant that. If it wasn't 4 U.S. intervention, we'd (Europe) be Axis land now.
But u only joined when Hitler declared officially war on the U.S. and when Europe was 'bout 2 fall. Then the Japs came... the rest is history, we'd all say.

[quote=Prologic]No. Thats not entirely true, No one knows whether Saddam is affiliated with terrorists or not. That is not the issue anyways, the issue was, is Saddam a bad man or a good man. Obviously he is a bad man, and a threat to the U.S so, America took him out.[/quote]

See my links and replies 2 it above. Plain n' simple.
Now we go on potential threats!?! That's a laugh! N.Korea any1!?! (It isn' a potencial threat they possess the nuke tech already?)

[quote=Prologic]Apparently, you have not done your homework. President Bush does not tell the media to say anything. Its called freedom of speech, President Bush has no power over what the media produces. Everything that you see in the media is based on the opinions of that company/author.

Its interesting you brought up the media into this anyways; generally because the media usually slides more for being democratic. The evidence in this is only proven by how they report on the war in IRAQ -- never positive, always negative -- to keep up with their underlining theme "The war in iraq is not a good thing, and President Bush should not be president"[/quote]

Again see my links above. Especially the "Why not Iran 4 starters?".

The media works both ways depending on how n' where u stand. There are more conservative news stations n' other more liberal. Is up 2 u 2 see both sides n' make ur own opinions.
Just don't get the biased media excuse 'cause it won't stick.

[quote=Pears]You guys keep saying that I'm brainwashed and that i don't have my own opinion but to be honest everything i am saying is my opinion because i don't watch the news or anything like that. I never stated a fact. Well besides the number of soldiers who died. But that was only an estimation. And, ok all iraquis aren't dangerous but the way that guy said 'brainwashed iraquis following their leader..dont make me laugh' he was saying that the people we are fighting aren't dangerous. And by people I mean the terrorists who happen to be iraquis. Not ALL of them, just the bad ones. Thanks for the d pete.[/quote]

That would be me. See replies above...
"... I never stated a fact. ..." That explains it all. So why do u continue (ur attempts) 2 pushing it further down?

[quote=Snipa]Again....u say that stuff like its a fact. No one knows if Saddam had, has, or never had WMDs and no one can say bush had it out for saddam.[/quote]

Adrena buddy is back. See my links above 4 the WMD's excuse u Bush followers tend 2 wave 'round here lately...

[quote=Snipa]But these ARE facts: Terrorists have been attracted to Iraq and possibly have been there for awhile.[/quote]

Geez... I only wish 2 know why. See my replies above on this matter.

[quote=Snipa]The Middle-East in general doesnt think well of westerners, be it american, british, french, or spanish. Those are facts and u cant say that many middle-easterners dont despise westerners. The mission of the Islamic religion is to get the perfect islamic state but it is obvious that these terrorists have seen it differently and instead want a perfect islamic world and the only way they can do that is kill all who oppose. I myself am not racist and i put myself in everyones shoes. I can imagine that the middle-easterners beli eve that america IS over there for oil and are accepting these terro rists into their homes because they see them as liberators.[/quote]

Sterotypes... again. U're refering 2 the fanatized muslims. Not the rest of'em.
Sometimes it seems that they stopped in time. By Mahomed's (the prophet) death. 4 instance see the law where if u steal with ur right hand n' get caught, they'll cut it down. It still works in some muslim states... unfortunetly.

ADDITION: [quote=Snipa]During the AmericanIndian conflicts in the colonies, indians killed men, women, and children alike. Were they called terrorists? No because they were fighting for their homeland right? Wrong. Back then the world saw that as terrorism and stupidly the american people killed off the indians because they misunderstood them. To these terrorists, they are saving their homelands. To us, they are terrorists. And there ARE good middle-easterners, many of them but some feel that they must help these terrorists because the coalition will not stay around to defeat them. In the Gulf War, The US pulled out after George H. Bush told them to fight against saddam. The iraqis listened and were betrayed. Now they dont trust anyone and people in america who say "nuke all of iraq" or "we should pull out now" arent helping at all because that is not what these iraqis need right now. But as I can see you cant change history so stop f**king about it and try to see the positive or atleast find a way to fix any problems u see.[/quote]

Points of view mixed with stereotypes. Even better...
Don't try 2 mix stuff up. Many times it was promised 2 Indians that they'd get their piece of land and they were swindled with those promises... 2 many often.

The rest of it (Gulf War) I kinda agree with ya. See above also. Just say it's the wrong time 2 bring the fight in2 Iraq.

[quote=Snipa]well all wars cost money. What did u expect us to do after sept. 11th huh? just sit there and wait for another attack? Kill Osama and that would end it? I myself would love to see osama dead but that would NOT stop the terrorism or the hate. Infact i think it would make it worse. Many of them see osama as a MLK figure more than a general or commander. Hes like a savior to them but they have their own terrorist commanders. The ones in iraq said a few months ago that they have pledged alliegence with Osama.....that means they were never osamas to control before...which means that osama or not, wed still have to fight in the ME...thats just the way it is. And yes...we could have used the money for poor families or homless families or schools. But its either those things or our family and friends over there fighting a war against an enemy that they cant identify....[/quote]

How about looking 4 the real guilty party (Osama)!?!

Fighting a war against an enemy they could identify? That's a laugh! How about Iran n' N.Korea? They were far more dangerous 2 the U.S. than Iraq was.
Bush diverting attentions... again.

[quote=Snipa]u see it as losing but if we dont fight it we have alrdy lost...U wanted america to censored.gif out and let a terrorist organization attack us and kill thousands of people but we do nothing about it.....or even worse...we appologize TO THEM. How dumb is that? If someone came up to u and shot u in the knee with a shotgun and u lost yer leg, would u APPLOGIZE to them? America does nothing but help other countries. Ive seen this written somewhere: "If your going to lose a war, make sure it is to the United States of America."[/quote]

Look here. A former CIA agent says it blatantly.

Come again!?! The U.S. only helps other countries? The war on Iraq not being approved by the U.N. is what? A sci-fi fairy tale!?!
Another fella with illusions... or brainwashing. U're not on Valium, u're on LSD. The hallucinations explain it.

U being a masochist is the only explanation I came up with 4 wanting Bush in the white seat for 4 more years.

ADDITION: [quote=Pears]Thats just the way YOU see it. It may seem that Bush had alter motives, but you will never know.[/quote]

See my links on the Iraq oil crap n' many others... as said a million times be4!
If u want also link on the Halliburton scandal, here it is. Just 2 of'em, in case any1 comes with the freaking essays excuse again.

[quote=Pears]We can't just sit back and let people be killed and tortured for no reason. Everyone else was too afraid to do something so we did. If you think it's not our place to help people in need then would you not help an elderly woman whos purse was just stolen? Would you not help a lost child find its mother? Would you not try to protect your mother from a man with a gun?[/quote]

This is plain... lame. See my replies above on why. Iran or N.Korea any1?
Ending daddy's war perhaps?
[quote=Pears]We help countries that are small and need help. ...[/quote]

But any1 in Iraq asked 4 help at the time (March 2002)? And whom?
Stop the ty excuses, please.

[quote=Pears]There is no more soviet union. Russia now has a democracy and they are our buddies.[/quote]

U're so gullible in believing that. See the latest news 4 once at least. The 2nd round of the Ukraine elections was just declared 2 have been rigged. Putin's puppet in Ukraine has 2 do it again. What a shame...

[quote=Pears]Bush is also the first president to have an attack like the one that took place on sept. 11th. And IRAQ didnt attack us so we are "helping" the iraqi people by getting rid of these terrori sts who are using their country as a battlefield. I put qoutations because we intentionally went there to get rid of saddam and rebuild the country and then these terrorists came in and started f**king things up so what our military is going to do is purge as many of these people as they can from iraq. In doing that, the iraqis are being aided and they will have one of the most advanced countries when this whole thing is over, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]

And screwing the oportunity it presented itself big time.
As said earlier as well. Helping without the U.N. sanction is an act of war, never the less. Any1 recalls U.N.'s resolution 1441 debate? I sure do.
N.Simpsons's link (post #204) says the rest.

[quote=Prologic]We lost the debate? What exactly have you 'proven'.[/quote]

See our post more carefully and eventually, u'll learn somethin'. Eventually...
We support what we claim n' u on the other hand simply... don't.

[quote=Pears]We haven't taken conrol over or conquered Iraq. We haven't destroyed their ways of life or their believes. We helped them. And most iraquies dont hate us. There are like 5 religious groups over there and most of them like us. The only one that doen't really like is is the one that saddam helped so much because he was part of that religion. Now that sadaam is out of power they aren't being pampered anymore. Lost the debate? Fine...w/e you have to tell yourself. But our president is in office...so you lost the election. BLAM[/quote]

Childish play. The sunnites are the 1's in question. See my reply(ies) above 4 the rest.

Infantile move. Didn't lose the election, since I'm not even an U.S. citizen... even more gladlier, nowadays.
And if u didn't realized already, read this thread's title...

[quote=Pears]We're not changing their government; we are giving them one because they didn't have one before. They had a dictatorship which is far from a government.[/quote]

Oh, yes they had. Not a good 1, but it was there. What do u have 2 tell urself...
Setting a democratic government in an once muslim state is a far stretched move. Maybe if starting with a similar 2 Turkey 1. It's not perfect, I know, but more related 2 western democracies.

Reply 2 Prologic links in post #215. See the table below:


It's a graph from the 16 years old n' over from the unemployed level in thousands scale.

The source of it.
I can go there as well and only retrieve the data I'm interested showing.

[quote=DeathKnight]... we have proven Bush's faults. Now prove his good deeds... if there are any.[/quote]

We'll wait...

Side Note: I'm sorry 4 the long post but the posting limits went over the roof when I tried 2 post my initial reply. This is the rest of it. Sorry 4 any inconveniences.

Source does not work.

16-17 year olds unemployment, who gives a flying . Their parents support them finacially. The result, lazy kids who don't work. The result, ty statistics.


No you can't, you didn't prove anything.

As for "America playing a major part in europe in WWII"...

Canadians played a greater role in it than the Americans.



I like the major part that the Americans played there haha.

History just always makes the Americans save the day. It is always them that saves us from total destruction from comets and etc.

Crap! the graph image failed. Sorry 4 that. But it was one time in many (links I provided].

But they're still there. If they're part of the possible working force, u can't do nothing about it.
They count 4 the statistics for some reason(s).

Edit add:


Have it ur way... Just choose the 1st nine table choices and then retrieve the results. Ask 4 graphics if u will.
This is the proof u requested...

Btw, was any of my other links (in post #216) of interest 2 u?

Obviously conflicting statistics from the same site makes the site's information invalid. However, I believe you are just reading it wrong.

Plus, of course unemployment number rate will go up as population increases.

Another note: Explain why this is a big deal if other countries have WORSE unemployment %s

see my post up ^ (I'll be like you)

Basaan hes right u didnt prove anything at all with the loss of jobs. First of all, I am 16 and quit my job at McDonald's because they couldn't find a permanent spot for me and I havent been to work in a year....I am a little lazy . So there goes your statistics.....Oh and about Canadians in WW2...ya Canada did play a major role in the war. Infact Canada played a very big role in the battle for britain, D-Day, and the defeat of Germany and so did America, which was responsible for tens of thousands of bombs dropped on germany...but Danada did have one of the most highly trained forces in the world and did participate on both fronts(Europe and the Pacific) and also lost many lives in significant battles....ill give u that. If you say America had LITTLE involvement in the war, you clearly havent checked your facts.

Not entirely true. Bush did win Texas. That's like the 2nd most populous state in the U.S. And dont forget Ohio and Florida...

You'd really trust a Texan to be intelligent compared to one living in New York or California? I swear, Bush won because the NRA (National Rifle Association) supported him. Yes, we Yanks are damn hicks. Actually, Yanks are democrats. Everyone else is a dumbass.

And ProLogic, you are an idiot.

Why is our unemployment rate a big deal? Because the rate increasing is really bad! I would take a lower rate but more unemployed people. It involves things called "percentages". I suggest you check dictionary.com to look up the definition. Also, we're supposed to be the richest country in the world. We also cry out that we're just. That means that we should try to get everyone out of the pits, at least.

Watch Fahrenheit 9/11 because you'll have more fun listening to those facts than you will reading anything I can author with my post-election apathy.

I can only say Bush is a moron, hear the democrats roar!

Now YOU are a moron. It says in the constitution we are allowed to bare arms. So, if you own a gun you are a dumbass? however, if everyone decided to get rid of guns, I guess a future rebellion is out of the question.

I never said 'unemployment is not a big deal' in the context that its not important, what i meant was its not a big deal with President Bush. The economy was fine.. then 9/11.. then the economy was bad... President Bush's fault? No. keywords there:: "THEN 9/11"

Fahrenheit 9/11 is just a manipulative movie.